Amd vs intel build

[Mrtechdiff]

What is better for gaming. A amd 6300 CPU or a Intel Core i3-3225?

I'm building my first build and i don't understand how in any way the dual core could come close to the 6 core AMD in any cases.

Whats your input? By the way ill have a 500w power supply and a 7850 GPU.
thank you.

 

[JKatwyopc]

Take a look at this comparison between the FX6300 and the I3-3220 (I3-3225 has the same Clock but with HD 4000 graphics instead of HD 2500). It's pretty close.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/699?vs=677

 

[Mrtechdiff]

Best answer selected by mrtechdiff.

 

[Mrtechdiff]

thank you very much, i think ill go with the 6300.

 

[Hazle]

What is better for gaming. A amd 6300 CPU or a Intel Core i3-3225?

I'm building my first build and i don't understand how in any way the dual core could come close to the 6 core AMD in any cases.

Whats your input? By the way ill have a 500w power supply and a 7850 GPU.
thank you.

heck of a lot more to a CPU performance in gaming than the number of cores and clock speed. there's architecture and IPC to consider as well among many others i can't fully grasp myself. note as well that most games don't fully utilize more than 2 cores and the FX series is simply lacking in single core performance compared to an i3 which matters in games. in well threaded games (i.e; Dirt 3) though, you get a whole different story.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/57615-amd-vishera-fx-6300-fx-4300-review-12.html

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8350_and_fx_6300,6.html

http://www.techspot.com/review/586-amd-fx-8350-fx-6300/page6.html


with an i3, you could push out more performance out of that 7850, but with the upcoming new game consoles, future games may be able to utilize those extra cores/threads.... maybe......... hopefully.

so it all comes down to how much you're willing to spend and how often you think you will upgrade your PC. an i3 would be fine if you're thinking of upgrading the CPU in a year or two to a quad core, be it a Haswell or Ivy Bridge. the FX-6300 will hopefully last you as long as the Phenom II X4 945/955/965 BE has for many owners... considering you don't mind the electricity bills.

 

[Outlander_04]

heck of a lot more to a CPU performance in gaming than the number of cores and clock speed. there's architecture and IPC to consider as well among many others i can't fully grasp myself. note as well that most games don't fully utilize more than 2 cores and the FX series is simply lacking in single core performance compared to an i3 which matters in games. in well threaded games (i.e; Dirt 3) though, you get a whole different story.

The only thing that matters in computer chip performance is how much you paid , and how it performs for your dollar spent.

The FX will produce frame rates that are near enough identical to the intel , but it will smash it in encoding tasks
The only games the intel can convincingly win use older DX 9 game engines and there wont be any more of those .

As for power usage ...... The FX will use about 50 - 60 more watts . Its a lot till you consider a kilowatt hour costs 16 cents
The difference in running costs at full load is about 1 cent per hour

The difference at idle at desktop , or surfing the web is about a cent every week

 

[Guest]

The only games the intel can convincingly win use older DX 9 game engines and there wont be any more of those .

ahem!

yes i will admit to a cherry picked benchmark, however your statement is not entirely true.

just saying . . . and for the record i do think the 6300 is a bit better than the i3 except in single threaded performance.

 

[Outlander_04]

ahem!
http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-6300-FX-4300/FX-6300-FX-4300-62.jpg
yes i will admit to a cherry picked benchmark, however your statement is not entirely true.

just saying . . . and for the record i do think the 6300 is a bit better than the i3 except in single threaded performance.

You cherry picked a meaningless benchmark .
Not many people game at such low resolutions , but even if they did either processor would produce identical user experience .
An LCD monitor runs at 60 Hz . Which is the same as 60 FPS . Anytime you have a frame rate above that it still just displays at 60 fps .
The only exception is 120 Hz [ 3D] monitors and they are rare and expensive

But I do accept my statement was only kind of true

 

[Guest]

You cherry picked a meaningless benchmark .
Not many people game at such low resolutions , but even if they did either processor would produce identical user experience .
An LCD monitor runs at 60 Hz . Which is the same as 60 FPS . Anytime you have a frame rate above that it still just displays at 60 fps .
The only exception is 120 Hz [ 3D] monitors and they are rare and expensive

But I do accept my statement was only kind of true

i do understand it may not be a very relevant benchmark under the conditions you now specify. but i am not exactly thinking it is entirely meaningless in reply to a difference in DX9/10.

unless i am missing something; it pushes the gpu harder but not the cpu.
here is an older far cry dx9/dx10 cpu performance review . .
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article/2008/12/01/farcry_2_dx9_vs_dx10_performance/7

Overall, this translates into less total CPU usage, with the CPU averaging 28% this time. So it appears that DX10 is actually using less of the CPU.

Just like with the AMD 4870 we are seeing a lower total CPU usage here, down to 36%. Note we did repeat these tests multiple times and each time DX10 did have lower total CPU usage on both video cards.

 

[Outlander_04]

I do accept my statement was only kind of true

There will be exceptions