FX 6100 or Intel i3?
Tags:
-
Gaming
-
Intel
-
CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
deatheater
March 30, 2013 1:38:48 AM
So I'm planning on building a budget gaming pc,first time i'm doing this so needed some help, I was thinking about the FX 6100 cause it has great specs and 6 cores but alot of people online say its crap. So I was wondering how it would compare to the Intel i3 3220/3210.. The planned specs are-
HD7750 1GB GDDR5 OR HD7750 2gb DDR3(Any major differences between these?)
500W PSU(enough right?)
4GB RAM(Enough or need more?)
Thanks alot
Also,it will only be used for gaming and normal web surfing.
HD7750 1GB GDDR5 OR HD7750 2gb DDR3(Any major differences between these?)
500W PSU(enough right?)
4GB RAM(Enough or need more?)
Thanks alot
Also,it will only be used for gaming and normal web surfing.
More about : 6100 intel
deatheater
March 30, 2013 2:33:54 AM
Related resources
- Intel i3 3220 or AMD FX 6100? - Forum
- AMD FX-6100 or Intel i3 3240? - Forum
- Intel Core i3 2120 vs AMD FX 6100 - Forum
- Overclocked AMD FX 4170/6100 vs. Intel Core i3 - Forum
- AMD FX 6100 vs Intel Core i3 or i5? - Forum
deatheater said:
ASHISH65 said:
i3 3220 is faster than fx6100 in games due to strong per core performance.i sugest i3 is good choiceWhat about the graphics and ram?
thanks
ddr5 is much much faster than ddr3.so go with hd 7750 1gb ddr5.
4gb ram is fine,but some games at high settings will take ram more so getting another 4gb ram is not big deal as they are cheap
deatheater
March 30, 2013 4:56:02 AM
ASHISH65 said:
deatheater said:
ASHISH65 said:
i3 3220 is faster than fx6100 in games due to strong per core performance.i sugest i3 is good choiceWhat about the graphics and ram?
thanks
ddr5 is much much faster than ddr3.so go with hd 7750 1gb ddr5.
4gb ram is fine,but some games at high settings will take ram more so getting another 4gb ram is not big deal as they are cheap
Thanks alot
I do need some more opinions on the processor though..
deatheater
March 30, 2013 5:18:11 AM
ASHISH65 said:
you read these benches - http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...- http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-fr...
Hmm,thanks alot for the links,i think ill be going with the i3 though i have one more question..how many watt PSU do i need for this config?(possibly with 6gb-8gb ram in future)
deatheater
March 30, 2013 5:44:16 AM
ASHISH65 said:
it is very good dual core+ hyperthreating cpu and can handle 99% of the games fineIf you want to upgrade in 12 months...sure...
@thedarkshadow...please define..."It runs Crysis 3 fine" What is fine? Bottlenecking the GPU that could run it at 1080p? 30-40 fps @ 720p? screen resolution? GPU?
"It runs fine" is a very subjective statement.
ASHISH65 said:
8350rocks said:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!FX-6300 > i3 ALL DAY, EVERY DAY!
find some legit benchmarks...don't waste your money, the i3 is TERRIBLE in the newest games that require more than 4 cores.
lol we never talked about fx 6300,its 6100
For $20 more the FX6300 is a way better buy than either of the other 2
deatheater
March 31, 2013 12:21:46 AM
8350rocks said:
ASHISH65 said:
8350rocks said:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!FX-6300 > i3 ALL DAY, EVERY DAY!
find some legit benchmarks...don't waste your money, the i3 is TERRIBLE in the newest games that require more than 4 cores.
lol we never talked about fx 6300,its 6100
For $20 more the FX6300 is a way better buy than either of the other 2
The FX6300 isnt available in india though...
iam2thecrowe said:
+1 to the i3. 6100 is poor for gaming.So is a dual core intel that won't run Crysis 3 at medium settings above 17 FPS...
There are more games coming like Crysis 3, then there are games like Skyrim coming...that's bad advice...let the poor guy waste his money to spend more later...
biopolar said:
Hm, that's a bummer that the 6300 isn't available in India, would definitely be the better buy.But the i3-3220 is a great equivalent. Definitely do go 3220 as the 6100 is a very poor and destructible choice in my experience.
I will say...between those 2 choices, the 6100 is not a very good option...the 6300 though is a great chip, and I agree would be well worth it.
tadej petric
March 31, 2013 10:32:26 AM
8350rocks said:
iam2thecrowe said:
+1 to the i3. 6100 is poor for gaming.So is a dual core intel that won't run Crysis 3 at medium settings above 17 FPS...
There are more games coming like Crysis 3, then there are games like Skyrim coming...that's bad advice...let the poor guy waste his money to spend more later...
They should ban you for being overkill fanboy.
i3 is better. Oh, BTW Crysis 3 and Skyrim are already out.
tadej petric said:
8350rocks said:
iam2thecrowe said:
+1 to the i3. 6100 is poor for gaming.So is a dual core intel that won't run Crysis 3 at medium settings above 17 FPS...
There are more games coming like Crysis 3, then there are games like Skyrim coming...that's bad advice...let the poor guy waste his money to spend more later...
They should ban you for being overkill fanboy.
i3 is better. Oh, BTW Crysis 3 and Skyrim are already out.
You should stop calling someone who doesn't agree with you a Fanboy.
BTW, the future of gaming called me, it said: "FX6300 > i3"
Crysis 3 is WAY better on FX6300 than i3...just ask the guy bottlenecking his 7950 with his i3 CPU. He only gets 40 FPS on high settings (not Ultra, which the 7950 could easily do...but his CPU can't keep the frame rate up)
Haha yeah the i3 sure will bottleneck the OPs 7750 /s
Yeah sure my cheap $100 CPU will bottleneck my $300 GPU. I knew that when I bought them. I have the settings mixed on high and very high on crysis 3. You also forget the variable of anti-aliasing. With that on it makes a huge hit on fps. In multi threaded apps the 6300 would be better with its 3 cores and 6 threads than the i3 with 2 cores 4 threads. I'm just saying I am pleased with my CPU for what I payed.
Yeah sure my cheap $100 CPU will bottleneck my $300 GPU. I knew that when I bought them. I have the settings mixed on high and very high on crysis 3. You also forget the variable of anti-aliasing. With that on it makes a huge hit on fps. In multi threaded apps the 6300 would be better with its 3 cores and 6 threads than the i3 with 2 cores 4 threads. I'm just saying I am pleased with my CPU for what I payed.
thdarkshadow said:
Haha yeah the i3 sure will bottleneck the OPs 7750 /sYeah sure my cheap $100 CPU will bottleneck my $300 GPU. I knew that when I bought them. I have the settings mixed on high and very high on crysis 3. You also forget the variable of anti-aliasing. With that on it makes a huge hit on fps. In multi threaded apps the 6300 would be better with its 3 cores and 6 threads than the i3 with 2 cores 4 threads. I'm just saying I am pleased with my CPU for what I payed.
Fair enough...
tadej petric
April 2, 2013 6:15:39 AM
8350rocks said:
tadej petric said:
8350rocks said:
iam2thecrowe said:
+1 to the i3. 6100 is poor for gaming.So is a dual core intel that won't run Crysis 3 at medium settings above 17 FPS...
There are more games coming like Crysis 3, then there are games like Skyrim coming...that's bad advice...let the poor guy waste his money to spend more later...
They should ban you for being overkill fanboy.
i3 is better. Oh, BTW Crysis 3 and Skyrim are already out.
You should stop calling someone who doesn't agree with you a Fanboy.
BTW, the future of gaming called me, it said: "FX6300 > i3"
Crysis 3 is WAY better on FX6300 than i3...just ask the guy bottlenecking his 7950 with his i3 CPU. He only gets 40 FPS on high settings (not Ultra, which the 7950 could easily do...but his CPU can't keep the frame rate up)
Sorry if I insulted you. I think your just a bit too much about AMD. Sure its good and that stuff but look other companys too. And i3 is not bottlenecking 7950. But crysis is hell of a game. Check:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/crysis-3-performance-benc...
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/crysis-3-performance-benc...
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/crysis-3-performance-benc...
And this was done with 1000$ CPU and 7950 was boost version!
tadej petric said:
8350rocks said:
tadej petric said:
8350rocks said:
iam2thecrowe said:
+1 to the i3. 6100 is poor for gaming.So is a dual core intel that won't run Crysis 3 at medium settings above 17 FPS...
There are more games coming like Crysis 3, then there are games like Skyrim coming...that's bad advice...let the poor guy waste his money to spend more later...
They should ban you for being overkill fanboy.
i3 is better. Oh, BTW Crysis 3 and Skyrim are already out.
You should stop calling someone who doesn't agree with you a Fanboy.
BTW, the future of gaming called me, it said: "FX6300 > i3"
Crysis 3 is WAY better on FX6300 than i3...just ask the guy bottlenecking his 7950 with his i3 CPU. He only gets 40 FPS on high settings (not Ultra, which the 7950 could easily do...but his CPU can't keep the frame rate up)
Sorry if I insulted you. I think your just a bit too much about AMD. Sure its good and that stuff but look other companys too. And i3 is not bottlenecking 7950. But crysis is hell of a game. Check:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/crysis-3-performance-benc...
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/crysis-3-performance-benc...
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/crysis-3-performance-benc...
And this was done with 1000$ CPU and 7950 was boost version!
While your benchmarks show interesting information, they are run with all the AA and everything else that pulls down frame rates.
I would like to point out that the minimum fps on the HD 7950 is about 30% better than all the other cards (42 vs 33), the average FPS was a little lower (though within margin for error on the benchmark, as the margin for error is likely about 10%, and 65 x 90% is 59 FPS). That means the decrease in frame rate would be less noticeable on the HD 7950 and the frame rate was more consistent.
Additionally, if Crysis 3 was run with a $1000 CPU in that comparison and got those frame rates, then an i3 getting 30-40 FPS is a bottleneck. (As the average frame rate was still 59 for the HD 7950)
tadej petric
April 2, 2013 11:59:40 AM
8350rocks said:
tadej petric said:
8350rocks said:
tadej petric said:
8350rocks said:
iam2thecrowe said:
+1 to the i3. 6100 is poor for gaming.So is a dual core intel that won't run Crysis 3 at medium settings above 17 FPS...
There are more games coming like Crysis 3, then there are games like Skyrim coming...that's bad advice...let the poor guy waste his money to spend more later...
They should ban you for being overkill fanboy.
i3 is better. Oh, BTW Crysis 3 and Skyrim are already out.
You should stop calling someone who doesn't agree with you a Fanboy.
BTW, the future of gaming called me, it said: "FX6300 > i3"
Crysis 3 is WAY better on FX6300 than i3...just ask the guy bottlenecking his 7950 with his i3 CPU. He only gets 40 FPS on high settings (not Ultra, which the 7950 could easily do...but his CPU can't keep the frame rate up)
Sorry if I insulted you. I think your just a bit too much about AMD. Sure its good and that stuff but look other companys too. And i3 is not bottlenecking 7950. But crysis is hell of a game. Check:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/crysis-3-performance-benc...
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/crysis-3-performance-benc...
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/crysis-3-performance-benc...
And this was done with 1000$ CPU and 7950 was boost version!
While your benchmarks show interesting information, they are run with all the AA and everything else that pulls down frame rates.
I would like to point out that the minimum fps on the HD 7950 is about 30% better than all the other cards (42 vs 33), the average FPS was a little lower (though within margin for error on the benchmark, as the margin for error is likely about 10%, and 65 x 90% is 59 FPS). That means the decrease in frame rate would be less noticeable on the HD 7950 and the frame rate was more consistent.
Additionally, if Crysis 3 was run with a $1000 CPU in that comparison and got those frame rates, then an i3 getting 30-40 FPS is a bottleneck. (As the average frame rate was still 59 for the HD 7950)
Now theres only one thing I have to say.
Crysis 3 is very CPU hungry game. CPU can give as much data to GPU as you want but there still needs to be more ''power''. You have wind, physics, AI... to calculate and GPU cant do much here (leave advanced PhysX alone now). CPU gets all the hard things. But graphics are really good too, so you need good graphics card too. There are many CPU intense games out there (TESV: Skyrim, Civilization V, Total War (series), Crysis 3...) that need good CPU and they will be happy with better, stronger and faster CPU.
Bottlenecking is when CPU cant give enough data to GPU to make GPU at 100% load. Imagine beer bottle. You cant drink fast beacuse of small neck (CPU), and the rest of the bottle (GPU) being too big. So beer (data) cant go as fast as it can.
Hope it helps!
tadej petric said:
8350rocks said:
tadej petric said:
8350rocks said:
tadej petric said:
8350rocks said:
iam2thecrowe said:
+1 to the i3. 6100 is poor for gaming.So is a dual core intel that won't run Crysis 3 at medium settings above 17 FPS...
There are more games coming like Crysis 3, then there are games like Skyrim coming...that's bad advice...let the poor guy waste his money to spend more later...
They should ban you for being overkill fanboy.
i3 is better. Oh, BTW Crysis 3 and Skyrim are already out.
You should stop calling someone who doesn't agree with you a Fanboy.
BTW, the future of gaming called me, it said: "FX6300 > i3"
Crysis 3 is WAY better on FX6300 than i3...just ask the guy bottlenecking his 7950 with his i3 CPU. He only gets 40 FPS on high settings (not Ultra, which the 7950 could easily do...but his CPU can't keep the frame rate up)
Sorry if I insulted you. I think your just a bit too much about AMD. Sure its good and that stuff but look other companys too. And i3 is not bottlenecking 7950. But crysis is hell of a game. Check:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/crysis-3-performance-benc...
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/crysis-3-performance-benc...
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/crysis-3-performance-benc...
And this was done with 1000$ CPU and 7950 was boost version!
While your benchmarks show interesting information, they are run with all the AA and everything else that pulls down frame rates.
I would like to point out that the minimum fps on the HD 7950 is about 30% better than all the other cards (42 vs 33), the average FPS was a little lower (though within margin for error on the benchmark, as the margin for error is likely about 10%, and 65 x 90% is 59 FPS). That means the decrease in frame rate would be less noticeable on the HD 7950 and the frame rate was more consistent.
Additionally, if Crysis 3 was run with a $1000 CPU in that comparison and got those frame rates, then an i3 getting 30-40 FPS is a bottleneck. (As the average frame rate was still 59 for the HD 7950)
Now theres only one thing I have to say.
Crysis 3 is very CPU hungry game. CPU can give as much data to GPU as you want but there still needs to be more ''power''. You have wind, physics, AI... to calculate and GPU cant do much here (leave advanced PhysX alone now). CPU gets all the hard things. But graphics are really good too, so you need good graphics card too. There are many CPU intense games out there (TESV: Skyrim, Civilization V, Total War (series), Crysis 3...) that need good CPU and they will be happy with better, stronger and faster CPU.
Bottlenecking is when CPU cant give enough data to GPU to make GPU at 100% load. Imagine beer bottle. You cant drink fast beacuse of small neck (CPU), and the rest of the bottle (GPU) being too big. So beer (data) cant go as fast as it can.
Hope it helps!
Yes, agreed, CPU/GPU in some games are equally important. The examples you cite are the examples I would have given, or are a close enough approximation...(Far Cry 3 and Metro 2033 would make that list as well...BF 3 comes to mind also...)
The i3 is a bottleneck to a HD 7950...the lack of sustainable frame rate, given the settings, shows that the card is not performing up to its capability because the CPU is flooded and cannot perform the calculations required fast enough to get the data back to the card and keep up the possible sustainable frame rate for the game. It likely will not bottleneck all games...but games like Crysis 3 are going to cause the CPU to get overtaxed and make it unable to keep up with the card.
tadej petric
April 3, 2013 6:00:25 AM
8350rocks said:
Yes, agreed, CPU/GPU in some games are equally important. The examples you cite are the examples I would have given, or are a close enough approximation...(Far Cry 3 and Metro 2033 would make that list as well...BF 3 comes to mind also...)
The i3 is a bottleneck to a HD 7950...the lack of sustainable frame rate, given the settings, shows that the card is not performing up to its capability because the CPU is flooded and cannot perform the calculations required fast enough to get the data back to the card and keep up the possible sustainable frame rate for the game. It likely will not bottleneck all games...but games like Crysis 3 are going to cause the CPU to get overtaxed and make it unable to keep up with the card.
BF 3 doesnt cares which CPU its got, all it wants is dual core (singleplayer).
Now this benchmark: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gaming-processor-frame-ra...
Note that theres gtx 680 as a card which is even stronger than 7950.
Related resources
- SolvedFX 6100 OCed vs I3 4330 in games Forum
- Solvedi3 4130 (Haswell) vs. FX-6100 Forum
- Solvedchoosing between core i3 3220 and amd fx6100 Forum
- Solvedi3 3220 vs FX 6100 (with HD7850) Forum
- Solvedi3 3220 vs amd fx6100 Forum
- SolvedFX-6100 or I3 2100 for HTPC/Light Gaming Forum
- I3 3220 or FX 6100 for PS2? Forum
- SolvedIntel Core i7 970 vs Amd FX 6100 Forum
- FX-6100/6300 or i3? Forum
- I3 vs A10 vs A8 vs FX6100 Forum
- I5 3330 (+gtx650) vs i3 2100 (+gtx560) vs fx-6100 (+gtx 560) Forum
- I3 3220 vs FX 6100? Forum
- SolvedIntel equivalent of AMD FX-6100 Forum
- SolvedAMD FX-6100 (or FX-6300) vs Intel i3-3220 (or i3-3225) + other general questions Forum
- SolvedIntel i5 3470 + 7950 vs FX 6100 + 7950 Forum
- More resources
!