i3 2100 Futureproof?

[1337n00b]

Hi everyone,

I am looking to build a budget gaming PC. I was curious if a i3 would future proof me enough for the next 2-3 years, or if it would be better just to spend the extra $60 and get an i5 2300 for it's quad cores?

Note: I will not be OCing, so I will be getting an H67 MB.

Thanks a lot,

Antaeus

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Can you name specific titles that you are currently playing and would like to play in the next two/three years?

Most games still see limited benefit from upgrading to a quad, and you'd be better off spending that extra $60 on a better GPU. There are glaring exceptions, however. Let us know what you want to play.

 

[1337n00b]

Can you name specific titles that you are currently playing and would like to play in the next two/three years?

Most games still see limited benefit from upgrading to a quad, and you'd be better off spending that extra $60 on a better GPU. There are glaring exceptions, however. Let us know what you want to play.

Probably Bad Company 3 and Modern Warfare 3. I won't be playing Crysis 2. I'm curious if the trend in gaming is to use the quad cores, therefore I can just upgrade the GPU when needed.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Eh, quads have been accessible and increasingly widespread over the last four years, but I think the rate of quad core adoption by consumers has far outpaced the rate of games developed to run on all four cores. That is, the trend is there, but it's not especially strong. Gaming is not my forte though so I could be wrong.

BFBC3 and MW3 both utilize quads AFAIK, though I can't readily find benchmarks showing the performance improvement. You'd probably be better off going with a quad if you can afford it, and upgrading the GPU as budget/needs dictate.

 

[kowalabearhugs]

2-3 years is a long time to expected solid performance from a cpu. Get the i5-2400 - Newegg has it for only $5 more than the i5-2300.

 

[reb0rn]

true get a quad core

 

[notty22]

dx11 games imo, will be coded more with the presumption a quad core is present in the system.

 

[taltamir]

2-3 years is a long time to expected solid performance from a cpu. Get the i5-2400 - Newegg has it for only $5 more than the i5-2300.

solid advice, do that

 

[dbcooper1]

2-3 years is a long time to expected solid performance from a cpu. Get the i5-2400 - Newegg has it for only $5 more than the i5-2300.

+1
I bought one on CL for $75 and am running it on a $100 Asrock board and it turbos up to 3.8GHz with 1 core loaded and 3.6 with 2 or 3 loaded. Much of the power of a 2500k and it runs great; temps are good even with the stock cooling from an i3-540.

 

[paperwastage]

Hi everyone,

I am looking to build a budget gaming PC. I was curious if a i3 would future proof me enough for the next 2-3 years, or if it would be better just to spend the extra $60 and get an i5 2300 for it's quad cores?

Note: I will not be OCing, so I will be getting an H67 MB.

Thanks a lot,

Antaeus

i mean of course you could buy the i3, and wait to upgrade in the future(valid upgrade paths to 2500k/2600k, wait for a really cheap deal/used)

but I agree with going with a quad if you have the cash right now

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Yeah, go true 4 core, not 2 logical 2 physical.. as suggested the i5 2400 is a good chip if you won't be overclocking. that'll last 2-3yrs .. hell you'll probably make it through 3 gpu iterations.

 

[SickBeast]

op you would be much more future proof with a cheap amd quad core paired with a crossfire motherboard. i got my setup for $149 over 8 months ago. you should be able to find a better setup today for that price.

someone in the video forum just said that she got a 2500k for $149.

the new i3s that you can't overclock are a waste of time IMO.

 

[happy medium]

i3 2100 = Phenom II x4 @ 3.8. Get the 2100 now and Ivybridge 22nm upgrade in 2 years.

 

[SickBeast]

i3 2100 = Phenom II x4 @ 3.8. Get the 2100 now and Ivybridge 22nm upgrade in 2 years.

that's not true whatsoever. in highly threaded apps, the x4 will be faster.

the old i3s are better seeing as you can overclock them to 4.4ghz.

future upgrade paths are neither here nor there. i don't trust intel or amd with that stuff at this point. if bulldozer does indeed work in socket am3 motherboards, i will eat crow. D:

 

[sm625]

Yeah an older used i3 or i5 is better than the 2100 because you can overclock yourself up to the same performance level, for potentially a lot less money.

 

[happy medium]

in highly threaded apps, the x4 will be faster

But in this case the op wants a gaming pc and in highly threaded applications the x4 is not always faster.

 

[taltamir]

that's not true whatsoever. in highly threaded apps, the x4 will be faster.

the old i3s are better seeing as you can overclock them to 4.4ghz.

that is not true whatsoever. the i5 are significantly more powerful and anything that needs more that a fast clocked i5 is going to be multithreaded.
A dual core simply makes no sense in this day and age.

 

[hawtdawg]

Bad Company 2 is one of the few games i've seen truly utilize a quadcore. I expect BF3 to do the same.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

i3 2100 = Phenom II x4 @ 3.8. Get the 2100 now and Ivybridge 22nm upgrade in 2 years.

that's not true whatsoever. in highly threaded apps, the x4 will be faster.

the old i3s are better seeing as you can overclock them to 4.4ghz.

future upgrade paths are neither here nor there. i don't trust intel or amd with that stuff at this point. if bulldozer does indeed work in socket am3 motherboards, i will eat crow. D:

Yeah an older used i3 or i5 is better than the 2100 because you can overclock yourself up to the same performance level, for potentially a lot less money.

the OP will be playing games that will utilize more than 2 cores

the OP will not be overclocking

the OP wants this rig to give him the best for his money for the next 2-3 years

I guess none of you really read the OP or at least failed to comprehend those key facts

The X4 or older i3/i5s would be better for their cost or overclock-ability, but the OP isn't going to overclock, so that makes an i5 Sandy Bridge the best "future proof" CPU for his budget.

 

[AtenRa]

For BF3 i will suggest a quad core like Core i5 2400, if you cant afford it right now get the i3 2100 and upgrade in the future, perhaps even to IvyBridge.

 

[RussianSensation]

Hi everyone,

I am looking to build a budget gaming PC. I was curious if a i3 would future proof me enough for the next 2-3 years, or if it would be better just to spend the extra $60 and get an i5 2300 for it's quad cores?

Note: I will not be OCing, so I will be getting an H67 MB.

Thanks a lot,

Antaeus

$60 is one way to look at it. But since you are building a system from scratch, you should instead consider the $60 as a part of the total system cost.

For example, if your budget build is $500, then $60 extra makes it $560.

Now ask yourself, is a $560 Quad-core system better than a $500 dual-core system? You get 2x as many cores (i.e., 100% performance increase potential) for 12% more cost. That seems like excellent value to me.

Personally, I wouldn't consider any dual-core at this point. $60 you might save now will may turn into having to sell your CPU and upgrade again as more games start utilizing a quad-core. We have seen many users on LGA775 go through this exact same thing. Do you really want that hassle just to save $60 today?

However, if the $60 is the difference for you between getting an HD6770 and an HD6870, then I'd get the faster videocard instead. But otherwise, I'd rather get an i5-2400 + GTX560 Ti than a i3-2100 + GTX570.

 

[happy medium]

For BF3 i will suggest a quad core like Core i5 2400, if you cant afford it right now get the i3 2100 and upgrade in the future, perhaps even to IvyBridge.

This is what I was trying to say.

 

[1337n00b]

Thanks a lot for the advice everyone!

 

[RussianSensation]

Considering you still have a P4 system and AGP, it sounds to me like you keep your system(s) for a long time. In that case, you may consider waiting for the 6- or 8-core Bulldozer chips launching in September. This provides you with a chance to see how their performance plays out vs. an i5-2400/2500k, before doing a complete system rebuild that will probably be used by you for another 4-5 years. Either way, for a user such as yourself, I'd recommend nothing less than a quad-core given your upgrading preferences. In fact, I'd even go as far as to say that the cheapest 8-core BD may be the best thing for you.

 

[1337n00b]

Considering you still have a P4 system and AGP, it sounds to me like you keep your system(s) for a long time. In that case, you may consider waiting for the 6- or 8-core Bulldozer chips launching in September. This provides you with a chance to see how their performance plays out vs. an i5-2400/2500k, before doing a complete system rebuild that will probably be used by you for another 4-5 years. Either way, for a user such as yourself, I'd recommend nothing less than a quad-core given your upgrading preferences. In fact, I'd even go as far as to say that the cheapest 8-core BD may be the best thing for you.

Will do. The video card upgrades have left me able to play some of the latest games, which is also a reason I was more looking to future proof my GPU options, rather then CPU. I guess things may be changing now with the utilization of multiple cores?