FX4100 vs. 3570K Strickly for Gaming?

[diamondmines]

I only have 500$ to spare for my new build (only for cpu, gpu and motherboad). Please look at the system below and advise me the BETTER system. The AMD system is 70$ cheaper. What do you guys think?

Intel Core i5-3570K Ivy Bridge 3.4GHz (3.8GHz Turbo) LGA 1155 214$
ASUS P8Z77-V LX LGA 1155 Intel Z77 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard 129$
SAPPHIRE 100355OCL Radeon HD 7850 2GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 209$
TOTAL: 552$


AMD FX-4100 Zambezi 3.6GHz (3.8GHz Turbo) Socket AM3+ 109$
MSI 970A-G46 AM3+ AMD 970 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard with UEFI BIOS 79$
SAPPHIRE 100352-2L Radeon HD 7950 3GB 384-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 299$
TOTAL: 487$

Does the FX4100 have the JUICE to run HD7950 with its full performance?

[Iain162]

The 3570K hands down, im not an intel fan boy.. but every review you find on the FX series will show you results of the AMD FX series getting beaten by upto 30FPS using the same graphics card for both platforms depending on the game, just think of the 3570K as a 2600K with slightly more operations per clock cycle since some of the 4100 reviews only have it compared to the older sandybridge samples

30 FPS difference is comparing the new FX 8350 to the 3570K the gap is even bigger for the FX 4100/4300.

[Willzzz]

The graphics card will make more difference.

But you could save a lot on the intel system by buying a 3470 and B75 board, thus allowing you to afford a better graphics card.

[Willzzz]

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/sjHt

Under $500
If you can go over $500 you could afford a better graphics card.

[Iain162]

The graphics card will make more difference.

But you could save a lot on the intel system by buying a 3470 and B75 board, thus allowing you to afford a better graphics card.

I completely agree, if overclocking isnt your thing avoid the more expensive K listed parts and just have something like the i5 3550/3450..

If your heart is set on overclocking parts, the 7850 should do fine.. yes you may be forced to lower some settings depending on the resolution your gaming at but in my opinion if your gaming online most the time lower graphic settings gives an advantage specially in certain first person shooters..

[fewsy]

having used the fx6100 and now switched to the 3570k the difference is incredible. frame rates in cpu heavier games like skyrim are much improved.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I only have 500$ to spare for my new build (only for cpu, gpu and motherboad). Please look at the system below and advise me the BETTER system. The AMD system is 70$ cheaper. What do you guys think?

Intel Core i5-3570K Ivy Bridge 3.4GHz (3.8GHz Turbo) LGA 1155 214$
ASUS P8Z77-V LX LGA 1155 Intel Z77 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard 129$
SAPPHIRE 100355OCL Radeon HD 7850 2GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 209$
TOTAL: 552$


AMD FX-4100 Zambezi 3.6GHz (3.8GHz Turbo) Socket AM3+ 109$
MSI 970A-G46 AM3+ AMD 970 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard with UEFI BIOS 79$
SAPPHIRE 100352-2L Radeon HD 7950 3GB 384-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 299$
TOTAL: 487$

Does the FX4100 have the JUICE to run HD7950 with its full performance?

What are the rest of the parts you have already?? Case? PSU? OS?

Do you have a Micro Center near by??

What games are you running??

[diamondmines]

What are the rest of the parts you have already?? Case? PSU? OS?

Do you have a Micro Center near by??

What games are you running??

Intel Core i5-3570K Ivy Bridge 3.4GHz (3.8GHz Turbo) LGA 1155
ASUS P8Z77-V LX LGA 1155 Intel Z77 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard
SAPPHIRE 100355OCL Radeon HD 7850 2GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0
COOLER MASTER HAF 912 ADVANCE GX 80PLUS 750W MidT ATX
GSKILL 16GB (2X8GB) RIPJAWSX DDR3 1866MHZ CL9 1,5V RAM
ASUS 21.5" VS228D LED MONITOR

OR

AMD FX-4100 Zambezi 3.6GHz (3.8GHz Turbo) Socket AM3+
MSI 970A-G46 AM3+ AMD 970 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard with UEFI BIOS
SAPPHIRE 100352-2L Radeon HD 7950 3GB 384-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0
COOLER MASTER HAF 912 ADVANCE GX 80PLUS 750W MidT ATX
GSKILL 16GB (2X8GB) RIPJAWSX DDR3 1866MHZ CL9 1,5V RAM
ASUS 21.5" VS228D LED MONITOR

WINDOWS 7 X64

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Intel Core i5-3570K Ivy Bridge 3.4GHz (3.8GHz Turbo) LGA 1155
ASUS P8Z77-V LX LGA 1155 Intel Z77 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard
SAPPHIRE 100355OCL Radeon HD 7850 2GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0
COOLER MASTER HAF 912 ADVANCE GX 80PLUS 750W MidT ATX
GSKILL 16GB (2X8GB) RIPJAWSX DDR3 1866MHZ CL9 1,5V RAM
ASUS 21.5" VS228D LED MONITOR

OR

AMD FX-4100 Zambezi 3.6GHz (3.8GHz Turbo) Socket AM3+
MSI 970A-G46 AM3+ AMD 970 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard with UEFI BIOS
SAPPHIRE 100352-2L Radeon HD 7950 3GB 384-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0
COOLER MASTER HAF 912 ADVANCE GX 80PLUS 750W MidT ATX
GSKILL 16GB (2X8GB) RIPJAWSX DDR3 1866MHZ CL9 1,5V RAM
ASUS 21.5" VS228D LED MONITOR

WINDOWS 7 X64

What is the total budget including the OS and what country are you located in??

[Willzzz]

Do you already own the other items or are they things you are planning to buy?

Are there any particular games you play?

What did you think of my i5-3470 suggestion?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

16GB of 1866MHZ DDR3 and a 750W PSU seem OTT,if you are on a more limited budget.If you could get 8GB of RAM and a decent 500W to 600W,you probably get a better card and a Core i5 together.

[diamondmines]

Thanks Willz and Cat the Fifth. Suggestions taken. I think Intel 3470 will do it. And I'll probably go with 650 80 Plus PSU. But I will keep the 16GB ram. I may need rendering in the future.

[DanceswithUnix]

That's quite a tough call.

First I don't think the 4100 is good value for money. A 4300 or 6300 eats into your $70 saving but piledriver is just better than bulldozer. Couldn't find any exact benchmarks, but looking at this one which uses an nvidia 680 card so the cpu is having to work hard:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/t...x4300-tested/5

The Intel chip is around 30% better depending on the game you are playing.

However looking at the different graphics cards:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/549?vs=550

The difference is more like 40%.

How well the two balance out is probably too close to call without actually trying it.

[scaryjim]

Couldn't find any exact benchmarks, but looking at this one which uses an nvidia 680 card so the cpu is having to work hard:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/t...x4300-tested/5

The Intel chip is around 30% better depending on the game you are playing.

The problem with those results is that they use low image settings, so nothing's really getting a hard work out. Yes, Intel is way ahead in all the graphs, but it's only SC2 where any combination returns less than 60fps: in other words all the systems are pushing frames out faster than a normal LCD monitor can display them!

What you often find is that you can show differences in gaming by running with low image settings, but when you turn up the resolution and all the settings the differences disappear. Form instance, in the hexus 8350 review, Batman:AC and Dirt Showdown both favour Intel, but with framerates well above 60fps (using a GTX680). On AvP, all the processors tested show ~ 58fps: on that test there is absolutely no difference at all because the GPU is the bottleneck.

So the key really is what games you play, at what resolution and what settings - that will determine whether your framerate bottleneck is the GPU, the CPU, or even the monitor...

[watercooled]

Note however, that the CPU gaming benchmarks are run at lower res with no AA in order to lighten the load on the GPU, they really represent a near-worst-case scenario for the CPU in those games and aren't likely to represent performance while playing with decent settings where the GPU is likely to become the bottleneck in most cases.

Generally, the quality settings don't have a huge impact on the CPU and these benchmarks just prove the CPU is capable of processing hundreds of FPS.

Quoted from Anandtech:

We're focused on looking at differences between CPUs here so most of the numbers you see are CPU bound rather than pushing the GPU to the limits.

Edit: beaten to it again!!

[Willzzz]

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/far-cr...w-32584-7.html

There is a real difference, this may only be at medium settings, but that's still pretty challenging on Far Cry 3.
Between a FX-4170 and an Intel i3 there is a 15fps difference on minimum frame rates.
That will be relevant to anyone with a GTX 660 or above.