134 réponses à ce sujet

[ObserverStatus]

I've been working on a hypothetical budget PC build, but I'm having trouble figuring out how to shop for good components. Can someone tell me which of these chips is better and why?

bit.ly/xWilss

[TheBlackBaron]

I'd have to check some benchmarking sites to be sure, but the FX-4100 should be better.

Honestly, though, I'd stay away from AMD processors at the moment. Intel's got them beat pretty badly in terms of price-performance right now.

EDIT: In that price range I'd be looking at an i3-2100. It's only real disadvantage against what AMD is putting out is it can't be overclocked. 

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 23 février 2012 - 10:25 .

[bleetman]

I assume it's one or the other, and you're not taking recommendations?

I mean, it's somewhat more expensive, but the Intel core i5 2500k is crazy good. In a 'all you'll need for years to come' kind of way. If that's too expensive, go back to the previous range, i3 I think?

[edit] Right. What Baron said.

Modifié par bleetman, 23 février 2012 - 10:27 .

[Lenimph]

He's building a budget build so I'm assuming he more then likely doesn't have the money for an i5-i7. Best he save it for a good graphics card anyway.

I have the Phenom processor and it's great but most bench marking sites say the FX-4100 is better, and it's cheaper since more are being produced. I would go with the FX-4100.

TheBlackBaron wrote...

EDIT: In that price range I'd be looking at an i3-2100. It's only real disadvantage against what AMD is putting out is it can't be overclocked. 

  

And from what I see the FX-4100 still overbenches it regardless of it being 30 bucks cheaper. 

Modifié par Lenimph, 23 février 2012 - 10:45 .

[bEVEsthda]

EDIT: Nevermind, I just figured your budget is lower than I considered

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 23 février 2012 - 11:00 .

[TheBlackBaron]

Lenimph wrote...
And from what I see the FX-4100 still overbenches it regardless of it being 30 bucks cheaper. 

Depends on the task at hand. It'll be faster in some applications, slower than others. They more or less even out. On the other hand, it's also got a higher thermal envelope, so it produces more heat and noise. 

[ObserverStatus]

bleetman wrote...
I assume it's one or the other, and you're not taking recommendations?
I mean, it's somewhat more expensive, but the Intel core i5 2500k is crazy good. In a 'all you'll need for years to come' kind of way. If that's too expensive, go back to the previous range, i3 I think?
[edit] Right. What Baron said.

But aren't the i3 series models dual core?  My ideal build would be able to run starcraft 2 or diablo 3 at max settings, itunes skype and chrome all at once, so I thought I'd need a quad core model for that.

[bmwcrazy]

Lenimph wrote...
And from what I see the FX-4100 still overbenches it regardless of it being 30 bucks cheaper. 

We're talking about gaming right? The i3-2100 is still slightly faster than the FX-4100.

http://www.tomshardw...ark,3136-3.html 

To be honest, you can't go wrong with either. If I were the OP, I would drop $200 on a 2500k instead and just overclick the **** out of it.

[Lenimph]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Depends on the task at hand. It'll be faster in some applications, slower than others. They more or less even out. On the other hand, it's also got a higher thermal envelope, so it produces more heat and noise. 

Well if bobobo cares about the noise factor and lives somewhere where the excess heat might be an issue then he should look into possible extra spend for 2 less cores. 

Modifié par Lenimph, 23 février 2012 - 11:13 .

[ObserverStatus]

I mostly just play Blizzard games which aren't particularly demanding on my PC and play everything else on the 360, so I'm prioritizing multi-tasking over speed. (That's what I should be doing, right?)

Modifié par bobobo878, 23 février 2012 - 11:12 .

[Lenimph]

bmwcrazy wrote...


To be honest, you can't go wrong with either. If I were the OP, I would drop $200 on a 2500k instead and just overclick the **** out of it.

 

This.  

[TheBlackBaron]

bobobo878 wrote...

bleetman wrote...
I assume it's one or the other, and you're not taking recommendations?
I mean, it's somewhat more expensive, but the Intel core i5 2500k is crazy good. In a 'all you'll need for years to come' kind of way. If that's too expensive, go back to the previous range, i3 I think?
[edit] Right. What Baron said.

But aren't the i3 series models dual core?  My ideal build would be able to run starcraft 2 or diablo 3 at max settings, itunes skype and chrome all at once, so I thought I'd need a quad core model for that.

AMD's Bulldozer architecture (what the FX series is based on) is a bit strange. Basically, it uses "modules" of two integer cores each sharing a single floating-point core and L2 cache, which the computer recognizes as two seperate logic cores. 

This is essentially their way of arriving at the same thing Intel does with hyperthreading, which the i3 has (so two cores, but four threads). Either way, if you open up Task Manager you'll see four activity graphs and you wind up with about the same amount of thoeretical computing power.

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 23 février 2012 - 11:18 .

[ObserverStatus]

Lenimph wrote...

bmwcrazy wrote...
To be honest, you can't go wrong with either. If I were the OP, I would drop $200 on a 2500k instead and just overclick the **** out of it.

 
This.  

But do I really need that much power for a Blizzard game?

[Lenimph]

bobobo878 wrote...


But do I really need that much power for a Blizzard game?

Do you really need to be making a build for a Blizzard game?  

But yeah you don't. But it would be the best power option for money ratio. 

[ObserverStatus]

Lenimph wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...


But do I really need that much power for a Blizzard game?

Do you really need to be making a build for a Blizzard game?  

But yeah you don't. But it would be the best power option for money ratio. 

Well, I'm playing it on a 3 year old laptop now, so kind of. XD
Okay, I'll take the bait. Why is the 2500K worth more than twice as much money as the FX-4100?

[Lenimph]

bobobo878 wrote...

Well, I'm playing it on a 3 year old laptop now, so kind of. XD
Okay, I'll take the bait. Why is the 2500K worth more than twice as much money as the FX-4100?

It has more if not double power.  

But the thing is most games do not need that much CPU power anyway to make that much of a noticable difference especially depending on if you're planning on getting a better GFX card or not and what resolution you're going to play at.   

[bmwcrazy]

bobobo878 wrote...

Okay, I'll take the bait. Why is the 2500K worth more than twice as much money as the FX-4100?

If you're willing to pay double for the extra performance and the ability to overclock then it's worth it.

A 2500k can be overclocked to 4-5ghz easily, not to mention on stock speed, it is already faster than the eight-core FX-8150.

[TheBlackBaron]

Longevity, in the 2500K's case. As bleeters said, at stock speeds it has enough performance overhead to last for years, and if you overclock (and take care to avoid the pitfalls that come with that, like overheating) it'll go for even longer.

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 23 février 2012 - 11:59 .

[ObserverStatus]

Lenimph wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...
Well, I'm playing it on a 3 year old laptop now, so kind of. XD
Okay, I'll take the bait. Why is the 2500K worth more than twice as much money as the FX-4100?

It has more if not double power.  
But the thing is most games do not need that much CPU power anyway to make that much of a noticable difference especially depending on if you're planning on getting a better GFX card or not and what resolution you're going to play at.   

What do you mean by twice as much power?  That it can run twice as demanding of a game?  That it can run twice as many games with the same requirements at once?

Modifié par bobobo878, 24 février 2012 - 12:12 .

[TheBlackBaron]

bobobo878 wrote...

Lenimph wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...
Well, I'm playing it on a 3 year old laptop now, so kind of. XD
Okay, I'll take the bait. Why is the 2500K worth more than twice as much money as the FX-4100?

It has more if not double power.  
But the thing is most games do not need that much CPU power anyway to make that much of a noticable difference especially depending on if you're planning on getting a better GFX card or not and what resolution you're going to play at.   

What do you mean by twice as much power?  That it can run twice as demanding of a game?  That it can run twice as many games with the same requirements at once?

That's bit harder to quantify, since games have different settings and such, but check this out since it's at least a good demonstration of raw computing power:

http://techreport.co...cles.x/20188/10 

The unthreaded i5-2500K utterly stomps all the Phenom II X4s and even beats the X6s, and there's a still significant gap between it and the i3-2100, which as we've said the FX-4100 is comparable to.

[ObserverStatus]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...

Lenimph wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...
Well, I'm playing it on a 3 year old laptop now, so kind of. XD
Okay, I'll take the bait. Why is the 2500K worth more than twice as much money as the FX-4100?

It has more if not double power.  
But the thing is most games do not need that much CPU power anyway to make that much of a noticable difference especially depending on if you're planning on getting a better GFX card or not and what resolution you're going to play at.   

What do you mean by twice as much power?  That it can run twice as demanding of a game?  That it can run twice as many games with the same requirements at once?

That's bit harder to quantify, since games have different settings and such, but check this out since it's at least a good demonstration of raw computing power:

http://techreport.co...cles.x/20188/10 

The unthreaded i5-2500K utterly stomps all the Phenom II X4s and even beats the X6s, and there's a still significant gap between it and the i3-2100, which as we've said the FX-4100 is comparable to.

Interesting, but I looked at a Starcraft 2 Benchmark, and both the Phenom II X4 and  i3-2100 seem to be able to run it fine. at mx settings.
techreport.com/articles.x/20188/6

Modifié par bobobo878, 24 février 2012 - 02:47 .

[ObserverStatus]

anyway, like I said, my goal is: Starcraft 2 at max settings, itunes skype and chrome all at once, can the i3-2100 do this as well as the FX-4100?

[Dominus]

I'm no computer specialist, but I'd say an i3 would likely get max settings on SC2. Not sure how that frame rate would look though.

[TheBlackBaron]

bobobo878 wrote...

anyway, like I said, my goal is: Starcraft 2 at max settings, itunes skype and chrome all at once, can the i3-2100 do this as well as the FX-4100?

As well or better.

Cheifly, the main sticking point is that AMD's Bulldozer architecture is brand new and Windows is not really capable of taking optimal advantage of it (has something to do with the instruction set, I think - that's way out of my area so don't take my word on it), and AMD hasn't really worked out some of the kinks and the high clock speeds necessary to truly utilize it to the max. Hyperthreading is much more mature, by computer standards, so the i3 has an advantage even though they should theoretically be about equal to each other.

You could wait a month or two and see how Intel's Ivy Bridge processors work out. Whatever they wind up calling the i3 of that genration will beat either the ones discussed above, for the same price as those are now, and the FX-4100 and i3-2100 will get their prices cut to remain competitive.  

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 24 février 2012 - 04:34 .