Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Firs PC build - Intel or AMD

Tags:
  • Build
  • CPUs
  • AMD
  • Components
  • Intel
Last response: in Components
Share
August 28, 2014 11:18:40 PM

Hi I will build my first pc but i cant decide wich CPU to get .The CPUs are Intel core i3-4330 vs AMD FX-6300.I ll use my pc for gaming.I won't upgrade it next 1-2 years and i might not OC but i'm not sure. My GPU is Sapphire Radeon hd6570 1gb ddr3 but i'll upgrade it later.
Wich CPU I should choose for my PC?

More about : firs build intel amd

a c 621 à CPUs
a c 299 À AMD
a c 267 å Intel
August 28, 2014 11:37:40 PM

Either would be a good choice, the 6300 OCs well and might keep you happier longer with that
m
0
l
a c 110 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 28, 2014 11:37:53 PM

If you aren't going to overclock, period, then buy the i3, hands down. It absolutely whomps the 6300 in single core performance, and at stock, the AMD chip will be given a thrashing. The Intel chip will also run cooler, thus will be quieter.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2014 11:38:39 PM

FX 6300 for sure. The extra cores will help for futureproofing even though Intel cores are much stronger
m
0
l
a c 110 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 28, 2014 11:42:23 PM

@trademan: He's not overclocking, which changes things.

@GRUxTSAR: but it's really not a full six cores, it's three modules, and though it is nice when it can overclock, I strongly disagree that going with it just for the possibility that those modules will be useful in the future. It seems like a silly idea vs getting way better performance with a hyperthreading dual core.
m
0
l
a c 621 à CPUs
a c 299 À AMD
a c 267 å Intel
August 28, 2014 11:50:26 PM

Many people say yhey won't OC, but often do once they find that's it's fairly easy and safe. Even if you don't 'think' you want to , having a free CPU upgrade already in your rig appeals to many once they've run a rig for a couple of months
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2014 12:02:19 AM

DarkSable said:
@trademan: He's not overclocking, which changes things.

@GRUxTSAR: but it's really not a full six cores, it's three modules, and though it is nice when it can overclock, I strongly disagree that going with it just for the possibility that those modules will be useful in the future. It seems like a silly idea vs getting way better performance with a hyperthreading dual core.


Games do not use hyperthreading at all while some games DO use all the CPU cores you can throw at them (Games like Battlefield 4 for instance) which will perform much better on the FX 6300. Getting a dual core CPU for gaming, be it a high end one or not, is just a waste of money in this day and age (Unless you're playing super low demanding games, but OP is going to upgrade his GPU so he likely won't be playing low demanding games)

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2014 12:03:09 AM

Tradesman1 said:
Many people say yhey won't OC, but often do once they find that's it's fairly easy and safe. Even if you don't 'think' you want to , having a free CPU upgrade already in your rig appeals to many once they've run a rig for a couple of months



This. It'll also help in the future if OP decides to SLI/Fire
m
0
l
a c 85 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
August 29, 2014 12:17:58 AM

GRUxTSAR said:


Games do not use hyperthreading at all


That's not actually true. Any game that uses 4 threads will automatically use the HT threads of an i3. They're treated just like normal threads, and they provide a 20-30% performance boost in i3s, as well as an appreciable improvement in frametime variance.

Additionally, the FX-6300 is *mostly* a tri-core. When the final 3 cores are used, resources are shared so heavily between modules that the extra 3 cores combined only provide a ~25% performance boost, as well as improved frametimes, just like Intel's HT.

The i3-4130 and FX-6300 compete nicely. One is functionally a dual core with SMT and stronger cores, while the other is functionally a tri-core with CMT and weaker cores. They line up in performance. The i3 wins some, the FX wins some. Either way they're both enough for 60 fps in the vast majority of games, and Mantle tests show that they will continue to compete evenly into the future, since Mantle ("true" multithreading) actually helps hyper threading almost as much as it helps the AMD Piledriver architecture.

The i3-4330 is noticeably stronger than an FX-6300 (the extra cache decreases latency, and cache latency is the area where the FX-6300 is weakest), but it shows in the price (~$140). The FX-8320 costs about that much. Comparing it the FX-6300 (which it obviously beats) isn't actually fair to the FX series given that the price range is different.
m
1
l
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2014 12:38:50 AM

Rationale said:
GRUxTSAR said:


Games do not use hyperthreading at all


That's not actually true. Any game that uses 4 threads will automatically use the HT threads of an i3. They're treated just like normal threads, and they provide a 20-30% performance boost in i3s, as well as an appreciable improvement in frametime variance.

Additionally, the FX-6300 is *mostly* a tri-core. When the final 3 cores are used, resources are shared so heavily between modules that the extra 3 cores combined only provide a ~25% performance boost, as well as improved frametimes, just like Intel's HT.

The i3-4130 and FX-6300 compete nicely. One is functionally a dual core with SMT and stronger cores, while the other is functionally a tri-core with CMT and weaker cores. They line up in performance. The i3 wins some, the FX wins some. Either way they're both enough for 60 fps in the vast majority of games, and Mantle tests show that they will continue to compete evenly into the future, since Mantle actually helps hyper threading almost as much as it helps the AMD Piledriver architecture.

The i3-4330 is noticeably stronger than an FX-6300, but it shows in the price (~$140). The FX-8320 costs about that much. Comparing it the FX-6300 (which it obviously beats) isn't actually fair to the FX series given that the price range is different.


I don't know where you're getting 30% performance boosts in i3s from. But as far as I know and from every benchmark I've ever seen, the difference between a CPU with hyperthreading and a CPU without it is negligible in gaming performance. The FX 6300 has six cores, can be overclocked, and performs better than pretty much every dual core i3 that I know of. Even CPUboss, the most Anti-AMD site in history, proves that the 6300 is better

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i3-4150-vs-AMD-FX-63...
m
0
l
a c 85 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
August 29, 2014 1:10:58 AM

GRUxTSAR said:
Rationale said:
GRUxTSAR said:


Games do not use hyperthreading at all


That's not actually true. Any game that uses 4 threads will automatically use the HT threads of an i3. They're treated just like normal threads, and they provide a 20-30% performance boost in i3s, as well as an appreciable improvement in frametime variance.

Additionally, the FX-6300 is *mostly* a tri-core. When the final 3 cores are used, resources are shared so heavily between modules that the extra 3 cores combined only provide a ~25% performance boost, as well as improved frametimes, just like Intel's HT.

The i3-4130 and FX-6300 compete nicely. One is functionally a dual core with SMT and stronger cores, while the other is functionally a tri-core with CMT and weaker cores. They line up in performance. The i3 wins some, the FX wins some. Either way they're both enough for 60 fps in the vast majority of games, and Mantle tests show that they will continue to compete evenly into the future, since Mantle actually helps hyper threading almost as much as it helps the AMD Piledriver architecture.

The i3-4330 is noticeably stronger than an FX-6300, but it shows in the price (~$140). The FX-8320 costs about that much. Comparing it the FX-6300 (which it obviously beats) isn't actually fair to the FX series given that the price range is different.


I don't know where you're getting 30% performance boosts in i3s from. But as far as I know and from every benchmark I've ever seen, the difference between a CPU with hyperthreading and a CPU without it is negligible in gaming performance. The FX 6300 has six cores, can be overclocked, and performs better than pretty much every dual core i3 that I know of. Even CPUboss, the most Anti-AMD site in history, proves that the 6300 is better

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i3-4150-vs-AMD-FX-63...


CPUboss is a load of shite for real-world comparisons - Everyone knows that. And it's not "anti AMD", it just runs artificial tests, some of which are created with AMD compilers, and some of which are created with Intel compilers. It's luck of the draw.

The HT tests you're thinking of are from i7s - Obviously i7s don't benefit practically at all from HT in games, as so few games use more than 4 threads in any capacity. The i3s benefit more appreciably. As you can see here, the i7-3770 does not benefit from HT (in fact the overhead slightly harms performance), but the (old) i3-3220 benefits by almost 20 fps.
http://www.techbuyersguru.com/attachments/Image/CPU_Ben...

If you check game benchmarks, you'll see the haswell i3s and the FX-6300 trade blows. Like I said, the FX-6300 (even with a moderate overclock) and i3-4130 beat each other in different games, and match in some.

http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/827/bench/CPU_01....
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core-i3-4340-4330-41...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core-i3-4340-4330-41...

They're both highly capable CPUs for gaming, both in price/performance ratio and in overall performance.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2014 12:37:06 PM

Rationale said:
GRUxTSAR said:
Rationale said:
GRUxTSAR said:


Games do not use hyperthreading at all


That's not actually true. Any game that uses 4 threads will automatically use the HT threads of an i3. They're treated just like normal threads, and they provide a 20-30% performance boost in i3s, as well as an appreciable improvement in frametime variance.

Additionally, the FX-6300 is *mostly* a tri-core. When the final 3 cores are used, resources are shared so heavily between modules that the extra 3 cores combined only provide a ~25% performance boost, as well as improved frametimes, just like Intel's HT.

The i3-4130 and FX-6300 compete nicely. One is functionally a dual core with SMT and stronger cores, while the other is functionally a tri-core with CMT and weaker cores. They line up in performance. The i3 wins some, the FX wins some. Either way they're both enough for 60 fps in the vast majority of games, and Mantle tests show that they will continue to compete evenly into the future, since Mantle actually helps hyper threading almost as much as it helps the AMD Piledriver architecture.

The i3-4330 is noticeably stronger than an FX-6300, but it shows in the price (~$140). The FX-8320 costs about that much. Comparing it the FX-6300 (which it obviously beats) isn't actually fair to the FX series given that the price range is different.


I don't know where you're getting 30% performance boosts in i3s from. But as far as I know and from every benchmark I've ever seen, the difference between a CPU with hyperthreading and a CPU without it is negligible in gaming performance. The FX 6300 has six cores, can be overclocked, and performs better than pretty much every dual core i3 that I know of. Even CPUboss, the most Anti-AMD site in history, proves that the 6300 is better

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i3-4150-vs-AMD-FX-63...


CPUboss is a load of shite for real-world comparisons - Everyone knows that. And it's not "anti AMD", it just runs artificial tests, some of which are created with AMD compilers, and some of which are created with Intel compilers. It's luck of the draw.

The HT tests you're thinking of are from i7s - Obviously i7s don't benefit practically at all from HT in games, as so few games use more than 4 threads in any capacity. The i3s benefit more appreciably. As you can see here, the i7-3770 does not benefit from HT (in fact the overhead slightly harms performance), but the (old) i3-3220 benefits by almost 20 fps.
http://www.techbuyersguru.com/attachments/Image/CPU_Ben...

If you check game benchmarks, you'll see the haswell i3s and the FX-6300 trade blows. Like I said, the FX-6300 (even with a moderate overclock) and i3-4130 beat each other in different games, and match in some.

http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/827/bench/CPU_01....
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core-i3-4340-4330-41...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core-i3-4340-4330-41...

They're both highly capable CPUs for gaming, both in price/performance ratio and in overall performance.


Wow. I didn't think it'd make that much of a difference. That's enough proof for me, I eat my words (Though I don't think an i3 would beat an FX 8350 like in that one benchmark)

m
0
l
!