Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I3-3220 vs FX-4300 @5Ghz

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 13, 2012 10:21:11 PM

Alright here's the run-down: My budget gaming rig consists of an i3-2100, Radeon 6850 and a mATX B75 motherboard. Have them a few months now. I've been offered a sale price for the i3-2100 and mobo... for the same price that I bought them (since I've moved from Saudi to Jordan recently, where computer parts are significantly more expensive). So, in a nutshell... I don't lose anything!

Now that I have the chance to change from an i3-2100 and mATX board... what should I be looking at? I thought at first to simply go for an i3-3220 and full ATX B75. Delved deeper in, now considering an FX-4300, AM3+ motherboard, aftermarket cooler and OC that bad-ass to 5Ghz.

Not interested in an i5-3570K and Z77. Too expensive and performance is way more than what I would ever need... on top of that, LGA 1155 will be EOL very soon :pfff: 

Now which would you choose? An i3-3220 with a B75 motherboard? Or an FX-4300 OC'd to 5Ghz and AM3+ motherboard? Keep in mind that this is a gaming rig and I also do a fair bit of video-editing for Youtube videos...

At the moment, I am drawn to the FX-4300 for a few of reasons:

1) Overclocking, unlocked multiplier, I've really enjoyed overclocking my 6850.
2) I've always felt annoyed about not being able to tinker with the i3-2100, overclocking that is.
3) I'm presuming an FX-4300 @ 5Ghz should be able to beat an i3-3220, if not, at least compete on par with it.

Oh and my power supply is a Corsair CX500, 80+ certified 500W power supply.

I'll be getting my parts from Saudi when I go back there during my upcoming holidays (after 4 weeks). On a side note, I'm even considering an FX-6300 if its not much more expensive than the FX-4300... that I will also be OC'ing. Please note, I am aware most current games don't use any more than 4 cores at the most... however, those 2 extra cores would be helpful when I do my video-editing... is that correct? Anything I'm missing?

Thanks for reading, looking forward to hearing your opinions.

More about : 3220 4300 5ghz

a c 105 à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
December 13, 2012 11:07:15 PM

u cant overclock i3s much, so id go with the intel if you wanna game, if you wanna use videoencoding and multi-threaded programs id go with amd, depends on ur needs, intel= gaming and amd= better for multitasking
December 13, 2012 11:12:29 PM

hafijur said:
i3 3220 ocing to 4ghz



Related resources
a b à CPUs
December 13, 2012 11:52:21 PM

I don't imagine that AMD FX will ever reach 5GHz either, and even if it got to 4.25GHz it would perform about the same as a 3.45GHz Intel Core i# processor.

Not to mention the money you save on the power supply, as clocking an AMD FX near 5GHz will require some seriously stable parts (both overpriced motherboard AND power supply unit).

He's not kidding, AMD really are moving backwards with their SMT implementation.

December 14, 2012 12:50:13 AM

Avoid amd like the plague. Not kiding. I3 will be more then capable of taking anything you throw at it. I would buy a few I3's and sell them in jordon and make $$$
a c 283 à CPUs
a c 137 V Motherboard
December 14, 2012 1:47:11 AM

If you can get the 4300 to 5Ghz, it should beat (or at the very least, equal) a 3220 in most situations. Since the 3220 can't be OC'd (very much), it can't catch up to a heavily OC'd 4300.

And I agree that you should really be thinking about the 6300 instead. Very nearly the same price for two extra cores.

Getting either a 4300 or 6300 to 5Ghz won't be extremely easy, though. They should probably get there, but cooling may be an issue and the motherboard you choose will be important as well.

Edit: Even though I lean towards Intel, I prefer a quad over the i3. An i3 is great for now, but maybe not 2 years or so from now. A quad or better just makes the most sense.
a c 162 à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
December 14, 2012 2:12:13 AM

Wow so much AMD hate going on lol
a c 283 à CPUs
a c 137 V Motherboard
December 14, 2012 2:14:20 AM

lazyboy947 said:
Wow so much AMD hate going on lol


I agree, lol. I've been busy and haven't been able to be around much lately, but that seems to have stayed the same...
a c 162 à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
December 14, 2012 2:21:18 AM

I mean i dont find the difference in gaming situations where people argue over the processor as its more the graphics card lol I mean in the case of this thread for i3 over fx 4300 for gaming there basically the same, and similar to other cpus as long as the video card is good enough and theres like a 5-10 fps difference in games and just not to get more arguing this is not including cpu intense games, but i bet id barely see a difference from an i7 2600k over a PII X6 1100t paired with a 7970/670/680 @ 1080p
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2012 2:38:07 AM

No don't get the FX 4300. The 6300 is just so much better for the same price.
a c 105 à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
December 14, 2012 2:47:16 AM

i wish amd made a chip that would equal mainstream i5s 2011s and 1155 socket, would be fun for them to get back in the performance gain, i think they hung up there performance shoes. sadly
a c 162 à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
December 14, 2012 2:49:52 AM

U basically just gave me a link to a article that didn't seem relevant, one that gave info showing that win8 makes a 7950 lag, and one that shows the cpu difference in milliseconds and fps when most people wont notice more than 60 fps unless a better refresh rate and response time, and win8 is new it has issues with almost everything, and didnt rlly tell me much
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
December 14, 2012 2:50:08 AM

DJDeCiBeL said:
......And I agree that you should really be thinking about the 6300 instead. Very nearly the same price for two extra cores......


+1
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
December 14, 2012 2:57:09 AM

lazyboy947 said:
U basically just gave me a link to a article that didn't seem relevant, one that gave info showing that win8 makes a 7950 lag, and one that shows the cpu difference in milliseconds and fps when most people wont notice more than 60 fps unless a better refresh rate and response time, and win8 is new it has issues with almost everything, and didnt rlly tell me much



1. They tested it in win7, same result.


2. Even at 60 fps, if your frames are rendered over 16 milliseconds, you WILL see stutter/lag.


Look at the amd cpu break down of time over the recommended millisecond timings for smooth gameplay.


Amd cpu's spend a LOT of time in the stutter "zone".

a c 162 à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
December 14, 2012 3:11:04 AM

I'm just going quit posting as i see no end, but for me im just not that picky to care about a 4 sec "stutter zone". And not sure how a 7950 lagging, and comparing of a x4 and i5 related to an fx over i3, i mean beside core to core performance u got a dual core with hyperthreading and 2 module cores ending both in a quad core but not 4 physical core performance. And would take a i5 over an x4 any day but now where a PII X4 costs $90 and a i5 about $220
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2012 5:51:59 AM

Let me spell it out for you, the AMD FX's of today are causing people to get massive stuttering in their games (not micro-stuttering).



60fps = 16.66666~ ms per frame
- Using AMD FX: 10% of the frames, in the case above, are under 66fps.... doesn't matter what the average is, once you're below 64fps you can 'feel' it through the mouse in most twitch fests.

Now look at the Intersection points... it's a terrible value proposition.

The extra cores also reduce the overclock potential of the processor by their power draw/heat output.
December 14, 2012 5:55:20 AM

Scott_D_Bowen said:
Let me spell it out for you, the AMD FX's of today are causing people to get massive stuttering in their games (not micro-stuttering).

http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/crysis-latency.gif

60fps = 16.66666~ ms per frame
- Using AMD FX: 10% of the frames, in the case above, are under 66fps.... doesn't matter what the average is, once you're below 64fps you can 'feel' it through the mouse in most twitch fests.

Now look at the Intersection points... it's a terrible value proposition.

The extra cores also reduce the overclock potential of the processor by their power draw/heat output.

Moot for those of us that use Vsync.
a c 88 à CPUs
a c 84 V Motherboard
December 14, 2012 5:56:05 AM

How about a cheap Core i5, like a Core i5-3350P, with a B75 motherboard?
December 14, 2012 7:09:22 AM

Haha looks like this is going to be big.

Once again, I'm rooting for AMD because:

1) FX-6300, not much more expensive than FX-4300, 2 extra cores.
2) Unlocked multiplier, yes I want to overclock.
3) 6 cores will really help me with my video-editing.
4) Don't want even a basic i5, more expensive, not unlocked, have to get a cheap mobo to compensate for higher price.
5) LGA 1155 wil be EOL very very soon.

I'm seeing a couple of posts here regarding stuttering in games with the AMD CPUs... will someone please verify this?

Correct me if my points are not valid. This is the opinion I have formed from all I've read of the new Vishera CPUs. However, I am no expert and wish to seek some guidance as to whether my choice will be a good one or a big mistake. I still have some time till I buy the CPU and mobo. From what I've read all over Tom's Hardware's articles and articles of other forums, the FX-6300 seems to be a valid choice.
December 14, 2012 7:26:06 AM

DJDeCiBeL said:
If you can get the 4300 to 5Ghz, it should beat (or at the very least, equal) a 3220 in most situations. Since the 3220 can't be OC'd (very much), it can't catch up to a heavily OC'd 4300.

And I agree that you should really be thinking about the 6300 instead. Very nearly the same price for two extra cores.

Getting either a 4300 or 6300 to 5Ghz won't be extremely easy, though. They should probably get there, but cooling may be an issue and the motherboard you choose will be important as well.

Edit: Even though I lean towards Intel, I prefer a quad over the i3. An i3 is great for now, but maybe not 2 years or so from now. A quad or better just makes the most sense.


Thank you for your helpful and unbiased post. Yes I think I will get the FX-6300 if it is not much more expensive than the FX-4300. I will be getting a Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO to manage the heat.

Probably most people here will say, as usual, get an i5-3570K... problem is that CPU is way out of budget, and I will still have to get a decent Z77 for it as well as the same Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO for OC'ing...
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2012 8:20:18 AM

I always see the new AMD lineup as half the core count that they state. This is because they count each module as two cores.

For gaming, the intel i3-2100 would provide *slightly* superior frame-rates. The i3-2100 can be overclocked by 400Mhz through the limited unlock it has. But no more.

The AMD lineup I would first recommend you get the FX-6300 because you would be doing some video editing, and the extra core would provide a substantial performance boost.

Don't at ALL expect to hit 5Ghz with the processor, maybe 4.4Ghz tops in my opinion. But it will satisfy your desire to tinker with it, and will be MUCH faster for video editing, and the gap in gaming will be absolutely negligible.
a c 88 à CPUs
a c 84 V Motherboard
December 14, 2012 8:31:02 AM

azathoth said:
For gaming, the intel i3-2100 would provide *slightly* superior frame-rates. The i3-2100 can be overclocked by 400Mhz through the limited unlock it has. But no more.

That only applies to the processors with Turbo Boost, ie. Core i5s and Core i7s that are not fully unlocked. It also varies how much they can be overclocked by, usually either 400 or 200 MHz AFAIK.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
December 14, 2012 8:49:06 AM

Forde3654Eire said:
5) LGA 1155 wil be EOL very very soon.


how so? you have a crystal ball?

just because haswell will be out next year (and pretty much towards the end of it) doesn't mean the 1155 socket will not be supported any more. there still are "new" motherboards being released (4 days ago):
Gigabyte Z77X-UP4 TH & Z77X-UP5 TH Motherboard Review

you know more than gigabyte?
a c 105 à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
December 15, 2012 2:49:15 AM

anyday of the week even the i3 tromps that quadcore amd, sad to say but amd isnt in the game anymore for gaming, i hope with the new line of cpus somethings gonna change, id go back to amd if there new cpus atleast beat intel by a few points.

intel is solid atm and i dont see it changing anytime soon,

December 15, 2012 8:09:16 AM

Alright, I suppose then the i3-3220 gets the most votes. By any chance, does anyone know if hyperthreading lowers gaming performance? Can I benefit from hyperthreading at all, be it gaming or video-editing?

If I will get no benefit at all from hyperthreading, I would rather save the money and get an IvyBridge Pentium for my build... what's your say on this?

In the meantime, here's what I'm planning to buy:

http://www.softland.com.sa/index.php?route=product/prod...

http://www.softland.com.sa/index.php?route=product/prod...
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2012 8:52:53 AM

Hyperthreading does benefit you. It adds about 30%-50% of real core performance.
December 15, 2012 10:07:04 AM

darth pravus said:
Hyperthreading does benefit you. It adds about 30%-50% of real core performance.


This here was a good read, I'd recommend to anyone flustered about getting hyper-threading or not:
http://www.overclock.net/t/671977/hyperthreading-in-gam...

I'm also selling my single 4GB Kingston DDR3 1333Mhz RAM along the the CPU and mobo... will be replacing that with a 2x4GB dual channel Corsair Vengeance 1600Mhz. Since the i3-3220 supports 1600mhz memory, I don't see a reason not to go for 1600Mhz.
a c 88 à CPUs
a c 84 V Motherboard
December 15, 2012 10:07:31 AM

darth pravus said:
Hyperthreading does benefit you. It adds about 30%-50% of real core performance.

Lol.

It makes no difference in games. In other applications it can provide a boost, but 50% is very optimistic.

As for Core i3s vs. Pentiums, they (in some cases) support different RAM speeds.
a c 105 à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
December 15, 2012 2:17:51 PM

if your gonna do gaming go with the i3, if your gonna do more multitasking and use programs that support 4cores than by all means go with the fx :) 
December 15, 2012 2:37:51 PM

iceclock said:
if your gonna do gaming go with the i3, if your gonna do more multitasking and use programs that support 4cores than by all means go with the fx :) 


I am going to do a lot of BOTH gaming and video-editing. I'm still leaning towards AMD, but I'm concerned about how my power supply would handle it.

FX-4300 OC'd (maybe even FX-6300)
Sapphire 6850 OC'd

Corsair CX500, 500W 80+ certified single 12V 34A.

The AMD build seems promising, but I don't want to end up with a blown desktop because of my power supply. If the power supply cannot handle the AMD build, I'll stick to the Intel i3-3220 build.
a c 105 à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
December 15, 2012 2:41:01 PM

i wouldnt consider overclocking with that powersupply it cant handle that type of juice, if your gonna stay stock intel will kick amd easily anyday of the week :) , overclocked is another thing, but for the money and stability and everyday performance without ocing go intel :) 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
December 15, 2012 4:01:03 PM

iceclock said:
i wouldnt consider overclocking with that powersupply it cant handle that type of juice, if your gonna stay stock intel will kick amd easily anyday of the week :) , overclocked is another thing, but for the money and stability and everyday performance without ocing go intel :) 


i am sorry but i beg to differ. a 6850 will not go over 130 watts overclocked leading to ~300 watts for the full rig . . and that is being rather generous with the ~170 watts. anything under 350 won't put any stress on that PSU.
a c 105 à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
December 15, 2012 4:02:01 PM

you forgot that when u overclock the cpu it brings up the power requirements, at over 4 gigahertz i beleive power goes up 100watts atleast.

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
December 15, 2012 4:05:51 PM

iceclock said:
you forgot that when u overclock the cpu it brings up the power requirements, at over 4 gigahertz i beleive power goes up 100watts atleast.


i didn't forget.

100 watts? proof?
a c 105 à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
December 15, 2012 4:08:31 PM

ive seen this happen, overclocking over the 4 gigahertz peak, power increased by over 90 watts, myself ive verified this and my friend had a amd chip overclocked at 4.2 and boosted power consumption by over 100watts.

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
December 15, 2012 4:11:08 PM

iceclock said:
ive seen this happen, overclocking over the 4 gigahertz peak, power increased by over 90 watts, myself ive verified this and my friend had a amd chip overclocked at 4.2 and boosted power consumption by over 100watts.

oh really?


looks like 50 watts more for a 4300 @ 5.Ghz and that is the cpu we are talking about, right?
a c 105 à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
December 15, 2012 4:14:05 PM

well im speaking of other chips from amd, i was going from my own experience, its possible that the new fx chips use less power than i imagined, im only human, possible im wrong here, nice call
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
December 15, 2012 4:18:36 PM

iceclock said:
well im speaking of other chips from amd, i was going from my own experience, its possible that the new fx chips use less power than i imagined, im only human, possible im wrong here, nice call

no worries but you did bring up a good point because that 100 watt increase holds true for the 8350 and it would be a concern if the OP looks to get one later.


cheers.
a c 105 à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
December 15, 2012 4:21:49 PM

cheers :)  i was referring to tubans and phenom 2 that go up in thermal heat and power consumption
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2012 4:24:38 PM

The FX6300 is a valid choice for your purposes. Especially if you find tweaking your CPU fun ;) 
a c 88 à CPUs
a c 84 V Motherboard
December 15, 2012 4:26:47 PM

With a different 500W power supply I wouldn't be worried about it, but the CX500 is a bit anemic for a 500W power supply; only 34A (~408W) on the 12V rail.
December 15, 2012 6:21:19 PM

There's no way any FX will go past 4.2. Also, the i3 crushes FX series as a whole in 2-3 threaded tasks but FX pulls ahead in multi threaded tasks.

Will you be gaming or editing more, for gaming, the i3, for editing, the FX.
If you're going to get an FX go with the FX-6300, it is by far the best bang for your buck FX, and is only a little more.

Good luck!
a c 88 à CPUs
a c 84 V Motherboard
December 15, 2012 7:36:14 PM

darksparten said:
There's no way any FX will go past 4.2.

Yeah it's not like people have been posting examples of just that in this very thread, just a handful of posts back... :pt1cable: 
December 16, 2012 9:50:08 AM

The power consumption factor is a concern... however I can see the FX-4300 doesn't use as much at all as the FX-8350. I should be fine then I guess.

I'm getting opinions from other threads as well, here's an interesting thing one guy said... can someone verify?

"I own a FX4300 and the only small thing that I regret is that you may be able to get the highest 4 core clocks on the FX6300 since the two chips are both 95W tdp, disabling two cores in the 6300 could theoretically give you a lower tdp on the 4 active cores than the 4300 has. im not sure if anyone has tried this, and I don't think it will net you that much higher clocks, but its something maybe worth investigating."

If this is true, it wouldn't hurt to get the FX-6300, better actually!
December 16, 2012 2:36:39 PM

Hey again guys. I hate to be so stubborn and persistent here on the forums, however I want to make sure I have everything covered... I need to iron out my doubts so I can make sure I am making a wise purchase... so please bear with me.

Concerning Intel's Quick Sync... is that a better choice for video-editing than a quad core AMD? As in, i3-3220 with a Z77 motherboard? However, a few things I want to note:

1) Quick Sync outputs low-quality videos (for mobile products), which I definitely do not want at all.
2) Quick Sync is only used in a very limited number of software.
3) I only hear Quick Sync being used in the final part of video-editing, the video transcoding part, which is "publishing the movie"... am I right there? And so that means I still need the CPU power when working on the video project itself... so an i3-3220 with a Z77 will not cut it, as I need CPU power for doing the editing itself.

If I am correct with the above, then Quick Sync is not for me and I am definitely going with AMD FX-4300 or FX-6300. I don't really care if it takes me an hour long to publish the movie, I want the program to work well while I am actually working on the video itself. To give you a specific example, with the i3-2100 in Sony Vegas, I have to set the multiple videos to lowest quality in the preview thumbnail and their FPS is just terrible I can't work with them. Also CPU usage in task manager shows all cores/threads working their asses off... this is when I figured I need at least a quad core.
a c 105 à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
December 16, 2012 2:43:47 PM

well the quick sync isnt bad but the image quality isnt any great either, thats not a reason to buy an intel chip, yes it helps for encoding speed, but the image quality isnt good.

a b à CPUs
December 16, 2012 2:45:25 PM

Yes, Quick Sync is a transcoding tool, not for editing.
!