The i7 completes the task in 91.5s
The FX completes the task in 116s
The i7 is not 21% faster than the FX [1 - (91.5/116)]
The i7 is 26% faster than the FX (116/91.5)
I understand there's 10 numbers and it's hard for some of you to master them all but it's something you'll probably have to...
He's already getting a dedicated video card and the i3 has superior CPU performance. Why should he get the A10 when he's not going to use it's iGPU, the primary reason to get the A10.
More bad math.:whiste:
The i7 completing the task in 79% of the time it would take the FX which is not the same as the i7 being 21% faster.
I guess I must use an example for AMD fanboy:
Assuming constant speed and no acceleration...
Car A travels 1/4 Mile in 12 seconds
Car B travels 1/4 Mile...
No, you're wrong.
The FX (116s) takes 24.5 seconds longer to complete the task than the i7 (91.5s) which means the i7 completes the task 26.7% faster; you want to divide the additional time the FX take by the time the i7 takes. By your awful math the i7 completes the task in 79% of the time it...
With his terrible assumption you can just add up the total times for all the workloads.
In heavily threaded applications the i7-3970X is ~57% faster than the FX-8350.
So it is very possible that it is running at 4.1 Ghz in games, especially lightly threaded ones where only two threads are needed?!?
Like I said, 4.1 Ghz to 4.2 Ghz, bravo.:whiste:
Yes, I'm completely serious that the i3 offers distinct advantages over it's AMD counterparts such as lower power...
I would get a bigger monitor; something with 1600x900+ resolution.
You don't need that big of a PSU; 400W from a quality PSU should be plenty even if you decide to upgrade your video card and CPU.
8GB of RAM is also recommended if the price difference is similar to the US.
So you went from...
My original point is the i3 will be just as fast as the FX-6300 in gaming while consuming less power and offering a better upgrade path.
This is coming from a guy who claims BD was faster than an i7 for gaming...
I would hardly say there is a "winner" in that link.
Funny thing is you spent so much time finding this one link when every Vishera review (and Bench is not a proper review) shows that the best case scenarios AMD CPUs match Intel in games and in worse case scenarios they are significantly...
You're just saying this without any substance or empirical data such as reviews to back it up.
I can claim a i386 is faster than i7-3960X if we didn't use facts.:whiste:
AES encryption, 3D rendering and high-quality video encoding are specialized tasks none of which the OP actually mentioned. People who do tons of rendering/encoding are probably doing it for their job in which case they're using an i7/Xeons and skipping AMD.
I don't understand why you think...
Obviously. That's why there's the i3.
We were talking about matching up processors with a more powerful GPU in the future then he might as well skip AMD altogether.
As the PD/BD reviews have shown, that's just not true. AMD CPUs will still bottleneck single GPUs in CPU-dependent scenarios...
A non-K i5 is still faster than the FX-6100 at any speed. If we're talking about options he can drop in a $240 Xeon E3-1230 which is quad core and hyper-threaded.
Exactly. You can run a i7+GTX 680 with all the settings max with decent frames, but the dips are unacceptable to anyone serious about shooters.
Then again BF3 doesn't really have much of a competitive scene.
LOL @ people aiming for 30-45 fps. Casuals.:whiste:
For your purposes there should be no difference between your X3 and any faster CPU except for video conversion in which case a Phenom II X6 will outperform the FX-6300.
This fanboy used to claim the FX-8150 was faster than an i7 for gaming. You can completely disregard everything he posts considering he either has no clue what he's talking about or is just an AMD fanboy, probably both.
But yeah, any i5 > any AMD CPU for games.
Find me any gaming bench from a legitimate where the 960T is superior to the i3 in any game. You can't seem to do this simple task when there's millions of benchmarks out there for millions of games.
i3 > Phenom II, butthurt?
*Waits for more garbage reviews that says the Phenom II 955 is 30%...
Let me make this very clear. Your blog is absolute crap and is purposely misleading.
1-2 fps does not count. I have shown multiple instances where the i3 is significantly faster than Phenom II in gaming. I have yet to see one bench from a credible review site that shows the Phenom II is...
So apparently nobody can provide even one benchmark from a legitimate review site where the Phenom II, overclocked or not, beats the i3-21xx in any game? I guess that's to be expected.
It's also against the TOS to post things that are inaccurate:
Someone should go on vacation for posting...
So none of the people at legitimate review sites know more than you about overclocking and computer hardware? I'm sure almost all of them are more technically knowledgeable than you.
There isn't an i3 on that chart so I fail to see how that is even relevant.
Even if we assume you overclock to...
Bench is somewhat inaccurate: the only game where the Phenom II "wins" is L4D2 which we know is dual-threaded. In other games the performance gap between a Phenom II and i3 is huge:
If you're overclocking the Phenom II it will cost more considering you will need a decent motherboard and CPU...
You are correct in your assumption that it's like other Phenom II.
Yes a quad core Phenom II is faster in encoding than the i3 but we're talking about gaming, in which case an overclocked Phenom II is still slower than the i3 in some games.
Your personal blog does not count as a legitimate...
And now the 1100T is the same as a i5-2500K in games.:sneaky:
Find me any gaming bench where the 960T is superior to the i3 in any game. You can't seem to do this simple task when there's millions of benchmarks out there for millions of games.
Find me any gaming bench where the 960T is superior to the i3 in any game.
So the i3 is just as faster or faster than Phenom II in every gaming benchmark so far but that doesn't hold for BF3. That's likely.:rolleyes:
Seems to work fine to me.
I can't find any benches where the i3 is slower than AMD chips in any games, from legitimate review sites anyways. I have already shown multiple instances where AMD chips fall behind the i3 in gaming.
Find me a bench where the 960T is superior to the i3 in any game.
Again, your blog was laughed out of these forums because they're complete crap. The truth is your blog is fail.
I linked you the latest benchmark guide from the AMD website, as in their official website (blog). You linked the old benchmark guide from 2011 off of a secondary review site.
Where are you linking this crap from? The latest from AMD's official gaming blog recommends a i7-3770K for the "secondary" platform:
http://blogs.amd.com/play/2012/07/05/nexuiz-amd-benchmark-guide/3/
While we're on the topic of dual-GPU setups, here's a reminder of how inferior AMD FX is...
Nor is any AMD chip "logical" for BF3.
I guess if you're stuck with a 3 year old Phenom II you'll have to settle. If you're buying new the i3 is a far better option considering it's faster, consumes less power, and is cheaper if we take into account overclocking the Phenom II. Plus it has a...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.