Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

FX6100 or i3 3220

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 6, 2013 2:17:18 PM

I'm leaning towards the i3 at the moment, since i'm building a computer from scratch anyway. I know intel seems to be the no-brainer choice for pure gaming now, but since I dabble a bit in music production (mainly using DAWs like Renoise) and some Photoshop, there's a bit of that minor concern.

I guess my question is, which is the better overall choice for the same budget? Is FX6100 really that worse than i3 3220 in gaming? And the inverse case, is the i3 still better than the FX6100 for other CPU-intensive tasks outside gaming?

I didn't mention FX6300 as I limited my choices to easily purchasable parts from where I live, in case anyone's wondering.

More about : fx6100 3220

a b à CPUs
January 6, 2013 3:13:06 PM

Get the FX 6100. It's much better than the i3 3220. The 6100 gets better benchmark scores outside of gaming & I think that it'll do the same inside gaming.
Related resources
a c 140 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 6, 2013 3:19:50 PM

There really is no point in getting a crappy Bulldozer CPU if it's between Bulldozer and an I3 the I3 is the better CPU. The I3 will run circles around the Bulldozer in games.
a b à CPUs
January 6, 2013 3:48:42 PM

People use i3's in laptops...
a c 140 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 6, 2013 3:54:01 PM

Yea and? For gaming the Sandy Bridges I3 and Ivy Bridges I3 stomp the Bulldozer in games. It even beat out the so called flagship "8 core" processor. Bullcrapper was so bad it got beaten out by the older Phenom II it was suppose to replace.
January 6, 2013 4:01:11 PM

I don't know if it's relevant in any way but i'm planning to get the 7850 with this, so it's gaming at relatively modest settings i'm looking at. Still, if it's just a loss of <10% fps in games or something, I really wouldn't mind getting the more versatile processor.

As I already said though, I would've gotten the i3 hands down if I was planning to use this solely for gaming, but some of the music software I use might be a bit CPU-heavy so i'm having second thoughts.
a b à CPUs
January 6, 2013 4:04:32 PM

AMD is cheaper and still has good performance. The i5's & i7's out perform all the AMD processors though.
a c 140 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 6, 2013 4:13:16 PM

cerial13 said:
I don't know if it's relevant in any way but i'm planning to get the 7850 with this, so it's gaming at relatively modest settings i'm looking at. Still, if it's just a loss of <10% fps in games or something, I really wouldn't mind getting the more versatile processor.

As I already said though, I would've gotten the i3 hands down if I was planning to use this solely for gaming, but some of the music software I use might be a bit CPU-heavy so i'm having second thoughts.


10 fps can be alot. What if in game "x" you are getting 55-60 fps with another processor. Now put in the Bulldozer and lose 10 fps you are looking at 45-50 fps. That for me is not acceptable. Also lets say down the road you want to upgrade to a more powerful video card like a 7970. The Bulldozer will bottleneck high-end video cards that is a fact proven through benchmarks.
a b à CPUs
January 6, 2013 4:15:59 PM

If he has the money in the future for a 7970. I'm sure he'll have the money to upgrade his CPU & Motherboard aswell. He's asking which CPU is best for his budget at the moment , which I would say is the AMD FX.
a c 140 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 6, 2013 4:24:22 PM

And I disagree and would say you are very wrong especially you look at the bench marks and see just how bad the Bulldozer was. The I3 is not that much more expensive a measly 10 dollars. It is pretty much the same price and out performs the Bulldozer so why would anyone in their right mind get a Bulldozer. If he said Piledriver that would be different but for a crappy Bulldozer I wouldn't take it if they were giving it away.
a b à CPUs
January 6, 2013 4:26:29 PM

If this is just a gaming rig and you are planning on running every stock, I would go with the i3.

If you are doing rendering/video or music encoding/wanting to overclock like mad, I would go with the FX chip.

So it's his choice of what he wants. But the Piledriver is a better choice.
January 6, 2013 5:00:00 PM

i would definitely get the Intel they have been making processors alot longer than AMD don't be fooled by amd's cheap processors and ton of cores cause amd has not perfected the use of those yet while intel has, intel's lowest 3rd gen quad core i7's smoke the amd fx-8350 EIGHT core @ 4.0ghz, if that doesnt say something then i dont know what will
January 6, 2013 6:44:28 PM

uh, Both are considered terrible. :) 
January 6, 2013 6:46:32 PM

alec3601 said:
i would definitely get the Intel they have been making processors alot longer than AMD don't be fooled by amd's cheap processors and ton of cores cause amd has not perfected the use of those yet while intel has, intel's lowest 3rd gen quad core i7's smoke the amd fx-8350 EIGHT core @ 4.0ghz, if that doesnt say something then i dont know what will



Trust me when i say the i7 isn't SMOKING my processor.

Piledriver performs better in certain areas, but not in most.

i just couldnt justify paying 120 dollars more for performance only seen in synthetic benchmarks. (for what i do, at least.)


According to passmark, my FX-8320 @4.0 Ghz(FX-8350) scores -23% better than the i7 3770k at Integer Math.

It gives the same score than the 3770k on floating point and prime numbers.

-5% worse than 3770k at compression

-15% worse at encryption

7.3% better CPU physics score

same score on sorting

-45% worse single-threaded. yeah, i know. :( 

My score: 9358 @ 4.0 Ghz FX-8320.

3770K is considered 10% better, scores a thousand points higher.

i5 3570k scores a few thousand points lower





Also, remember AMD 64 days? yeah, i said it.
a c 140 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 6, 2013 7:12:41 PM

Tman450 said:
Trust me when i say the i7 isn't SMOKING my processor.

Piledriver performs better in certain areas, but not in most.

i just couldnt justify paying 120 dollars more for performance only seen in synthetic benchmarks. (for what i do, at least.)


According to passmark, my FX-8320 @4.0 Ghz(FX-8350) scores -23% better than the i7 3770k at Integer Math.

It gives the same score than the 3770k on floating point and prime numbers.

-5% worse than 3770k at compression

-15% worse at encryption

7.3% better CPU physics score

same score on sorting

-45% worse single-threaded. yeah, i know. :( 

My score: 9358 @ 4.0 Ghz FX-8320.

3770K is considered 10% better, scores a thousand points higher.

i5 3570k scores a few thousand points lower





Also, remember AMD 64 days? yeah, i said it.


First of all we are talking about Bulldozer and not Piledriver. Also you are wrong about your CPU. In single threaded programs the I5/I7 beats the Bulldozer and Piledriver. In multi threaded programs the Piledriver beats the I5 as it should but does not beat the I7 in the majority of programs. Also if you are using passmark as a way to justify your buy you are fooling yourself. Passmark is a joke and is not a legitimate benchmarking website. They take results from end users which can easily be skewed by bias or fanboyism. There is nothing scientific or exact about he process. It is about as reliable as the "reviews" on NewEgg. If you are choosing between an I5 and Piledrier for gaming the I5 is the best choice. If you are building for heavy CPU work the I7 is better.
January 6, 2013 7:21:47 PM

rds1220 said:
First of all we are talking about Bulldozer and not Piledriver. Also you are wrong about your CPU. In single threaded programs the I5/I7 beats the Bulldozer and Piledriver. In multi threaded programs the Piledriver beats the I5 as it should but does not beat the I7 in the majority of programs. Also if you are using passmark as a way to justify your buy you are fooling yourself. Passmark is a joke and is not a legitimate benchmarking website. They take results from end users which can easily be skewed by bias or fanboyism. There is nothing scientific or exact about he process. It is about as reliable as the "reviews" on NewEgg. If you are choosing between an I5 and Piledrier for gaming the I5 is the best choice. If you are building for heavy CPU work the I7 is better.



i didn't use the website, i benchmarked it myself. how the **** can my score be the result of fanboyism or bias?

OFC intel wins single-threaded. did you even read my benchmarking score?



please run passmark's CPU bench on your system, for comparison
a b à CPUs
January 6, 2013 9:41:59 PM

Tman450 said:
i didn't use the website, i benchmarked it myself. how the **** can my score be the result of fanboyism or bias?

OFC intel wins single-threaded. did you even read my benchmarking score?



please run passmark's CPU bench on your system, for comparison


I agree with you, AMD is cheaper & sometimes better for most people since it's cheap and isn't smoked by intel much. rds1220 is a bit of a intel fan boy eh? Everything I say is from an unbiased point of view.
January 6, 2013 10:05:12 PM

ihsaan96 said:
I agree with you, AMD is cheaper & sometimes better for most people since it's cheap and isn't smoked by intel much. rds1220 is a bit of a intel fan boy eh? Everything I say is from an unbiased point of view.


Thank you. i mean, i'm not kidding myself. your build with the 3930K will smoke anything AMD has to offer, provided you have a big budget.

But it is overkill for anyone not doing super CPU-intensive stuff. and it doesn't make you an Intel fanboy
a b à CPUs
January 6, 2013 10:13:03 PM

The reason I have 3930K is cause I do a lot of rendering & have the money for overkill :p 
a c 140 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 6, 2013 10:19:32 PM

ihsaan96 said:
I agree with you, AMD is cheaper & sometimes better for most people since it's cheap and isn't smoked by intel much. rds1220 is a bit of a intel fan boy eh? Everything I say is from an unbiased point of view.


Pff fanboy, no try a realist that calls it like I see it. If someone wanted to spend money on inferior hardware that is just good enough that is their business. For me good enough is not good enough and will not buy an AMD CPU.
a b à CPUs
January 6, 2013 10:25:36 PM

rds1220 said:
Pff fanboy, no try a realist that calls it like I see it. If someone wanted to spend money on inferior hardware that is just good enough that is their business. For me good enough is not good enough and will not buy an AMD CPU.


Okay if you say so Mr. Nothing is good enough apart from intel
a c 140 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 6, 2013 10:30:20 PM

ihsaan96 said:
Okay if you say so Mr. Nothing is good enough apart from intel


:pfff: . GO back and read what I said earlier. I said if it was a Piledriver vs Sandy Bridges I3 it would be different but Bulldozer vs I3 the I3 is the no brainer IMO. I don't know why anyone would waste money of a Bulldozer CPU it would be like getting a Phenom I over a Core CPU.
a b à CPUs
January 6, 2013 10:32:40 PM

Bulldozers aren't complete pilepoops, I own a bulldozer system and its a beast. And don't say I don't know what I'm talking about I own a 3930K I'm sure I know enough haha
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 6, 2013 11:16:08 PM

Just dropping in.
a b à CPUs
January 6, 2013 11:32:40 PM

Hi there :) 
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2013 2:17:15 AM

if its i3 vs 6100 id pick i3, if it were i3 vs 6300 id pick 6300. if its i5 vs any amd cpu id pick i5 thats how it usually goes
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2013 2:23:50 PM

mohit9206 said:
if its i3 vs 6100 id pick i3, if it were i3 vs 6300 id pick 6300. if its i5 vs any amd cpu id pick i5 thats how it usually goes


I agree , if cerial13 can afford the 6300 then get it. But i5 generally over AMD CPU's
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2013 2:47:25 PM

rds1220 said:
Pff fanboy, no try a realist that calls it like I see it. If someone wanted to spend money on inferior hardware that is just good enough that is their business. For me good enough is not good enough and will not buy an AMD CPU.

rofl, coming from someone who wishes AMD would file for bankrupcy. your just an AMD hater. some people have another name for that tho.

the only game that I3 wins like your describing is starcraft II.

So for the OP, if your playing starcraft II, get the I3, if anything else, it really won't matter much with a 7850.

And as others have suggested, get the 6300 if you can, not the 6100.
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2013 2:50:06 PM

noob2222 said:
rofl, coming from someone who wishes AMD would file for bankrupcy. your just an AMD hater. some people have another name for that tho.

the only game that I3 wins like your describing is starcraft II.

So for the OP, if your playing starcraft II, get the I3, if anything else, it really won't matter much with a 7850.

And as others have suggested, get the 6300 if you can, not the 6100.


HAHA finally someone else agree's with me that he's an intel fanboy who wants AMD to die. AMD for the price is amazing , they're just raw power but not used intelligently like the i5 & i7's. AMD's are fine for gaming , if intel was so amazing compared to AMD...I'm sure AMD would stop making gaming products & go into the quiet corner and cry.
January 7, 2013 2:59:54 PM

Well iv'e tried the fx 4100,6100 and 8350 piledriver I HAVE ABSOLUTELY no problems gaming with each of them but i would say fx 6100 or fx 8 series is a good processor for price and use INTEL rule the world yet lol
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2013 3:03:56 PM

madcap42 said:
Well iv'e tried the fx 4100,6100 and 8350 piledriver I HAVE ABSOLUTELY no problems gaming with each of them but i would say fx 6100 or fx 8 series is a good processor for price and use INTEL rule the world yet lol


AMD's aren't actually that bad , I've got the AMD 4170 and it runs perfectly and doesn't bottle neck most GPU's I use. I've also got the Intel 3930K and well obviously it's a beast but you won't realise the difference between a good AMD CPU & Intel unless you're rendering etc.
January 7, 2013 3:07:16 PM

i meant to put in INTEL DON'T rule the world yet! especially what you can overclock a fx too
a c 140 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 7, 2013 7:36:01 PM

noob2222 said:
rofl, coming from someone who wishes AMD would file for bankrupcy. your just an AMD hater. some people have another name for that tho.

the only game that I3 wins like your describing is starcraft II.

So for the OP, if your playing starcraft II, get the I3, if anything else, it really won't matter much with a 7850.

And as others have suggested, get the 6300 if you can, not the 6100.


This coming from one of the biggest AMD fanboys on the forums. Lets not forget some of the assanine comments you have made in the past. You can keep telling yourself how great AMD CPU's are but it isn't going to magically make it true. Like the saying goes you can't fix stupid.
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2013 7:39:02 PM

rds1220 said:
This coming from one of the biggest AMD fanboys on the forums. Lets not forget some of the assanine comments you have made in the past. You can keep telling yourself how great AMD CPU's are but it isn't going to magically make it true. Like the saying goes you can't fix stupid.


No one's saying AMD CPU's are amazing. We're saying they're not as rubbish as a you make them out to be. And I'm clearly not an AMD fanboy if I have an Intel 3930K...Awwwks :o 
a c 140 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 7, 2013 7:49:47 PM

I wasn't talking about you I was talking about Noob. Also the Piledriver is better than Bulldozer and Piledriver is what Bulldozer should have been. You can argue all you want but the Bulldozer was complete crap. When you can't beat out the old CPU you are suppose to be replacing that is crap. When you perform on the level of a Core2 from back in the mid 2000's that's what I would call crap. When your 200 dollar flagship gets beaten by a measly dual core Pentium G and I3 that is complete garabage.
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2013 8:06:10 PM

I know I was just saying.
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2013 8:32:26 PM

rds1220 said:
This coming from one of the biggest AMD fanboys on the forums. Lets not forget some of the assanine comments you have made in the past. You can keep telling yourself how great AMD CPU's are but it isn't going to magically make it true. Like the saying goes you can't fix stupid.

Im not an AMD fanboy, I just hate corruption, greed, and blatent disregard for the law and fair competition, AKA Intel.

Thing is there isn't a game I have thats a "cpu bottleneck" and I am running 2x 6970 cards. Good thing this 8120 is complete crap otherwise i might be running 20 fps all the time instead of 120.

besides, who is it that runs to every "amd or intel" thread spewing his banter about how bad AMD is? maybe you should realize that not everyone plays starcraft II.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 7, 2013 8:46:15 PM

Don't start a flame war here.
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2013 8:47:56 PM

Everyone has their own opinion , don't need to force someone to change their mind into thinking Intel is the best or AMD is the best. I'll always think AMD is best for money & Intel is the best overall.
a c 788 à CPUs
a c 258 4 Gaming
January 7, 2013 9:03:38 PM

I wonder how this discussion (so to speak) is going to help the OP?

For gaming the I3
For multitasking the FX
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2013 9:05:14 PM

rolli59 said:
I wonder how this discussion (so to speak) is going to help the OP?

For gaming the I3
For multitasking the FX


I agree , if you want your system purely for gaming then go with the i3. If you want multi-tasking , gaming etc then go with the FX
a c 140 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 7, 2013 10:01:31 PM

noob2222 said:
Im not an AMD fanboy, I just hate corruption, greed, and blatent disregard for the law and fair competition, AKA Intel.

Thing is there isn't a game I have thats a "cpu bottleneck" and I am running 2x 6970 cards. Good thing this 8120 is complete crap otherwise i might be running 20 fps all the time instead of 120.

besides, who is it that runs to every "amd or intel" thread spewing his banter about how bad AMD is? maybe you should realize that not everyone plays starcraft II.


You are an Intel hater and an AMD fanboy. You and Blazon are the ones who go around defending AMD in every thread and news report here on the forums. It is rediculous. You are a fanboy you are a closet fanboy that can't admit it. Also go and look at some benchmarks. It is a proven fact shown in tons of benchmarks in the industry that Bulldozer would bottleneck high-end video cards. :pfff: 
a c 140 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 7, 2013 10:06:10 PM

rolli59 said:
I wonder how this discussion (so to speak) is going to help the OP?

For gaming the I3
For multitasking the FX


That is what I have been saying from the start.

ihsaan96 said:
I agree , if you want your system purely for gaming then go with the i3. If you want multi-tasking , gaming etc then go with the FX



Lol that is what I've been saying from the start. So now all of a sudden you agree. What happened to:

Quote:
Get the FX 6100. It's much better than the i3 3220. The 6100 gets better benchmark scores outside of gaming & I think that it'll do the same inside gaming.
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2013 10:28:45 PM

Did you not understand what I said? " The 6100 gets better benchmark scores outside of gaming & I think that it'll do the same inside gaming." Meaning the 6100 is better for multi tasking but still good at gaming.
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2013 11:26:23 PM

cerial13 said:


I guess my question is, which is the better overall choice for the same budget? Is FX6100 really that worse than i3 3220 in gaming? And the inverse case, is the i3 still better than the FX6100 for other CPU-intensive tasks outside Gaming


All these responses and I don't think one has answered your question.

At stock speed, the FX 6100 is faster at running non-gaming applications. About 20% faster. The 3220 is faster in games. Roughly 10% to 30% faster depending upon whether game settings are set up more GPU or CPU dependent.

Another consideration is the FX 6100 has a great deal of overclocking headroom and an unlocked multiplier. Overclocking it to 4.5 ghz is fairly easy. Once overclocked, it matches the gaming performance of the 3220 and extends it's lead in non-gaming applications to over 40%. The 3220 has very, very, little OC headroom.

A feather in the 3220 cap is Very low power usage.

Bottom line is the FX 6100 is a more powerful and versatile chip, while the 3220 games better at stock and uses less power.
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2013 11:30:06 PM

FALC0N said:
All these responses and I don't think one has answered your question.

At stock speed, the FX 6100 is faster at running non-gaming applications. About 20% faster. The 3220 is faster in games. Roughly 10% to 30% faster depending upon whether game settings are set up more GPU or CPU dependent.

Another consideration is the FX 6100 has a great deal of overclocking headroom and an unlocked multiplier. Overclocking it to 4.5 ghz is fairly easy. Once overclocked, it matches the gaming performance of the 3220 and extends it's lead in non-gaming applications to over 40%. The 3220 has very, very, little OC headroom.

A feather in the 3220 cap is Very low power usage.

Bottom line is the FX 6100 is a more powerful and versatile chip, while the 3220 games better at stock and uses less power.


Thanks for claryfying, I was saying that but as simple as I could but some people like to argue haha
a c 79 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
January 7, 2013 11:37:38 PM

the i3 for gaming. fx 6100 for specialised highly threaded programs, that most people don't use. for general use and gaming the i3 is better. If you add the fx 6300 into the equation, i would sway toward that over the i3 for gaming. Although if you got the i3 you could upgrade to an i5 or i7 later which stomp over anything amd has for gaming.
a b à CPUs
January 8, 2013 12:00:15 AM

iam2thecrowe said:
the i3 for gaming. fx 6100 for specialised highly threaded programs, that most people don't use. for general use and gaming the i3 is better. If you add the fx 6300 into the equation, i would sway toward that over the i3 for gaming. Although if you got the i3 you could upgrade to an i5 or i7 later which stomp over anything amd has for gaming.


Specialized highly threaded? What are you talking about? Almost everything processor intensive is multithreaded these days. And thats before you count all the background stuff like Antivirus scanners, and OS processes and such. Almost everything, save games, benefit significantly from multiple cores. Thats just the way it is.

Furthermore, the I3 loses is gaming advantage once the 6100 is overclocked and the I3 can't respond because intel locked down overclocking on low end chips.
a c 788 à CPUs
a c 258 4 Gaming
January 8, 2013 12:12:14 AM

Guy's you should take this debate to a new discussion thread!!!! Nothing you are arguing about is helping OP!
!