Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Is the FX 6300 or i3 3225 Better?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 29, 2013 7:31:57 PM

Is the FX 6300 or i3 3225 Better? It would be mainly used for gaming and no video rendering, photoshop, extreme multi-tasking or anything like that. They are practically the same price. It would be with a GTX 660 GPU. I have looked at a few different benchmarks and seem to get conflicting answers. Thanks!!!

More about : 6300 3225

a c 138 à CPUs
March 29, 2013 7:39:31 PM

game is i3 3255
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
March 29, 2013 7:40:26 PM

I would say go with the 6300. They are similar in performance, but having more cores will help in the future.

At stock, The 3225 is going to be the better gaming chip. The Fx 6300 can neutralize that advantage with a mild overclock and is faster overall.
m
0
l
a c 138 à CPUs
March 29, 2013 7:44:59 PM

overclock and more watt is 6300
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 29, 2013 7:45:52 PM

The i3 is slightly faster in single threaded performance. The FX 6300 is impressively faster in everything else. It's core count and overclockability will future proof you for quite some time to come.
m
0
l
a c 98 à CPUs
March 29, 2013 7:45:55 PM

Get a Core i3-3220 instead of the 3225, it should be cheaper. CPU performance is identical, the only difference is the integrated graphics (which you wouldn't be using).
m
0
l
a c 98 à CPUs
March 29, 2013 7:48:04 PM

cmi86 said:
The i3 is slightly faster in single threaded performance. The FX 6300 is impressively faster in everything else. It's core count and overclockability will future proof you for quite some time to come.

The i3 isn't just slightly faster in single threaded performance, it's significantly faster. Otherwise the FX-6300 would just stomp it with its 6 cores.

For gaming, the i3 tends to be better.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 29, 2013 8:22:26 PM

Gaming the FX6300 wins out overall in gaming (avg fps is lightly higher) and can OC
Really depends on your game, but FX6300 will be more future proof
(in the charts without the FX6300, expect it to be between the 8150 and the 8350)(the x3xx is a lot faster clock for clock for AMD)








m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
March 30, 2013 8:48:54 AM

Sakkura said:
cmi86 said:
The i3 is slightly faster in single threaded performance. The FX 6300 is impressively faster in everything else. It's core count and overclockability will future proof you for quite some time to come.

The i3 isn't just slightly faster in single threaded performance, it's significantly faster. Otherwise the FX-6300 would just stomp it with its 6 cores.

For gaming, the i3 tends to be better.


No, the newest games are TERRIBLE on the i3, try running Crysis 3 on an i3 and see what that gets you! Your GPU will cry inside your PC case...literally.
m
0
l
a c 98 à CPUs
March 30, 2013 9:50:24 AM

8350rocks said:
No, the newest games are TERRIBLE on the i3, try running Crysis 3 on an i3 and see what that gets you! Your GPU will cry inside your PC case...literally.

Crysis 3 is one of the few exceptions, because it is unusually multithreaded.

In the future, more games may follow in its footsteps. For now, most games favor per-core performance over extra cores. Just look at the Skyrim and Starcraft II benchmarks above - the FX-6300 ends up in Pentium territory.
m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
March 30, 2013 10:13:43 AM

Sakkura said:
8350rocks said:
No, the newest games are TERRIBLE on the i3, try running Crysis 3 on an i3 and see what that gets you! Your GPU will cry inside your PC case...literally.

Crysis 3 is one of the few exceptions, because it is unusually multithreaded.

In the future, more games may follow in its footsteps. For now, most games favor per-core performance over extra cores. Just look at the Skyrim and Starcraft II benchmarks above - the FX-6300 ends up in Pentium territory.


SkyRim and SC2 both use intel compilers...of course intel chips are heavily favored there. When they were launched (each one) it was almost a running joke in the benchmark community that they were even compared to AMD because of the code issues using the compilers they chose. People ran the benchmarks anyway to see how well AMD could overcome the code deficiencies generated by the intel flags...

Bad comparison...

Look at Far Cry 3, Battlefield 3, Metro 2033, GTA5...and Crysis 3 (we already mentioned...)...Those games are a MUCH better barometer of where gaming is going...
m
0
l
a c 98 à CPUs
March 30, 2013 10:23:23 AM

8350rocks said:
Look at Far Cry 3, Battlefield 3, Metro 2033, GTA5...and Crysis 3 (we already mentioned...)...Those games are a MUCH better barometer of where gaming is going...

So we need to look at games that don't exist (GTA5), games that can't be benchmarked reliably (BF3 MP), and weed out anything that favors Intel? Give me a break.
m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
March 30, 2013 10:32:26 AM

Sakkura said:
8350rocks said:
Look at Far Cry 3, Battlefield 3, Metro 2033, GTA5...and Crysis 3 (we already mentioned...)...Those games are a MUCH better barometer of where gaming is going...

So we need to look at games that don't exist (GTA5), games that can't be benchmarked reliably (BF3 MP), and weed out anything that favors Intel? Give me a break.


GTA5 should hit in september...it's right around the corner...

Far Cry 3 does favor intel by about 2 FPS comparing a i7-3770k and a FX8350...comparing a i5 and 8350 though and AMD wins...flat out...

Metro 2033 favors AMD? How? It's only one of the most ridiculously CPU/GPU intensive games out right now...why wouldn't you look at that for a benchmark where games are going? Depending on who is benchmarking that game, and how their system is setup...it goes either way...Intel or AMD, I have seen it benchmarked where both sides have won.

Crysis 3 favors AMD? Well, AMD seems to bench better on it...but that's merely due to heavy threading and in all fairness, intel isn't very far behind on this one either...(heavy threading is the future of gaming)...

When you look at the NEWEST games out...SkyRim has been out for a year or so now...that's not one of the newest games...they are ALL going to heavy multithreading.

If you recommend for some poor person reading these forums to buy an i3 with the current state of gaming...you are seriously doing them a disservice. They will have to upgrade in less than 12 months to even be able to play the newest games at a reasonable FPS by most people's standards...

Why would you do that to someone? Don't give bad advice that will cost them money they don't have later...just because you're an intel nut...
m
0
l
a c 98 à CPUs
March 30, 2013 11:20:00 AM

8350rocks said:
GTA5 should hit in september...it's right around the corner...

Far Cry 3 does favor intel by about 2 FPS comparing a i7-3770k and a FX8350...comparing a i5 and 8350 though and AMD wins...flat out...

Metro 2033 favors AMD? How? It's only one of the most ridiculously CPU/GPU intensive games out right now...why wouldn't you look at that for a benchmark where games are going? Depending on who is benchmarking that game, and how their system is setup...it goes either way...Intel or AMD, I have seen it benchmarked where both sides have won.

Crysis 3 favors AMD? Well, AMD seems to bench better on it...but that's merely due to heavy threading and in all fairness, intel isn't very far behind on this one either...(heavy threading is the future of gaming)...

When you look at the NEWEST games out...SkyRim has been out for a year or so now...that's not one of the newest games...they are ALL going to heavy multithreading.

If you recommend for some poor person reading these forums to buy an i3 with the current state of gaming...you are seriously doing them a disservice. They will have to upgrade in less than 12 months to even be able to play the newest games at a reasonable FPS by most people's standards...

Why would you do that to someone? Don't give bad advice that will cost them money they don't have later...just because you're an intel nut...

Yeah Skyrim has been out for a while. So what? It's still one of the featured games on Steam, because it still sells well. It's obviously still relevant. Who would want to buy hardware that struggles with games from a year or two ago?

And it's honestly quite ridiculous that you, the "8350rocks" fanboy, label me an Intel nut. My avatar happens to be a piece of AMD hardware, so yeah... I must really hate AMD. :pt1cable: 
m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
March 30, 2013 11:23:33 AM

Sakkura said:
8350rocks said:
GTA5 should hit in september...it's right around the corner...

Far Cry 3 does favor intel by about 2 FPS comparing a i7-3770k and a FX8350...comparing a i5 and 8350 though and AMD wins...flat out...

Metro 2033 favors AMD? How? It's only one of the most ridiculously CPU/GPU intensive games out right now...why wouldn't you look at that for a benchmark where games are going? Depending on who is benchmarking that game, and how their system is setup...it goes either way...Intel or AMD, I have seen it benchmarked where both sides have won.

Crysis 3 favors AMD? Well, AMD seems to bench better on it...but that's merely due to heavy threading and in all fairness, intel isn't very far behind on this one either...(heavy threading is the future of gaming)...

When you look at the NEWEST games out...SkyRim has been out for a year or so now...that's not one of the newest games...they are ALL going to heavy multithreading.

If you recommend for some poor person reading these forums to buy an i3 with the current state of gaming...you are seriously doing them a disservice. They will have to upgrade in less than 12 months to even be able to play the newest games at a reasonable FPS by most people's standards...

Why would you do that to someone? Don't give bad advice that will cost them money they don't have later...just because you're an intel nut...

Yeah Skyrim has been out for a while. So what? It's still one of the featured games on Steam, because it still sells well. It's obviously still relevant. Who would want to buy hardware that struggles with games from a year or two ago?

And it's honestly quite ridiculous that you, the "8350rocks" fanboy, label me an Intel nut. My avatar happens to be a piece of AMD hardware, so yeah... I must really hate AMD. :pt1cable: 


More importantly who would want to buy hardware that's outdated in 12 months? FX6300 doesn't struggle to run Skyrim...it's not better than an i5...but still...it runs it well enough...and Skyrim isn't the only game that most people play...

If you're not an intel nut, then why give bad advice?
m
0
l
a c 98 à CPUs
March 30, 2013 11:27:17 AM

8350rocks said:
More importantly who would want to buy hardware that's outdated in 12 months? FX6300 doesn't struggle to run Skyrim...it's not better than an i5...but still...it runs it well enough...and Skyrim isn't the only game that most people play...

If you're not an intel nut, then why give bad advice?

All current CPUs will be outdated in 12 months. That's how it works in the computer hardware business. There's always something new and awesome on the horizon. In Intel's case it's less than 3 months away (though Haswell Core i3s might come later, like they did with Ivy Bridge).

What matters is that the Core i3 outpaces the FX-6300 in the majority of games at the moment.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 30, 2013 11:30:26 AM

I posted all those games up OP so take that as the bench line

The FX 6300 will do fine in the current crop of games and only get better as time goes on
m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
March 30, 2013 11:32:27 AM

Sakkura said:
8350rocks said:
More importantly who would want to buy hardware that's outdated in 12 months? FX6300 doesn't struggle to run Skyrim...it's not better than an i5...but still...it runs it well enough...and Skyrim isn't the only game that most people play...

If you're not an intel nut, then why give bad advice?

All current CPUs will be outdated in 12 months. That's how it works in the computer hardware business. There's always something new and awesome on the horizon. In Intel's case it's less than 3 months away (though Haswell Core i3s might come later, like they did with Ivy Bridge).

What matters is that the Core i3 outpaces the FX-6300 in the majority of games at the moment.


You're defining your basis for comparison based on previous games...you're not weighting the newest games properly.

Based on the majority of previous games that have ever come a 1.0 GHz Athlon will run 90% of the games anyone has ever made...does that make it superior to anything right now?

Plus, the FX-6300 will be a serviceable option for atleast the next 18-24 months. At the end of that time frame, he could still upgrade into steamroller architecture and be current again without a major overhaul.
m
0
l
a c 98 à CPUs
March 30, 2013 11:43:30 AM

8350rocks said:
You're defining your basis for comparison based on previous games...you're not weighting the newest games properly.

Based on the majority of previous games that have ever come a 1.0 GHz Athlon will run 90% of the games anyone has ever made...does that make it superior to anything right now?

A 1 GHz Athlon wouldn't be better than a modern processor. In this case, the Core i3 is better than the FX-6300 in a lot of games. And I'm weighting games just fine. You're the one that's inexplicably ignoring games just because they happen to be over one year old.
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 210 à CPUs
March 30, 2013 11:53:22 AM

Sakkura said:
8350rocks said:
You're defining your basis for comparison based on previous games...you're not weighting the newest games properly.

Based on the majority of previous games that have ever come a 1.0 GHz Athlon will run 90% of the games anyone has ever made...does that make it superior to anything right now?

A 1 GHz Athlon wouldn't be better than a modern processor. In this case, the Core i3 is better than the FX-6300 in a lot of games. And I'm weighting games just fine. You're the one that's inexplicably ignoring games just because they happen to be over one year old.


If you think advising someone looking at a low end gaming rig with a tight budget to buy an i3 is a wise decision, given the fact that they'll have to overhaul with their next upgrade (dead socket), and will run out of computing power in the next 12 months without doubt on the newest games...then I guess that's your own decision, but I cannot whole heartedly advise anyone to buy an i3 right now. I could see someone making a case for an i5/i7 even on a dead socket...but an i3? When there are so many superior offerings from AMD at similar price points that give them more options and will be better solutions to have a year from now...I can't agree with that.
Share
a b à CPUs
March 30, 2013 11:55:07 AM

Sakkura said:
8350rocks said:
You're defining your basis for comparison based on previous games...you're not weighting the newest games properly.

Based on the majority of previous games that have ever come a 1.0 GHz Athlon will run 90% of the games anyone has ever made...does that make it superior to anything right now?

A 1 GHz Athlon wouldn't be better than a modern processor. In this case, the Core i3 is better than the FX-6300 in a lot of games. And I'm weighting games just fine. You're the one that's inexplicably ignoring games just because they happen to be over one year old.


If you look at most of the games I posted, in the ones that the i3 wins the fx6300 is still playable at about 50+fps

But in crysis 3 the i3 drops below play ability while the FX6300 never does in any game or is so close to the i3 that there is practically no difference
m
0
l
a c 98 à CPUs
March 30, 2013 12:07:19 PM

stickmansam said:
If you look at most of the games I posted, in the ones that the i3 wins the fx6300 is still playable at about 50+fps

But in crysis 3 the i3 drops below play ability while the FX6300 never does in any game or is so close to the i3 that there is practically no difference

True, but that's just a small sample of games. If you check the Tom's Hardware CPU recommendations, they still recommend a Core i3 over an FX-6300.
m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
March 30, 2013 12:11:16 PM

Sakkura said:
stickmansam said:
If you look at most of the games I posted, in the ones that the i3 wins the fx6300 is still playable at about 50+fps

But in crysis 3 the i3 drops below play ability while the FX6300 never does in any game or is so close to the i3 that there is practically no difference

True, but that's just a small sample of games. If you check the Tom's Hardware CPU recommendations, they still recommend a Core i3 over an FX-6300.


If Tom's recommendations are outdated so badly as that, you should be among the first to see it. Crysis 3 is indicative of the next wave of games, why would you recommend something that won't play them? Can you answer that question? I am just curious as to what your motivation was...?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 30, 2013 12:16:33 PM

Sakkura said:
stickmansam said:
If you look at most of the games I posted, in the ones that the i3 wins the fx6300 is still playable at about 50+fps

But in crysis 3 the i3 drops below play ability while the FX6300 never does in any game or is so close to the i3 that there is practically no difference

True, but that's just a small sample of games. If you check the Tom's Hardware CPU recommendations, they still recommend a Core i3 over an FX-6300.


Tom's bases their data off this

which is a limited set of 5 games, which is more limited that my set of games posted

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-fr...
m
0
l
a c 98 à CPUs
March 30, 2013 12:56:31 PM

8350rocks said:
If Tom's recommendations are outdated so badly as that, you should be among the first to see it. Crysis 3 is indicative of the next wave of games, why would you recommend something that won't play them? Can you answer that question? I am just curious as to what your motivation was...?

Who says Crysis 3 is indicative of the next wave of games? Crysis 1 wasn't. My motivation was to give balanced, rational advice to the OP. Yours was apparently to push AMD FX no matter what.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 30, 2013 1:56:03 PM

I am not interested in your guy's little flame war here but 5 FPS in a game does not mean "Better" CPU. You guys do realize there is more to the world than gaming right ? You do realize that the 6300 smashes the i3 in basically everything that isn't gaming right ? Oh and it overclocks enough on the stock cooler to take back the i3's piddly little FPS advantage. I have no beef with intel, i5's and i7's are great because they are fast and efficient plus they make sense being quads with the software world becoming increasingly threaded. The i3 is irrelevant, it will soon be obsolete as will every other dual when it comes to performance computing. 8350 top trolling, i get your point but still.
m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
March 30, 2013 2:35:19 PM

Sakkura said:
8350rocks said:
If Tom's recommendations are outdated so badly as that, you should be among the first to see it. Crysis 3 is indicative of the next wave of games, why would you recommend something that won't play them? Can you answer that question? I am just curious as to what your motivation was...?

Who says Crysis 3 is indicative of the next wave of games? Crysis 1 wasn't. My motivation was to give balanced, rational advice to the OP. Yours was apparently to push AMD FX no matter what.


No, I said I could see an argument for an i5/i7 on a dead socket simply from a "purely performance, and have the money anyway" stand point...but an i3 is a poor recommendation for a budget gamer looking at games in the near future.
m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
March 30, 2013 2:38:52 PM

cmi86 said:
I am not interested in your guy's little flame war here but 5 FPS in a game does not mean "Better" CPU. You guys do realize there is more to the world than gaming right ? You do realize that the 6300 smashes the i3 in basically everything that isn't gaming right ? Oh and it overclocks enough on the stock cooler to take back the i3's piddly little FPS advantage. I have no beef with intel, i5's and i7's are great because they are fast and efficient plus they make sense being quads with the software world becoming increasingly threaded. The i3 is irrelevant, it will soon be obsolete as will every other dual when it comes to performance computing. 8350 top trolling, i get your point but still.


So, you agree recommending an i3 anything to someone right now is bad advice then?

All I want is the question answered...why would he recommend such a poor situation to be in, for someone who is prospectively building their first rig or a budget gaming rig...and he keeps dodging the question and trying to twist it back onto me about pushing AMD. The FX6300 is superior to the i3 and puts them in a much better position moving forward.

Sorry, but I have a conscience...and putting someone into an i3 + 1155 mobo right now, knowing what's coming, is bad advice...PERIOD.
m
0
l
March 30, 2013 5:37:53 PM

grich96 said:
Is the FX 6300 or i3 3225 Better? It would be mainly used for gaming and no video rendering, photoshop, extreme multi-tasking or anything like that. They are practically the same price. It would be with a GTX 660 GPU. I have looked at a few different benchmarks and seem to get conflicting answers. Thanks!!!


8350rocks said:
Sakkura said:
8350rocks said:
You're defining your basis for comparison based on previous games...you're not weighting the newest games properly.

Based on the majority of previous games that have ever come a 1.0 GHz Athlon will run 90% of the games anyone has ever made...does that make it superior to anything right now?

A 1 GHz Athlon wouldn't be better than a modern processor. In this case, the Core i3 is better than the FX-6300 in a lot of games. And I'm weighting games just fine. You're the one that's inexplicably ignoring games just because they happen to be over one year old.


If you think advising someone looking at a low end gaming rig with a tight budget to buy an i3 is a wise decision, given the fact that they'll have to overhaul with their next upgrade (dead socket), and will run out of computing power in the next 12 months without doubt on the newest games...then I guess that's your own decision, but I cannot whole heartedly advise anyone to buy an i3 right now. I could see someone making a case for an i5/i7 even on a dead socket...but an i3? When there are so many superior offerings from AMD at similar price points that give them more options and will be better solutions to have a year from now...I can't agree with that.


Thanks for sticking to your guns and convincing me that the FX 6300 is better. You were dead on when you said that I was on a tight budget and needed some "futureproofing" as best I could.
m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
March 30, 2013 5:42:20 PM

grich96 said:
grich96 said:
Is the FX 6300 or i3 3225 Better? It would be mainly used for gaming and no video rendering, photoshop, extreme multi-tasking or anything like that. They are practically the same price. It would be with a GTX 660 GPU. I have looked at a few different benchmarks and seem to get conflicting answers. Thanks!!!


8350rocks said:
Sakkura said:
8350rocks said:
You're defining your basis for comparison based on previous games...you're not weighting the newest games properly.

Based on the majority of previous games that have ever come a 1.0 GHz Athlon will run 90% of the games anyone has ever made...does that make it superior to anything right now?

A 1 GHz Athlon wouldn't be better than a modern processor. In this case, the Core i3 is better than the FX-6300 in a lot of games. And I'm weighting games just fine. You're the one that's inexplicably ignoring games just because they happen to be over one year old.


If you think advising someone looking at a low end gaming rig with a tight budget to buy an i3 is a wise decision, given the fact that they'll have to overhaul with their next upgrade (dead socket), and will run out of computing power in the next 12 months without doubt on the newest games...then I guess that's your own decision, but I cannot whole heartedly advise anyone to buy an i3 right now. I could see someone making a case for an i5/i7 even on a dead socket...but an i3? When there are so many superior offerings from AMD at similar price points that give them more options and will be better solutions to have a year from now...I can't agree with that.


Thanks for sticking to your guns and convincing me that the FX 6300 is better. You were dead on when you said that I was on a tight budget and needed some "futureproofing" as best I could.


No problem man, I am all about getting the most bang for my buck, and while intel solutions in a CPU over $200 make sense for some people, if you're looking at a solution in the $100-150 range for a CPU, it makes all the sense to go AMD! Good luck
m
0
l
!