CPU Compare

The 3770k completely stomps the FX. Period.

First reason, the FX isn't actually a quad core, but rather a dual core with a more physical version of HT that I've explained in other threads.
Second, Intel has had a higher IPC compared to AMD since C2D was released.

If you haven't already take a look at my thread that explains a bit about the Intel vs AMD side of things. It's mostly geared for gaming, but the info is relevant to all cases.

http://www.techist.com/forums/f76/your-cpu-modern-games-guide-those-building-261626/

Practically any i5 would outperform the 4100. It's a rather weak chip. I would actually rather have a Phenom 2 over the 4100.
 
This is passmark's result between the two in a general mashup of benchmarks.
*refer to attached*
Blows it out of the water by comparison.
 
Last edited:
This is passmark's result between the two in a general mashup of benchmarks.
*refer to attached*
Blows it out of the water by comparison.
Passmarks site sucks, and most CPU tests done are synthetic. Just like we don't use 3dmark to compare GPUs we don't use synthetic CPU tests to compare CPUs. Which is basically all they use.

The 3770k is one of the fastest CPUs on the market right now. It's common sense a cheap FX CPU isn't going to shake a stick at it.
 
The only AMD chips that have a chance to be be close to the i7 3770k are FX 8320 and FX 8350.
Don't base the CPU only on the clocks, the architecture plays an important role.
 
Last edited:
The only AMD chips that have a chance to be be close to the i7 3770k are FX 8320 and FX 8350.
Don't base the CPU only on the clocks, the architecture plays an important role.
Exactly, more importantly IPC. Single threaded performance still holds the main ground as there are still very few programs that will fully utilize more than 2 cores.
 
Back
Top Bottom