i3 6100 not good enough for BF1

humbug · 29 Oct 2016 at 16:34

silversurfer said:
doesnt windows almost always use more then one core, program and background tasks

Yeah its core balancing background tasks, stuff with low priority gets moved around to make room for high priority on less occupied threads, so there is never just one thread being used while the rest are idle.
This is not just Windows 10, so the whole maximum Turbo thing is a nonsense. If the system if doing something you're lucky to see even multi-threaded Turbo working.

jigger · 29 Oct 2016 at 20:48

RavenXXX2 said:
lol Intel i3 destroys your chip, plenty of benchmarks showing it. If you're talking Pentium then yes the AMD will be better, slightly.

Destroy in what way? No stutter in BF1 and twice the cores for half the price. I'm not much destroying going on TBH.

The i3 would need to be half the price and overclockable, and even then I'm not seeing how it would destroy, better, slightly, maybe

lol

An i5 might destroy the Athlon but thats around 4-5 times the price.

zipp0r · 29 Oct 2016 at 21:58

Drake5 said:
One thing I'm noticing with my 6600k is that it's never going to 3.9Ghz, only seems to go t o 3.7Ghz. Could this be because my motherboard doesn't support the turbo boost or something

in the bios there should be an option to set all cores to maximum boost speed.

RavenXXX2 · 29 Oct 2016 at 23:08

zipp0r said:
in the bios there should be an option to set all cores to maximum boost speed.

Intel stopped that with skylake, they don't want giving you free performance.

syks · 30 Oct 2016 at 10:14

jigger said:
Destroy in what way? No stutter in BF1 and twice the cores for half the price. I'm not much destroying going on TBH.

The i3 would need to be half the price and overclockable, and even then I'm not seeing how it would destroy, better, slightly, maybe lol

An i5 might destroy the Athlon but thats around 4-5 times the price.

I had the Athlon 860k (if that's what you have?) before getting my i3 and trust me,the i3 does destroy it in every game! I get MUCH higher frames and can play almost every game with the settings maxed out at over 60fps,infact the new deus ex is the only game so far that I have had to turn a couple of the settings down to hit 60fps.

on battlefield 1 I get over 70fps when playing online with my setup and that's with the game totally maxed out,the skylake i3 chips are great budget gaming chips and actually beat amd's fx line in most games

Alsone · 30 Oct 2016 at 11:00

Personally I wouldn't buy anything less than an i7.

I built a desktop with an i7 3770K (at stock). At the same time I bought a Dell XPS with an Intel i5 processor.

I retrofitted both with fast SSD's. The XPS had 8GB memory and the desktop 16gb.

3 years on, the desktop is like lightening still. The laptop is slow as hell yet passes every benchmark / test / error check you can throw at it.

The only conclusion I've been able to come to is it's down to the processor as otherwise they're almost identical specs, system boards apart. Even from new there was a very noticeable difference between i5 and i7, although the i5 wasn't slow at the start. My advice get an i7, even if it's an older or lower spec one.

RavenXXX2 · 30 Oct 2016 at 11:19

Alsone said:
Personally I wouldn't buy anything less than an i7.

I built a desktop with an i7 3770K (at stock). At the same time I bought a Dell XPS with an Intel i5 processor.

I retrofitted both with fast SSD's. The XPS had 8GB memory and the desktop 16gb.

3 years on, the desktop is like lightening still. The laptop is slow as hell yet passes every benchmark / test / error check you can throw at it.

The only conclusion I've been able to come to is it's down to the processor as otherwise they're almost identical specs. Even from new there was a very noticeable difference between i5 and i7. My advice get an i7, even if it's an older or lower spec one.

Lol that's all to that poor advise.

easyrider · 30 Oct 2016 at 12:12

Alsone said:
Personally I wouldn't buy anything less than an i7.

I built a desktop with an i7 3770K (at stock). At the same time I bought a Dell XPS with an Intel i5 processor.

I retrofitted both with fast SSD's. The XPS had 8GB memory and the desktop 16gb.

3 years on, the desktop is like lightening still. The laptop is slow as hell yet passes every benchmark / test / error check you can throw at it.

The only conclusion I've been able to come to is it's down to the processor as otherwise they're almost identical specs, system boards apart. Even from new there was a very noticeable difference between i5 and i7, although the i5 wasn't slow at the start. My advice get an i7, even if it's an older or lower spec one.

TheVoice · 30 Oct 2016 at 12:28

Oh dear.

Alsone · 30 Oct 2016 at 12:33

RavenXXX2 said:
Lol that's all to that poor advise.

Really? What do you blame then Windows? Because it was upgraded to Win 10 64 bit Pro with a new installation and is still slow.

In terms of wear, my desktop is in use 12-18 hours per day 365 days per year. My laptop can go a week without even being turned on and then it gets 1 hour usage.

Even when new, the i5 didn't even come close to the i7 in performance. I know others with i5's, and their desktop pale in comparison to the speed I have on mine. You get what you pay for.

You couldn't give me an i5 or i3.

As for gaming, the biggest bottleneck is nearly always graphics not CPU if you have anything 1/2 decent fitted. Personally I wouldn't expect to game on an i3.

TheVoice · 30 Oct 2016 at 13:02

What is it about the i7 in particular that makes you think it's so immensely superior in every possible usage scenario over an i5?

Bluntwrapped · 30 Oct 2016 at 13:17

I think he's noticing the massive speed boost from jumping over to a SSD.. Lol

I would buy an i7 myself though over the i5 every time. But that's OCD speaking.

jigger · 30 Oct 2016 at 13:26

syks said:
I had the Athlon 860k (if that's what you have?) before getting my i3 and trust me,the i3 does destroy it in every game! I get MUCH higher frames and can play almost every game with the settings maxed out at over 60fps,infact the new deus ex is the only game so far that I have had to turn a couple of the settings down to hit 60fps.

on battlefield 1 I get over 70fps when playing online with my setup and that's with the game totally maxed out,the skylake i3 chips are great budget gaming chips and actually beat amd's fx line in most games

I have a couple of systems. The Athlon is a solid chip and like I've said the move from a dual core to a quad core was a great one. The stuttering in games completely went away.

I haven't got an i3 system because at it's current price it's not worth considering when you have quad core options for much less money. If the i3 was half the price and unlocked I would have considered it, but IMO dual cores are old hat now.

Looking at the numbers for BF1 the i3 is not destroying my system and it's certainly not worth the money to upgrade from the AMD quad core to the Intel dual core.

Maybe destroying means something else to most people. My 2500K at 5.4Ghz might destroy the Athlon, but it will also comfortably beat most overclocked 6700k's. Maybe most people would say my 2500K will destroy the 7700k when that comes out?

syks · 30 Oct 2016 at 14:20

jigger said:
I have a couple of systems. The Athlon is a solid chip and like I've said the move from a dual core to a quad core was a great one. The stuttering in games completely went away.

I haven't got an i3 system because at it's current price it's not worth considering when you have quad core options for much less money. If the i3 was half the price and unlocked I would have considered it, but IMO dual cores are old hat now.

Looking at the numbers for BF1 the i3 is not destroying my system and it's certainly not worth the money to upgrade from the AMD quad core to the Intel dual core.

Maybe destroying means something else to most people. My 2500K at 5.4Ghz might destroy the Athlon, but it will also comfortably beat most overclocked 6700k's. Maybe most people would say my 2500K will destroy the 7700k when that comes out?

well put it this way,on gta5 I bet you would get around 30/40fps max with it maxed out,with my i3 I get over 60fps! in battlefield 4 maxed your frames would dip into the 40s on 64player maps online maybe into the high 30s,with my i3 it stays above 80fps maxed! with the Athlon on a game like witcher 3 or fallout 4 when you add a enb with mods etc the frames would be drastically hit giving terrible frames,with my i3 I can run them fully modded with frames above 40/50fps average.

I owned a Athlon 860k and although its good for the price the skylake i3s are MUCH MUCH better for gaming,the Athlon bottlenecks a 970 where the i3 does not,best card to pair with the 860k would be a gtx 960 or amd equivalent

jigger · 30 Oct 2016 at 16:49

I paired the 860k with a R9 290X from the money I saved over an Intel system and although the Athlon can't max out the 290, the frame rate is solid regardless of the resolution. Next upgrade for this system will be a FreeSync monitor.

The i3 will bottleneck the 970, but whats better a higher frame rate or resolution? For me, once I'm happy with the frame rate I want the best IQ possibly and don't really care about increasing the maximum FPS. In that regard the Athlon offers a lot of flexibility and the money saved over the cost of the Intel system is better spent on the graphics card and monitor.

humbug · 30 Oct 2016 at 16:58

jigger said:
I paired the 860k with a R9 290X from the money I saved over an Intel system and although the Athlon can't max out the 290, the frame rate is solid regardless of the resolution. Next upgrade for this system will be a FreeSync monitor.

The i3 will bottleneck the 970, but whats better a higher frame rate or resolution? For me, once I'm happy with the frame rate I want the best IQ possibly and don't really care about increasing the maximum FPS. In that regard the Athlon offers a lot of flexibility and the money saved over the cost of the Intel system is better spent on the graphics card and monitor.

Now... you see, this is where you have been naughty, what you're supposed to do is the opposite to that, you're supposed to prioritise your budget for an Intel CPU, all else, including the GPU is secondary to spending your money with Intel.

What you should have done was buy an i5 and an R9 370 or GTX 960.

RavenXXX2 · 30 Oct 2016 at 17:15

Should have went with an i3, jigger's CPU is having out with the Pentiums.

nasty low mins.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1263-gears-of-war-4-benchmarks/page4.html

jigger · 30 Oct 2016 at 17:27

I take it you never read a word of that link or you feel a little angry for some reason. That link confirms what I've said. You do understand English?

A 6600k would have been nice, but for the extra £400 it would have cost...

Martini1991 · 30 Oct 2016 at 17:42

jigger said:
I take it you never read a word of that link or you feel a little angry for some reason. That link confirms what I've said. You do understand English?

A 6600k would have been nice, but for the extra £400 it would have cost...

Where on Earth are you buying.

I get that AMD have a place, not everyone can afford an Intel. But I wish you'd stop pretending your Athlon is anything more than a lower end CPU (Probably safe to call it at either the higher spectrum of low end, or the lowest end of the spectrum on mid range).

jigger · 30 Oct 2016 at 17:44

Again have you read a single word I've wrote? Please point out the post I was pretending?