can a i3 cpu run most games?

[TurtleCrusher]

I don't want to be that doom and gloom guy, but the writing is on the wall for serous gaming and low core/thread count. My FPS in BF4 multiplayer went from 25-35fps to 60fps locked with VSync going from a Q8200 to the FX-8350. On the Q8200 the utilization was 100% and still choppy. Now my video card is 100% utilized.

May it also be noted that you need more than 1GB VRAM for 2k15 at high settings, even at 1680x1050. Likely a better GPU than my 6870 as well. At medium textures I'm at 990MB dedicated ram and 300mb dynamic utilization, 60 fps though. I didn't expect this with a next gen game. On high textures, vram usage explodes and FPS drops to 20-35.

 

[SPBHM]

I don't want to be that doom and gloom guy, but the writing is on the wall for serous gaming and low core/thread count. My FPS in BF4 multiplayer went from 25-35fps to 60fps locked with VSync going from a Q8200 to the FX-8350. On the Q8200 the utilization was 100% and still choppy. Now my video card is 100% utilized.

May it also be noted that you need more than 1GB VRAM for 2k15 at high settings, even at 1680x1050. Likely a better GPU than my 6870 as well. At medium textures I'm at 990MB dedicated ram and 300mb dynamic utilization, 60 fps though. I didn't expect this with a next gen game. On high textures, vram usage explodes and FPS drops to 20-35.

Q8200 is way slower than any desktop haswell i3 for gaming

 

[Bman123]

I dont know if hes talking about the C2Q or the FX when hes talking about nba 2k15. Hopefully hes not trying to play it on the Q8200. Id hope a haswell i3 would smoke that dinosaur chip.

 

[BSim500]

For nearly all SP games, i3's are usually fine. For heavy MP games, an i5 would be a better choice though it depends on the game. Plenty of recent silly "This game needs an i7" 'requirements' that turn out to run fine on an i3 (which given the CPU's in consoles, is hardly surprising...)

I don't want to be that doom and gloom guy, but the writing is on the wall for serous gaming and low core/thread count. My FPS in BF4 multiplayer went from 25-35fps to 60fps locked with VSync going from a Q8200 to the FX-8350. On the Q8200 the utilization was 100% and still choppy. Now my video card is 100% utilized.

A 2.33GHz Q8200 has less than half the IPC of a modern Haswell and less than 2/3rds 4T performance, so the nearest overall equivalent is more like a 2.4GHz mobile i3-4000M / 3.0GHz Pentium G3220. I'm amazed you even attempted to run BF4 on it!

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Q8200 is way slower than any desktop haswell i3 for gaming

Just looking at actual benchmarks on AT Bench, the Q8200 is ever so slightly faster than the i3 3220 while at 3Ghz in multithreaded workloads, and gaming with modern games completely is. It is 20% slower in multithreaded workloads than the i3 4330 while at 3Ghz.

I dont know if hes talking about the C2Q or the FX when hes talking about nba 2k15. Hopefully hes not trying to play it on the Q8200. Id hope a haswell i3 would smoke that dinosaur chip.

No, I don't game on the Q8200 anymore. I was saying that 2K15 can use at least 7 threads, which you couldn't observe with the Q8200.

For nearly all SP games, i3's are usually fine. For heavy MP games, an i5 would be a better choice though it depends on the game. Plenty of recent silly "This game needs an i7" 'requirements' that turn out to run fine on an i3 (which given the CPU's in consoles, is hardly surprising...)


A 2.33GHz Q8200 has less than half the IPC of a modern Haswell and less than 2/3rds 4T performance, so the nearest overall equivalent is more like a 2.4GHz mobile i3-4000M / 3.0GHz Pentium G3220. I'm amazed you even attempted to run BF4 on it!

You really went to CPU-World to quote unknown benchmarks? How about, you know, Anandtech? Also, the Q8200 overclocks 30% fairly easy on most boards. That changes everything about what you just wrote. Especially when I noted that it was overclocked.

You're surprised that I tried to play BF4 on it? You do realize that the minimum req's for BF4 is a C2D @2.4Ghz and the recommended system req's states "Any Intel Quad Core or Better" which includes the Q8200? Not only that but with an overclock makes it quite a bit faster.

With an overclock it'd match and Ivy Bridge i3. Haswell is 20% faster. If you're not following, at 3Ghz the Q8200 is in between the Q9550 and the Q9650 in performance depending upon the application.

 

[SPBHM]

Just looking at actual benchmarks on AT Bench, the Q8200 is ever so slightly faster than the i3 3220 while at 3Ghz in multithreaded workloads, and gaming with modern games completely is. It is 20% slower in multithreaded workloads than the i3 4330 while at 3Ghz.

gaming does not scale the same as video encoding and 3d rendering
the performance you described for your q8200 on BF4 is not the performance you can expect from a current i3,

as a reference
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/focus/cpu2013/def/bf3_1920.png
(it's bf3 mp32 not 64, but it's the best I can find)

BF3 scaled well with 4 cores and you can see the Q8200 at 32fps, while ivy bridge i3 3.5GHz (probably slower than the any desktop regular haswell i3) is at 51,

q8200 is not a good reference for how a current i3 can perform in any game imo

 

[andg]

I upgraded my old socket 775 system to an E5450 (eq. to Q9650) at 3.75ghz. How does that stack up against a Haswell i3?

Also bought a used r9 290 to pair up with it. Cheapest upgrade ever.

 

[BSim500]

With an overclock it'd match and Ivy Bridge i3. Haswell is 20% faster. If you're not following, at 3Ghz the Q8200 is in between the Q9550 and the Q9650 in performance depending upon the application.

Haswell i3's do a lot better than "25fps +20%" in BF4 even in multi-player:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_MPb7Rinq0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXqromaGn54

I'm 'following' exactly as I own one in my HTPC and know exactly what it can and cannot do without having to "guess" via 3rd party benchmarks.

 

[sm625]

6 core budget i7?

They do exist actually, and in very large numbers. They are found in off lease systems on ebay and other places for very good prices. Especially the X5670/X5675.

That is a screenshot from today. Given time there are of course much better prices. That is a nice machine though. I'd be more inclined to trust it moreso than a $500 desktop bought new from best buy today.

 

[SPBHM]

I upgraded my old socket 775 system to an E5450 (eq. to Q9650) at 3.75ghz. How does that stack up against a Haswell i3?

Also bought a used r9 290 to pair up with it. Cheapest upgrade ever.

if you look at the graphic I posted for BF3 they have the QX9770, which is the same with 550MHz less, it's doing 45FPS, while as I said the fastest ivy bridge i3 is doing 51 FPS, I would expect Haswell i3 to be a little faster, more like 55; my guess is that at 3.75GHz your Xeon would be around 50FPS, so it shouldn't be to far off in this case... unfortunately I don't remember seeing any direct c2q vs haswell i3 comparison, but another with ivy bridge i3 and C2Q 12MB @ 3.7GHz, almost exactly what you have.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-yorkfield-comparison,3487-18.html
it manages to beat the i3 3220(=3225) in some games

but as you can see here even the i3 4130 (cheapest haswell i3, now replaced by the higher clocked 4150) is a bit faster than the 3220
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_5.html#sect0

so for some games it could be somewhat close to i3 haswell, but for others there could be a decent advantage for the i3.

 

[crashtech]

It's a mistake to compare Haswell i3s to previous generation i3s. Somehow they made HT work a lot better this time around.

 

[Firetrak]

You could be right, but I think it is far from a sure thing. Even in a lot of new games coming out a haswelll i3 is faster than an 83xx or 63xx. And I seriously doubt any sandy bridge or newer i5 will have a problem with games for quite some time. Note that the op did not specify anything except that the game will be playable, although I assume he means at something like 1080p, Med to high settings, which I think an i3 will be able to do.

Yeah 1080 and med range graphics are fine for me, although now i am kind of leaning on the i5. God why am i being so cheap haha. something always comes up needs money i guess is why.

 

[Firetrak]

I upgraded my old socket 775 system to an E5450 (eq. to Q9650) at 3.75ghz. How does that stack up against a Haswell i3?

Also bought a used r9 290 to pair up with it. Cheapest upgrade ever.

what did it cost in total?

 

[Firetrak]

if you look at the graphic I posted for BF3 they have the QX9770, which is the same with 550MHz less, it's doing 45FPS, while as I said the fastest ivy bridge i3 is doing 51 FPS, I would expect Haswell i3 to be a little faster, more like 55; my guess is that at 3.75GHz your Xeon would be around 50FPS, so it shouldn't be to far off in this case... unfortunately I don't remember seeing any direct c2q vs haswell i3 comparison, but another with ivy bridge i3 and C2Q 12MB @ 3.7GHz, almost exactly what you have.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-yorkfield-comparison,3487-18.html
it manages to beat the i3 3220(=3225) in some games

but as you can see here even the i3 4130 (cheapest haswell i3, now replaced by the higher clocked 4150) is a bit faster than the 3220
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_5.html#sect0

so for some games it could be somewhat close to i3 haswell, but for others there could be a decent advantage for the i3.

I plan on getting the i3 4130

 

[bbhaag]

If you can find it for the right price then do it. My experience has shown me that the i3 is a very capable cpu.

 

[Ieat]

I plan on getting the i3 4130

If you are buying new then i3 4150 and 4160 can often be found for the same price or even lower depending on the sale.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

If you are buying new then i3 4150 and 4160 can often be found for the same price or even lower depending on the sale.

An FX-8350 can be found on sale for very cheap as well if you watch the sales. I got the FX-8350 for $125 shipped.

 

[Firetrak]

An FX-8350 can be found on sale for very cheap as well if you watch the sales. I got the FX-8350 for $125 shipped.

I guess my issue was that for years I only used AMD CPU's. Then one year I went with Intel instead.

A few years later a built a bunch of video editing machines using AMD X6 CPUS and they ALL had issues, every one of them, but all the intel machines ran flawlessly, utterly without issues.

Since then I've been extremely hesitant to build using AMD.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

I guess my issue was that for years I only used AMD CPU's. Then one year I went with Intel instead.

A few years later a built a bunch of video editing machines using AMD X6 CPUS and they ALL had issues, every one of them, but all the intel machines ran flawlessly, utterly without issues.

Since then I've been extremely hesitant to build using AMD.

You say "issues" but don't elaborate. Even with one of the cheapest ($55) ATX motherboards, cheapest 8GB DDR3-1866 ram and a sub $20 heatsink, I've not had one single issue with this system yet. My VRM temps, even though they thankfully have a heatsink, go a little high when stressed 100% with fritz on a loop. The temps aren't dangerous or anything though.

Besides the tLB errata bug and performance-losing patch in the original Phenom, there's been nothing wrong with AMD's Phenom 1/2 and FX CPUs.

 

[escrow4]

You say "issues" but don't elaborate. Even with one of the cheapest ($55) ATX motherboards, cheapest 8GB DDR3-1866 ram and a sub $20 heatsink, I've not had one single issue with this system yet. My VRM temps, even though they thankfully have a heatsink, go a little high when stressed 100% with fritz on a loop. The temps aren't dangerous or anything though.

Besides the tLB errata bug and performance-losing patch in the original Phenom, there's been nothing wrong with AMD's Phenom 1/2 and FX CPUs.

The 2 main issues as everyone here knows is the atrocious single threaded performance combined with a badly outdated socket - compare AM3+ to say mainstream H97. FX also will dump more heat and suck more power. To me I wouldn't accept the chip and board for free. Its 2015 and FX is not viable anymore.

 

[SickBeast]

OP I have been gaming on a Pentium G3258 for a while now and I will tell you that the only game I have found that needs more power is Crysis 3, and even it is playable if you turn down the settings. The G3258 is a weak dual core that can be overclocked to ~4.5ghz, at which point it's about as fast as a top of the line Haswell i3. Newegg has regularly sold it in a bundle for $75 with free shipping and a free motherboard. You can't go wrong with this combo IMO.

 

[Yuriman]

The 2 main issues as everyone here knows is the atrocious single threaded performance combined with a badly outdated socket - compare AM3+ to say mainstream H97. FX also will dump more heat and suck more power. To me I wouldn't accept the chip and board for free. Its 2015 and FX is not viable anymore.

That's putting it far too strongly. FX's idle very well, the electricity costs are not a major factor to many, and for some workloads (ie scientific computing for home users) the many weak cores approach is appropriate - especially for how cheap the FX8's are now.

Let's not let this degenerate into an Intel vs AMD thread though. OP isn't even asking about AMD.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

The 2 main issues as everyone here knows is the atrocious single threaded performance combined with a badly outdated socket - compare AM3+ to say mainstream H97. FX also will dump more heat and suck more power. To me I wouldn't accept the chip and board for free. Its 2015 and FX is not viable anymore.

When he would have purchased the X6 when they were relevant, the i7 920 was the defefacto Intel CPU. Want to know something funny about that? The 920 and the X6 1055T trade blows and come out almost the same in each benchmark, while the 920 has slightly higher power consumption. If you were to have purchased the i7 860 (which at the time was far more expensive) the multithreaded performance was unchanged for the tasks he was referring to.

You've been reading too much of that CPU shilling gibberish to know how it really was. Those x6's were every bit as good at the tasks he described within the same or similar power envelopes while being cheaper.

May it also be noted that easily 85-90% of the time, the CPU is idling, so the power consumption is negligible at the very best, insignificant at worst. The FX line idles at 1.4Ghz @ .9125V, which again is completely insiginifcant power consumption. I'msurfing the interwebs, downloading from the swarm and watching live TV on my other monitor and it still stays at the idle speed.

 

[Firetrak]

You say "issues" but don't elaborate. Even with one of the cheapest ($55) ATX motherboards, cheapest 8GB DDR3-1866 ram and a sub $20 heatsink, I've not had one single issue with this system yet. My VRM temps, even though they thankfully have a heatsink, go a little high when stressed 100% with fritz on a loop. The temps aren't dangerous or anything though.

Besides the tLB errata bug and performance-losing patch in the original Phenom, there's been nothing wrong with AMD's Phenom 1/2 and FX CPUs.

I was building the expensive machines at the time, practically sparing no expense, most where in the $2000+ range. I had blue screens, shut offs out of the blue, many issues and it was a while ago, either way it came down to one component the CPU. As i'd usually swap out almost every part to find out the issue except the cpus.

 

[Firetrak]

When he would have purchased the X6 when they were relevant, the i7 920 was the defefacto Intel CPU. Want to know something funny about that? The 920 and the X6 1055T trade blows and come out almost the same in each benchmark, while the 920 has slightly higher power consumption. If you were to have purchased the i7 860 (which at the time was far more expensive) the multithreaded performance was unchanged for the tasks he was referring to.

You've been reading too much of that CPU shilling gibberish to know how it really was. Those x6's were every bit as good at the tasks he described within the same or similar power envelopes while being cheaper.

May it also be noted that easily 85-90% of the time, the CPU is idling, so the power consumption is negligible at the very best, insignificant at worst. The FX line idles at 1.4Ghz @ .9125V, which again is completely insiginifcant power consumption. I'msurfing the interwebs, downloading from the swarm and watching live TV on my other monitor and it still stays at the idle speed.

yeap it was the 1055t amds i had issue with, made me sad, but they are not good processors with thread heavy applications like after effects, premiere pro or video encoders like sorenson squeeze. Perhaps they are completely fine otherwise.

Our machines where literally going day and night, pretty much NEVER idling. So perhaps thats also a factor. But our intel machines did the same and didn't blue screen for no reason.

But i'm still considering the AMD still though hmmm choice choices.