Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

FX-6300 VS Core I3 (3220)

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 14, 2013 5:50:49 AM

Which one should i go for it considering that I'm not gonna update my components in less than 2 years , so which one would serve me better for a long time ?

More about : 6300 core 3220

May 14, 2013 6:00:17 AM

Hmmmm....close call.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gaming-cpu-review-overclo...

Both are good options in themselves, so you should be OK with either.

I would personally recommend the I3, as that has an upgrade route to an I5 or I7, wheras with the AM3, there is no such potent upgrade (at least, not yet....). Furthermore, considering that you'd have to blow an extra £20 or so on a cooler to beat the I3, the I3 is probably the best bang for the buck.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 14, 2013 6:03:48 AM

For gaming get the 6300, will be good enough.
If you go the Intel way, i would suggest to wait for haswell, the haswell series will have a 10-15% peformance increase than Ivy Bridge but it will stay in the same pricerange
m
0
l
Related resources

Best solution

May 14, 2013 6:09:33 AM

It seems like in every benchmark (RTS or FPS) the Intel i3 still comes on top.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-fr...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-fr...

I would suggest you go with the i3 3220

Read this for more info
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-fr...

Share
a b à CPUs
May 14, 2013 6:20:19 AM

id say FX6300. even though the core i3-3220 comes out top in most benchmarks, the FX has 6 cores so it might come in handy if your keeping it for a very long time.and you can OC it with a good cooler. the bottom side is it consumes more power.and it is slightly weak compared to core i3-3220.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 14, 2013 6:20:30 AM

FX 6300 is the better choice if you don't plan on upgrading.
m
0
l
May 14, 2013 6:41:08 AM

unreal9400 said:
FX 6300 is the better choice if you don't plan on upgrading.


What made you come up with this conclusion?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 14, 2013 8:02:04 AM

FX 6300 is better. i3 generally performs better on older games but this is only relevant when the fps is not over 60 (no one care about 110 vs 150 fps on a 60 hz display). However, many newer more demanding games show a strong affinity for more cores. 2 cores with HT cannot compete with a core core cpu (tri module or whatever). Games such as Crysis 3, FC3, BF3 (multiplayer) will generally perform significantly better on the 6300 while games such as WOW, gw2, starcraft (mmo's) perform better on the i3. However the 6300 with a decent cooler can be overclocked nicely and boards may be cheaper.
m
0
l
May 14, 2013 8:09:04 AM

You should take a look at this.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/358854-28-6200-core-3...

I dont know why people still think more cores equals better performance but it's not true at all. The only thing that really matters is instructions per-second.

Yes more cores can help, but it's much more complex than that.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
May 14, 2013 8:48:16 AM

ilikegirls said:
You should take a look at this.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/358854-28-6200-core-3...

I dont know why people still think more cores equals better performance but it's not true at all. The only thing that really matters is instructions per-second.

Yes more cores can help, but it's much more complex than that.


No, instructions are less relevant than threads. Instructions only matter at single core functions...like AAC encoding (think iTunes)...

A dual core CPU would greatly handicap your future prospects. Games are always getting more and more heavily threaded. The next gen consoles have 8 x86 cores...games will begin being more and more geared toward that. You don't want to be left in the dust.

Also, AMD has a valid upgrade path to steamroller, and you won't have to buy a new motherboard.

Additionally, the FX6350 is a great option if you can afford it/find it. It increases the stock clocks to right at 4 GHz (3.9 IIRC w/ TC to 4.2). This would give you a noticeable performance increase if you don't intend to overclock.

Lastly, Intel has already stated that dual cores are dead, Haswell will be the last generation of i3's according to them. Broadwell will offer i3 mobile solutions but they will all be BGA, and the desktop line will not receive anymore i3 CPUs because they are not sufficient any longer.

Don't buy a dual core.
m
0
l
May 14, 2013 9:08:18 AM

8350rocks said:
No, instructions are less relevant than threads. Instructions only matter at single core functions...like AAC encoding (think iTunes)...


I think you are confusing instructions with something else. The amount of Instructions a CPU can execute per-second (IPS) is the total amount of data the CPU can compute.

More cores, threads, higher clocks, and so on will make the average or sum IPS greater, but IPS is still that magic number that is the total amount of things a processor can do.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 14, 2013 9:36:06 AM

ilikegirls said:
unreal9400 said:
FX 6300 is the better choice if you don't plan on upgrading.


What made you come up with this conclusion?

FX 6300 can be overclocked unlike i3 which is locked.
FX 6300 is a great choice for multitasking and opening many programs at the same time.
Future games will use more cores and threads.
m
0
l
May 14, 2013 9:41:23 AM

Lemme break this down.

unreal9400 said:

FX 6300 can be overclocked unlike i3 which is locked.

But in doing so, it needs an extra £20 for after-market cooling, somewhat undercutting its price-to-performance ratio.
FX 6300 is a great choice for multitasking and opening many programs at the same time. said:
FX 6300 is a great choice for multitasking and opening many programs at the same time.

But not for gaming. Very, very few use more than 4, which the I3 can handle fine.
Future games will use more cores and threads.
said:
Future games will use more cores and threads.

That's a very nice crystal ball you've got there!

The FX 6300 isn't a bad CPU, far from it, and OP would be well served by it. But I think that the argument that you are using here are a tad supurious.... ;) 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
May 14, 2013 9:44:16 AM

unreal9400 said:
ilikegirls said:
unreal9400 said:
FX 6300 is the better choice if you don't plan on upgrading.


What made you come up with this conclusion?

FX 6300 can be overclocked unlike i3 which is locked.
FX 6300 is a great choice for multitasking and opening many programs at the same time.
Future games will use more cores and threads.


Everything you wrote there is true, but dont underestimate the multitasking performance of the i3. I ran 8 instances of VMWare(Server 2008) at the same moment on the i3, without lag, running multiple server data transactions. The 6300 lagged when i tried to install a program and openup photoshop. I'm not saying this as a comparison, just sharing personal experience
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
May 14, 2013 9:55:55 AM

ilikegirls said:
8350rocks said:
No, instructions are less relevant than threads. Instructions only matter at single core functions...like AAC encoding (think iTunes)...


I think you are confusing instructions with something else. The amount of Instructions a CPU can execute per-second (IPS) is the total amount of data the CPU can compute.

More cores, threads, higher clocks, and so on will make the average or sum IPS greater, but IPS is still that magic number that is the total amount of things a processor can do.


Can an i3 run 6 instances of minecraft in real time?

No.

EDIT: You're talking to an engineer...I know what IPC and threads are...I think you're confused.

IPC means nothing...the number of threads you can run at once are what matters. This is additionally true because the FX6300 has higher engineered IPC than the i3 does. The difference is efficiency, the FX6300 does not often have programs coded in such a way that they can make use of the higher maximum potential.

The i3 runs current coding more efficiently...in single threaded applications or lightly threaded applications. However, if you multitask a lot, or run heavily threaded applications/games...the FX6300 will obliterate the i3.

So, while iTunes and Skyrim might be good on the i3, Crysis 3, BF3 MP, Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Raider and upcoming GTA 5 will all run as well, or faster in many cases, on the FX6300.

Additionally...intel has announced that the i3 series will be mobile only for haswell. If you think a dual core is so great, why is your chosen chip maker conceding they're insufficient in desktops?
m
0
l
May 14, 2013 9:58:32 AM

8350rocks said:
ilikegirls said:
8350rocks said:
No, instructions are less relevant than threads. Instructions only matter at single core functions...like AAC encoding (think iTunes)...


I think you are confusing instructions with something else. The amount of Instructions a CPU can execute per-second (IPS) is the total amount of data the CPU can compute.

More cores, threads, higher clocks, and so on will make the average or sum IPS greater, but IPS is still that magic number that is the total amount of things a processor can do.


Can an i3 run 6 instances of minecraft in real time?

No.


lol, what an argument.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
May 14, 2013 10:03:21 AM

ilikegirls said:
8350rocks said:
ilikegirls said:
8350rocks said:
No, instructions are less relevant than threads. Instructions only matter at single core functions...like AAC encoding (think iTunes)...


I think you are confusing instructions with something else. The amount of Instructions a CPU can execute per-second (IPS) is the total amount of data the CPU can compute.

More cores, threads, higher clocks, and so on will make the average or sum IPS greater, but IPS is still that magic number that is the total amount of things a processor can do.


Can an i3 run 6 instances of minecraft in real time?

No.


lol, what an argument.


I edited to expound upon it further.
m
0
l
May 14, 2013 10:08:21 AM

8350rocks said:
ilikegirls said:
8350rocks said:
ilikegirls said:
8350rocks said:
No, instructions are less relevant than threads. Instructions only matter at single core functions...like AAC encoding (think iTunes)...


I think you are confusing instructions with something else. The amount of Instructions a CPU can execute per-second (IPS) is the total amount of data the CPU can compute.

More cores, threads, higher clocks, and so on will make the average or sum IPS greater, but IPS is still that magic number that is the total amount of things a processor can do.


Can an i3 run 6 instances of minecraft in real time?

No.


lol, what an argument.


I edited to expound upon it further.


Just so you have another box to frame your beautifully crafted argument.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
May 14, 2013 10:09:11 AM

Read the post above.

EDIT: Since you couldn't be bothered to look up a post or 2:


You're talking to an engineer...I know what IPC and threads are...I think you're confused.

IPC means nothing...the number of threads you can run at once are what matters. This is additionally true because the FX6300 has higher engineered IPC than the i3 does. The difference is efficiency, the FX6300 does not often have programs coded in such a way that they can make use of the higher maximum potential.

The i3 runs current coding more efficiently...in single threaded applications or lightly threaded applications. However, if you multitask a lot, or run heavily threaded applications/games...the FX6300 will obliterate the i3.

So, while iTunes and Skyrim might be good on the i3, Crysis 3, BF3 MP, Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Raider and upcoming GTA 5 will all run as well, or faster in many cases, on the FX6300.

Additionally...intel has announced that the i3 series will be mobile only for haswell. If you think a dual core is so great, why is your chosen chip maker conceding they're insufficient in desktops?

Intel's Haswell lineup, with mobile products at the bottom (Note: The "U" nomenclature on the mobile products):

http://wccftech.com/idf-2013-intel-details-haswell-micr...

m
0
l
May 14, 2013 10:33:12 AM

8350rocks said:
Read the post above.

EDIT: Since you couldn't be bothered to look up a post or 2:


You're talking to an engineer...I know what IPC and threads are...I think you're confused.

IPC means nothing...the number of threads you can run at once are what matters. This is additionally true because the FX6300 has higher engineered IPC than the i3 does. The difference is efficiency, the FX6300 does not often have programs coded in such a way that they can make use of the higher maximum potential.

The i3 runs current coding more efficiently...in single threaded applications or lightly threaded applications. However, if you multitask a lot, or run heavily threaded applications/games...the FX6300 will obliterate the i3.

So, while iTunes and Skyrim might be good on the i3, Crysis 3, BF3 MP, Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Raider and upcoming GTA 5 will all run as well, or faster in many cases, on the FX6300.

Additionally...intel has announced that the i3 series will be mobile only for haswell. If you think a dual core is so great, why is your chosen chip maker conceding they're insufficient in desktops?

Intel's Haswell lineup, with mobile products at the bottom (Note: The "U" nomenclature on the mobile products):

http://wccftech.com/idf-2013-intel-details-haswell-micr...



I would first like to start with a clarification. My initial comment about you being confused was not meant as an insult, and if it seemed like it I apologize.

While being titled an engineer might mean something to an employer, it speaks nothing of ones actual intellect and level of knowledge in a field. Again, this has nothing to with you specifically, but rather why titles cant directly reflect someones level of intellect in a field.

Furthermore, I'm not some some random individual that knows a little here and there about computers. I'm a CS major that has more than enough experience with CPU architectures and concepts to hold my own, so having the title engineer isn't really needed out side of job hunting.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
May 14, 2013 10:37:07 AM

I am a hardware guy...as a CS guy, you know coding, I know the engineered maximums and capabilities of hardware. I am telling you...the FX6300 is vastly under utilized at this time in most scenarios. (I have some basic coding knowledge...but nothing to get too technical about)
m
0
l
May 14, 2013 10:46:46 AM

8350rocks said:
I am a hardware guy...as a CS guy, you know coding, I know the engineered maximums and capabilities of hardware. I am telling you...the FX6300 is vastly under utilized at this time in most scenarios. (I have some basic coding knowledge...but nothing to get too technical about)


You might be right, and underneath it all the FX6300 is a better CPU, but the end result after layers and layers of code is still the same.

A CPU still needs a lot of code on top of the actually hardware design to function (assembly language), and even if the hardware design is technically better than the i3's, its actual output isn't.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
May 14, 2013 11:11:01 AM

Except in many circumstances it is...and future games are going toward more cores and better utilization.

Dual cores are effectively dead for enthusiasts/gamers. Neither Intel nor AMD are making dual core CPUs for desktops any longer (if intel has some Pentium or Celeron variant in BGA format for low end business solutions...that's largely irrelevant from the conversation at hand). So the argument for an i3 now becomes invalid.

Which makes the argument instead...which quad core should he buy? Well, he could buy an i5 for about $60 more than the FX6300 @ $120. The performance he would get from that i5 wouldn't be dramatically better than the FX6300 either, and the extra $50 could be the difference between the HD 7850 and HD 7870...which is a far more useful gaming upgrade.

Now, you tell me, how do you recommend an i3?

Read these:

http://www.techradar.com/us/reviews/pc-mac/pc-component...

http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/3311/23/amd-vishera-rev...

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/357/AMD_FX-Series_FX-6...



www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8350_and_f...

Quote:
However the FX-6300 was 17% faster than the Core i3-3220 when comparing synthetic performance, 44% faster in the application tests, 30% faster in the encoding benchmarks and just 2% slower when comparing gaming performance. This means that overall the FX-6300 was 22% faster than the Core i3-3220, and given the similarity in pricing this is a good result for AMD.


http://us.hardware.info/reviews/3314/23/amd-fx-8350--83...

Quote:
It's also interesting to compare the 6-core FX-6300 to the similarly price Core i3 3240, but we never tested exactly that one. That is why we are instead comparing it to the slightly more affordable and slower Core i3 3220, which is clocked a 100 MHz less. In this comparison we arrive at an average performance difference of 31.6 percent which is quite a bit. In the multi-threaded benchmarks the differences exceeds 50 percent at times


Where is the i3 advantage anyway? All I can find it winning at is iTunes and Skyrim...
m
0
l
May 15, 2013 8:49:40 AM

Thanks for all the comments and I think i will go with the FX 6300 it seems to be a better choice
m
0
l
!