Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I3 3220 vs FX 6300

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 7, 2012 5:23:55 PM

I am just wondering why everyone suggests the i3 3220 for budget PC builds. The FX 6300 is the same price, pretty much matches the single threaded performance and dominates it in multi threaded, and can be overclocked. Is there something I am missing? or why would you even consider an i3 if your building from scratch?

More about : 3220 6300

a c 141 à CPUs
November 7, 2012 7:10:38 PM

One consideration that many take into account with the i3 recommendation is that you always upgrade the same system to a much more capable i5 or i7 system by only changing the CPU.

With the AMD route, even going to the highest end FX CPU can't keep up in terms of raw performance as compared to the possibility of eventually going with a future i5/i7 plan.

Regardless, the FX-6300 is a very good CPU and will exceed the needs of many users. It is a solid choice for many.
m
0
l
November 7, 2012 7:45:53 PM

COLGeek said:
One consideration that many take into account with the i3 recommendation is that you always upgrade the same system to a much more capable i5 or i7 system by only changing the CPU.

With the AMD route, even going to the highest end FX CPU can't keep up in terms of raw performance as compared to the possibility of eventually going with a future i5/i7 plan.

Regardless, the FX-6300 is a very good CPU and will exceed the needs of many users. It is a solid choice for many.


Yes but if you were to go with the FX 6300 you would have an AM3+ motherboard that supports Steamroller, possibly even better than the i5's and i7's.
m
0
l
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
November 7, 2012 8:00:21 PM

sheepsnowadays said:
Yes but if you were to go with the FX 6300 you would have an AM3+ motherboard that supports Steamroller, possibly even better than the i5's and i7's.


^agreed
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2012 8:19:38 PM

But can we safely say whether or not steamroller will be anywhere remotely close in performance as ivy bridge or sandy bridge i5 and i7's chances are no it will not be.
m
0
l
November 7, 2012 8:33:59 PM

Steamroller might be better than ivy i5's, but then we have Haswell. 3 years later AMD finally is starting to catch up with Intel Sandy Bridge.
m
0
l
November 7, 2012 8:37:04 PM

Ironslice said:
Steamroller might be better than ivy i5's, but then we have Haswell. 3 years later AMD finally is starting to catch up with Intel Sandy Bridge.


Ya and how many times did you have to upgrade your motherboard? An AM3+ socket supports Athlon, Phenom, Bulldozer, Piledriver, Steamroller, Excavator?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2012 8:37:09 PM

Steamroller is supposed to be a bigger improvement over Piledriver than Piledriver was over Bulldozer and given the great amount of information that we have on the architecture (AMD is being extremely open about what they change in each generation of their modular archs up to Excavator, which is Steamroller's successor and may also be compatible with AM3+ boards), it's extremely likely to be a excellent upgrade path. I'd vote for AM3+ over LGA 1155 as an upgrade path, but that's me. I doubt that LGA 1155 will be a bad path right now, but I do not doubt that it is the inferior path, especially with how new games are getting more and more well-threaded.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2012 8:39:35 PM

Also, for those who care right now, you can take an eight-core FX CPU and make it game as well as any K edition i5. Disable one core per module or at least cut down the P states of one core per module and overclock the CPU/NB frequency (controls L3 cache bandwidth and latency). Then it will be optimized for lightly threaded workloads such as most games instead of the highly threaded optimized *mode* that it's in at stock.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2012 8:56:19 PM

You would need to disable more on a 8 core cpu to make it optimal. 3 cores at the moment is considered to be the sweet spot. And I feel that is a contributing factor to why AMD is losing to Intel is they haven't been able to put out a 4 core competitor to go against the i5's or the i7's. (Which they have pretty much said they are done with the speed wars with intel.)

I hope you guys are right competition is good for intel and they probably would be on haswell if AMD wasn't as behind as they are.

Well see though I won't hold my breath. AMD hasn't had intel by the coat tails since the socket 939 when I started building computers my old AMD Athlon 64 3700+ and FX-55.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2012 9:22:53 PM

bigshootr8 said:
You would need to disable more on a 8 core cpu to make it optimal. 3 cores at the moment is considered to be the sweet spot. And I feel that is a contributing factor to why AMD is losing to Intel is they haven't been able to put out a 4 core competitor to go against the i5's or the i7's. (Which they have pretty much said they are done with the speed wars with intel.)

I hope you guys are right competition is good for intel and they probably would be on haswell if AMD wasn't as behind as they are.

Well see though I won't hold my breath. AMD hasn't had intel by the coat tails since the socket 939 when I started building computers my old AMD Athlon 64 3700+ and FX-55.


You could disable more, but many games nowadays can effectively use four cores, so you'd want to be sure of how well-threaded the games you play are before going further.

Simply doing this by default would have let AMD have a great *four core* competitor. REally, AMD can compete, they're simply not utilizing what they have properly. Doing what I said except having that be the default for their CPUs would make them far more competitive with Intel. I can name other things that they should do such as fix their messed up caches, but even with just the above easy to manually make modifications, you can make an excellent contender out of the three and four module FX CPUs.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2012 9:45:02 PM

Anonymous said:
this is all assuming steamroller will be released in the next year and it just may not be:
AMD Leaked Roadmap Analysis: Prices, Margins And Competitiveness
http://i1000.photobucket.com/albums/af123/colonelsandersPP/amd2013rdmp_dh_2_fx57a.jpg
which will be using another chipset:
AMD 1090FX chipset arrives with SteamRoller

so to infer that an AM3+/990FX motherboard will potentially have a better upgrade path, esp in the near future, than a socket 1155 may not be correct . . . at all.


The new chipset is just another AM3+ chipset. The chipset doesn't matter, all it takes is a BIOS update. For example, many AM3+ boards with support for Bulldozer and Piledriver have very old 700 series chipsets that first appeared on AM2+/AM3 motherboards. Some even older Nvidia chipsets are used on some AM3+ boards and they support Bulldozer and Piledriver. So, yes, 900 series chipsets will support Steamroller. All it takes is a BIOS update and most if not all 900 series chipset boards will receive them.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2012 10:02:43 PM

I think loon's arguement is that the upgrade path for AMD makes less sense if Steamroller comes out after haswell. Because in theory you could wait for haswell and then you are again with a 25% (not a real number but a guess) over amd once again.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2012 10:07:25 PM

bigshootr8 said:
I think loon's arguement is that the upgrade path for AMD makes less sense if Steamroller comes out after haswell. Because in theory you could wait for haswell and then you are again with a 25% (not a real number but a guess) over amd once again.


Haswell uses a new socket that is incompatible with current Intel systems. The only way for it to be relevant for this conversation is if OP doesn't buy anything before Haswell launches later next year. Also, Haswell has been said to be more like only a 15% performance increase over Ivy Bridge according to current information about it, although I can't really estimate how overclocking would change that.

AMD has no such issue whether or not Steamroller is out after Haswell because you can get a cheap AMD system right now and upgrade the CPU later instead of replace the motherboard in addition to the CPU upgrade like you'd need to do with Intel.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2012 10:19:54 PM

I think it comes down to what this poster is after. The guy is after a budget build in which case AMD will be the victor on premise. In terms of bleeding edge until proven otherwise Intel will be the proven victor.

If it takes a more then a year for the next iteration of AMD chips to come out then a couple of questions have to be asked. How much would someone want to pay after buying a cpu then to only upgrade it a year maybe 2 years later.

And the point with haswell is that if you wait long enough you'll never know what you could of had during that time you waited :p 

Its just hard to recommend a platform that has let consumers down for a while now.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2012 10:26:51 PM

bigshootr8 said:
I think it comes down to what this poster is after. The guy is after a budget build in which case AMD will be the victor on premise. In terms of bleeding edge until proven otherwise Intel will be the proven victor.

If it takes a more then a year for the next iteration of AMD chips to come out then a couple of questions have to be asked. How much would someone want to pay after buying a cpu then to only upgrade it a year maybe 2 years later.

And the point with haswell is that if you wait long enough you'll never know what you could of had during that time you waited :p 

Its just hard to recommend a platform that has let consumers down for a while now.


There's nothing wrong with the platform and it has not been letting people down. AMD simply sets their CPUs up improperly for lightly threaded workloads (IDK why they do it, but w/e). I explained how to fix that.

A properly configured FX-81xx CPU or even better, 83xx CPU, should compete excellently with Sandy and Ivy i5s and i7s in stock versus stock and also OC versus OC gaming performance comparisons and it's not even difficult to do.

So, it's not the platform that let anyone down, it's AMD for not setting their CPUs up properly.

Furthermore, waiting for Haswell means waiting for Steamroller too unless you want to make an unfair comparison. At that point, some new games would have launched and many of them would probably be more well-threaded than many of today's games, decreasing the need to properly set up the CPUs yourself anyway.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2012 10:28:37 PM

blazorthon said:
The new chipset is just another AM3+ chipset. The chipset doesn't matter, all it takes is a BIOS update. For example, many AM3+ boards with support for Bulldozer and Piledriver have very old 700 series chipsets that first appeared on AM2+/AM3 motherboards. Some even older Nvidia chipsets are used on some AM3+ boards and they support Bulldozer and Piledriver. So, yes, 900 series chipsets will support Steamroller. All it takes is a BIOS update and most if not all 900 series chipset boards will receive them.

ok, thanks for clearing that up for me and excuse my ignorance.

now trying to be as unbiased as i can, because to be honest i am not impressed with piledriver at all, lets see what i found in a head to head gaming comparison:
AMD Vishera FX-6300 & FX-4300 Review
in a gaming resolutions of 720 and 1080 the lower resolution favors the i3 (yes that is a 3225, the difference is the iGPU)

the higher resolution "evens it up" a bit:

but in dirt the performance favors the 6300:
though this is "even"

big difference here: (it beats my i5! :cry:  )



my point? all in all it is a bit of a tough call between the two (i3-3220 and the 6300) at lower resolutions ( and possibly more cpu intensive games)the i3 will most likely give a bit better performance, but at higher resolutions, the 6300 is a great choice to consider. but gee, lets throw in the MP maps in BF3, huh? :pt1cable: 


did my babbling help the OP any? :??: 

edit: fixed review link.
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
November 7, 2012 10:29:16 PM

blazorthon said:
Also, Haswell has been said to be more like only a 15% performance increase over Ivy Bridge according to current information about it, although I can't really estimate how overclocking would change that.


Something I actually I agree with you on, lol. Actually, I think it'll be even less than 15% over Ivy. I think another 5-10% is more realistic.

IMO, Haswell will be more of a refinement on Ivy than a major change. Broadwell will be the "next big thing" from Intel.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2012 10:32:08 PM

Whatever you want to call it AMD hasn't been the cpu king for a long time and hasn't been able to put themselves in that position whether its a error or not they haven't done it. I'd like them to but even when you eliminate the 4 wasted cores in most cases you don't exactly get all the performance you would think by pushing down to 4 cores.

Until they put out a chip that you can say wow that is neck and neck with intels flagship chip or even slightly better people just won't respect AMD. They will with people pinching pennies for computer builds but we shall wait and see.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2012 10:39:37 PM

sheepsnowadays said:
I am just wondering why everyone suggests the i3 3220 for budget PC builds. The FX 6300 is the same price, pretty much matches the single threaded performance and dominates it in multi threaded, and can be overclocked. Is there something I am missing? or why would you even consider an i3 if your building from scratch?

oh?

look at the rest of them.
System Benchmarks: Single Thread Performance


after further review; did i just bite some troll bait?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2012 10:44:17 PM

Anonymous said:
oh?
http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-6300-FX-4300/FX-6300-FX-4300-44.jpg
look at the rest of them.
System Benchmarks: Single Thread Performance


after further review; did i just bite some troll bait?


Well, synthetic benchmarks are often far from accurate, but I think that you may have bitten some troll bait. No way in hell will any current FX CPU match an i3-3220 in single threaded performance at stock. Some may come close such as the FX-4170, FX-4300, and FX-8350, but they won't match it. Their advantage is simply in multi-threaded performance and cache capacity as far as gaming is concerned. It takes doing my *mod* suggestion and/or overclocking to meet or exceed i3s in single threaded performance with any current AM3+ FX CPU.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2012 10:52:21 PM

sheepsnowadays said:
You can compare benches all day and get conflicting results. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/699?vs=677 - almost matches the i3 in single threaded and destroys it at multi threaded.


It destroys the i3 in threaded performance, but your link clearly shows the i3 winning in single threaded performance.
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
November 7, 2012 10:53:02 PM

This is absolutely a fanboy thread to the core (just dripping with hardcore AMD fanboyism from the OP), but I actually don't completely disagree with the general sentiment of a 6300 over an i3.
m
0
l
a c 141 à CPUs
November 7, 2012 11:07:21 PM

sheepsnowadays said:
Yes but if you were to go with the FX 6300 you would have an AM3+ motherboard that supports Steamroller, possibly even better than the i5's and i7's.

Not necessarily true, future AMD releases may, or may not, stay with the AM3+ socket.

This may have no bearing on this discussion, but socket changes can and do happen. Even Haswell will make socket 1155 systems obsolete soon. It is just part of tech evolution.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2012 11:11:37 PM

COLGeek said:
Not necessarily true, future AMD releases may, or may not, stay with the AM3+ socket.

This may have no bearing on this discussion, but socket changes can and do happen. Even Haswell will make socket 1155 systems obsolete soon. It is just part of tech evolution.


Steamroller will use AM3+. That's a guarantee. Excavator may or may not use it, but probably will or will at least be compatible with it. Remember, socket changes on AMD are different than they are on Intel. AMD often lets new CPUs that have new sockets support the old socket motherboards (IE Phenom II on AM2+ boards and Bulldozer/Piledriver on AM3 boards and so on) unlike Intel's end all with each socket.
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
November 7, 2012 11:23:59 PM

blazorthon said:
Excavator may or may not use it, but probably will or will at least be compatible with it.


I'm thinking not, since I imagine Excavator will use DDR4 (unless they make the IMC compatible with both DDR3 and DDR4, similar to the PII's with DDR2 and DDR3).
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2012 11:27:17 PM

DJDeCiBeL said:
I'm thinking not, since I imagine Excavator will use DDR4 (unless they make the IMC compatible with both DDR3 and DDR4, similar to the PII's with DDR2 and DDR3).


It seems quite likely that they'd do that if Excavator is DDR4-compatible given the information that is currently available.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 7, 2012 11:48:03 PM

hafijur said:
amd are miles behind performance per watt. Probably the biggest in intel and amd history of rivalry. Anyway I would get the i3 but would really be looked at an i5 quad minimum.


Not necessarily. AMD's Trinity can win in performance per watt greatly against its competitors, so AMD isn't losing there. In highly threaded performance per watt, the i3s can't really top the similarly priced FX-6300, so AMD isn't losing there. Disabling four or five cores in the eight core FX models makes them very efficient, especially the Piledriver models and AMD is also more undervolting-friendly. Gain, AMD is screwing up in setting many of their CPUs up properly, but many of their CPUs most certainly do have many more victories to any enthusiast who will set them up properly.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 12:33:56 AM

The 6300 isn't posed to beat out a core i3 its posed against a i5 which if I'm not mistaken presents a no contest in terms of the i5 more specifically 2500k, 3570k. And the 8300 which is more pressed against the i7 which to my knowledge out performs that. i3's are dual cores if you are going to compare them to something compare them to a dual core from AMD.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 12:58:37 AM

sheepsnowadays said:
You can compare benches all day and get conflicting results. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/699?vs=677 - almost matches the i3 in single threaded and destroys it at multi threaded.

well then the million dollar question is, if you knew that already why ask?
:pfff: 
COLGeek said:
Even Haswell will make socket 1155 systems obsolete soon. It is just part of tech evolution.


i am not sure about that much like the 1156 didn't make the 775 obsolete. now keep in mind that the next microarchitecture, broadwell, will adopt the MCP design making the socket 1150 short lived.
much like the FM1 socket (did you see what i did there?)
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 1:08:23 AM

hafijur said:
What I meant was the amd cpu will guzzle through electricity. i5 quad minimum but i3 is far more efficient then the amd fx6300 despite being slightly slower. Theres like 111w difference. i5 3470 is good enough.

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_835...

According to this i5 3470 quad core takes 122w vs fx6300 227w. How embarrassing for amd.


That link says that the FX-4170 uses less power than the FX-6100 and FX-6300... I call BS on that link.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 1:09:50 AM

bigshootr8 said:
The 6300 isn't posed to beat out a core i3 its posed against a i5 which if I'm not mistaken presents a no contest in terms of the i5 more specifically 2500k, 3570k. And the 8300 which is more pressed against the i7 which to my knowledge out performs that. i3's are dual cores if you are going to compare them to something compare them to a dual core from AMD.


Why would I compare a $100-140 Intel dual core to a far cheaper dual-core from AMD? That's not fair at all. AMD has six core CPUs for $110-140, so I will compare them to the i3s all I want because they're in the same budget range.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 4:01:02 AM

bigshootr8 said:
Because you pay a premium for intel where you dont with amd


i3s and many of the four and six core AMD CPUs have similar prices, so they can be compared as options in the same budgets. What premium are you referring to?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 4:09:45 AM

For example the newest AMD chip the fx-8320 its the most expensive amd chip and considered to be there flagship chip is still behind intels top x79 chips and costs quite a bit less.

And AMD prices quads around the price of a i3 yes but they are priced that way so people on a low budget can get a hold of a quad.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 4:41:42 AM

i would get the fx-6300 any day over the i3 if am building from scratch today
thats because i know those extra cores of 6300 are going to come in handy in near future. the fx-6300 just seems more impressive than an i3 to me for a new build
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 4:45:48 AM

Oh don't me wrong I agree if you were having to spend 150 dollars or less a fx 6300 would be a good option otherwise if you could get near 200 I would get a i5 2500k or possibly around black friday and cyber monday getting a 3570 on sale.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 5:39:24 AM

bigshootr8 said:
For example the newest AMD chip the fx-8320 its the most expensive amd chip and considered to be there flagship chip is still behind intels top x79 chips and costs quite a bit less.

And AMD prices quads around the price of a i3 yes but they are priced that way so people on a low budget can get a hold of a quad.


The FX-8350 is AMD's flagship and you're comparing it to what are basically Xeon CPUs with a few features cut down as the top Intel models. That's hardly fair. If you want to play that way, then compare the X79 CPUs at least to some of AMD's Opterons instead of mid-ranged consumer CPUs.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 5:44:11 AM

I'm just painting a picture that if you want bleeding edge Intel is the way to go but that isn't what this guy is after. I feel like I'm wasting my time explaining that AMD isn't in the same league as intel at the moment.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 5:47:14 AM

HEY!

its not right to compare your banana to my pair of grapefruits!

:whistle: 
ok, i had a cup of coffee when i should be going to sleep.
m
0
l
November 8, 2012 6:26:08 AM

blazorthon said:
Also, for those who care right now, you can take an eight-core FX CPU and make it game as well as any K edition i5. Disable one core per module or at least cut down the P states of one core per module and overclock the CPU/NB frequency (controls L3 cache bandwidth and latency). Then it will be optimized for lightly threaded workloads such as most games instead of the highly threaded optimized *mode* that it's in at stock.



Is there any benchmark to support this theory? I'm not sure how cutting down cores will help apart from the fact that AMD shares a single FD unit and FPU between two cores. This seems an odd tactic to me though I'm struggling to find how Intel themselves do things
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 6:30:37 AM

solar1992 said:
Is there any benchmark to support this theory? I'm not sure how cutting down cores will help apart from the fact that AMD shares a single FD unit and FPU between two cores. This seems an odd tactic to me though I'm struggling to find how Intel themselves do things


Each AMD module has a front-end bottle-neck for two cores (for example, each module has a similar x86 decoder configuration to a single Intel core and slightly superior to a single AM3 Sempron/Athlon II/Phenom II core, simply not enough for two cores in each module). Disabling one core lets the remaining core monopolize the entire front end, improving its performance while decreasing power consumption (improving lightly threaded performance up to four threads while decreasing power consumption). Increasing L3 cache bandwidth while decreasing its latency improves gaming performance more than almost any other workload and that's why overclocking the CPU/NB frequency which partially controls these factors is so effective.

Since games are almost all mostly using four or fewer effective threads and the performance per remaining core is raised, gaming performance goes up significantly while power consumption and heat generation goes down, increasing thermal headroom for overclocking too.

I can get proof of concept benchmarks, but not very direct benchmarks for this exact situation.
m
0
l
November 8, 2012 6:42:46 AM

Makes some sense, I'm guessing the performance hit isn't supposed to be significant though or AMD wouldn't have done it
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 7:15:23 AM

solar1992 said:
Makes some sense, I'm guessing the performance hit isn't supposed to be significant though or AMD wouldn't have done it


The performance hit from AMD's front end bottle-neck is about 10-30% and the L3 cache performance hit is even larger. I don't know why AMD did it, but it most certainly doesn't see to be because it was a good idea. That's why AMD is fixing the front end bottle-neck in their next arch, Steamroller, supposedly later next year. I don't think AMD has plans on fixing their L3 cache (when it is a mere fraction of Intel's in performance, there's a serious problem that AMD needs to address).

What's really funny about the cache is that AMD has been licensing some technology that would really help for many years, yet has done nothing with the licensing that they've been paying for, at least nothing productive. For example, AMD has been licensing Z-RAM and TRAM, both excellent replacements for most of the SRAM cache in AMD's CPUs (TRAM would best replace the L2 cache and ZRAM would best replace the L3 cache IMO). TRAM is something like five times denser while being equal in performance while ZRAM is a little slower, but about ten times denser, so AMD could really improve their power efficiency (less area/fewer transistors needed for the cache means less power is consumed by the cache) since they seem intent on keeping high capacity caches (ZRAM's performance issues could be addressed with interleaving and AMD's L3 cache latency is already more than high enough to accommodate ZRAM in such a way without a performance hit).

Basically, AMD could double their cache capacities and improve their performance through increased interleaving and such while cutting their area and transistor needs for the L2 cache in half and the L3 cache in five(more than half of their dies are made up just of the cache, so this could be a huge power efficiency boost for AMD) or keep the same cache capacities and cut the area needed for L2 cache in about five and L3 cache in about ten (perhaps a better alternative for higher power efficiency, but at the cost of a little performance, although that could be mitigated by making other architectural improvements).

Sorry if I seem to be babbling on about this, but what AMD can do with their CPUs is a subject that I have done a lot of research in.



Almost the entire die is purely L2 and L3 cache (the four bluer portions on the corners are the modules, the thin portion in the bottom center between the two pieces of cache is the north bridge, and the large bar along the bottom is the memory controller and other stuff). Just imagine how much lower cost of manufacturing and power consumption would be if the area used by cache was cut in about five in L2 cache and in about ten for L3 cache :) 
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 7:20:32 AM

blazorthon said:

Sorry if I seem to be babbling on about this, but what AMD can do with their CPUs is a subject that I have done a lot of research in.


well send in your resume!

because i have been wanting something like the 586-133 i bought in '96(?) i loved having the performance of a P-75 for a third of the price!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 9:59:22 AM

hafijur said:
Thats because it is a quad core vs 6 core.


It's a quad core 125W part against two 95W parts. Having fewer cores doesn't necessarily mean lower power consumption, especially because of its frequency being so high for a Bulldozer model with poor binning. In the real world, the FX-4100 should consume more power than the FX-6100.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 8, 2012 10:14:28 AM

hafijur said:
tdp doesn't mean much. The reason why it is high tdp is because the quad core is high locked so it will give out big heat.


The higher frequency and voltage can more than offset the core count difference (which is made less major in power consumption than you might think by the huge amount of cache on the chip) in power consumption.
m
0
l
!