i3 VS AMD

[Recon-UK]

Not a usual topic for me, but i have been seeing some absurd comments towards the i3 recently, mostly in the form of " the i3 is useless by the FX xxx"

Don't get me wrong, i usually choose the FX for budget based builds, only for overclocking however.

Can we have a civil discussion in this thread please, if someone with an i3 and 6300 can compare results, i myself would be happy, i hate reading drivel.

[PhantomChevron]

Which i3 in particular? 

[PhantomChevron]

Here are just some comparisions:

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i3-4130-vs-AMD-FX-6300

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i3-3220-vs-AMD-FX-6300

 

Note that some i3 have hyper-threading, and can give a pretty surprising performance 

[Recon-UK]

Haswell mostly, but older gen would be interesting.

@captainlolz7

[amintha1992]

they are both good CPUS but i would choose a 6300 over the i3 for most situations. 

[xox]

I rather like the power consumption of the i3 line

[Polyvalent]

If it's a haswell I'd go i3 all day every day.

[Recon-UK]

Here are just some comparisions:

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i3-4130-vs-AMD-FX-6300

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i3-3220-vs-AMD-FX-6300

Thanks for the links, i have only read the first one, i can see that the i3

would make an emulator user very happy, that lead in IPC is very strong,

however Batman shows me that these chips are basically kneck and kneck

with the i3 winning by roughly 10fps, at which point both chips are far

beyond even 120hz.

The FX outshines in full threaded use scenarios as expected.

Now, why can't people do what i have just done i stead of thinking they know it all?

Thanks for all other comments everyone.

Note that some i3 have hyper-threading, and can give a pretty surprising performance

[Recon-UK]

Can't edit that properly above on iphone, sorry.

[Kamina]

i3 if you're playing cpu bound games like MMO's or they don't make use of more cores.

 

For games that make use of more than four cores, the FX 6300 stands up fine.

[othertomperson]

Eh from what I've seen they perform near identically and are priced near identically. The i3 might have the edge over the AMD right now if only because of DirectX 11 and OpenGL's pathetic utilisation of CPU cores.

[Recon-UK]

i3 if you're playing cpu bound games like MMO's or they don't make use of more cores.

For games that make use of more than four cores, the FX 6300 stands up fine.

Makes perfect sense, since from what i know, you need to be using the FX to it's fullest to use all of it's IPC, however this does vary.

[Imabigmac]

Here are some more comparisons. http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/351/AMD_FX-Series_FX-6300_vs_Intel_Core_i3_i3-4130.html

 

Its same argument as the i5 vs 83xx. 

[Recon-UK]

Here are some more comparisons. http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/351/AMD_FX-Series_FX-6300_vs_Intel_Core_i3_i3-4130.html

Its same argument as the i5 vs 83xx.

Excellent link, thanks

I agree to the i5 vs 83xx, it is a bit more clear cut with those 2 though depending on use.

[TechFan@ic]

They're very much different processors. Like almost all CPU comparisons for the past seven years AMD will almost always give you more performance for your dollar by giving you more cores to play with unless you specifically need better single-threaded performance AMD CPUs are a much better deal.

AMD will literally give you 2X the performance/throughput for $10 more.
http://www.amazon.com/AMD-FD8320FRHKBOX-FX-8320-FX-Series-Edition/dp/B009O7YU56/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398121734&sr=8-1&keywords=FX+8320
http://www.amazon.com/Intel-i3-4130-FCLGA-Processor-BX80646I34130/dp/B00EUUKVXM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398121742&sr=8-1&keywords=i3+4130

 

Realistically speaking both chips will game just fine but if you were to do anything else other than gaming you will wish you had paid that extra $10 for twice the throughput.

[Recon-UK]

They're very much different processors. Like almost all CPU comparisons for the past seven years AMD will almost always give you more performance for your dollar by giving you more cores to play with unless you specifically need better single-threaded performance AMD CPUs are a much better deal.

AMD will literally give you 2X the performance/throughput for $10 more.

http://www.amazon.com/AMD-FD8320FRHKBOX-FX-8320-FX-Series-Edition/dp/B009O7YU56/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398121734&sr=8-1&keywords=FX+8320

http://www.amazon.com/Intel-i3-4130-FCLGA-Processor-BX80646I34130/dp/B00EUUKVXM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398121742&sr=8-1&keywords=i3+4130

Realistically speaking both chips will game just fine but if you were to do anything else other than gaming you will wish you had paid that extra $10 for twice the throughput.

Not sure if intentional, but you just destroyed my thread, that 8 core takes the piss for how cheap it is... In a good way though.

Thanks for your input, it seems the i3 is competitive vs the 6300, but for 10 slaps more..... Shiiiiiiit

[TechFan@ic]

Not sure if intentional, but you just destroyed my thread, that 8 core takes the piss for how cheap it is... In a good way though.

Thanks for your input, it seems the i3 is competitive vs the 6300, but for 10 slaps more..... Shiiiiiiit

Honestly I was surprised myself, usually the 8320 would retail for $139-$149 but even at that price it is still less expensive than the i3 4330 & 4340.

[Faceman]

The i3 dominates AMD.  Even the FX8320 gets beat out by the i3 for gaming on popular titles.

 

Read this entire review, the entire review.

 

If gaming is your primary concern, I recommend the i3.

 

It is very interesting that the i3 beats out an FX8320 though.  Not by some small margin either.  This is for strictly gaming though, and I cannot attest to the multi-tasking capabilities of the i3.

[totjup5]

In my experience the I3 is an inferior chip. I have used both the I3 4330 and the 6300 extensively, and at least for my use case, the I3 was barely fast enough to keep up with what I was doing while the 6300 barely broke a sweat. Of course I am a heavy multitasker, and often have many different things running at once along with games. I would hit close to 100% usage on the I3 constantly, and would experience heavy slowdowns. On the 6300 I was able to game, and have tons of tabs open, watch a YouTube video, run a teamspeak client, and host a minecraft server all at once with no noticeable slowdowns. The argument that the I3 is superior for pure gaming is false in my opinion as well. Older games may only take advantage of 2 cores or less, but most new games can use at least 4. And the old games that can only use 2 cores will have no trouble on an FX chip anyway, so it doesn't really matter. This is just my experience, and yours may differ, but to me the FX is a better option, and I just can't bring myself to spend 100+ dollars on a dual core in 2014.

[deathjester]

In my experience the I3 is an inferior chip. I have used both the I3 4330 and the 6300 extensively, and at least for my use case, the I3 was barely fast enough to keep up with what I was doing while the 6300 barely broke a sweat. Of course I am a heavy multitasker, and often have many different things running at once along with games. I would hit close to 100% usage on the I3 constantly, and would experience heavy slowdowns. On the 6300 I was able to game, and have tons of tabs open, watch a YouTube video, run a teamspeak client, and host a minecraft server all at once with no noticeable slowdowns. The argument that the I3 is superior for pure gaming is false in my opinion as well. Older games may only take advantage of 2 cores or less, but most new games can use at least 4. And the old games that can only use 2 cores will have no trouble on an FX chip anyway, so it doesn't really matter. This is just my experience, and yours may differ, but to me the FX is a better option, and I just can't bring myself to spend 100+ dollars on a dual core in 2014.

 

"The argument that the I3 is superior for pure gaming is false in my opinion as well". 

 

I3 Ivy Bridge is faster than a 8350 in Elder Scrolls Online and Thief (which recommended a I7/8350). The I5 Sandy Bridge was faster than a 8350 in BF4. 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/the-elder-scrolls-online-performance,3789-8.html

http://www.techspot.com/review/787-thief-benchmarks/page4.html

 

Just because these joker game devs say something is required doesn't mean it is. It is advertising for consoles. You are going to have to wait for DX 12 or low level OpenGL in Steam OS for the 8350, let alone the 6300 to be faster than an I3 in most games. First DX 12 game is holiday 2015.

 

Games like WoW, Guild Wars 2, Arma, basically tons of multiplayer PC exclusives? AMD can be horrible at in comparison. It all depends on what games you play. If all you play is "next gen games"  and singleplayer then the 6300 is fine. The 8320/50 are fine. So is the I3.

 

Now if you want to see "false"? Post a RussianGPU BF4 benchmark where an I5 is 20 fps slower than an I7. No one agrees with that, except maybe Logan at Tek Syndicate, and that guy uses single player GPU benchmarks running around when the CPU isn't even being used and claims that GPU variances are CPU benchmarks. 

 

I can take a e8400 OC it and it will look like a good cpu on a Tek Syndicate benchmark. 1) it isn't multiplayer. 2) the CPU isn't being stressed if it is a multiplayer game on a single player campaign outside of a few places in the game, that I can avoid benchmarking to make a weaker gaming CPU look stronger. 

 

Now am I saying buy a I3 over a 8350? Nope. I am saying make the choice based on the games you play. If you don't want to compromise anything GAMING then get a I5. Everything else is a compromise and you make the decision based on what you play or do with the PC. 

[Spongy141]

Here are just some comparisions:

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i3-4130-vs-AMD-FX-6300

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i3-3220-vs-AMD-FX-6300

 

Note that some i3 have hyper-threading, and can give a pretty surprising performance 

Just a side note for you, that site is extremely biased.  In the future please never use that site for an actual compassion.

[Faa]

Now if you want to see "false"? Post a RussianGPU BF4 benchmark where an I5 is 20 fps slower than an I7. No one agrees with that, except maybe Logan at Tek Syndicate, and that guy uses single player GPU benchmarks running around when the CPU isn't even being used and claims that GPU variances are CPU benchmarks. 

Okay.

1st one AMD 8350@4.5GHz with 2 780's in SLI.

2nd one 3930K with 4 physical cores and no HT and 2 780's SLI

Why not just disable 2 cores and enable HT so we get a quick view how 

 

 

Either get an i5, or if that's too expensive get a 6300, because i3's are absolute trash.

much trash they are.

[Opcode]

Haswell i3 for gaming, FX-6300 for everything else.

[Faceman]

If the i3 was less than $100, I would recommend it much more.  Because it is in the same price range as the FX6300 and FX8320(The 8320 is currently $130 on Amazon) I am more comfortable recommending the FX series because of its multi-tasking capabilities.

 

Its a shame that the i3 doesn't get more attention, because it is an extremely capable CPU, but its price is really holding it back.

 

I still believe that the i5-4670k is the absolute best all-around CPU which can be purchased for around $180-$220.

[samuel]

There is a very good reason that Core I3 and FX 6300 are priced quite similar. Pick whatever you want, but overclocking the FX gives you a bit more free performance.