i3-4130 vs FX-6300

[StarTrek2013]

I know that FX-6300 has triple the amount of cores as the i3-4130, however, I heard that since intel has more efficient cores and hyperthreading lets intel have two threads per core that it will perform better in games. Is this true? Should I be more concerned with threads or cores?
Main use: Gaming
GPU: Radeon 7870 2gb

 

[Lessthannil]

The i3-4130 has 2 cores but has 4 threads thanks to HT. It remains to be seen if that games will use HT.

I will still take the FX 6300, though. It can overclock and it has 1 more "real core" (if you go by FPU for counting cores or something) than the i3-4130 and can overclock.

 

[elemein]

The i3-4130 has 2 cores but has 4 threads thanks to HT. It remains to be seen if that games will use HT.

I will still take the FX 6300, though. It can overclock and it has 1 more "real core" (if you go by FPU for counting cores or something) than the i3-4130 and can overclock.

All games use HT; actually, any multi-threaded software will use HT if it overflows the native amount of cores. Whether programs/games will benefit from HT is another story altogether.

Its hard to compare the cores in such a direct sense; even if just by FPUs since PD's floating point cluster has 2x128bit FP units that can combine to perform one 256-bit instructions (therein lies the AVX support) and Haswell has 3x256-bit floating point units (on ports 0,1,5), all with different purposes (a 256-bit FMA&Fblend unit + 256-bit FMA/FADD unit + 256-bit FShuffle/FBlend unit); making the floating point performance of Haswell far, far above Piledriver.

Then again, the CPUs are bang on equal in terms of integer unit amount if you pit one FX module vs one Intel Core; and with integer calcs only being 64-bit, you wont run into bandwidth issues, and PD has the clock advantage, so it wins in that sense.

Overall really, it'd depend on the game. IF your is programmed to take advantage of 6 threads, go for the 6300; not many games use AVX anyways. Otherwise, if it only uses 2-3 cores, go for the i3.

 

[StarTrek2013]

mk Thx.

 

[JOOK-D]

Yeah, I'd say go with the 6300.
It's hard to compete with the bang for buck you get with it, with that GPU you should run games great with either.

 

[Raidur]

Simply due to upgrade path I always lean intel.

Though, for performance on your budget, you will benefit more off the bat from an overclocked FX-6300. Mind you, please overclock, or some games will not be as happy as they could be compared to the intel chip.

 

[CTurbo]

The i3 is BY far better at older games. The FX 6300 is capable of being better at current and future games.
The i3 is still perfectly capable for newer games though despite what people say. I still think the FX is a better value if at the same price. Just because the i3 has MUCH more powerful single core performance(around 50%!!), that doesn't mean that the FX is weak in the IPC department, and the FX whips the i3 in multitasking by about 30%.

 

[JOOK-D]

^Even so, the FX still plays them above 60 FPS. So it doesn't really matter IMO. You'll only see 60 FPS anyway.

 

[CTurbo]

Even so, the FX still plays them above 60 FPS. So it doesn't really matter IMO. You'll only see 60 FPS anyway.

I 100% agree.

 

[Raidur]

That's like saying it's ok to date an old chick. She'll get you off just the same for now, but will be slower and older sooner, if not worthless.

 

[JOOK-D]

That's like saying it's ok to date an old chick. She'll get you off just the same for now, but will be slower and older sooner, if not worthless.

Haha! Love the analogy

In fact, the FX only seems to be performing better over time (from what I've seen). So if this old chick's not worthless. She's just honing her skills.

 

[mjslakeridge]

Another thing to consider is the Motherboard. I bought a FX6300 and it came bundled with a Gigabyte GA-78LMT-S2P. This is a low end board with the AMD 760G chipset. When I started doing performance testing (Passmark) I was only getting about half the performance score I should have. However the 6300 still is very robust and I am happy with it. I am not a gamer, but was using the computer for Pro Tools Audio recording software, which is quite demanding. So in my case, the 6300 was not reaching its full potential because of the limitations of the motherboard (it was free).

 

[Raidur]

=]]

Finally a passive aggressive quoter!

Yes, true as it seems. Sadly their IPC is only catching up and beating Deneb/C2Q. I want AMD to make cake of Intel like they did when I bought a 939 4400+ for ~$500. Intel keeps gaining and gaining, however at a slowing pace lately though.

 

[JOOK-D]

=]]

Finally a passive aggressive quoter!

Yes, true as it seems. Sadly their IPC is only catching up and beating Deneb/C2Q. I want AMD to make cake of Intel like they did when I bought a 939 4400+ for ~$500. Though Intel keeps gaining and gaining, however at a slowing pace lately though.

I know! I'm waiting for it too. I probably would have gone intel too but I don't want them to have a complete monopoly. The FX performs well for me so I went with it, cheap too! I wish they'd bring out something that completely betters the intels so we get a real contest going. It would be the best for everyone (except intel if AMD succeeds lol).

 

[JOOK-D]

Another thing to consider is the Motherboard. I bought a FX6300 and it came bundled with a Gigabyte GA-78LMT-S2P. This is a low end board with the AMD 760G chipset. When I started doing performance testing (Passmark) I was only getting about half the performance score I should have. However the 6300 still is very robust and I am happy with it. I am not a gamer, but was using the computer for Pro Tools Audio recording software, which is quite demanding. So in my case, the 6300 was not reaching its full potential because of the limitations of the motherboard (it was free).

Even so, it should not halve performance! I think their might have been something else going on. Thermal throttling maybe? Or maybe the mobo was just defective.

 

[Raidur]

I'm still using a Q9550. OCd @ 4ghz w/ a HD6970. Poor console gamers, had their "new gen" performance for 4 years (2 4890s before the 6970). Waiting for Skylake, maybe Haswell refresh.

Assuming AMD doesn't pull something out of their ass, which I give about a 10% chance.

 

[Raidur]

Another thing to consider is the Motherboard. I bought a FX6300 and it came bundled with a Gigabyte GA-78LMT-S2P. This is a low end board with the AMD 760G chipset. When I started doing performance testing (Passmark) I was only getting about half the performance score I should have. However the 6300 still is very robust and I am happy with it. I am not a gamer, but was using the computer for Pro Tools Audio recording software, which is quite demanding. So in my case, the 6300 was not reaching its full potential because of the limitations of the motherboard (it was free).

What are your specs?

What are your temps?

 

[mjslakeridge]

[/quotemsg]

What are your specs?

What are your temps?[/quotemsg]

My temps were normal, the cpu was not overclocked, was not using AMD overdrive (constant CPU frequency is what is recommended for Pro Tools). I have since removed that processor from that computer and installed an AMD Phenom II six core 1045T, a true 6 core processor, unlike the 6300. Great performance. The FX 6300 now resides in my Windows 8 computer (exact same motherboard as the other one). On performance testing it still falls well below the benchmark, but that is not an issue for me since I use the Windows 8 computer for internet browsing, recording TV using Windows Media Center and Ripping DVDs using DVD Shrink. No issues, but the Phenom II outperforms the FX6300 in all tests (Super Pi, WPrime, etc.) I probably should have never tested the 6300. I would have been happy as a clam not knowing my performance ranking.

Anyhow, my initial post was to remind the original poster that the motherboard is an important consideration in building any high performance system.

I had started a thread earlier this year entitled "Worst Motherboard for AMD FX6300" and received lots of good advice and suggestions. Bottom line is I probably shouldn't have been using that motherboard with the 6300.

 

[AnEwG]

I'm still using a Q9550. OCd @ 4ghz w/ a HD6970. Poor console gamers, had their "new gen" performance for 4 years (2 4890s before the 6970). Waiting for Skylake, maybe Haswell refresh.

Assuming AMD doesn't pull something out of their ass, which I give about a 10% chance.

Poor console gamers can play titles that are much better than those for PC and most of these titles are console exclusive while PC gamers are stuck with the next installation in a series that have been running for a decade or half a decade, or titles that can only be considered spin offs, with graphics and performance that is only mediocre when compared to PS3 for example.

 

[JOOK-D]

I'm still using a Q9550. OCd @ 4ghz w/ a HD6970. Poor console gamers, had their "new gen" performance for 4 years (2 4890s before the 6970). Waiting for Skylake, maybe Haswell refresh.

Assuming AMD doesn't pull something out of their ass, which I give about a 10% chance.

Poor console gamers can play titles that are much better than those for PC and most of these titles are console exclusive while PC gamers are stuck with the next installation in a series that have been running for a decade or half a decade, or titles that can only be considered spin offs, with graphics and performance that is only mediocre when compared to PS3 for example.

Old thread.