Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

i3-3220 vs FX6300 with regard to future proofing

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 21, 2013 1:07:31 PM

So, rebuilding my second rig (currently a P4 2.6 with 768Mb RAM!) with an emphasis on gaming (but really only sim racing - Race 07, possibly iRacing). Sticking with an old x1950Pro for the time being (yes, I know :lol: , but it will do at least for Race 07), will probably get a s/h GTX460 or something later.

So far I've purchased an OCZ CoreXStream 500w PSU and 8 Gb of Corsair XM3 1333Mhz RAM (2 sticks). Got it for a great price so decided to forego 1600Mhz.

But, I can't decide on the CPU. It's between an i3-3220 and an FX6300 but I want to heavily slant the purchase towards future proofing. Both will do the job at stock and even though I like tinkering with OC's, the upgradeability factor is where I would like to concentrate.

If I go with Intel and get a £75 Z77 board (future OC ability, SLI, 4 banks, etc) I can put an i5 or even an i7 in at a later date and OC.

If I go with AMD I can spend closer to £55 for an equivalent board and I have a Zalman CNPS 9500 cooler if that would do for OC'ing. Now here's the but - will Steamroller get anywhere near the i7's?

Please help me choose. Hmmmm.......or have I answered my own question?

a b à CPUs
March 21, 2013 1:15:15 PM

FX 6300 machine if you don't plan on upgrading anytime soon. If you do want to upgrade, get the i3. and if you live by a place called Microcenter, go there to buy your Intel CPU as they're way cheaper than newegg.

I would recommend you actually buy an i5 instead... you won't need an i7, and the i3 is kind of a waste of money IMO.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 21, 2013 1:29:34 PM

If your going on the Cheap and OC'ing get a Cooler Master Hyper 212 evo (like $30) (Tom's CONSTANTLY recommends it as the absolute MOST bang for buck in CPU cooling)

Also, most of the current gen, mainstream Intel CPU's use the same socket, so you will be able to change CPU's between that series, however, the next series of CPU's will use different sockets.

Lastly, here's the article of best CPU's for their respective price ranges...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...
m
0
l
Related resources
March 21, 2013 1:35:18 PM

To be honest neither of these CPUs will last you very long because there will be better CPUs coming out this year and the fact that applications are being made that will be more intensive. But, if I had no choice, I would rather get the 6300 mainly because it has more cores, and that applications will start using more cores to operate in the future, so I would rather have applications work faster. Also, it is an unlocked CPU so overclocking should be easy. I hope this helps, if it does, don't forget to rate as best answer.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 21, 2013 1:53:13 PM

AT stock: 6300 is ~35% slower using 2 cores, BUT ~25% faster using all cores.
OC'd (to 4.5ghz): 6300 is ~17% slower using 2 cores, BUT ~60% faster using all cores.
So, my guess is that in a typical gaming scenario using 4 cores, 6300 is most likely ~10% slower at stock and about 10% faster OC'd.

If I were buying today, and you can't wait for Haswell, I would personally go with FX6300 and OC it to 4.5ghz, and upgrade to Steamroller in the future, hoping that there aren't any issues from AMD preventing an upgrade path, such as the socket change rumor (unlikely, but possible).

Why not 3220? I think with Haswell just around the corner, buying IB now, and leaving an upgrade path for IB i5 or i7 is not the best option, especially when Intel cpu's price has never really dropped that much at each new generation cpu release.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 21, 2013 3:16:09 PM

goonbar79 has a valid point on the intel based platform. Like I said, if you are going Intel, go i5 3570K. But AMD right now is the better option if you were to choose between an i3 and a 6300.
m
0
l
March 22, 2013 9:20:46 AM

Thanks guys, well worked through, just what I needed - it's a 6300 whitewash then!
m
0
l
March 22, 2013 9:24:25 AM

griptwister, I can't afford the i5 now, but what if I were to get the i3 and then the i5 in a year or so when the s/h price drops? I think I would be happy with that chip in my second rig for a good few years then.
m
0
l
a b å Intel
a c 122 À AMD
a c 680 à CPUs
March 22, 2013 12:52:44 PM

1155 is essentially dead, so platform wise, the FX 6300 is the better choice as AM3+ is getting steamroller.
m
0
l
March 22, 2013 2:00:02 PM

logainofhades said:
1155 is essentially dead, so platform wise, the FX 6300 is the better choice as AM3+ is getting steamroller.


Hmmmm....yes, I understand that, but do you think Steamroller will be an i7 beater? As I hear Steamroller will also be the end of the AM3+ line.
m
0
l
a b å Intel
a c 122 À AMD
a c 680 à CPUs
March 22, 2013 2:05:22 PM

FX 8350 nips at the heels of an i5 now in certain apps and even can beat it in some heavily threaded ones. I don't think it is outside the realm of possibility that a Steamroller based FX will be on par with at least an ivy i7. It will cost less than an i7 as well. Intel tends to not lower CPU prices of older generation chips when new ones come out. For instance, a 2500k costs the same as a 3570k. I remember the exteme edition core 2 quads still going for $1k even though i7 920's could wipe the floor with them all day long for like 1/3 the price.
m
0
l
March 22, 2013 2:18:41 PM

True it really sucks that Intel is so stubborn and won't reduce the prices of older CPUs.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 22, 2013 2:33:50 PM

Jodoii said:
griptwister, I can't afford the i5 now, but what if I were to get the i3 and then the i5 in a year or so when the s/h price drops? I think I would be happy with that chip in my second rig for a good few years then.


Jodoii said:
logainofhades said:
1155 is essentially dead, so platform wise, the FX 6300 is the better choice as AM3+ is getting steamroller.


Hmmmm....yes, I understand that, but do you think Steamroller will be an i7 beater? As I hear Steamroller will also be the end of the AM3+ line.


Not likely for gaming and typical use. Before we predict Steamroller performance, lets look at performance difference between current $200 range cpus, FX8350 vs i5 3570K.

AT stock: 8350 is ~29% slower using less then 4 cores, AND ~22% faster using all 8 cores.
OC'd reasonably (8350 @4.7ghz, 3570K @4.2): 8350 is ~32% slower using less then 4 cores, AND ~16% faster using all 8 cores.

Now, predicting that Steamroller's best case scenario; successfully improves clock for clock performance +10% AND improve thermal headroom even more for higher OC. Lets call this imaginary AMD 8core cpu FX9350 @4.2ghz stock.

AT stock: FX9350 is ~18% slower using less then 4 cores, AND ~40% faster using all 8 cores.
OC'd reasonably (FX9350 @5ghz, 3570K @4.2): 9350 is ~20% slower using less then 4 cores, AND ~35% faster using all 8 cores.

AMD can't keep going up in clock speed, and thread count. AMD need to redesign cpu architecture to compete with Intel.




m
3
l
March 23, 2013 3:31:30 AM

Well, it's my second gaming rig and in the longevity stakes I think I'm going for the Intel.
i3 now, s/h i5 OC'ed in about a year and then s/h OC'ed i7 a couple of years after that (unless the i7 is cheap enough to skip the i5).

That should do me for the next few years I think. I just don't have any faith that Steamroller will catch an OC'ed i7 Ivy, plus, it would be just my luck for it be a new socket!

My main rig is a Q6600 which is still doing surprisingly well. That'll be a Haswell next.
m
0
l
March 23, 2013 6:18:45 AM

Lol, now I'm looking at whether to get the i3 3220 or an i5 2400 both at the same price new. Power requirements aren't much of an issue so the quad must take it surely?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 23, 2013 6:25:32 AM

Yea, the i5 is a great cpu.

EDIT: The i5 2400 you just posted above that is. Compared to that i3. Goodluck with your build ;) 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 23, 2013 6:30:19 AM

goonbar79 said:
Jodoii said:
griptwister, I can't afford the i5 now, but what if I were to get the i3 and then the i5 in a year or so when the s/h price drops? I think I would be happy with that chip in my second rig for a good few years then.


Jodoii said:
logainofhades said:
1155 is essentially dead, so platform wise, the FX 6300 is the better choice as AM3+ is getting steamroller.


Hmmmm....yes, I understand that, but do you think Steamroller will be an i7 beater? As I hear Steamroller will also be the end of the AM3+ line.


Not likely for gaming and typical use. Before we predict Steamroller performance, lets look at performance difference between current $200 range cpus, FX8350 vs i5 3570K.

AT stock: 8350 is ~29% slower using less then 4 cores, AND ~22% faster using all 8 cores.
OC'd reasonably (8350 @4.7ghz, 3570K @4.2): 8350 is ~32% slower using less then 4 cores, AND ~16% faster using all 8 cores.

Now, predicting that Steamroller's best case scenario; successfully improves clock for clock performance +10% AND improve thermal headroom even more for higher OC. Lets call this imaginary AMD 8core cpu FX9350 @4.2ghz stock.

AT stock: FX9350 is ~18% slower using less then 4 cores, AND ~40% faster using all 8 cores.
OC'd reasonably (FX9350 @5ghz, 3570K @4.2): 9350 is ~20% slower using less then 4 cores, AND ~35% faster using all 8 cores.

AMD can't keep going up in clock speed, and thread count. AMD need to redesign cpu architecture to compete with Intel.






You are right, they can't just keep increasing clock speeds. What FX users "can" look forward to is the fact that more often than not in the near future games will be optimized to run on 8 cores. Remember that all new consoles will be using AMD, so in the future things will certainly be more optimized for AMD hardware in many situations. going with an 8350 now is a better choice than anytime before. Still might not be for you, just figured I'd drop in my 2 cents :)  Goodluck with w/e you choose. (Also AMD has stated they will be sticking with AM3+ socket until the end of 2014 at least, if you were worried about having to upgrade a mobo for Steamroller).

m
0
l
March 23, 2013 10:51:21 AM

Well, I've bit the bullet and bought a s/h i5 2500K at 60% of retail. Couldn't resist it in the end :) 

I really appreciate all the help. Thanks.
m
3
l
a b à CPUs
March 25, 2013 7:11:48 AM

chrisafp07 said:
You are right, they can't just keep increasing clock speeds. What FX users "can" look forward to is the fact that more often than not in the near future games will be optimized to run on 8 cores. Remember that all new consoles will be using AMD, so in the future things will certainly be more optimized for AMD hardware in many situations. going with an 8350 now is a better choice than anytime before. Still might not be for you, just figured I'd drop in my 2 cents :)  Goodluck with w/e you choose. (Also AMD has stated they will be sticking with AM3+ socket until the end of 2014 at least, if you were worried about having to upgrade a mobo for Steamroller).


You have a good point.. Like many, I am disappointed that Intel CPU's clock for clock performance is already so much better than amd, and is increasing performance every year by 7~10%. At below $200 price point (especially since AMD cpus go down in price quicker than Intel), AMD cpus with 8 cores have value. I agree that if we were to compare FX8350 vs 3570K a few years from now, 8350 will scale better over the years. It is similar to what we see with Phenom ii X6s, which because of its extra cores has more lasting value than quad cores of the similar generation. But by that time, we would have moved on to next best thing, and those won't be that interesting to discuss anymore. From performance perspective clock for clock speed matters the most, especially for Intel chips with virtual cores. Don’t get me wrong, though. I love AMD and my next build will be AMD 8cores. I just wish they had an option that matches or beats Intel i7s.

One questions. Did amd announce about sticking with AM3+ until 2014? I was a bit worried because of rumors that they are going with FM2 instead.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 25, 2013 7:32:00 AM

goonbar79 said:
chrisafp07 said:
You are right, they can't just keep increasing clock speeds. What FX users "can" look forward to is the fact that more often than not in the near future games will be optimized to run on 8 cores. Remember that all new consoles will be using AMD, so in the future things will certainly be more optimized for AMD hardware in many situations. going with an 8350 now is a better choice than anytime before. Still might not be for you, just figured I'd drop in my 2 cents :)  Goodluck with w/e you choose. (Also AMD has stated they will be sticking with AM3+ socket until the end of 2014 at least, if you were worried about having to upgrade a mobo for Steamroller).


You have a good point.. Like many, I am disappointed that Intel CPU's clock for clock performance is already so much better than amd, and is increasing performance every year by 7~10%. At below $200 price point (especially since AMD cpus go down in price quicker than Intel), AMD cpus with 8 cores have value. I agree that if we were to compare FX8350 vs 3570K a few years from now, 8350 will scale better over the years. It is similar to what we see with Phenom ii X6s, which because of its extra cores has more lasting value than quad cores of the similar generation. But by that time, we would have moved on to next best thing, and those won't be that interesting to discuss anymore. From performance perspective clock for clock speed matters the most, especially for Intel chips with virtual cores. Don’t get me wrong, though. I love AMD and my next build will be AMD 8cores. I just wish they had an option that matches or beats Intel i7s.

One questions. Did amd announce about sticking with AM3+ until 2014? I was a bit worried because of rumors that they are going with FM2 instead.


According to everything I have read and been able to find they are officially sticking with AM3+ for 2014, which I'm happy about. I was worried because there was supposedly a rumor they were dropping AM3+ for Steamroller, which would be terrible for everyone who bought into Piledriver isntead of going i5 or i7 which I could have just decided not to. Intel has been leading the market for gamers for quite awhile, the foothold is very strong and we really need both companies for competition. I'm looking forward to Steamroller, but I'll be nervous too to be honest. entire new team working on this chip, and they aren't in a hurry lol, they're talking 2014 now for it... W/e though like you said, the 8350 is only going to start to shine in the next year or so with more games being optimized for over 4 cores. I'll just keep my fingers crossed lol!
m
0
l
a b å Intel
a c 122 À AMD
a c 680 à CPUs
March 25, 2013 7:51:00 AM

Jodoii said:
Well, I've bit the bullet and bought a s/h i5 2500K at 60% of retail. Couldn't resist it in the end :) 

I really appreciate all the help. Thanks.


Not bad deal at all there. Enjoy! :D 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 25, 2013 10:05:06 AM

In my humble opinion the i3 is a complete waste of money. We live in a technological age where softwares are using more and more cores/threads every day.For the same money you get 6 cores vs. 2 and will be far far more future proofed than with the i3. The software market is catching up to 4/6/8 core CPU's making the Dual cores obsolete, so why buy a brand new dual core that is already obsolete ? or go with an ivy i5 quad, just not a dual.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 25, 2013 10:08:12 AM

whoops guess im a little late to the party lol. Nice buy on that 2500K, that's a nice chip.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
March 25, 2013 10:24:03 AM

goonbar79 said:
Jodoii said:
griptwister, I can't afford the i5 now, but what if I were to get the i3 and then the i5 in a year or so when the s/h price drops? I think I would be happy with that chip in my second rig for a good few years then.


Jodoii said:
logainofhades said:
1155 is essentially dead, so platform wise, the FX 6300 is the better choice as AM3+ is getting steamroller.


Hmmmm....yes, I understand that, but do you think Steamroller will be an i7 beater? As I hear Steamroller will also be the end of the AM3+ line.


Not likely for gaming and typical use. Before we predict Steamroller performance, lets look at performance difference between current $200 range cpus, FX8350 vs i5 3570K.

AT stock: 8350 is ~29% slower using less then 4 cores, AND ~22% faster using all 8 cores.
OC'd reasonably (8350 @4.7ghz, 3570K @4.2): 8350 is ~32% slower using less then 4 cores, AND ~16% faster using all 8 cores.

Now, predicting that Steamroller's best case scenario; successfully improves clock for clock performance +10% AND improve thermal headroom even more for higher OC. Lets call this imaginary AMD 8core cpu FX9350 @4.2ghz stock.

AT stock: FX9350 is ~18% slower using less then 4 cores, AND ~40% faster using all 8 cores.
OC'd reasonably (FX9350 @5ghz, 3570K @4.2): 9350 is ~20% slower using less then 4 cores, AND ~35% faster using all 8 cores.

AMD can't keep going up in clock speed, and thread count. AMD need to redesign cpu architecture to compete with Intel.






First: If "FX9350" is 10% gain you're at 4.4 GHz...not 4.2 GHz...

Second: The word inside AMD is that the gain is more along the lines of 25-30% efficiency...and hence the delay to ensure they get it right. (5.0-5.2 GHz stock clock)

Third: In heavily threaded Apps, an even greater optimized steamroller will best an intel by even MORE than they do now.

Fourth: All future games will be designed specifically with AMD architecture in mind as they are the only hardware in the 6th Gen Consoles, and those developers will learn the AMD architecture inside and out.

Fifth: At max settings, current AMD chips have far less drastic performance decay when compared to a comparable intel chip.

/thread
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 25, 2013 10:55:59 AM

8350rocks said:
First: If "FX9350" is 10% gain you're at 4.4 GHz...not 4.2 GHz...

Second: The word inside AMD is that the gain is more along the lines of 25-30% efficiency...and hence the delay to ensure they get it right. (5.0-5.2 GHz stock clock)

Third: In heavily threaded Apps, an even greater optimized steamroller will best an intel by even MORE than they do now.

Fourth: All future games will be designed specifically with AMD architecture in mind as they are the only hardware in the 6th Gen Consoles, and those developers will learn the AMD architecture inside and out.

Fifth: At max settings, current AMD chips have far less drastic performance decay when compared to a comparable intel chip.

/thread


Read the thread again.. You obviously don't understand my comments.

First: I said clock for clock 10% faster. That is the best case scenario. Historically, no microarchitecture has improved an average of 10% over previous release (except for Core and Nehalem).

Second: 25~30% improvement??? Give me an article that shows any evidence of this.

Third: This is only looking at similar price point cpus, where amd rocks multithreads. When looking at all options, amd simply lacks performance, even using 8 cores. At best, amd 8350 "matches" 3770K with 8 threads.

Fourth: Yes, Future games will be optimized for amd because of next gen console component selection. That won't be 6~12 months from now. It will be years. By that time, cpu performances will have moved on. By that time, raw performances + optimization is going to be the deciding factor.

Five: Give me an article... please. I am open to possibilities, but I want facts and data.

m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
March 25, 2013 11:13:31 AM

goonbar79 said:
8350rocks said:
First: If "FX9350" is 10% gain you're at 4.4 GHz...not 4.2 GHz...

Second: The word inside AMD is that the gain is more along the lines of 25-30% efficiency...and hence the delay to ensure they get it right. (5.0-5.2 GHz stock clock)

Third: In heavily threaded Apps, an even greater optimized steamroller will best an intel by even MORE than they do now.

Fourth: All future games will be designed specifically with AMD architecture in mind as they are the only hardware in the 6th Gen Consoles, and those developers will learn the AMD architecture inside and out.

Fifth: At max settings, current AMD chips have far less drastic performance decay when compared to a comparable intel chip.

/thread


Read the thread again.. You obviously don't understand my comments.

First: I said clock for clock 10% faster. That is the best case scenario. Historically, no microarchitecture has improved an average of 10% over previous release (except for Core and Nehalem).

Second: 25~30% improvement??? Give me an article that shows any evidence of this.

Third: This is only looking at similar price point cpus, where amd rocks multithreads. When looking at all options, amd simply lacks performance, even using 8 cores. At best, amd 8350 "matches" 3770K with 8 threads.

Fourth: Yes, Future games will be optimized for amd because of next gen console component selection. That won't be 6~12 months from now. It will be years. By that time, cpu performances will have moved on. By that time, raw performances + optimization is going to be the deciding factor.

Five: Give me an article... please. I am open to possibilities, but I want facts and data.



1st: Well, comparatively to Intel, I suppose the 10% figure may be more accurate...

2nd: This article states 15% gain, I have seen others suggesting higher, but this is from this site, where we're posting:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/AMD-Steamroller-Piledr...

3rd: Because many things are optimized on Kepler, AMD's architecture is different, and therefore, less optimal running programs based on intel protocols and architecture...

4th: Christmas this year is 9 months away (PS4 Launch)...want to rethink your argument again?

5th:
http://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-357...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgHEgqqaas...

http://www.overclock.net/t/1318995/official-fx-8320-fx-...

http://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-fx-8350-oc-vs-i5-357...

This gives insight into some of the engineering (this is bobcat specifically, but many of the concepts apply): http://lp-hp.com/pangrle/2012/08/09/amd%e2%80%99s-bobca...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 25, 2013 11:42:58 AM

go with an i5 and you will not need to worry about a new cpu for 3-4 years
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 25, 2013 12:04:46 PM

8350rocks said:
1st: Well, comparatively to Intel, I suppose the 10% figure may be more accurate...
2nd: This article states 15% gain, I have seen others suggesting higher, but this is from this site, where we're posting:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/AMD-Steamroller-Piledr...
3rd: Because many things are optimized on Kepler, AMD's architecture is different, and therefore, less optimal running programs based on intel protocols and architecture...
4th: Christmas this year is 9 months away (PS4 Launch)...want to rethink your argument again?
5th: http://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-357...
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgHEgqqaas...
http://www.overclock.net/t/1318995/official-fx-8320-fx-...
http://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-fx-8350-oc-vs-i5-357...
This gives insight into some of the engineering (this is bobcat specifically, but many of the concepts apply): http://lp-hp.com/pangrle/2012/08/09/amd%e2%80%99s-bobca...


1st: You still did not understand my comment. Not just comparative to Intel, but any microarchitecture did not improve more than 10% except Core and Nehalem (for AMD, I believe it was only jump to K8). And actually amd cpus did worse then intel when improving clock for clock performance for a very long time. That is why we are seeing amd stock speed of 4ghz today.

2nd: +15% claim is from amd, which is normal for any claim. Realistically, this doesn't mean it is 15% faster clock for clock, but takes so many equations into the calculation (multithreading, added features and instruction sets, etc). More realistic improvement predicted would be 5~10% clock for clock. But only time will tell what is will be. Historically, amd has disappointed clock for clock for a long time.

3rd: More threads=better for AMD. This has been a fact for a while now. BUT Intel negated this disadvantage dramatically by using virtual cores (hyperthreading). Again, I am not dismissing this fact. I am saying Intel does not have much disadvantage here as many people seem to state.

4th: I said a few years to optimize amd cpu usage for developers, not the console launch is going to take that much time. You don't see the consoles being optimized at launch. It takes time. The question is, when the console launches, and games are made with amd cpus in mind, will us (the gamers) see the difference in performance between amd vs intel for PC ports? I think the answer is NO, or at least not for a few years.

5th: This is not necessarily because of amd vs intel difference, but how cpu performance response to setting and resolution, which means gpu performance will have bigger role than cpu at high res/settings. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev.... read the comments at the bottom. this isn't the only article to show this example either.

Let me clarify again. I LOVE AMD, and the latest cpus surely has value. But let's accept the facts that overall Intel cpus are better performers for lower power demand.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 25, 2013 2:48:59 PM

AMD controls the console market... That's why we're going to see more games optimized for 8 cores... I even had an intel Eng tell me that anything AMD makes that is similarly priced to an intel product is meant to compete with the other similarly product, it doesn't matter weather or not it's intel or AMD, it's the same performance. Which means that AMD's FX 8350 goes against the i5. But with the FX 8350, you get eight cores.

Again, he can't afford an i5 and the FX 6300 will give him better FPS in games that can use the extra cores, like crysis 3. The FX 6300 is a better value CPU than the i3. Especially if you live by Microcenter.
m
0
l
!