Intel i3-3220 Processor $100, i5-3570K $200 +shipping

Quote from cuoreesitante : I remember reading a review from Tom's Hardware when the Core series first came out, Intels finish the bench marks in half the time and sits there idling for the other half, while the AMDs are chugging along at max usage the entire time. So if you take a snapshot of an instance when both are at max usage AMD might be using less power, but Intels are much faster and use less power overall. If NO REVIEWS disclose that kind of stuff how did you figure out that AMDs' rate their entire system?

They only rate the whole board that way for low power A and Z series which are actually SOCs. AM3+ and FM2 desktops are impossible to rate that way. I get my info from Global Foundaries, Intel, Ti and IBM fab guys. I work in this field, and spend relatively little time online.

BTW Tom's bias is fairly common knowledge. That dumbass site runs single app tests for server hardware reviews. Go frigging figure who buys his ads...

Quote from AGpennypacker : fm2 you can get a pretty good quad core and really good integrated gpu, so yea it is. although, if they do a lot of single threaded applications the 1155 will be better. point being? lga2011 is in a different league and there are better cost effective mobo's than the 990fx. "upgradablitly" should be the last priority you consider.

FM2 is itself upgradable as opposed to FM1 which was not. That'a actually one of it's biggest selling points. Well, that and it's significantly more powerful as a total package than any 1155 chips flying solo.

I hate 1155 for being a crippled POS with few reasons to exist on desktops--except for what it does VERY well. It's a video encoding badass. HD4000 is horrible horseshit to actually use, but it's one good use is to edit video better than LGA2011. In that one case, there is little point to buy anything else.

Quote from AustinPowersISU : I wish AMD would come out with a Mini ITX AM3+ board. One can actually make a pretty decent Mini ITX gaming rig now adays. I wanted to go AMD 6300 (as it's the best bang per buck in my opinion), but this i3 will fit the bill for me as there is no option for AMD. I'm pairing it up with a 2GB 7850 videocard and gaming at 1920x1080. I'll "MOST LIKELY" be videocard limited at the resolution, but it depends on the game. I can always upgrade to a faster chip later and sell the i3 for a very little loss, or use it as a hand-me-down to my main htpc which is using in Ivy Bridge Celeron. I don't get all the Intel/AMD hate going on around here. The price for the i3 is the best you can find online. If people want an i3, let them get their i3!

Go with FM2 and dual graphics for ITX if you're looking at i3s. The new APUs will be GCN based with 4GHz modules --they'll slay an i3.

BTW this is really the only Intel platform I really dislike. 1155 is a comedy of errors that's worse than pressler. Thing is, just like pressler --I'm in the minority saying it's shit.

Quote from elecrobento : ...says the guy who obviously hasn't seen the benchmarks... This lowest-tier i3 demolishes any AMD processor in the price range, even disregarding special discounts like this.

Quote from RyanL : Demolishes at what, synthetic benchmarks? There's very little difference between real world usage.

Let's look at those benchmarks. Passmark for the i3 [cpubenchmark.net] versus the Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition [cpubenchmark.net] (on Amazon for $98 + free shipping Prime). Hm - looks like a slight AMD lead.

How about 3dMark? Core i3 [futuremark.com] versus the Phenom [futuremark.com]. Less than a quarter of a percentage in favor of Intel.

Anandtech lists the i3 and Phenom as somewhat similar in most benchmarks, with the Phenom taking a significant lead in most of them. [anandtech.com] It doesn't list any games, though.

Then there's the issue of upgradability. If you're planning on upgrading your processor without getting a new MB in the future, Intel is probably the better choice. But based on speed alone, the Phenom has a decent advantage for a similar (and sometimes much lower) price.

Quote from AustinPowersISU : I wanted to go AMD 6300 (as it's the best bang per buck in my opinion), but this i3 will fit the bill for me as there is no option for AMD. I'm pairing it up with a 2GB 7850 videocard and gaming at 1920x1080. I'll "MOST LIKELY" be videocard limited at the resolution, but it depends on the game. I can always upgrade to a faster chip later and sell the i3 for a very little loss, or use it as a hand-me-down to my main htpc which is using in Ivy Bridge Celeron.

I just built a similar system for my friend, using a Celeron G530 instead of an i3, with the intention of upgrading to an i5 later. He has the Sapphire OC 7850 2GB, and has no trouble playing modern games on a 1080p screen (although he switched from a 360, so he's okay with 30-40fps). It handles Witcher 2, FarCry 3, and Metro 2033 all on high settings without anti-aliasing.

Quote from Dillweed : Read the methodology again. What did they leave out?

Not enough to prove your point. Sorry dude

Quote from elecrobento : Not enough to prove your point. Sorry dude

You don't actually know what's missing, do you?

#1 Bulldozer is primary memory dependent. Performance is tied to RAM latency. That review doesn't use low latency. 1866 memory. Flawed.

#2 They didn't use the most recent CAPs. They're called the catylist application profiles now for a reason.

#3 They used a shit motherboard. ASRock's stuff gets 20% more out of the same chip b/c Asus retardedly designed theirs before having Dozer in their hands.

#4 They never even bothered to properly test multi application or extreme multithreaded performance.

#5 They still don't list kernel or HAL.

#6 Gamebryo (Skyrim) is AMD hostile, and only one of those games was AMD Evolved.

#7 None of the apps tested can even really scale out besides Photoshop.

#8 A 2500K was competing against an 8150FX, not an 8120FX.

#9 An 8120FX in a bad config still kicked that 2500K in the nuts in the only really CPU intensive situations.

#10 That review flat out states AMD outruns Intel in Win8.

Now, what were you saying???

Quote from xveganrox : Let's look at those benchmarks. Passmark for the i3 [cpubenchmark.net] versus the Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition [cpubenchmark.net] (on Amazon for $98 + free shipping Prime). Hm - looks like a slight AMD lead. How about 3dMark? Core i3 [futuremark.com] versus the Phenom [futuremark.com]. Less than a quarter of a percentage in favor of Intel. Anandtech lists the i3 and Phenom as somewhat similar in most benchmarks, with the Phenom taking a significant lead in most of them. [anandtech.com] It doesn't list any games, though. Then there's the issue of upgradability. If you're planning on upgrading your processor without getting a new MB in the future, Intel is probably the better choice. But based on speed alone, the Phenom has a decent advantage for a similar (and sometimes much lower) price. I just built a similar system for my friend, using a Celeron G530 instead of an i3, with the intention of upgrading to an i5 later. He has the Sapphire OC 7850 2GB, and has no trouble playing modern games on a 1080p screen (although he switched from a 360, so he's okay with 30-40fps). It handles Witcher 2, FarCry 3, and Metro 2033 all on high settings without anti-aliasing.

Pass mark is x87. AMD no longer even has hardware x87 support.

Stars has been surpassed by Driver and Trinity in 100% of situations.

Quote from m715 : Near the city, I'm mid-way in near PA border, so a 6-7 hour round trip

There's one near philly

Quote from Dillweed : Pass mark is x87. AMD no longer even has hardware x87 support. Stars has been surpassed by Driver and Trinity in 100% of situations.

And if only my 3.0GHz PPC 970GX could run SSE2, it would smoke all of you!

But seriously. What you're saying doesn't have any relevance to my post. I gave a long list of benchmarks, not just Passmark. If you're suggesting that AMD's Stars doesn't have hardware x87 support for floating point calculations and Intel's Ivy Bridge i3s do, you're sadly mistaken. If you're suggesting that Passmark is synthetic and not applicable to normal use, you might be right, but the other benchmarks (many involving programs that lots of PC users use regularly) support the Passmark benchmark, so I'm not really sure what your point is.

Stars has been surpassed by Trinity? Certainly not if you're at all price sensitive. Are you honestly suggesting an A8-3850 is going to be better in any situation than the 965 BE? I can think of one - power consumption - but not even by much. I think most people would choose a stronger, faster CPU over one that consumes a tiny bit less power.

Bottom line is, you might not really consider yourself a "techie" person, so ask around. There's a reason that Trinity is considered a failure and Bulldozer is considered a bigger failure. At the end of the day, though, you should look at real world benchmarks based on what people actually use processors for - gaming, Excel, photoshop, and video encoding are all good examples to compare benchmarks on. Look at any of those, and you'll see that a similarly priced Trinity processor is smoked or at least beaten on every count by the 965 BE.

Quote from Dillweed : Go with FM2 and dual graphics for ITX if you're looking at i3s. The new APUs will be GCN based with 4GHz modules --they'll slay an i3. BTW this is really the only Intel platform I really dislike. 1155 is a comedy of errors that's worse than pressler. Thing is, just like pressler --I'm in the minority saying it's shit.

Going to stay away from dual graphics for a long long time. They may have fixed all the issues, but they have left a sour taste in my mouth. Certain games perform worse or no better than a single video card, there can be micro stuttering, etc.

Despite this, you really had me reconsidering my purchases. My nas4free box uses an A10-5700 and a board with a A85X chipset (8 sata ports rocks for nas4free!). The CPU is way overkill for nas4free. I could pull that CPU and use it on a mini ITX build and purchase a A4-5300 for my nas4free box and save some cash.

But then I went and looked at the mini ITX boards at newegg. There is only one board that uses the A85X chipset:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Pro...6813157357

While it looks to be a solid board, it doesn't really compare to the board I am getting:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Pro...6813128567

Integrated wireless, bluetooth, dual nic. All these are important in a mini-itx build (in my opinion) because there is simply no expansion. Sure there are USB devices, but that just adds to the clutter.

And what do I gain by going FM2. The gaming performance will be nearly identical. With 1155, I can throw in an i7 3370k at a later date if needed. I have no idea what AMD will have in the future, nor do I know how long they will support FM2. The i7 is a sure thing. I know I won't be able to get anything faster than that i7, but at least I know now that it is an option.

So while I understand your advice, I still think going with the i3 is the better choice for mini-itx. AMD needs more options. They need a mini-itx AM3+ board, and they need mini-itx boards with more features for FM2.

Quote from AustinPowersISU : Going to stay away from dual graphics for a long long time. They may have fixed all the issues, but they have left a sour taste in my mouth. Certain games perform worse or no better than a single video card, there can be micro stuttering, etc. Despite this, you really had me reconsidering my purchases. My nas4free box uses an A10-5700 and a board with a A85X chipset (8 sata ports rocks for nas4free!). The CPU is way overkill for nas4free. I could pull that CPU and use it on a mini ITX build and purchase a A4-5300 for my nas4free box and save some cash. But then I went and looked at the mini ITX boards at newegg. There is only one board that uses the A85X chipset: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Pro...6813157357 While it looks to be a solid board, it doesn't really compare to the board I am getting: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Pro...6813128567 Integrated wireless, bluetooth, dual nic. All these are important in a mini-itx build (in my opinion) because there is simply no expansion. Sure there are USB devices, but that just adds to the clutter. And what do I gain by going FM2. The gaming performance will be nearly identical. With 1155, I can throw in an i7 3370k at a later date if needed. I have no idea what AMD will have in the future, nor do I know how long they will support FM2. The i7 is a sure thing. I know I won't be able to get anything faster than that i7, but at least I know now that it is an option. So while I understand your advice, I still think going with the i3 is the better choice for mini-itx. AMD needs more options. They need a mini-itx AM3+ board, and they need mini-itx boards with more features for FM2.

i agree. the value on mitx mobo is much better with 1155. and for gaming, the i3 with it's excellent single threaded performance and hyperthreading does very well for gaming [tomshardware.com], and will work nicely with your 7850. also, there were issues with a certain a75 asrock mobo back when there was maybe 2-3 mitx fm2 mobo options. they are improving but havent had the maturity and presence of the 1155 options. with consoles going amd ( and essentially apu's at that) expect major improvements with them, but for now i think you made the right decision.

Quote from AGpennypacker : i agree. the value on mitx mobo is much better with 1155. and for gaming, the i3 with it's excellent single threaded performance and hyperthreading does very well for gaming [tomshardware.com], and will work nicely with your 7850. also, there were issues with a certain a75 asrock mobo back when there was maybe 2-3 mitx fm2 mobo options. they are improving but havent had the maturity and presence of the 1155 options. with consoles going amd ( and essentially apu's at that) expect major improvements with them, but for now i think you made the right decision.

Thanks. I think so too. I think if I had gotten a 79xx series card, the i3 would be the limiting factor. I think 7850 + i3 is a pretty good combo (one won't limit the other too much).

Quote from Dillweed : You don't actually know what's missing, do you? 1-10 Now, what were you saying???

Irrelevant. I asked for a source for your idea about the power rating systems being different for Intel and AMD and this translating to AMD actually using less power than Intel setups. As you've ignored the request and all evidence is to the contrary anyway, I'll just assume you're wrong, which really doesn't make me feel like giving any of your other information any sort of credence.

But alas, I'm really quite done with this all. Good day sir

Quote from xveganrox : And if only my 3.0GHz PPC 970GX could run SSE2, it would smoke all of you!

I've actually got a 45w ARM chip sitting around here somewhere. I think we'll be seeing RISC make a desktop comeback courtesy of Nvidia soon...

Quote from xveganrox : But seriously. What you're saying doesn't have any relevance to my post. I gave a long list of benchmarks, not just Passmark. If you're suggesting that AMD's Stars doesn't have hardware x87 support for floating point calculations and Intel's Ivy Bridge i3s do, you're sadly mistaken. If you're suggesting that Passmark is synthetic and not applicable to normal use, you might be right, but the other benchmarks (many involving programs that lots of PC users use regularly) support the Passmark benchmark, so I'm not really sure what your point is.

x87 is entirely in software. My point was it's irrelevance. Nothing more.

Quote from xveganrox : Stars has been surpassed by Trinity? Certainly not if you're at all price sensitive. Are you honestly suggesting an A8-3850 is going to be better in any situation than the 965 BE? I can think of one - power consumption - but not even by much. I think most people would choose a stronger, faster CPU over one that consumes a tiny bit less power.

I think you need to look again. Trinity beats stars pretty handily. It's about total system performance. NOT just CPUs --you're too far into your niche to see that one.

Quote from xveganrox : Bottom line is, you might not really consider yourself a "techie" person, so ask around. There's a reason that Trinity is considered a failure and Bulldozer is considered a bigger failure. At the end of the day, though, you should look at real world benchmarks based on what people actually use processors for - gaming, Excel, photoshop, and video encoding are all good examples to compare benchmarks on. Look at any of those, and you'll see that a similarly priced Trinity processor is smoked or at least beaten on every count by the 965 BE.

Yeah....all niche uses.

Trinity is a roaring success BTW. AMD has record global market share because of it. Where they DON'T have record market share is in the US --but that's another story altogether. Hell, in the US IBM x86 PCs are losing market share...