whats the best cpu on a budget?

wannabedamned · 29 Jul 2011 at 21:44

Because it out performs the Phenom... =\

IvanDobskey · 29 Jul 2011 at 22:00

wannabedamned said:
Because it out performs the Phenom... =\

In what exactly? I would guess that anything using four cores would be considerably faster on the AMD CPU. And as more and more software is using 4 cores these days it only makes sense to go for a quad. Even on software using only 2 cores, I doubt the i3 wins by much.

wannabedamned · 29 Jul 2011 at 22:05

IvanDobskey said:
In what exactly? I would guess that anything using four cores would be considerably faster on the AMD CPU. And as more and more software is using 4 cores these days it only makes sense to go for a quad.

I have to go to work now, but most of this has been discussed in this very thread. And there are plenty of links provided to show the reasons behind going I3 over the slower Phenom.

stulid said:
Its still faster.

And you need to get to the speeds of a 980BE(3.7GHZ) to match a i3 2100, while generating a lot more heat and consuming a lot more power

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/20

As you can see the i3 2100 humiliates the Phenom 975BE in these tests, perhaps even getting to 3.7ghz wouldnt be enough as the i3 is so far ahead.

^
That quote and link being one to start with

IvanDobskey · 29 Jul 2011 at 22:09

Each to their own, but i'd still go for the quad. I built a PC for a mate recently with a Phenom II 955BE CPU and it is a fantastic chip for the money.

stulid · 29 Jul 2011 at 22:14

IvanDobskey said:
I'm not quite sure why you'd want a dual core CPU these days?

Because its faster than even a quad core

and the i3 2100 is now down to £85.

What happens when the PhenomII X4 isnt processing multi threaded applications and games that only use 1-2 cores? it ends up even slower again

IvanDobskey · 30 Jul 2011 at 10:08

stulid said:
Because its faster than even a quad core and the i3 2100 is now down to £85.

What happens when the PhenomII X4 isnt processing multi threaded applications and games that only use 1-2 cores? it ends up even slower again

Yeah, but it's not exactly slow even when only 2 cores are being used is it? More and more stuff is using 4 cores, it's called progress! Buying a dual core CPU is a backwards step. Give me 4 reasonably fast cores over 2 very fast cores every time.

In my opinion, the i3 is a great CPU for laptop use where heat and power consumption are a major factor, but i'd want a quad core for a decent desktop PC.

koolpc · 30 Jul 2011 at 10:26

After a lot of thought, quad is for me and the Athlon quad is enough for my needs

IvanDobskey · 30 Jul 2011 at 10:34

koolpc said:
After a lot of thought, quad is for me and the Athlon quad is enough for my needs

Is the correct decision. Get a 955 Phenom II for £85. Nothing else comes close in this price bracket.

stulid · 30 Jul 2011 at 15:23

IvanDobskey said:
Is the correct decision. Get a 955 Phenom II for £85. Nothing else comes close in this price bracket.

Thats right, the i3 2100 at £85 is ahead. always.

wannabedamned · 30 Jul 2011 at 15:26

...well, you can lead a horse to water...

IvanDobskey said:
Is the correct decision. Get a 955 Phenom II for £85. Nothing else comes close in this price bracket.

Thats right, you ignore any facts that show negligible multi threaded performance difference, and superior i3 per core performance.

(All info available IN THIS ACTUAL THREAD)

Martini1991 · 30 Jul 2011 at 15:36

Why is OP talking about the Athlon quad

?

SlugForAButt · 30 Jul 2011 at 16:43

My opinion, go for the Phenom quad. Anyone buying a dual core these days isn't thinking straight I think.

wannabedamned · 30 Jul 2011 at 17:25

Just so I get this right...

You guys recommend a quad core over a dual core, regardless of performance? Just because it has 4 cores? 4 cores that perform marginally better than the 2 core competitor(Some of the time) and lose out with regards to per core performance by quite a bit?

Gaming benchmarks show the i3 well ahead!!!!

I just find it confusing...I need it explaining!?

Surely its better to buy the overall better performer!?

Martini1991 · 30 Jul 2011 at 17:37

You guys realise the dual core has HT right (One's against the SB 2100)? So it's 4 threads versus 4 threads right =D?

Final8y · 30 Jul 2011 at 18:05

Martini1991 said:
You guys realise the dual core has HT right (One's against the SB 2100)? So it's 4 threads versus 4 threads right =D?

The SB 2100 cant handle 4 full threads or it would be called a Quad core.

stulid · 30 Jul 2011 at 18:17

wannabedamned said:
I just find it confusing...I need it explaining!?

Surely its better to buy the overall better performer!?

Nothing needs explaining.

The i3 2100 is faster in benchmarks.

It uses a lot less power, there is a 18% average price hike in electricity costs come very soon (electricity price per Kw/hr are already ridiculous).

It runs cooler.

If you get a AM3 (not Am3+) board then its a dead end with just a worthless 975BE/980Be/1100T possible and thats if the motherboard supports 125w cpu's? )a lot of the budget boards take upto a 95w cpu maximum).

Martini1991 · 30 Jul 2011 at 18:38

Final8y said:
The SB 2100 cant handle 4 full threads or it would be called a Quad core.

Half the time I can't tell if you're trolling...

FoxEye · 30 Jul 2011 at 19:11

£85 is still too much for the i3. If it was closer to £70 (the Athlon x4 price) it would be easier to justify.

As it is, I'd want to pay less for a budget system, or pay more (and go for the i5 2500) for a performance machine.

SlugForAButt · 30 Jul 2011 at 20:38

Martini1991 said:
Half the time I can't tell if you're trolling...

And I feel the same about you...

koolpc · 30 Jul 2011 at 22:32

The Athlon Quad runs cooler than the Phenom, uses less w and in real world terms does the job. Not sure i like a CPU with GPU built in either