Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Fx 6300 or i3-4130 For Gaming - Confused Again!!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 15, 2013 1:02:01 AM

So I was about to get the Fx 6300.
I avoided Intel CPUs because:-

* This is a 6 core cpu and I thought newer games would utilise more cores as the nex-gen consoles also had 8 core cpus and the games would be optimized for them.

* Of course for this price, an Intel alternative would be ONLY a dual core cpu.

But after seeing this- http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/351/AMD_FX-Series_FX-6... - Omg! the i3 has 50p better performance in Single-threaded tasks...What are the Single threaded and what are the Multi-threaded tasks?
Which one should I get as a Gamer only, the Intel or Amd?

Best solution

a b à CPUs
September 15, 2013 1:26:30 AM

Intel's are much faster per core and use much less power, but AMD's have more cores for the same money. In some games like Crysis 3, AMD's will be faster:-
http://www.techspot.com/review/642-crysis-3-performance...

But in many others, a 2-core Intel can easily match an 6-8 core AMD:-
http://www.techspot.com/review/655-bioshock-infinite-pe...

Really for future next-gen gaming, a quad-core would be better. If your budget can stretch to an i5, do so, otherwise, the AMD would probably be better than an i3 in the long run.
Share
September 15, 2013 1:31:43 AM

BSim500 said:
Intel's are much faster per core and use much less power, but AMD's have more cores for the same money. In some games like Crysis 3, AMD's will be faster:-
http://www.techspot.com/review/642-crysis-3-performance...

But in many others, a 2-core Intel can easily match an 6-8 core AMD:-
http://www.techspot.com/review/655-bioshock-infinite-pe...

Really for future next-gen gaming, a quad-core would be better. If your budget can stretch to an i5, do so, otherwise, the AMD would probably be better than an i3 in the long run.

Thanks..There might be a chance for the i5 but can you tell me what the single-threaded tasks are? Does it mean the general tasks like Searching, Booting, Installing? And multi are like Extraction and Compression and other complex? stuff?
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
September 15, 2013 1:49:02 AM

game474 said:
Thanks..There might be a chance for the i5 but can you tell me what the single-threaded tasks are? Does it mean the general tasks like Searching, Booting, Installing? And multi are like Extraction and Compression and other complex? stuff?

Mostly yes. Single threaded tends to be older games, general web browsing / office, etc. Multi-threaded tends to be compression / extraction, video encoding, 3D rendering & multi-core games, etc. Intel chips run much faster per core, per clock vs AMD, and i3's still run multi-threaded games faster (up to 2 simultaneous threads) as not all multi-threaded games will come close to maxing out a quad-core. With a few exceptions, even in 2013, many current games will typically load cores 1-2 to 80-90% but cores 3-4 to only 20-30%, which is why the i3 does so well against AMD quad-cores in many games like Bioshock Infinite, etc. However, for some games like Crysis 3, when 3 or 4 threads are seriously starting to be heavily used, then the AMD will pull away from the i3 (but not an i5). Future next-gen console games are more likely to be multi-threaded out of necessity (the new consoles have 8 slow 1.75-2GHz cores), so it's best to get a quad-core if you can.
m
0
l
September 15, 2013 2:03:37 AM

So should I get a FX6300 and a Hyper TX3 and OC a bit or else just an i5 3470 or something for a bit of a premium ?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
September 15, 2013 2:13:02 AM

game474 said:
So should I get a FX6300 and a Hyper TX3 and OC a bit or else just an i5 3470 or something for a bit of a premium ?


This.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 15, 2013 2:20:37 AM

game474 said:
So should I get a FX6300 and a Hyper TX3 and OC a bit or else just an i5 3470 or something for a bit of a premium ?

Personally, if you can stretch to it, I'd go for the i5-3470 (which if you get a Z77 motherboard, can actually be overclocked to 3.8-4.0GHz) and draws about 90w less power under overclocked load. See above Crysis 3 benchmark for reason why:-

i5-3470 @ 3.2GHz = 60fps
FX-6200 @ 3.8GHz = 52fps

With the right motherboard, both have around 20% OC headroom over and above those figures, but the Intel will draw much less power under load, and run most single-threaded apps/games quite a bit faster. Example:-

Cinebench 11.5 Single-thread:-
i5-3470 = 1.52
FX-6300 = 1.07

Passmark Single-Thread:-
i5-3470 = 1,906
FX-6300 = 1,446
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-3470-vs-AMD-FX-63...

On tight budgets, AMD quad-cores are better value & performance for heavily threaded apps vs i3's for same price, but if you can stretch to a low/mid i5, then core-for-core / clock-for-clock there's no doubt the i5's are better all aspects (single-thread, multi-thread & much lower power consumption). The "locked" i5's (non-K) aren't 'hard-locked' at all like the i3's, they do have a "limited OC" feature which with a Z motherboard can add 600-800Mhz on top of base clock. An 3.2GHz i5-3470 can hit 3.8-4.0Ghz and a 3.4GHz i5-3570 can hit 4.0-4.2GHz.
m
0
l
September 21, 2013 7:24:45 AM

BSim500 said:
game474 said:
So should I get a FX6300 and a Hyper TX3 and OC a bit or else just an i5 3470 or something for a bit of a premium ?

Personally, if you can stretch to it, I'd go for the i5-3470 (which if you get a Z77 motherboard, can actually be overclocked to 3.8-4.0GHz) and draws about 90w less power under overclocked load. See above Crysis 3 benchmark for reason why:-

i5-3470 @ 3.2GHz = 60fps
FX-6200 @ 3.8GHz = 52fps

With the right motherboard, both have around 20% OC headroom over and above those figures, but the Intel will draw much less power under load, and run most single-threaded apps/games quite a bit faster. Example:-

Cinebench 11.5 Single-thread:-
i5-3470 = 1.52
FX-6300 = 1.07

Passmark Single-Thread:-
i5-3470 = 1,906
FX-6300 = 1,446
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-3470-vs-AMD-FX-63...

On tight budgets, AMD quad-cores are better value & performance for heavily threaded apps vs i3's for same price, but if you can stretch to a low/mid i5, then core-for-core / clock-for-clock there's no doubt the i5's are better all aspects (single-thread, multi-thread & much lower power consumption). The "locked" i5's (non-K) aren't 'hard-locked' at all like the i3's, they do have a "limited OC" feature which with a Z motherboard can add 600-800Mhz on top of base clock. An 3.2GHz i5-3470 can hit 3.8-4.0Ghz and a 3.4GHz i5-3570 can hit 4.0-4.2GHz.

Excellent! +1 for the showing me the techspot.com reviews...
Also I have looked over many games' cpu performance and have to say that except for Crysis 3 other games (bf3, maxpayne3, bioshock, cod) are barely cpu dependant but all Ubisoft games, Metro, ARma 3 show improvements with fx over i3( I do hope the trend continues)
Now the AMD combination seems to be much cheaper as even their motherboards seem to be cheaper (asrock 970 extreme r2.0 ok?)
Even though I want the i5 now, I will mostly be getting the fx 6300 (unless I convince the local vendor (my cousin, yeah) to sell the i5 cheaper)... Once again, many thanks for helping me out! :love:  :D 
m
0
l
February 17, 2014 10:38:43 AM

Ps4 and Xbox1 have 8 core AMD. That said, it is enough to conclude that next generation of games ( for 3-4 years untill the arrival of next consoles) will be made to use more cores than threads.
For gaming in future price/performace AMD all way long. Better alternative is Xeon or new new i7 but for x2 x3 x4 the price of AMD.

Other thing is energy consumption that is all the way on Intel's side. Its importance grows every day.
IMHO If you have solar panels or some sort of renewable energy source go with FX--6300 and some power hungry beastly card that will rock all games on 4k for year, year and a half(than you buy new gear) or go with pricey i3/i5 and gtx 760 that will be sufficient for 4k resolutions for whole generation but dont expect to get same frame rates as ps4 or xbox one for witch market 90% of games will be built.
Sry for bad english.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 17, 2014 11:00:53 AM

game474 said:
BSim500 said:
Intel's are much faster per core and use much less power, but AMD's have more cores for the same money. In some games like Crysis 3, AMD's will be faster:-
http://www.techspot.com/review/642-crysis-3-performance...

But in many others, a 2-core Intel can easily match an 6-8 core AMD:-
http://www.techspot.com/review/655-bioshock-infinite-pe...

Really for future next-gen gaming, a quad-core would be better. If your budget can stretch to an i5, do so, otherwise, the AMD would probably be better than an i3 in the long run.

Thanks..There might be a chance for the i5 but can you tell me what the single-threaded tasks are? Does it mean the general tasks like Searching, Booting, Installing? And multi are like Extraction and Compression and other complex? stuff?

For general tasks like booting, starting programs, searching an ssd is gold, after buying one and using it a while I would factor it in to any build now, its a must for me now. Check youtube.

m
0
l
February 24, 2014 5:25:43 AM

HertaOberhauser said:
Ps4 and Xbox1 have 8 core AMD. That said, it is enough to conclude that next generation of games ( for 3-4 years untill the arrival of next consoles) will be made to use more cores than threads.
For gaming in future price/performace AMD all way long. Better alternative is Xeon or new new i7 but for x2 x3 x4 the price of AMD.

Other thing is energy consumption that is all the way on Intel's side. Its importance grows every day.
IMHO If you have solar panels or some sort of renewable energy source go with FX--6300 and some power hungry beastly card that will rock all games on 4k for year, year and a half(than you buy new gear) or go with pricey i3/i5 and gtx 760 that will be sufficient for 4k resolutions for whole generation but dont expect to get same frame rates as ps4 or xbox one for witch market 90% of games will be built.
Sry for bad english.


Yep, definitely buy a Xeon and solar panels! ;D
m
0
l
!