This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Is an i3 processor good?

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. Is an i3 processor good?

User Info: Bowsaa

Bowsaa
3 years ago#21
turbovirgin posted...
I know i5s are better because of the bigger caches and turbo boost, but I'm confused about the "more cores" argument. Desktop i3's have hyperthreading, so they can both run 4 threads, correct? Or is 4 physical cores a lot better than 2 cores with HT?


4 physical cores is much better then a dual w/ HT.

I've got an i3-3220 (Paired with a 2 GB 7850 and 8 gigs of ram), and it's great. I've been running everything that I play at high/ultra settings at 1080P (and/or max a good number of games) and don't see the framerate dropping below 30. That being said, I don't play a lot of the new releases and don't mind dropping some stuff a notch or two anyway.

You're pretty much going to be better of with an FX-6300 unless you play MMOs or strategy games, or you don't plan on playing new games much at all. When games only take advantage of a couple cores, the i3 will be a great buy, like for GW2 or SC2 (when compared to any AMD CPU), but in general the 6300 would be a better choice.
RENAMON!! *weeping* YOU HAVEN'T BENT ANYONE OVER THE SINK AND SHOVED A "CHECK THE STICKY* UP THEIR ASS IN MONTHS!! *curls into ball crying*- Cither3000

User Info: PhilOnDez

PhilOnDez
3 years ago#22
turbovirgin posted...
I know i5s are better because of the bigger caches and turbo boost, but I'm confused about the "more cores" argument. Desktop i3's have hyperthreading, so they can both run 4 threads, correct? Or is 4 physical cores a lot better than 2 cores with HT?


It's a huge difference. You can run 4 things at 100% speed at once vs 2 things full speed or 4 things at greatly reduced speed. The hyperthreading usually results in a gain but it's no replacement for multiple cores.
Every time I try to go where I really wanna be it's already where I am, 'cuz I'm already there
XBL, PSN, Steam, Origin, BSN, GFAQs, MC: PhilOnDez

User Info: Snuckie7

Snuckie7
3 years ago#23
turbovirgin posted...
I know i5s are better because of the bigger caches and turbo boost, but I'm confused about the "more cores" argument. Desktop i3's have hyperthreading, so they can both run 4 threads, correct? Or is 4 physical cores a lot better than 2 cores with HT?


Physical cores are a lot more powerful than virtualized ones.

http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/467/bench/CPU_2.png

Look there for the difference between the i3 2120 and the i5 2500K.
Intel Core i7 3820 | EVGA X79 SLI K2 | MSI 7950 Twin Frozr III | Samsung / 840 120GB / 8GB RAM | 1TB WD Caviar Blue | Corsair / 550D / H70 | Silencer MKIII 600W

User Info: Dragonspawn1319

Dragonspawn1319
3 years ago#24
For the time being it's okay. But if your looking for long term it will probably be more beneficial to look for an i5. In a year or 2 after the next gen consoles get settled in, there will probably also be a jump in pc requirements.

I have an i3 2120 and haven't ran into any playability issues yet. Paired with my now outdated 6770 I get high settings on most games. The only game I do have issues with is the one I bought it for, gw2. I can max the settings with 60 fps for most of the game; but when I get into the more intense parts of the game with 40+ players all fighting the i3 can't take it and get's bogged down to 10-20 fps. I know it's the i3 too I've tried turning down the video settings it makes no difference. Of course those same heavy battles are also known for giving i5's a run for their money as well.
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. Is an i3 processor good?

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived