Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

AMD CPU's vs Intel i3 530

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 19, 2012 10:35:43 AM

Are the AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE and FX 6200 better than the intel i3 530 in general?

More about : amd cpu intel 530

a b à CPUs
October 19, 2012 10:47:36 AM

I would say yes, because the clock speeds are higher than the i-3 and there are more cores.
m
0
l
October 19, 2012 10:49:26 AM

Lazar_99 said:
Are the AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE and FX 6200 better than the intel i3 530 in general?


The most current cpu hierarchy chart on Tom's shows these cpus will perform about the same. The ribbon at the top of the home page ha the whole article.
m
0
l
Related resources

Best solution

a b à CPUs
October 19, 2012 10:53:28 AM

Eh? The i3 2100 is on par with the 965 BE in games, but the 965 takes the lead by a good margin on applications that utilize multithreading.

The i3 530? I'd say the 965 eats it.
Share
October 19, 2012 10:53:31 AM

egilbe said:
I would say yes, because the clock speeds are higher than the i-3 and there are more cores.


In most comparisons between intel and amd they say that the amd does have higher clock speeds and core count ... but that the intel chips are more efficient. So it isn't always obvious who the winner is.

At the lower end intel pentium cpus are faster than most all of the amd chips at stock speeds. Maybe new amd chips will offer options ... there is a recent comparison on Tom's worth reading.
m
0
l
October 19, 2012 10:54:33 AM

MajinCry said:
Eh? The i3 2100 is on par with the 965 BE in games, but the 965 takes the lead by a good margin on applications that utilize multithreading.

The i3 530? I'd say the 965 eats it.


So what you use a pc for matters ... Tom's always points out that comparisons are for gaming, not general use.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 19, 2012 11:14:32 AM

The AMD Phenom is quite a bit better than the i3. It outperforms it both for gaming and for pretty much everything else.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2012 11:17:21 AM

The i3-530 is older architecture, too. It's not as efficient as the newer i3's
m
0
l
October 19, 2012 11:22:48 AM

What about the FX 6200? is it better than the 965
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2012 11:27:18 AM

Depends on the use. Video editing, yes, gaming, not so much.
m
0
l
October 19, 2012 11:43:11 AM

egilbe said:
Depends on the use. Video editing, yes, gaming, not so much.


Lets say gaming and recording with fraps. Which would be better?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 19, 2012 12:35:20 PM

965BE
m
0
l
October 19, 2012 1:03:29 PM

egilbe said:
965BE


I just hope the piledriver chips won't be a disappointment like the bulldozer chips were
m
0
l
October 19, 2012 3:28:57 PM

Kamen_BG said:
The AMD Phenom is quite a bit better than the i3. It outperforms it both for gaming and for pretty much everything else.


The current cpu hierarchy chart shows that the i3-2100 (the cheapest "full power") is better than any currently available AMD cpus.

Is the chart wrong???
m
0
l
October 19, 2012 3:33:05 PM

jrau said:
The current cpu hierarchy chart shows that the i3-2100 (the cheapest "full power") is better than any currently available AMD cpus.

Is the chart wrong???


If its about gaming then the chart is wrong
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 19, 2012 4:04:35 PM

Well... it wouldn't call it wrong because the Phenom II X4 965 can be slower than a Core i3 in some games.And since the review they did on tomshardware used a lot of those games, the Phenom II X4 was outperformed even by Intel's Pentiums.
But not all games are like that.There are some games that favour the Phenom and some that work faster on a Core i3 instead.

Here's a link comparing lots of processors at realistic gaming scenarios.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/radeon_hd_7970_cpu...

Note that the Core i3 661 is about as fast as the Core i3 2100.Sometimes a bit slower, sometimes a bit faster.
m
0
l
October 19, 2012 4:20:56 PM

Kamen_BG said:
Well... it wouldn't call it wrong because the Phenom II X4 965 can be slower than a Core i3 in some games.And since the review they did on tomshardware used a lot of those games, the Phenom II X4 was outperformed even by Intel's Pentiums.
But not all games are like that.There are some games that favour the Phenom and some that work faster on a Core i3 instead.

Here's a link comparing lots of processors at realistic gaming scenarios.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/radeon_hd_7970_cpu...

Note that the Core i3 661 is about as fast as the Core i3 2100.Sometimes a bit slower, sometimes a bit faster.


I never heard of a i3 661. xDD You probably meant the i5 661 :D 
m
0
l
October 20, 2012 8:16:40 PM

Kamen_BG said:
Well... it wouldn't call it wrong because the Phenom II X4 965 can be slower than a Core i3 in some games.And since the review they did on tomshardware used a lot of those games, the Phenom II X4 was outperformed even by Intel's Pentiums.
But not all games are like that.There are some games that favour the Phenom and some that work faster on a Core i3 instead.

Here's a link comparing lots of processors at realistic gaming scenarios.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/radeon_hd_7970_cpu...

Note that the Core i3 661 is about as fast as the Core i3 2100.Sometimes a bit slower, sometimes a bit faster.


So a year old article that doesn't test any of the three cpus in question shows proves the point?

Here is an article on Tom's that benchmarks a bunch of cpus ... it shows the i3-2100 besting all the amd chips ... http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a... ... comparing the i3-2100 to the i3-530 (one or two generations older tech) on cpu world shows the i3-530 to be slower in a lot of things.

Unless you have all three cpus in hand and are thinking about building a pc with one of them they don't seem to make a lot of sense.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 20, 2012 9:17:56 PM

Just thought I'd throw this in here.

There are games that are faster on, say, a Pentium 4 than the i3 2100. Example? Rome Total War, off the top of my head.
m
0
l
October 20, 2012 9:32:08 PM

jrau said:
So a year old article that doesn't test any of the three cpus in question shows proves the point?

Here is an article on Tom's that benchmarks a bunch of cpus ... it shows the i3-2100 besting all the amd chips ... http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a... ... comparing the i3-2100 to the i3-530 (one or two generations older tech) on cpu world shows the i3-530 to be slower in a lot of things.

Unless you have all three cpus in hand and are thinking about building a pc with one of them they don't seem to make a lot of sense.


Average yes because there aren't many games that use more than 2 cores, but i bet in games where you need more than 2 cores AMD quad core phenoms would eat the i3 2100. The i3 is only better in games where you don't need more than 2 cores. If the i5-2400 beats the AMD chips then that's a humiliation.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 20, 2012 10:10:57 PM

you can overclock the 965BE and you can't the i3's.
m
0
l
October 21, 2012 9:41:23 PM

Lazar_99 said:
Average yes because there aren't many games that use more than 2 cores, but i bet in games where you need more than 2 cores AMD quad core phenoms would eat the i3 2100. The i3 is only better in games where you don't need more than 2 cores. If the i5-2400 beats the AMD chips then that's a humiliation.


Are there games that use more than two cores?
m
0
l
October 21, 2012 9:51:29 PM

jrau said:
Are there games that use more than two cores?


Yes. Battlefield 3 for example...
m
0
l
October 21, 2012 10:55:44 PM

Best answer selected by lazar_99.
m
0
l
!