Intel core i3 6100 or AMD fx 6300?
- Thread starter Jack_67
- Start date
Th3-Hunter333
Reputable
- Dec 15, 2014
- 508
- 0
- 5,060
You seeing better benchmarks on the i3 because of its much greater single threaded performance which arma heavily relies on.
Knowing this i say intel all day for arma and other gaming
P.S. I use to own the fx 8350 before i upgraded to my signature below
Knowing this i say intel all day for arma and other gaming
P.S. I use to own the fx 8350 before i upgraded to my signature below
diegoneedhelp
Reputable
- Jul 24, 2015
- 182
- 0
- 4,710
Well, this is a hard one. Its depending on your budget. The fx 6300 is a VERY could CPU for its price. Plus those extra cores helps it with multitasking, but for gaming, i would say both? I would go for the Fx 6300 just cuz im a AMD fanboy, but sincerely the i3 should be better with gaming.
So here is what i would do. The cpu's dont help A TON in gaming. They do the part, but they dont do as much as the GPU. Go for the FX 6300, and waste a hell lot of money on the GPU, this way you will have a GREAT gaming experience. I dont think a high end GPU should "bottleneck" the fx 6300. IDK this is my opinion.
Hope this helped
So here is what i would do. The cpu's dont help A TON in gaming. They do the part, but they dont do as much as the GPU. Go for the FX 6300, and waste a hell lot of money on the GPU, this way you will have a GREAT gaming experience. I dont think a high end GPU should "bottleneck" the fx 6300. IDK this is my opinion.
Hope this helped
dudeman509
Dignified
- Jan 23, 2015
- 4,077
- 35
- 17,040
Arma 3 runs like crap on AMD machines. Well, Arma 3 runs like crap on any machine, but does slightly better on Intel chips with high single-core performance.
Most other games are coded better and run fairly well on the AMD CPUs.
Most other games are coded better and run fairly well on the AMD CPUs.
The i3-6100 is superior, and can be overclocked with an AsRock Z170 board. On the AMD side, you should only be looking at the 8320e at this point. But for compute intensive games like ARMA 3, any Intel i3 or beyond will perform significantly better than an AMD system.
The CPU is THE determining factor for performance in games, especially in compute intensive large scale multiplayer games with variable real-time workloads. The GPU just determines how much or how little you can crank up the visual quality settings. The majority of the OP's money should be put into the CPU.
Mrcrazed
Reputable
- Jul 6, 2015
- 442
- 2
- 4,860
Okay, let me clarify what I said before. The intel cpu will have better performance than the amd cpu, out of the box, nothing done to it. You do not buy an amd cpu unless you plan to overclock it. you just don't. The thing about amd cpus, is they all come under clocked. I don't know why amd does this, but they just do. an amd cpu will have better performance than a intel cpu if you overclock it with an aftermarket air cooler. but again, if you're not into that sort of thing, go for intel.
diegoneedhelp
Reputable
- Jul 24, 2015
- 182
- 0
- 4,710
Nope, http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2318337/gaming-gpu-important-cpu.html
The gpu is MORE important then the cpu when talking about gaming....
dudeman509
Dignified
- Jan 23, 2015
- 4,077
- 35
- 17,040
Total misinformation.
An i5-2500k and the like can still max out most GPUs on the market today. CPU performance matters, but not as much as GPU performance in MOST games.
dudeman509
Dignified
- Jan 23, 2015
- 4,077
- 35
- 17,040
Overclocking an FX-6300 will, at best, allow it to match the performance of an Intel i3 or low-end i5. Again, at best. Even when overclocked, it will still generate lower framerates in many games.
Framerate is determined by the CPU. My FX-6300 was capable of averaging around 65-75 fps in Battlefield 3 and 4 (with dips into the 40's), even when all visual quality settings were set to low with my AMD 7950. Then I got a 4770k, and was able to achieve an average of 110 fps with the same settings. Why? Because the CPU determines the performance floor in CPU intensive games like large multiplayer first person shooters. Even with a GTX 980 and everything set to low, the FX-6300 is still only capable of a certain fps minimum/average/maximum in each game. A larger GPU CANNOT raise the performance floor, but only your ability to run at higher visual quality settings with the same fps minimum/average/maximum determined by your CPU. So if you want to run ARMA at ~45fps on ULTRA settings, spend more on a GPU and less on the CPU. If however, you want to run ARMA at ~75 fps on medium settings, spend more on the CPU. I would personally way rather play at higher fps on medium visual quality settings than chug along and have everything look pretty.
Yeah those guys are all wrong.
To quote Allan M Systems (mdocod):
"Actually it's the other way around. The GPU plays the supporting role. Just because the GPU is often the device with a heavier load does not mean it is leading the operation. Every single frame that is drawn to screen originates with the CPU, and is sent to the GPU with instructions for render operations. The GPU does not run the game engine, the GPU does not call the shots. The hard bound performance floor originates with the CPU, not the GPU."
dudeman509
Dignified
- Jan 23, 2015
- 4,077
- 35
- 17,040
If you are running the typical 60 Hz monitor rather than 120/144, anything over 60 FPS doesn't really matter. If you're gaming on a 60 Hz monitor, the AMD CPUs will be ok in 97% of games, with exceptions like ARMA, DayZ, and probably some others that I can't think of at the moment.
All depends on your preference. Personally, my eyes can tell no difference between 60 and 60+ FPS, so I'd go for the eye candy. Yes, the CPU is usually the limiting factor at low textures/resolutions, and the GPU at higher resolutions/textures.
All depends on your preference. Personally, my eyes can tell no difference between 60 and 60+ FPS, so I'd go for the eye candy. Yes, the CPU is usually the limiting factor at low textures/resolutions, and the GPU at higher resolutions/textures.
The GPU only limits performance when you make it limit performance by setting the visual quality too high for your GPU to handle reasonably. Almost everyone I know will adjust the visual quality until they get what they feel are acceptable framerates. On the other hand, there are no settings you can adjust to make up for a CPU that doesn't meet your performance goals. All you can do is play a different game or buy a different CPU.
And yes, you will not notice anything more than 60fps if your monitor's refresh rate is 60hz. HOWEVER, framerate varies wildly throughout gameplay, and hardware and settings that allow you to average around 60fps will also have you dipping well below that at different periods while gaming. As I experienced with my FX-6300 in Battlefield 3 and 4, I would average around 65-70fps, but when a lot of crap was going on in a map, I would dip into the 40's. Now that I average over 100fps, I still have dips, but those dips never drop me below the monitor's refresh rate. Those FX-6300 dips caused me to lose a lot of close quarters battles in Battlefield as I would start to dip and stutter exactly when I needed smooth, high framerates.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question Help in troubleshooting possible graphics card issue?
- Started by nort99
- Replies: 5
-
Question RX 6600 visual glitches right after upgrading to it- Started by Wamek
- Replies: 4
-
News US sanctions transform China into legacy chip production juggernaut — production jumped 40% in Q1 2024- Started by Admin
- Replies: 35
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram