Is core i3-4340 good for gaming?
- Thread starter JRSMITH
- Start date
Solution
gopher1369
Distinguished
- Jan 20, 2012
- 1,011
- 0
- 19,660
Depends on what you'll be running. Many modern & future games will need 4 cores, and a better choice may be an i5 if you can stretch to that. The 3.6GHz 4340 is a very fast dual-core though, but its price premium is only about $20 less than an i5-3350P which can Turbo up to 3.7GHz or $40 less than an i5-3470 which can turbo up to 4GHz on a Z77 board. For 2 core games, they'll be the same - for moderately threaded games, the i3's HT can make up about 0.5 core of a difference (effectively 2.5 core), but for newer 4-core heavy games, the i5's will run much faster for only a little extra money.
The biggest problem with the 3.6GHz i3-4340 isn't that it has only two cores - it's that it's only $20 cheaper than a budget max 3.7GHz i5 3350P and we're only a few months short of the new consoles coming with out with heavily threaded games as standard out of architectural necessity (new consoles will have 8x slow cores).
The biggest problem with the 3.6GHz i3-4340 isn't that it has only two cores - it's that it's only $20 cheaper than a budget max 3.7GHz i5 3350P and we're only a few months short of the new consoles coming with out with heavily threaded games as standard out of architectural necessity (new consoles will have 8x slow cores).
it is OK, just don't expect much. and with your 650Ti boost, i think that it's ok. because even if you have an i5, 650Ti is not bad but it is not blazing fast (unless you do sli).
you'll be fine as long as you do not expect much from what you have
you'll be fine as long as you do not expect much from what you have
geofelt
Titan
- Oct 9, 2006
- 54,301
- 4,146
- 174,240
You will do better than you think.
The i3-4340 has hyperthreading which acts like two added slower cores.
Your performance will be more limited by the graphics card.
Here is a report which includes the i3-3220 which is slower than the 4340:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-frame-rate-performance,3427-9.html
The i3-4340 has hyperthreading which acts like two added slower cores.
Your performance will be more limited by the graphics card.
Here is a report which includes the i3-3220 which is slower than the 4340:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-frame-rate-performance,3427-9.html
jaguarskx
Titan
- Apr 19, 2006
- 27,979
- 3
- 84,965
For most games the Core i3 will be fine. In a few specific games you will get much better performance with a quad core CPU. Crysis 3 is a game where you will get better performance with a quad core CPU. If you do not plan on playing Crysis 3, then it is not an issue. Battlefield 3 (and probably BF4) runs fine with a dual core CPU in single player mode, but for multiplayer you can get better performance with a quad core CPU.
In the performance charts at the bottom the dual core i3-3220 gets 36 FPS in Crysis 3. The quad core i5-3470 which is 100MHz slower get 60FPS. This is specific only to Crysis 3 so far. In Battlefield 3 multiplayer the difference between the i3-3240 and the i5-3470 is large, but not as bad as in Crysis 3. In single player campaign the difference would basically be nonexistent. Note that the i3-3240 performs very close to previous generation Core i5 CPUs and fairly close to the six and eight core AMD CPUs.
http://www.techspot.com/review/642-crysis-3-performance/page6.html
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Battlefield-3-PC-221396/Specials/Battlefield-3-Multiplayer-Tipps-CPU-Benchmark-1039293/
In the performance charts at the bottom the dual core i3-3220 gets 36 FPS in Crysis 3. The quad core i5-3470 which is 100MHz slower get 60FPS. This is specific only to Crysis 3 so far. In Battlefield 3 multiplayer the difference between the i3-3240 and the i5-3470 is large, but not as bad as in Crysis 3. In single player campaign the difference would basically be nonexistent. Note that the i3-3240 performs very close to previous generation Core i5 CPUs and fairly close to the six and eight core AMD CPUs.
http://www.techspot.com/review/642-crysis-3-performance/page6.html
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Battlefield-3-PC-221396/Specials/Battlefield-3-Multiplayer-Tipps-CPU-Benchmark-1039293/
jaguarskx :
For most games the Core i3 will be fine. In a few specific games you will get much better performance with a quad core CPU. Crysis 3 is a game where you will get better performance with a quad core CPU. If you do not plan on playing Crysis 3, then it is not an issue. Battlefield 3 (and probably BF4) runs fine with a dual core CPU in single player mode, but for multiplayer you can get better performance with a quad core CPU.
In the performance charts at the bottom the dual core i3-3220 gets 36 FPS in Crysis 3. The quad core i5-3470 which is 100MHz slower get 60FPS. This is specific only to Crysis 3 so far. In Battlefield 3 multiplayer the difference between the i3-3240 and the i5-3470 is large, but not as bad as in Crysis 3. In single player campaign the difference would basically be nonexistent. Note that the i3-3240 performs very close to previous generation Core i5 CPUs and fairly close to the six and eight core AMD CPUs.
http://www.techspot.com/review/642-crysis-3-performance/page6.html
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Battlefield-3-PC-221396/Specials/Battlefield-3-Multiplayer-Tipps-CPU-Benchmark-1039293/
In the performance charts at the bottom the dual core i3-3220 gets 36 FPS in Crysis 3. The quad core i5-3470 which is 100MHz slower get 60FPS. This is specific only to Crysis 3 so far. In Battlefield 3 multiplayer the difference between the i3-3240 and the i5-3470 is large, but not as bad as in Crysis 3. In single player campaign the difference would basically be nonexistent. Note that the i3-3240 performs very close to previous generation Core i5 CPUs and fairly close to the six and eight core AMD CPUs.
http://www.techspot.com/review/642-crysis-3-performance/page6.html
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Battlefield-3-PC-221396/Specials/Battlefield-3-Multiplayer-Tipps-CPU-Benchmark-1039293/
Should I go with an 6-8 core amd with M5A78L-M/USB3 Socket AM3+ AMD mATX Motherboard?
Or keep i3 with AsRock H87M Pro4 Socket LGA 1150 mATX Intel Motherboard?
I have a mATX case and I am going to microcenter because of the bundle deal
If yes will 430w psu supply an amd fx 8 core?
jaguarskx
Titan
- Apr 19, 2006
- 27,979
- 3
- 84,965
AMD FX CPUs are power hungry. I believe even the 6 core FX-6300 consumes 100w more power than Intel's Core i3. Therefore, if you want to go with AMD then you need a more powerful PSU. I would not even attempt to put a FX-8xxx CPU in a mATX case. Too much heat and you don't really need 8 cores. The motherboard you select only has a 760G chipset so you will not be able to upgrade to Steamroller which needs a 9xx series chipset. Games using only 1 or 2 cores will run better with the Core i3, but games that can take advantage of more than 2 cores will generally run better with FX CPU.
Crysis 3 is an extreme case where a Core i3 performs poorly. Any other games using the CryEngine 3 game engine will likely not set the CPU demands as high as Crysis 3. The higher the requirements the fewer copies the publisher will sell. Unless Crysis 3 is on your list, the Core i3 is still a viable CPU and you can upgrade to a Core i5 CPU later. If you don't want to bother with upgrades in the future, then just go with a FX-6xxx CPU.
You can check out CPU benchmarks in several games from the following website to help you determine which CPU to go for. Simply click, then scroll down to the Gaming GPU/CPU Performance section for several games benchmarked. Then look for the CPU Performance benchmark in each game.
http://www.techspot.com/guides-gaming.shtml
ARMA 3 is the most recent review. Here's a link and the benchmark chart.
http://www.techspot.com/review/712-arma-3-benchmarks/page5.html
Crysis 3 is an extreme case where a Core i3 performs poorly. Any other games using the CryEngine 3 game engine will likely not set the CPU demands as high as Crysis 3. The higher the requirements the fewer copies the publisher will sell. Unless Crysis 3 is on your list, the Core i3 is still a viable CPU and you can upgrade to a Core i5 CPU later. If you don't want to bother with upgrades in the future, then just go with a FX-6xxx CPU.
You can check out CPU benchmarks in several games from the following website to help you determine which CPU to go for. Simply click, then scroll down to the Gaming GPU/CPU Performance section for several games benchmarked. Then look for the CPU Performance benchmark in each game.
http://www.techspot.com/guides-gaming.shtml
ARMA 3 is the most recent review. Here's a link and the benchmark chart.
http://www.techspot.com/review/712-arma-3-benchmarks/page5.html
jaguarskx :
AMD FX CPUs are power hungry. I believe even the 6 core FX-6300 consumes 100w more power than Intel's Core i3. Therefore, if you want to go with AMD then you need a more powerful PSU. I would not even attempt to put a FX-8xxx CPU in a mATX case. Too much heat and you don't really need 8 cores. The motherboard you select only has a 760G chipset so you will not be able to upgrade to Steamroller which needs a 9xx series chipset. Games using only 1 or 2 cores will run better with the Core i3, but games that can take advantage of more than 2 cores will generally run better with FX CPU.
Crysis 3 is an extreme case where a Core i3 performs poorly. Any other games using the CryEngine 3 game engine will likely not set the CPU demands as high as Crysis 3. The higher the requirements the fewer copies the publisher will sell. Unless Crysis 3 is on your list, the Core i3 is still a viable CPU and you can upgrade to a Core i5 CPU later. If you don't want to bother with upgrades in the future, then just go with a FX-6xxx CPU.
You can check out CPU benchmarks in several games from the following website to help you determine which CPU to go for. Simply click, then scroll down to the Gaming GPU/CPU Performance section for several games benchmarked. Then look for the CPU Performance benchmark in each game.
http://www.techspot.com/guides-gaming.shtml
ARMA 3 is the most recent review. Here's a link and the benchmark chart.
http://www.techspot.com/review/712-arma-3-benchmarks/page5.html
Crysis 3 is an extreme case where a Core i3 performs poorly. Any other games using the CryEngine 3 game engine will likely not set the CPU demands as high as Crysis 3. The higher the requirements the fewer copies the publisher will sell. Unless Crysis 3 is on your list, the Core i3 is still a viable CPU and you can upgrade to a Core i5 CPU later. If you don't want to bother with upgrades in the future, then just go with a FX-6xxx CPU.
You can check out CPU benchmarks in several games from the following website to help you determine which CPU to go for. Simply click, then scroll down to the Gaming GPU/CPU Performance section for several games benchmarked. Then look for the CPU Performance benchmark in each game.
http://www.techspot.com/guides-gaming.shtml
ARMA 3 is the most recent review. Here's a link and the benchmark chart.
http://www.techspot.com/review/712-arma-3-benchmarks/page5.html
Okay thank you! I will pick yours as best solution
How do I know if a game will utilize/requires more than 2 cores?
For example: Counter-strike global offensive and Dota 2
(I know its playable because they are not intensive)
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question New installed W11 on sdd, D drive (HDD) goes to the 100% in seconds
- Started by Emily_Vin
- Replies: 8
-
-
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Question Issues with USB3 hub chained from Thunderbolt dock ?
- Latest: jauntysquirrel
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram