I don't understand why the Intel i3 6100 is "better" for gaming than the AMD FX 8350

[PapaBless]

Hello all,

 

So I was wondering, how is it possible that the i3 is debated as the best budget gaming pc CPU at around $117 USD when just around the corner there is the AMD FX 8350 for $30 extra. 

 

The FX is quad core with 4.0 ghz vs the i3 which is dual core and clocks at 3.7

 

so how the heck is intel better????

 

Thanks so much!

 

 

[Thermite]

Might be because AMD's cpu's haven't been updated in multiple years don't support pcie 3.0 or usb 3.1 Gen 1 (usb 3.0) natively. Have worse single threaded performance and i'm sure there is more...

 

EDIT

 

damn things run hot as hell too the 8350 i mean.

[masterkickass7]

5 minutes ago, PapaBless said:

Hello all,

 

So I was wondering, how is it possible that the i3 is debated as the best budget gaming pc CPU at around $117 USD when just around the corner there is the AMD FX 8350 for $30 extra. 

 

The FX is quad core with 4.0 ghz vs the i3 which is dual core and clocks at 3.7

 

so how the heck is intel better????

 

Thanks so much!

 

 

because some can't afford that extra $30 and also your on 1151 with the i3 so it's easier to step to a better processor 

[NumLock21]

Can't just look at numbers, must read about the architecture of those CPUs.

[Himommies]

The fx may have all those like 8 cores and stuff and that 4 ghz clock rate but are very weak single core and only kinda have 4 cores and 4 threads because of 1 fpu per core but there are 8 physical core

[Glenwing]

1 hour ago, PapaBless said:

Hello all,

 

So I was wondering, how is it possible that the i3 is debated as the best budget gaming pc CPU at around $117 USD when just around the corner there is the AMD FX 8350 for $30 extra. 

 

The FX is quad core with 4.0 ghz vs the i3 which is dual core and clocks at 3.7

 

so how the heck is intel better????

 

Thanks so much!

 

 

The FX CPU design does a lot less stuff per GHz than Intel's designs, so it needs a lot more GHz to do the same amount of work. Since it doesn't have that (4.0 vs 3.7 is not significant) it falls behind in performance per core. It does have more cores but many games (especially less intensive ones) don't utilize multiple cores very much, so it just comes down to how much performance you get on a single core. In games which do use multiple cores, it does gain benefit, but it only serves to help catch up in performance from the deficiencies in single-core performance. In virtually every scenario, the Intel is either better (in single-core games) or equal (in multi-core games). In games that are very heavily multi-threaded an 8-core FX might do a bit better but it's very uncommon. Overall the Intel is a better choice.

[Biggerboot]

Just to chime in a bit further, AMD FX series released in 2011, basically competing with Intel's Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge.  It's pretty old for CPU standards.  That's why the IPC on their chips are currently lower than Intel's, that being the thing that typically increases with each new CPU release. 

 

They've tried to make up for this by banking on the fact that it is a cheaper '8-core' cpu than the i7, and that developers would optimize their software for 4+ cores sooner than the cpu would go out of date.  I don't know precisely if engineering issues have lead to this for AMD, or if the plan all along was to ride out 32nm for as long as they could with marketing and refreshing the architecture, but it has caused them to fall behind.

 

Refreshes aside, AMD is overdue for their next die shrink and architectural leap.  That's why there's a lot of hype surrounding Ryzen.  AMD also has a pretty solid opportunity to capitalize on what some would say are Intel's shortcomings, as they too are being forced to simply 'refresh' their current architecture.

[PapaBless]

Thank you all so much for the great responses!

 

This is my first post and I really think that this is a great community

 

Papa Bless up it's much appreciated!!