i remember when this chip was 75$ and while sure, the 1600 af was the better buy you couldn't really get one, every tech youtuber hyped it up and made it go out of stock instantly as the 1600af was just a defective 3600 that AMD sold for cheap to re-coop costs for about 2 years the i3 9100f was the best budget CPU to pair with a dedicated GPU was very impressive, i ended up buying one along with a h310 pro vd from MSI and a rtx 2060 (upgradeed from a g4560 and h210 with a 1050ti) the performance gains were massive for such a cheap cpu as a reference the g4560 was a 50$ chip in 2016 so for 25$ extra dollars you got pretty much double the performance for a year ish after the i3 9100f launch, people dogged on it for being a 4 core cpu without actually even looking at benches, all you heard was "1600 af is better why buy a i3 4 core cpu" it's funny because the 1600af is a 6 core 12 thread chip and in gaming, only out preformed the i3 by about 15-20% still a noticeable difference but they made it out to seem like the i3 was completely unplayable and in addition the 1600af was so rare that you basically just had to buy a 2600 instead (that costed well over double the i3) then in the later half of the second year of the i3 9100f life, people realized that yeah, it was an amazing chip for the money and intel could actually keep it in stock, tons of people now own them. these days the i3 9100f isn't a good buy being the same price as a i3 10100f so you might aswell get that.. kinda sucks that the i3 10100f is not a sub 100$ chip rip the uber budget gamers, but it is what it is im glad i got one before people realized it was a insane value that was actually instock. it's still an amazing 60fps AAA title cpu and a good 144fps esports title chip the way i look at cpu's and gpu's is why buy something in the middle, i'v never really gotten that if you are looking for 60-75fps (to match your monitor) why get something that will get 80-85fps like the 1600 af or the 2600 sure it will last slightly longer, and for the same price it would be a no brainer but they weren't the same price since by the time AMD could keep both in stock they were nearly 150$ cpus and monitors are only made for 60hz-75hz-100hz-125hz-144hz-165hz-175hz-240hz and the new 360hz getting something that wont hit the mark of your monitor doesn't make alot of sense (as an example, getting a 2600/1600af with a 144hz monitor) you'd want a 3600 or better for 144hz in most AAA games but if you have a 60 or 75hz monitor then get what matches what you need and is cheap. idk people just didn't really think much of it through when comparing this little monster they just thought cores = better until finally realizing that paying double the money (sometimes more) for 15% more performance and that performance jump didn't match their monitor didn't make sense, only if you do production i could see why , lets be real tho, 90% of the people who bought the 1600af and the 2600 dont' they just game, the majority of the pc world just plays games, and browses the internet. the argument of, "oh well its way better in production workloads" was a mute point at best for the vast majority of people it's just it was cool to hate on intel and praise AMD and i don't wanna sound like a fanboy here cause i agree what AMD did was good, it forces intel to actually give performance jumps and core bumps consumers won and that is a good thing, intel finally changed their ways but buying an AMD cpu when it didn't make much sense to your build just because "it's cool to hate on intel" was dumb
Man, my man! People like you are the reason I like pc gaming because most of the community is just filled with dumbass consumers that can't look past the higher the better mentality. Yes, we all want to ball out on our rigs but fuck, this shit is expensive af and you need a good enough job to get stuff like this and then find time to put this stuff to even real use! I went crazy over buying the 9100f over AMD because, y'know, its AMD and if you're not getting atleast a 6-core chip in 2020, tf are you doing?! Its so easy to not understand what you need and what you want. My monitor is indeed only 75hz so the 9100f pulls through easy. I don't need 6-cores for gaming and you're right about demanding that much power for gaming alone. Imagine someone that actually requires a 6-core chip for rendering or music production, what would that guy do against someone that wants to play amoung us in 4k? Sucks, right? The chip shortage is so depressing. This blind buyer's mentality is toxic and harmful to the gaming community. This is why consoles are winning this time. The series s is incredible value, has top-notch features, and barely the cost of the newest ryzen cpu or even the newer rtx cards. Budget was a huge thing in pc gaming back since 2014 and now its just money, cores, and dat fps tho. Thank god, there are cool people like you that actually understand tech and that too, you had like 2 likes on your comment. Sucks, man. Lets hope people become wiser with time.
I have this cpu , just get some good coolermaster thermalpastd and apply it .. making the heat dissipation more really shines this cpu .. its beast of a cpu and combination for 1440 p gaming😊
i remember when this chip was 75$
and while sure, the 1600 af was the better buy
you couldn't really get one, every tech youtuber hyped it up and made it go out of stock instantly
as the 1600af was just a defective 3600 that AMD sold for cheap to re-coop costs
for about 2 years the i3 9100f was the best budget CPU to pair with a dedicated GPU
was very impressive, i ended up buying one along with a h310 pro vd from MSI and a rtx 2060
(upgradeed from a g4560 and h210 with a 1050ti)
the performance gains were massive for such a cheap cpu
as a reference the g4560 was a 50$ chip in 2016
so for 25$ extra dollars you got pretty much double the performance
for a year ish after the i3 9100f launch, people dogged on it for being a 4 core cpu
without actually even looking at benches, all you heard was "1600 af is better why buy a i3 4 core cpu"
it's funny because the 1600af is a 6 core 12 thread chip and in gaming, only out preformed the i3 by about 15-20%
still a noticeable difference but they made it out to seem like the i3 was completely unplayable
and in addition the 1600af was so rare that you basically just had to buy a 2600 instead (that costed well over double the i3)
then in the later half of the second year of the i3 9100f life, people realized that yeah, it was an amazing chip for the money
and intel could actually keep it in stock, tons of people now own them.
these days the i3 9100f isn't a good buy being the same price as a i3 10100f
so you might aswell get that.. kinda sucks that the i3 10100f is not a sub 100$ chip
rip the uber budget gamers, but it is what it is
im glad i got one before people realized it was a insane value that was actually instock.
it's still an amazing 60fps AAA title cpu and a good 144fps esports title chip
the way i look at cpu's and gpu's
is why buy something in the middle, i'v never really gotten that
if you are looking for 60-75fps (to match your monitor)
why get something that will get 80-85fps like the 1600 af or the 2600
sure it will last slightly longer, and for the same price it would be a no brainer
but they weren't the same price since by the time AMD could keep both in stock they were nearly 150$ cpus
and monitors are only made for 60hz-75hz-100hz-125hz-144hz-165hz-175hz-240hz and the new 360hz
getting something that wont hit the mark of your monitor doesn't make alot of sense (as an example, getting a 2600/1600af with a 144hz monitor)
you'd want a 3600 or better for 144hz in most AAA games
but if you have a 60 or 75hz monitor then get what matches what you need
and is cheap.
idk people just didn't really think much of it through when comparing this little monster
they just thought cores = better
until finally realizing that paying double the money (sometimes more) for 15% more performance and that performance jump didn't match their monitor
didn't make sense, only if you do production i could see why , lets be real tho, 90% of the people who bought the 1600af and the 2600 dont'
they just game, the majority of the pc world just plays games, and browses the internet.
the argument of, "oh well its way better in production workloads" was a mute point at best for the vast majority of people
it's just it was cool to hate on intel and praise AMD
and i don't wanna sound like a fanboy here cause i agree what AMD did was good, it forces intel to actually give performance jumps and core bumps
consumers won and that is a good thing, intel finally changed their ways
but buying an AMD cpu when it didn't make much sense to your build just because "it's cool to hate on intel"
was dumb
Man, my man! People like you are the reason I like pc gaming because most of the community is just filled with dumbass consumers that can't look past the higher the better mentality. Yes, we all want to ball out on our rigs but fuck, this shit is expensive af and you need a good enough job to get stuff like this and then find time to put this stuff to even real use! I went crazy over buying the 9100f over AMD because, y'know, its AMD and if you're not getting atleast a 6-core chip in 2020, tf are you doing?! Its so easy to not understand what you need and what you want. My monitor is indeed only 75hz so the 9100f pulls through easy. I don't need 6-cores for gaming and you're right about demanding that much power for gaming alone. Imagine someone that actually requires a 6-core chip for rendering or music production, what would that guy do against someone that wants to play amoung us in 4k? Sucks, right? The chip shortage is so depressing. This blind buyer's mentality is toxic and harmful to the gaming community. This is why consoles are winning this time. The series s is incredible value, has top-notch features, and barely the cost of the newest ryzen cpu or even the newer rtx cards. Budget was a huge thing in pc gaming back since 2014 and now its just money, cores, and dat fps tho. Thank god, there are cool people like you that actually understand tech and that too, you had like 2 likes on your comment. Sucks, man. Lets hope people become wiser with time.
The way you have written corresponds to the crest and trough of a rhythm. A very well written and thoroughly research one!
Muchas gracias, estaba esperando ver cómo corría el ac valhalla con esta configuración que es la mía y nadie subía vídeo!
thanks for the video bro. What config you use in "Power Management Mode" in Nvidia panel?
I have this cpu , just get some good coolermaster thermalpastd and apply it .. making the heat dissipation more really shines this cpu .. its beast of a cpu and combination for 1440 p gaming😊
What did you use for recording this gameplay?
ciber punk en la ciudad serviria mejor y algunos juegos apuntando al suelo???? simplemente inútil gracias
How is your GPU utilised so much i also have i3 9100f and rtx 2060 but my cpu usage is higher than gpu
Is playing în 1440p
@@thextian6414 does that make gpu usage more?
Good Video
I have the same components but mi gpu not use 99% :/, in red dead use only 60% gpu and 100% cpu, why?
Gpu bottleneck your cpu isn't powerful enough
@@ProbablyNot18 he said he have the same components
He is playing at 1440p
Drop fps ↖️↖️↖️↖️↖️↖️
İlk
@@berkayvakvak darboğaz yapıyor ama oyundan oyuna değişiyor, Fh4 Gta 5 gibi oyunlarda 75 ve üstü alabilirsin yani ben alıyorum
There bottleneck?
GPU. It is always on 100%. CPU was always in 60-80%.
@@XaleanderS so theres bottleneck?
yes bottleneck.
@@hakanyildirim7565 I have a 9100f so is it worth buying the 2060? Or is the bottleneck too much? If yes what cpu do you recommend for me?
@@landbouwspotting_ferre i5 9th gen