IS the Intel Core i3 4330 CPU good for gaming?

volderman · Apr 23, 2014

Hi, so I have a Intel Core i3 4330 that a friend gave me when he heard I was building a PC. Is it good for gaming on games such as PlanetSide2 or MC?

CTurbo · Apr 23, 2014

It's definitely not as bad as many people think. I would recommend it over the FX6300, and I think it would be just fine paired with a video card up to the GTX760. Anything higher than that may not work good enough.

paitjsu sadff · Apr 23, 2014

For planetside 2 defenetly the i3 over the FX...in single threaded games like planetside 2 and elder sroll the FX are getting crushed. You are lucky that a friend gave you that, it must be a very good firend !

defenetly a good CPU for gaming, should still be good for a year or 2 of gaming at high settings...

Rationale · Apr 23, 2014

By MC you mean Minecraft?
Yeah, it'd be great for Minecraft, as well as many other games.

It's not going to hold up too well in, say, Battlefield 4, but it's stronger than my CPU and I can still run games well on high-ultra. High in Crysis 3, Metro LL, Battlefield 4. Ultra in everything else.

The newer Haswell i3s are really quite good on a budget.
The i3-4330 is a bit better than the FX-6300, which people often mistakenly recommend as the best budget CPU.
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i3-4330-vs-AMD-FX-6300

CTurbo · Apr 23, 2014

I even recommend the i3 4130 over the FX6300

Rationale · Apr 23, 2014

CTurbo :

If someone's not going to overclock, then yes, definitely.

I'm not a fan of overclocking (too many downsides, especially since AM3+ CPUs already run too hot and with too much energy consumption), but that would probably give the FX-6300 an edge in raw speed.

I'm in favor of the new Athlon CPUs for AMD's budget side, because they really are dirt cheap ($70) and they finally got the TDP to compete with Intel. And of course, Haswell i3s on Intel's side.

Buying a budget AM3+ CPU has never made a lot of sense to me. For a $100+ price tag Intel offers better options in speed, not to mention heat and energy consumption. For less than $100, the Athlon CPUs put FX out of business. Apparently AMD reached the same conclusion, as they're abandoning AM3+ in favor of FM2+.

CTurbo · Apr 23, 2014

I'm not a fan of overclocking (too many downsides, especially since AM3+ CPUs already run too hot and with too much energy consumption), but that would probably give the FX-6300 an edge in raw speed.

I'm in favor of the new Athlon CPUs for AMD's budget side, because they really are dirt cheap ($70) and they finally got the TDP to compete with Intel. And of course, Haswell i3s on Intel's side.

Buying a budget AM3+ CPU has never made a lot of sense to me. For a $100+ price tag Intel offers better options in speed, not to mention heat and energy consumption. For less than $100, the Athlon CPUs put FX out of business. Apparently AMD reached the same conclusion, as they're abandoning AM3+ in favor of FM2+.

I agree. The FXs aren't as cheap as they seem either because they usually NEED to be overclocked and that's not free despite what some people seem to think.

paitjsu sadff · Apr 23, 2014

The link you provided is relying to much on single-thread performance, if you look at those CPU on OVERALL performance the FX is much better than the core i3 even at stock speed, mostly in well multi-threaded games, here are BF4 and Cysis 3 for example, the FX-6300 is holding up quite nicely with the moderns core i5 here :

http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Battlefield_4-test-bf4_proz_2.jpg

This is the reason why the FX-6300 should always be recommanded over the core i3, it will do much better in modern games, except single-threaded games like skyrim or planetside 2 in wich it gets crushed..

Rationale · Apr 23, 2014

paitjsu sadff :

Those benchmarks don't even list an i3-4xxx, so they don't show anything. They show AMD's latest AM3+ FX Vishera CPUs outperform a lower cost mid-range last-gen Ivy Bridge i3. What a shock. They don't show an actual modern i3 at a price point similar to an FX-6300. They don't show an i3-4130 or an i3-4330.

And, of course, the FX CPUs take triple the power under load, so that adds up in cost as well.

AMD always lists overclocking as one of its main selling points, but that requires at a bare minimum, an extra $30 on a cooler and an extra $30 on a board. At which point, you could just buy a faster CPU with lower wattage and cooler temps for roughly the same cost and performance.

paitjsu sadff · Apr 23, 2014

my point was that in modern well-threaded games an FX-6300 at stock speed performs on the same level as the core i5-3570k and core i5-4670k and those benchmarks shows just that, now why would you need to compare it to a core i3...also why this debate about overclocking? also why bashing about power consumption when an fx cost 4.50$ more per YEAR in electricity in the us for a 3 hours a day use over a core i3 haswell?

anyway we are way off topic now, the op was given a core i3, he asked if its good for gaming, he was answered unanimously: yes it is...end of discussion.

Rationale · Apr 23, 2014

paitjsu sadff :

1. This thread is about an i3-4330. Of course I'm comparing it to i3s.
2. Power costs are only that low at idle. I really doubt you run games at idle.
3. It's not comparable. The FX-6300 stock is 10 fps weaker than an i5 stock.
4. I'm talking about overclocks because half the scores you listed are OC.

paitjsu sadff · Apr 23, 2014

edited previous post, re-read if you want, for me discussion is closed.

volderman · Apr 23, 2014

paitjsu sadff :

Yea, we've known each other since grade school

Search

IS the Intel Core i3 4330 CPU good for gaming?

volderman

Reputable

paitjsu sadff

CTurbo

Pizza Monster

paitjsu sadff

Honorable

Rationale

Admirable

CTurbo

Pizza Monster

Rationale

Admirable

CTurbo

Pizza Monster

paitjsu sadff

Honorable

Rationale

Admirable

paitjsu sadff

Honorable

Rationale

Admirable

paitjsu sadff

Honorable

volderman

Reputable

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page