Is TomsHardware Intel biased?

[codegeass]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html

 

Didn't you guys say the FX 6300 manhandles the i3?

[Lord Pantaloons]

In anything that uses just two cores the I3 is faster, in anything that uses more than two cores the 6300 will pull ahead.

[codegeass]

In anything that uses just two cores the I3 is faster, in anything that uses more than two cores the 6300 will pull ahead.

TomsHardware don't tell me that.

[nixproducer]

TomsHardware don't tell me that.

i'm sorry, but this is driving me crazy * didn't

[TheRetiredSlave]

TomsHardware didn't tell me that.

 

There's really no way for them to know exactly what tasks you do and how many cores/threads you'll need to carry out your specific tasks..

 

Generally speaking (very generally speaking), many games don't really take advantage of a ton of cores, so often times (very very broad generalization here) a powerful dual-core with hyperthreading could outperform a different CPU with more, albeit weaker, cores. Tomshardware is going by that logic, so they're not really wrong. However, in some newer games that can take advantage of more cores, the 6300 would probably be a lot better, but it still all really depends on the specific games and tasks you're using.

 

For a gaming build right now, I'd probably choose the FX 6300 over a comparably-priced i3, as the new consoles have very weak 8-core CPUs, meaning that devs will need to program for multi-threading with weak cores as opposed to focusing on just a few cores.. Either one you choose, you're probably going to have a decent budget build, and the difference between one of the other won't really make a huge difference in the grand scheme of things..

[totjup5]

Most places are...

[codegeass]

 

There's really no way for them to know exactly what tasks you do and how many cores/threads you'll need to carry out your specific tasks..

 

Generally speaking (very generally speaking), many games don't really take advantage of a ton of cores, so often times (very very broad generalization here) a powerful dual-core with hyperthreading could outperform a different CPU with more, albeit weaker, cores. Tomshardware is going by that logic, so they're not really wrong. However, in some newer games that can take advantage of more cores, the 6300 would probably be a lot better, but it still all really depends on the specific games and tasks you're using.

 

For a gaming build right now, I'd probably choose the FX 6300 over a comparably-priced i3, as the new consoles have very weak 8-core CPUs, meaning that devs will need to program for multi-threading with weak cores as opposed to focusing on just a few cores.. Either one you choose, you're probably going to have a decent budget build, and the difference between one of the other won't really make a huge difference in the grand scheme of things..

can i play crysis 3 with a i3 lga 1150 socket so i can upgrade later

[Sonefiler]

can i play crysis 3 with a i3 lga 1150 socket so i can upgrade later

Not a good idea to cheap out on CPU.

[Guest]

A good 6300 can probably easily make up for the tiny single-thread difference by OC...unless I'm wrong and FX 6300 is really as bad as Tom's makes it out to be.

 

I'd take the 6300 over the i3...that is, if AIBs would start making good quality mid-range and entry level AMD boards that don't look and perform like trash.

[deathjester]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html

 

Didn't you guys say the FX 6300 manhandles the i3?

 

I have seen MS bias on Tom's hardware (Kevin Parrish writes some pretty laughable articles) and Tom's hardware is no longer owned by Tom, but by "venture capitalists", but this is a GAMING recommendation hierarchy chart. It is accurate. 

 

Many people on this forum game lightly, or don't play big multiplayer games where the Intel's really shine on "cpu titles" like MMO's/RTS. If all you play is single player games and console ports? Yup. AMD 6300fx is the better chip. If you want to render? Yup the 6300 > I3. Just gaming? I3 is better. An Ivy I3 beats a 4.5ghz 8350 at Thief and a stock 8350 in Elder Scrolls Online. The I3 is not a garbage gaming chip. It is a garbage rendering chip (for the price). The only reason the I3 still exists is AMD's single core performance is just horrid. The I3 is ridiculously overpriced imo, but it is pretty darn good at gaming, so what can you do about it?

 

There is no right or wrong answer for "best cpu" for a person unless you know what they are going to do. Gaming and MMO's and budget? Get I3. Enthusiast build for gaming? Get I5. Rendering budget machine and single player gaming mostly and console multiplayer ports? AMD in a landslide.

 

If you ran benchmarks on say Guild Wars 2, WoW, Rust, Next Car Game, Star Craft 2, League of Legends, Wild Star then the I3 would probably beat out even the 8350. You could easily skew scores and make AMD's look like trash, even though they can be very good at a price point for a lot of things. You can do the same thing with GPU titles and make the AMD look fantastic in single player games (see Tek Syndicate video).

 

I would recommend both chips depending on what the person is going to do. If this is 2 years from now and we have all low level API's? Welp I have seen benchmarks where the I3 skyrockets under Mantle, so we will have to wait and see. Add to that are all games going to be low level? Prob not. So the I3 will still probably be better.

 

All cpu's get better under Mantle and will under DirectX 12. The I5/I7 don't get much better because they are already stupidly fast in games. The AMD's and the I3's? Will see some damn good improvements. 

[deathjester]

A good 6300 can probably easily make up for the tiny single-thread difference by OC...unless I'm wrong and FX 6300 is really as bad as Tom's makes it out to be.

 

I'd take the 6300 over the i3...that is, if AIBs would start making good quality mid-range and entry level AMD boards that don't look and perform like trash.

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlC81MjwelBgdEZNV3l6aHl1eUNwSUR4Rml0MXMzN1E&usp=sharing#gid=1

 

^ That I3 is a Sandy Bridge. I3 Haswell is prob in the 140's. Wish someone with a I3 would add a score. No one buys the darn things though, we all just buy I5's for gaming usually hehe. 

 

Edited. Here is a site with some cinebench r15 benchmarks. Click single core under cinebench r15. So I3 Haswell is about 1/3rd faster then stock 6300. I can tell you that ram comes into the equation on cinebench though. So these might have been all 1600 ram, while people on the forum like me have 2133 from 1600. My I7 at 4.5 was 180. Upping ram prob added like 5-6 at least. Maybe 10. If you could get 1/3rd overclock the 6300 would be near as good. Then again, you are pairing it with a really nice motherboard to OC and that takes the price up quite a bit from a cheapo matx board and a I3. I built a I3 from microcenter for someone and the matx Asrock board was literally 22 bucks with the combo lol.

 

http://www.hardcoreware.net/intel-core-i3-4340-review/13/