i3 8100 or FX8300 is better?

[N0ne0324]

i want to build a pc to start streaming but i dont know which cpu is better plz help me

[Enderman]

Neither?

[whoisit1118]

i3 8100 is better by far. Single threaded performance is not even comparable between the two, and even multi-threaded is better.

[NelizMastr]

The FX8300 performs on par, per core, with a Core 2 Duo from 2006. It's terrible for gaming when compared to the i3.

[Emberstone]

Let FX die.

[manikyath]

FX has had its moment, its moment is not 2018. neither will blow your mind in terms of livestreaming, but the i3 will at least be an acceptable processor for gaming.

[Stefan Payne]

24 minutes ago, N0ne0324 said:

i want to build a pc to start streaming but i dont know which cpu is better plz help me

For Streaming I'd get the FX.

But to be honest, only if I can get it really cheap.

Otherwhise I'd save money for Ryzen.

[GoldenLag]

See if there is someone selling 1st gen Ryzen at a low cost? Like you really want to go above 4c/4t. And FX is not the way to go about it

[it_dont_work]

As an owner of an Oc'd 8300, don't bother anymore.

 

i3 8100 is a solid 4 core with a decent clock speed, plus buying into ddr4 ram is probably more useful than older ddr3. 

 

The FX needs a decent 990xf board, fast ddr3, a good cooler and about a day and a half of tweaking and fucking around to get 'acceptable' performance with a decent overclock. The i3 will just slip into a cheap board with a stock cooler and basic 2133 ddr4 and outperform it from the get go. 

 

 

[GloriousPain]

i3 8100

[AskTJ]

Uh, haven't you already asked this? Anyways, the i3 will be better as it is newer that the FX 8300. The FX series is dead and they are power munchers, meaning they are inefficient.

[Jurrunio]

8100. They have similar multi core score, but the 8100 has 50% better single core score.

[Pixel5]

also note that both are not good for streaming if you wanna game on the same PC, if this PC is just for encoding the stream it would be fine but gaming on the same PC will be difficult if you play CPU heavy games.

[manikyath]

59 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

For Streaming I'd get the FX.

But to be honest, only if I can get it really cheap.

Otherwhise I'd save money for Ryzen.

maybe if its notably cheaper, because at this point the i3 is almost a clear winner even at multithread (mind you, 8100 is a quadcore) and going with the FX means going with a very aged platform, which may bring other issues.

[Stefan Payne]

8 minutes ago, manikyath said:

maybe if its notably cheaper, because at this point the i3 is almost a clear winner even at multithread (mind you, 8100 is a quadcore) and going with the FX means going with a very aged platform, which may bring other issues.

 Do you have Benchmarks with two loads on the CPU?!
Because that's not just Multi Threading Performance and Intel seems to have more Problem than AMD with such loads.

Even the FX shines in such situations because the second load doesn't impact the primary as much as on Intel.

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, Stefan Payne said:

 Do you have Benchmarks with two loads on the CPU?!
Because that's not just Multi Threading Performance and Intel seems to have more Problem than AMD with such loads.

Even the FX shines in such situations because the second load doesn't impact the primary as much as on Intel.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-8100-vs-AMD-FX-8300/3942vsm7163

[Nocte]

They are both bad for streaming+gaming on the same machine. Can't you get your hands on a Ryzen 5 1600?

[TheRandomness]

- Threads merged. Please, only create one thread per topic. 

[Stefan Payne]

2 hours ago, manikyath said:

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-8100-vs-AMD-FX-8300/3942vsm7163

And where are the Gaming while Streaming benchmarks?!

[manikyath]

10 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

And where are the Gaming while Streaming benchmarks?!

"multicore"

 

there's no practical difference in one 100% load or two 50% loads, because your processor is switching between several thousand "loads" constantly anyways. the historical "AMD is better at streaming" idea comes from games being less multicore optimized, leaving most of an FX's performance untapped. but by now even intel's i3's have the amount of cores, and the amount of per-core performance to shift that difference, along with the push for more multicore optimization in games offsetting the "untapped resources" effect of AMD.

 

whatever you may come claim here, you're gonna need a lot to make a convincing point for a 6 year old part, over a modern part that offers the same theoretical performance, for a relatively palletable price, with all the features of a modern platform, like pcie 3.0, to make a point of how dated of a platform AMD FX is.

[Biggerboot]

14 hours ago, N0ne0324 said:

i want to build a pc to start streaming but i dont know which cpu is better plz help me

To answer this question at face value, the FX 8350 and i3 8100 are close to having the same performance when tapped out (give an advantage to the FX when you OC).  And the i3 is substantially better in gaming.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-8100-vs-AMD-FX-8350/3942vs1489

 

So the i3 is better.

Would I recommend the i3 or FX for streaming?  Not really.
Would I ever recommend getting an FX?  For dirt cheap, maybe. 

But a used i7 is almost always the better way to go if you want to stream on a budget.  Especially with the absurd DDR4 prices.

[N0ne0324]

On 2018/5/22 at 2:27 PM, N0ne0324 said:

i want to build a pc to start streaming but i dont know which cpu is better plz help me

Or i just buy a Ryzen 5 1600 better?