Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Fx 4300 vs i3 3220

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 24, 2012 3:31:16 AM

Well, according to Anandtech, (http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/700?vs=677) the 2 processors are very similar in a dozens of tests, and both cost almost the same (but the intel mobos are a bit more expensive), HOWEVER, there are no tests to compare those 2 processors in gaming, and power consumption is no big deal to me, so the question is:

Should I buy a i3 3220 with and inferior motherboard?

Or should I buy a fx 4300 with a better board BUT not knowing how it compares to the i3 3220 in gaming?



I'm going to use the processor for:

Internet
Gaming
Movies
Matlab
general stuff (burning DVDs, office, Language learning software, etc)


Thanks for your advice.

More about : 4300 3220

a c 185 à CPUs
October 24, 2012 3:42:36 AM

Depends on what games you play.
Score
0
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a c 146 à CPUs
October 24, 2012 3:44:01 AM

I'm still not impressed with Piledriver. Yes it's better than the Bulldozer but to sum it up they improved on the per core performance, it's still weak in comparison to Intel's per core performance. In heavily threaded programs it's "8 cores" allowed it to beat quad core CPU that don't have hyperthreading but still lost to quad cores with hyperthreading. I would still go with the I3.
Score
0
October 24, 2012 3:57:05 AM

I play games like: Shogun 2, dead space 2, crysis 2, modern warfare, Dirt 3, CS:GO, etc.


Oh, and by the way, the website I gave you shows 2 games, Skyrim and Diablo 3, both under Windows 8, and the FX 4300 performs better than the i3 3220 in both (190 vs 185 fps, and 209.9 vs 193.5 fps respectively)...

Are THOSE 2 GAMES representative of the general gaming performance I would archive??? because my biggest doubt is gaming...
Score
0
a c 185 à CPUs
October 24, 2012 4:00:18 AM

Grab the i3....the upgrade path is beautiful.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 24, 2012 4:00:38 AM

i would go for a i3 than fx 4300
Score
0
a c 146 à CPUs
October 24, 2012 4:01:00 AM

If your main purpose is gaming I would go with Intel. Games are for the most part single threaded and as mentioned above Intel CPU's are still way ahead in single threaded programs. What is your budget like?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 24, 2012 4:01:34 AM

on toms test, the FX-4170 plays near the i3-3220 at a higher power consumptiong and only a tad bit less effective. I would assume the Fx-4300 will perform better(but again must be overclocked and consumes more power). Though its really hard for me to recommend the FX-4300, because the FX-6300 is litterally only 10$ away, and serves as a middle man between the dual and a "true" quad core. being a 6 integer core(3 and then someish) core for that 10$ difference.


imo between the 2,

4300/6300 has a better raw performance in gaming vs the i3 by a margin. the i3 has a better upgrade path(albeit dead mobo) assuming that the future steamroller(assuning am3+ ender) has caught up to intels single threaded application speeds.(which is the sole reason why AMD is losing a bit of sales, as a majority of games are single threaded)
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 24, 2012 4:06:43 AM

julianbautista87 said:
Well, according to Anandtech, (http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/700?vs=677) the 2 processors are very similar in a dozens of tests, and both cost almost the same (but the intel mobos are a bit more expensive), HOWEVER, there are no tests to compare those 2 processors in gaming, and power consumption is no big deal to me, so the question is:

Should I buy a i3 3220 with and inferior motherboard?

Or should I buy a fx 4300 with a better board BUT not knowing how it compares to the i3 3220 in gaming?



I'm going to use the processor for:

Internet
Gaming
Movies
Matlab
general stuff (burning DVDs, office, Language learning software, etc)


Thanks for your advice.


If power consumption isn't a factor, then there is no reason to get the i3. Simply put, the 4300 is stronger!
Score
0
October 24, 2012 4:07:34 AM

you didn't answer my question... the anandtech cpu compare bench shows 2 games, Skyrim and Diablo 3, both under Windows 8, and the FX 4300 performs better than the i3 3220 in both (190 vs 185 fps, and 209.9 vs 193.5 fps respectively)...

Are THOSE 2 GAMES representative of the general gaming performance I would archive???
Score
0
October 24, 2012 4:07:40 AM

The FX-4300 consumes more power and performs about the same. Plus, if you buy an i3, you can upgrade to the i5, which completely wipes the floor with the FX processors.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 24, 2012 4:09:36 AM

yea i think u will get performce off the i3 cpu
Score
0
October 24, 2012 4:09:47 AM

julianbautista87 said:
you didn't answer my question... the anandtech cpu compare bench shows 2 games, Skyrim and Diablo 3, both under Windows 8, and the FX 4300 performs better than the i3 3220 in both (190 vs 185 fps, and 209.9 vs 193.5 fps respectively)...

Are THOSE 2 GAMES representative of the general gaming performance I would archive???


It depends on the game.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 24, 2012 4:14:22 AM

julianbautista87 said:
you didn't answer my question... the anandtech cpu compare bench shows 2 games, Skyrim and Diablo 3, both under Windows 8, and the FX 4300 performs better than the i3 3220 in both (190 vs 185 fps, and 209.9 vs 193.5 fps respectively)...

Are THOSE 2 GAMES representative of the general gaming performance I would archive???



with the knowlege the the 4300 when overclocked should be better than the 4170 then use the direct bench comparisons from the

Fx-4170 vs i3-3220 and compare simply by adding a bit more onto the 4170
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 24, 2012 4:19:00 AM

so u think a 4300 cpu can bet a i3 when its oc
Score
0
October 24, 2012 4:21:00 AM

get the 4300
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 24, 2012 4:21:28 AM

barring power consumption, I would believe its a better all arounder once you include games that may use more than 2 cores. They are similar in performance in the end(which is why i kinda brought up the 6300 as well) as its like a middleman between dual and quad core.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 24, 2012 4:23:52 AM

so the fx 4300 oc to 4.8ghz is better than an i3
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 24, 2012 4:27:18 AM

if a FX-4170(4.2 ghz) is is a tiny bit less than an i3-3220(3.3 ghz). With the subtle improvements on single threaded apps and overall jump in performance from Bulldozer to Vishera, I can assume that a FX-4300 clocked at least at 4.2 ghz will be equal or surpass the i3-3220 in my opinion. of corse it can go higher, as 4.2 is pretty low for fx chips.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 24, 2012 4:29:19 AM

The 4300 is better than the i3 if you don't care about power consumption. In general its a bit faster especially if its OC'ed. It really depends on the game which cpu is faster but skyrim and sc2 are generally the most basic games and performance should line up with those 2.

In the other games you listed, you are going to be limited by your gpu most likely so there really is no difference.
Score
0
a c 185 à CPUs
October 24, 2012 4:38:30 AM

skitz9417 said:
so the fx 4300 oc to 4.8ghz is better than an i3

Bit pointless when you have to overclock just to outperform something at stock....
Score
0
a c 146 à CPUs
October 24, 2012 4:41:43 AM

amuffin said:
Bit pointless when you have to overclock just to outperform something at stock....


Exactly what I was thinkning.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 24, 2012 4:43:51 AM

amuffin said:
Bit pointless when you have to overclock just to outperform something at stock....



you know, if intel would have made a i3-k processor, decisions would be a lot more easy on budget building.
Score
0
a c 283 à CPUs
October 24, 2012 4:46:40 AM

dudewitbow said:
you know, if intel would have made a i3-k processor, decisions would be a lot more easy on budget building.


Yes, and the reason there isn't an i3 K is because that would hurt their own sales of the i5 K's, lol. I'm sure there are more reasons, but that's the one that I would believe the most.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 24, 2012 4:47:56 AM

DJDeCiBeL said:
Yes, and the reason there isn't an i3 K is because that would hurt their own sales of the i5 K's, lol. I'm sure there are more reasons, but that's the one that I would believe the most.



yeah, that's the sole reason why i assumed they didn't make an i3k processor. if one existed though, you can almost ensure an intel monopolization. on basically all sectors, and would be competing against themselves.
Score
0
a c 146 à CPUs
October 24, 2012 4:48:40 AM

dudewitbow said:
you know, if intel would have made a i3-k processor, decisions would be a lot more easy on budget building.


Why would they do that, that would be stupid because then no one would buy the I5 2500k.
Score
0
October 24, 2012 4:50:01 AM

if you are getting a cheap mobo anyway then get the i3.
you can never OC with a cheap mobo.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 24, 2012 4:51:23 AM

rds1220 said:
Why would they do that, that would be stupid because then no one would buy the I5 2500k.



cant really say "no one". even if it could overclock, there is still a limit to how far dual cores can go. It would kill off the low end i5 non k series processors though. Though it brings up a question that i always have wondered is teh Xeon vs non k series i7 chips. Xeons are basically i5 chips with hyperthreading(at the ~250$ mark) and no igpu, but is still significantly cheaper than non k i7 chips(3770 goes for like ~300$). by this logic, a Phenom Dual core is equal to a phenom quad core.(which isnt true) even if the dual core can be overclocked.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 24, 2012 8:35:24 AM

i3-3220 + cheap H61 or H67 mobo is better alternative than fx-4300 when both are at stock.
performance at stock is what matters because admit it very few people actually care to overclock.
in fact the pentium G2120 is a better than i3-3220 its much cheaper and you only lose hyperthreading and 200mhz so gaming performance is almost identcal.
so with that money buy a better H77 mobo and a better gpu.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 24, 2012 9:13:27 AM

I'd take the FX chip here its cheap and it actually performs reasonably well. Sit in on a decent 990 or 970 chipset motherboard and you should be happy.

Upgrade paths are horsecr@p I doubt you will buy a cheap board and an i3 then buy an i5 in the next 6 months (after that there's a new Intel socket so its irrelevent). Equally the AMD upgrade path is not confirmed so it's nothing for anyone to bang on their drums over.

The skyrim bench is a good indicator it's CPU heavy and the FX pulls ahead of the i3 there at stock so OC'd we can assume it will draw a decent lead. Also rememeber those tests are done with top shelf GPU's I guess as you're on a budget you will have mid-shelf GPU at best in which case with most games being GPU bound either CPU is actually going to perform in the same ballpark making all this irrelevent and the best advice to be given is go with whats the cheapest and most featured.
Score
0
October 24, 2012 9:53:45 AM

FX 6300 and core i3-3220 have the same performance in games but fx 6300 is able to match the performance of the core i5-3570k in highly multithreaded programs like 7zip
core i5-3570k vs fx 6300 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/699?vs=701
core i3-2100 vs fx 6300 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/699?vs=289
anandtech doesn't have benchmarks in games for i3-3220 on windows 7 and it's not important because it's just 200mhz higher clocked than i3-2100.
EDIT:in addition,FX 4300 come with 4mb L3 cache when FX 6300 come with 8mb L3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_%28microarchitec... .
i also suggest this msi 970 motherboard for 70$ http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Score
0

Best solution

October 24, 2012 11:15:11 AM

Why would you buy a dual core now when you can get a similar-performing triple+ core (or 6 if you count the same way as AMD) FX6300 for similar price? Even the 4300 is better as it is a partial 4-core.

People are plain wrong when they say games are single threaded. Most games use 2 cores (Crysis from years ago maxed out 2 cores) and a large number of recent games use 3 or more. There's only one way app and game development will go in the future and that is more parallelism. Buying a dual core handicaps you for the future. They are fine for general browsing/app usage but will very quickly become outmoded for games.
Share
October 24, 2012 12:42:39 PM

the FX 4300 & FX 6300 will be better especially since they can oc very easy
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 24, 2012 2:04:43 PM

fx-6300 being even more future proof.
Score
0
a c 78 à CPUs
October 24, 2012 2:28:59 PM

Intel is going to have to consider lowering the price of the i3 or make a k version, thnks to the new FX offerings and their price/performance ratio.

If I'm reading the benches right, a stock piledriver can go toe to toe with an i3, but the FX can be overclocked and leave the i3 behind.

I saw someone say it's bad when a chip "has to be overclocked", well intel may find that it's bad when you can't be overclocked and your new competition can.
Score
0
October 24, 2012 2:32:54 PM

+1 to the 6300. I wouldn't even consider buying a dual-core at this point despite the current benchmarks unless it was for a pc that was primarily used for just normal internet stuff.

Yes if you bought the i3 you could later upgrade to an i5 of the same socket, but do you want to have to do that just to be more future proof? I personally wouldn't want to.
Score
0
a c 146 à CPUs
October 24, 2012 3:56:39 PM

SteveH3671 said:
Why would you buy a dual core now when you can get a similar-performing triple+ core (or 6 if you count the same way as AMD) FX6300 for similar price? Even the 4300 is better as it is a partial 4-core.

People are plain wrong when they say games are single threaded. Most games use 2 cores (Crysis from years ago maxed out 2 cores) and a large number of recent games use 3 or more. There's only one way app and game development will go in the future and that is more parallelism. Buying a dual core handicaps you for the future. They are fine for general browsing/app usage but will very quickly become outmoded for games.


So your whole point is the typical "more coresz is better" argument. First of all few games are mutli threaded most are still single threaded. That is why Intel does so much better with games than Bulldozer. Intel CPU's are alot faster and more efficient in single threaded programs over Bulldozer. Secondly more cores isn't better. It all comes down to the micro architecture and the fact is that while the Pile driver is better than the Bulldozer Intel CPU's are still faster and more efficient at lower clock speeds and less cores.
Now for the last part. A dual core CPU will not handicap gaming performance right now and by the time it does the Sandy Bridges and Ivy Bridges I3 will long be obsolete. There is no such thing as future proofing and I think that is what you are trying to get at. The fact is that while games are moving towards being more CPU demanding we aren't at that point yet and when we do hit that point it won't really matter because all of todays CPU's will be old and out of date. Another thing I'm getting sick of seeing here on the forum is people telling people to get a quad core CPU because the I3 can't handle BF3. The I3 can handle pretty much all games just fine, in most cases better than AMD CPU's. BF3 is just one game and the ONLY time it MIGHT run into problems is in multi player games on 64 player maps with insane settings on. Even then demanding games won't completely smother any recent intel dual core in any meaningful way.
Score
0
October 24, 2012 4:09:06 PM

+1 for FX-6300
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 24, 2012 4:19:08 PM

no possibility of saving up a abit extra & going for an i5? perhaps live without beer & cheese for a couple weeks & be happy that you have the best available :) 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 24, 2012 5:46:21 PM

Look at it this way
FX4300 - Good enough but no decent upgrade options(highest you can go will be a 8350)
i3 - Good enough too but lots of high performance upgrades on the same socket(you can go as high as a 3770k)
Score
0
October 25, 2012 1:04:20 AM

get a FX-6300, and AMD could support AM3+ past Steamroller, which would be awesome for any AM3+ socket users.
Score
0
a c 283 à CPUs
October 25, 2012 1:09:59 AM

BeastLeeX said:
get a FX-6300, and AMD could support AM3+ past Steamroller, which would be awesome for any AM3+ socket users.


I've read rumors that say that AMD may not even produce non-APU's after Steamroller, so we'll see if that's even something that matters. I think AM3+ is 2 or 3 and done.

My own gut feeling is that AMD is done with non-APU CPU's after Steamroller (hell, they may not even release Steamroller. It's on the road map, but so are other CPU's after it that I'm nearly positive will never be produced).

AMD's bell cow now is APU's and that's what they need to focus on. That, of course, means saying goodbye to AM3+.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2012 1:24:18 AM

DJDeCiBeL said:
I've read rumors that say that AMD may not even produce non-APU's after Steamroller, so we'll see if that's even something that matters. I think AM3+ is 2 or 3 and done.

My own gut feeling is that AMD is done with non-APU CPU's after Steamroller (hell, they may not even release Steamroller. It's on the road map, but so are other CPU's after it that I'm nearly positive will never be produced).

AMD's bell cow now is APU's and that's what they need to focus on. That, of course, means saying goodbye to AM3+.

AMD said it will support AM3+ for at least another generation so steamroller and possibly excavator would be AM3+ compatible.
Score
0
a c 283 à CPUs
October 25, 2012 1:37:54 AM

esrever said:
AMD said it will support AM3+ for at least another generation so steamroller and possibly excavator would be AM3+ compatible.


Looking at the updated road map rumors, Excavator seems to be that last dying gasp for non-APU CPU's. Whether it actually will be on AM3+ , who knows? I suppose it wouldn't make much sense to have a single gen socket, but they did it with FM1, so it's absolutely possible.

My own personal thoughts on it are that they shouldn't even produce Excavator. It just doesn't need to exist. APU's are where they need to spend their time and money in development.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2012 2:28:25 AM

DJDeCiBeL said:
Looking at the updated road map rumors, Excavator seems to be that last dying gasp for non-APU CPU's. Whether it actually will be on AM3+ , who knows? I suppose it wouldn't make much sense to have a single gen socket, but they did it with FM1, so it's absolutely possible.

My own personal thoughts on it are that they shouldn't even produce Excavator. It just doesn't need to exist. APU's are where they need to spend their time and money in development.

there hasn't been any roadmaps beyond excavator. Very unlikely AM3+ will last until after excavator either way due to the need for a new platform for ddr4. And there will be a unified socket eventually for APUs and CPUs but it will come after steamroller and maybe excavator.
Score
0
a c 283 à CPUs
October 25, 2012 2:39:35 AM

esrever said:
And there will be a unified socket eventually for APUs and CPUs but it will come after steamroller and maybe excavator.


Maybe, but I just think it's stupid of AMD to even continue with CPU's after Steamroller and/or Excavator.

Intel already has transitioned with their mainstream parts (read not Xeon's or Extreme's), so there's not much reason for AMD not to. APU's are the future, not CPU's. Intel may have weaker iGPU's, but they're on the right track, and AMD is too with their APU's. Continuing with CPU's just doesn't make much sense.

And the DDR4 part is why I don't think Excavator will be AM3+. I would hope DDR4 is viable by 2014, and if it is, it would be stupid of AMD not to utilize it.
Score
0
a c 78 à CPUs
October 25, 2012 2:57:39 AM

amuffin said:
Grab the i3....the upgrade path is beautiful.

The upgrade path is a dead end. Haswell=LGA1150 next year. And if you find yourself needing to upgrade your CPU in less than a year, you didn't buy the right one to begin with.

My vote is the FX-4300.. As far as the debate I glanced at (to be fair I didn't read the whole thread, but I saw a couple people talking about it).. If Intel wants to charge a $230 premium for overclocking, thats there business. Maybe its a good idea in the grand scheme of things not to make the i3s in K models, but I as a consumer resent the limitation. I'm a natural tinkerer, its a feature I want. I'm a Gemini, and I was one of those kids who drove my parents crazy taking all my toys apart to see how they worked. They can't have my business.
Score
0
a c 78 à CPUs
October 25, 2012 3:04:33 AM

rds1220 said:
Why would they do that, that would be stupid because then no one would buy the I5 2500k.


I don't buy that excuse. Its not like theres 10 companies making CPUs out there for desktops, and each and every one of them have to compete to get a foothold in the market, computers are not going anywhere. Theres 2 of them, and as we all know, Intel has no serious competition from AMD being that they outsell them 5 to 1, and AMD is on the verge of bankruptcy. Its not like Intel can't afford to give people the feature at a lower cost. Its typical corporate greed, call it for what it is, stop ignoring the rhinoceros in the room.
Score
0
a c 283 à CPUs
October 25, 2012 3:10:43 AM

nekulturny said:
I'm a Gemini, and I was one of those kids who drove my parents crazy taking all my toys apart to see how they worked.


Fellow Gemini :)  And I was the same way :lol: 
Score
0
!