I3 3220 vs fx 6300

[sheepsnowadays]

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

 

[diablo34life]

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

 

[chesteracorgi]

The AMD for a multithreaded computing machine, the Intel for a gaming rig.

 

[ASHISH65]

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.

 

[twelve25]

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

 

[ksio89]

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.

 

[sheepsnowadays]

Ya sorry forgot to say for gaming

 

[redeemer]

6000 no question

 

[diablo34life]

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

 

[ksio89]

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

 

[twelve25]

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.

 

[diablo34life]

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,

 

[Guest]

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-performance/page6.html

http://www.techspot.com/review/608-hitman-absolution-performance-benchmarks/page6.html

http://www.techspot.com/review/591-medal-of-honor-warfighter-benchmarks/page6.html

cheers

 

[diablo34life]

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-performance/page6.html

http://www.techspot.com/review/608-hitman-absolution-performance-benchmarks/page6.html

http://www.techspot.com/review/591-medal-of-honor-warfighter-benchmarks/page6.html

cheers

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[diablo34life]

http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/1/e/1e433_ORIG-The_Troll_is_Strong_in_this_one.jpg

intel squad

 

[stickmansam]

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-8350-8320-6300-4300_6.html#sect0
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.

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-performance/page6.html

http://www.techspot.com/review/608-hitman-absolution-performance-benchmarks/page6.html

http://www.techspot.com/review/591-medal-of-honor-warfighter-benchmarks/page6.html

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.

 

[ikaz]

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.

 

[payturr]

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!

 

[diablo34life]

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

 

[payturr]

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.

 

[diablo34life]

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

 

[esrever]

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

 

[diablo34life]

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

conflict leads to the truth its nececcary

EverRob

 

[Guest]

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:

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.