i3-2100 an gaming opinions

@ IntelEnthusiast.
I don't thing that hyperthreading have any effect in gaming. Now why do you say so?
 
Muis said:
@ IntelEnthusiast.
I don't thing that hyperthreading have any effect in gaming. Now why do you say so?
Click to expand...

Hyperthreading is logical cores it is a dual core but can Process 4 threads like a quad core, And yes the 2100 does beat all of the current AMD stock for stock.
 
Don't you mean clock for clock? But some people have said that hyperthreading has no influence in gaming? Or was that just statements of ignorance?
 
Muis said:
Don't you mean clock for clock? But some people have said that hyperthreading has no influence in gaming? Or was that just statements of ignorance?
Click to expand...

It can. If a game is using a lot of CPU, a dual core with hyper-threading will deliver a smoother gaming experience than one without, as background processes may require some CPU time while you're gaming.

This doesn't really apply as much to quad cores.
 
Yeah but that has more of a indirect influence on the games smoothness.

For example the game you're playing can utilise 4 cores, can that logical cores serve as to ekstra "cores" and boost performance? If it is somewhat thru then quad cores can be somewhat overrated to an extend to the majority of gamers?
 
For a basic gaming system an i3-2100 is a very good budget buy, you get a lot for your dollar.

I process lots of video files (300-400 GB a day), primarily transcoding, so for me the extra overclock and 4 true cores is worth it. If I didn't need to do that I would just use an i3-2100 / i3-2300.
 
Muis said:
Don't you mean clock for clock? But some people have said that hyperthreading has no influence in gaming? Or was that just statements of ignorance?
Click to expand...

It will help indirectly, And yes clock for clock it is faster.

But as a side note you should tone down. This is a thread asking for help not to start flaming.
 
I apologize for sounding high toned but I'm a bit frustrated at the moment. (Personal stuff)
 
Muis said:
Don't you mean clock for clock? But some people have said that hyperthreading has no influence in gaming? Or was that just statements of ignorance?
Click to expand...

Most games TODAY are not heavily multi-threaded (one or two main processing threads), so hyperthreading makes little to no difference for most games.

But some games use more than two main threads, and it's expected that more games in the future will follow. In this case, if you have more than two high-priority threads accessing only two cores, you get increased context switches.

With hyperthreading, there are up to two tasks assigned to each processor, and when one task blocks you can switch between them in a single clock cycle (normally takes tons of cycles). The other benefit is you can *somewhat* execute both tasks at the same time: if processing blocks are unused in a clock cycle, hyperthreading allows you to schedule operations from the other task.

If you take away hyperthreading, context switching of 3+ heavy processing tasks gives you more task switching overhead, and will often result in lower performance. This is why the Core i3 is worth the extra cost over the Sandy Bridge Pentium lineup: it's incredibly fast for today's games, and will more-gracefully handle future games (that have more threads). Of course, this is not a catch-all: the benefits of having hyperthreading depend as much on the type of processing load as they do on the number of threads. But it's not a bad investment to make.
 
Last edited:
Muis said:
I apologize for sounding high toned but I'm a bit frustrated at the moment. (Personal stuff)
Click to expand...

I hear you, We all have those lol and i hope it gets better for you, Default is right about the hyperthread thing is correct.
 
A i3-2100 @ 3.1GHz and a Gigabyte UD3 achieve a
Processor integer performance of 5699 in Geekbench and
Processor floating point performance of 5722

My ASRock 870 and X3 455@ 4.0GHz achieve a
Processor integer performance of 6649 in Geekbench and
Processor floating point performance of 7381

Now on my CPU I have a Noctua cooler that cost me 90.00 dollars extra but that Gigabyte board runs around 150.00 where my ASRock was 90.00. My X3 455 CPU was 85.00 where a i3-2100 is 125.00.

So the added MOBO costs for SB is 60.00 dollars, and the CPU would be an extra 40.00 with a 2100 build with a stock cooler.

So actually the X3 455 with a Noctua cooler vs a i3-2100 SB rig costs me 10.00 dollars less than a i3-2100 build, and achieves higher FLOPS CPU performance, and Integer performance. And I can unlock the 4th core on my CPU if I want hotter temps, and even higher CPU scores.

If only the i3-2100 could OC like a "K" series chip I would buy into the SB hype. It doesn't work that way on these low end SB CPU's tho.
 
Would it be pointless to run a i3-2100 on a Z68 board? I'm piecing together a system, and going for m- ATX this time around.
 
pretty much, the advantage to the z boards is they allow video out and overclocking, something you had to choose between on some of the h chip sets. good for an upgrade path later to a i5xxk or i7xxk if you choose. it wouldnt be a bad thing to buy one if you wanted, just unused features.
 
Ehh, I was also considering future upgrades. Wait until the SB i7 starts nearing it's end, and pop in a new CPU for quite the upgrade. But, regarding the i3, I'm actually looking at running a speedy SSD (Crucial?) and want to make sure that I get max performance from the peripherals at the same time.

Sometimes it feels like I'm doddering along with this C2Q 9550. :/
 
If you wanted to use the SSD caching of the Z68 chipset, then that would provide some benefit. It could also give you more freedom in the future if you want to switch to a K-series sandy bridge cpu. It will not, however, allow you to overclock an i3-2100. If I was looking to keep the costs down, I'd probably stick with an H67-based board if a 2100 was my goal.
 
Nope. Wasn't looking to OC the cpu at this time. Just provide a decent upgrade path when games really *need* it, and for the time, keep a cool quiet system.
 
Ruoh said:
Ehh, I was also considering future upgrades. Wait until the SB i7 starts nearing it's end, and pop in a new CPU for quite the upgrade. But, regarding the i3, I'm actually looking at running a speedy SSD (Crucial?) and want to make sure that I get max performance from the peripherals at the same time.

Sometimes it feels like I'm doddering along with this C2Q 9550. :/
Click to expand...

As long as that CPU is 3.4GHz and matched with DDR3 I don't think you should.

I'd go with the Crucial M4 and a graphics card 2x avg FPS bench scores increase, to whatever is your current GPU.
 
teletran8 said:
A i3-2100 @ 3.1GHz and a Gigabyte UD3 achieve a
Processor integer performance of 5699 in Geekbench and
Processor floating point performance of 5722

My ASRock 870 and X3 455@ 4.0GHz achieve a
Processor integer performance of 6649 in Geekbench and
Processor floating point performance of 7381

Now on my CPU I have a Noctua cooler that cost me 90.00 dollars extra but that Gigabyte board runs around 150.00 where my ASRock was 90.00. My X3 455 CPU was 85.00 where a i3-2100 is 125.00.

So the added MOBO costs for SB is 60.00 dollars, and the CPU would be an extra 40.00 with a 2100 build with a stock cooler.

So actually the X3 455 with a Noctua cooler vs a i3-2100 SB rig costs me 10.00 dollars less than a i3-2100 build, and achieves higher FLOPS CPU performance, and Integer performance. And I can unlock the 4th core on my CPU if I want hotter temps, and even higher CPU scores.

If only the i3-2100 could OC like a "K" series chip I would buy into the SB hype. It doesn't work that way on these low end SB CPU's tho.
Click to expand...

You went in the wrong direction. A Core i3 beats a Phenom II x4 in most games.
Why care about geekbench and other goofy stats?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/20
 
Man i hear people saying its the best budget gaming processor but for like $40-50 more in some places the 2400 or 25 nonK runs voyages of circles around the 2100 if you can afford the difference.
 
teletran8 said:
So the added MOBO costs for SB is 60.00 dollars, and the CPU would be an extra 40.00 with a 2100 build with a stock cooler.
Click to expand...

No. The board cost is the same. This AsRock H67 is $80.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157234

Surely you won't object to an Intel AsRock board to compare with your AMD AsRock board? And it has all the important trimmings: USB 3, SATA 6, etc.

And since you can't overclock the Core i3, anything more powerful is worthless. But if you think you might upgrade to Core i5 K series in the future, then you can drop $20 more on this (assuming you will use discrete video in the gaming build):

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157249

So, let's do the math:

Motherboard cost:so close let's just call it the same. Your AsRock board is sandwiched right in-between the H67 and P67 motherboards.

CPU cost: Sandy += $40

Cooler cost (required to overclock X3 to make it competitive): Sandy -= $90

So overclocking an X3 costs a little more than a Core i3 (there are some good $40 coolers out there), but to reach extravagant speeds that make it competitive requires $50 more (Noctua).
 
Last edited:
I get 17-49 temps in the blasted summer heat of Ohio with this Noctua X3 combo. :)

The i3-2100 is a great chip also, just go for the z68 IMO so you can drop in a 2500k or better later on when the games you play are using all 4 to your advantage. That's a good upgrade path IMO. Also my board has 8x/8x CFX slots the board you mention cannot do that, and the SATA ports are not the sleek side mounted. That's the thing with a 2100 as well if your going to move up to a 2500k/2600k type CPU later and you have a H67 you will have to get another mobo to replace the non-overclocked one. So if I was building on 1155 I would just get a z68 with SLI/CFX, but that will run a little more (150-200 but they should all be good boards for the future). In my shoes I can upgrade from my X3 @ 4.0GHz to an X6 @ 4.0+GHz for cheap on the same mobo. And likewise on the lga 1155 platform, when you go for the 2500k/2600k your going to want a Noctua by then anyhow lolz to get it to 4.5GHz+ with minty cool temps. ;) It's all relative, do what you like they're both great budget choices the 2100 is 65 watt and the X3 is 95 watt so you will save a dollar a month on your electric bill with the 2100.

It's always good to think about when you might need more cores and is that possible with your mobo or not, to avoid another cost to your system. So you could take that money and afford an ssd or another gfx card or something. I think far to many people overspend on CPU's instead of building low end with the intention later on to have a smooth upgrade path when it comes to the CPU. Z68 and AM3+ both seem like good options to me.
zyiwsn.png
 
The i3 2100 is an excellent budget gaming chip and performs extremely well relative to its price point. I wouldn't regret the purchase at all.
 
I'm eyeballing the 2105, as far as I can tell, it just has the updated IGP, correct?
 
defaultluser said:
No. The board cost is the same. This AsRock H67 is $80.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157234

Surely you won't object to an Intel AsRock board to compare with your AMD AsRock board? And it has all the important trimmings: USB 3, SATA 6, etc.

And since you can't overclock the Core i3, anything more powerful is worthless. But if you think you might upgrade to Core i5 K series in the future, then you can drop $20 more on this (assuming you will use discrete video in the gaming build):

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157249

So, let's do the math:

Motherboard cost:so close let's just call it the same. Your AsRock board is sandwiched right in-between the H67 and P67 motherboards.

CPU cost: Sandy += $40

Cooler cost (required to overclock X3 to make it competitive): Sandy -= $90

So overclocking an X3 costs a little more than a Core i3 (there are some good $40 coolers out there), but to reach extravagant speeds that make it competitive requires $50 more (Noctua).
Click to expand...

The chances of getting an Athlon II past 3.5 is extremely low, regardless of cooler. They don't overclock well at all, and plenty of those that have gotten past have had the chip degrade to the point 3.5 won't stick anymore. Happened with all of my Athlon II's. The voltage required for anything past 3.5 is insanely high considering whats in an Athlon II.

I've had an Athlon II x2, x3 and x4 and the X3 performs more like the x2 then the x4 in multithreaded games for the most part. It really is a disappointing little chip.
 
The i3 2105 has the 12 EU HD Graphics 3000 that is included on the 2500K and 2600K parts. That is an upgrade over the 6 EU HD Graphics 2000 included in the i3 2100. That is apparently the only change between those two. Guess that makes it a nice match for people that want to get by with the integrated graphics (maybe a HTPC with light gaming?). For those that expect to use a discrete graphics card, the 2105 offers no advantage over the 2100.
 
Right now very few games can tap into the more than 3 threads. So for a budget minded processor the Intel® Core™ i3-2100 will provide some great results. Since it has hyper-threading you have 4 threads of support from it. Now let’s be clear on this those extra threads from the hyper-threading won’t give you the performance of an Intel Core i5 processor but they will help. So unless you really need more threads for multi-tasking or doing video or audio work should work very well for you. I would go with the Intel Core i3-2105 just to have the Intel HD 3000 Graphic as a backup for whatever video card you select.
 
IntelEnthusiast said:
Right now very few games can tap into the more than 3 threads. So for a budget minded processor the Intel® Core™ i3-2100 will provide some great results. Since it has hyper-threading you have 4 threads of support from it. Now let’s be clear on this those extra threads from the hyper-threading won’t give you the performance of an Intel Core i5 processor but they will help. So unless you really need more threads for multi-tasking or doing video or audio work should work very well for you. I would go with the Intel Core i3-2105 just to have the Intel HD 3000 Graphic as a backup for whatever video card you select.
Click to expand...

Exactly my thought. Even if you are doing transcoding on occasion, it's not as though it's slower then hell anyway. I'm looking more and more for ways of limiting my power usage is why I posted my original question. I'm looking for more efficiency out of newer tech then raw power.
 
E4g1e said:
The Pentium G CPUs do fall behind a bit, largely due to their smaller L3 cache as compared to the i3. In addition, unlike the i3, the Pentium G does not have HyperThreading, which limits the Pentium G to two threads. Thus, a Pentium G-based system could choke if you're running an anti-virus scanner in the background at the same time as playing a CPU-intensive game.
Click to expand...

Actually, the G620 has the same amount of L3 as the i3-2100 (3 MB). Where the G620 loses is the lack of HTT and the 500 MHz (at stock) clock deficit compared to i3. Also, G620 has a lower amount of memory bandwidth compared to i3 (1066 MHz vs. 1333 MHz for i3). If background processing performance is that critical (because you do that much multitasking/multithreading), I'd recommend i5 over i3 because you substitute two real cores for the virtual cores that HTT represents in i3.

Pentium G620 - http://ark.intel.com/products/53480?wapkw=intel pentium processors

i3-2100 - http://ark.intel.com/products/53422?wapkw=core i3-2100
 
i've had an i3-2100 for about 2 months now. i was using an 8600GTS as a video card for a while, but it started burning out on me. i have 8GB of gskill ram, and upgraded to an MSI N460GTX. every game i have tried playing i can play at max detail and the i3 doesn't even break a sweat. if someone was on the fence about an i3-2100, i would tell them to buy it. for the price you honestly can't beat it, it's a wonderful processor.
 
I should have bought the i5 2500/k instead. it is starting to stutter in new AAA games.
 
lol 5 years later you are getting some issues with only 2 cores ;), grab an upgraded 1155 quad core from ebay and call it a day.
 
Yeah dude, the Core i3 was a pretty good value back in the day, so I'm not surprised you got over 4 years of use out of it! In fact, that's why I recommended it: you'd get a graceful transition to quad-thread games :D

And now you can either fish around Ebay for a Core i5/i7 (Ivy Bridge should work with a bios update) or build a new system (if you have an upgrade itch you want to scratch).

But you definitely need a quad core, or potentially a Core i7 (8 threads). The number of games using more than four threads has gone up in the last year (in response to the consoles, which have 6 cores usable for games).
 
Core i3-6100 still the best budget in CPU for gaming in its $ range, way better than FX 8320E
 
a3venom said:
Core i3-6100 still the best budget in CPU for gaming in its $ range, way better than FX 8320E
Click to expand...

This is true without a doubt, and since the consoles are fixed hardware, the i3 will continue to be a good choice for some time to come!

And the unlocked overclock gives you the option to make your chip last longer (at the cost of power consumption). This makes it an even better deal!
 
Well yes the i3-6100 is a great cpu, probably on par with an i5 2400 sandybridge ~$100 ebay, the problem is the platform upgrade cost, which destroys the value proposition. So basically new mobo and ddr4 ram, versus a drop in cpu.
 
rhansen5_99 said:
Well yes the i3-6100 is a great cpu, probably on par with an i5 2400 sandybridge ~$100 ebay, the problem is the platform upgrade cost, which destroys the value proposition. So basically new mobo and ddr4 ram, versus a drop in cpu.
Click to expand...

Exactly, he should get an i5 or i7upgrade like I said in my first post :D

The additional value of the Core i5/i7: you can bump the turbo boost by 400 mhz (Sandy and Ivy Bridge only).
 
Oh no, i wasnt suggesting him to buy that, i am just saying that these still work well.
I have seen very cheap 2600Ks on ebay which are a huge upgrade even if no OC. Probably can get way cheaper on craigslist etc..
Even a locked 3770, 3570 etc go in almost the same range as the sandy ones and a lot of people clearing them out right now.
 
Yeah, I'd aim for i7 or just upgrade the whole thing. You might as well get all the performance you can get out of the platform, or ditch and start over.

And I imagine price on the Sandy/Ivy k models have come down recently, with Skylake finally surpassing the single-threaded behemoth of 5 GHz Sandy Bridge overclocks!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top