i3-3220 is Rs.7499 and is much cheaper than the i5. I5 is better than this i3 in many sectors though. 4 cores and saves a lot of energy. But the speed is a bit low than that of i3-3220.
I3 has 3.3 Ghz with no turbo boost but i5-3330 has 3 Ghz with a turbo of 3.2 Ghz and that's the only con according to me.
This Intel i5-3330 has the same price as the AMD FX 8350.
I can compare them both but I think 8 cores and a 4.0 Ghz is a much better choice than 3.0 Ghz and 4 Cores.
http://www.flipkart.com/amd-fx-8350/p/itmdfv4fffknf29s?pid=PSRDFV4DFPRBTSWY&otracker=from-search&srno=t_1&query=AMD+FX+8350&ref=98c786f0-188c-420b-804f-1fb26ee0a8c7
After reading the review on AMD FX 8350, I decided to go for an Intel processor, the guy opened my eyes:-
"I know this place is crawling with AMD fan boys... so I'm writing to this for opening the eyes of those who are undecided what to buy.
To the people who go for specs alone... here are some things to consider
1. Can a webcam of 20 Megapixels replace a DSLR of 12 megapixels?
2. Do you think two cameras of 8 Megapixels produce the same clarity images?
3. A graphic card has around 600+ cores... but can it do the work that the CPU does? and Vice versa?
4. Do you think a high-end android phone like galaxy s3 (with 4 cores) has the power to even open up photoshop? If you say yes... why are there no ARM PCs?.... it uses much less power.
The way of measuring performance is not specs like cores, cache etc.... it is only benchmarks.
I'm not saying cores, cache etc. don't count -- these things cannot be used to compare two different brands.... think of it like you go buy two shirts.. both have XL written on it -- but one fits and other doesnt. Why? Because XL means different for different brands! That is why you cannot compare two brands even if they are from the same company eg: Nahlem vs Sandy Bridge vs Ivy Bridge just purely on specs.... If that were the case then, Nahlem = Sandy Bridge = Ivy Bridge... but you know thats not true. And people would be using FX 8150 in high-end server machines because they have better specs than Xeon processors. The only way to compare a processor is via "benchmarking"
What is a benchmark? It is a way of running the same task on two different systems and seeing who completes faster and scoring it on a number system.
Now coming back to the topic...
If you look at benchmarks (source:anadtech.com) you can see what I'm talking about -- FX 8150 is ridiculously slow compared with the i7 2600 .. and most of the time gets beaten by i5 2500.
The specs don't matter -- its the performance that it shows when doing basic tasks like photoshop, playing a game, compiling a program.
So why does intel have such a lead with lesser cores?
Its because of the R&D that they did. I work in a processor company that specializes in cryptography... there are many things that intel doesn't share with the world -- but they have a lot of proprietary technology inside the Sandy/Ivy Bridge that makes is really fast in doing the simplest of tasks.
Thats why AMD lost out.
A processor is not as simple as a car -- where you can say this much bhp, this much weight, this much mileage -- and you can get an idea about the performance of a car... a processor is a very complex combination of transistors that no single person can explain and they keep improving everything every year -- not just clock speed, cores and cache. It is much more complex than that.
If you just want to brag about 8 cores-- yeah, go for the FX 8150 -- but if you want pure performance -- Sandy Bridge is the way to go (and you can brag about the cores of your GPU instead). Don't trust me, check out the benchmarks.
Another point is power consumption -- its known that overclocking a processor will increase its power usage -- which is true for an AMD .. but intel has done something incredible -- if you look at the power usage that i7 2600 shows after overclocking, you'll see that it just consumes slightly more -- which is nothing compared to what this processor does when overclocked !!! It just draws power like an AC
So keeping all this in mind, you make your choice... remember folks -- its not about the specs -- there is a lot proprietary technology inside these products that are not published to the outside world... so only way to judge a processor is by benchmarking it.
There was a time when AMD got it right -- like during the time they released the Athlon 64 and Athlon 64 X2... it swept the floor with the pentium 4s that time... But for the last couple of years, it was just intel which was holding the cup for best performance.
Having said all that, this is a very cheap processor.. and if this is what you can afford -- you should definitely get it.. But don't expect some ridiculous performance because it says 8 cores. "
I3-3220:::::::
64-bit Architechture
2 Cores
Desktop Processor
3.3 GHz Clock Speed
FCLGA1155 Socket Type
55 W Maximum Thermal Design Power (TDP)
22 nm Manufacturing Process
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram