• 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

humbug said:
This ^^^

And i do wish people would stop putting to much stock into that linked Toms Hardware link posted in the thread.... the fact of the mater is the i3, FX-4, FX-6 and PHII are bottle necking the **** out of the 7970 they used with those benchmarks, and if your spending £90 on a CPU your not going to pair it with a £400 GPU now are you?

AS for BF3, its the wild card in that it uses the CPU far less, that's why a stock i5 2400 is identical in performance as a 2500K running at 4Ghz.

Despite this i have seen no end of people go cheap on the CPU so they have the money to buy that top end GPU thinking they can play BF3 maxed on said card with a dual core i3 or a 4 core Phenom II and what not.... (no doubt after reading Toms Hardware) only to then find actually they are getting horrible frame rates while there £400 GPU is yawning (absolutely including the i3 just as much)

Be it Toms benches there utter rubbish or BF3's 4 or 5 patches later being a completely different game those tiles do not match reality...

The fact is you cannot push one of the most powerful GPU's there is to its limits with a mid range 4 core or in the i3's case a locked 2 core no mater how much of an Intel hardened fan you are.

Get the used Intel i7 920 if you can find one for your money, its a great CPU.

If not make sure you get as many overclockable cores as you can because few things now run on 1or 2 cores and 2 locked cores are no match for 4 overclocked cores no mater how much idiotic evidence they throw at you.

That i3 is a fraction the performance of my 4Ghz 1090T in the things i do with it, hell a 2500K @ 4.5Ghz struggles to keep up with it in half those tasks, and no what i do is not so different to what most people to, so shake your heads, have a coffee and stop idealizing Intel so much.
Click to expand...
You do realise most people only care about gaming performance, not the performance of what YOU do? Like it or not, the fact is in the vast majority of the games out there uses less than 4 cores, and in those situation the i3 performance better than than even the overclocked AMD CPUs. If I only use the CPU for tasks like encoding etc, then the Phenom II X6 is no doubt a much better choice than the i3; but if it is only for gaming, the i3 is a better choice than ANY AMD 4 cores CPU; but if BF3 multiplayer is all I play, then I will take the Phenom II X6 over the i3, as the game would use all the cores and the Phenom II X6 should perform better in this situation.

The fact is you can get a faster CPU with Intel than AMD at the same price point for gaming- more performance for the same cost=better value...it is as simply as that.
 
Last edited:
Marine-RX179 said:
You do realise most people only care about gaming performance, not the performance if what YOU do? Like it or not, the fact is in the vast majority of the games out there uses less than 4 cores, and in those situation the i3 performance better than than even the overclocked AMD CPUs. If I only use the CPU for tasks like encoding etc, then the Phenom II X6 is no doubt a much better choice than the i3; but if it is only for gaming, the i3 is a better choice than ANY AMD 4 cores CPU; but if BF3 multiplayer is all I play, then I will take the Phenom II X6 over the i3, as the game would use all the cores and the Phenom II X6 should perform better in this situation.

The fact is you can get a faster CPU with Intel than AMD at the same price point for gaming- more performance for the same cost=better value...it is as simply as that.
Click to expand...


i do realise that, what you obviously did not read was what i said in that Intel CPU's don't come into play in gaming unless you are using the expensive end of GPU's, in which case £180 for a CPU should not be an issue.

Certainly in Games running with a 6850 an i3 or a Phenom II x4 vs an £800 Intel it is not going to make any difference to the game.
 
Last edited:
Zuban said:
this is a pretty interesting article aswell

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-2100-gaming-benchmark,3136.html
Click to expand...

yeah, at least that confirms what i have been saying, on a lesser GPU there is practically no difference.

on a 6950 even then its only 1 game out of all of those where the i3 pulled ahead of the FX-4, and even that can be solved by an overclock, where you have something like a 6950 and up you need to start thinking about getting a better CPU.
 
Marine-RX179 said:
The fact is you can get a faster CPU with Intel than AMD at the same price point for gaming- more performance for the same cost=better value...it is as simply as that.
Click to expand...


This. If you want to go new get yourself an I3 2100.

If you're happy going the second hand route, You can grab the very overclockable 1055t for around £70, 2 sticks of RAM at £30 then you're only a motherboard away from a nice bundle.

I'd just avoid the FX series from AMD and you'll be fine, If you have to go down the AMD route new, Go with a Phenom II 4 core.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
i do realise that, what you obviously did not read was what i said in that Intel CPU's don't come into play in gaming unless you are using the expensive end of GPU's, in which case £180 for a CPU should not be an issue.

Certainly in Games running with a 6850 an i3 or a Phenom II x4 vs an £800 Intel it is not going to make any difference to the game.
Click to expand...
humbug said:
yeah, at least that confirms what i have been saying, on a lesser GPU there is practically no difference.
Click to expand...
Not true. Even with 6850~6950 level cards, the i3 would deliver very noticable better frame rate than the AMD CPUs in games like online games like mmos that use less than 4 cores (that accounts for most mmos), or CPU dependent games. None of the games that Tom's review use is actually that CPU demanding, except for may be Metro2033, but that isn't the only review that shown the i3 performing better on gaming:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/20873/2
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-2120-2100_5.html#sect0
Yes the AMD CPUs once overclocked would get closer to i3's gaming performance...but you forgetting something? The i3 will pretty much be fine with a stock cooler, but the AMD CPU's overclocking would cost more money on the necessity of getting a decent 3rd party CPU cooler, which already made it more expensive, thus not as good in value (and that's not even factoring things like AMD CPU's higher temp and power consumption). If you think that CPU don't matter as long as it is not top-end card, then you are seriously mistaken. The Metro2033 is a good example of on the i3 2100, people can trade graphic quality for higher frame rate, whereas the FX4100 is lagging around 8-10fps behind on the same settings, which means lowering the graphic setting would help much with increasing the frame rate. Overclocking would bring the FX4100 closer to i3 2100 yes, but again with the cost of a 3rd party CPU cooler and higher power consumption, it again make it not as good value. Bare in mind that we are not talking about how the CPU's perform in various kind of usage in this thread, but the focus is value for gaming not anything else.

Also, while it may be true that not many people would pair a £90 CPU with a top-end card, but the point is that having a CPU with better gaming performance would mean the CPU would have better performance for longer and get less less bottleneck, even if people decide to upgrade to a 7970 next year of something when it fall in price down to sub £200 (Yes the i3 would bottleneck the 7970, but no anywhere as much as the AMD CPUs).

And then there's the upgrade path to consider- the 1155 (77 chipsets) platform would allow people to upgrade to Sandy or Ivy i5/i7 for more than doubling the performance moving from a i3...AM3+ on the other hand, what choices do people have? Bulldozer simply doesn't do well for gaming, and for Piledriver, which is said to be enhanced version of Bulldozer won't be vasty different from the Bulldozer architecture wise; even if that isn't the case, honestly how many people can expect the Piledriver do as well as Ivy i5/i7 on gaming performance?
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure why people can't just agree Intel's 1155 is a superior platform for your money in gaming when the above is true. It has MUCH better upgrade potential and improved gaming performance in a huge majority of current games over anything from AMD when using a just dual core i3 (World of Warcraft is light and day from i3 vs Phenom II X4).

I don't really know what there is to argue... Second hand first gen i7 would be good value for money with overclocking it and such, but then when it comes to upgrading you're at a dead end really and limited to the older motherboards also.
 
Like the OP I don't really want to spend £160 for a 2500k or £180 for a 3570k. I don't do video encoding or anything that will stress 4 cores apart from whichever games can use them.

I have a GTX460, with an AM3 mobo running an X3 435 Athlon II.

As I see it, I can either (a) go i3 with a good overclocking mobo (for future upgrade to 2500k)
..or (b) buy an i3 with a non-oc mobo, for a future upgrade to vanilla i5 2500 and forget oc
..or (c) buy a 2500k + mobo now and not eat for a weak month :p
..or (d) put a Ph-II x4 in my current rig (but I'm not sure I'll get any benefit from this at all)

Sometime in the future the GTX460 will likely become a GTX660. I won't be buying anything more powerful than a 7850 when I upgrade.

P.S. I don't tend to overclock. My x3 is running at stock. Obviously, oc got a lot easier with unlocked i5. If I do oc I *won't* be running above stock volts. Ever :) So maybe I can get away with the stock cooler?
 
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.

Done just the same for a mate, left the CPU as the weak point to an otherwise ok build so he can just throw a better chip in once he's paid in a few weeks. They ARE kinda weak chips by modern standards (about as good as the intel core2duo/core2quad chips) but if you have to go SUPER cheap...
My build for a mate was G850, an "ex display" H67, 8GB ram and GTX 460 for £170. When you have to go REALLY cheap that's not a bad bit of kit for the price.
 
Last edited:
Mercutio said:
but if you have to go SUPER cheap...
My build for a mate was G850, an "ex display" H67, 8GB ram and GTX 460 for £170. When you have to go REALLY cheap that's not a bad bit of kit for the price.
Click to expand...

How on Earth did you get all that for £170? :eek:
 
Would you say then that that kit for £170 represents about the best value for money you can get for a gaming only rig?

Or would you say that a little extra spend could get you better performance per £?
 
for the money yes
although the dual core chip won't bring much in the way of performance for the majority of modern games, and the 460 will only really help things along if the monitor is under 1650x

Obviously spending more will buy you more bang, but for a simple 2nd hand basic gaming rig, £170 is pretty damn good.
 
Marine-RX179 said:
Not true. Even with 6850~6950 level cards, the i3 would deliver very noticable better frame rate than the AMD CPUs in games like online games like mmos that use less than 4 cores (that accounts for most mmos), or CPU dependent games. None of the games that Tom's review use is actually that CPU demanding, except for may be Metro2033, but that isn't the only review that shown the i3 performing better on gaming:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/20873/2
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-2120-2100_5.html#sect0
Yes the AMD CPUs once overclocked would get closer to i3's gaming performance...but you forgetting something? The i3 will pretty much be fine with a stock cooler, but the AMD CPU's overclocking would cost more money on the necessity of getting a decent 3rd party CPU cooler, which already made it more expensive, thus not as good in value (and that's not even factoring things like AMD CPU's higher temp and power consumption). If you think that CPU don't matter as long as it is not top-end card, then you are seriously mistaken. The Metro2033 is a good example of on the i3 2100, people can trade graphic quality for higher frame rate, whereas the FX4100 is lagging around 8-10fps behind on the same settings, which means lowering the graphic setting would help much with increasing the frame rate. Overclocking would bring the FX4100 closer to i3 2100 yes, but again with the cost of a 3rd party CPU cooler and higher power consumption, it again make it not as good value. Bare in mind that we are not talking about how the CPU's perform in various kind of usage in this thread, but the focus is value for gaming not anything else.

Also, while it may be true that not many people would pair a £90 CPU with a top-end card, but the point is that having a CPU with better gaming performance would mean the CPU would have better performance for longer and get less less bottleneck, even if people decide to upgrade to a 7970 next year of something when it fall in price down to sub £200 (Yes the i3 would bottleneck the 7970, but no anywhere as much as the AMD CPUs).

And then there's the upgrade path to consider- the 1155 (77 chipsets) platform would allow people to upgrade to Sandy or Ivy i5/i7 for more than doubling the performance moving from a i3...AM3+ on the other hand, what choices do people have? Bulldozer simply doesn't do well for gaming, and for Piledriver, which is said to be enhanced version of Bulldozer won't be vasty different from the Bulldozer architecture wise; even if that isn't the case, honestly how many people can expect the Piledriver do as well as Ivy i5/i7 on gaming performance?
Click to expand...


Your still not getting it, they are still using £250 GPU's. It absolutely confirms exactly what i said. Metro is not a classic example as that is the only game where the FX-4 falls behind and even then only on a 6950 or above.

All it shows is Metro 2033 is badly codded given its the only game there that can't match the other games without some extra help, having said that i have Metro 2033 and my FPS are waaaayyyyy higher than that on (Guess what) a 6950

No matter how much you keep regurgitating the same rubbish over and over again the fact remains an i3 or an FX-4 or a 2001 Pentium 4 it makes no difference on a 6850 / GTX 460 and along the lines.

(Yes the i3 would bottleneck the 7970, but no anywhere as much as the AMD CPUs).
Click to expand...

If your spending money on a 7970 an i3 bottle necks it far more than any AMD you would pair it with (even on really badly codded single threaded games) you just would not use an i3 for that card (unless you take Toms Hardware at there word) you would use a 3570K or an FX-6 / 8 and clock the hell out of it.

Also, not every game is as badly codded as Metro, to add to all that (all game engines are now going multi threaded after Frostbite 2 showed them how its done) pretty soon your beloved i3 with its 2 looked cores will be found seriously wanting.

Your holding on to the few things left in the now which suit your wants and then over enforcing them, times move on, move with them.

Pull the Intel logo away from your eye's for goodness sake!
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
yeah, at least that confirms what i have been saying, on a lesser GPU there is practically no difference.

on a 6950 even then its only 1 game out of all of those where the i3 pulled ahead of the FX-4, and even that can be solved by an overclock, where you have something like a 6950 and up you need to start thinking about getting a better CPU.
Click to expand...

not really, the last page could have been written for you :p
 
humbug said:
No matter how much you keep regurgitating the same rubbish over and over again the fact remains an i3 or an FX-4 or a 2001 Pentium 4 it makes no difference on a 6850 / GTX 460 and along the lines.
Click to expand...

A Pentium 4 wouldn't bottleneck a GTX460? I hope you're just trolling...

humbug said:
If your spending money on a 7970 an i3 bottle necks it far more than any AMD you would pair it with (even on really badly codded single threaded games) you just would not use an i3 for that card (unless you take Toms Hardware at there word) you would use a 3570K or an FX-6 / 8 and clock the hell out of it.

Also, not every game is as badly codded as Metro, to add to all that (all game engines are now going multi threaded after Frostbite 2 showed them how its done) pretty soon your beloved i3 with its 2 looked cores will be found seriously wanting.

Your holding on to the few things left in the now which suit your wants and then over enforcing them, times move on, move with them.

Pull the Intel logo away from your eye's for goodness sake!
Click to expand...

...Yeah you must be.

Maybe take your own AMD covered glasses off yourself. An i3 with hyperthreading (4 threads) can still keep up with the proper 4 core CPUs from AMD even in multi threaded games simply because the performance per clock speed is far superior in the Sandybridge CPU which makes up for the lack of the 2 extra real cores, so I'm not sure where you're coming from. It may be slightly different against a 6 core CPU in something that makes use of 5+ cores but there's hardly any game out there that does this anyway. Oh and I would know this since I only recently got rid of a Phenom II @ 3.5Ghz. :rolleyes:

The fact is any AMD CPU will hold back a 7970 from it's max performance, where as the i3 will only hold it back in 3+ threaded games. Any game that's dual or single core would run the 7970 better than anything from AMD when using an i3.
 
Last edited:
Why are we calling the FX4 a quad core now? I thought it was a 4 "module", but in reality 2 core chip... I'm not an engineer, but I was pretty certain from what I'd read that AMD's modules weren't good enough to be called cores as they shared resources like FPUs and schedulers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom