AMD FX 8300 vs i3-6100

[nasyesta36]

3dmark software was used

I did a comparison of the AMD FX 8300 running 16 GB DDR3 1333 GTX 960 vs i3-6100 8 GB DDR4 2133 GTX 960 and noticed the i3 won over the FX.  Is there any way I can get the AMD FX to out perform the i3?  Would getting better memory speed for the FX improve my performance?

[PlayStation 2]

Try OCing the motherfucker, and get some faster RAM. While it doesn't matter too much since most AMD CPUs from the FX line fucking suck with high speed memory, it's something.

[Nena Trinity]

2 minutes ago, nasyesta36 said:

3dmark software was used

I did a comparison of the AMD FX 8300 running 16 GB DDR3 1333 GTX 960 vs i3-6100 8 GB DDR4 2133 GTX 960 and noticed the i3 won over the FX.  Is there any way I can get the AMD FX to out perform the i3?  Would getting better memory speed for the FX improve my performance?

Well 1333MHz RAM is very slow so you can get 1866MHz/CL9 or 2133MHz/CL10 RAM then overclock the CPU to 4.5GHz or above!

[don_svetlio]

You want to OC the 8350 to 4.4GHz or so and add some faster RAM to make it even - the RAM on the i3 does contribute some 10% to performance in CPU-bound scenarios

[DioOmicida]

AMD just has way worse single core performance.
That's why they try to shove as many on a chip as they can.
Makes it seem like it will be a better chip for the price.

[nasyesta36]

Thank you because I bought the 8 core because the i3-6100 cannot run Hitman so I needed a better processor

[Nena Trinity]

1 minute ago, nasyesta36 said:

Thank you because I bought the 8 core because the i3-6100 cannot run Hitman so I needed a better processor

Lucky you because more and more games uses 8-cores!

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, nasyesta36 said:

Thank you because I bought the 8 core because the i3-6100 cannot run Hitman so I needed a better processor

The 8350 is superior when using all 8 modules but with 4, the i3 would win. With 6, they're matched evenly. Newer games have better CPU-threading so the 8350 is better for some but not all

[Nena Trinity]

1 minute ago, don_svetlio said:

The 8350 is superior when using all 8 modules but with 4, the i3 would win. With 6, they're matched evenly. Newer games have better CPU-threading so the 8350 is better for some but not all

4 modules and 8-cores o3o

[PlayStation 2]

3 minutes ago, DioOmicida said:

AMD just has way worse single core performance.
That's why they try to shove as many on a chip as they can.
Makes it seem like it will be a better chip for the price.

The FX-8300 still has its place.

[don_svetlio]

Just now, Nena360 said:

4 modules and 8-cores o3o

8 modules and 8 "cores" - the FPU was shared between 2 modules IIRC

[Nena Trinity]

3 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

8 modules and 8 "cores" - the FPU was shared between 2 modules IIRC

Well legally it is a core...

[nasyesta36]

So would GSkill 2133 or Hyper Fury 2133 be my best bet for memory?

[Nena Trinity]

2 minutes ago, nasyesta36 said:

So would GSkill 2133 or Hyper Fury 2133 be my best bet for memory?

Which has lowest latency? (also make sure it is DDR3)

[DioOmicida]

11 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

The FX-8300 still has its place.

Oh, I personally have nothing against the chip. If you use multiple cores or on a budget or whatever the reason, you can pick one up. But for gaming, intel is really the way to go. The i3, as was stated, seems to out perform the 8300 and the i3 can move to the i5 or i7 which is a huge performance increase.

[PlayStation 2]

Just now, DioOmicida said:

Oh, I personally have nothing against the card. If you use multiple cores or on a budget or whatever the reason, you can pick one up. But for gaming, intel is really the way to go. The i3, as was stated, seems to out perform the 8300 and the i3 can move to the i5 or i7 which is a huge performance increase.

Upgradability, sure. But a vast majority of i3 buyers usually buy shitty H110 motherboards, which really render that point moot.

mfw chrome wants me to correct to biodegradability

[don_svetlio]

2 minutes ago, DioOmicida said:

Oh, I personally have nothing against the card. If you use multiple cores or on a budget or whatever the reason, you can pick one up. But for gaming, intel is really the way to go. The i3, as was stated, seems to out perform the 8300 and the i3 can move to the i5 or i7 which is a huge performance increase.

Depends on the game - older ones like SC2 yes. Newer ones like Witcher 3 no. You need an i5 to beat the 8350

[nasyesta36]

They both have the same latiency of 10

[Nena Trinity]

3 minutes ago, DioOmicida said:

Oh, I personally have nothing against the card. If you use multiple cores or on a budget or whatever the reason, you can pick one up. But for gaming, intel is really the way to go. The i3, as was stated, seems to out perform the 8300 and the i3 can move to the i5 or i7 which is a huge performance increase.

GameGPU.com shows in most new games the FX is equally good as i7-2600K or i5-4670K... Yet in others is worse than i3!

1 minute ago, nasyesta36 said:

They both have the same latiency of 10

Get the coolest?

[Starelementpoke]

2 minutes ago, DioOmicida said:

Oh, I personally have nothing against the card. If you use multiple cores or on a budget or whatever the reason, you can pick one up. But for gaming, intel is really the way to go. The i3, as was stated, seems to out perform the 8300 and the i3 can move to the i5 or i7 which is a huge performance increase.

Well of course you don´t. The FX is a chip, whatever card you´re talking about is irrlevant.

[nasyesta36]

my i3-6100 was running on H110M Gigabyte board not overclocked paired up with EVGA GTX 960 4 GB and when I did the upgrade to AMD FX 8300 running on ASRock 970M Pro3 with the GTX 960 but with lower memory speed though and I am not sure if PCIx Gen 2 and Gen 3 would make any differences either 

[don_svetlio]

2 minutes ago, nasyesta36 said:

my i3-6100 was running on H110M Gigabyte board not overclocked paired up with EVGA GTX 960 4 GB and when I did the upgrade to AMD FX 8300 running on ASRock 970M Pro3 with the GTX 960 but with lower memory speed though and I am not sure if PCIx Gen 2 and Gen 3 would make any differences either 

PCIe gen usually doesn't make a difference

[DioOmicida]

5 minutes ago, Starelementpoke said:

Well of course you don´t. The FX is a chip, whatever card you´re talking about is irrlevant.

Oh, sorry for mistyping. It is now corrected since it caused you confusion.

 

7 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

Depends on the game - older ones like SC2 yes. Newer ones like Witcher 3 no. You need an i5 to beat the 8350

I'd totally agree with that.

 

9 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Upgradability, sure. But a vast majority of i3 buyers usually buy shitty H110 motherboards, which really render that point moot.

True, the h110 boards are pretty bad but a new one could always be bought if that was the case.

[Sintezza]

10 minutes ago, nasyesta36 said:

my i3-6100 was running on H110M Gigabyte board not overclocked paired up with EVGA GTX 960 4 GB and when I did the upgrade to AMD FX 8300 running on ASRock 970M Pro3 with the GTX 960 but with lower memory speed though and I am not sure if PCIx Gen 2 and Gen 3 would make any differences either 

FX83xx 8 core consuming power like a beast, paired with a cheap Asrock 970M pro3 board with only 4+1 powerphase.

 

But what did you test exactly?

[nasyesta36]

The most current 3dmark software Fire Strike but I have only the basic edition