Intel or AMD CPU for gaming PC?

aperture_nuig

Hey all,
I was recently talking with one of my mates about a potential PC build, and he was of the opinion that AMD CPU's were as good/better than intel's for gaming as all the hyperthreading etc. that the intels have don't do a lot for games, and that this coupled with the fact that AMD rarely change their mobo sockets that an amd based pc was the way to go. there's obviously the cost benefit too if you're stuck for cash.

However I have noticed that most if not all of the gaming builds suggested here include i3/i5/i7 so...

Any opinions with out this turning into a great big intel v AMD flame war? Thanks guys :cool:

Serephucus

AMD used to be better value, but at the moment Intel blows AMD out of the water at all but the lowest price-points. (i.e., not gaming builds).

tl;dr - Intel FTW.

ShadowHearth

Gaming pc - i5 2500k
Budget pc gaming i5 2400

If anyone tell you anything else, you have my blessing to spit in theyr face.


Amd had a chance with bulldozer, but they pooped it badly.

Serephucus

ShadowHearth wrote: »

If anyone tell you anything else, you have my blessing to spit in their face.

Nicely put.

Paulw

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

Intel looks the clear way to go.

partyatmygaff

Intel CPUs have the upper hand in almost all segments barring the netbook segment. The last time i'd have recommended an AMD CPU to anyone was back in the days of the Athlon 64 and Pentium 4. They've been trailing behind Intel for years.

deconduo

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Gaming pc - i5 2500k
Budget pc gaming i5 2400

If anyone tell you anything else, you have my blessing to spit in theyr face.


Amd had a chance with bulldozer, but they pooped it badly.

I'd add the i3-2100 for real budget builds as well

Serephucus

That's a fantastic little chip. The computers in our lab got upgraded this year. From P4/1GB to i3-2100/4GB, and they're very bloody quick!

Actually, now we're on the topic... anyone here have a 2100 running in something they'd be able to check for me? Interested to see how it would handle a couple 3-5 person Minecraft servers.

Eamonn Brophy

Serephucus wrote: »

That's a fantastic little chip. The computers in our lab got upgraded this year. From P4/1GB to i3-2100/4GB, and they're very bloody quick!

Actually, now we're on the topic... anyone here have a 2100 running in something they'd be able to check for me? Interested to see how it would handle a couple 3-5 person Minecraft servers.

Pretty well I'd imagine, I used to run a server here off my laptop (4 gigs ddr2 and an amd turion 64 dual core processor)

The i3's much faster than that.

In regards to the OP's question, Intel Intel Intel. AMD have even said themselves they're probably going to stop trying to compete anymore.

Did anyone read the 40% of the transistors on the bulldozer chips are missing and they only found out? looooool

Serephucus

Eamonn Brophy wrote: »

Did anyone read the 40% of the transistors on the bulldozer chips are missing and they only found out? looooool

YES! That was hilarious!

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5176/amd-revises-bulldozer-transistor-count-12b-not-2b

And how many people were using that, roughly? (The server, I mean)

Eamonn Brophy

Serephucus wrote: »

YES! That was hilarious!

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5176/amd-revises-bulldozer-transistor-count-12b-not-2b

And how many people were using that, roughly? (The server, I mean)

I had 5 or 6 on it at one stage with almost no lag at all. They were all within a LAN but I still thought it was impressive. The processor should run a server fine.

I dont know about multiples though.

Ironically, the extra cores on a bulldozer chip might be good for running multiple servers :P

kfish2oo2

Guy I know runs a Minecraft server on a Pentium 4. Multiple worlds, loads of computing heavy mods and lots of traffic (20 - 30 a day). Lots of RAM and a good connection are friends of Minecraft servers.

To the OP: there are a few Phenom II's that still hold their value pretty well, but are old tech. I'd struggle to recommend an older chip like that for a new build. Intel really dominates the CPU game at the moment. AMD looks to be focusing more on the low end market (where they've always held themselves pretty well) and are really pushing the idea of APU's. AMD is aiming to change the processing game whereas Intel is intent on refining the CPU as it is.

For the moment, Intel is the clear winner.

aperture_nuig

seems to be unanimous decision here! I knew that it was always intel at the higher end of the scale, but what of the budget areas? If you're looking for a €400 - €500 gaming PC are you better off going with an AMD and putting extra cash into the graphics card or should you still go with an intel CPU and have less to spend on a Graphics card?

ShadowHearth

aperture_nuig wrote: »

seems to be unanimous decision here! I knew that it was always intel at the higher end of the scale, but what of the budget areas? If you're looking for a €400 - €500 gaming PC are you better off going with an AMD and putting extra cash into the graphics card or should you still go with an intel CPU and have less to spend on a Graphics card?

nesf

aperture_nuig wrote: »

seems to be unanimous decision here! I knew that it was always intel at the higher end of the scale, but what of the budget areas? If you're looking for a €400 - €500 gaming PC are you better off going with an AMD and putting extra cash into the graphics card or should you still go with an intel CPU and have less to spend on a Graphics card?

The big advantage of going for something like the i3 2300 now if that you leave yourself open to upgrading to an IvyBridge chip next year or the year after if you get a bit more money put together. The 1155 socket is a very good idea at the moment from an upgrading point of view.

partyatmygaff

Go with Intel and get a good graphics card at the same time. What you don't spend today you'll spend tomorrow. I'd only go for an AMD if you were looking to buy a low end laptop or netbook.

ShadowHearth

nesf wrote: »

The big advantage of going for something like the i3 2300 now if that you leave yourself open to upgrading to an IvyBridge chip next year or the year after if you get a bit more money put together. The 1155 socket is a very good idea at the moment from an upgrading point of view.

now just fingers crossed intel would not drop a ball like someone did with AM3+ socket....

nesf

ShadowHearth wrote: »

now just fingers crossed intel would not drop a ball like someone did with AM3+ socket....

Even if they do, you've a nice upgrade path from the i3 to the i5 2500K chip when it drops in price when IvyBridge comes out. So you win either way.

Monotype

If you have a bit of money but can't afford the full 2500K, I think it's a good idea to spend the extra into getting a good quality motherboard (i.e., Z68), even if you're just getting the i3. Although the selection has improved, a good few of the H61 boards are fairly sorry in the line of features so even if you do upgrade to a 2500K later, you won't be getting the best out of it and you won't be able to maximise performance in one of the best technologies in recent times, the SSD (i.e., no 6Gbps on the cheap boards). I'm mostly thinking of upgrades here, but given the prices that HDDs have shot up to, SSDs are definitely finding their way into PCs quicker.
I think there's still some room for AMD in the sub €100 CPUs if you really want to game with a very low budget as graphics cards are overall still more important. With new cards to be announced soon (today?) and Intel's Ivy Bridge around the corner, AMD's desktop CPUs just won't cut it.

aperture_nuig

Monotype wrote: »

If you have a bit of money but can't afford the full 2500K, I think it's a good idea to spend the extra into getting a good quality motherboard (i.e., Z68), even if you're just getting the i3. Although the selection has improved, a good few of the H61 boards are fairly sorry in the line of features so even if you do upgrade to a 2500K later, you won't be getting the best out of it and you won't be able to maximise performance in one of the best technologies in recent times, the SSD (i.e., no 6Gbps on the cheap boards). I'm mostly thinking of upgrades here, but given the prices that HDDs have shot up to, SSDs are definitely finding their way into PCs quicker.
I think there's still some room for AMD in the sub €100 CPUs if you really want to game with a very low budget as graphics cards are overall still more important. With new cards to be announced soon (today?) and Intel's Ivy Bridge around the corner, AMD's desktop CPUs just won't cut it.

Thanks, and thanks to everyone that replied, expect to see a new thread asking for a specific (intel!) build from me very soon!

marco_polo

ShadowHearth wrote: »

now just fingers crossed intel would not drop a ball like someone did with AM3+ socket....

The socket was fine, what you could put in it was the real problem. :pac:

Serephucus

marco_polo wrote: »

The socket was fine, what you could put in it was the real problem. :pac:

>.<

1155 seems to be going strong though, and still a year left in it with Ivy on the way. Hopefully Intel's finally starting to learn that if you change sockets like [ insert witty comparison here ], you just loose business in the long run because people get fed up!

marco_polo

Serephucus wrote: »

>.<

1155 seems to be going strong though, and still a year left in it with Ivy on the way. Hopefully Intel's finally starting to learn that if you change sockets like [ insert witty comparison here ], you just loose business in the long run because people get fed up!

I meant AM3+ and bulldozer, Intel certainly seem to have learnt their lessions anyway, and if anything AMD are going the opposite way at the moment. Somewhat understandable I suppose given that they are simultaneously developing APUs and Bulldozer (badly) with the end goal of them meeting up again next year sometime, but at the moment it appears that they have managed to end up with two socket types of questionable life span both of which it appears will be replaced by FM2, and as you say confusion is never good for business even if there is an acceptable reason for it.

Paul_Hacket

aperture_nuig wrote: »

Thanks, and thanks to everyone that replied, expect to see a new thread asking for a specific (intel!) build from me very soon!

Just saw this thread. This question is impossible to answer without knowing your specific budget - but if you're planning to spend less than around Euro 2500 you won't find an Intel chip that will beat the AMD x4-955 Black Edition which retails for about 150 Euro. You could then spend the money you've saved on a cheap SSD boot drive, which would make a huge performance difference.

The X4-955 has four cores and 6MB of cache while all of the Intels in this pricepoint only have two and are limited to 3MB of cache. It is also highly overclockable from it's 3.2ghz base, and can easily hit 4GHZ without any additional cooling hardware.

If you're on a budget I would strongly recommend considering this chip, it will be much better than any i3 as far as multitasking is concerned. A lot of the above comments about Intel above are only true of the higher end of the market.

In short - spending more than 150 Euro on an Intel chip that beats the X4 isn't going to make any noticeable performance difference as far as gaming is concerned and in order to get an Intel chip that would beat the x4-955 for general computing you'd have to spend over 220 Euro.

nesf

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

In short - spending more than 150 Euro on an Intel chip that beats the X4 isn't going to make any noticeable performance difference as far as gaming is concerned and in order to get an Intel chip that would beat the x4-955 for general computing you'd have to spend over 220 Euro.

You've not played Skyrim then. Even with an i5 2500k overclocked to 4.3GHz the CPU is a bottleneck on Ultra (has to do with shadows being computed on the CPU). It's highly dependent on clock speed and core speed and scales poorly past two cores. On paper more cache and more cores should win but it doesn't really work that way. What happens per clock cycle is far more important.

Secondly, the i5 2500k doesn't just beat the X4, it makes it look really poor. They are a generation in technology apart. For any CPU intensive game or application it is far superior. You get a lot of general computing performance for 100 extra Euro. This is at stock before you take into account the i5's greater overclocking potential.

Thirdly, the lowly i3 2100 for 100 Euro beats the X4 in benchmarks at stock despite lacking 2 cores, lacking a lot in cache and being slower: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/GPU11/204?i=330.292.290.293.297.313.315.311.305.309.306.294.291.295.331.316.296 This should underline the power difference per core and per cycle on the Sandy Bridge chips compared to the Phenom II's and that many/most games just aren't optimised for 4 cores.

Finally the X4 lacks an upgrade path. The 1155 socket is continuing for at least one more generation making for a cheaper upgrade down the line for someone with an i3 if they want a more powerful CPU in a year or three.

Monotype

Another series is expected in for socket AM3+, if they could beat phenom IIs this time it would be good. I know what you mean though that upgrade options exist here, now, if you want to replace an i3.
I think the pricing is pretty fair, you are getting what you pay for. The i3s start at €100 or so and most of AMD's lineup are below that, competing with pentiums and celerons. It looks like the i3s are more competing with phenom X6s. They could do with having the X4s cheaper, both Athlons and Phenoms. I'm seeing the 965 cheaper than the 955. I wonder if these have stopped production and they've moved completely onto bulldozer? They're probably still making Athlons for FM1 since they only came out recently, so I'd imagine they're still going.

ShadowHearth

They said that there will be more variations on bulldozer. It's really a shame it costs more and is below 2500k and 2600k

nesf

Monotype wrote: »

Another series is expected in for socket AM3+, if they could beat phenom IIs this time it would be good. I know what you mean though that upgrade options exist here, now, if you want to replace an i3.

Exactly, even if Ivy Bridge turns out to be a damp squib, the 2500K is a solid upgrade for an i3 and 2500Ks are only going to be going down in price.

Games won't demand a quad core chip for a good long while.

Serephucus

nesf wrote: »

Exactly, even if Ivy Bridge turns out to be a damp squib, the 2500K is a solid upgrade for an i3 and 2500Ks are only going to be going down in price.

Games won't demand a quad core chip for a good long while.

Some badly coded ones do. GTA IV works much better with one, especially if you want to use ICEnhancer as well.

If we could actually get a couple of good, PC-focused games, quad cores would be a huge benefit. As-is we're just getting more console ports.

nesf

Serephucus wrote: »

Some badly coded ones do. GTA IV works much better with one, especially if you want to use ICEnhancer as well.

If we could actually get a couple of good, PC-focused games, quad cores would be a huge benefit. As-is we're just getting more console ports.

The average game just wants a relatively modern dual core though. We should have most games taking advantage of 4 cores at least if not hyper threading too but they just don't make the effort to code that kind of stuff in in most games. Not that it surprises me, people gaming off custom builds or high end machines are the exception not the rule.

Eamonn Brophy

nesf wrote: »

The average game just wants a relatively modern dual core though. We should have most games taking advantage of 4 cores at least if not hyper threading too but they just don't make the effort to code that kind of stuff in in most games. Not that it surprises me, people gaming off custom builds or high end machines are the exception not the rule.

Welp, as consoles reelase with multi-core and multi-threaded processors (I'll cry if the next xbox isnt at LEAST a dual-core) we'll see that stuff slowly start to flow in, a billion years too late albeit, but still better than the current state!

Sometimes I feel like modern gaming PC's are like Usain bolt with no legs, all that potential never getting used!

Serephucus

nesf wrote: »

The average game just wants a relatively modern dual core though. We should have most games taking advantage of 4 cores at least if not hyper threading too but they just don't make the effort to code that kind of stuff in in most games. Not that it surprises me, people gaming off custom builds or high end machines are the exception not the rule.

Agreed. The games I'm thinking of - GTA IV, Supreme Commander, etc. - are very much the exceptions.

Hopefully the next generation of consoles will help. Having said that, the PS3 has a CPU with seven cores...

nesf

Serephucus wrote: »

Hopefully the next generation of consoles will help. Having said that, the PS3 has a CPU with seven cores...

Multi-platform games are coded with the lowest denominator in mind. All we get on the PC is better graphics from developers wanting to show off their engine. Actually building proper multi-threading into the core from day one doesn't tend to happen with console ports.

Serephucus

nesf wrote: »

Multi-platform games are coded with the lowest denominator in mind. All we get on the PC is better graphics from developers wanting to show off their engine. Actually building proper multi-threading into the core from day one doesn't tend to happen with console ports.

Excuse me, I have a Wii or two to smash...

That, or a very dedicated modding community.

nesf

Serephucus wrote: »

Excuse me, I have a Wii or two to smash...

That, or a very dedicated modding community.

Ahh, the Wii...

marco_polo

Eamonn Brophy wrote: »

Welp, as consoles reelase with multi-core and multi-threaded processors (I'll cry if the next xbox isnt at LEAST a dual-core) we'll see that stuff slowly start to flow in, a billion years too late albeit, but still better than the current state!

Sometimes I feel like modern gaming PC's are like Usain bolt with no legs, all that potential never getting used!

It actualyl has a still failry respectible tri core processor with hyperthreading-like capabilities. If anything where it is really showing it age is in terms of memory and GPU limitations.

Serephucus

marco_polo wrote: »

It actualyy has a still quite respectible tri core processor with hyperthreading like capabilitoes? If anything where it is really showing it age is in terms of memory and GPU limitations.

It does. As far as I remember though, one of them is reserved for physics calculations. Maybe one of the others is as well?

aperture_nuig

Total build cost: €408.06 + €30 shipping
Super-Flower SF700A14A Gamer Edition 700W €61.73
Sapphire HD 6850 1GB GDDR5 PCI-Express €122.72
Gigabyte GA-H67M-D2-B3, Intel H67, mATX €72.82
Intel Core i3-2100 Box, LGA1155 €100.97
8GB-Kit G.Skill PC3-10667U CL9 €28.26
3R Systems Design Gehäuse R340 Black, mATX €21.56



So, after listening to the pro's and con's of the chat here I came up with that build based on an i3. I found that a similar build can be made with the AMD CPU mentioned(albeit with a full ATX board and not mATX) so they would seem to be the competition for the bang-for-buck end of things. any comments on the above build? (OS dvd drive and hdd not included)

Eboggles

aperture_nuig wrote: »

Total build cost: €408.06 + €30 shipping
Super-Flower SF700A14A Gamer Edition 700W €61.73
Sapphire HD 6850 1GB GDDR5 PCI-Express €122.72
Gigabyte GA-H67M-D2-B3, Intel H67, mATX €72.82
Intel Core i3-2100 Box, LGA1155 €100.97
8GB-Kit G.Skill PC3-10667U CL9 €28.26
3R Systems Design Gehäuse R340 Black, mATX €21.56



So, after listening to the pro's and con's of the chat here I came up with that build based on an i3. I found that a similar build can be made with the AMD CPU mentioned(albeit with a full ATX board and not mATX) so they would seem to be the competition for the bang-for-buck end of things. any comments on the above build? (OS dvd drive and hdd not included)

Very nice build for the price, there are a few things. Drop the psu to a good 450 watt, that would do fine. Maybe get a better case? one for 20 euro doesn't seem like a good idea

This is a good psu
This is a good mAtx case

Paul_Hacket

aperture_nuig wrote: »

Total build cost: €408.06 + €30 shipping
Super-Flower SF700A14A Gamer Edition 700W €61.73
Sapphire HD 6850 1GB GDDR5 PCI-Express €122.72
Gigabyte GA-H67M-D2-B3, Intel H67, mATX €72.82
Intel Core i3-2100 Box, LGA1155 €100.97
8GB-Kit G.Skill PC3-10667U CL9 €28.26
3R Systems Design Gehäuse R340 Black, mATX €21.56

I'd recommend that you take a look at the Tomshardware.com custom gaming builds. It is generally considered the benchmark site for these things and they recommend the AMD X4 at your budget level. The savings you will gain from it will allow you to purchase a faster graphics card which will give you superior games performance to the build above and the X4 will be noticeably faster than the 2100 for general computing, so it's a win-win.

Take a look at the build below for their September 2011 $500 gaming pc:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-overclock-graphics-card,3032.html

nesf

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

the X4 will be noticeably faster than the 2100 for general computing, so it's a win-win.

It really isn't unless you are doing video encoding or 3D rendering. Seriously, look at the anandtech benchmarks for the 2100 vs the 965 BE: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=102

We don't know if the OP even wants to overclock yet and the X4 chip is inferior at stock.

Monotype

Don't get the gamer edition PSUs. Amazon is the good series. 450W is enough or 550W if you think that you will be doing plenty of upgrades.

Paul_Hacket

nesf wrote: »

It really isn't unless you are doing video encoding or 3D rendering. Seriously, look at the anandtech benchmarks for the 2100 vs the 965 BE: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=102

We don't know if the OP even wants to overclock yet and the X4 chip is inferior at stock.

You miss the point that this chip is overclockable without any add-ons to 3.8ghz and often all the way up to 4.2ghz. If you look at the actual heads-up test which Anandtech posted for this chip (not sure why you posted the 965 version) you will see that the AMD beat the 2100 in twelve out of 26 tests without even being overclocked.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=289

Very few of the Anandtech tests take advantage of multithreading, which is important for real world computing scenarios (having several apps and web pages open at the same time, etc).

Since the AMD chip is significantly cheaper than the 2100 and thus the money saved can be spent on a much better graphics card I'm having a very hard time understanding your logic in recommending a two core chip with 3MB of cache and no overclocking ability.

Also, the OP should look at the Toms Hardware benchmarks which post a variety of real world tests and gaming frame rates, and not just synthetics. With overclocking employed the AMD clearly beats a locked i3 chip, and since it's significantly cheaper it's kind of a no-brainer.

Also, on the synthetics level Passmark benches the AMD about 25% faster than the i3.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=AMD+Phenom+II+X4+955

EDIT - I'm based in the USA and just checked the UK pricing, seems the AMD isn't any cheaper than the i3 in Uk or Ireland. However the points on speed still apply.

Paul_Hacket

nesf wrote: »

It really isn't unless you are doing video encoding or 3D rendering. Seriously, look at the anandtech benchmarks for the 2100 vs the 965 BE: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=102

We don't know if the OP even wants to overclock yet and the X4 chip is inferior at stock.

Since this chip is designed to be overclocked and has official backing from AMD for doing so, and since it requires no additional hardware and can be completed in less than two minutes by following the instructions in the video below - which do not even require going into the BIOS - then why wouldn't he?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p7HB9OMJSs

Monotype

Anandtech's tests certainly aren't extensive enough and the 2100 is not a clear winner - overclocking is a serious advantage here alright but the 955 seems to be increasing in price lately and is above the 2100.

Also that H67 board picked out is very much out of stock.

Paul_Hacket

Monotype wrote: »

Anandtech's tests certainly aren't extensive enough and the 2100 is not a clear winner - overclocking is a serious advantage here alright but the 955 seems to be increasing in price lately and is above the 2100.

Also that H67 board picked out is very much out of stock.

Yeah, I just checked the pricing, I'm in the USA - surprised to see that the AMD is not priced a little lower in Europe.

nesf

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

You miss the point that this chip is overclockable without any add-ons to 3.8ghz and often all the way up to 4.2ghz. If you look at the actual heads-up test which Anandtech posted for this chip (not sure why you posted the 965 version) you will see that the AMD beat the 2100 in twelve out of 26 tests without even being overclocked.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=289

Very few of the Anandtech tests take advantage of multithreading, which is important for real world computing scenarios (having several apps and web pages open at the same time, etc).

Since the AMD chip is significantly cheaper than the 2100 and thus the money saved can be spent on a much better graphics card I'm having a very hard time understanding your logic in recommending a two core chip with 3MB of cache and no overclocking ability.

Also, the OP should look at the Toms Hardware benchmarks which post a variety of real world tests and gaming frame rates, and not just synthetics. With overclocking employed the AMD clearly beats a locked i3 chip, and since it's significantly cheaper it's kind of a no-brainer.

Also, on the synthetics level Passmark benches the AMD about 25% faster than the i3.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=AMD+Phenom+II+X4+955

EDIT - I'm based in the USA and just checked the UK pricing, seems the AMD isn't any cheaper than the i3 in Uk or Ireland. However the points on speed still apply.

The 12 tests it won in are not representative of "general computer use" unless you encode videos constantly. You claimed the X4 is substantially faster in general computing, that just isn't true. You'll barely notice the difference between the two chips unless you're either gaming or encoding at stock where the i3 or the X4 respectfully win.

My point is that for someone that doesn't want to overclock, and while I don't agree with the view such people do exist, the i3 is a better chip. The 955 BE only wins in an overclocked scenario.

The other big reason to go for the i3 is to open the option to get an i5 next year or an Ivy Bridge chip on the same mobo. The AM3+ socket is just not comparable in terms of options that we know about right now. Don't get me wrong, I think the X4 955 BE is a very good chip, I just think when you're getting a cheap chip the socket is crucially important and whether upgrades are available for it there should be a deciding factor unless performance is seriously gimped by going for the upgradeable option.

Paul_Hacket

nesf wrote: »

The 12 tests it won in are not representative of "general computer use" unless you encode videos constantly. You claimed the X4 is substantially faster in general computing, that just isn't true. You'll barely notice the difference between the two chips unless you're either gaming or encoding at stock where the i3 or the X4 respectfully win.

My point is that for someone that doesn't want to overclock, and while I don't agree with the view such people do exist, the i3 is a better chip. The 955 BE only wins in an overclocked scenario.

The other big reason to go for the i3 is to open the option to get an i5 next year or an Ivy Bridge chip on the same mobo. The AM3+ socket is just not comparable in terms of options that we know about right now. Don't get me wrong, I think the X4 955 BE is a very good chip, I just think when you're getting a cheap chip the socket is crucially important and whether upgrades are available for it there should be a deciding factor unless performance is seriously gimped by going for the upgradeable option.

Okay, so you think this guy isn't going to do an overclock (for reasons you haven't explained and despite it requiring no hardware and taking two minutes to do so). Yet you think he's going to do a processor swap next year or something? Sorry - that just doesn't make sense.

My GF has a dell with a 2100 in it, I multitask a lot - using multiple apps such as a word processor, multi-tabbed browser session, itunes and a few other apps open. When using her machine lags are often noticeable - they aren't noticeable using the 955 which I have at home which is hardly surprising since it has twice the cache, twice the cores and a faster clock rate. Yes the i3 is a more efficient and more modern chip and if the 955 was limited to a 3MB cache, two cores and its base clock speed the i3 would beat it. However it isn't. Again, what do you say to the guys at TomsHardware? Pretty much everyone in the comments for their Sept 2011 gaming build agreed that this is the best build at this budget level.

And if the OP does want to upgrade in the next year or so he would be much better advised to get a cheap AMD 3+ motherboard which supports crossfire and just drop in a second graphic card next year. Cheaper and easier than a processor upgrade and also giving him at least a 50% increase in gaming frame rates. If he tries to do this with an Intel solution he will have to pay a LOT extra for the motherboard - the other problem with going down the Intel route at this budget level. In short, at these prices Intel just don't offer a balanced solution for a budget gaming rig.

nesf

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

Okay, so you think this guy isn't going to do an overclock (for reasons you haven't explained and despite it requiring no hardware and taking two minutes to do so). Yet you think he's going to do a processor swap next year or something? Sorry - that just doesn't make sense.

My GF has a dell with a 2100 in it, I multitask a lot - using multiple apps such as a word processor, multi-tabbed browser session, itunes and a few other apps open. When using her machine lags are often noticeable - they aren't noticeable using the 955 which I have at home which is hardly surprising since it has twice the cache, twice the cores and a faster clock rate. Yes the i3 is a more efficient and more modern chip and if the 955 was limited to a 3MB cache, two cores and its base clock speed the i3 would beat it. However it isn't. Again, what do you say to the guys at TomsHardware? Pretty much everyone in the comments for their Sept 2011 gaming build agreed that this is the best build at this budget level.

And if the OP does want to upgrade in the next year or so he would be much better advised to get a cheap AMD 3+ motherboard which supports crossfire and just drop in a second graphic card next year. Cheaper and easier than a processor upgrade and also giving him at least a 50% increase in gaming frame rates. If he tries to do this with an Intel solution he will have to pay a LOT extra for the motherboard - the other problem with going down the Intel route at this budget level. In short, at these prices Intel just don't offer a balanced solution for a budget gaming rig.

Ahh, the comments in the June recommendation which had an i3 in it were far more complicated. There was a lot of disagreement over whether to go for an i3 or an X4 955 BE.

The issue we're disagreeing over comes down to whether you want max performance now at your budget or the option for much better performance down the line once you scrape together a bit more money. Assuming one is willing to overclock the X4 wins the former, the i3 the latter. What we have is two divergent design philosophies, I'll always, always plumb for the latter approach since I believe in slowly incrementing towards a powerful system if I'm on a tight budget. I understand where you're coming from, I just don't agree with the approach that doesn't pay attention to what I can do to the rig next year to make it better.

xtal191

You could even get get the x4 960t, its cheap enough and it can be unlocked to a 6 core

deconduo

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

You miss the point that this chip is overclockable without any add-ons to 3.8ghz and often all the way up to 4.2ghz. If you look at the actual heads-up test which Anandtech posted for this chip (not sure why you posted the 965 version) you will see that the AMD beat the 2100 in twelve out of 26 tests without even being overclocked.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=289

Very few of the Anandtech tests take advantage of multithreading, which is important for real world computing scenarios (having several apps and web pages open at the same time, etc).

Since the AMD chip is significantly cheaper than the 2100 and thus the money saved can be spent on a much better graphics card I'm having a very hard time understanding your logic in recommending a two core chip with 3MB of cache and no overclocking ability.

Also, the OP should look at the Toms Hardware benchmarks which post a variety of real world tests and gaming frame rates, and not just synthetics. With overclocking employed the AMD clearly beats a locked i3 chip, and since it's significantly cheaper it's kind of a no-brainer.

Also, on the synthetics level Passmark benches the AMD about 25% faster than the i3.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=AMD+Phenom+II+X4+955

EDIT - I'm based in the USA and just checked the UK pricing, seems the AMD isn't any cheaper than the i3 in Uk or Ireland. However the points on speed still apply.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=362

The X4@3.7GHz wins at threaded tasks, i3 wins at games. Given that the question is Intel vs AMD for a gaming PC, the i3 is the obvious choice. Why buy something that needs to be overclocked, needs a 3rd party cooler, is hotter, consumes about twice as much power and yet still gives lower performance in games.