Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I think AMD made the i3 irrelevant.

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
November 18, 2012 6:59:59 AM

First off, I use an i5 in my main computer, so this is not an AMD troll post. I'm just looking at budget builds for some family members and I can't help but notice there is almost no point in the i3 series anymore.

If you want to do a budget build with no graphics card, the A10 processors give you i3 performance with built in graphics rivaling a $60 discrete graphics card. Why pick the intel and get the same performance with worse graphics for the same money? Plus the A10 is available unlocked.

If you want to build a gaming system with a discrete card, the FX 6300 processors give you i3 performance in games, but considerably outperform the i3 in multithreaded tasks like video conversion. Plus, again, the 6300 is unlocked. Why buy a locked processor that performs worse in many tasks for the same money?


What do you think? Would you recommend an i3 to someone in the $130 CPU price range?



More about : amd made irrelevant

a b à CPUs
November 18, 2012 7:38:27 AM

Yes. I'd recommend i3 3220 anyday.
Don't you have to pay Electricity Bill?
And, APUs are only good for laptops, in which external GPUs can't be installed.
Lastly, i3 3220 beats both A10 & FX 6300 in gaming, consuming a way lesser power & running much cooler.
a b à CPUs
November 18, 2012 10:23:11 AM

^^^ lol we get your point but there was no need to triple post.

I think the OP is right. AMD CPUs do outperform i3s at the same price. Hell even a FX4300 is on par with the i3 3220 at many things.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
November 18, 2012 10:44:09 AM

I agree with the OP Piledriver is pretty great. Even the FX4300 can rival an i3.
a b à CPUs
November 18, 2012 11:18:33 AM

jaideep1337 said:
^^^ lol we get your point but there was no need to triple post.

I think the OP is right. AMD CPUs do outperform i3s at the same price. Hell even a FX4300 is on par with the i3 3220 at many things.


Oh, Connection problem.
Yes, Multi-threaded applications are certainly benefitted with more no. of physical cores.
But, in gaming, the scenario is totally different. Even, the FX 6300 is outperformed by i3 (Sandy/Ivy) in most of the games, while running cooler & power efficient.
a c 478 à CPUs
November 18, 2012 1:37:56 PM

No, AMD's A10 and/or FX-6300 doesn't really make the i3 irrelevant. Below are graphs from Xbitlabs which has benchmarks of the Core i3-3220/3240, A10-5800k and the FX-6200 (Bulldozer) CPU.

The FX-6300 (Pildriver) is not part of the review. The FX-6200 has a clock speed of 3.8GHz and the FX-6300 has a clock speed of 3.5GHz. Piledriver is on average 7% more powerful than Bulldozer so that means the FX-6300 would be equivalent to a FX Bulldozer CPU running at 3.745GHz. In other words, the performance should be similar.

The benchmarks use 1680x1050 resolution because higher resolutions would stress the GPU rather than the CPU. The lower the resolution, the larger the difference in performance. The higher the resolution the smaller the difference in performance. The Core i3 CPUs only loses to the FX-6200 in Batman (by 3 - 4 FPS) and Metro 2033 (by 5 - 6 FPS). In Mafia 2 the Core i3 beats the FX-6200 by more than 20 FPS. The test rig uses a nVidia GTX 680 which is generally not part of a budget build. Also without a 120Hz monitor, you will not see frame rates above 60FPS.

Benchmarks are in the following link:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-a10-58...











a c 478 à CPUs
November 18, 2012 1:57:28 PM

As for applications, the results can vary. WinRar is generally good to determine the CPU's performance, but generally I don't care if it takes 10 - 20 seconds more to compress / un-compress files since it is something I feel most people do not do on a regular basis. In video conversion, all the mentioned processors perform similarly, the A10 and FX-6200 does outperform the Core i3 CPUs in video conversion during the 2nd pass. However, Intel CPUs have Quick Sync so if a video conversion program supports it, then the tables turns dramatically. AMD does have OpenCL, but benchmarks have shown that programs which do support it only shows a relatively small increase in performance especially when benchmarked against Quick Sync. Below are benchmarks of some applications. Note that Quick Sync is not tested for video conversion.

The average person building a budget PC do not tend to do any of the following tasks other than compressing / uncompressing files once in a while. Benchmarks are in the following link:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-a10-58...















a b à CPUs
November 18, 2012 2:19:23 PM

vinaykumar5320 said:
Yes. I'd recommend i3 3220 anyday.
Don't you have to pay Electricity Bill?
And, APUs are only good for laptops, in which external GPUs can't be installed.
Lastly, i3 3220 beats both A10 & FX 6300 in gaming, consuming a way lesser power & running much cooler.


Okay, power consumption is a good argument. However, with an APU system, you may not need a seperate video card which could even things out in favor of A10. Idle consumption is about the same.

http://www.techspot.com/review/580-amd-a10-5800k/page8....

http://www.techspot.com/review/586-amd-fx-8350-fx-6300/...

And APUs are definitely NOT just for laptops. I would imagine 2/3 of computers out there do not even have a video card and even fewer ship with a video card more powerful than that of the A8 or A10 APUs.

a c 478 à CPUs
November 18, 2012 2:19:56 PM

Lastly, there's power consumption. This may or may not be very important because it depends on a couple of things like:

1. Are you paying for electricity personally, or is someone else paying for it?
2. How much do you pay per KHW? $0.06?, $0.22? Somewhere in between?

If you are not paying for electricity and / or it is very cheap, then power consumption doesn't really matter very much. But you pay a lot for electricity, then it can become an issue. I believe Hawaii traditionally pays the most for electricity in the US. I've seen reports where it varies from $0.32 - $0.45 per KWH.

The benchmarks below is for the entire system, but it does not take playing games into account. The test rig uses a nVidia GTX 680 which by itself peaks at about 186w. When sitting around doing nothing, the A10-5800k beats everyone else by as much as 10w; drawing only 53w of power. However, most people do not simply turn on their PC and walk away. They do some type of activity which would be closer to the 2nd benchmark. Lastly for those people encoding video the 3rd chart would be more relevant. Lastly, playing games means looking at the 3rd benchmark and adding in the additional amount of power consumed by the GTX 680 (or whichever graphics card you have) since it is no longer idling.

Here there is simply no contest between AMD and Intel. The FX-6200 draws 210w (I'm sure that the FX-6300 will draw a little less power), and the A10-5800k draws 136w when the system is under full load (excluding gaming). The Core i3 CPUs draws as little as 88w. So the A10 draws about 55% more power while the FX-6200 draws about 139% more power. Again, the FX-6300 will likely draw less power but I don't think it would be dramatic.

Benchmarks:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-a10-58...





a c 136 à CPUs
November 18, 2012 2:28:55 PM

Your first Anandtech link was an i3-2100 comparison, not an i3-3220. The i3-3220 is significantly better.
I think the bottom line ought to be that CPUs are so powerful today (compared to 6-8 years ago) that it's hard to build an utterly incompetent machine any more.
To some extent, it will depend on the uses for the PC.
Still, if you remove overclocking from the equation (which you SHOULD DO, for "budget, family PCs" unless you live there too), one of the few consistently measurable advantages to the i3 is power usage. Prices are going up, not down. If I were the one building, I'd get an i3. Want to make a "family" PC fast? Add a 128GB SSD (non-Sandforce, for the sake of reliability).
a c 478 à CPUs
November 18, 2012 2:37:43 PM

In the end, it depends on what the overall objective is.

If it is building a low end PC to play games, then the A10-5800k is likely the better choice because you can hybrid XFire a Radeon HD 7670 (or slower) graphics card with it. However, if you want to install a faster Radeon or a nVidia graphics card, then hybrid XFire is disabled. I believe hybrid XFire will only work with the lower end Radeon HD 6xxx and 7xxxx cards. Not sure about if AMD's upcoming lower end Radeon HD 8xxx will be compatible with hybrid XFire.

For just a media PC to play music / movies then any of the 3 can handle the job quite easily. Although going with a FX CPU means you need a mobo with integrated graphics or you need to buy a graphics card. So the FX would not be an ideal solution especially since it also draws more power.

While the Core i3 CPUs are not the cheapest, the low power consumption can make up for it. It just depends how much you are paying for electricity. The more you pay for it the sooner it will be before you would actually save money compared to an A10 APU or a FX CPU.
a b à CPUs
November 18, 2012 2:42:40 PM

Maybe it depends where you get your benchmarks. I'm seeing basically identical performance here:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/675?vs=677

The only ones where the i3 really pulls away are the fully single threaded (rare in real world in 2012) or the games. But 70-80 vs 90-100 is just not going to show up in real world. And the APU system would likely be really competing against HD4000 for gaming, so it's going to win.


a b à CPUs
November 18, 2012 3:00:29 PM

I think neither are irrelevant.If your on a budget you half to settle sometimes.
a c 136 à CPUs
November 18, 2012 3:21:51 PM

twelve25 said:
Interesting how we have conflicting benchmarks vs what jaguarskx showed. This page shows the fx6300 trouncing i5 in regular "power" apps:

No, it showed the FX-8350 beating the i5; the FX-6300 lost to i5, sometimes significantly. It did beat the i3 though; is that what you meant?

a b à CPUs
November 18, 2012 3:44:48 PM

This thread is titled "I think AMD made the i3 irrelevant" so yes I am talking about i3 even if I can't keep my numbers straight when replying. :) 

fixed it above, thanks.
a b à CPUs
November 18, 2012 3:49:30 PM

bigcyco1 said:
I think neither are irrelevant.If your on a budget you half to settle sometimes.


That's what I am talking about, though. If you are shopping for an i3, you have already decided you can't/won't spend i5 money. So at the i3 price, doesn't the AMD A10 5800k or FX6300 seem like much more attractive options for the money? They do to me.
!