Build advice i3 vs Fx vs whatever u guys recommend

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, don_svetlio said:

Wait, so in MC the 6350 would perform like an i5 3330 for instance?

Stock, sure.

At 4.6Ghz, it is fast.

 

You see, scaling with AMD Bulldozer CPUs arent really that great. The best scaling ive gotten so far is 5.76x single core with the FX 8320 (6 cores enabled). With 8 cores enabled at 4.7GHz (stable, no throttling) my 8320 NEVER EVER got above 6.98x single core performance.

In contrast, a 4790k, which has 4 cores + hyper threading, scores 4.86x single core.

 

However how much does a FX 6350 cost? 125 bucks. How much does a i5 cost? 150 USD+

Now that the 6350 comes with a Wraith cooler, which is very close to a single fan Hyper 212 (Dual fan Hyper 212 is way better then Wraith, obviously) makes it a GOOD VALUE.

 

But the performance is still that of 6x Piledriver cores.

Unfortunatly, ive tested Piledriver, Steamroller and I ALSO OWN A ATHLON X4 845 WITH EXCAVATOR CORES. While the 845 is faster then any other stock Piledriver or Steamroller CPU in single core, it is still easily beaten by overclocked Piledriver or Steamroller CPUs. Mostly because the lack of L2 and L3 cache.

 

AMDs current CPUs, including a baseclock overclocked Excavator CPU. IS NOT COMPETITIVE WITH INTEL AT PERFORMANCE. THEY ARE COMPETITIVE AT PRICE TO PERFORMANCE.

 

Never forget that.

[Prysin]

17 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

I'll add this note, with my i5 4440 turboing a single core to 3.3GHz, an FX 8320 and 8350 at just over 5.3GHz is still slower single threaded.

No, it'd perform worse. MC makes use of processing cores better than processing modules.

yes, single threaded. HOWEVER, since all software uses more then one thread these days, the most important factor is moving from raw single thread, over to how well the cores scales.

 

A hyperthreaded CPU will always scale better then a "pure cores" based one. Regardless for the amount of cores you slap on.

 

While Hyperthreading give you much better scaling in multi threaded tasks, you are still ultimatly limited by the core count when it comes to pushing the actual score.

 

HOWEVER, a i5 4440, even with a decent baseclock OC will not compete with a overclocked FX8. It will compete with a overclocked FX6 in terms of multi threaded performance.

 

A skylake i5 with its 86%+ faster single core performance still doesnt scale more then 3.98x to 4.01x single core perf. And even with good scaling, you STILL cannot beat out raw MHz and core count in multi threaded tasks.

 

AMDs FX CPUs are flawed, but for the average user, or a budget user, the represent excellent all-round value.

Even a i3 6100 hasnt got a fucking shot in the dark in multi thread vs a FX 6350, especially not a OCd one. That is just how it is.

 

This 6100 is slower then a normal 6100, but 300MHz more aint gonna beat the FX, merely get close to tieing with it.

anandtech.com/bench/product/1281?vs=1645