Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

A quad-core cpu at the price of i3 3220?

Tags:
  • Quad Core
  • CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 20, 2013 6:42:47 AM

I want to know if there are some quad-core cpu's at the price of i3 3220?

More about : quad core cpu price 3220

a b à CPUs
March 20, 2013 6:48:45 AM

im not updated with prices but... an amd maybe? or maybe a 2nd hand core2 quad?

if you want current generation, then no. obviously they wouldn't sell an i5 lower than an i3
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 84 à CPUs
March 20, 2013 6:49:52 AM
Share
Related resources
a b à CPUs
March 20, 2013 6:53:23 AM

There's some option on the AMD side, the X4-965, the A10-5800k, FX-4170, the 6 cores FX-6100 or the X6 1045t...

** I think the FX-6100 would be the better option for that kind of price
m
0
l
March 20, 2013 7:00:17 AM

spawnkiller said:
There's some option on the AMD side, the X4-965, the A10-5800k, FX-4170, the 6 cores FX-6100 or the X6 1045t...

** I think the FX-6100 would be the better option for that kind of price


Awww hell naw. Avoid faildozer like the plague.

OP: here's a list for the price.
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gaming-cpu-review-overclo...
The FX-4300 is the recommended CPU for the price, as it can catch up the I3's performance when overclocked. You're gonna need to spend extra on a CPU cooler, mobo and your electricity bills, tho.

Have you considered the I3? It's got hyper-threading, so it is better at multi-threaded tasking than a truely dual-core CPU. It's on the recommended gaming list.
m
0
l
March 20, 2013 7:33:18 AM

forget i3, go for AMD. I have been using one on a desktop computer and hell it sucks. Too slow, slower than my AMD Phenom II x4 955 with stock speed. I haven't tried FX 4xxx nor FX6xxx, however they seem to be better than my cpu. For gamers, Intel can be a good choice but you just do not play games all day long. My computer at home can handle IE with 50 or so tabs, Chrome wiht 60+tabs, while I run my Visual Studio and listen to the music and play a simple game on the background, word and excel also open. The i3 at work can not handle word, excel and single browser with 10 tabs. Switching between applications is killing me. And hyperthreading is a big lie. It does nothing as the app must be optimized for it. Guess what, no more than a handfull of applications support it.
m
0
l
March 20, 2013 10:36:49 AM

daerohn said:
forget i3, go for AMD. I have been using one on a desktop computer and hell it sucks. Too slow, slower than my AMD Phenom II x4 955 with stock speed. I haven't tried FX 4xxx nor FX6xxx, however they seem to be better than my cpu. For gamers, Intel can be a good choice but you just do not play games all day long. My computer at home can handle IE with 50 or so tabs, Chrome wiht 60+tabs, while I run my Visual Studio and listen to the music and play a simple game on the background, word and excel also open. The i3 at work can not handle word, excel and single browser with 10 tabs. Switching between applications is killing me. And hyperthreading is a big lie. It does nothing as the app must be optimized for it. Guess what, no more than a handfull of applications support it.


Ignore the fanboy. Professional, accredited sites with multiple reviewers such as Tom's hardware, Anandtech and techradar all say that the I3 is an excellent processor.

Really, considering that you'd need to spend extra on a motherboard, better cooling and energy bills to get the full use out of an FX 4300, I'd recommend and I3 or an I5.
m
0
l
a c 902 à CPUs
March 20, 2013 11:59:50 AM

bemused_fred said:
daerohn said:
forget i3, go for AMD. I have been using one on a desktop computer and hell it sucks. Too slow, slower than my AMD Phenom II x4 955 with stock speed. I haven't tried FX 4xxx nor FX6xxx, however they seem to be better than my cpu. For gamers, Intel can be a good choice but you just do not play games all day long. My computer at home can handle IE with 50 or so tabs, Chrome wiht 60+tabs, while I run my Visual Studio and listen to the music and play a simple game on the background, word and excel also open. The i3 at work can not handle word, excel and single browser with 10 tabs. Switching between applications is killing me. And hyperthreading is a big lie. It does nothing as the app must be optimized for it. Guess what, no more than a handfull of applications support it.


Ignore the fanboy. Professional, accredited sites with multiple reviewers such as Tom's hardware, Anandtech and techradar all say that the I3 is an excellent processor.

Really, considering that you'd need to spend extra on a motherboard, better cooling and energy bills to get the full use out of an FX 4300, I'd recommend and I3 or an I5.



Why would he have to spend extra on a motherboard? An $80 MSI 970A-GA46 would be plenty for all but the most hardcore overclockers/gamers that use AMD. Sorry, but your last statement didn't sound much better than the one you commented on. I doubt you would see much difference in your power bill either. Neither use much power at idle or near idle, which cpu's spend most of their time at. Wouldn't cool it any different than I would my i5 either.
m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
March 20, 2013 12:11:12 PM

daerohn said:
forget i3, go for AMD. I have been using one on a desktop computer and hell it sucks. Too slow, slower than my AMD Phenom II x4 955 with stock speed. I haven't tried FX 4xxx nor FX6xxx, however they seem to be better than my cpu. For gamers, Intel can be a good choice but you just do not play games all day long. My computer at home can handle IE with 50 or so tabs, Chrome wiht 60+tabs, while I run my Visual Studio and listen to the music and play a simple game on the background, word and excel also open. The i3 at work can not handle word, excel and single browser with 10 tabs. Switching between applications is killing me. And hyperthreading is a big lie. It does nothing as the app must be optimized for it. Guess what, no more than a handfull of applications support it.


logainofhades said:
bemused_fred said:
daerohn said:
forget i3, go for AMD. I have been using one on a desktop computer and hell it sucks. Too slow, slower than my AMD Phenom II x4 955 with stock speed. I haven't tried FX 4xxx nor FX6xxx, however they seem to be better than my cpu. For gamers, Intel can be a good choice but you just do not play games all day long. My computer at home can handle IE with 50 or so tabs, Chrome wiht 60+tabs, while I run my Visual Studio and listen to the music and play a simple game on the background, word and excel also open. The i3 at work can not handle word, excel and single browser with 10 tabs. Switching between applications is killing me. And hyperthreading is a big lie. It does nothing as the app must be optimized for it. Guess what, no more than a handfull of applications support it.


Ignore the fanboy. Professional, accredited sites with multiple reviewers such as Tom's hardware, Anandtech and techradar all say that the I3 is an excellent processor.

Really, considering that you'd need to spend extra on a motherboard, better cooling and energy bills to get the full use out of an FX 4300, I'd recommend and I3 or an I5.



Why would he have to spend extra on a motherboard? An $80 MSI 970A-GA46 would be plenty for all but the most hardcore overclockers/gamers that use AMD. Sorry, but your last statement didn't sound much better than the one you commented on. I doubt you would see much difference in your power bill either. Neither use much power at idle or near idle, which cpu's spend most of their time at. Wouldn't cool it any different than I would my i5 either.


This...

AMD makes a lot of sense on a budget, and you can get more CPU for your money.
m
0
l
March 20, 2013 12:43:41 PM

logainofhades said:
bemused_fred said:

Ignore the fanboy. Professional, accredited sites with multiple reviewers such as Tom's hardware, Anandtech and techradar all say that the I3 is an excellent processor.

Really, considering that you'd need to spend extra on a motherboard, better cooling and energy bills to get the full use out of an FX 4300, I'd recommend and I3 or an I5.



Why would he have to spend extra on a motherboard? An $80 MSI 970A-GA46 would be plenty for all but the most hardcore overclockers/gamers that use AMD. Sorry, but your last statement didn't sound much better than the one you commented on. I doubt you would see much difference in your power bill either. Neither use much power at idle or near idle, which cpu's spend most of their time at. Wouldn't cool it any different than I would my i5 either.


Fair 'nough. The Power requirements and mobo expenses probably wouldn't be that bad then.

But to catch the I3 up in terms of gaming performance, the FX 4300 would need to be overclocked. And that would require an after-market cooler, which costs extra money, making the FX 4300 less attractive in terms of price-performance.

Really, if the OP wants gaming, the I3 is the way to go.
m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
March 20, 2013 12:45:35 PM

But the FX-6300 makes ALOT of sense for ~$20-30
m
0
l
a c 902 à CPUs
March 20, 2013 12:50:33 PM

For about $10 more than an i3, you can get an FX 4300 and a CM TX3. Also, I doubt you will find an Intel motherboard for $70-80 that supports SLI and CF. ;)  Newegg has the MSI 970a-G46 for $70. It must not be too bad of a board, since the microcenter I shop at can't seem to keep them on the shelves very long.
m
0
l
a c 79 à CPUs
March 20, 2013 10:39:34 PM

Or you can just spend te extra $10 and get the FX-6300 which is faster than the i3 at just about everything on the planet. BTW bemused the 4300 is piledriver architecture not bulldozer and it sports a 10-15% IPC improvement over bulldozer.
m
0
l
March 20, 2013 11:35:52 PM

cmi86 said:
Or you can just spend te extra $10 and get the FX-6300 which is faster than the i3 at just about everything on the planet.


Except not games, because very, very few games use more than 4 cores. So really, it's no faster than the FX 4300....which is slower than the I3 unless overclocked.

Happy to help you with that. :p 
m
0
l
a c 902 à CPUs
March 20, 2013 11:40:49 PM

bemused_fred said:
cmi86 said:
Or you can just spend te extra $10 and get the FX-6300 which is faster than the i3 at just about everything on the planet.


Except not games, because very, very few games use more than 4 cores. So really, it's no faster than the FX 4300....which is slower than the I3 unless overclocked.

Happy to help you with that. :p 


Going forward, I see the tables turning as games will have support for more cores. I really think AMD making the 8 core, x86 chip for the PS4 will increase the rate of multicore support compared to what he have had in the last few years. Many of the big titles are console ports.
m
0
l
March 21, 2013 1:07:48 AM

logainofhades said:

Going forward, I see the tables turning as games will have support for more cores. I really think AMD making the 8 core, x86 chip for the PS4 will increase the rate of multicore support compared to what he have had in the last few years. Many of the big titles are console ports.


Meh. We've no real knowledge about the PS4 ports and how they'll be threaded. When we do, it might be worth re-evaluating CPU value. Until then, it's not worth banking the power of your computer on a guess.

m
0
l
!