• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Best Value CPU

Dayzed&Confused said:
If that is so, why do I get better fps on minecraft with my dad's pc with an fx4100 than with my mum's i3 powered machine?
Click to expand...

could be a lot of reasons for the difference in performance in minecraft, might be nothing to do with the cpu. java versions etc. without any kind of scientific comparison its pointless bringing it up.
 
Orcvader said:
You know I just realised how far we strayed off from OP's question...

To OP, since you haven't bought the motherboard yet either, what's your overall budget for CPU, motherboard and RAM? That way we can get you the best combination to fit in that budget, instead of simply deciding what part is best for that price.
Click to expand...

Around £150. :)
 
Dranzer said:
Around £150. :)
Click to expand...

Sorry for what happened to your thread :p.

YOUR BASKET
1 x Intel Core i3-2100 3.10GHz (Sandybridge) Socket LGA1155 Processor - Retail £89.99
1 x MSI H61M-P31-G3 Intel H61 (Socket 1155) DDR3 Motherboard £38.99
1 x Kingston HyperX Genesis Grey 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3 PC3-12800C9 1600MHz Dual Channel Kit (KHX1600C9D3X2K2/4GX) £23.99
Total : £164.36 (includes shipping : £9.50).




Just a tad over. But will give you no problems in gaming for a long while. Just need a good GPU to balance with it.
 
CEUOTC said:
Finally back on topic:


Snip

Try that on for size :D

Regards.

C.
Click to expand...

Same price as my build ;). Only difference is RAM, with mine being the better CAS 9 and yours CAS 11.

And don't see the reason with the AMD build, he won't be using the onboard will he?
 
Zuban said:
right so your terminology was wrong earlier because you were talking about threads not execution units?

in those benchmarks, the very ones that put me off buying an fx last year,the 2500k beats the fx8150 once overclocked to the same clockspeeds and it doesnt even have hyperthreading, plus this is where amd's performance ends a 2600k upwards in these tests are faster still but amd dont have a better cpu than the fx8150

as for x264 my 3930k at stock clocks does 27.2, amd fail, when it comes to fully multithreaded intel are so far ahead its not funny. a 3930k against a fx8150 isnt a fair comparison on cost of course but as cost is partly relative to competitors products it doesnt matter the current prices of amd chips are so low because they need to be and intels so high because they can be.
Click to expand...

No, the threads come from the execution units, you did not even ask that.... your going off your own track, you suggested Floating point is not shared, it is, clearly.

Both the FX and the 2500K overclock to the same levels, so its no good saying but but but.... i can overclock it.... when they both overclock.

If you want to spend £100 / £200 ...£300 more on a CPU for the better performance then that's what your paying for, and good luck to you.



Orcvader said:
Then the Intel one will be perfect with the 6850. It just about beats the FX 4100: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-2100-gaming-benchmark,3136-3.html
Click to expand...

No, its the other way round 'if anything'. Taken from your link...

Even at our lower settings, the choice of CPU doesn't affect the outcome in an appreciable way. In fact, the FX-4100 scores marginally better using the Radeon HD 6850, although the advantage is not significant. Overall, we're not surprised by the outcome of our Battlefield 3 charts. After all, even AMD's powerful Radeon HD 7970 couldn't shift enough of the game's workload to our CPUs to expose a weak link.
Click to expand...

did you even read it or did you already have an outcome in mind that you were convinced of and there for did not even bother? just curious :)
 
Last edited:
Mercutio said:
Personally if I was going cheap with a view to upgrade the pentium chips are fine. They are sandy bridge compatible so get one of those and a cheap board. When cash allows, grab an i5 2500k and you're laughing.
Click to expand...
+1. Any 65W dual core SandyBridge will do, like a £30 Celeron!

YOUR BASKET
gigabyte z77-ds3h intel z77 £75
intel celeron g530 2.40ghz £30
ocuk value 8gb (2x4gb) ddr3 £24
total : £135

that should only be 1-20% slower than a i3 build with scope for a 4ghz+ quad core sb/ib in the future. :cool:
(you can go under £100 if you get a h61 mobo and 4gb ram!)

averages.png

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-4.html
 
humbug said:
No, the threads come from the execution units, you did not even ask that.... your going off your own track, you suggested Floating point is not shared, it is, clearly.

Both the FX and the 2500K overclock to the same levels, so its no good saying but but but.... i can overclock it.... when they both overclock.

If you want to spend £100 / £200 ...£300 more on a CPU for the better performance then that's what your paying for, and good luck to you.





No, its the other way round 'if anything'. Taken from your link...



did you even read it or did you already have an outcome in mind that you were convinced of and there for did not even bother? just curious :)
Click to expand...

no what I was reffering to was the floating point execution unit which you kept calling the floating point thread earlier, i'm talking about the physical resource in the cpu, I've never seen it called a thread before. And yes I said I thought the floating point unit is shared between the two cores in a bulldozer module, which it is, we've all seen the architecture diagrams. Threads as I understand it come from the operating system/kernel, but I'm not a computer scientist so my understanding is basic at best and nor will my terminology be perfect but the way your talking about it makes no sense compared to any proper literature I've ever read.

I brought my expensive 6 core into the debate because you seemed to be of the delusion that once software becomes more multithreaded amd's processor performance will somehow lift off and "pull ahead" of intels, which, short of a miracle, just isnt going to happen any time soon.

in the link you posted regarding the lightwave benchmark both the fx8150 and 2500k were overclocked to 4.8ghz, as you say they both overclock, 2500k was faster, it was only marginally slower at stock because the 2500k at stock is 300mhz slower. When all three metrics in that graph are taken into account, the overclocked 2500k has a significant advantage. See bolded part of your previous post i've quoted.

Saying things like this "by the same token 2 cores using 1 thread is faster than 1 core using 1 thread" how does that make any sense? 1 thread cant run across two cores, and even if it did, its unlikely that it would be faster than 1 thread on one core, or have you again got things tottaly confused and meant something tottally different?.


The toms article that you seem to like now because you think it agrees with you, doesn't, they recommend the i3 in the end not the fx4100, for more or less the same reasons as everyone else in the thread. Sitting creating counter arguments on the fly by googling things at random is just going to make you look stupid if you dont understand what your reading, which is what appears to have been happening in the last few cpu threads you've been peddling your nonsense.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom