Phenom II X4 955 vs Intel I3 2100 sandy bridge (gaming)

The Phenom is $5 dollars cheaper and a decent motherboard for the AMD will cost $25-$30 less than if I go Intel. Price is a major factor in my choice as I have to keep the total system including operating system under $650. What would be the better CPU strictly from a gaming perspective when gaming at 1280x1024. It will be paired with either a ATI5770 or a nVidia gtx 460, I'd like to be able to play most modern games at high settings for the next 12-18 months before I build a true high end rig when bulldozer or the next gen Intel chips come out and come down in price.

I know that while not many games take full advantage of 4 physical cores that more and more that seems to be the case, the I3 2100 only has two real physical cores and sorta acts as a 4 core cpu because of hyperthreading, what are the limitations of hyper threding compared to 4 physical cores when it comes to gaming and do you see those limitations becoming more of a factor in the near future? I will not be playing RTS games which I know are very CPU demanding, I like FPS and racing games if that makes one better over the other.

Thanks for any help

They get similar performance in games. I'd go for the X4 955 though due to it being a true quad-core whilst the i3 2100 is a dual-core.

It's pretty much a toss-up. The i3 by-and-large outperforms the 955 in games (although OC'ing the 955 can somewhat close the gap), but the 955 has the advantage of being a quad-core (which in theory means it could be a little more future-proof) and being slightly cheaper. Personally I'd probably lean towards the 955 simply because the idea of buying a dual-core desktop CPU seems outdated nowadays, but the i3 is apparently so much faster core-for-core that not sure it would be the right decision.

if you're confident you can get a decent build on craigslist

http://toronto.en.craigslist.ca/drh/sys/2437409109.html

It's pretty much a toss-up. The i3 by-and-large outperforms the 955 in games (although OC'ing the 955 can somewhat close the gap), but the 955 has the advantage of being a quad-core (which in theory means it could be a little more future-proof) and being slightly cheaper. Personally I'd probably lean towards the 955 simply because the idea of buying a dual-core desktop CPU seems outdated nowadays, but the i3 is apparently so much faster core-for-core that not sure it would be the right decision.

PBSnipes

955 there isnt an excuse these dyas not to have a quad core. sb may out preform it but there isnt an excuse for it not to be a quad core and its not a quad core. and therefore sucks.

955 there isnt an excuse these dyas not to have a quad core. sb may out preform it but there isnt an excuse for it not to be a quad core and its not a quad core. and therefore sucks.

ionusX

ah its always good to see you appear ionusx. Any news today on AMD?

955 is better.

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

955 there isnt an excuse these dyas not to have a quad core. sb may out preform it but there isnt an excuse for it not to be a quad core and its not a quad core. and therefore sucks.

blaznwiipspman1

ah its always good to see you appear ionusx. Any news today on AMD?

read my other post kepler is slightly delayed and 2013 we will have amd but no nvidia.

I vote 955 all the way. With sandy bridge its 2500k for gaming or bust.AutoPilotOn

I have to agree with this. For gaming it is senseless to buy a CPU other than the PII X4 955 or i5-2500k.