Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

i3 4130 vs FX6300 Gaming Only...Pretty much (could sneak in an i5 4440)

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 16, 2014 5:05:07 PM

So these are the prices we're looking at: i3 4130: £82, FX 6300 £78 i5 4440 £128

So I'm guessing because of the such low thread/core count on the i3, the fx 6300 is better. However it's old and AMD have given up. which is a shame, I personally thought an 8 core CPU for multitasking for £100 is amazing.......However I do not multitask and this build is purely 95% for gaming.

I want the FX 6300 becuse it's better for gaming (I'm led to believe by other threads)

However the i3 4130 gives a far better Upgrade path if I buy a Z97 Mobo (or even H97)

However then for £40 more I can get the i5 4440.

Realistically I could be upgrading this gaming rig within 1 - 3 years....Knowing me, probably 1 year.

So which would be the better option? Mobo's for H97/Z97 will cost more but I see that as an investment for 5th gen Intels so the extra cost doesn't bother me too much, because it's about.....£30 - £40 more.

Tbh Still leaning towards the FX abit, because I c ould make it with the AMD Setup, then hold onto it for 3 years then build a whole new system where I';m saving pretty much just a mobo....which is about...£60 - £100.

Cheers,

Primordial Genesis
a c 247 4 Gaming
a c 439 à CPUs
June 16, 2014 5:14:25 PM

The i3 4130/4150 is much better than it's given credit for, and I would choose it over the FX6300 10 out of 10 times.

Of course the i5 is better if you can actually afford it. I would get a H97 motherboard either way.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 680 à CPUs
June 16, 2014 5:18:51 PM

I would go i5 4xxx with an H97.
m
0
l
Related resources
June 16, 2014 5:19:25 PM

CTurbo said:
The i3 4130/4150 is much better than it's given credit for, and I would choose it over the FX6300 10 out of 10 times.

Of course the i5 is better if you can actually afford it. I would get a H97 motherboard either way.


I just don't really know what to think many other threads say Fx 6300, many say i3. But here's the flip Side. I play games such as battlefield. Which has been proven to use all 8 cores of an 8320/8120/8350....

So would the FX6300 be better in that situation?

I understand about the H97, but if going down the "Future proofing" route I'd buy a Z97 for not much more for a future 5th Gen CPU.

Have you got any Hard facts/figures representing both the i3 and fx6300 in gameplay? (not trying to be rude or insult you, it's just with fps figures it's far easier to make a judgement, than the ratings you get given on CPUBoss and people saying "Oh this is better etc etc.")
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 680 à CPUs
June 16, 2014 5:25:14 PM

The FX 6300 cannot even beat my i5 3570k at stock after it has been overclocked to 4.7ghz. It is not going to beat a Haswell i5. H97 or Z97 will handle broadwell. Z97 only needed for overclocking or dual gpu setups. FX 6300 has to be overclocked to beat an i3 3225, much less an i3 4150. That costs more money, that would be better spent elsewhere.
m
0
l
June 16, 2014 5:29:02 PM

logainofhades said:
The FX 6300 cannot even beat my i5 3570k at stock after it has been overclocked to 4.7ghz. It is not going to beat a Haswell i5. H97 or Z97 will handle broadwell. Z97 only needed for overclocking or dual gpu setups. FX 6300 has to be overclocked to beat an i3 3225, much less an i3 4150. That costs more money, that would be better spent elsewhere.


I see exactly where you're coming from, But i'm talking all 6 cores on maximum attack playing BF4, 32V32. Know what I mean? I personally think the FX6300 from what I have read (don't think I'm coming on here to try and argue, I'm just stating what I've read) would beat the i3 4130, when all 6 cores are being used. For older games yeah the i3 would be better.

As I said earlier have you got any youtube videos you know of or articles (such as a website like hexus) which have done tests such as this? It's alot easier to interpret FPS figures, you know when it basically says this "Fx 65300 beat the i3, both same setup by this much fps on this game" or vice versa for the i3.

This shows that all 6 cores on maximum attack would beat the i3. http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i3-4130-vs-AMD-FX-63...

And it's just i read on alot of forums that 2 cores, even HTed is just not enough for gaming. and considering games like BF use up to 8.....Starts making you wonder...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 16, 2014 5:38:33 PM

Its more a GPU thing actually. Remeber, the FX 6300 might have 6 cores but they are stuck in three modules, and one intel core is basically equal to one AMD module.
m
0
l
June 16, 2014 5:39:46 PM

Mac266 said:
Its more a GPU thing actually. Remeber, the FX 6300 might have 6 cores but they are stuck in three modules, and one intel core is basically equal to one AMD module.


I'm not going to lie...as much as I like to make myself believe I know about PC Compnents, that has absolutely baffled me. xD Can you please explain abit further?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 16, 2014 5:50:25 PM

Primordial Genesis said:

I'm not going to lie...as much as I like to make myself believe I know about PC Compnents, that has absolutely baffled me. xD Can you please explain abit further?


Sure. AMD basically hook two cores together into a module. Modules use both cores threads (so two threads a module) but can only make one floating point calculation per module.

Intel cores are stronger, theres no arguing against that, and each Intel core can do floating point calculations.

So if you go FX 6300, you will basically have a CPU with less than the equivalent of three Intel cores. The i3 has two hyper-threaded cores, and the i5 has 4 cores.
m
0
l
June 16, 2014 5:54:59 PM

Mac266 said:
Primordial Genesis said:

I'm not going to lie...as much as I like to make myself believe I know about PC Compnents, that has absolutely baffled me. xD Can you please explain abit further?


Sure. AMD basically hook two cores together into a module. Modules use both cores threads (so two threads a module) but can only make one floating point calculation per module.

Intel cores are stronger, theres no arguing against that, and each Intel core can do floating point calculations.

So if you go FX 6300, you will basically have a CPU with less than the equivalent of three Intel cores. The i3 has two hyper-threaded cores, and the i5 has 4 cores.


The real question now is for the next 1 - 3 years in games such as watch dogs, battlefield, Will the i3 4130 Keep up? CT Turbo said himself on this thread: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/id-1902606/4130-630...

FX 6300 is better for current future games. Since I'll be hanging onto the i3 for 1 - 3 years, how will it perform with the R9 280X?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 16, 2014 6:09:48 PM

Well, theres a point. But the FX 6300 is a fair bit older than the i3, and the AM3+ socket is frankly ancient. Also, somewhat surprisingly, The i3 has less of a bottleneck than the FX 6300 (I was browsing around just the other day and discovered this).

The i5 4440 is head and shoulders above the others, but really the FX 6300 and i3 trade blows. Just go with what makes you feel comfortable.
m
0
l
a c 247 4 Gaming
a c 439 à CPUs
June 16, 2014 7:12:49 PM

Here is a good comparison using 5 or 6 very popular titles including BF4. You'll see the i3 beating the FX6300 in everything and it evens beats in FX8350 most of the time.

This link goes straight to the BF4 page but look at the other games too.

http://www.hardcoreware.net/intel-core-i3-4340-review/3...
m
0
l
June 16, 2014 7:48:02 PM

I have an i3 4130 and I play a lot of Battlefield 4. It's not about the CPU actually, it's about the graphics. If you want pure gaming, put your money on the graphics card. Like you I was building my PC and FX 6300 vs i3 4130 came up. 6 cores vs 2 cores with hyperthreading seems obvious 6 cores were the way to go but I still chose Intel because of the upgrade path and the two powerful cores, I can upgrade to an i5 sometime in the future. My graphics card is R7 260X and I play on 1600x900 at medium settings with FXAA (depends how much eye candy you want).
Intel is more future proof, and the i3 4130 will do well in current and future games, depends on what resolution and settings you plan to play. Of course this shouldn't be a bother because gaming PC's are determined by graphics cards. Not CPUs.
m
0
l
June 17, 2014 2:53:41 AM

CTurbo said:
Here is a good comparison using 5 or 6 very popular titles including BF4. You'll see the i3 beating the FX6300 in everything and it evens beats in FX8350 most of the time.

This link goes straight to the BF4 page but look at the other games too.

http://www.hardcoreware.net/intel-core-i3-4340-review/3...


They're using an i3 4340, what would be the difference in performance for the i3 4130? The clock speed is 0.2Mhz slower but is that the only difference?

This Statement in the conclusion makes me weary: "However it does something that no other Core i3 has done before – it is actually a somewhat viable option for gaming at 720p." Make me think the i3 4130 won't cut it.

Cheers.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
June 17, 2014 8:26:11 AM

If you're going to be playing more modern stuff I'd honestly go with either the i5 if you can or if not the fx6300, here's a vid of the 4130 paired with a gtx 760 in BF4 multiplayer, you can see the cpu varies but average of 95+ percent being used, sometimes at 100% which doesn't leave a whole lot of room for other stuff to be running.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_MPb7Rinq0

I personally would not get a dual core nowadays even with hyperthreading. I'm going to look more up on how much % the 6300 cores get used up but not very many videos show that from what I've seen over time. I remember hearing figures of about 70% being used on forums though.

An i5 4440 with an h81 motherboard would probably be cheaper than an 6300 and good motherboard and heatsink though. The h81 still has sata 6 and usb 3, just couldn't upgrade to broadwell, but honestly with how strong the i5 would be anyway you would have no "real" reason to upgrade besides epeen


So I say i5 if you absolutely can, if not, the 6300 isn't bad. It won't be the best in CPU intensive stuff like huge RTS battles or MMOs but those aren't my thing, just depends if you like them or not. And it's not like the AMD wouldn't be playable at all.


There have been some people that came here recently that complained of their i3s running out of juice so to speak, with gaming and stuff running in the background. Also in Watch Dogs the tom's review, 6300 beat the i3, but 6300 dipped to 28fps at the worst. Overclocking would probably help. The fx8350 beat the i5 they tested though, although it was a lower clocked locked i5 which I don't think was a fair comparison....they should have tested an overclocked i5
m
0
l
June 17, 2014 8:41:57 AM

WhiteSnake91 said:
If you're going to be playing more modern stuff I'd honestly go with either the i5 if you can or if not the fx6300, here's a vid of the 4130 paired with a gtx 760 in BF4 multiplayer, you can see the cpu varies but average of 95+ percent being used, sometimes at 100% which doesn't leave a whole lot of room for other stuff to be running.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_MPb7Rinq0

I personally would not get a dual core nowadays even with hyperthreading. I'm going to look more up on how much % the 6300 cores get used up but not very many videos show that from what I've seen over time. I remember hearing figures of about 70% being used on forums though.

An i5 4440 with an h81 motherboard would probably be cheaper than an 6300 and good motherboard and heatsink though. The h81 still has sata 6 and usb 3, just couldn't upgrade to broadwell, but honestly with how strong the i5 would be anyway you would have no "real" reason to upgrade besides epeen


So I say i5 if you absolutely can, if not, the 6300 isn't bad. It won't be the best in CPU intensive stuff like huge RTS battles or MMOs but those aren't my thing, just depends if you like them or not. And it's not like the AMD wouldn't be playable at all.


There have been some people that came here recently that complained of their i3s running out of juice so to speak, with gaming and stuff running in the background. Also in Watch Dogs the tom's review, 6300 beat the i3, but 6300 dipped to 28fps at the worst. Overclocking would probably help. The fx8350 beat the i5 they tested though, although it was a lower clocked locked i5 which I don't think was a fair comparison....they should have tested an overclocked i5


Gigabyte 990XA UD3 AM3+ Mobo(top tier mobo really, has corssfire and OC Ability) costs the same as a cheap crappy H81 mobo.

I do sometimes enjoy browsing/ Watching a video on youtube while gaming. Would this make the fx 6300 better value? I really should have specified this first xD
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 17, 2014 8:48:26 AM

CTurbo said:
I understand about the H97, but if going down the "Future proofing" route I'd buy a Z97 for not much more for a future 5th Gen CPU.


If the jump from 4th generation to 5th generation follows the last several generations, Broadwell will probably not be worth another $250 within a year if you've already got Haswell. We've been seeing minor ~5% boosts to IPC for several years now. Whatever you decide on, plan on keeping it for about 3 years if you want to get the most for your money.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
June 17, 2014 8:51:21 AM

ah I didn't know....that's odd that a top tier AMD motherboard costs the same as a low end Intel one. The intel is much cheaper here. If you plan on crossfiring/SLI then that AMD motherboard would be better, and on a budget the 6300 is pretty good at multitasking. Could you sneak in the cheaper fx8320 cpu? It turbo boosts to 4ghz anyway, many people here choose it over the more expensive 8350 to save money.

The 6300 or 8320 would smoke the i3 in multitasking like that. And if you can get a great AMD top tier motherboard 990fx chipset in that case I'd get the 8320 ideally, or don't feel so bad about only getting the 6300. But 8320 is great for the price.
m
0
l
June 17, 2014 8:51:28 AM

logainofhades said:
There would be no noticeable difference in performance between the 4130 or the 4340. I would go with the 4150 over a 4130. It is a bit less than the 4130 in your country right now.

http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/parts/compare/intel-cpu-bx80...


Here's the thing, that article also features an i3 3rd gen which didn't peform so well, and the raw stats aren't THAT different. the i3 3rd gen performs nothing like the i3 4340.
m
0
l
June 17, 2014 8:53:40 AM

WhiteSnake91 said:
ah I didn't know....that's odd that a top tier AMD motherboard costs the same as a low end Intel one. The intel is much cheaper here. If you plan on crossfiring/SLI then that AMD motherboard would be better, and on a budget the 6300 is pretty good at multitasking. Could you sneak in the cheaper fx8320 cpu? It turbo boosts to 4ghz anyway, many people here choose it over the more expensive 8350 to save money.

The 6300 or 8320 would smoke the i3 in multitasking like that. And if you can get a great AMD top tier motherboard 990fx chipset in that case I'd get the 8320 ideally, or don't feel so bad about only getting the 6300. But 8320 is great for the price.


This is the problem with building a PC, the 8320 costs £30 more than the 6300, the i5 4440 costs £20 mroe than the 8320. So you know it just keeps going on and on haha. I could keep going up like that until the i7 4770K lol

So in this casei'd get the i5 4440 over the 8320 then shell out maybe......an extra £30 - £50 for a high end Z97 Mobo for future proofing on the 5th gen side of things. Which will keep me set for a high end 5th gen i5 which I could Overclock. Crossfire Isn't THAT important tbh.

However I then thought if i'm gonna swap out to a 5th gen in about a year, why not go even cheaper save £48 and get an i3. That's whee I was coming from.

What do you reckon?
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
June 17, 2014 9:01:38 AM

I would get the 8320 to be more futureproof, the consoles are using 8 core AMD cpu's now so the developers are going to start taking advantage of more cores, and dx12 is supposed to scale well with more cores from what I've read. The tomshardware review of watch dogs demonstrated this by the 8350 soundly beating the 6300, I'd spend the 30 more to be more futureproof. One day the 6300 might not perform as well as you'd like, and you'd have wished you got the 8 core instead. It would also be a beast at multitasking.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 680 à CPUs
June 17, 2014 9:02:40 AM

If you are not concerned with Broadwell, you could go i5 with an H81 board.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
June 17, 2014 9:04:46 AM

yeah I suggest an i5 with h81 motherboard still, i5 is going to multitask pretty much as well as the 8 core AMD for the normal user. With an i5 you won't have to upgrade. People are still using the 1st gen i5 and i7 fine, can you say the same about all the people being bottlenecked by their old phenom quad cores?
m
0
l
June 17, 2014 9:04:46 AM

WhiteSnake91 said:
I would get the 8320 to be more futureproof, the consoles are using 8 core AMD cpu's now so the developers are going to start taking advantage of more cores, and dx12 is supposed to scale well with more cores from what I've read. The tomshardware review of watch dogs demonstrated this by the 8350 soundly beating the 6300, I'd spend the 30 more to be more futureproof. One day the 6300 might not perform as well as you'd like, and you'd have wished you got the 8 core instead. It would also be a beast at multitasking.


I don't consider the 8320 future proofed because it has literally no upgrade path....That's what puts me off.

m
0
l
June 17, 2014 9:10:05 AM

logainofhades said:
If you are not concerned with Broadwell, you could go i5 with an H81 board.


WhiteSnake91 said:
yeah I suggest an i5 with h81 motherboard still, i5 is going to multitask pretty much as well as the 8 core AMD for the normal user. With an i5 you won't have to upgrade. People are still using the 1st gen i5 and i7 fine, can you say the same about all the people being bottlenecked by their old phenom quad cores?


Haha funny because I'm using a phenom II X4 925 right now :p  .

As I've said before I am very much concerned with broadwell and would like a 5th gen i5 within a year. This is why I'm thinking of buying an i3, then an i5 5th gen.

HOWEVER the only thing I will be saving is a motherboard, which will cost me an extra £65 (Which is the price of the Gigabyte 990XA UD3). However I'll be spending about £40 more on the Z97 Motherboard anyway.... which means that the AMD Setup will cost £40 less in the first place.

The 8 core AMD isn't worth £30 extra for that reason. However £95, not exactly lost, over 1 year , isn't that bad considering it could be used in a different Rig. (I say 95 because the mobo is £65 and the 8320 costs around £30 more than the i3)

I have not included the prices of the CPU's because both the i3 or FX 6300 would be discarded after building a 5th gen Z97 rig.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 680 à CPUs
June 17, 2014 9:13:43 AM

I am not sure I would be overly concerned with broadwell. Hell, I am still on Ivy Bridge and have no need for an upgrade. The performance difference, most likely, is only going to be about as much as Ivy Bridge was to Sandy Bridge. Any current gen i5/i7 should be just fine till at least skylake and DDR4. I won't do an actual upgrade probably until then, unless I find a deal too good to pass up, and have the money for. Still want my mini-tx Xeon E3 rig, but don't really need it.
m
0
l
June 17, 2014 9:15:25 AM

WhiteSnake91 said:
yeah I suggest an i5 with h81 motherboard still, i5 is going to multitask pretty much as well as the 8 core AMD for the normal user. With an i5 you won't have to upgrade. People are still using the 1st gen i5 and i7 fine, can you say the same about all the people being bottlenecked by their old phenom quad cores?


You say the i5 will multitask pretty much as well as the 8 core......Got any article numbers for me?

The reason I ask is I heard heard in a few places the 8350 keeps up with the i7 4770K for multi tasking. and the 835- is just an OCed 8320.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
June 17, 2014 9:19:25 AM

Yeah CPU performance has kinda stagnated ever since Sandy Bridge, per core now the Intel is so much stronger than an AMD. I doubt a sandy,ivy,or haswell becomes not good enough any time soon, there's still people on the old first gen fine.

If you're going to start all over in a year anyway, I'd get the 6300, because the i3 isn't good at multitasking. And then whenever you get the 5th gen and z97 motherboard just sell the old parts. Whenever you do(in a year from now?) you'd be happier with a 6300 rather than the i3. The only way I'd say get an i3 is if you're playing nothing but single thread cpu intensive stuff like MMO or RTS alot.
m
0
l
June 17, 2014 9:22:44 AM

WhiteSnake91 said:
Yeah CPU performance has kinda stagnated ever since Sandy Bridge, per core now the Intel is so much stronger than an AMD. I doubt a sandy,ivy,or haswell becomes not good enough any time soon, there's still people on the old first gen fine.

If you're going to start all over in a year anyway, I'd get the 6300, because the i3 isn't good at multitasking. And then whenever you get the 5th gen and z97 motherboard just sell the old parts. Whenever you do(in a year from now?) you'd be happier with a 6300 rather than the i3. The only way I'd say get an i3 is if you're playing nothing but single thread cpu intensive stuff like MMO or RTS alot.


Not gonna lie you've kind of talked me into getting an 8320. And you never know if I'm happy with the performance I may keep it longer than a year haha.
m
0
l
June 17, 2014 9:24:01 AM

WhiteSnake91 said:
Yeah CPU performance has kinda stagnated ever since Sandy Bridge, per core now the Intel is so much stronger than an AMD. I doubt a sandy,ivy,or haswell becomes not good enough any time soon, there's still people on the old first gen fine.

If you're going to start all over in a year anyway, I'd get the 6300, because the i3 isn't good at multitasking. And then whenever you get the 5th gen and z97 motherboard just sell the old parts. Whenever you do(in a year from now?) you'd be happier with a 6300 rather than the i3. The only way I'd say get an i3 is if you're playing nothing but single thread cpu intensive stuff like MMO or RTS alot.


So in terms of the 8 core vs i5 vs i7 what is the 8 core like for multi tasking compared?
m
0
l

Best solution

a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
June 17, 2014 9:27:19 AM

yeah the 8320 is really good for the price, and considering you could get a good 990fx motherboard there at the same price a sucky h81 motherboard costs here is a plus.

I think for anybody as long as they're not exclusively playing MMO or RTS the AMD is more than fine. On this website it says the single thread of the newer AMD is better than the old first gen i7, and if people say the old i7s are still good enough, why is AMD harped so much on? haha.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-920-vs-AMD-FX-832...
Share
a c 247 4 Gaming
a c 439 à CPUs
June 17, 2014 11:06:08 AM

You started this thread talking about gaming only. I posted a link showing you that an i3 actually beats all FXs in most games. Everybody agrees that the i5 is the best bet, but somehow out of all of this you decide you want a FX8320? I just don't get it.
m
1
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 680 à CPUs
June 17, 2014 11:17:58 AM

CTurbo said:
You started this thread talking about gaming only. I posted a link showing you that an i3 actually beats all FXs in most games. Everybody agrees that the i5 is the best bet, but somehow out of all of this you decide you want a FX8320? I just don't get it.


I am just as confused as you are. As an owner of two FX 8320's, I know they are inferior for gaming. Granted my gaming is limited to Blizzard titles, but the FX 8320 @ 4.0ghz, doesn't game as well as my i5 2400 at 3.5ghz. Microcenter's $100 deal on them for black friday made them worth getting though. :D 
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 435 à CPUs
June 17, 2014 1:46:12 PM

Primordial Genesis said:
WhiteSnake91 said:
If you're going to be playing more modern stuff I'd honestly go with either the i5 if you can or if not the fx6300, here's a vid of the 4130 paired with a gtx 760 in BF4 multiplayer, you can see the cpu varies but average of 95+ percent being used, sometimes at 100% which doesn't leave a whole lot of room for other stuff to be running.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_MPb7Rinq0

I personally would not get a dual core nowadays even with hyperthreading. I'm going to look more up on how much % the 6300 cores get used up but not very many videos show that from what I've seen over time. I remember hearing figures of about 70% being used on forums though.

An i5 4440 with an h81 motherboard would probably be cheaper than an 6300 and good motherboard and heatsink though. The h81 still has sata 6 and usb 3, just couldn't upgrade to broadwell, but honestly with how strong the i5 would be anyway you would have no "real" reason to upgrade besides epeen


So I say i5 if you absolutely can, if not, the 6300 isn't bad. It won't be the best in CPU intensive stuff like huge RTS battles or MMOs but those aren't my thing, just depends if you like them or not. And it's not like the AMD wouldn't be playable at all.


There have been some people that came here recently that complained of their i3s running out of juice so to speak, with gaming and stuff running in the background. Also in Watch Dogs the tom's review, 6300 beat the i3, but 6300 dipped to 28fps at the worst. Overclocking would probably help. The fx8350 beat the i5 they tested though, although it was a lower clocked locked i5 which I don't think was a fair comparison....they should have tested an overclocked i5


Gigabyte 990XA UD3 AM3+ Mobo(top tier mobo really, has corssfire and OC Ability) costs the same as a cheap crappy H81 mobo.

I do sometimes enjoy browsing/ Watching a video on youtube while gaming. Would this make the fx 6300 better value? I really should have specified this first xD


It might cost the same as a H81 board. It also costs the same as a H97 board. Why would you even consider the H81 when there are better boards that that price?

https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/gigabyte-motherboard-g...
https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/asrock-motherboard-h97...

I'm also confused as to why you selected AMD despite all of the evidence given against it. Oh well.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
June 17, 2014 2:05:02 PM

that still baffles me that a bottom dollar h81 motherboard costs the same as a top tier AMD motherboard there >_>
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 435 à CPUs
June 17, 2014 2:20:58 PM

WhiteSnake91 said:
that still baffles me that a bottom dollar h81 motherboard costs the same as a top tier AMD motherboard there >_>


Companies can price things as they like, doesn't mean people will buy them. :p 
m
0
l
June 18, 2014 2:55:50 AM

WhiteSnake91 said:
yeah the 8320 is really good for the price, and considering you could get a good 990fx motherboard there at the same price a sucky h81 motherboard costs here is a plus.

I think for anybody as long as they're not exclusively playing MMO or RTS the AMD is more than fine. On this website it says the single thread of the newer AMD is better than the old first gen i7, and if people say the old i7s are still good enough, why is AMD harped so much on? haha.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-920-vs-AMD-FX-832...


CTurbo said:
You started this thread talking about gaming only. I posted a link showing you that an i3 actually beats all FXs in most games. Everybody agrees that the i5 is the best bet, but somehow out of all of this you decide you want a FX8320? I just don't get it.


You showed me a link to the i3 4340......
m
0
l
June 18, 2014 2:56:39 AM

WhiteSnake91 said:
that still baffles me that a bottom dollar h81 motherboard costs the same as a top tier AMD motherboard there >_>


Low/mid Z97 Boards here cost the same as the 990FX Asus Sabertooth xD. To put it in perspective Z97 Sabertooth is £190ish. 990FX Sabertooth is £115.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 125 à CPUs
June 18, 2014 3:15:45 AM

Primordial Genesis said:
WhiteSnake91 said:
yeah the 8320 is really good for the price, and considering you could get a good 990fx motherboard there at the same price a sucky h81 motherboard costs here is a plus.

I think for anybody as long as they're not exclusively playing MMO or RTS the AMD is more than fine. On this website it says the single thread of the newer AMD is better than the old first gen i7, and if people say the old i7s are still good enough, why is AMD harped so much on? haha.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-920-vs-AMD-FX-832...


CTurbo said:
You started this thread talking about gaming only. I posted a link showing you that an i3 actually beats all FXs in most games. Everybody agrees that the i5 is the best bet, but somehow out of all of this you decide you want a FX8320? I just don't get it.


You showed me a link to the i3 4340......


The 4th gen i3s will more or less all perform within a few % of each other, the difference will only be slightly faster or slower clock speed.

I also have a pc with an 8350 - I would choose the i5 for gaming every time.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 125 à CPUs
June 18, 2014 3:16:28 AM

Primordial Genesis said:
WhiteSnake91 said:
that still baffles me that a bottom dollar h81 motherboard costs the same as a top tier AMD motherboard there >_>


Low/mid Z97 Boards here cost the same as the 990FX Asus Sabertooth xD. To put it in perspective Z97 Sabertooth is £190ish. 990FX Sabertooth is £115.


The difference is, the Z97 Sabertooth is brand new tech...
m
0
l
June 18, 2014 3:35:00 AM

RobCrezz said:
Primordial Genesis said:
WhiteSnake91 said:
that still baffles me that a bottom dollar h81 motherboard costs the same as a top tier AMD motherboard there >_>


Low/mid Z97 Boards here cost the same as the 990FX Asus Sabertooth xD. To put it in perspective Z97 Sabertooth is £190ish. 990FX Sabertooth is £115.


The difference is, the Z97 Sabertooth is brand new tech...


Okay let's take the Z87 Sabertooth, which is £176....wow...such a big difference.
m
0
l
June 18, 2014 3:37:16 AM

RobCrezz said:
Primordial Genesis said:
WhiteSnake91 said:
yeah the 8320 is really good for the price, and considering you could get a good 990fx motherboard there at the same price a sucky h81 motherboard costs here is a plus.

I think for anybody as long as they're not exclusively playing MMO or RTS the AMD is more than fine. On this website it says the single thread of the newer AMD is better than the old first gen i7, and if people say the old i7s are still good enough, why is AMD harped so much on? haha.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-920-vs-AMD-FX-832...


CTurbo said:
You started this thread talking about gaming only. I posted a link showing you that an i3 actually beats all FXs in most games. Everybody agrees that the i5 is the best bet, but somehow out of all of this you decide you want a FX8320? I just don't get it.


You showed me a link to the i3 4340......


The 4th gen i3s will more or less all perform within a few % of each other, the difference will only be slightly faster or slower clock speed.

I also have a pc with an 8350 - I would choose the i5 for gaming every time.


I understand totally where you're coming from, and rethinking about it, I've decided to probably go i3 or i5. It still depends on if I want to go 5th gen. It's a shame i'm building the PC 3 - 4 months before they release them. If I want 5th gen, I'll go i3 for the time being. If not, I'll go for the i5 and call it quits for about 3 years.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 125 à CPUs
June 18, 2014 3:40:57 AM

Primordial Genesis said:
RobCrezz said:
Primordial Genesis said:
WhiteSnake91 said:
that still baffles me that a bottom dollar h81 motherboard costs the same as a top tier AMD motherboard there >_>


Low/mid Z97 Boards here cost the same as the 990FX Asus Sabertooth xD. To put it in perspective Z97 Sabertooth is £190ish. 990FX Sabertooth is £115.


The difference is, the Z97 Sabertooth is brand new tech...


Okay let's take the Z87 Sabertooth, which is £176....wow...such a big difference.


Even Z87 is newer than 990FX. 990FX came out in 2011.
m
0
l
June 18, 2014 3:46:57 AM

RobCrezz said:
Primordial Genesis said:
RobCrezz said:
Primordial Genesis said:
WhiteSnake91 said:
that still baffles me that a bottom dollar h81 motherboard costs the same as a top tier AMD motherboard there >_>


Low/mid Z97 Boards here cost the same as the 990FX Asus Sabertooth xD. To put it in perspective Z97 Sabertooth is £190ish. 990FX Sabertooth is £115.


The difference is, the Z97 Sabertooth is brand new tech...


Okay let's take the Z87 Sabertooth, which is £176....wow...such a big difference.


Even Z87 is newer than 990FX. 990FX came out in 2011.


Yeah well they don't make a Z77 Sabertooth anymore. So what would you like me to compare it to?
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 125 à CPUs
June 18, 2014 3:50:42 AM

Primordial Genesis said:
RobCrezz said:
Primordial Genesis said:
RobCrezz said:
Primordial Genesis said:
WhiteSnake91 said:
that still baffles me that a bottom dollar h81 motherboard costs the same as a top tier AMD motherboard there >_>


Low/mid Z97 Boards here cost the same as the 990FX Asus Sabertooth xD. To put it in perspective Z97 Sabertooth is £190ish. 990FX Sabertooth is £115.


The difference is, the Z97 Sabertooth is brand new tech...


Okay let's take the Z87 Sabertooth, which is £176....wow...such a big difference.


Even Z87 is newer than 990FX. 990FX came out in 2011.


Yeah well they don't make a Z77 Sabertooth anymore. So what would you like me to compare it to?


You're missing the point. Im not saying there should be an equivalent Intel board for the same price, purely because the 990 has much older tech and missing the benefits of the modern intel chipset boards. You are paying more, for more features.
m
0
l
June 18, 2014 4:05:03 AM

RobCrezz said:
Primordial Genesis said:
WhiteSnake91 said:
yeah the 8320 is really good for the price, and considering you could get a good 990fx motherboard there at the same price a sucky h81 motherboard costs here is a plus.

I think for anybody as long as they're not exclusively playing MMO or RTS the AMD is more than fine. On this website it says the single thread of the newer AMD is better than the old first gen i7, and if people say the old i7s are still good enough, why is AMD harped so much on? haha.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-920-vs-AMD-FX-832...


You say that about the i3's, but

CTurbo said:
You started this thread talking about gaming only. I posted a link showing you that an i3 actually beats all FXs in most games. Everybody agrees that the i5 is the best bet, but somehow out of all of this you decide you want a FX8320? I just don't get it.


You showed me a link to the i3 4340......


The 4th gen i3s will more or less all perform within a few % of each other, the difference will only be slightly faster or slower clock speed.

I also have a pc with an 8350 - I would choose the i5 for gaming every time.


You say that about the i3's, but does that mean the i3 4130 will keep up with an i5? That article shows the i3 4340 keeping up with the i5 4670. IF that's the case, 1. why would anyone buy an i5? 2. What would be the point in an i5? In some cases on that article the i5 wins, but the difference is minimal. This is what makes me believe the i3 4130 won't perform like that at all. the i3 4340 is £117 compared to the i3 4130 for £80, so there must be some give in the performance there.

Also by IGP do they mean Integrated GPU? (which is why i'm assuming the FX series isn't on that list)
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 435 à CPUs
June 18, 2014 6:01:10 AM

Primordial Genesis said:
RobCrezz said:
Primordial Genesis said:
WhiteSnake91 said:
that still baffles me that a bottom dollar h81 motherboard costs the same as a top tier AMD motherboard there >_>


Low/mid Z97 Boards here cost the same as the 990FX Asus Sabertooth xD. To put it in perspective Z97 Sabertooth is £190ish. 990FX Sabertooth is £115.


The difference is, the Z97 Sabertooth is brand new tech...


Okay let's take the Z87 Sabertooth, which is £176....wow...such a big difference.


Your comparisons in this thread have been extremely odd. You are selecting extreme top-end motherboards and attempting to match them with budget CPUs. Why, exactly? For £110 you can get an ASRock Z97 Extreme4 that will overclock as well as you like, and diminishing returns begin from there.

As RobCrezz has pointed out, AM3+ boards are old. Of course they're priced lower, in order to be competitive since they lack much of modern tech that's been pumped into LGA 1150 boards.

If you're considering an FX 6300 / i3 4130 you should really be looking at a 970 board or a B/H board.

Intel.

PCPartPicker part list: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/qtLfhM
Price breakdown by merchant: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/qtLfhM/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i3-4130 3.4GHz Dual-Core Processor (£76.79 @ Aria PC)
Motherboard: ASRock H97 PRO4 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard (£74.59 @ Overclockers.co.uk)
Total: £151.38
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-06-18 13:52 BST+0100

AMD.

PCPartPicker part list: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/mv7Bcf
Price breakdown by merchant: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/mv7Bcf/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor (£70.20 @ Aria PC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard (£63.26 @ Amazon UK)
Total: £133.46
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-06-18 13:53 BST+0100

Now, what are you getting here? On the AMD side you get 6 cores, 2 of which are not used in the huge majority of circumstances. You get an upgrade path to an 8 core FX, which often provides no real performance benefit, but you can get a decent overclock out of the board I've selected if you get a decent CPU cooler. Even overclocked the 6300 won't match a stock i5, might beat an i3. However once you put money into that CPU cooler it could have well gone into your CPU budget and you could have potentially gotten an i5 on the intel side.

On the intel side you're getting a dual core with stronger per-core performance + hyperthreading. It will perform better in most gaming scenarios, since most games still aren't utilising more than 4 main cores/threads. It gives you an upgrade path to an i5/i7 if you so wish which will give a good performance boost without having to replace the motherboard, and since it's 97 you should be good for Broadwell when it releases.

AMD doesn't really have anything to offer. Your price comparisons between motherboards seem a bit odd to me. I've shown you a couple of times in this thread that companies can price things where they like but it doesn't mean people will buy them, and I'm not sure why it's off-putting to you and you're using it as a counter argument.

Often times, all of these CPUs will perform similarly in single-player games that are optimised to use as little CPU power as possible. I've found that multiplayer scenarios are far more CPU bound and that's where you see the true difference between the FX's, i3's and i5's. This is difficult to benchmark as you won't get similar scenarios, so the results will never be truly valid. As for the difference between the i3 4130 and 4340, the difference is 200MHz, that's all. Not truly noticeable. And yes, the iGPU is the integrated GPU.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 125 à CPUs
June 18, 2014 6:34:22 AM

Primordial Genesis said:
RobCrezz said:
Primordial Genesis said:
WhiteSnake91 said:
yeah the 8320 is really good for the price, and considering you could get a good 990fx motherboard there at the same price a sucky h81 motherboard costs here is a plus.

I think for anybody as long as they're not exclusively playing MMO or RTS the AMD is more than fine. On this website it says the single thread of the newer AMD is better than the old first gen i7, and if people say the old i7s are still good enough, why is AMD harped so much on? haha.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-920-vs-AMD-FX-832...


You say that about the i3's, but

CTurbo said:
You started this thread talking about gaming only. I posted a link showing you that an i3 actually beats all FXs in most games. Everybody agrees that the i5 is the best bet, but somehow out of all of this you decide you want a FX8320? I just don't get it.


You showed me a link to the i3 4340......


The 4th gen i3s will more or less all perform within a few % of each other, the difference will only be slightly faster or slower clock speed.

I also have a pc with an 8350 - I would choose the i5 for gaming every time.


You say that about the i3's, but does that mean the i3 4130 will keep up with an i5? That article shows the i3 4340 keeping up with the i5 4670. IF that's the case, 1. why would anyone buy an i5? 2. What would be the point in an i5? In some cases on that article the i5 wins, but the difference is minimal. This is what makes me believe the i3 4130 won't perform like that at all. the i3 4340 is £117 compared to the i3 4130 for £80, so there must be some give in the performance there.

Also by IGP do they mean Integrated GPU? (which is why i'm assuming the FX series isn't on that list)



In some games which aren't heavily threaded the i3 can keep up, as it essentially has the same cores as an i7 (except only 2 of them instead of 4 and less cache). If the game can really use 4 cores then the i5 will perform better.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
June 18, 2014 7:18:46 AM

http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/LbHqpg

>_> , the h81 motherboard doesn't cost the same as a top end 990FX motherboard after all >_>

I'd either go with an i5 or Xeon 1230v3 if you have the money and then you won't NEED to upgrade for years to come, AMD is really just for people on a budget in my eyes. With the good motherboard so it won't throttle the AMD cpu due to sucky power phase and no VRM heatsinks, and aftermarket heatsink, the 6300 is likely more expensive. Let me piece it together...


http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/T2gwP6

the intel is only 8 more......just go for that and then you won't need to upgrade for years in all practicality. Broadwell is just epeen. People don't have to keep upgrading every year contrary to what the bleeding edge elitists portray all over the internet.
m
0
l
!