I3 6100 or FX 8320?

Solution
The I3 6100 provides 90 to 100% more productivity in single and dual threaded usages. In 8 threaded usages - the I3 6100 is 10-20% less productive than the 8320, losing up to 30%.

In a gaming scenario - like a 4 threaded game - which is the norm today - the I3 wins with 30-50%. Overall, the I3 is the clear winner for general use PC with some gaming and some more heavy CPU use. If you are doing encoding or 2D or 3D rendering and etc. for the majority of your usage - the 8320 pulls ahead slightly.

Shneiky

Distinguished
The I3 6100 provides 90 to 100% more productivity in single and dual threaded usages. In 8 threaded usages - the I3 6100 is 10-20% less productive than the 8320, losing up to 30%.

In a gaming scenario - like a 4 threaded game - which is the norm today - the I3 wins with 30-50%. Overall, the I3 is the clear winner for general use PC with some gaming and some more heavy CPU use. If you are doing encoding or 2D or 3D rendering and etc. for the majority of your usage - the 8320 pulls ahead slightly.
 
Solution

HardwareExtreme

Honorable
Jan 5, 2016
261
2
10,865
Check this: http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-6100-vs-AMD-FX-8320/3511vs1983
The FX 8320 CRUSHES the i3 in multithreaded applications, such as rendering. However, the i3 CRUSHES the FX in single-threaded applications. It depends on what you are doing. The FX also can overclock, but is older, and uses slower DDR3 1600Mhz RAM, whereas the i3 uses newer and faster DDR4 ram.
Annnd on CPU-World: http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/354/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8320_vs_Intel_Core_i3_i3-6100.html
And shneiky, the FX is only 6% worse in quad core situations, not 30-50%. Get your facts straight.
 

Shneiky

Distinguished
@HardwareExtreme

The FX 8320 really IS 30-50% slower in 4 threaded applications. You are mistaking quad core with quad thread. The I3 is 2 cores - 4 threads. The FX is 4 modules - 8 threads.

The FX 8320 is an OCTA threaded CPU. Using 4 threads will only use 50% of the FXs resources. Get your facts straight and please don't resurrect already dead threads.

Also, both websites you posted are purely theoretical - going by the specification sheet. This things do not work this way. I was making a summary of real life reviews and benchmarks.
 

HardwareExtreme

Honorable
Jan 5, 2016
261
2
10,865
As Tem B said, give us proof! You can't just expect everyone to believe what you say by mouth. Give us the benchmarks. And, BTW, UserBenchmark is made from people giving REAL benchmarks, not based off of a spec sheet.