Solved

AMD 8 core similar to intel i3

i3 3220 and 8350 are placed in same tier, is amd per core performance so bad and 6300(6 core) is placed below i3 3220
11 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about amd core similar intel
  1. 8350=i5>6300>i3=4350
    Thats how most people would rank them. But yes, per core performance is mich higher with Intel.
  2. never said the 8350 beats the i5, just threw them at the same level. Also there is no mention of gaming, so rare cpu power wise my ranking would be true. also the number of games that take advantage out of 4 threads or more becomes bigger, the fx6300 winns against the i3 like you showed us with the crysis 3 benches
    gaming: (sadly without fx8350 benches): http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/piledriver-k10-cpu-overclocking,3584-19.html
    productive: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/piledriver-k10-cpu-overclocking,3584-20.html

    also, a oced fx6300 comes close to an i5 in gaming performance at the i3 pricepoint.
  3. Even 9590 is in the same tier as 2100.
  4. The CPU Hierarchy chart is in serious need of an overhaul. People have been complaining about it for months.
  5. guggi4 said:
    8350=i5>6300>i3=4350
    Thats how most people would rank them. But yes, per core performance is mich higher with Intel.


    That is about where I would put them as well.
  6. Best answer
    Not sure he is trolling. If you read the Hierarchy Chart wrong, it is easy to make such a mistake. Hence the need for an overhaul.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html
  7. hafijur said:
    .
    .
    .

    Its very hard to find any game the amd fx8350 beat an i5. These are just hard facts. Intel cpus were designed for games, amd were designed for multithreaded tasks like video encoding. You can see from the links i3 3220 normally beats the fx8350 in games.

    crysis 3 comparison:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performance-benchmark-gaming,3451-8.html
    .
    .
    .


    I wouldn't say that Intel CPUs are designed for games. Rather their high IPC compared to AMD's IPC allows Intel CPUs to generally outperform AMD CPUs in most games. The vast majority of games in general that are released every year only use 2 cores. A few modern games use only one core.

    The following benchmark is from the link you posted from.



    However, different settings or perhaps different maps / levels can provide different results. Note how poorly the i3-3220 performs in the following benchmark with medium quality graphics using a GTX 680. In the THG benchmark the FX-8350 only performs about 19% better than the i3-3220. However, Techspot's benchmark shows slightly more than a 69% performance difference in the FX-8350's favor.

    http://www.techspot.com/review/642-crysis-3-performance/page6.html

  8. hafijur said:
    logainofhades said:
    Not sure he is trolling. If you read the Hierarchy Chart wrong, it is easy to make such a mistake. Hence the need for an overhaul.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html

    Its not in need of an overhaul as I posted above the ivb i3 beats even top of the line at the time fx8350 in most games. AMD fanboys think you get same gaming performance as intel whe its just not true as 2x better ipc counts for higher fps.


    No it does not. i3 doesn't beat an FX 6350, much less an 8350.

  9. so FX 9590 = i3 2100
  10. Raheel Hasan said:
    so FX 9590 = i3 2100


    No! FX 9590 ~ 4670k/4770k
  11. 8350rocks said:
    Raheel Hasan said:
    so FX 9590 = i3 2100


    No! FX 9590 ~ 4670k/4770k


    Look at the hierarchy chart
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html
Ask a new question

Read More

Core Intel AMD Dual Core CPUs Performance