Which is better overall.Also, do you agree that the i3 is like a 4 core virtually because of hyper threading. I'm really looking for which processor has the best performance on single threaded applications.Thanks
Yes, the i3 is better than any of those. But the first guy who answered is wrong about the 980. Not even AMD's Flagship 1100T could stack up against a 2500k. The 2500k is on par with an FX 8150 right now.
pick amd you can overclock phenom easy and if you can throw some spare money for the phenom 980
The phenom wins from the FX and the i3 2100 wins from the two. it may desire to basically have 2 cores, yet those 2 cores are quicker. in case you plan on overclocking, the 965 could desire to be a extra useful selection when you consider which you slightly have any room for overclocking with the i3.
Well, I use Pacemark currently as a benchmarker for cpu's...you realize of course, that every benchmarker is relative...but it does give you some idea of performance. On Saturday, I compared all of the recent retail type cpu's (not the server types from Intel or AMD, just the retail types). This included a study of the Octacore, Hexcore and Quad's. I did not take into account duo or dual cores or any monocores. The shocking thing I found out was the LOW LOW score for the new FX-4100, with a benchmark around something like 5000. I was like, well, shocked at the low score and wondered why AMD would sell a putz cpu like this...I guess it might work in a sluggish laptop....The Phenom II 955 came out pretty good for AMD cpu's (on up to the 980) and I would class the 980 at about an Intel i5 2500K roughly. So probably, the Phenom II 955 is probably on par with or just a little bit less performing thanthe i3 is. I don't have my benchmark study with me, but I am going on memory here. So best to worst then... i3 is better than 955 is a WHOLE LOT better than 4100.
hi there, well this is the best way to compare them, by looking at their performance rating (benchmark)
