AMD FX6300 or the i3 3220/3225 tight budget

need help and massively ave been doing some research the last while for a processor and my budget will " stretch" for one of these AMD FX6300 or the i3 3220/3225 its a entry level gaming rig and my 1st self build also HELP PLEASE
11 answers Last reply
More about amd fx6300 3220 3225 tight budget
  1. an i3 3220/225 beats an fx 6300 in single threaded apps while the fx6300 beats the i3 o heavily threaded apps.
  2. antiglobal said:
    If it's for gaming, than you don't need AMD FX-6300. Better solution would be AMD FX-4350 (4 cores and less cache memory but you get higher frequency). I don't think you will find a game that utilises 6 cores. And reason that I am not even mentoning Intel is becouse, if I was you, I would buy AMD FX-4350. You can easily overclock it (more than you could Intel i3-3225). That is, at least, my opinion
    Here is the comparison of these two CPUs: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i3-

    3225-vs-AMD-FX-4350
  3. Aeronautics said:
    an i3 3220/225 beats an fx 6300 in single threaded apps while the fx6300 beats the i3 o heavily threaded apps.


    its for gaming so am guessing the amd fx6300 would be best then, when i say gaming though its only far cry that ave played and is the secondery reason for this build , im a football manager fan which was y i decided to build it, then played far cry on my mates entry level gaming rig and has opened my eyes now (y)
  4. well, go for fx6300 and overclock.
  5. Aeronautics said:
    well, go forg
    ije
    ggff fx6300 and overclock.


    woukd the 4350 be better idea as suggested by antiglobal?? sitting at 100£ while the fx6300 is in at 90£ so no difference in price really??
  6. 6300 has more cores, if you intend to overclock the 6300 will be better in the long run.
  7. dont go with the 4 core amd because contrary to popular belief, AMD's FX series are not really like they look. An FX6300 has 6 cores but those cores are not true cores. the cores share resources from another so basically, an FX6300 will be more likely as a tri core if the basis will be the "true" core matter. so if you'll get a 4350, you'll just have a 4 core CPU sharing resources from one another which gives you a dual core.

    just go to an FX6300, it is a good choice but if you can go to an I5, go for it because it's far better than any amd processor. Less heat, less power consumption, better architecture and it is a TRUE quad core.
  8. Don't go spouting misinformation.

    The FX 6300 has 6 integer cores and 3 Flex FPUs. Yes some of the resources are shared between 2 cores, those are the decoder front end and the FPU. Last time I checked, a core was defined as a piece of CPU architecture capable of processing a thread, which means that each AMD CPU has 4, 6 or 8 "real" cores.

    Also, the only i5 that compares to the top end AMD SKU (8350) is the 3570k...the 3470/3350 do not run much of a race at all, especially considering you can overclock the AMD and you can't overclock those 2.
  9. hafijur said:
    you do realise theres barely any difference between a stock i5 3470 and 3570k like 6% difference.


    You do realize that the 200 MHz clock difference is minor, but when you OC the AMD CPU, the difference is tremendous, because you have to OC the 3570k to keep up once you get an AMD CPU into the 4.5-5.0 GHz range...right?
  10. Using benchmarks from a Pro-Intel site? Why does that not surprise me that they make the Intel CPUs look better...
  11. So the fx 6300, would be slightly better?? Was talking to someone about cpu's and they said I should try thr the i5 4430 is that beyter than the fx8350??? Its purely for gaming and I picked up a HD6670 fpr a mer 20£ I couldnt really say no lol
Ask a new question

Read More

Processors CPUs AMD