I built a pretty budget rig about 6 months ago.
4gb Ram - Now 8gb
Gtx-660ti now upgraded to R9 280x
Basically I get really poor FPS in DayZ and on intense Arma 3 servers, to the point where I can only really play Wasteland + Breaking Point mod. After a bit of research I discovered my CPU suffer's from poor single thread performance which DayZ, Arma 3 rely on if I'm not mistaken?
So, I purchased a Gigabyte B85M-D3H as the first step towards moving to Intel and was wondering if it would be worth upgrading to an i3-4150 over an i5-4430? Apparently the i3 performs on par with the fx-4300 in multi-threaded applications and is around 40% faster in single threaded applications. I must say apart from the poor FPS in DayZ and Arma3 every other game I've thrown at the FX-4300 has performed quite well for the price. Because of that would it really be worth getting the i5 over the i3 seeing as I've been happy with the 4300 performance apart from the aforementioned games? i3 will cost £80, i5 £120. I will also be selling off my old CPU + Mobo to recoup some costs
Any opinions/help in deciding would be really appreciated
The poor FPS isn't the processor's fault, it's the bad optimization for AMD's CPUs that DayZ and Arma have. An intel CPU would solve this problem, yes, but only if you want to shell out the cash for 2 games. Always go for the i5 over the i3, it's worth the few extra bucks.
The i3-4150 is much stronger than the FX-4300. It's certainly a worthwhile upgrade. By contrast, the i5 is sometimes better yet, but is really overpriced by comparison. The i3-4150 would be most effective for the cost, and in most cases a hyperthreaded 3.5Ghz i3-4150 will perform about the same as a 3Ghz i5-4430.