Core i3? Is it up to the Skyrim/Rage task?

A

A_belmont

Weaksauce
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
65
More specifically, is the i3 2100 Sandy bridge (linked right about...... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115078)
placed in a new Med priced game rig going to cripple under the weight of these huge games? Looking at speculated and published system requirements for both games, the Nvidia GTX 560 looks to be plenty enough, but the fact that the i3 is dual core, will that destroy performance? ((And before you mention anything, yes I have looked at bigger components, I do not have the spare cash to be flinging at a 560ti or a 2500K))
 
if you have a microcenter near you that chip is only 99$ :) i am mulling over getting this chip too, from the benchmarks im seeing that it can hold its own.
 
I ran Dead Island on a i3 2100 and a AMD 6870 at full settings and FPS never went below 60. I wouldn't say that processor gimps modern games.
 
This question about whats best for Skyrim has been asked and asked again on various boards. WE DON'T KNOW! :D Sorry, I just had to express that. Anyhow if I were to take a blind guess I would say as far as running it at low and medium settings the i3 2100 will do it. Seriously though if you want to play it safe, get a 2500k or better and make sure your mobo can overclock it. GPU choice is harder to nail down. I'll hazard a guess and say a 6950 (or nVidia equivalent) or better for full high game settings. Otherwise just wait for them to release the recommended game requirements before building/upgrading a PC.
 
I3 will never be viable for sli or crossfire in more than 2 cards. And with the top cards like 580/90 6970/90 it is not going to fill their bellies fast enough. However if you are budget or self limited to single screen 1080 then sli and xfire is not a viable option anyway. So i3 will probably be plenty fast for those games.
 
I do know there are better CPU And GPU's out there than I'm looking for, and I do realize it's not that much to jump up to a 2500K, but it's simply money I don't have for a computer. I am limited to a hanns g 22" 1080p monitor with 60hz refresh rate, and I'm trying to (ideally) build a pc for less than $700. Wishing to avoid the AM3 socket type and all the amazing deals going on for those procs, the i3 is intensely appealing - when I'm done with undergrad and have a real job that provides real money, I'll upgrade the system. Until then, Rage, Skyrim, Arkham Asylum/City, those games will really keep me quite busy, along with other games that will assuredly go on $5 sales on steam and the like...
The main games I want to be playing are Rage, Skyrim, Doom 3, and the Mass Effect trilogy. Hearing good things about the i3 makes me feel pretty good that my build ideas aren't all that crazy!!!

Also, I've never even heard of microcenter, I don't believe that chain is in my area of Michigan.
 
Last edited:
QuiteSufficient said:
The sandy i3s or even the G series pentiums are fantastic for 1080p and below gaming.
Click to expand...

This statement doesn't make alot of sense.

Generally, resolution is far more dependent on the GPU as opposed to the CPU. Lower resolutions are far easier on the graphics card, so typically the CPU becomes the bottleneck as the framerate gets higher.

If you have a dual core you're not going to get a great experience in BF3, though you will probably find settings that work for you. Skyrim and rage? If they follow the trend of cutting edge games taking use of 4 cores you may definitely be limited here. Skyrim seems to be more of a console port so you will probably get by fine before crazy mods are introduced. Rage seems to be more of an unknown.
 
I've been a console gamer for the past three years ever since my AM2 machine fried itself and cost me oodles of money. So I'm really quite used to framerates of about 30-35, whatever the consoles pull these days. So long as the resolutions are the same/higher for the Batman Games, the Mass Effect Games, Rage & Skyrim, even a slight pull over console performance in visual and framerate performance will make this worthwhile!
 
Dual Core is a bad investment. i3's are synonymous with Dual Core, don't do that. Programs in 2011 and beyond are coded with 3-4 cores in mind on a minimum.

Look at DX 11 specs if you don't believe me, multi-threading is where coding and programming is headed now that Win 7 has taken over 50 pct market and comes stock with DX 11. Windows 8 will come with DX 11.1 or better ;) Pretty soon 75 percent or better of current PC's will have DX 11 and it will begin to show what it's capable of, that includes MORE MULTI-THREADING in games!

X3 OC'd or non-oc'd Quad for minimum CPU in this day and age. My X3 no lags on BF3 beta, tears up Oblivion on Max. Safest move is a Quad/Hex Core from AMD or Intel i5/i7 from Intel. I like AMD personally because they provide no lag gaming chips, it's 80/90 pct GPU then CPU just needs to be more than 2 cores to run games excellent these days.

A 560ti would be satisfactory place to start IMO for Skyrim. After playing BF3 beta myself on an X3, a Quad Core and above is the only sound investment for future PC gaming in my eyes.

Another very important part of the equation is an SSD when it comes to games like Oblivion/Skyrim because of the constant traveling/loading. Instead of 5+ second load screens you can get 2 second load times through doors in Oblivion on an SSD.

So I would recommend a cheap X4 (Black Edition 120.00 or less on Newegg usually) for easier OC'ing and a 60 GB SSD. (Whatever your budget can handle but at least a 60GB so you could run Win 7 + Skyrim with no low disk space warnings) Over a more expensive Intel build with a 7200 rpm hard drive. But you can do what you like. If you have mad money go all out on a build.... if you love gaming that much.
 
teletran8 said:
Dual Core is a bad investment. i3's are synonymous with Dual Core, don't do that. Programs in 2011 and beyond are coded with 3-4 cores in mind on a minimum.
Click to expand...
Well I've been worried about that, but the price reduction is all the more enticing. That and most of the games I'm interested in would run just fine on dual core... the only ones I'd question are Rage, Skyrim, and Mass Effect 3 (not interested in Battlefield 3).

A 560ti would be satisfactory place to start IMO for Skyrim. After playing BF3 beta myself on an X3, a Quad Core and above is the only sound investment for future PC gaming in my eyes.
Click to expand...
As stated above, I'm on a 700 budget.... a Geforce 560 is really my limit, my build already is at $710, so I'm 10 bucks ABOVE! =P

Another very important part of the equation is an SSD when it comes to games like Oblivion/Skyrim because of the constant traveling/loading. Instead of 5+ second load screens.
Click to expand...
Again, budget....

So I would recommend a cheap X4
Click to expand...
And this would be a great place for me to ask the question - Given how cheap the AMD CPU's are getting with retailers like newegg hoping to dump inventory, for someone like me who is on a budget, who wants good performance at low cost, and probably won't be upgrading for 1-2 years, how fast are games really going to make use of the 8+ cores of the future? Will an x4 AMD do all the right things for now, and a super cheap upgrade to an x6 a year...year and a half from now keep me speeding along just fine?
 
Well 560 vs 560 ti is little difference. So your fine there. I've even heard people say they would rather save the money and get a 560 over a TI after they tried both cards.

AMD X4's Black Editions (4.0GHz+ with OC) begin @ 120 I think, and Intels Quads start @ 180 with the i5 2320 (Almost no OC, but better IPC) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ... 40000343 600030236&IsNodeId=1&name=Quad-Core

Either one is great for gaming obviously, and there is a 60 dollar difference there if that is meaningful / useful for you. Ibet you will save 10 or more on an AMD mobo as well over an Intel socket. But that only means something when your into saving costs and still getting awesome gaming performance / running games on high settings.

I'm not all that into BF3 myself, but just knowing that my CPU runs that game perfectly smooth imo gives me confidence that I can get 6-12 months more from it quite easily. I just need to get a DX11 GPU and SSD soon, my rig is hurting my overall performance on the DX10 GPU and 7200 RPM SATA Drive. But I still have great gaming sessions, but BF3 NEEDS 1 or 2 DX 11 GPU's to run on high settings for my tastes. So it's back to TF2 until I upgrade my GPU.

X4 BE oc'd will definately run those games on high with a GPU like the 560. But if you really want HIGH or Ultra settings you will need more GPU horsepower, unless your comfortable with 60fps and not more like 120fps / 120Hz monitor. I'm spoiled with my 120HZ projector but at the same time I can't run DX11 games like Metro / BF3 beyond 60 fps with my 260GTX anyhow lol! So I either have to play DX9 older games or play DX 11 games 60 and below at this point.

I think you should get:

AMD 955 / 965 BE = 120
ASUS 560 GTX = 195
KIngston or Samsung 64 GB SSD = 115
120HZ monitor is outta your price range, but you should get one someday soon...I'm hooked to running games 100+ fps and seeing that now.
AM3+ = Gigabyte/ASUS/Asrock or whatever is best price for you
Cheapest 1 or 2 TB for Video files etc. = 55-70
Win 7Home OEM = 90
DVD Drive = 20
Mouse + Keyboard + Case = whatever you like there I'm partial to ergonomic keyboards, Logitech mouses and Lian Li cases.
That's in the 700 dollar ballpark

You'll want the X6 / X8 Bulldozer when the time comes anyhow...and the gaming benchmarks in a half year or year will clearly show you what advantage there is for you. For now 4 cores is the sweet spot when it comes to peak performance and low investment cost. A dual core will have you kicking yourself in the butt in the next 6 months or less imo.
 
Last edited:
IMHO, if you're on a budget an i3 2100 with an older H61 mobo, which are cheap right now, should be fine for the next 1 to 2 years worth of games if you invest in a good GPU. It does not sound like you're too set on having your games run at maxed out settings with silky smooth frame rates, so ultimately, as long as you are OK with a budget build knowing you're not getting anything "future-proof," you will be happy for the short-term.

An i3-2100 and almost any LGA 1155 h61 mobo on Newegg will run you around $180-200 before tax, leaving you $500 to spend on a high end GPU along with your other components, which is plenty.

It's tough when you're on a budget, you always think "well it's only 10/20/50 more dollars, maybe I should do that instead?" but it all adds up.
 
Last edited:
illram said:
An i3-2100 and almost any LGA 1155 h61 mobo on Newegg will run you around $180-200 before tax, leaving you $500 to spend on a high end GPU along with your other components, which is plenty.

It's tough when you're on a budget, you always think "well it's only 10/20/50 more dollars, maybe I should do that instead?" but it all adds up.
Click to expand...

Is the i3 a better deal over the AMD x4? I know Bulldozer is about to come out....but those six-eight core cpu's are probably going to be outside my pricerange in a year or two anyways! If you were building a super cheap gaming rig with hopes of playing RAGE in the next week, would you a) get an i3 core, or b) get the x4?
 
teletran8 said:
I think you should get:

AMD 955 / 965 BE = 120
ASUS 560 GTX = 195
KIngston or Samsung 64 GB SSD = 115
120HZ monitor is outta your price range, but you should get one someday soon...I'm hooked to running games 100+ fps and seeing that now.
AM3+ = Gigabyte/ASUS/Asrock or whatever is best price for you
Cheapest 1 or 2 TB for Video files etc. = 55-70
Win 7Home OEM = 90
DVD Drive = 20
Mouse + Keyboard + Case = whatever you like there I'm partial to ergonomic keyboards, Logitech mouses and Lian Li cases.
That's in the 700 dollar ballpark

You'll want the X6 / X8 Bulldozer when the time comes anyhow...and the gaming benchmarks in a half year or year will clearly show you what advantage there is for you. For now 4 cores is the sweet spot when it comes to peak performance and low investment cost. A dual core will have you kicking yourself in the butt in the next 6 months or less imo.
Click to expand...


Yeah, adding a case, psu, wificard (which I need), and that's an $800+ build you've got there.
Believe me, coming up with a full, solid rig that's $700 is pretty intense! Mine is down to $715, which I'm pretty proud of. I know it's hard to think cheap when you're used to building for a 120hz refresh screen, and 100+fps. Like I said earlier, I'm leaping from a ps3 - so anything that's even slightly better at that for running the games I like will work.
 
Here you go. This is probably what I would do for a budget build
A realistic build that meets your budget and will still be plenty fast.
The parts were found on both newegg.com and ++++.com to find the best price.

CPU intel Core i3 2100 Dual core 3.1Ghz 3MB Cache $114.99
Motherboard Gigabyte H67M-D2-B3 mATX LGA1155 H67 DDR3 2PCI-E16 2PCI-E1 CrossFireX SATA3 Motherboard $87.46
Memory G.SKILL Ripjaws X F3-10666CL9D-8GBXL 8GB 2X4GB DDR3-1333 CL9-9-9-24 Memory $39.99
Video Card GIGABYTE GV-N56GOC-1GI GeForce GTX 560 $189.99

Hard Drive Seagate ST310005N1A1AS-RK 1TB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5"+ $79.99
Optical Drive SUS 24X DVD Burner - Bulk 24X DVD+R 8X DVD+RW 12X DVD+R DL 24X DVD-R 6X DVD-RW 16X DVD-ROM 48X CD-R 32X CD-RW 48X CD-ROM Black SATA Model DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS - OEM $20.99

Case Antec SONATA IV Black 0.8 mm SECC ATX Mid Tower Computer Case 620W Power Supply $150.80
Power Supply

Sound Card onboard $-


Sub Total $684.21
For windows, this is what I would do if I were you. Buy the hardware for now, and borrow a Win 7 disc from a friend or download the image. I am not saying pirate the OS. Microsoft will allow you to install for something like 60 days without the key as some sort of trial period. Do that until you can cough up the extra money for your own license.

Will it be the fastest computer on the block? No.
Will it be capable of playing current and future games at reasonable framerates? Yes

There's room to upgrade over time also. You can get yourself an SSD in the future and it will give you a great boost in performance. Also, this motherboard will support a core i7 2600 or anything in between, so you could easily find a used 2500k other quad core in a year or 2 for pretty cheap.
 
S[H]ady;1037825118 said:
Here you go. This is probably what I would do for a budget build
A realistic build that meets your budget and will still be plenty fast.
The parts were found on both newegg.com and ++++.com to find the best price.

CPU intel Core i3 2100 Dual core 3.1Ghz 3MB Cache $114.99
Motherboard Gigabyte H67M-D2-B3 mATX LGA1155 H67 DDR3 2PCI-E16 2PCI-E1 CrossFireX SATA3 Motherboard $87.46
Memory G.SKILL Ripjaws X F3-10666CL9D-8GBXL 8GB 2X4GB DDR3-1333 CL9-9-9-24 Memory $39.99
Video Card GIGABYTE GV-N56GOC-1GI GeForce GTX 560 $189.99

Hard Drive Seagate ST310005N1A1AS-RK 1TB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5"+ $79.99
Optical Drive SUS 24X DVD Burner - Bulk 24X DVD+R 8X DVD+RW 12X DVD+R DL 24X DVD-R 6X DVD-RW 16X DVD-ROM 48X CD-R 32X CD-RW 48X CD-ROM Black SATA Model DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS - OEM $20.99

Case Antec SONATA IV Black 0.8 mm SECC ATX Mid Tower Computer Case 620W Power Supply $150.80
Power Supply

Sound Card onboard $-


Sub Total $684.21
For windows, this is what I would do if I were you. Buy the hardware for now, and borrow a Win 7 disc from a friend or download the image. I am not saying pirate the OS. Microsoft will allow you to install for something like 60 days without the key as some sort of trial period. Do that until you can cough up the extra money for your own license.

Will it be the fastest computer on the block? No.
Will it be capable of playing current and future games at reasonable framerates? Yes

There's room to upgrade over time also. You can get yourself an SSD in the future and it will give you a great boost in performance. Also, this motherboard will support a core i7 2600 or anything in between, so you could easily find a used 2500k other quad core in a year or 2 for pretty cheap.
Click to expand...

Thanks for all the time you spent on this. My assumption is that your answer to the question of the i3 holding up against Rage and Skyrim is yes? Is the overall performance comparable to an AMD x4 of the same price? Noone says yes or no, they just say what they would build! I really do appreciate that, but what I'm looking for is speculation on how well the i3 will hold up to these upcoming game titles!

The current setup I have picked out on Newegg is here:
Case - $50
Psu - $77
Mobo - $102
Cpu - $120 combo price
Ram - $28
DVD - $22 w/shipping
HDD 1 TB - $50
Wifi - $22
GPU - $198
Windows 7 student discount for $30
Total - $714ish

This version of the build has the x4, because my train of thought is I'm only going to upgrade the cpu once before something else on the motherboard becomes outdated (Whether it's the PCI x16 slot or the SATA or what have you....something is going to become outdated, that's the nature of progress...) so why not go with the cheapest solution, even if it's going to be old tech in two weeks? It's still blazing fast....
The only reason to go with the AMD x4 is if there's no real evidence the core i3 works just as well, And noone seems to be saying yes or no, they just keep giving build ideas! I don't mean disrespect, nor do I mean to seem ungrateful for your efforts, but I'm REALLY looking for is a response which compares the functional advantages/disadvantages of the core i3 over the x4. I know am3 is going to be outdated soon, but the top x6 cpu will be a powerful thing to upgrade to in a year, and it will be crazy cheap by then as well.

And ultimately, I'm looking for speculation (I know it can't be anything more than speculation!) on whether or not Rage or Skyrim will look and perform just as nicely on a pc with an i3 cpu as it would a PS3, which I already own. If not.....no sense in investing all this money =P
 
Last edited:
i had to make the same decision as you with i3 vs phenom 2 x4 and I went with the i3 the majority of gaming benchmarks had it beating the phenom even when the phenom was overclocked which then made it a no brainer. Also was able to run the bf3 beta fine (framerate wise anyways) with this setup and a gtx 460 at 1400 res with hboa off and aa off everything else cranked. I could play with those settings on but framerate was lower then what I wanted......go with the i3
 
I like your build, just get an AM3+ mobo so you have the option for Bulldozer later on.

AMD X3 OC'd have stronger Floating Point and Integer performance than a i3 2100. So you KNOW an X4 overclocked would be even better than my X3.
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/446365

The i3 2100 has better memory performance and bandwidth than the AMD's at the moment. http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/469814

X4 965 can almost double the FP and Integer performance of that i3-2100. http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/472719 That X4 is @ stock clocks 3.4 Ghz.

YET!! As long as you have DDR3 1333 (you'll have plenty of memory bandwidth /performance) for games, and enough memory (you just need 4 GB at this time). If you ever need more buy another 4 GB for what 30-40 dollars? Simple. BF3 beta used like 2.93 Gb when I checked Task manager. I don't think I've personally seen a game take over 3 GB unless i left ALOT of programs running in the background anyhow.

Memory Bandwidth is not critical in games (As long as you have 4GB and DDR3 1333), but CPU floating point and integer determine how fast a CPU can handle a 3D wireframe polygon scene found in all the games you like to be playing. DX 11 has a feature known as Tesselation which dramatically increases the wireframe count. So FP and Integer performance are locked in with the CPU you decide, if it isn't up to snuff you might experience some hitching or stutter as the world is loading those ginormous worlds in Skyrim and possibly Rage. (I haven't seen much of Rage yet, but it looks to be the largest setting ID has ever undertook.)

Wireframe Tesselation Example = This is really trippy imo if you look @ 1:03 - 1:18 and see what the wireframes do in REALTIME under DX 11 (they morph to your viewing angle / perspective)

The speed of floating-point operations, commonly referred to in performance measurements as FLOPS, is an important machine characteristic, especially in software that performs large-scale mathematical calculations.

Skyrim has more wireframe Polygon count on monsters, (dragons) and characters than Oblivion from what I can easily see. Look at the characters armor, the detail in the mountains. There's obviously alot more detail /polygons in the wireframes. That's the CPU's job the wireframe, and the graphics card colors in all the textures /pixels/ shaders /lighting etc.

Oblivion-screenshots-pc-gamer-468662_1024_819.jpg


Skyrim-Screenshots-4.jpg

You might also come @ me with a question of, Rage, ME 3, Skyrim won't employ tessellation. Well not at this time from what I understand but the possibility of PC gamers modding / patching Skyrim with DX11 tessellation (Like Crysis 2 did) I would think is a good possibility in the future. And either way there are DX 11 games like Metro 2033 part 1 and 2, Crysis 2 with patch etc.

It will be very interesting if the AMD Bulldozer with it's NEW CPU design excels in Tessellation with its design in DX 11 games or not. More than likely though I believe this will be one of the strongest points in the BD design, with it's Floating point and Integer redesign / Bulldozer Module. Factor in the impending release of PCI-E 3.0 Spec. with AMD's Southern Islands GPU's (7000 series), and holy flapjacks batman. I see AMD FX series owning DX 11 gaming very soon!! This is why I say your best bet is an AM3+ build. (Because of Price / performance/ and future upgrades.)
 
butterfliesrpretty said:
i had to make the same decision as you with i3 vs phenom 2 x4 and I went with the i3 the majority of gaming benchmarks had it beating the phenom even when the phenom was overclocked which then made it a no brainer. Also was able to run the bf3 beta fine (framerate wise anyways) with this setup and a gtx 460 at 1400 res with hboa off and aa off everything else cranked. I could play with those settings on but framerate was lower then what I wanted......go with the i3
Click to expand...

Bro they run their graphics tests on LOW and medium when they do those benchmarks. That's when Intel's IPC shines when your running low graphic demanding games like Starcraft 2 on THE LOWEST POOREST SETTINGS!

You ever seen SC 2 wireframes compared to any FPS wireframes? That just caters to Intels weaker FP and Integer crunching abilities in that market segement of X4 965 VS i3-2100 LOL! Maybe that's why Intel has tech sites do those tests on LOW? Ya thinky? Whatever...anyhow.

LOW is on the LEFT side of the Pic and Ultra on the right side.

Low graphics settings to me look like Facebook games. Really that's how you determine which CPU to buy? Which CPU can run games on LOWEST SETTINGS THE FASTEST?

sc2lowvsultraterran.jpg


There is barely any demanding wireframes being drawn when using Low graphics in SC2, there is also hardly any demand being put on teh GPU look at those blurred up textures. Remind anyone of Mario 64 graphics or is it just me?

Intel works in gaming when you set the game to run and look entirely like SHIT!

Get a clue people, no one buys a PC to make games look WORSE than an XBOX!

Only sites that Intel pays (IMO) to post this crap go for that crap.

You bought a weaker CPU for PC gaming on high/ultra IMO.
 
look at the benchmarks posted in the amd poor mans powerhouse thread and you will see why I went with i3 and btw not every site only does low res benches the i3 beats the phenom 2 x6 even at 4ghz in the vast majority of games. I would link the benchmarks but its a pain in the ass on my pos phone.
 
I'm thinking that the i3 is simply just limited for games based on it's dual core design. Not to say it doesn't run some things well.... but given the fantastic deals on AMD cpus right now, for a guy on a budget like me I'm leaning towards favoring the x4, and upgrading to the x6 in a year when games will be more likely to use six cores.

What AM3/AM3+ motherboard would y'all recommend? I prefer newegg links or amazon prime links please... and thank you! Or will all these other changes - pcie 3 and such, will it just be better to get the bulldozer upgrade a year or two from now, when I should have more money to be spending on even better components anyways?
 
A_belmont said:
I'm thinking that the i3 is simply just limited for games based on it's dual core design. Not to say it doesn't run some things well.... but given the fantastic deals on AMD cpus right now, for a guy on a budget like me I'm leaning towards favoring the x4, and upgrading to the x6 in a year when games will be more likely to use six cores.

What AM3/AM3+ motherboard would y'all recommend? I prefer newegg links or amazon prime links please... and thank you! Or will all these other changes - pcie 3 and such, will it just be better to get the bulldozer upgrade a year or two from now, when I should have more money to be spending on even better components anyways?
Click to expand...

the i3 beats the 6 core phenom in the vast majority of games not sure where you are getting your conclusion from but its not based in reality. Also remember the i3 does have hyperthreading. I will post benchmarks when I get home.
 
butterfliesrpretty said:
the i3 beats the 6 core phenom in the vast majority of games not sure where you are getting your conclusion from but its not based in reality. Also remember the i3 does have hyperthreading. I will post benchmarks when I get home.
Click to expand...

The reality is simple - the x4 is cheaper, has multiple cores, and once games start supporting 6 cores more and more, the x6 will fly past the i3 in every possible way. Getting an x6 in a year will be super cheap, because noone else will be buying them unless they're upgrading from x4, and you have to admit it does seem fairly contested whether or not one of these cpu's is better than the other, so I'm going with the choice that's cheaper and has more cores. But alright, I'm very very interested in seeing these benchmarks, I do want to make the best financial decision possible here.
 
butterfliesrpretty said:
the i3 beats the 6 core phenom in the vast majority of games not sure where you are getting your conclusion from but its not based in reality. Also remember the i3 does have hyperthreading. I will post benchmarks when I get home.
Click to expand...

A_belmont said:
The reality is simple - the x4 is cheaper, has multiple cores, and once games start supporting 6 cores more and more, the x6 will fly past the i3 in every possible way. Getting an x6 in a year will be super cheap, because noone else will be buying them unless they're upgrading from x4, and you have to admit it does seem fairly contested whether or not one of these cpu's is better than the other, so I'm going with the choice that's cheaper and has more cores. But alright, I'm very very interested in seeing these benchmarks, I do want to make the best financial decision possible here.
Click to expand...

Everytime I see Hyper Threading it ONLY benefits in VIDEO ENCODING and not GAMING. That's why you'll see many people comment that gamers should buy the 2500k(No HT) over the 2600k(HT). Same situation. Your wasting MONEY on a CPU tech that is not used to enhance game performance, so why buy it? And the 2500k is out of this guys price range by 100 dollars more than a 955/965 BE. That i3 2100 is the only Intel CPU in this guys price range anyhow.

And it is 2 cores with 2 HT cores (which the HT cores do little if anything to help in games which is this guys primary reason for building a PC it sounds like. )

35031.png


As you can see in multi-threading tests the X4 970 @ 3.5GHz easily outperforms the i3 2100. I know that 965/955 will OC to 4 GHz easy which will outpace the i3 2100 by an even larger degree when it comes to multi-threaded situations. Which is what DX 11 are games are all about.

Here's a benchmark from Fallout 3 which is made by a company that uses about the same engine as Skyrim. They run this on Medium settings with NO AA/AF. The X4 970 comes out on top of the 2100 even at these gimped up settings. And remember a 955/965 will easily get 3.5 Ghz with a small multiplier adjustment and 4.0 GHz with a Voltage and Multi adjustment.

35038.png


Left for Dead - Valve / Steam game same situation

35039.png


But then you can look at different games, with different resolutions, and different graphics cards and it can go either way depending on the variables of a setup.

Like this situation the i3 2100 kicks AMD's butt in playing the game WoW that were run on lower settings. WOW The game was released on November 23, 2004, on the 10th anniversary of the Warcraft franchise.

35049.png


But this guy doesn't want to run ancient games I think. PLUS the AMD will still provide 70+ FPS the Intel does 90+. He won't even tell the difference on a 60 HZ monitor. So is it really a win?

He specifically states Skyrim, ME3, and Rage which are all UNRELEASED at this time lol! Not some game 7-8 years old that will run fine on either CPU it looks like.

The i3 2100 has it's place if you like running VERY OLD single threaded games IMO. The games he will be looking into will be multi threaded. And right now 60HZ is his sweet spot as well.

Go for the X4 B.E. and OC it with a simple multiplier adjustment in bios, enjoy.
 
teletran8 said:
Everytime I see Hyper Threading it ONLY benefits in VIDEO ENCODING and not GAMING. That's why you'll see many people comment that gamers should buy the 2500k(No HT) over the 2600k(HT). Same situation. Your wasting MONEY on a CPU tech that is not used to enhance game performance, so why buy it? And the 2500k is out of this guys price range by 100 dollars more than a 955/965 BE. That i3 2100 is the only Intel CPU in this guys price range anyhow.

And it is 2 cores with 2 HT cores (which the HT cores do little if anything to help in games which is this guys primary reason for building a PC it sounds like. )

35031.png


As you can see in multi-threading tests the X4 970 @ 3.5GHz easily outperforms the i3 2100. I know that 965/955 will OC to 4 GHz easy which will outpace the i3 2100 by an even larger degree when it comes to multi-threaded situations. Which is what DX 11 are games are all about.

Here's a benchmark from Fallout 3 which is made by a company that uses about the same engine as Skyrim. They run this on Medium settings with NO AA/AF. The X4 970 comes out on top of the 2100 even at these gimped up settings. And remember a 955/965 will easily get 3.5 Ghz with a small multiplier adjustment and 4.0 GHz with a Voltage and Multi adjustment.

35038.png


Left for Dead - Valve / Steam game same situation

35039.png


But then you can look at different games, with different resolutions, and different graphics cards and it can go either way depending on the variables of a setup.

Like this situation the i3 2100 kicks AMD's butt in playing the game WoW that were run on lower settings. WOW The game was released on November 23, 2004, on the 10th anniversary of the Warcraft franchise.

35049.png


But this guy doesn't want to run ancient games I think. PLUS the AMD will still provide 70+ FPS the Intel does 90+. He won't even tell the difference on a 60 HZ monitor. So is it really a win?

He specifically states Skyrim, ME3, and Rage which are all UNRELEASED at this time lol! Not some game 7-8 years old that will run fine on either CPU it looks like.

The i3 2100 has it's place if you like running VERY OLD single threaded games IMO. The games he will be looking into will be multi threaded. And right now 60HZ is his sweet spot as well.

Go for the X4 B.E. and OC it with a simple multiplier adjustment in bios, enjoy.
Click to expand...

Yeah old games like starcraft 2. Love how you cherry pick a few benchmarks and ignore the majority, which is what I said. Hide the truth all you want, your conclusion is just flat out wrong. OP click on these three links and decide which is faster.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-2120-2100_5.html#sect0
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/07/01/intel-core-i3-2100-review/6
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/20
 
Last edited:
butterfliesrpretty said:
Yeah old games like starcraft 2. Love how you cherry pick a few benchmarks and ignore the majority, which is what I said. Hide the truth all you want, your conclusion is just flat out wrong. OP click on these three links and decide which is faster.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-2120-2100_5.html#sect0
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/07/01/intel-core-i3-2100-review/6
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/20
Click to expand...

You know what's interesting is that you both do provide benchmarks which support your viewpoints. But, as suggested above, your benchmarks are all at 1680x1050 resolutions (not a subjective comment, an objective observation). I was also interested in the fact that you didn't offer any technical reasoning to the i3's performance, but instead threw up a few links that, you have to admit, are 'cherry picked' to show the performance of the i3. I want to believe you, I want to have good hard evidence to make my financial decision. Right now I only have a few benchmarks for the i3, and a very nicely explained reason about hyper threading not being all that important to games.
So, as of now, I'm leaning towards the x4 cpu....
 
A_belmont said:
You know what's interesting is that you both do provide benchmarks which support your viewpoints. But, as suggested above, your benchmarks are all at 1680x1050 resolutions (not a subjective comment, an objective observation). I was also interested in the fact that you didn't offer any technical reasoning to the i3's performance, but instead threw up a few links that, you have to admit, are 'cherry picked' to show the performance of the i3. I want to believe you, I want to have good hard evidence to make my financial decision. Right now I only have a few benchmarks for the i3, and a very nicely explained reason about hyper threading not being all that important to games.
So, as of now, I'm leaning towards the x4 cpu....
Click to expand...

he's pulling things out of his ass. The i3 has better ipc, better memory controller, and yes hyper threading. Who cares about all that, all that matters is the numbers period. The i3 stomps the phenom x6 in a number of gaming tests, the few that the phenom gets higher in are by a very small margin.

The resolution is slightly lower then what you use yes, but that isn't going to change the placement of who's faster on these graphs if increased. Really look at those graphs, I didn't cherry pick anything that's 3 different review sites. All coming to the same conclusion that the i3 is a FAR better chip for gaming. You would have to deny overwhelming evidence to think otherwise. Look at teletrans antics in the amd poor mans powerhouse thread and tell me again that's a guy you should take advice from.
 
With the above benchmarks in mind, I struggled with this same decision and the way I see it, there are 3 choices (in order of expensiveness):

1) Very budget oriented: $99 Superbiz i3-2100 plus low end h61 mobo for around $150 bucks. Since the i3 consumes less power (almost half as much as the X4 970) you're also looking at potentially saving on a less expensive and more efficient PSU as well as paying slightly less in electricity bills.

2) Budget quad core: AMD AM3+ route. Peace of mind of 4 cores for around $200 (mobo and CPU combo) albeit at prices that may not be justified by the incremental performance gains you might see in most games out right now and big titles in the next year or two. (Rage's minimum specs, for instance, indicate a highly optimized engine.) But...

3) Intel-quad core: I feel like if you are going to want to take the plunge and buy something with the idea of investing in a quad core for future-proof purposes (i.e., taking advantage of future games that are better equipped to take advantage of multiple cores) but still game on a budget why not spend the extra $50 on a i5-2400 ($177.99 with free shipping at Superbiz) and a cheap h61 or h67 mobo (e.g., this one for $60) for around $240 total for CPU and Mobo. Or really take the plunge and get the best bang for your buck with the i5-2500K from Superbiz* + a cheap mobo for around $260-270. I know my other post said "it all adds up" and avoid the temptation of spending the extra $50 here and there, but if you're set on quad core I think the clear advantage of Sandy Bridge over AMD's current offerings makes them a better purchase right now for the money.

*not mentioning Microcenter, as you indicated you are not near an MC. But if you are... then the i5 SB line is the way to go IMHO.
 
Last edited:
Architecture matters more than number of cores.

A modern i3 will most likely outperform older quads in gaming.
 
So..... the 2100 i3 is going to be better prepared for skyrim/rage?
I realize the games aren't out yet...well Rage might be out by the time you read this =P but that's the big question on my mind as I draw closer and closer to have the money ready for this build. If I can afford it, I'm going with an i5, but that's looking to be a bit too much. I'd LOVE to have a 2500k, but sometimes you just have to know where to draw the line with money.
 
Between the two CPUs in question I'd go for the i3 2100. Speaking from a gamer's perspective.
 
A_belmont said:
So..... the 2100 i3 is going to be better prepared for skyrim/rage?
Click to expand...

These are the specs for RAGE from Bethesda:

Minimum:

o OS: Win XP SP3, Vista, Win 7
o Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo or Equivalent AMD
o Memory: 2GB
o Hard Disk Space: 25GB
o Video Card: GeForce 8800, Radeon HD 4200

Recommended:

o OS: Win XP SP3, Vista, Win 7
o Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad or Equivalent AMD
o Memory: 4GB
o Hard Disk Space: 25GB
o Video Card: GeForce 9800 GTX, ATI Radeon HD 5550

These are pretty low recommended specs. Don't be confused by the "core 2 quad" recommendation, core 2 quad references old hardware such as the Q6600. An i3 (or a Phenom X4 970) will handily outperform the recommended CPU. If you look at benchmarks both processors beat the Q6600 in gaming benchmarks. (You'll notice the i3 also beating the quad core Phenoms in many of the benchmarks.)

As others have pointed out don't get too carried away with quad core over dual core. My opinion, take it with a grain of salt, you probably won't see a huge step forward in optimization of games for quad core CPUs until we have a next generation of consoles that give developers more breathing room. I'd say buy whichever combo is cheaper so you can spend the money on a good GPU. Provided you have a good GPU I think either of these processors will be fine for the next 1-2 years at least. (Probably more, honestly.)
 
A few more, BTW if you get a 955/965 you just go into bios and change the multiplier up 1 or 2 points in the bios screen to get over 3.5 GHz like the X4 970 in these benchmarks.

(955 has a 16x multiplier so raise it to 18 and you would get 200fsbx18x multiplier = 3.6 GHz even more performance than a 970 here.)

A 965 has a 17x multiplier so raise it to 19. 200 fsb x 19 = 3.8 GHz.)

I'm only posting the 1920 res ones, but in both Metro 2033 and ALien VS Pred the 970 wins @ 2560 res and 1650 also. CHeck it OuT H8ERZ. :)


Aliens%20Vs%20Predator%201920.png



Metro%202033%201920.png


Like I said earlier DX 11 FIRST PERSON SHOOTER games MAKE USE 4 Cores.

And if they didn't (BTW they do) how is the AMD X4 getting better MINIMUM and MAXIMUM frame(rate)s per second in these tests with FAR LES IPC? (LMAO!)

Obviously the X4 is Better than a 2 Core / i3 2100 in DX11 FPS Shooters.

Handbrake Encoding (Lower scores are better here)

HandBrake.png


MPEG 2 Encoding (Lower scores are better here)
MainConcept.png


Gee golly whizz, 4 real cores WITH LESS IPC, beats 2 real cores WITH GODLY IPC and 2 fake cores. DUh.

We can do benchmarks all day people.
TELL ME AGAIN WHY HE SHOULD PAY MORE FOR LESS?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top