Is the i3 processors usable for another 6 years ?

[SlowSpyder]

Originally Posted by frozentundra123456

Compared to what?? AMDs worst area is gaming. Look at the posting for Crysis 3 in the Video Card forums. 8 core AMD FX cant even beat a 2 generation old intel quad. Fail to see how that is a good value. Cheap does not equal good value. Some people just can seem to accept that i5 or i7 is the best choice for gaming.

You bash the AMD processors every chance you get, we get it, you do not like AMD chps. The OP was asking about an i3, that to me would suggest his budget is limited. And as great of IPC as Intel chips have, I see a six core chip that can be overclocked faring better some years from now, and especially five to six years from now (though I think either would be pretty slow). Obviously an i7 has a much better chance of being usable, but given the low end parts the OP is asking about, I don't think he is looking to spend that much. At the ~$130 price point, I would buy the FX6300, it wouldn't be a tough decision for me.

[grimpr]

Originally Posted by SlowSpyder

At the ~$130 price point, I would buy the FX6300, it wouldn't be a tough decision for me.

The Core i3's lost their reason to exist, condensed between the A10/A8 Trinitys and the FX 6300, total devastation.

[RU482]

if you're planning for 6 years, pick up some extra cans on the side of the road and splurge on an i5

[Rvenger]

Originally Posted by frozentundra123456

Compared to what?? AMDs worst area is gaming.

And the future brings single and dual core gaming.

[Dark Shroud]

Originally Posted by frozentundra123456

FX-6300 trades blows with i3 now unless overclocked, and is far behind any intel quad. A10 is even slower. If you want future proof, get an i5 or i7.

Why don't you go back and read the OP's situation. The OP cannot get an i5 or i7.

It's against a Core i3 where the A10 isn't far behind and has a lot more features. Not to mention the A10 over clocks very easily.

Its going to become common for games to use 4 threads in the next two years or so. AMD chips have much longer viability options here with more cores and/or upgrade paths to the next architecture.

I get that you're one of the many here who doesn't like AMD and puts them down when ever you can. But you need to stop giving wrong to impossible advice.

[frozentundra123456]

Originally Posted by SlowSpyder

You bash the AMD processors every chance you get, we get it, you do not like AMD chps. The OP was asking about an i3, that to me would suggest his budget is limited. And as great of IPC as Intel chips have, I see a six core chip that can be overclocked faring better some years from now, and especially five to six years from now (though I think either would be pretty slow). Obviously an i7 has a much better chance of being usable, but given the low end parts the OP is asking about, I don't think he is looking to spend that much. At the ~$130 price point, I would buy the FX6300, it wouldn't be a tough decision for me.

Actually the OP didnt mention AMD either. The AMD fans are the ones who started talking about the FX. To be fair, the FX6300 is probably better than the i3 if you are willing to overclock and dont mind higher power usage. I do think there are games such as Skyrim and Starcraft 2 though in which the i3 would still be faster.

However, if one wants to spend the money to be into PC gaming, and wants a future proof system, getting an i5 or i7 is definitely worth the money. You can get a i5 for 60.00 more based on New Egg prices. Spread out over even only 3 years, that is only 20.00 per year, not counting the power savings compared to an overclocked FX.

[frozentundra123456]

Originally Posted by Dark Shroud

I get that you're one of the many here who doesn't like AMD and puts them down when ever you can. But you need to stop giving wrong to impossible advice.

There are also just as many who incessantly promote AMD as the best solution when it is clearly not. And what impossible advice am I giving? I will not speak to the OPs financial situation, but if one can afford to buy even a few games a year, they can afford the price difference between an i3/FX and an i5.

And are you saying that I am wrong that a quad intel is better for almost every game than any AMD processor?? If AMD fans can jump in and suggest an FX, I have just as much right to suggest that the OP somehow come up with the money for an i5.

[VirtualLarry]

Originally Posted by OBLAMA2009

cpu's have more or less stopped getting faster and there really isnt any software that would make faster chips necessary.

I agree that software requirements (other than 1080P video playback, which is handled nicely by IGPs nowadays) haven't really increased much.

However, I think Intel would beg to disagree with you that CPUs have stopped getting faster. Haswell should be a significant step forward in computing power for your dollar.

[frozentundra123456]

Originally Posted by Rvenger

And the future brings single and dual core gaming.

You want to talk about future gaming, look at the crysis 3 CPU benches in the video forum. Even if you add 15% for vishera vs BD, any Intel quad is clearly ahead. I am not advocating i3. I am saying that if you are spending the money to build a gaming PC and buy games, find a way to get at least an i5, especially if you want the PC to last several years.

[AtenRa]

Originally Posted by spiketide

Hello,
Hi I am planning to build a medium level gaming rig that can play atleast Crysis 1/Assasins Creed Brotherhood (You get the idea), on a very tight budget.

After much research based on performance and cost (cost, mainly!), I have rounded upon
CPU : i3 - 3220 3.3 Ghz
Mobo : DH61ZE / DH67BL (Please say which combo will be better)

I already have a 9500 GT graphics card.

So how does this config sound?

Also, how long do you all think it will take for the i3 processors to get outdated?

Thanks for sharing your inputs.

At the same price as i3 the FX6300 will last you longer.

I dont know what is your current CPU but replacing your GPU should be your first priority. For a cheap upgrade, the A10-5800K will make you upgrade both your CPU and GPU at the same time for the same price as an i3.
Judging by the 9500GT you have used until now, i will say that you will be fine with the iGPU of the A10-5800K for at least 3 years in lower resolutions(720p).

[Insert_Nickname]

Originally Posted by AtenRa

Judging by the 9500GT you have used until now, i will say that you will be fine with the iGPU of the A10-5800K for at least 3 years in lower resolutions(720p).

The 5800K gets my vote too. Great little chip for cheap gaming. Alternatively an upgrade to an HD7750/70 is not a bad idea either, depending on the OPs current config you might even be able to fit a HD7850 in there.

Look at this table. Then remember the 8800GT has almost four times the performance of the 8600GT/9500GT... its not even funny...

[Durvelle27]

Originally Posted by frozentundra123456

Compared to what?? AMDs worst area is gaming. Look at the posting for Crysis 3 in the Video Card forums. 8 core AMD FX cant even beat a 2 generation old intel quad. Fail to see how that is a good value. Cheap does not equal good value. Some people just can seem to accept that i5 or i7 is the best choice for gaming.

First Off those are bulldozer and we all know they under perform but Vishera will more than likely deliver what we want even if it not as quit as high as a i7 or something

[SlowSpyder]

Originally Posted by frozentundra123456

Actually the OP didnt mention AMD either. The AMD fans are the ones who started talking about the FX. To be fair, the FX6300 is probably better than the i3 if you are willing to overclock and dont mind higher power usage. I do think there are games such as Skyrim and Starcraft 2 though in which the i3 would still be faster.

However, if one wants to spend the money to be into PC gaming, and wants a future proof system, getting an i5 or i7 is definitely worth the money. You can get a i5 for 60.00 more based on New Egg prices. Spread out over even only 3 years, that is only 20.00 per year, not counting the power savings compared to an overclocked FX.

He asked if the i3 would be good for six years. Short answer, no. In that price range the FX 6300 would likely be a much better processor, though I have my doubts of how good it will be six years out, too. But I think it'll do better than a HT'd dual core would, down the road. It is in the same price range, that is why I suggested it.

And my guess is the power use will only matter if he games a LOT, and maybe not even then. Chances are during gaming the FX 6300 will use nowhere near its peak consumption as there will likely be cores idle. The i3 on the other hand will be very busy on both cores.

*edit - Of course if he's using a 9500GT, none of this matters, he could have a 5GHz i7 Ivy and still have a bad gaming experience.

[ketchup79]

First off, the bad news. Your question is impossible to answer. We don't know what you (or I) will be doing in 6 years, we don't know where software will be in 6 years, and we don't know where processors will be in to years.

Now, the good news. 6 years is not as long than it used to be. Remember when after having hardware for 2 years it felt like crap? It ain't that way any more. I repair people's computers on the side. These people are running Pentium 4's, and delighted with the speed of their computers after cleaning out the crap (viruses and junk in general) and doing a simple defrag. Let alone (gasp!) adding memory.

Build what you can with the money you have. You can get a video card, SSD, more memory later. Easy additions. Center you money around the CPU. Right now, Intel is where it's at, IMO.

[RaistlinZ]

6 years from now your smartphone will be 100x more powerful than that i3.

So, no.

[lehtv]

That's a bit of an exaggeration.

[Rvenger]

Originally Posted by frozentundra123456

You want to talk about future gaming, look at the crysis 3 CPU benches in the video forum. Even if you add 15% for vishera vs BD, any Intel quad is clearly ahead. I am not advocating i3. I am saying that if you are spending the money to build a gaming PC and buy games, find a way to get at least an i5, especially if you want the PC to last several years.

I hear that its the HT link that is affecting the performance of the PCI-E bandwidth on AMD setups and not just the CPU itself.

[AtenRa]

Originally Posted by Rvenger

I hear that its the HT link that is affecting the performance of the PCI-E bandwidth on AMD setups and not just the CPU itself.

Could you be more specific about that ?? any links ??? first time i hear about that.

[DDR4]

If you're seriously thinking about an i3, you should probably go for AMD at that level. Their procs are better at that price point as compared to Intel's i3.