Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

I3 3220 vs fx 6300

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share

i3 3220 vs fx 6300

Total: 54 votes (7 blank votes)

  • Intel i3 3220
  • 35 %
  • AMD fx 6300
  • 66 %
January 18, 2013 3:33:39 PM

Just starting a poll for the fun of it. Anyways what CPU would you choose for gaming?

i3 3220
- 3.3GHz
- 2 cores but with hyper threading
- 55w TDP
- can upgrade to better i5 or i7 ivy bridge after
- little bit better single thread performance
- no overclocking


fx 6300
- 3.5GHz (4.1GHz Turbo)
- 6 cores
- 95w TDP
- can upgrade to steamroller after
- alot better multi threaded performance
- can be overclocked

More about : 3220 6300

January 18, 2013 3:51:06 PM

sheepsnowadays said:
Just starting a poll for the fun of it. Anyways what CPU would you choose?

i3 3220
- 3.3GHz
- 2 cores but with hyper threading
- 55w TDP
- can upgrade to better i5 or i7 ivy bridge after
- little bit better single thread performance
- no overclocking


fx 6300
- 3.5GHz (4.1GHz Turbo)
- 6 cores
- 95w TDP
- can upgrade to steamroller after
- alot better multi threaded performance
- can be overclocked


6300 any day
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2013 4:01:42 PM

The AMD for a multithreaded computing machine, the Intel for a gaming rig.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2013 4:06:46 PM

Intel i3 3220 is really good dual core cpu but in game which need more cores then fx 6300 is better and also fx is good at multitasking.so my vote to fx 6300.
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2013 4:10:35 PM

Unless power and cooling are major concerns, fx6300 easily at this price point.

January 18, 2013 4:35:50 PM

I don't think AMD FX-6xxx has actual 6 cores, AFAIK, they have 3 "modules" as AMD designated.There are 2 integer clusters by module which share some resources, so I think the FX-6300 can be labeled as having 3 real cores (as a FX-4xxx has 2 actual cores and a FX-8xxx has 4 actual cores)

I know it's just a poll, but in case you are asking for suggestions, you should have said what is the purpose of this CPU.If it will be in budget build, just HTPC or for office tasks, no plans of overclocking, I would get the i3, if they have similar prices. I would get a FX-6300 if you plan overclocking , playing modern games or doing multithreaded taks, as 2 cores seem insufficient for me nowadays.Maybe an overclocked Piledriver CPU might be faster than an i3 now, as Bulldozer was lackluster, even overclocked.

Have a look at this comparision by Anandtech:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/699?vs=677

FX is clearly faster on multithreaded tasks, but for single thread ones, and probably for office/light use, an i3 is faster.
January 18, 2013 4:51:16 PM

Ya sorry forgot to say for gaming
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2013 4:55:05 PM

6000 no question
January 18, 2013 5:12:27 PM

6300 anyday of the week for gaming or video editing. i3 sucks
January 18, 2013 5:27:27 PM

sheepsnowadays said:
Ya sorry forgot to say for gaming


Then get a FX-6300.As I said, unless for basic stuff such as office apps or internet/general use, 2 cores aren't simply enough for games which are optimized for PC, such as Battlefield 3, Starcraft 2 or Counter-Strike: GO (even though it's a really light game, a desktop i3 runs at full speed).For console ports from Xbox 360, I doubt it will use more than two cores.But if you get a FX and intend to overclock it, please do me a favor of:

1-get a motherboard which supports overclocking (and with support for 125 W of TDP),
2-get a decent aftermarket cooler;
3-get a decent thermal paste
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2013 6:17:31 PM

ksio89 said:


FX is clearly faster on multithreaded tasks, but for single thread ones, and probably for office/light use, an i3 is faster.


For office and light use, the processor selection is just deciding if you want the cpu to run at 5 or 2% utilization all day long. A Celeron 530 and a i7-3930K type letters into a word processor and pull up web pages at the same speed.

For power office users, recent versions of office apps do multithread.

January 18, 2013 6:28:31 PM

twelve25 said:
For office and light use, the processor selection is just deciding if you want the cpu to run at 5 or 2% utilization all day long. A Celeron 530 and a i7-3930K type letters into a word processor and pull up web pages at the same speed.

For power office users, recent versions of office apps do multithread.


the 6300 is better for gaming then an i3,
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2013 6:45:26 PM

sorry going to go against the "popular wisdom" here and pick the i3.

the i3 is a few bucks cheaper - $119 to the $129 for a FX-6300 i see on pcpartpicker right now. include $30 for a good aftermarket heatsink than the $160 gets you close to the price of a i5-3330 fot $185. and you will want to get a heatsink because you will have to overclock the fx-6300 to match or beat the i3 in most all games. (and even then any "victory" for the 6300 would be just a few frame rates)

their is also a better upgrade path with getting the i3, as much as piledriver made improvements; it really surpased the phenoms and still has a way to go at beating the first generation of icores (nehalem) let alone sandy or ivy. so it would be an extremely high expectation to think steamroller will match an ivy quad core.

sorry folks the i3 does not suck for games - it hangs with some of the best in most . .

http://www.techspot.com/review/615-far-cry-3-performanc...

http://www.techspot.com/review/608-hitman-absolution-pe...

http://www.techspot.com/review/591-medal-of-honor-warfi...

cheers
January 18, 2013 6:52:37 PM

Anonymous said:
sorry going to go against the "popular wisdom" here and pick the i3.

the i3 is a few bucks cheaper - $119 to the $129 for a FX-6300 i see on pcpartpicker right now. include $30 for a good aftermarket heatsink than the $160 gets you close to the price of a i5-3330 fot $185. and you will want to get a heatsink because you will have to overclock the fx-6300 to match or beat the i3 in most all games. (and even then any "victory" for the 6300 would be just a few frame rates)

their is also a better upgrade path with getting the i3, as much as piledriver made improvements; it really surpased the phenoms and still has a way to go at beating the first generation of icores (nehalem) let alone sandy or ivy. so it would be an extremely high expectation to think steamroller will match an ivy quad core.

sorry folks the i3 does not suck for games - it hangs with some of the best in most . .

http://www.techspot.com/review/615-far-cry-3-performanc...

http://www.techspot.com/review/608-hitman-absolution-pe...

http://www.techspot.com/review/591-medal-of-honor-warfi...

cheers



the 6300 wins in all scenarios, its easily overclocks to 4.4 ghz and it runs circles around the i3
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2013 7:02:02 PM

diablo34life said:
6300 any day

6300 anyday of the week for gaming or video editing. i3 sucks

the 6300 is better for gaming then an i3,

the 6300 wins in all scenarios, its easily overclocks to 4.4 ghz and it runs circles around the i3


a b à CPUs
January 18, 2013 7:55:57 PM

FX6300 will be faster than the i3 3220 in overall gaming comparisons. It has better multithreaded performance (for games that use 4 cores or more) and can come close to the i3 in 2/3 threaded tasks. When you overclock it, the FX6300 can catch up to the i3 in 1/2/3 threaded apps.

The following pics come from here http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/fx-8350-83...
Note that the CPU in comparison is the i3 3240 which is 100mhz faster than the i3 3220













Both are playable in all games and this is with a stock FX6300. Also take in mind in massive multiplayer games with well threaded egnines like bf3 64man or CSS 64 man, the FX6300 will pull ahead.

Anonymous said:
sorry going to go against the "popular wisdom" here and pick the i3.

the i3 is a few bucks cheaper - $119 to the $129 for a FX-6300 i see on pcpartpicker right now. include $30 for a good aftermarket heatsink than the $160 gets you close to the price of a i5-3330 fot $185. and you will want to get a heatsink because you will have to overclock the fx-6300 to match or beat the i3 in most all games. (and even then any "victory" for the 6300 would be just a few frame rates)

their is also a better upgrade path with getting the i3, as much as piledriver made improvements; it really surpased the phenoms and still has a way to go at beating the first generation of icores (nehalem) let alone sandy or ivy. so it would be an extremely high expectation to think steamroller will match an ivy quad core.

sorry folks the i3 does not suck for games - it hangs with some of the best in most . .

http://www.techspot.com/review/615-far-cry-3-performanc...

http://www.techspot.com/review/608-hitman-absolution-pe...

http://www.techspot.com/review/591-medal-of-honor-warfi...

cheers


You will notice in your 3 reviews that the i3 and FX6300 have really close performance. I would argue that the FX6300 has a better upgrade path. The i3 maxes out at the 3770k (same IPC, more cores, higher clock) while the AMD AM3+ has steamroller looming late 2013/early 2014 (more cores, way more IPC [30%+], higher clock[likely])

PCIE 3.0 is still that that important yet until I would say 2-3 more GPU generations. If ht eOP gets a board with 2 PCIE2.0 x8/x16
he can crossfire/sli all he wants.




a b à CPUs
January 18, 2013 8:37:30 PM

Hold on I have an AMD CPU (8230) since I do use application that can use mulit core and I like to game. However I'm also the type who when I upgrade I like to do it on the cheap and will normally change out the the MB and CPU (and memory) while I would recommend the 6300 if hes thinking about upgrading the process in 1 year then maybe the i3 would be a better choice. That being said intel loves to come with new sockets and there is anew one around the corner which means that he is was thinking of upgrading his CPU maybe 2 year from now it may not be worth going to the i3.

That being said not sure how much life the AM3+ gots in it but AMD does tend to have sockets that last longer.
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2013 8:43:26 PM

AMD sockets do last a while, but I don't know.
I say i3 - Intel is a good company, the Core i3 has very good thermal performance, good performance in general, and is excellent with energy compared to the 6300. But, it can't overclock & doesn't have 4 cores. The 6300 has technically 3 cores, but has a more efficient "hyper threading" like technology that makes it perform like a real 6 core. It also has better multi-threaded performance, but the Core i3 beats it in single-threaded performance.
Really, it's up to you. I like having a shiny Intel sticker on my case, and I'm a fan of the i3's performance for the price & for what it is. If you wanna go AMD, that's cool, and if you wanna go Intel, that's cool too.
Just make sure whatever you buy, it makes you happy, and performs well.
Good luck & happy computing!
January 18, 2013 9:05:31 PM

payturr said:
AMD sockets do last a while, but I don't know.
I say i3 - Intel is a good company, the Core i3 has very good thermal performance, good performance in general, and is excellent with energy compared to the 6300. But, it can't overclock & doesn't have 4 cores. The 6300 has technically 3 cores, but has a more efficient "hyper threading" like technology that makes it perform like a real 6 core. It also has better multi-threaded performance, but the Core i3 beats it in single-threaded performance.
Really, it's up to you. I like having a shiny Intel sticker on my case, and I'm a fan of the i3's performance for the price & for what it is. If you wanna go AMD, that's cool, and if you wanna go Intel, that's cool too.
Just make sure whatever you buy, it makes you happy, and performs well.
Good luck & happy computing!


all fx have 4 6 or 8 core not half of that. they share the same floating point and decoder but they still have 8 , 6 or 4 cores. if a game or app can use more then 4 cores the fx 6300 and 8000 will use the cores. if its intels 3770 k no matter how many cores the game uses say 8 cores, intels hyperthreading wont help for that at all, it would only use 4 of its core gaming wise. the fx 6300 is faster then the i3 3000 series hands down and wins almost all benchmarks. i3s plain suck , 2 cores is a waste of money, you cant overclock them, and there slower for gaming and editing compared to the 6300. AMD is smart
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2013 9:11:23 PM

diablo34life said:
all fx have 4 6 or 8 core not half of that. they share the same floating point and decoder but they still have 8 , 6 or 4 cores. if a game or app can use more then 4 cores the fx 6300 and 8000 will use the cores. if its intels 3770 k no matter how many cores the game uses say 8 cores, intels hyperthreading wont help for that at all, it would only use 4 of its core gaming wise. the fx 6300 is faster then the i3 3000 series hands down and wins almost all benchmarks. i3s plain suck , 2 cores is a waste of money, you cant overclock them, and there slower for gaming and editing compared to the 6300. AMD is smart

You do know cores make very LITTLE difference in games, right? You can game perfectly fine on two cores. The i3s do not suck, they're very good for what they are. It'll be a good while before having a quad core is a necessity, so processors like this and the Pentium are still gonna be riding high until they'll have to be adjusted to keep up with software performance.
January 18, 2013 9:19:58 PM

payturr said:
You do know cores make very LITTLE difference in games, right? You can game perfectly fine on two cores. The i3s do not suck, they're very good for what they are. It'll be a good while before having a quad core is a necessity, so processors like this and the Pentium are still gonna be riding high until they'll have to be adjusted to keep up with software performance.


did you read what i say? i said if a game were to use more then 4 cores say 8, intel would still use 4 of its 8 threads where the fx8350 would use all 8 of its threads. so hopefully u understand a little better. you do realize that civilization 5 , metro and a few other games use over 4 cores right. civ 5 actually can use 6 full cores. i3 is for people who dont know much about computers or want entry level, for a gamer its not a smart buy and anyone who actualyl does buy an i3 will deffintley be wasting there money because after using one there going to wish they spent the money on an i5 or a fx 6 or 8 core. an i3 and civ 5 = lag city
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2013 9:39:01 PM

I love how a thread just for the heck of it has so much conflict.
January 18, 2013 9:48:20 PM

esrever said:
I love how a thread just for the heck of it has so much conflict.


conflict leads to the truth its nececcary

EverRob
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2013 10:03:15 PM

stickmansam said:
You will notice in your 3 reviews that the i3 and FX6300 have really close performance. I would argue that the FX6300 has a better upgrade path. The i3 maxes out at the 3770k (same IPC, more cores, higher clock) while the AMD AM3+ has steamroller looming late 2013/early 2014 (more cores, way more IPC [30%+], higher clock[likely])

PCIE 3.0 is still that that important yet until I would say 2-3 more GPU generations. If ht eOP gets a board with 2 PCIE2.0 x8/x16
he can crossfire/sli all he wants.

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/Intel/Ivy_Bridge_PCI-Express_Scaling/images/perfrel.gif


first of all, thanks for actually reading what i posted when replying. i won't dispute that a FX-6300 and i3 can have similar performance in many games. to take a small snippet from you link:
Quote:
However, speaking about the improvement of the gaming capabilities in the new Vishera processors with eight and six computing cores, it is important to remember that Intel CPUs continue dominating the gaming segment with much higher speeds. Core i7 and Core i5 based platforms produce more frames per second than systems with the top AMD FX processors, and Core i3 CPUs can easily challenge FX-6300.

i think we can both agree that "out of the box" performance both are capable chips.

but to think the AM3+ socket is better upgrade because of steamroller, next year, naw. vishera was a 7% increase at best over zambezi. that put it just over the phenom 2s and close to the first icore generation; nehalem.

folks claimed that vishera would have a 30% increase over zambezi and provided figures and speculation to back such. but the end result was the above mentioned 7%. nice increase but nothing at all as dramatic as prophesied. even to entertain the conjecture that steamroller will have a 30% increase would put it similar to, but not ahead of ivy bridge.

in the meantime a socket 1155 can be upgraded to an i5, no need for an i7, and last for a good long time. just because socket 1150 is coming out for haswell doesn't put a nail in the coffin for 1155s. look at how many socket 1356 and 1156s are still out there gaming very well. and its just been the last few games that finished off the socket 775 and C2Q 95xxs.

edit: i am with you on the PCI 3.0 being insignificant btw. so i just edited that part out.
January 18, 2013 10:05:33 PM

Anonymous said:
first of all, thanks for actually reading what i posted when replying. i won't dispute that a FX-6300 and i3 can have similar performance in many games. to take a small snippet from you link:
Quote:
However, speaking about the improvement of the gaming capabilities in the new Vishera processors with eight and six computing cores, it is important to remember that Intel CPUs continue dominating the gaming segment with much higher speeds. Core i7 and Core i5 based platforms produce more frames per second than systems with the top AMD FX processors, and Core i3 CPUs can easily challenge FX-6300.

i think we can both agree that "out of the box" performance both are capable chips.

but to think the AM3+ socket is better upgrade because of steamroller, next year, naw. vishera was a 7% increase at best over zambezi. that put it just over the phenom 2s and close to the first icore generation; nehalem.

folks claimed that vishera would have a 30% increase over zambezi and provided figures and speculation to back such. but the end result was the above mentioned 7%. nice increase but nothing at all as dramatic as prophesied. even to entertain the conjecture that steamroller will have a 30% increase would put it similar to, but not ahead of ivy bridge.

in the meantime a socket 1155 can be upgraded to an i5, no need for an i7, and last for a good long time. just because socket 1150 is coming out for haswell doesn't put a nail in the coffin for 1155s. look at how many socket 1356 and 1156s are still out there gaming very well. and its just been the last few games that finished off the socket 775 and C2Q 95xxs.

edit: i am with you on the PCI 3.0 being insignificant btw. so i just edited that part out.



vishera was a 15% increase in performance over bulldozer
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2013 10:53:29 PM

I would take the 6300. overclock to around 4.4-4.6 be very close to the i5 and play games. i acctually have a i3 2100 i dont like the chip too much It hits 100% alot while playing games. my 6300 at 4.5ghz hits like 60% and with the same gpus the 6300 at 4.5ghz gets more fps. like a jump from a i3-i5 increase of fps. So go for the 6300. However if your choosing between a 6300 and a i5 go for the i5
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2013 11:16:45 PM

The 6300 overclocked would BARELY beat the i3 at gaming, and you are forgetting the fact that you would be wasting money on a cpu cooler to boot on a dead end, currently there is no am3 cpu much better than the 6300 for gaming.


The i5 absolutely is NOT even in the same planet as a 6300 for gaming.


Get the i3, save money, get the i5, sell the i3 and laugh cause you made the right choice.











January 18, 2013 11:47:10 PM

maxalge said:
The 6300 overclocked would BARELY beat the i3 at gaming, and you are forgetting the fact that you would be wasting money on a cpu cooler to boot on a dead end, currently there is no am3 cpu much better than the 6300 for gaming.


The i5 absolutely is NOT even in the same planet as a 6300 for gaming.


Get the i3, save money, get the i5, sell the i3 and laugh cause you made the right choice.


i3 gets killed by the 6300. civ 5 it gets 80% better performance then an i3. and i3 has a crappy locked clote rate. i would even take an fx4300 over an i3. the 8350 beats the i5 3570k in alot of games, also the 8350 is the fastest cpu for streaming it even ebats the $330 i7 3770k. vishera is the best cpu for main stream gaming right now. intel has its fanboys and thats about it hahahha
January 19, 2013 12:03:43 AM

stantheman123 said:
I would take the 6300. overclock to around 4.4-4.6 be very close to the i5 and play games. i acctually have a i3 2100 i dont like the chip too much It hits 100% alot while playing games. my 6300 at 4.5ghz hits like 60% and with the same gpus the 6300 at 4.5ghz gets more fps. like a jump from a i3-i5 increase of fps. So go for the 6300. However if your choosing between a 6300 and a i5 go for the i5


Nice to get the opinion of someone that owns both of them. I notice you have a 7970 with that 6300, experience any bottleneck there?
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2013 12:07:45 AM

diablo34life said:
i3 gets killed by the 6300. civ 5 it gets 80% better performance then an i3. and i3 has a crappy locked clote rate. i would even take an fx4300 over an i3. the 8350 beats the i5 3570k in alot of games, also the 8350 is the fastest cpu for streaming it even ebats the $330 i7 3770k. vishera is the best cpu for main stream gaming right now. intel has its fanboys and thats about it hahahha



Really?




a b à CPUs
January 19, 2013 12:08:57 AM

sheepsnowadays said:
Nice to get the opinion of someone that owns both of them. I notice you have a 7970 with that 6300, experience any bottleneck there?

My 6300 was a bit weird with turbo boost. it was only going to 3.8ghz when its ment to go 4.1. i did experiance a bit of a bottleneck. i was getting 75-80% gpu usage on battlefield 3. however if my 6300 actually turbo ed correctly it wouldn't of bottlenecked. but i was going to overclock anyway however at 4.5ghz i cannot tell you how much FASTER this cpu is than my i3 2100. i know in benchmarks it says the there around the same however in real life i feel that the i3 drops fps quite a bit. since it maxs at 100% quite a bit. The 6300 is A nice cpu. and when overclocked its in a different league than the i3 imo
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2013 12:11:58 AM

a b à CPUs
January 19, 2013 12:34:45 AM

Anonymous said:


but to think the AM3+ socket is better upgrade because of steamroller, next year, naw. vishera was a 7% increase at best over zambezi. that put it just over the phenom 2s and close to the first icore generation; nehalem.

folks claimed that vishera would have a 30% increase over zambezi and provided figures and speculation to back such. but the end result was the above mentioned 7%. nice increase but nothing at all as dramatic as prophesied. even to entertain the conjecture that steamroller will have a 30% increase would put it similar to, but not ahead of ivy bridge.

in the meantime a socket 1155 can be upgraded to an i5, no need for an i7, and last for a good long time. just because socket 1150 is coming out for haswell doesn't put a nail in the coffin for 1155s. look at how many socket 1356 and 1156s are still out there gaming very well. and its just been the last few games that finished off the socket 775 and C2Q 95xxs.


I always aim to please :p  How can expect people to read my links [which I love posting by the way:) ] if I don'read theirs?

Well it has been shown that the front end/decode/fetch of the piledrivers is holding back its performance by about 30%. So AMD which they have said to eliminate this problem by doubling the front end units. AMD failed in bulldozer/piledriver by keeping the same front end while increasing the back end by almost 80%.
Realistically, Pile driver has IPC improvement of 7% and about 7% speed bump for 15ish% improvement.

Steamroller will only match Ivy with its 30% improvement but its ability to overclock compared to Ivy at a cheaper price will give it an upper hand. Ignoring Microcenter(not everyone lives close by), the cheapest 3570k run for about $220. The FX6x00 will have pricing at about $150 (more expensive than now to reflect its improved performance). The FX6x00 will be able to overclock unlike the closest i5 (3470 at $180) and thus offer a significantly better price/perf.

Getting an FX6300 now also gives better performance now since you can OC with a custom cooler. While the i3 will now require a custom cooler, an 3570k will require one to OC to match the FX6x00 later on and thus both platforms will require a purchase of a AFC but just at different times.

FX6300 = 100%
i3 = 100%
FX6300 OC = 100%+ (depends on OC

Upgrade to i5/FX6x00 in 1 year
So over the course of that one year, you can get more performance and less gpu bottleneck and have arguably more fun during that period.

Ofc the best option to to just grab an i5 now and have the most fun :D 
I'm actually the type that never likes upgrading the CPU and MB separately so I went i5 myself XD


a b à CPUs
January 19, 2013 12:36:38 AM





You DO realize that the link you provided has the i3 TIE the 8350 in civ 5 in one bench, and loose by 8 fps on another...


So 6300 80% better than the i3 seems like silly BS eh?


And the i5 utterly trashes both...
January 19, 2013 12:41:03 AM

maxalge said:
You DO realize that the link you provided has the i3 TIE the 8350 in civ 5 in one bench, and loose by 8 fps on another...


So 6300 80% better than the i3 seems like silly BS eh?


And the i5 utterly trashes both...


you DO realize thats ci5 on normal settings
January 19, 2013 12:46:14 AM

maxalge said:
You DO realize that the link you provided has the i3 TIE the 8350 in civ 5 in one bench, and loose by 8 fps on another...


So 6300 80% better than the i3 seems like silly BS eh?


And the i5 utterly trashes both...



i thin this guys trying alittle to hard to look like bam margera lmao... ahhh little kids on toms
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2013 12:47:48 AM

diablo34life said:
i thin this guys trying alittle to hard to look like bam margera lmao... ahhh little kids on toms


i3 gets killed by the 6300. civ 5 it gets 80% better performance then an i3


So what part of this was you not lying?
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2013 12:48:13 AM

Wow ok this is getting a bit heated up? both a good cpus and you cant go wrong. as long as the end user is happy. and is getting 60fps. get either cpu get a nice strong gpu like a 7870 or 7950 or 660ti and get 60fps+. gpu is more important at high resolutions.
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2013 12:56:14 AM

stantheman123 said:
Wow ok this is getting a bit heated up? both a good cpus and you cant go wrong. as long as the end user is happy. and is getting 60fps. get either cpu get a nice strong gpu like a 7870 or 7950 or 660ti and get 60fps+. gpu is more important at high resolutions.



Actually just using "60fps" as a guidepost for gaming is an outdated notion.

You also need to consider latencies/rendering speed of frames, cause no one likes stuttering eh?
January 19, 2013 12:57:53 AM

maxalge said:
So what part of this was you not lying?


i feel bad for kids who try to look like people from mtv
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2013 12:59:20 AM

diablo34life said:
i feel bad for kids who try to look like people from mtv



80% better without proof seems like a mtv thing to say... Were you dropped as a troll?

I mean you claim something, you get called on that bs, you post "proof", it shows the opposite of your "claim".


You get laughed at, you get butthurt, you resort to childish crying....


I really would like to learn the 6300 is 80% better than an i3 in gaming, cause that would totally change the processor I would recommend to people on budget builds...


Care to back it up with some benches or something?
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2013 1:09:31 AM

I like maxalge, he's my guy.
January 19, 2013 1:16:00 AM

maxalge said:
80% better without proof seems like a mtv thing to say... Were you dropped as a troll?

I mean you claim something, you get called on that bs, you post "proof", it shows the opposite of your "claim".


You get laughed at, you get butthurt, you resort to childish crying....


I really would like to learn the 6300 is 80% better than an i3 in gaming, cause that would totally change the processor I would recommend to people on budget builds...


Care to back it up with some benches or something?


i call bs on your part, dont feel bad because an apprentice put you in your place, lol a duel core locked against an fx 6300. if you cant come to terms with the fx 6300 beating the i3 that means your an intel fanboy
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2013 1:18:11 AM

Coming from the guy who thinks an 8350 tops a 3770K..
Putting a 6300 against an i3 is like putting a 7850 up against a 560ti. You just don't do that.
Anyway, Core i3 still doesn't suck. The FX 6300 is a good CPU but isn't world's better than the Core i3, the two are rather close.
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2013 1:20:29 AM

maxalge said:
Actually just using "60fps" as a guidepost for gaming is an outdated notion.

You also need to consider latencies/rendering speed of frames, cause no one likes stuttering eh?

Stuttering is debatable on person to person my friend said he saw stuttering with 6970 crossfire. i played on the same system didnt feel a thing So that point is mute its debatable. and no 60fps is not outdated not everyone has these 120hz mointors. same thing with latiences i see no diffrence in smoothness in my i3 compared to the 6300

"Smoothness is different for everyone"

Anyway enough of this flame war. We all have given our opinion to the op about which cpu. Let him decide all im saying is that theres no wrong choice. he will be happy with either.
January 19, 2013 1:21:07 AM

payturr said:
Coming from the guy who thinks an 8350 tops a 3770K..
Putting a 6300 against an i3 is like putting a 7850 up against a 560ti. You just don't do that.
Anyway, Core i3 still doesn't suck. The FX 6300 is a good CPU but isn't world's better than the Core i3, the two are rather close.


putting the i3 against the fx4300 is like a radeon 7770 against gtx 650 same thing. and even the 4300 beats the i3 ivybridge. sad that the 8350 beats the 3770k in streaming gameplay.
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2013 1:22:29 AM

You're telling me that the processor that can't even beat out the 3570K is better than the 3770K? Smells fanboy-y in here...
January 19, 2013 1:25:16 AM

payturr said:
You're telling me that the processor that can't even beat out the 3570K is better than the 3770K? Smells fanboy-y in here...


coming from the guy who didnt even notice this benchmark was without proper rendering
http://techreport.com/review/23750 [...] reviewed/9
the i3 cant run civ 5 if you actually read the review
!