Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

fx 6300 or i3 3220 ?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 4, 2013 2:11:58 AM

Hello guys, my configuration as of now is,
intel core 2 duo e7500 2.93 ghz,
zotac gtx 550 ti,
2 gb ram,
intel dg41rq motherboard,
corsair cx600.
I'm going to upgrade my cpu and motherboard as soon as I receive my salary this month. I've been looking at i3 3220 and fx 6300. Prices of both these products are almost identical in India. I have seen many forums where most of the people preferred fx 6300 because it is a six core etc., I'm mainly looking at gaming performance. Which of the two processors would be better ? I'm not going to overclock any of the two cpus. Even I was leaning towards fx until I saw this link : http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-fr...

so pls use your expertise to suggest me the better processor. I'm going to order the cpu after your suggestions. Thank you

More about : 6300 3220

August 4, 2013 2:23:26 AM

praveen77 said:
Hello guys, my configuration as of now is,
intel core 2 duo e7500 2.93 ghz,
zotac gtx 550 ti,
2 gb ram,
intel dg41rq motherboard,
corsair cx600.
I'm going to upgrade my cpu and motherboard as soon as I receive my salary this month. I've been looking at i3 3220 and fx 6300. Prices of both these products are almost identical in India. I have seen many forums where most of the people preferred fx 6300 because it is a six core etc., I'm mainly looking at gaming performance. Which of the two processors would be better ? I'm not going to overclock any of the two cpus. Even I was leaning towards fx until I saw this link : http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-fr...

so pls use your expertise to suggest me the better processor. I'm going to order the cpu after your suggestions. Thank you


Get the i3. To put it in simple terms:

The i3: Two strong cores

The FX-6100: Six weak cores
(There's more to it but it gets harder to explain)

Yeah in gaming and everyday use the i3 is a better choice.
I highly regret buying my FX-4100, I've outgrown it and I"m stuck with an amd motherboard:( 
m
0
l
August 4, 2013 2:26:21 AM

Always go with Intel when talking about gaming!
m
0
l
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2013 2:30:19 AM

Why not i5 instead?
Moving from a core 2 duo to a dual core i3 is not such a big upgrade.
For example, I jump from a Pentium 4 single core to a Quad Core i7 with hyper threading.
Now that is called a big upgrade and worth the money.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2013 2:35:15 AM

I would go FX6300 over the i3 any day. They currently trade blows but with the new consoles and general trend in computing the FX6300 will only get better than the i3in newer games. And with the AMD Turbo clocking up, the faster intel cores really aren;t that much faster in single/dual threaded apps.

I5's are a good choice if your budget can handle it.

The FX6300 can not only OC but is cheaper to boot
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/amd-cpu-fd6300wmhkbox
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80637i33220

Here are some benchmarks to back me up
http://www.techspot.com/review/586-amd-fx-8350-fx-6300/...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/fx-8350-83...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-a...
http://www.techspot.com/review/689-company-of-heroes-2-...
http://www.techspot.com/review/670-metro-last-light-per...
http://www.techspot.com/review/648-simcity-performance/...
http://www.techspot.com/review/645-tomb-raider-performa...
http://www.techspot.com/review/642-crysis-3-performance...
http://www.techspot.com/review/615-far-cry-3-performanc...
http://www.techspot.com/review/601-black-ops-2-performa...
m
0
l
August 4, 2013 2:42:26 AM

stickmansam said:
I would go FX6300 over the i3 any day. They currently trade blows but with the new consoles and general trend in computing the FX6300 will only get better than the i3in newer games. And with the AMD Turbo clocking up, the faster intel cores really aren;t that much faster in single/dual threaded apps.

I5's are a good choice if your budget can handle it.

The FX6300 can not only OC but is cheaper to boot
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/amd-cpu-fd6300wmhkbox
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80637i33220


Yeah the AMD cpu optimisation for next gen games is a good point. But you can't really predict the future with PC's. I I would guess that is would about year after the new consoles come out until developers start to take advantage of the multicore/multithreading architecture AMD has right now.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2013 2:47:17 AM

thanksforthefish87 said:
stickmansam said:
I would go FX6300 over the i3 any day. They currently trade blows but with the new consoles and general trend in computing the FX6300 will only get better than the i3in newer games. And with the AMD Turbo clocking up, the faster intel cores really aren;t that much faster in single/dual threaded apps.

I5's are a good choice if your budget can handle it.

The FX6300 can not only OC but is cheaper to boot
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/amd-cpu-fd6300wmhkbox
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80637i33220


Yeah the AMD cpu optimisation for next gen games is a good point. But you can't really predict the future with PC's. I I would guess that is would about year after the new consoles come out until developers start to take advantage of the multicore/multithreading architecture AMD has right now.



I've updated my post with some benches of recent games and seems like the FX6300 is at least as good as the i3 in most cases already and set to only get better :) 
m
0
l
August 4, 2013 2:52:45 AM

stickmansam said:
thanksforthefish87 said:
stickmansam said:
I would go FX6300 over the i3 any day. They currently trade blows but with the new consoles and general trend in computing the FX6300 will only get better than the i3in newer games. And with the AMD Turbo clocking up, the faster intel cores really aren;t that much faster in single/dual threaded apps.

I5's are a good choice if your budget can handle it.

The FX6300 can not only OC but is cheaper to boot
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/amd-cpu-fd6300wmhkbox
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80637i33220


Yeah the AMD cpu optimisation for next gen games is a good point. But you can't really predict the future with PC's. I I would guess that is would about year after the new consoles come out until developers start to take advantage of the multicore/multithreading architecture AMD has right now.



I've updated my post with some benches of recent games and seems like the FX6300 is at least as good as the i3 in most cases already and set to only get better :) 


Yeah, pretty solid point. If He can afford and i5 though that would be best. And at least with an i3 his board would allow him to upgrade to an i5/i7 if he ever wanted to.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2013 3:13:49 AM

I5>fx6300>i3 in my opinion
A i3 is nice for your mother for surfing the web and checking emails
since it uses less power and the strong per core power is nice. But when im playing there is atleast ts3, chrome and steam running in the background and thats where the fx take the advantage over the
i3. Also look at the crysis3 benchmark that was provided, even the older bulldozer fx6200 smash the i3.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2013 3:15:03 AM

Yep i5's are pretty good. For my build I was deciding on FX6300 vs i5 actually. There is Steamroller as an upgrade path for the AMD though who knows how it will do.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2013 11:35:46 AM

hafijur said:
guggi4 said:
I5>fx6300>i3 in my opinion
A i3 is nice for your mother for surfing the web and checking emails
since it uses less power and the strong per core power is nice. But when im playing there is atleast ts3, chrome and steam running in the background and thats where the fx take the advantage over the
i3. Also look at the crysis3 benchmark that was provided, even the older bulldozer fx6200 smash the i3.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performanc...

On here crysis 3 does ok on an i3 3220.


The difference between the techspot and toms i3 perf is about2-3fps, likley due to different parts in the game and settings they chose to benchmark. The Texhspot does show the FX6x00 being ahead and while the i3 is doing okay, the FX6300 would be even better
m
0
l
August 4, 2013 12:57:52 PM

i have a fx 6300 and its on stock no OC and i play everygame so far on ultra with no complaints. With newer games using newer cores id suggest the 6 core amd to the dual core intel right now games are using 2-4 cores with newer games such as crysis and battle field using up to 6 cores and new systems are confirmed for using 8 core systems 2 of which for operating system meaning 6 left for games
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2013 3:05:10 PM

i'd also say 6300, i have never used it but i was very pleased with the 6100 (havent had any issues with games + streaming) and the 6300 is loads better.
m
0
l
August 4, 2013 3:08:36 PM

chairsgotoschool said:
i'd also say 6300, i have never used it but i was very pleased with the 6100 (havent had any issues with games + streaming) and the 6300 is loads better.


It's definitely not "loads better." In about 90% of games they're equal. The biggest advantage though of getting an i3 though would be more upgradability.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2013 3:30:35 PM

thanksforthefish87 said:
chairsgotoschool said:
i'd also say 6300, i have never used it but i was very pleased with the 6100 (havent had any issues with games + streaming) and the 6300 is loads better.


It's definitely not "loads better." In about 90% of games they're equal. The biggest advantage though of getting an i3 though would be more upgradability.


I would agree that the i3 currently has a better upgrade path with the i5's and AMD won't really have one to match till Steamroller hits late this year/early next. The FX6300's current advantage is potential future optimizations from consoles as well as aging better as games full use 4 cores/threads.

i3 = if you plan to upgrade soon, in which case might as well get an i5 in the first place
FX6300 = potential upgrade path that can match an i5 in the near future as well as a better choice if you don't plan to upgrade soon.
m
0
l
August 4, 2013 3:36:21 PM

stickmansam said:
thanksforthefish87 said:
chairsgotoschool said:
i'd also say 6300, i have never used it but i was very pleased with the 6100 (havent had any issues with games + streaming) and the 6300 is loads better.


It's definitely not "loads better." In about 90% of games they're equal. The biggest advantage though of getting an i3 though would be more upgradability.


I would agree that the i3 currently has a better upgrade path with the i5's and AMD won't really have one to match till Steamroller hits late this year/early next. The FX6300's current advantage is potential future optimizations from consoles as well as aging better as games full use 4 cores/threads.

i3 = if you plan to upgrade soon, in which case might as well get an i5 in the first place
FX6300 = potential upgrade path that can match an i5 in the near future as well as a better choice if you don't plan to upgrade soon.


Yeah the only problem is though no ones really sure how much better FX chips will get even with future optimisation. And I'd expect it to take around a year until game developers start taking advantage of the new architecture.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2013 3:41:23 PM

thanksforthefish87 said:
stickmansam said:
thanksforthefish87 said:
chairsgotoschool said:
i'd also say 6300, i have never used it but i was very pleased with the 6100 (havent had any issues with games + streaming) and the 6300 is loads better.


It's definitely not "loads better." In about 90% of games they're equal. The biggest advantage though of getting an i3 though would be more upgradability.


I would agree that the i3 currently has a better upgrade path with the i5's and AMD won't really have one to match till Steamroller hits late this year/early next. The FX6300's current advantage is potential future optimizations from consoles as well as aging better as games full use 4 cores/threads.

i3 = if you plan to upgrade soon, in which case might as well get an i5 in the first place
FX6300 = potential upgrade path that can match an i5 in the near future as well as a better choice if you don't plan to upgrade soon.


Yeah the only problem is though no ones really sure how much better FX chips will get even with future optimisation. And I'd expect it to take around a year until game developers start taking advantage of the new architecture.


I just think the i3 is stuck in a hard place right now. It performs as well as the FX6300 for now but will not age as well since it can't really process more than 2cores+HT and games are going more and more threads.
The i5 is above it and though it is a good upgrade path, why not just save up and buy the i5 now and not have to take the loss from reselling it? It's just not really that great of an option IMO.
m
0
l
August 4, 2013 3:42:29 PM

stickmansam said:
thanksforthefish87 said:
stickmansam said:
thanksforthefish87 said:
chairsgotoschool said:
i'd also say 6300, i have never used it but i was very pleased with the 6100 (havent had any issues with games + streaming) and the 6300 is loads better.


It's definitely not "loads better." In about 90% of games they're equal. The biggest advantage though of getting an i3 though would be more upgradability.


I would agree that the i3 currently has a better upgrade path with the i5's and AMD won't really have one to match till Steamroller hits late this year/early next. The FX6300's current advantage is potential future optimizations from consoles as well as aging better as games full use 4 cores/threads.

i3 = if you plan to upgrade soon, in which case might as well get an i5 in the first place
FX6300 = potential upgrade path that can match an i5 in the near future as well as a better choice if you don't plan to upgrade soon.


Yeah the only problem is though no ones really sure how much better FX chips will get even with future optimisation. And I'd expect it to take around a year until game developers start taking advantage of the new architecture.


I just think the i3 is stuck in a hard place right now. It performs as well as the FX6300 for now but will not age as well since it can't really process more than 2cores+HT and games are going more and more threads.
The i5 is above it and though it is a good upgrade path, why not just save up and buy the i5 now and not have to take the loss from reselling it? It's just not really that great of an option IMO.


I pretty much have to agree, it's best just to save up the couple extra bucks and go for the i5.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2013 5:13:59 PM

I suppose if you plan on updrading then an i3 or even i5 would be better, when me and a buddy build the pc with the 6100 we had and still have no plans to upgrade at all, if i were to guess i'd say we will wait at least 5 years and by then who knows what will be on the market or even coming soon.
m
0
l
August 4, 2013 5:20:40 PM

chairsgotoschool said:
I suppose if you plan on updrading then an i3 or even i5 would be better, when me and a buddy build the pc with the 6100 we had and still have no plans to upgrade at all, if i were to guess i'd say we will wait at least 5 years and by then who knows what will be on the market or even coming soon.


Even if you don't have plans to upgrade, trust me a couple of years from now with an i3 or an 6100 you'll be thinking about it. And with an i3 it would be cheaper to do so.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2013 5:40:42 PM

thanksforthefish87 said:
chairsgotoschool said:
I suppose if you plan on updrading then an i3 or even i5 would be better, when me and a buddy build the pc with the 6100 we had and still have no plans to upgrade at all, if i were to guess i'd say we will wait at least 5 years and by then who knows what will be on the market or even coming soon.


Even if you don't have plans to upgrade, trust me a couple of years from now with an i3 or an 6100 you'll be thinking about it. And with an i3 it would be cheaper to do so.


Maybe AMD may be competitive again in a couple of years. Plus socket 1155 would be long dead by then and likely AM3+ as well though less likely. If you're not planning to upgrade within the next year, there is no point in planning for upgradeability. Only AMD tends to offer a upgrade path over the long term though I don't know how much longer AM3+ will last past Steamroller. I would say it would probably be better then to get a whole new mb+cpu since pcie+sata+instruction sets+other features will have changed a lot.
m
0
l
August 4, 2013 5:46:03 PM

stickmansam said:
thanksforthefish87 said:
chairsgotoschool said:
I suppose if you plan on updrading then an i3 or even i5 would be better, when me and a buddy build the pc with the 6100 we had and still have no plans to upgrade at all, if i were to guess i'd say we will wait at least 5 years and by then who knows what will be on the market or even coming soon.


Even if you don't have plans to upgrade, trust me a couple of years from now with an i3 or an 6100 you'll be thinking about it. And with an i3 it would be cheaper to do so.


Maybe AMD may be competitive again in a couple of years. Plus socket 1155 would be long dead by then and likely AM3+ as well though less likely. If you're not planning to upgrade within the next year, there is no point in planning for upgradeability. Only AMD tends to offer a upgrade path over the long term though I don't know how much longer AM3+ will last past Steamroller. I would say it would probably be better then to get a whole new mb+cpu since pcie+sata+instruction sets+other features will have changed a lot.


LGA 1150 isn't dead. Anyways it's best right now to get intel. With computers you can never really plan for the future besides a case. It's not really a huge difference between the to.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2013 6:14:40 PM

thanksforthefish87 said:
stickmansam said:
thanksforthefish87 said:
chairsgotoschool said:
I suppose if you plan on updrading then an i3 or even i5 would be better, when me and a buddy build the pc with the 6100 we had and still have no plans to upgrade at all, if i were to guess i'd say we will wait at least 5 years and by then who knows what will be on the market or even coming soon.


Even if you don't have plans to upgrade, trust me a couple of years from now with an i3 or an 6100 you'll be thinking about it. And with an i3 it would be cheaper to do so.


Maybe AMD may be competitive again in a couple of years. Plus socket 1155 would be long dead by then and likely AM3+ as well though less likely. If you're not planning to upgrade within the next year, there is no point in planning for upgradeability. Only AMD tends to offer a upgrade path over the long term though I don't know how much longer AM3+ will last past Steamroller. I would say it would probably be better then to get a whole new mb+cpu since pcie+sata+instruction sets+other features will have changed a lot.


LGA 1150 isn't dead. Anyways it's best right now to get intel. With computers you can never really plan for the future besides a case. It's not really a huge difference between the to.


1155 is dead and 1150 i3s aren't out yet ;) 

By your argument I would suggest the FX6300 if the OP is sticking with Op's original budget as it is better than the i3 in everything except that the i3 may have a better upgrade path with the i5 vs steamroller but we can't plan on that :p . If OP can save up, OP should get the i5 and not have to worry about future performance.

Its not a flat out win for Intel at all price points. i5 > 8350 > 8320 > 6300 >= i3
m
0
l

Best solution

August 5, 2013 4:20:07 AM

And dont listen to people when they say "intel is better", or "get i5 its better" sure it IS BETTER but you will never notice..... on almost every benchmark between intel and amd intel wins but the amd STILL gives over playable frame rates..... If both play game son ultra settings with playable fps who the hell cares which is better save money and go amd.

I got a fx 6300 for $119 and i play every game iv put in my pc so far or downloaded at ultra settings with 0 problems. So why exactly should i of gotten the better i5 for $220????? I see no reason to waste the money on something cuz its "better" if both will get the job done you will most likely never see the added performance a intel will give you.

Think of it like this if the speed limits 60 mph (fps) and you have a normal car like a tarus (amd) that can do say 100 mph easily then you have a supped up sports care say a viper? (intel) that can do 220 mph sure the viper is BETTER but your never gonna go that fast so the added horse power is wasted for all the extra money you payed since both cars are only gonna be going 60 mph anyways....
Share
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2013 5:17:11 AM

PC-GIRL88 said:
And dont listen to people when they say "intel is better", or "get i5 its better" sure it IS BETTER but you will never notice..... on almost every benchmark between intel and amd intel wins but the amd STILL gives over playable frame rates..... If both play game son ultra settings with playable fps who the hell cares which is better save money and go amd.

I got a fx 6300 for $119 and i play every game iv put in my pc so far or downloaded at ultra settings with 0 problems. So why exactly should i of gotten the better i5 for $220????? I see no reason to waste the money on something cuz its "better" if both will get the job done you will most likely never see the added performance a intel will give you.

Think of it like this if the speed limits 60 mph (fps) and you have a normal car like a tarus (amd) that can do say 100 mph easily then you have a supped up sports care say a viper? (intel) that can do 220 mph sure the viper is BETTER but your never gonna go that fast so the added horse power is wasted for all the extra money you payed since both cars are only gonna be going 60 mph anyways....


Probably the most rational post I've read in a long time. This is especially true in this age of unemployment and dim prospects for the future. Save your money for more important things. Buy what gets the job done. I know the machine in my sig makes me out to be a hypocrite but I bought that with Bitcoin (and am lucky enough to have a stable job).
m
0
l
August 5, 2013 5:57:45 AM

ElMoIsEviL said:
PC-GIRL88 said:
And dont listen to people when they say "intel is better", or "get i5 its better" sure it IS BETTER but you will never notice..... on almost every benchmark between intel and amd intel wins but the amd STILL gives over playable frame rates..... If both play game son ultra settings with playable fps who the hell cares which is better save money and go amd.

I got a fx 6300 for $119 and i play every game iv put in my pc so far or downloaded at ultra settings with 0 problems. So why exactly should i of gotten the better i5 for $220????? I see no reason to waste the money on something cuz its "better" if both will get the job done you will most likely never see the added performance a intel will give you.

Think of it like this if the speed limits 60 mph (fps) and you have a normal car like a tarus (amd) that can do say 100 mph easily then you have a supped up sports care say a viper? (intel) that can do 220 mph sure the viper is BETTER but your never gonna go that fast so the added horse power is wasted for all the extra money you payed since both cars are only gonna be going 60 mph anyways....


Probably the most rational post I've read in a long time. This is especially true in this age of unemployment and dim prospects for the future. Save your money for more important things. Buy what gets the job done. I know the machine in my sig makes me out to be a hypocrite but I bought that with Bitcoin (and am lucky enough to have a stable job).


Im no expert iv had my first rig now all of 2 months? this is my first pc iv ever owned period and i built it myself by doing nothing but researching online and watching youtube how to videos and im very happy with my decisions in what to buy fo rmy pc and how my pc is running it blows consoles away iv owned every console ever made and i dont think ill ever play one agian.

I was blasted on forums during my research time of intel is better get a i5 amd sucks blah blah blah and well my research in bench marks and gameplay videos on youtube of people playing games i knew i wanted to play on amd rigs told a dif story. Everywer ei looked amd was playign game son ultra settings with playable framerates for less then intel so to me it was a no brainer i got a fx 6300 saved 100 bucks i would of spent on the 3570k and got me a better gpu which from what my research told me says gpu is more important then your cpu anyhow.....Im happy with my decision and if i need to in the future i can still OC my system for more performance.

Get what cpu makes YOU HAPPY get what works for YOUR NEEDS look on youtube for people using both cpus your looking at doing similar things or playing similar games YOU WANT TO PLAY and see how they feel about it see how it plays see if you like what they have to say then buy the one you like. PLEASE dont waste money just cuz something is better because what you see on a benchmark isint the same as what you will see in first hand experience the truth is like 90% of people wont notice the performance difference between a amd or a intel even tho one is better then the other.

But honestly between the i3 and the fx 6300 get the 6300 just cuz it is honestly the better cpu its faster has more cores and better upgradability being a am+3 chipset still were the i3's ivybridge is a dead socket plus in the future i doubt a dual core cpu will be the minimum for gameing anymore games are using more cores now adays soon a quadcore will become the minimum for pc gameing dual cores wont be cutting it much longer
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2013 6:33:27 AM

When people say that AMD FX processors have "weak cores" they tend to overclock the fact that an Intel Haswell Core tends to be 149% faster than an AMD FX Core in Cinebench single threaded tests.

This means that if an application is properly threaded a Core i3 performs, at most, like an AMD FX triple core processor. 149% + 149% = ~300%.

That's not 600%, so no a Core i3 3220 is not superior to an AMD FX 6300. As time progresses this will become even more evident.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2013 8:03:58 AM

hafijur said:
You mean 'overlook'.
Superpi shows intel current cpus 2x faster the amd fx cpus hence why intel 4 cores compete with the fx8350 8 cores. The i3 3220 performs similar to an fx4300 4 core cpu on multithreaded tasks at low clock, same for a10-5800k.


SuperPi is useless though. It is a benchmark that is entirely useless. It has no real world application. Why would I care about the ability to calculate Pi very quickly? Wouldn't I want to also check the Mathematical/Computational capabilities of a chip for other purposes than calculating Pi?


Here's some Mathematical Performance for you:

Quote:
MyriMatch is intended for use in proteomics, or the large-scale study of protein. You can read more about it here.



Doesn't look like 2x the performance here.


EDIT: Details on this benchmark

Quote:
Our benchmarks sometimes come from unexpected places, and such is the case with this one. David Tabb is a friend of mine from high school and a long-time TR reader. He has provided us with an intriguing new benchmark based on an application he's developed for use in his research work. The application is called MyriMatch, and it's intended for use in proteomics, or the large-scale study of protein. I'll stop right here and let him explain what MyriMatch does:

In shotgun proteomics, researchers digest complex mixtures of proteins into peptides, separate them by liquid chromatography, and analyze them by tandem mass spectrometers. This creates data sets containing tens of thousands of spectra that can be identified to peptide sequences drawn from the known genomes for most lab organisms. The first software for this purpose was Sequest, created by John Yates and Jimmy Eng at the University of Washington. Recently, David Tabb and Matthew Chambers at Vanderbilt University developed MyriMatch, an algorithm that can exploit multiple cores and multiple computers for this matching. Source code and binaries of MyriMatch are publicly available.
In this test, 5555 tandem mass spectra from a Thermo LTQ mass spectrometer are identified to peptides generated from the 6714 proteins of S. cerevisiae (baker's yeast). The data set was provided by Andy Link at Vanderbilt University. The FASTA protein sequence database was provided by the Saccharomyces Genome Database.

MyriMatch uses threading to accelerate the handling of protein sequences. The database (read into memory) is separated into a number of jobs, typically the number of threads multiplied by 10. If four threads are used in the above database, for example, each job consists of 168 protein sequences (1/40th of the database). When a thread finishes handling all proteins in the current job, it accepts another job from the queue. This technique is intended to minimize synchronization overhead between threads and minimize CPU idle time.

The most important news for us is that MyriMatch is a widely multithreaded real-world application that we can use with a relevant data set. I should mention that performance scaling in MyriMatch tends to be limited by several factors, including memory bandwidth, as David explains:

Inefficiencies in scaling occur from a variety of sources. First, each thread is comparing to a common collection of tandem mass spectra in memory. Although most peptides will be compared to different spectra within the collection, sometimes multiple threads attempt to compare to the same spectra simultaneously, necessitating a mutex mechanism for each spectrum. Second, the number of spectra in memory far exceeds the capacity of processor caches, and so the memory controller gets a fair workout during execution.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2013 10:47:05 AM

hafijur said:
Look at where the i3 3225 and a10-5800k are, you do realise I said 2x better performance per core mainly as in superpi which is the reason why intel at 2 cores compete with amd 4 cores and intel 4 cores compete against the 8 cores of the amd cpu. 3770k is slightly faster then 2x on superpi then the fx8350 hence why it beats it on multithreaded tasks.


That doesn't translate seeing as the FX-8350 is not a full 8 core processor (Shared resources) and the 3770K has Hyperthreading (second execution thrown into the pipeline when there are inactive CPU resources) so it's not a simple 4 Core.

Now as for SuperPi being irrelevant to Real World Performance: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/AMD-Overclocking-Richl...

The reason it is irrelevant? Because Intel has a SIMD path for Pi calculations. So you're not actually using the CPUs capabilities... instead you're using a pre-written script for SuperPi.

AMD, on the other hand, does not. But you can boost AMD performance by forcing the x87 path. So as you can see... not relevant to real world one bit. It's all epeen.

Remember correlation does not imply causation.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2013 10:48:51 AM

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

I usuallly look at that site to compare things, you can select single core or overall. the i3 3245 in single core got 1,859
and the 8350 1519 and 6300 is 1425 not really twice but it is a good chunck better for the record the 6100 got 1194 and the 8150 got 1355 so saying the vishera didn't make a big or un-noticable difference would be like saying the i3 vs 6300 is a big difference, and thats just single core. but these are not gaming benchmarks so you cant exactly judge on that.

When gong to overal performance the 8350 gets a 9128 6300 is 6384 and the i3 4616 the bulldozer 8150 7761 6100 5407 but since thats probably using all cores and games usually only use 4 i'll throw the 4350's score out 5190 then i5's for the fun the 4670k is 7552 and the 3570k is 7121

Like i said this does not directly apply to gaming
m
0
l
August 5, 2013 1:16:22 PM

stickmansam said:
thanksforthefish87 said:
stickmansam said:
thanksforthefish87 said:
chairsgotoschool said:
I suppose if you plan on updrading then an i3 or even i5 would be better, when me and a buddy build the pc with the 6100 we had and still have no plans to upgrade at all, if i were to guess i'd say we will wait at least 5 years and by then who knows what will be on the market or even coming soon.


Even if you don't have plans to upgrade, trust me a couple of years from now with an i3 or an 6100 you'll be thinking about it. And with an i3 it would be cheaper to do so.


Maybe AMD may be competitive again in a couple of years. Plus socket 1155 would be long dead by then and likely AM3+ as well though less likely. If you're not planning to upgrade within the next year, there is no point in planning for upgradeability. Only AMD tends to offer a upgrade path over the long term though I don't know how much longer AM3+ will last past Steamroller. I would say it would probably be better then to get a whole new mb+cpu since pcie+sata+instruction sets+other features will have changed a lot.


LGA 1150 isn't dead. Anyways it's best right now to get intel. With computers you can never really plan for the future besides a case. It's not really a huge difference between the to.


1155 is dead and 1150 i3s aren't out yet ;) 

By your argument I would suggest the FX6300 if the OP is sticking with Op's original budget as it is better than the i3 in everything except that the i3 may have a better upgrade path with the i5 vs steamroller but we can't plan on that :p . If OP can save up, OP should get the i5 and not have to worry about future performance.

Its not a flat out win for Intel at all price points. i5 > 8350 > 8320 > 6300 >= i3


PC-GIRL88 said:
And dont listen to people when they say "intel is better", or "get i5 its better" sure it IS BETTER but you will never notice..... on almost every benchmark between intel and amd intel wins but the amd STILL gives over playable frame rates..... If both play game son ultra settings with playable fps who the hell cares which is better save money and go amd.

I got a fx 6300 for $119 and i play every game iv put in my pc so far or downloaded at ultra settings with 0 problems. So why exactly should i of gotten the better i5 for $220????? I see no reason to waste the money on something cuz its "better" if both will get the job done you will most likely never see the added performance a intel will give you.

Think of it like this if the speed limits 60 mph (fps) and you have a normal car like a tarus (amd) that can do say 100 mph easily then you have a supped up sports care say a viper? (intel) that can do 220 mph sure the viper is BETTER but your never gonna go that fast so the added horse power is wasted for all the extra money you payed since both cars are only gonna be going 60 mph anyways....


It depends on the game your playing. You'll see noticeable better frames with an i5 in more cpu intensive games.

As for saying saving money with an AMD. An 8350 and an i5 cost the same price, but the i5 still gives better performance, and yes it is noticeable in some games. So why not just go with an i5 in that case.
m
0
l
August 6, 2013 9:42:53 PM

thanksforthefish87 said:
stickmansam said:
thanksforthefish87 said:
stickmansam said:
thanksforthefish87 said:
chairsgotoschool said:
I suppose if you plan on updrading then an i3 or even i5 would be better, when me and a buddy build the pc with the 6100 we had and still have no plans to upgrade at all, if i were to guess i'd say we will wait at least 5 years and by then who knows what will be on the market or even coming soon.


Even if you don't have plans to upgrade, trust me a couple of years from now with an i3 or an 6100 you'll be thinking about it. And with an i3 it would be cheaper to do so.


Maybe AMD may be competitive again in a couple of years. Plus socket 1155 would be long dead by then and likely AM3+ as well though less likely. If you're not planning to upgrade within the next year, there is no point in planning for upgradeability. Only AMD tends to offer a upgrade path over the long term though I don't know how much longer AM3+ will last past Steamroller. I would say it would probably be better then to get a whole new mb+cpu since pcie+sata+instruction sets+other features will have changed a lot.


LGA 1150 isn't dead. Anyways it's best right now to get intel. With computers you can never really plan for the future besides a case. It's not really a huge difference between the to.


1155 is dead and 1150 i3s aren't out yet ;) 

By your argument I would suggest the FX6300 if the OP is sticking with Op's original budget as it is better than the i3 in everything except that the i3 may have a better upgrade path with the i5 vs steamroller but we can't plan on that :p . If OP can save up, OP should get the i5 and not have to worry about future performance.

Its not a flat out win for Intel at all price points. i5 > 8350 > 8320 > 6300 >= i3


PC-GIRL88 said:
And dont listen to people when they say "intel is better", or "get i5 its better" sure it IS BETTER but you will never notice..... on almost every benchmark between intel and amd intel wins but the amd STILL gives over playable frame rates..... If both play game son ultra settings with playable fps who the hell cares which is better save money and go amd.

I got a fx 6300 for $119 and i play every game iv put in my pc so far or downloaded at ultra settings with 0 problems. So why exactly should i of gotten the better i5 for $220????? I see no reason to waste the money on something cuz its "better" if both will get the job done you will most likely never see the added performance a intel will give you.

Think of it like this if the speed limits 60 mph (fps) and you have a normal car like a tarus (amd) that can do say 100 mph easily then you have a supped up sports care say a viper? (intel) that can do 220 mph sure the viper is BETTER but your never gonna go that fast so the added horse power is wasted for all the extra money you payed since both cars are only gonna be going 60 mph anyways....


It depends on the game your playing. You'll see noticeable better frames with an i5 in more cpu intensive games.

As for saying saving money with an AMD. An 8350 and an i5 cost the same price, but the i5 still gives better performance, and yes it is noticeable in some games. So why not just go with an i5 in that case.

there not the same price amd is a lil cheaper even if its a lil its still cheaper plu amd mobos run less too
m
0
l
August 6, 2013 9:45:17 PM

PC-GIRL88 said:
thanksforthefish87 said:
stickmansam said:
thanksforthefish87 said:
stickmansam said:
thanksforthefish87 said:
chairsgotoschool said:
I suppose if you plan on updrading then an i3 or even i5 would be better, when me and a buddy build the pc with the 6100 we had and still have no plans to upgrade at all, if i were to guess i'd say we will wait at least 5 years and by then who knows what will be on the market or even coming soon.


Even if you don't have plans to upgrade, trust me a couple of years from now with an i3 or an 6100 you'll be thinking about it. And with an i3 it would be cheaper to do so.


Maybe AMD may be competitive again in a couple of years. Plus socket 1155 would be long dead by then and likely AM3+ as well though less likely. If you're not planning to upgrade within the next year, there is no point in planning for upgradeability. Only AMD tends to offer a upgrade path over the long term though I don't know how much longer AM3+ will last past Steamroller. I would say it would probably be better then to get a whole new mb+cpu since pcie+sata+instruction sets+other features will have changed a lot.


LGA 1150 isn't dead. Anyways it's best right now to get intel. With computers you can never really plan for the future besides a case. It's not really a huge difference between the to.


1155 is dead and 1150 i3s aren't out yet ;) 

By your argument I would suggest the FX6300 if the OP is sticking with Op's original budget as it is better than the i3 in everything except that the i3 may have a better upgrade path with the i5 vs steamroller but we can't plan on that :p . If OP can save up, OP should get the i5 and not have to worry about future performance.

Its not a flat out win for Intel at all price points. i5 > 8350 > 8320 > 6300 >= i3


PC-GIRL88 said:
And dont listen to people when they say "intel is better", or "get i5 its better" sure it IS BETTER but you will never notice..... on almost every benchmark between intel and amd intel wins but the amd STILL gives over playable frame rates..... If both play game son ultra settings with playable fps who the hell cares which is better save money and go amd.

I got a fx 6300 for $119 and i play every game iv put in my pc so far or downloaded at ultra settings with 0 problems. So why exactly should i of gotten the better i5 for $220????? I see no reason to waste the money on something cuz its "better" if both will get the job done you will most likely never see the added performance a intel will give you.

Think of it like this if the speed limits 60 mph (fps) and you have a normal car like a tarus (amd) that can do say 100 mph easily then you have a supped up sports care say a viper? (intel) that can do 220 mph sure the viper is BETTER but your never gonna go that fast so the added horse power is wasted for all the extra money you payed since both cars are only gonna be going 60 mph anyways....


It depends on the game your playing. You'll see noticeable better frames with an i5 in more cpu intensive games.

As for saying saving money with an AMD. An 8350 and an i5 cost the same price, but the i5 still gives better performance, and yes it is noticeable in some games. So why not just go with an i5 in that case.

there not the same price amd is a lil cheaper even if its a lil its still cheaper plu amd mobos run less too


8350: $200
i5: $200

And decent motherboards cost $100-$150 on both sides.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 7, 2013 12:38:25 AM

thanksforthefish87 said:
PC-GIRL88 said:
thanksforthefish87 said:
stickmansam said:
thanksforthefish87 said:
stickmansam said:
thanksforthefish87 said:
chairsgotoschool said:
I suppose if you plan on updrading then an i3 or even i5 would be better, when me and a buddy build the pc with the 6100 we had and still have no plans to upgrade at all, if i were to guess i'd say we will wait at least 5 years and by then who knows what will be on the market or even coming soon.


Even if you don't have plans to upgrade, trust me a couple of years from now with an i3 or an 6100 you'll be thinking about it. And with an i3 it would be cheaper to do so.


Maybe AMD may be competitive again in a couple of years. Plus socket 1155 would be long dead by then and likely AM3+ as well though less likely. If you're not planning to upgrade within the next year, there is no point in planning for upgradeability. Only AMD tends to offer a upgrade path over the long term though I don't know how much longer AM3+ will last past Steamroller. I would say it would probably be better then to get a whole new mb+cpu since pcie+sata+instruction sets+other features will have changed a lot.


LGA 1150 isn't dead. Anyways it's best right now to get intel. With computers you can never really plan for the future besides a case. It's not really a huge difference between the to.


1155 is dead and 1150 i3s aren't out yet ;) 

By your argument I would suggest the FX6300 if the OP is sticking with Op's original budget as it is better than the i3 in everything except that the i3 may have a better upgrade path with the i5 vs steamroller but we can't plan on that :p . If OP can save up, OP should get the i5 and not have to worry about future performance.

Its not a flat out win for Intel at all price points. i5 > 8350 > 8320 > 6300 >= i3


PC-GIRL88 said:
And dont listen to people when they say "intel is better", or "get i5 its better" sure it IS BETTER but you will never notice..... on almost every benchmark between intel and amd intel wins but the amd STILL gives over playable frame rates..... If both play game son ultra settings with playable fps who the hell cares which is better save money and go amd.

I got a fx 6300 for $119 and i play every game iv put in my pc so far or downloaded at ultra settings with 0 problems. So why exactly should i of gotten the better i5 for $220????? I see no reason to waste the money on something cuz its "better" if both will get the job done you will most likely never see the added performance a intel will give you.

Think of it like this if the speed limits 60 mph (fps) and you have a normal car like a tarus (amd) that can do say 100 mph easily then you have a supped up sports care say a viper? (intel) that can do 220 mph sure the viper is BETTER but your never gonna go that fast so the added horse power is wasted for all the extra money you payed since both cars are only gonna be going 60 mph anyways....


It depends on the game your playing. You'll see noticeable better frames with an i5 in more cpu intensive games.

As for saying saving money with an AMD. An 8350 and an i5 cost the same price, but the i5 still gives better performance, and yes it is noticeable in some games. So why not just go with an i5 in that case.

there not the same price amd is a lil cheaper even if its a lil its still cheaper plu amd mobos run less too


8350: $200
i5: $200

And decent motherboards cost $100-$150 on both sides.


Not everywhere the same:
I5: 205€
8350: 178€
But yes, in this price category Intel is the way to go for gaming, but everything <i5 and has the better value IMO

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 7, 2013 11:42:20 AM

thanksforthefish87 said:
stickmansam said:
I would go FX6300 over the i3 any day. They currently trade blows but with the new consoles and general trend in computing the FX6300 will only get better than the i3in newer games. And with the AMD Turbo clocking up, the faster intel cores really aren;t that much faster in single/dual threaded apps.

I5's are a good choice if your budget can handle it.

The FX6300 can not only OC but is cheaper to boot
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/amd-cpu-fd6300wmhkbox
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80637i33220


Yeah the AMD cpu optimisation for next gen games is a good point. But you can't really predict the future with PC's. I I would guess that is would about year after the new consoles come out until developers start to take advantage of the multicore/multithreading architecture AMD has right now.



You can predict the future, in IT, to an extent if you are in possession of directional certainties. In the gaming market the certainties are well documented. The next generation consoles will be running on an AMD 8 Core Jaguar APU whose Graphics are powered by GCN/GCN 2.0. This is a the direction the industry is heading.

Games will be programmed to take advantage of the hardware they are meant to run on (Jaguar's 8 cores & GCN). I wouldn't buy an i3 3220 right now. I would definitely get the FX-6300 instead. It goes head to head with the i3 3220 today and the FX-6300 will only get better as games become more multi-core aware (a certainty in upcoming titles due to the direction in which consoles are heading).

m
0
l
!