Review: Intel Core i3 2100 Versus AMD FX-4100

AMD has launched a new processor for AM3 socket. For the mainstream classroom, AMD FX-4100 provides. With 4 cores and the speed of 3.6 GHz frequency, whether newcomers can compete with the Intel Core i3 2100 which is long enough to master this class?

From the specification, it appears that the AMD FX-4100 offers a better potential. Larger cache memory, higher speed and more cores makes the FX-4100 perform better. At least on paper. Meanwhile, Intel Core i3 2100 comes with a lower rate (even without the turbo) and fewer number of cores. However, hyperthread Intel (which makes it capable of running 4 threads) generally can not compete with the real core. In addition, the efficiency of Sandy Bridge architecture should also be taken into account.

The second price is relatively the same processor. Both are in Kisara 1 million dollars. If we look from the side of the platform support, both already have a fairly cheap motherboard support. At a later date, choose the AMD processor can lead to more investment lightly. As usual, board manufacturers will provide AMD solutions at prices cheaper than the Intel solution. Unfortunately, to date it has not happened.

Testing Platform

Processor
Intel Core i3 2100
AMD FX-4100

Motherboard
Z68A-GD80 MSI
ASUS Crosshair Formula V

Memory
Kingston KHX1600C9D381K2/4GX

Graphic Card
NVIDIA GTX 560 ti

Power Supply
Coolermaster Silent Pro Gold 800 Watt

Testing by using Microsoft Excel This resulted in a score that is not much different. Apparently, these two architectures are able to offer performance that is not much different. Testing with 7zip software is done with a choice of the number of threads of different workmanship. In testing a thread, i3 excel 2100 very thin. Meanwhile, in the testing of two threads, AMD FX-4100 is superior, although too thin. AMD FX-4100 finally winning when the use of testing with 4 threads.

Other compression software that we tested is Winzip 15. Testing non-AES AES was chosen because the test will generally be advantageous Intel only (because it has the extension AES). The result, AMD FX-4100 lags behind the Core i3 2100. There is a possibility, because the optimization of the good in WinZip, 2100 i3 can excel in this test.

Back to the testing that is quite heavy, this time we can see that the AMD FX-4100 is not far behind compared i3 2100 for testing Adobe Photoshop. In everyday life, chances are you will not feel the difference. In fact, usually an Intel Core i3 2100 is a "ruler" absolute for this benchmark.

Although the need to recognize the benefits of Core i3 2100, the performance of the AMD FX-4100 is only a very thin left behind. Supposedly, a little overclocking and tweaking can bring this score turned to advantage of AMD. For games that are more complicated and severe, visible i3 2100 is still superior than AMD's FX-4100. Difference score in DX11 Lost Planet 2 looks a bit worrying because the platform with the AMD FX-30's performance in 4100 shows just fps.

Analysis

AMD FX-4100 is a new processor from the specification is promising. Some of the tests performed show that the new processor is capable of approaching the performance of Intel Core i3 2100 which currently control the processor to lower middle market.

General software performance featuring the AMD FX-4100 is able to pursue the Core i3 2100 in some applications. Unfortunately, in general, i3 2100 still rule this type of testing.

Gaming performance shows that the AMD FX-4100 has the potential to be a gaming processor. Performance is already quite close to the Core i3 2100. However, its performance is not yet able to compete with the Core i3 2100 which is long enough to master this share.

Overclocking should be able to create the conditions turn around. If you want to try to practice overclocking, AMD FX-4100 may be showing higher performance than the Core i3 2100. Meanwhile, for the Core i3 2100, you almost can not do overclocking at all. A little tweaking can improve performance, but most likely the AMD FX-4100 can go beyond it when they over-clocked

CONCLUSION

 

Frankly, we were somewhat disappointed with AMD's FX-4100 platform that the more cores, clocked higher, turbo, larger caches and higher TDP, unable to shake the dominance of Core i3 2100 as mainstream processors. If the argument is overclocking can make faster FX-4100, this could be valid for most users. However, keep in mind, the FX-4100 which has higher power consumption than Core i3 2100 will be more extravagant again when the overclock. Thus, the practice is not valid for most users. For fans of AMD's products and those who want to have to play with overclocking processors, AMD FX-4100 is a champion. However, in general, we reluctantly have to admit that Intel's Core i3 2100 is the winner.