Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

FX 6100 or Intel i3?

Tags:
  • Gaming
  • Intel
  • CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
Share
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 :D 

Also,it will only be used for gaming and normal web surfing.

More about : 6100 intel

a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
a b à CPUs
March 30, 2013 1:53:26 AM

i3 3220 is faster than fx6100 in games due to strong per core performance.i sugest i3 is good choice
March 30, 2013 2:33:54 AM

ASHISH65 said:
i3 3220 is faster than fx6100 in games due to strong per core performance.i sugest i3 is good choice


What about the graphics and ram?
thanks
Related resources
a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
a b à CPUs
March 30, 2013 4:39:37 AM

deatheater said:
ASHISH65 said:
i3 3220 is faster than fx6100 in games due to strong per core performance.i sugest i3 is good choice


What 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
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 choice


What 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 :D  I do need some more opinions on the processor though..
a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
a b à CPUs
March 30, 2013 5:20:05 AM

450w is enough
March 30, 2013 5:44:16 AM

ASHISH65 said:
450w is enough


Thanks!how can i select your answer as best answer?
a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
a b à CPUs
March 30, 2013 5:48:15 AM

no you cannot you have created discusions thread.
a b 4 Gaming
a c 210 à CPUs
March 30, 2013 8:18:59 AM

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.
a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
a b à CPUs
March 30, 2013 8:53:59 AM

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

a b à CPUs
March 30, 2013 10:34:35 AM

ROFL i3 is terrible? I'm playing crysis 3 on it no problems. Yeah its a budget CPU and the 6300 MAY be better but I know I am extremely pleased with my 3220
a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
a b à CPUs
March 30, 2013 10:37:36 AM

it is very good dual core+ hyperthreating cpu and can handle 99% of the games fine
a b 4 Gaming
a c 210 à CPUs
March 30, 2013 11:25:02 AM

ASHISH65 said:
it is very good dual core+ hyperthreating cpu and can handle 99% of the games fine


If 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.
a b 4 Gaming
a c 210 à CPUs
March 30, 2013 11:28:29 AM

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
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...


a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
a b à CPUs
March 31, 2013 12:57:55 AM

i3 is best choice imo
a b 4 Gaming
a c 94 à CPUs
March 31, 2013 1:09:03 AM

+1 to the i3. 6100 is poor for gaming.
a b 4 Gaming
a c 210 à CPUs
March 31, 2013 8:15:04 AM

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...
a b à CPUs
March 31, 2013 8:33:23 AM

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.
a b 4 Gaming
a c 210 à CPUs
March 31, 2013 10:19:32 AM

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.
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.
a b à CPUs
April 1, 2013 2:06:37 PM

i run cryisis 3 on high with 40ish fps. yeah really bad cpu lol
a b 4 Gaming
a c 210 à CPUs
April 1, 2013 2:36:03 PM

thdarkshadow said:
i run cryisis 3 on high with 40ish fps. yeah really bad cpu lol


Your HD 7950 could run it at 80 FPS with more CPU...

So, yeah...really bad cpu.
a b 4 Gaming
a c 210 à CPUs
April 1, 2013 2:39:31 PM

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)
a b à CPUs
April 1, 2013 9:29:28 PM

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.
a b 4 Gaming
a b å Intel
a b à CPUs
April 1, 2013 9:35:01 PM

yes hd 7750 with i3 3220 will not bottleneck at all
a b 4 Gaming
a c 210 à CPUs
April 1, 2013 10:50:26 PM

ASHISH65 said:
yes hd 7750 with i3 3220 will not bottleneck at all


I wasn't talking about the OP's 7750, I was talking about thedarkshadow's 7950
a b 4 Gaming
a c 210 à CPUs
April 1, 2013 10:52:54 PM

thdarkshadow said:
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.


Fair enough...
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!
a b 4 Gaming
a c 210 à CPUs
April 2, 2013 10:56:53 AM

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)
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!
a b 4 Gaming
a c 210 à CPUs
April 2, 2013 1:11:28 PM

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.
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.
!