gaming needs and cpu choosing

[Yuriman]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=288

FX-8150 vs i5 2500k

WoW: 77.7 vs 119.4fps
Starcraft 2: 47.8 vs 64.9fps
Dawn of War II: 51.5 vs 82.3fps
Metro 2033: 51 vs 53.5fps
DiRT 3: 99.3 vs 104.4fps
Crysis Warhead: 76.2 vs 114.4fps
Civ V: 95.4 vs 124.3fps

^ Notice that in most of the above games, the i5 is CONSIDERABLY faster. However, in most cases the FX-8150 is still able to pull more than 60fps so you're not likely to notice a difference. Overclocked, the FX-8150 would almost certainly deliver more than 60fps in the above games that it doesn't at stock.

There are notable exceptions, such as BF3 multiplayer and Guild Wars 2, where Bulldozer chips will in fact pull your framerate down below perfectly smooth even when overclocked, while an i5 will not.

Remember that in the games where the i5 is ahead of the FX, even doubling your GPU power will not help your framerate, because you're not GPU limited. In the case of Starcraft II, an i5 with an HD5870 will smoke an FX-8150 with GTX-680 SLI.

Your call, I went for the i5.

 

[Durvelle27]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=288

FX-8150 vs i5 2500k

WoW: 77.7 vs 119.4fps
Starcraft 2: 47.8 vs 64.9fps
Dawn of War II: 51.5 vs 82.3fps
Metro 2033: 51 vs 53.5fps
DiRT 3: 99.3 vs 104.4fps
Crysis Warhead: 76.2 vs 114.4fps
Civ V: 95.4 vs 124.3fps

^ Notice that in most of the above games, the i5 is CONSIDERABLY faster. However, in most cases the FX-8150 is still able to pull more than 60fps so you're not likely to notice a difference. Overclocked, the FX-8150 would almost certainly deliver more than 60fps in the above games that it doesn't at stock.

There are notable exceptions, such as BF3 multiplayer and Guild Wars 2, where Bulldozer chips will in fact pull your framerate down below perfectly smooth even when overclocked, while an i5 will not.

Remember that in the games where the i5 is ahead of the FX, even doubling your GPU power will not help your framerate, because you're not GPU limited. In the case of Starcraft II, an i5 with an HD5870 will smoke an FX-8150 with GTX-680 SLI.

Your call, I went for the i5.

what a FX does pretty good in BF3 multiplayer

other games

 

[frozentundra123456]

You didn't say your budget but from your words gaming would be very casual and it doesn't make sense to spend the money for a i5+7850.

A trinity APU (5700k) or a i3+discrete 75-100$ Nvidia (lower value, but has physix which is supported in few games) or ATI card are your best choices, spend the saved money in a good ssd which will benefit on a daily basis.

There are several articles regarding those two builds, bottom line is that they perform roughly the same and intel leaves room for upgrading to current i5 and maybe haswell (they like to change sockets a lot, wouldn't bet on it).
Personally I like the apu concept and since I'm into overclocking intel is not a viable choice in this budget (I really hate locked i3s), the intel build might use less power though and if you would just need the igp for office usage intel would be the best choice.

PS if you buy an APU spend the extra 15-20$ for ddr 1866 memory since the gaming performance really benefits from it.

I would agree with you for a budget build, except that gaming on the Trinity igpu will be limited to older titles or modern titles with lowered image quality and resolutions in many cases. An i3 with a 7770 would be far faster in gaming than the Trinity using the igpu only, and even Trinity would be far faster using a discrete HD7770 or 7750 than the igpu. I just really cannot understand why anyone who wants to game more than facebook/pogo/social games would want to limit themselves to an igpu at the levels they are currently.

Edit: I am talking about on the desktop, where a discrete card can be easily added for a mimimal cost. APUs have more of a place for light gaming on the go in a laptop where there are serious power/thermal constraints and cant be upgraded.

Personally, however, I would not want to build or buy a rig with less than a lower end i5, considering it is not that much more expensive.

 

[AtenRa]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=288

FX-8150 vs i5 2500k

WoW: 77.7 vs 119.4fps
Starcraft 2: 47.8 vs 64.9fps
Dawn of War II: 51.5 vs 82.3fps
Metro 2033: 51 vs 53.5fps
DiRT 3: 99.3 vs 104.4fps
Crysis Warhead: 76.2 vs 114.4fps
Civ V: 95.4 vs 124.3fps

Most of those are in 1680x1050 and without AA filters. Notice how they come close in Metro 2033 and DIRT3 when the resolution is at 1090x1200 ???

There are notable exceptions, such as BF3 multiplayer and Guild Wars 2, where Bulldozer chips will in fact pull your framerate down below perfectly smooth even when overclocked, while an i5 will not.

BF3 MP is perfectly playable with any FX CPU.

 

[Mallibu]

Most of those are in 1680x1050 and without AA filters. Notice how they come close in Metro 2033 and DIRT3 when the resolution is at 1090x1200 ???



BF3 MP is perfectly playable with any FX CPU.

Probably he meant Boarderlands, instead of BF3 MP which to say is ALSO slower on FX cpu's as the latest bench showed us. Oh, and 1680vs1920 is like ~4-5 frames, i think you're slowly running out of excuses.

About OP's question, yes an FX even overclocked will slow you down in games, and will be slower than an i5 in every game except GPU bottlenecked ones.
The i5 is just much much better.

 

[AtenRa]

The i5 is just much much better.

And double the price

 

[AtenRa]

instead of BF3 MP which to say is ALSO slower on FX cpu's as the latest bench showed us.

I haven't seen any 1080p tests to verify what you saying. Do you have any links to provide ??

 

[Mallibu]

Taken from: http://www.sweclockers.com/artikel/14650-prestandaanalys-battlefield-3/5#pagehead

Oh, look. An i5 is better even in a game that used 8 threads and it's supposed to be your cherry picked flag. :awe:

Some links for education:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-3770k-i5-3570k_6.html

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/04/23/intel-core-i7-3770k-review/7

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmark-core-i7-3770k,3181-21.html


I'm just gonna leave those here for the topic starter to view and judge for himself. There are other countless reviews you can also google if those aren't enough.
i5 is better in every aspect than any FX currently available (minus cherry picked 8-threaded which represent 1% of today's software), and it totally destroys them in games which is what is discussed.

Time to stop beating a dead horse.

 

[AtenRa]

There was a benchmark from BF3 MP@1080p posted in a thread in this section but can't be arsed to search it right now. It showed that i5 > every fx available.

Dont think so,

 

[Mallibu]

Well look again and you'll think so.
Quick! Time to do this:

 

[AtenRa]

Taken from: http://www.sweclockers.com/artikel/14650-prestandaanalys-battlefield-3/5#pagehead

Oh, look. An i5 is better even in a game that used 8 threads and it's supposed to be your cherry picked flag. :awe:

Did you read the graphs ??? medium settings without any AA filters and FX8150 has higher minimum fps than 2500K.
Also, those tests were done in October 2011, since then performance in CPU and GPUs have change in BF3 MP

ps: my tests were done in May/June 2012

 

[Mallibu]

Did you read the graphs ??? medium settings without any AA filters and FX8150 has higher minimum fps than 2500K.
Also, those tests were done in October 2011, since then performance in CPU and GPUs have change in BF3 MP

ps: my tests were done in May/June 2012

Oh, look. Raising settings on ultra as you see does not cause the FX 8150 to come on top. It still loses both on average and minimum, in the one game you put all your hopes on. That leaves us with 0 (zero) games that an FX was supposedly better than i5. My sympathies.

 

[Durvelle27]

Oh, look. Raising settings as you see does not cause the FX 8150 to come on top. It still loses, in the one game you put all your hopes on. My sympathies.

but this prove my point which is FX is only 1-5 FPS behind intel in most games and some 10 FPS

 

[Mallibu]

but this prove my point which is FX is only 1-5 FPS behind intel in most games and some 10 FPS

The FX 4170 you were talking about is worst than the Phenom II 980 represented here. So it's more like a drop from 70 frames to ~45 frames (assuming that FX 4170 is only 5-10% slower than the Phenom II 980, which is very generous for the FX )

 

[AtenRa]

Oh, look. Raising settings as you see does not cause the FX 8150 to come on top. It still loses, in the one game you put all your hopes on. My sympathies.

Again, those tests were run in October 2011, that is ONE YEAR ago. Since then we have new hardware(GPUs HD7xxx and GTX6xx) new Drivers and new software (BF3 patches/new maps etc).

ps: HD6990 is a CrossFire configuration and FX8150 was a new CPU back in October 2011.

 

[Mallibu]

Again, those tests were run in October 2011, that is ONE YEAR ago. Since then we have new hardware(GPUs HD7xxx and GTX6xx) new Drivers and new software (BF3 patches/new maps etc).

ps: HD6990 is a CrossFire configuration and FX8150 was a new CPU back in October 2011.

Yes yes sure. The endless pack of failed excuses.^_^

"Beta bios, windows 7 patch, windows 8 new scheduler, outdated games, crappy code, intel compilers, intel sponsored sites, resolution, filters, planet alignment..etc etc"

 

[Durvelle27]

The FX 4170 you were talking about is worst than the Phenom II 980 represented here. So it's more like a drop from 70 frames to ~45 frames (assuming that FX 4170 is only 5-10% slower than the Phenom II 980, which is very generous for the FX )

if you look at the benchmark i posted it shows the FX 4100 not far Behind the i3-2100 and its from a month ago

i3-2100 54 67

FX 4100 36 62 <---- Can be oc'd for better performance



i'm gonna benchmark my cpu in a few games since it's oc'd

 

[Yuriman]

A minimum framerate of 36 is not "not far behind" a minimum framerate of 54. The i3 has a minimum that is 50% higher. How does an i3 compare to an i5?

Granted, there is a cost difference, but I'm inclined to recommend an i5 if the OP can afford it.

 

[Durvelle27]

i do have to agree but i rather get a high end gpu then cpu so i suggest getting an i3 and then later just get a i5. that's the best logical thing to do

 

[infoiltrator]

Trinity does not scale as well with advanced GPUs as either FX or Sandy or Ivy Bridge.
Trinity is a better CPU than Llano, sorta, mostly. It is a better processor.
What it is not is something to team with a 7870.

In testing an I3 3220 with an HD6670 did as well as a hybrid crossfired A-5800 and HD 6670.
No magic here in actual gaming performance.

 

[FreeAtLast2012]

AMD seems to be losing a battle, and I'm doubtful if next gen chips will compete well.
Get the i5 and be happy.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Dont think so,

Wow, citing you own blog. That is really an objective source.

 

[AtenRa]

Wow, citing you own blog. That is really an objective source.

If you have a more recent 1080p BF3 MP testing please share it with us

 

[Mallibu]

If you have a more recent 1080p BF3 MP testing please share it with us

I'm sure time heals all AMD shortcomings in your mind.

 

[moonbogg]

Damn, look at the 2600K go in those charts! "Hyperthreading doesn't do blah for blah in games derp" says the hyperthreading haters. I bet you people with your i5's wish you would have forked over for the better i7. There was a better CPU available to you at a little more cost and YOU didn't buy it? Why not? What gives you the right to bash this dude for saving a buck on an AMD?

The OP said he was using a mid range AMD GPU. He said he won't use a GTX 670. An FX CPU would pair fine with a mid range AMD GPU. He will get less FPS in certain games, depending on graphics settings and res, but the damn games will still run and if he wants to save a buck then WTF is the problem? Yes, AMD comes second place and I would not use them, but to the OP, you won't be missing much since you plan on using a single, mid range GPU with game settings cranked.