High-end gaming with ivy bridge i3

SinShiva said:
Ah, damn. Well, like I said. I'll probably use this to hold me over for about a year. By then, I'll likely get an i5 for cheaper if itbecomes a necessity and pass the system along, and start a new build
Click to expand...

I'm with you on this. The i3 is not a speed demon, by [H] standards, but it certainly gets the job done well in terms of gaming if you are willing to accept a handful of shortcomings. :cool:

Earlier this year, I was running an i7 3930K and GTX 580 SLI setup. While it was nice, it was a power hog and completely overkill for just gaming on a single monitor. I sold off the parts after a few months of use, and was able to apply the money to build several "lower-end" systems that now comprise the systems in my sig. I've had the chance to play with Celerons, Pentiums, i3's, and i5's across the Sandy Brdige/Ivy Bridge platforms, and I have to say that there are no real losers here - there just has to be the right perspective applied to the CPU of choice. Sure, the i5's and i7's are significantly faster in a number of applications and games, but there is a point where those differences become a rather moot.
 
covertash said:
I'm with you on this. The i3 is not a speed demon, by [H] standards, but it certainly gets the job done well in terms of gaming if you are willing to accept a handful of shortcomings. :cool:

Earlier this year, I was running an i7 3930K and GTX 580 SLI setup. While it was nice, it was a power hog and completely overkill for just gaming on a single monitor. I sold off the parts after a few months of use, and was able to apply the money to build several "lower-end" systems that now comprise the systems in my sig. I've had the chance to play with Celerons, Pentiums, i3's, and i5's across the Sandy Brdige/Ivy Bridge platforms, and I have to say that there are no real losers here - there just has to be the right perspective applied to the CPU of choice. Sure, the i5's and i7's are significantly faster in a number of applications and games, but there is a point where those differences become a rather moot.
Click to expand...

It depends on what you need. Its just so easy to OC a 2500K/3570K that if you want a mid to high end gaming/CPU, then it works good from stock to OC'd.

The I3 is a good entry level/low end CPU but its not for everybody.
 
Hagrid said:
It depends on what you need. Its just so easy to OC a 2500K/3570K that if you want a mid to high end gaming/CPU, then it works good from stock to OC'd.

The I3 is a good entry level/low end CPU but its not for everybody.
Click to expand...

Completely agreed.

As long as the OP is comfortable with the performance data that has been presented, and knows the limitations, the i3 can be a good buy.
 
If i'm not ocing for a hold-me-over build, i can save a good chunk of change using an h77 chipset, cheaper cpu and stock cooling. unless we're talking doubling framerates, i feel that's a good 200 saved until I can go all-out on a longer lasting build for myself.
 
I don't see the point of buying a cheaper system to save $200, just so you can build a faster system later. Why not just save for another month or two and buy what you really want? The price difference between an i3 and an i5 can't be that dramatic, and personally if you are going to spend $300 on a GPU I wouldn't gimp your system with a dual core. Dual cores are adequate now for most games but that is going to be changing in the next couple of years. You're just going to end up spending more money later.

Especially since you want to game at 120hz... frankly I think your priorities do not align with your budget.
 
finances permitting, i'd go for a similarly clocked non-oc'able i5. danny_bui said it before, i'm planning too early. the goal is to get the most for ~700usd. it seemed like bf3 mp would be the only game noticeably bottlenecked by cpu, were i to get a 660ti, though. this machine would likely get passed to a family member about a year from now, around which i'd likely have a spending limit of double/1400usd for a brand new machine.
 
SinShiva said:
finances permitting, i'd go for a similarly clocked non-oc'able i5. danny_bui said it before, i'm planning too early. the goal is to get the most for ~700usd. it seemed like bf3 mp would be the only game noticeably bottlenecked by cpu, were i to get a 660ti, though. this machine would likely get passed to a family member about a year from now, around which i'd likely have a spending limit of double/1400usd for a brand new machine.
Click to expand...



The i3 is a good choice. But you're only saving like $30 if you opt out of the i5 2400. That's like, enough to buy one half of a game. Or a six pack and two burrito bowl combos at Chipotle.You're really not going to miss that $30, but you will miss that 30fps in BF3.
 
Rizen said:
I don't see the point of buying a cheaper system to save $200, just so you can build a faster system later. Why not just save for another month or two and buy what you really want? The price difference between an i3 and an i5 can't be that dramatic, and personally if you are going to spend $300 on a GPU I wouldn't gimp your system with a dual core. Dual cores are adequate now for most games but that is going to be changing in the next couple of years. You're just going to end up spending more money later.

Especially since you want to game at 120hz... frankly I think your priorities do not align with your budget.
Click to expand...

Agreed, though it seems the OP is stuck on the i3 for one reason or another, even after being informed that it's not going to get him the performance he was looking for. I realize everyone has a budget, but the cost difference, as has been brought up a few times, is pretty neglagible, particularily when comparing against lower end i5's which would still be a better option than the i3.
 
I mean, if you bought a 7870 instead of the 660ti, and put that money towards an i5, you might net better performance. DEFINITELY in BF3. I get better average performance with a single GTX 460 and an i7 than I did with TWO GTX 460's and an i3 2120.

I guess what bothers me about this is that it's TOTALLY reasonable and within OP's stated budget to go with an i5 2400, yet he refuses to. I mean, it's his money I guess, but I did the exact same thing (used the i3 as a place holder), only to regret it within a month after experiencing dissapointing BF3 performance.

If you need to OP, I'd go with a GPU that's $30 cheaper so I could get an i5. Also, consider buying a cheaper motherboard. I bought an Asrock Extreme 4 z77 board for $114 shipped from Newegg. What kind of motherboard are you considering?
 
i said i'd go with an i5 if it were within budget. ultimately, the point of this thread was that there's nowhere on the internet that indicates exactly what performance an ivy bridge i3 coupled with a 660ti/7950 would get in MP BF3, and if somebody out there had such a configuration, i wanted to see what kind of performance they were getting.

YT of an i5 4.5ghz + 7850 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3LHYpYYJd8
YT of an ath 2x4 640 3ghz + 7850 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH8m5g9wVYk
YT of an i7 2600k 3.4ghz + 7850 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYtcLIv190E

all running maxed and getting very similar framerates in mp bf3 at 1080p. explain it.
 
Last edited:
Well first of all, it's Youtube. But I'll humor you for now but for future reference youtube videos aren't solid evidence for the performance of a PC since they do not properly benchmark the game's run-through nor do they ever provide the full information.

Second, here's a breakdown of the issues:

Video 1:
1) No mention of the resolution he's playing at
2) No mention of how exactly he's measuring the FPS
3) No mention of whether he's playing a 32 or 64 player game.
4) Doesn't denote whether or not the FPS was with or without the recording software running.
5) No mention of driver versions

Video 2:
1) No mention of how exactly he's measuring the FPS
2) No mention of whether he's playing a 32 or 64 player game.
3) You can easily tell that the game is rather choppy at several points during the game. So even if he's hitting the same FPS, he's not getting consistent smoothness.
4) Doesn't denote whether or not the FPS was with or without the recording software running.
5) No mention of driver versions

Video 3:
1) As you said, not the HD 7850.
2) Most of the video is singleplayer. Nor does he note whether that measured FPS was from Single or Multiplayer.
3) No mention of how exactly he's measuring the FPS
4) No mention of whether he's playing a 32 or 64 player game.
5) No mention of driver versions

Video 4:
1) This video was too long and I can't stand the narrator's mannerisms.
2) This guy's video was better done than the others (includes how he's getting the FPS (MSI Afterburner) and the actual driver revision)
3) No mention of whether he's playing a 32 or 64 player game.

So in other words, different drivers, different methodologies of how to measure the FPS, different amount of players, different maps altogether, and numerous lack of info ensures that you cannot use all four YT videos as solid comparisons to one another.

EDIT: By methodologies of measuring the FPS, I mean what software they're using to measure said FPS, how long the FPS was measured, when and where the FPS was first and last recorded, whether or not the run-throughs were done multiple times to get a more average view of the performance, etc.
 
Last edited:
i had to remove the i3 link, guy said it was sp. it was using a 5870 rather than a 7850, anyway
 
SinShiva said:
i said i'd go with an i5 if it were within budget. ultimately, the point of this thread was that there's nowhere on the internet that indicates exactly what performance an ivy bridge i3 coupled with a 660ti/7950 would get in MP BF3, and if somebody out there had such a configuration, i wanted to see what kind of performance they were getting.

YT of an i5 4.5ghz + 7850 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3LHYpYYJd8
YT of an ath 2x4 640 3ghz + 7850 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH8m5g9wVYk
YT of an i3 2100 + 5870 (not the 7850, i know) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1JKv8L-SMg
YT of an i7 2600k 3.4ghz + 7850 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYtcLIv190E

all running maxed and getting very similar framerates in mp bf3 at 1080p. explain it.
Click to expand...

They're not playing 64 player maps, so they're more often GPU limited than CPU limited.

What you can't seem to get through your mind is that 64 player maps will eat up a lot of CPU processing power.

You want real proof? Here's your proof from our very own forum.

i5 2500k with 4 cores at 3.4 ghz: 72 min, 174 max, 116.093 average
i5 2500k with 4 cores at 4.2 ghz: 70 min, 201 max, 136.183 average
i5 2500k with 2 cores at 3.4 ghz: 32 min, 115 max, 66.47 average
i5 2500k with 2 cores at 4.2 ghz: 51 min, 153 max, 82.023 average

Done with 560ti's in SLI.

If this doesn't convince you... then I give up. Just do whatever you want.
 
SinShiva said:
i5 at 2 cores != i3
Click to expand...

/facepalm

i5 with 2 cores at 4.2 ghz >> than i3 stuck at 3.4

If you're dead set on the i3 and are just trying to rationalize getting it (which it seems like you are), then just get it. There's no point in wasting more time arguing.
 
SinShiva said:
i5 at 2 cores != i3
Click to expand...
In addition to what Tsumi said, It has not been shown, AFAIK, that the HT feature of the Core i3 would make that much of a dramatic difference to where an i5 with two cores would not be a sufficient stand-in for the Core i3 in BF3 64player multiplayer.

If you can find a review showing that there's a performance difference between the Core i3 with HT and Core i3 with HT disabled in BF3 64 player multiplayer, I'm all ears. Until then, the Core i5 with two cores disabled is still a solid concrete showing of how the Core i3 will perform. There's actual info/numbers backing that statement up. Not so what you just said there.
 
Danny Bui said:
It has not been shown AFAIK that the HT feature of the Core i3 would make that much of a dramatic difference to where an i5 with two cores would not be a sufficient stand-in for the Core i3.

If you can find a review showing that there's a performance difference between the Core i3 with HT and Core i3 with HT disabled in BF3 64 player multiplayer, I'm all ears. Until then, the Core i5 with two cores disabled is still a solid showing of how the Core i3 will perform.
Click to expand...

i believe i read somewhere that bf3 would make use of 4 threads even in an HT scenario. not sure if it uses more than 4 threads. i'll see if i can find it
 
SinShiva said:
i believe i read somewhere that bf3 would make use of 4 threads even in an HT scenario. not sure if it uses more than 4 threads. i'll see if i can find it
Click to expand...

HT adds at most 20% to overall performance, and generally less.
 
SinShiva said:
i believe i read somewhere that bf3 would make use of 4 threads even in an HT scenario. not sure if it uses more than 4 threads. i'll see if i can find it
Click to expand...

While that is true that BF3 can use quite a few threads, what Tsumi said is still true: It's still a "i5 with 2 cores at 4.2 ghz >> than i3 stuck at 3.4". So even if HT helps out, the sheer fact of the increased clock speed will more than make up for the lack of HT with the 2500K. Remember that while BF loves cores and threads, it also loves clock speed as well.

EDIT: Totally slipped my mind: why are you continuing this discussion when you've said in your General Hardware thread that you're not planning on buying till six months from now? In other words, no point in talking about CPUs now when it's not absolutely certain that those will be the very same CPUs you'll be buying six months from now.
 
i just wanted to know the i3's limits :p

[edit] specifically with a 7950/660ti ranged card

[edit2] i save before i complete my thoughts; something i was considering was should i stick with the i3 for this build, i'd take the 660ti with me and sli it in a new build. again, intending to hand this comp off. for their purposes, it sounds like the i3 would perform perfectly

[edit3] also, i know i said 6 months, but i'm gonna try and squeeze it in ~3 months

[edit4] i haven't slept in ~36 hours, so i'm going slightly mad. doing that now
 
Last edited:
that is probably true, at least as far as prices are concerned. haswell comes out Q2, which means fall, right? that's a bit less than a year from now, but it'll be in good time for when i can do a higher end build. i enjoyed my 275 sli, i imagine a 660ti sli would be awesome

[edit] point being, that when i do build this, an i5, hell maybe even a k + z77 + cooling will be in budget, but i don't want to lose a decent ssd to make it happen [/edit]

[edit2/] and i like the idea of taking the 660ti with me for a brand new build
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top