I3-3210 vs FX-4300

[PCBudgetSolutions]

I've had the pleasure of testing both CPU's and at stock speed, the I3 feels a bit better.  It multitasks very well with chrome+games open, in WOW it's on honest 10 FPS or more difference.  It maxes out at 60*C on a stock CPU cooler with Prime 95 on.  It feels much smoother for everything I do.  However, the FX-4300 is a HUGE improvement over the 4100, which felt like a single core Pentium 4 just opening chrome.  I guess you need to OC pretty good to get solid performance.

[Godlygamer23]

What about in multi-threaded areas? Like multi-threaded games?

[onionring]

the bulldoser amd cpu are good in multi threaded application but less in the single threaded applications you used.

now the fx 4300 can be overclocked and the i3s can t you can probably overclock the fx to the singlethreaded performance of the i3

but the it would beat the i3 in anythinvg multi threaded.

but rly why would any one get a fx 4300 for about 140$ when a fx 8320 goes for about 170$(on sale) or that often a fx-6300 cost as much as the fx-4300.

remember that am3 mobo cost often about 30-40$ less than intel mobo...

[PCBudgetSolutions]

the bulldoser amd cpu are good in multi threaded application but less in the single threaded applications you used.

now the fx 4300 can be overclocked and the i3s can t you can probably overclock the fx to the singlethreaded performance of the i3

but the it would beat the i3 in anythinvg multi threaded.

but rly why would any one get a fx 4300 for about 140$ when a fx 8320 goes for about 170$(on sale) or that often a fx-6300 cost as much as the fx-4300.

remember that am3 mobo cost often about 30-40$ less than intel mobo...

FX-4300 is generally 110-120 and FX-6300 not much more.  AM3 boards specifically 970 boards are 30-40 cheaper than z77/87 boards but are more expensive than B75/H77 boards.

 

The tasking in windows just didn't seem as fluid as this I3.  I noticed especially in less than 4 threaded applications as well.  I would like to test an FX-6300 overclocked a bit and see how that feels.

[Darell3]

FX-4300 is generally 110-120 and FX-6300 not much more.  AM3 boards specifically 970 boards are 30-40 cheaper than z77/87 boards but are more expensive than B75/H77 boards.

 

The tasking in windows just didn't seem as fluid as this I3.  I noticed especially in less than 4 threaded applications as well.  I would like to test an FX-6300 overclocked a bit and see how that feels.

I have a Fx-6100 OC'ed to 4.0ghz using the most 'performance' way of overclocking instead of multiplier only, and everything is fluid to me, i can run 5tabs at once on chrome and play another game and easily switch back in less than 2seconds. FX processors love high mhz memory.

[WoodenMarker]

The Fx 4300 has to OC just to keep up. The i3 is a solid cpu. It should be slightly cheaper but it's not too bad.

[Ultimate_PIMP]

I've seen a lot of i3 questions... low budget build questions and such.

Could all of them be people switching from console gaming to pc gaming?!?!

 

I've been kind of expecting a flood of them ever sense E3.

I've seen like 5 in the past 2 days.

[KneesWeak]

ya get a 6300 over a 4300 anyday, i3 would be better for web browsing and shit but theres not going to be a noticeable difference.  the single threaded performance of a 6300 is barely behind the i3 and once oc'd its better.  For gaming the 6300 will woop the i3

[OuchMyFaceyHole]

ya get a 6300 over a 4300 anyday, i3 would be better for web browsing and shit but theres not going to be a noticeable difference.  the single threaded performance of a 6300 is barely behind the i3 and once oc'd its better.  For gaming the 6300 will woop the i3

Sir please show me where the single threaded performance is "barely" behind an i3? At the moment an i3 is much better as most games dont use all six cores.

[Skanic]

The i3 is has the same single threaded performance as an fx 4300, i would rather use that money on an fx 6300. And you also got that overclocking headroom.

[KneesWeak]

Sir please show me where the single threaded performance is "barely" behind an i3? At the moment an i3 is much better as most games dont use all six cores.

lol bro 

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/350/AMD_FX-Series_FX-6300_vs_Intel_Core_i3_i3-3220.html

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/699?vs=677

stock clocks

once you get a fx 6300 (stock clock of 3.5) to 4.2 (easily done on a stock cooler) or something like 4.5 on any half decent aftermarket air, it would woop the i3.  the 6300 is just a better chip for the money especially the way things are looking with future consoles and games.

[Godlygamer23]

lol bro 

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/350/AMD_FX-Series_FX-6300_vs_Intel_Core_i3_i3-3220.html

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/699?vs=677

stock clocks

once you get a fx 6300 (stock clock of 3.5) to 4.2 (easily done on a stock cooler) or something like 4.5 on any half decent aftermarket air, it would woop the i3.  the 6300 is just a better chip for the money especially the way things are looking with future consoles and games.

So how is it barely behind an i3? I see the i3 beating the 6300 by quite a margin. And yeah it would woop the i3. It better if it's sitting at 4.5GHz compared to the i3's stock frequencies. 

[PCBudgetSolutions]

lol bro 

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/350/AMD_FX-Series_FX-6300_vs_Intel_Core_i3_i3-3220.html

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/699?vs=677

stock clocks

once you get a fx 6300 (stock clock of 3.5) to 4.2 (easily done on a stock cooler) or something like 4.5 on any half decent aftermarket air, it would woop the i3.  the 6300 is just a better chip for the money especially the way things are looking with future consoles and games.

FX-6300 uses the 95w TDP CPU cooler.  Mine was overheating at stock speeds let alone overclock on my FX-4300.   Remember temps are recorded differently on AMD.

[KneesWeak]

So how is it barely behind an i3? I see the i3 beating the 6300 by quite a margin. And yeah it would woop the i3. It better if it's sitting at 4.5GHz compared to the i3's stock frequencies. 

1.07 to 1.37 first of all that was a 3220 not even a 3210, the 3220 is clocked just 100mHz ahead of the 3210, the benchmarks were ran with both at stock clocks 3.5 vs 3.3.  Skyrim, being a notoriously single threaded game (benchmarks where it runs better on a single strong core than multicore cpus) is proof, the 6300 even beats the 3220 at stock clocks and in diablo 3.  This isn't even to mention multithreaded games like bf, crysis and newer AAA games. I dont see your arguement at all. In synthetic benchmarks sure the i3 wins and in single threaded productivity but for gaming and video editing the 6300 beats the i3 even at stock, not to mention the highest frequency you'll get on a 3210 is 3.2ish. I DONT SEE HOW THE I3 WOULD BE BETTER FOR GAMING OR RENDERING.  Can you provide some more links godly?  Maybe the i3 would be a bettter (keep in mind more expensive choice) if you were doing office work and really cared about power consumption but otherwise if your doing what most of us on this forum are doing, the 6300 would be a better choice than a 3210.

[KneesWeak]

FX-6300 uses the 95w TDP CPU cooler.  Mine was overheating at stock speeds let alone overclock on my FX-4300.   Remember temps are recorded differently on AMD.

When I first got my 6300 only hit about 62C on full load at 4.2 with an ambient of about 80F on the stock hsf,  sure it got a little loud on the tiny fan but during gaming you'd probably never go above 55.  Silicon lottery eh?  Or if you live in a desert and you applied the hsf wrong than that could be it.

[Godlygamer23]

1.07 to 1.37 first of all that was a 3220 not even a 3210, the 3220 is clocked just 100mHz ahead of the 3210, the benchmarks were ran with both at stock clocks 3.5 vs 3.3.  Skyrim, being a notoriously single threaded game (benchmarks where it runs better on a single strong core than multicore cpus) is proof, the 6300 even beats the 3220 at stock clocks and in diablo 3.  This isn't even to mention multithreaded games like bf, crysis and newer AAA games. I dont see your arguement at all. In synthetic benchmarks sure the i3 wins and in single threaded productivity but for gaming and video editing the 6300 beats the i3 even at stock, not to mention the highest frequency you'll get on a 3210 is 3.2ish. I DONT SEE HOW THE I3 WOULD BE BETTER FOR GAMING OR RENDERING.  Can you provide some more links godly?  Maybe the i3 would be a bettter (keep in mind more expensive choice) if you were doing office work and really cared about power consumption but otherwise if your doing what most of us on this forum are doing, the 6300 would be a better choice than a 3210.

I didn't provide a link. I only used what you provided. I only said that the single threaded performance is better on the i3, technically. I could only find links with the 3220 and the 4300 CPU. 

[OuchMyFaceyHole]

Sir, it will be one hell of a lottery pick to get a 6300 that can run at 4.5-8 and not overheat. Also 5 bucks is not much more. In multithreaded games the 6300 can beat the i3 by a little margin, then again if you save your money you can get the i5 4430 for $50 more and that would spank the 6300 in almost everything. Also the i3 did beat it in some rendering and encoding tests.

[KneesWeak]

FX-6300 uses the 95w TDP CPU cooler.  Mine was overheating at stock speeds let alone overclock on my FX-4300.   Remember temps are recorded differently on AMD.

oh i remember u, ur the guy that got that dud 4300 that ran at 50C on idle or something right? I personally, if you couldn't tell, have had great experiences with AMD for both gpus and cpus so my answers and opinions obviously are jaded by nature because with intel I have had some problems as with AMD i feel like i get what I pay for.  If you feel like one co. screwed you over they probably dont deserve your money in your mind so go with intel.  

[PCBudgetSolutions]

oh i remember u, ur the guy that got that dud 4300 that ran at 50C on idle or something right? I personally, if you couldn't tell, have had great experiences with AMD for both gpus and cpus so my answers and opinions obviously are jaded by nature because with intel I have had some problems as with AMD i feel like i get what I pay for.  If you feel like one co. screwed you over they probably dont deserve your money in your mind so go with intel.  

No I've used a handful of AMD CPU's and the only one that I liked was the Phenom II x3 740.  The Athlon II x4 640 was a DOG, the FX-4100 ran HOT AND was a dog.  I've used a 6300 and 4300 both were running at least 50*C @ idle.

[KneesWeak]

Sir, it will be one hell of a lottery pick to get a 6300 that can run at 4.5-8 and not overheat. Also 5 bucks is not much more. In multithreaded games the 6300 can beat the i3 by a little margin, then again if you save your money you can get the i5 4430 for $50 more and that would spank the 6300 in almost everything. Also the i3 did beat it in some rendering and encoding tests.

next time if you quote my reply I would know your talking to me so I can properly reply back (for future reference). so when you said the i3 beat the 6300 check again you need to pay attention to lower is better.   The one or two redering or encoding benchmarks the i3 did beat the 6300 is was not by much on anandtech (keep in mind these benches are between 6300 and i3 3220 instead of the 3210) the 6300 beat the i3 by double on some tests.  Actually the i3 3220 only beat the 6300 in 5-6 (we were not paying attention to the lower is better scores) of the ~35 tests they had lol. I really don't see how the i3 could be a better choice and keep in mind the 6300 is at 3.5 for these tests and if you change a few options in the bios for amd turbo core it'll turbo to 4.1 and woop and I mean WOOOOOP the i3. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/699?vs=677

It's really hard to find someone with a $30 cpu cooler that cant hit 4.5 on a 6300 and a working motherboard.  Look around I dare you.  AMD doesn't sell chips that overheat at stock clocks, just like intel, and if yours does RMA it.

I'm not the only 6300 fanboy

https://teksyndicate.com/forum/build-pc/amd-fx-6300-vs-intel-i3-3220/129253

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/352610-28-3220-6300

The really only reason to get an i3 would be to upgrade to an i5 or i7 later on.  

Basically dood I still dont see your arguement on how the i3 would be better.  Please educate me bro.

[KneesWeak]

No I've used a handful of AMD CPU's and the only one that I liked was the Phenom II x3 740.  The Athlon II x4 640 was a DOG, the FX-4100 ran HOT AND was a dog.  I've used a 6300 and 4300 both were running at least 50*C @ idle.

do u live in africa? or are you just that bad at installing hsf? Or unlucky? I dont think its the second one but seriously.

[KneesWeak]

No I've used a handful of AMD CPU's and the only one that I liked was the Phenom II x3 740.  The Athlon II x4 640 was a DOG, the FX-4100 ran HOT AND was a dog.  I've used a 6300 and 4300 both were running at least 50*C @ idle.

but you were that dood that got that pos 4300 tho right?

[KneesWeak]

oh yeah now i remember you blamed the chip but the mounting hardware on your mobo wasn't putting enough pressure on the cpu.  it's all coming back to me. Wasn't this like a month ago?

[leipero]

I've had the pleasure of testing both CPU's and at stock speed, the I3 feels a bit better.  It multitasks very well with chrome+games open, in WOW it's on honest 10 FPS or more difference.  It maxes out at 60*C on a stock CPU cooler with Prime 95 on.  It feels much smoother for everything I do.  However, the FX-4300 is a HUGE improvement over the 4100, which felt like a single core Pentium 4 just opening chrome.  I guess you need to OC pretty good to get solid performance.

Well, id depends on motherboard you tested with. I tested i3 (SB) on ASRock H61 - something somethin. Now here is the problem. In WIndows 7 it douse feel better than FX-4100 (my current CPU), but that is another story (mainly MS overlook of something), while in Windows 8 both CPU\s do feel same for 2D. Now real thing, i3 on that motherboard can't run game i always test for stability smooth even on 100FPS no matter what i do, and because low-end board on Intel side are limited for settings, i could only hate that machine, but i couldn't fix the problem. 

 

Now, FX with nothing touched, can run that game smooth at 100, 60 and even 50FPS, after tweaking (Both Windows and BIOS), you can get up to OK smoothness even on 30FPS, that i could only dream on i3 and that motherboard (similar price as for AMD motherboard).

 

So, paying same amount of money, you get frustrations on both sides, but you can fix it on one side (AMD), while being unable to fix it on another side (thanks to the lack of settings).

 

At the end, with everything set properly, FX-4100 feels as good, and even better than i3-32xx in every scenario except Windows 7 (only win 7) in desktop 2D use (and only 2D).

 

Anyway, i would go for 6300 as everyone suggested, and idk from where did you pull that "huge" difference between 4100 and 4300 since those are same chips basically, and 4300 have up to 10-15% better performance on same frequency. They work exactly the same (consider freq.). Maybe it was different motherboard, that would explain it.

 

No I've used a handful of AMD CPU's and the only one that I liked was the Phenom II x3 740.  The Athlon II x4 640 was a DOG, the FX-4100 ran HOT AND was a dog.  I've used a 6300 and 4300 both were running at least 50*C @ idle.

That is improper configuration by motherboard manifacturers, i don't know why they do that (i know actually, but is way to much text to explain it), but on every (or most even in low-end spectrum) AMD motherboards you have all settings at your disposal. With proper settings, my FX runs at 60c max temperature during Prime95 (and that is on the hot day with crappy stock cooler). I can guarantee you that those chips can run better and cooler with proper settings. 

 

For reasons why they do that way... well, ic an't type huge text atm.

[slasher0161]

Knees come on man edit posts don't double post. Also AMD chips lower thermal limit can be a major factor for some, living in North Queensland, Australia AMD if your intending to overclock is almost out of the question due to the high temperatures (a nice summer day is 33c+ with lows overnight of 28c, its not uncommon for it to sit at 37c in the heat of the day) so region can completely bone you. I recently tested out an A8-6600k and i'll be honest I was quite impressed by the little thing but i'm only using it for my htpc. With a hyper 212 evo I was hitting thermal walls at 4.3ghz (I may have been boned on silicon lottery or maybe the boards voltage regulation was balls but the thing was if I used a better heat sink or better board I was better off picking up a locked i5 + b75 board).

 

It really comes down to the end user though, if they are looking for a cheap single gpu set up for gaming, don't mind the odd fps dip and aside from that their work load is light an AMD chip is a good little choice (if they play mmo's it becomes hugely variable while I could get it to sit at 60fps with some playing in WoW during single player content 25m content saw it dip as low as 14fps (all the tests were with a 7870xt)).

 

Sleeping dogs, full ultra benchmark (cpu @ 4.3ghz gpu @ stock)

http://s250.photobucket.com/user/slasher0161/media/Sleepingdogscpu-ocgpu-stock.png.html?sort=3&o=0

 

and with gpu oc (1125 core 1650 memory)

http://s250.photobucket.com/user/slasher0161/media/Sleepingdogscpu-ocgpu-oc.png.html?sort=3&o=1