I want to stay low on budget for my computer build and I've decided on getting an i3 2100. However, I don't know if it will be enough for future games such as mw3 and bf3. If a game utilizes 4 cores, will the i3 2100 still be viable?

epikAnglory

United States1120 Posts

June 12 2011 03:40 GMT

You will still be able to play the game decently, at what setting though, I cannot be sure. On low (and possibly medium) you should be doing ok, but after that you should start seeing some problems. Multitasking will also nearly be impossible (such as streaming or Fraps) since it is a dual core. The others depend on your graphics card and such. Just because a game utilizes all four cores does not mean a dual core will suck at the game, it just will not be as fast. i3 should have faster cores than MOST quad-cores out there, so the main problem will probably just be multitasking.

Greek820

Canada210 Posts

June 12 2011 03:46 GMT

On June 12 2011 12:40 iTzAnglory wrote:
You will still be able to play the game decently, at what setting though, I cannot be sure. On low (and possibly medium) you should be doing ok, but after that you should start seeing some problems. Multitasking will also nearly be impossible (such as streaming or Fraps) since it is a dual core. The others depend on your graphics card and such. Just because a game utilizes all four cores does not mean a dual core will suck at the game, it just will not be as fast. i3 should have faster cores than MOST quad-cores out there, so the main problem will probably just be multitasking.

dude what are you talking about..low - medium? he'll easily be able to play higher than that, and i believe you're underestimating the i3 2100, he'll be able to even stream

Jaxtyk

United States600 Posts

June 12 2011 03:51 GMT

What about the GPU.

Charger

United States2405 Posts

June 12 2011 03:55 GMT

That processor will be good for some time to come and you should be able to play all modern games pretty well. If you want to post your build and budget it would be more helpful as I think bumping up to an i5 would be a better investment for about $60 more or so and maybe we could help you trim off some cash elsewhere to get this worked in. Your processor isn't the place to skimp if at all possible. Like I said though, the i3 2100 is a good dual core processor and should be just fine for a little while.

writer22816

United States5775 Posts

June 12 2011 04:14 GMT

Yes. It will mostly come down to your GPU.

iloveroo

Canada294 Posts

June 12 2011 04:26 GMT

I currently have an i3-2100, and its awesome so far.. I do recommend getting it as does tomshardware:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu,2951-3.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu-core-i3-2100-phenom-ii-x6-1075t,2859-10.html
The 2100 will last you for quite sometime, you can later then upgrade if you'd like at christmas time to an i5 (D3 will possibly be coming out in December or the beginning of next year)
The i3-2100 has hyperthreading, so it technically utilizes 4 cores, but its not as good as a true 4 core like an i5

MichaelEU

Netherlands816 Posts

June 12 2011 04:34 GMT

Here's a cpu-only test.

That's a stronger processor. It all depends on what resolution you play though, probably not full hd going by your budget. Streaming taxes the CPU so you'll be able to do that.

With a separate GPU, you'll be able to handle it just fine on probably any resolution.

Myrmidon

United States9452 Posts

June 12 2011 04:35 GMT

On June 12 2011 13:26 iloveroo wrote:
I currently have an i3-2100, and its awesome so far.. I do recommend getting it as does tomshardware:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu,2951-3.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu-core-i3-2100-phenom-ii-x6-1075t,2859-10.html
the 2100 will last you for quite sometime, you can later then upgrade if you'd like at christmas time to an i5 (will possibly be coming out in dec to the beginning of next year)
The i3-2100 has hyperthreading, so it technically utilizes 4 cores, but its not as good as a true 4 core like an i5

I think what you're trying to say is that it can handle (the state of) four threads at once, not that it uses four cores.

Anyway, I agree with an i3-2100 being sufficient for most needs, particularly for gamers. Even if a game is threaded well enough such that more than two cores can be executing portions of the game simultaneously, it's not like you can always keep all the cores busy all the time. You won't get 100% more performance in a game by having twice as many cores.

As alluded to above, in many games with most graphics cards on higher graphics settings, the graphics card will be more of a limiting factor than the CPU.

Upgrading to an i5 in December doesn't make much sense. It'd be better to just get an i5 now, or wait about a full year until the next generation Ivy Bridge processors are available, which should be compatible with current motherboards.

a176

Canada6688 Posts

June 12 2011 05:11 GMT

#10

On June 12 2011 12:35 Xplitcit wrote:
I want to stay low on budget for my computer build and I've decided on getting an i3 2100. However, I don't know if it will be enough for future games such as mw3 and bf3. If a game utilizes 4 cores, will the i3 2100 still be viable?

The issue is that most games don't really make use of more than 2 cores; and for those that can use more cores, they don't really max the cores either.

For example, the i3-2100 itself is as fast, or faster, than AMD's top end 6 core processor in virtually all games.

Maybe one day, game developers will make proper use of those extra cores ... maybe