Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by arcticstoat, 1 Jul 2011.
Any idea when notebooks with fusion processors will appear too? Even Exxx stuff is golddust
Really? you saw no topic mentioning AMD products?
"gmost US sites put this up against llano as it's in the same price ballpark and the AMD betters it generally"
"so, yesterday I've read your review about the new A8-3850 and you guys compare it to this i3 processor. Why didn't you use the same games on both reviews? Why don't show that this i3 is a lot worse in some other games? you could say that this one performed well in Crysis but awfully in Leaf4Dead. on the other side I would like to know who did the AMD CPU performed in Crysis and X3: Terran Conflit, just to compare...
You're better than this... "
"I was hoping to see a comparison to the Phenom II X4 955, it's direct competitor in terms of price since they're exactly the same price on scan right now."
"It's not crying foul ...yesterday the A8 got compared to this; up in some tests down in others.
Today, this i3 gets a free ride without a llano in sight.
"Something rotten in the state of Denmark?" "
To quote a few, Yeah I couldn't see any reference to AMD either.
I know you did, but it's also £43 more which is almost 50% more. AKA not a very direct competitor.
EDIT: Let me correct myself, it is £54.60.
EDIT: Also I'm not really compaining, more just suggesting it be put again something that costs the same or close to it. AKA I want to see a a Pentium G620 pitted against a Phenom II X2 not again something more more expensive than it
I just wanted to understand why they do that, and they explained it. I'm no fanboy, I eve have an Intel Q6600 CPU...
@enikmaster please dont take it personally. The other dude was saying no one mentioned AMD. You were one of many who did.
I had a Q6600 as well.
how is the i3 better than a pentium chip in the same socket?
Wouldn't it be cheaper and you'd get the same amount of horsepower somewhat?
I love how Intel makes CPUs that focus on having a much higher instruction per clock than AMD. I think AMD wasted its time and money on the ATI deal and Fusion. AMD is banking on developers coding for its APU which is like when Intel bet that all developers would code for hyperthreading. Intel lost that bet and so will AMD with its APU. AMD should have focused their resources on making a faster CPU and struck a licensing agreement with ATI instead.
Actually, 'AMD fan boi comments' was what the poster said he didn't see any of, not 'AMD comments'; big difference.
But meh, there are always new CPUs & GPUs / technologies appearing every year or two, I dont think anyone should get upset that their high end build from 18 months ago is now middle of the range at best compared to the latest components, 'tis the nature of the beast...
Speaking as an AMD fanboi, things have been looking depressing for AMD for a while. The best I can say now is that Intel procs have more power than the average person needs...but with better power management, even that argument carries less and less water.
Dear god, AMD, don't F up on Bulldozer...
Interesting review. Personally I would love to see Bit-Tech review the i3 2100T (35W TDP) coupled with an mATX motherboard.
I have a plan to make a very low power draw business PC out of one and I'd love to see a few real-world benchmarks on it. From what I've read so far it could produce a very capable (non-gaming) PC that draws <50w under full load and <10w at idle (where business PCs spend most of their time) using the integrated graphics.
Where's the overclocking?!?!
The Core i3 2100 lacks an unlocked multiplier meaning virtually no overclocking is possible.
I have a Core i3 2100 myself which does a nice job in a mini-ITX based system I am using ATM!
However,it does seem that the newer Phenom II X4 955BE CPUs can hit between 4GHZ to 4.5GHZ!!
Also,your video encoding results seem way off as loads of other websites which have tested the Core i3 2100 too!!
OTH,Quick Sync does help massively when you are making encodes for portable devices. Quality is better with a CPU only encode but it is a very useful feature IMHO.
The Athlon II X3 455 is around £58:
The Pentium G840 is around £62:
But then read the comments I gave as examples and its pretty clear who they are batting for in this INTEL topic.
First of all don't u think that u r bit late for posting a review of the same CPU? I mean LR has posted the review 6 months before u. But that's not the real problem as i believe "better late than never". The big thing is that after all this delay, u only benchmarked only 2 games i.e Crysis & X3 which are granny old games. I was expecting games like Bad Company 2, Crysis 2, Dirt 3, Metro etc. I mean it's not like u don't have other games but after all this time u only came up with 2 two titles?
My point is not to criticize u but i 'll appreciate if u to do benchmark one game & i.e BAD COMPANY 2 & preferably the multi-player part.
Rather than comparing to a Intel Core i7-990X Extreme Edition (4.6 Ghz) etc, it would have been more useful to compare to the other similar i3 processors (2120, 2105, 2100T), along with the similar Pentium G and rival Athlon processors.
Noob here, with a silly question.
I've heard the i3 2100 processor is a good value bugdet chip, but everytime I google it looking for a laptop with it it's not 3.1GHz it's ~2.1GHz. If I search i3 2100 and 3.1GHz it only shows the processor by itself. Is it not to possible to get a laptop with an i3 sandy bridge @ 3.1GHz?
This'll be making its way into a small build I've planned just around Christmas.
When I go to read this review, it redirects to channelpro.co.uk. Definitely still looks like a BT review, but with all the page nav etc. belonging to another Dennis site. Something wrong with the SSS/CSS?
Separate names with a comma.