Meanwhile, the FX-6300 was 17% faster than the i3-3220 in synthetic benchmarks, 44% in application tests, 30% faster in encoding benches and just 2% slower when measuring gaming performance. That's an average of 22% faster than the i3-3220.
With AMD's aggressive pricing, the updated FX series isn't necessarily in an indefensible position against Ivy Bridge when purely comparing speed and price, but it's not exactly an open and shut case either. The FX-6300 may offer 22% more performance than the i3-3220 for about the same price, but our Piledriver-powered test rig also consumed around 86% more power than the Ivy Bridge machine (227 watts versus 116 watts).
I am totally fine saying that the i3 3220 is better in most games than the FX6300, although that statement only includes stock speeds and not overclocking. At normal resolutions and with an adequate GPU any difference is going to be minor though.
yeah, I have too agree, I have experienced AMD first hand and I love it because it works very well in editing and can play games... just it does slack in any games like bf3, gtaIV, and other games that are not well threaded(I know bf3 is but i guess not good enough )