i3-3220 or fx-6100 or a10-5800k

[SPBHM]

Originally Posted by AtenRa

FX4300 and FX6300 vs Core i3 3220 (GTX670)
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...00-review.html


Not only FX6300 performing on par or better in gaming but it is much faster in Multithreding than Core i3 at the same price point. Its also unlocked and can be OCed to give it even greater performance to price ratio.

this graphics show the i3 winning in my opinion, the game with the lower framerate shows the i3 with 55 and the 6300 at 50 (and look at the i5 2400!)

in most of the other games is a tie, with the 6300 winning in SF4, but it's 180 vs 212...

"FX6300 faster even than 3570K" on Dirt 3 is laughable, that's a tie and probably GPU bound, many CPUs are within just a margin of error...


but at the end of the day the 6300 and the i3s are in the same level for gaming it seems, so you should decide based on cost, power usage and if you need a faster CPU for MT, want to overclock, and perhaps the FX 6300 will last longer being a decent CPU (because of the higher MT performance),
for around the same price I would go with the FX 6300...

as for 6100, it's harder to recommend, but if you plan on overclocking it might be a good choice, but then, you could also probably get a cheap 1155 MB and one of the lower I5 models like the 2400, depeding where you live you can find some good deals for these lower i5s, and save money on the MB/cooling since OC is less appealing for these non K i5s,

but then again with a 7750 any of these CPUs should do fine,

Originally Posted by Rvenger

A8-5600K - I am actually running this with an HD 6850 (Went with the lowest price 4 core because I am not using IGP) Undervolted and rock stable at 4ghz. Picked this CPU up for $100 shipped. This is on my ITX setup and I am using a $17 Hyper TX3 Heatsink.

this one is the cheapest quad core trinity
http://www.scan.co.uk/products/amd-a...che-65w-retail

[Rvenger]

Originally Posted by SPBHM

this graphics show the i3 winning in my opinion, the game with the lower framerate shows the i3 with 55 and the 6300 at 50 (and look at the i5 2400!)

in most of the other games is a tie, with the 6300 winning in SF4, but it's 180 vs 212...

"FX6300 faster even than 3570K" on Dirt 3 is laughable, that's a tie and probably GPU bound, many CPUs are within just a margin of error...


but at the end of the day the 6300 and the i3s are in the same level for gaming it seems, so you should decide based on cost, power usage and if you need a faster CPU for MT, want to overclock, and perhaps the FX 6300 will last longer being a decent CPU (because of the higher MT performance),
for around the same price I would go with the FX 6300...

as for 6100, it's harder to recommend, but if you plan on overclocking it might be a good choice, but then, you could also probably get a cheap 1155 MB and one of the lower I5 models like the 2400, depeding where you live you can find some good deals for these lower i5s, and save money on the MB/cooling since OC is less appealing for these non K i5s,

but then again with a 7750 any of these CPUs should do fine,




this one is the cheapest quad core trinity
http://www.scan.co.uk/products/amd-a...che-65w-retail

I don't think its available in the US yet so I wouldn't know. I guess I meant the cheapest unlocked CPU.

[bononos]

The i3 isn't just a dual core, its got hyperthreading, it not 4 whole cores but it works well in gaming apps.

Because of the 'stuttering' issue, the i3 is still viable for gaming. The stuttering problem in gaming are individual frames which take abnormally long to render which are masked by avg fps. http://techreport.com/review/23246/i...h-today-cpus/4
And the situation hasn't changed completely for the PD. http://techreport.com/review/23750/a...sor-reviewed/6

[Rvenger]

Originally Posted by bononos

The i3 isn't just a dual core, its got hyperthreading, it not 4 whole cores but it works well in gaming apps. Because of the 'stuttering' issue, the i3 is still viable for gaming. The stuttering problem in gaming are individual frames which take abnormally long to render which are masked by avg fps. http://techreport.com/review/23246/i...h-today-cpus/4 And the situation hasn't changed completely for the PD. http://techreport.com/review/23750/a...sor-reviewed/6

A dual core is a dual core. Sure HT helps but it also can hurt performance in other games and applications. When most games take advantage of quad cores the i3 will be feeling the weight above it sooner or later.

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally Posted by bononos

The i3 isn't just a dual core, its got hyperthreading, it not 4 whole cores but it works well in gaming apps.

Because of the 'stuttering' issue, the i3 is still viable for gaming. The stuttering problem in gaming are individual frames which take abnormally long to render which are masked by avg fps. http://techreport.com/review/23246/i...h-today-cpus/4
And the situation hasn't changed completely for the PD. http://techreport.com/review/23750/a...sor-reviewed/6

Why do people fall for this garbage? The only way these tests could tell anything is if the FPS were identical across all CPUs, thus the only test that even remotely comes close to showing true stutter is the BF3 test, and looking at those charts the 8350 shows less stutter than the Core i5 and i7.

Now, what is the worst CPU from that test? The dual-core Pentium G2120, and that can be easily replicated. So the i3 has hyperthreading while the Pentium doesn't, which helps, but not always. So what do you do when hyperthreading fails you?

[inf64]

Funny thing that no AMD CPU user notices this mythical stuttering. Usually there is a contra argument,they report another thing: "a smoother" framerates on their AMD based machines.

[bononos]

Originally Posted by AnonymouseUser

Why do people fall for this garbage? The only way these tests could tell anything is if the FPS were identical across all CPUs, thus the only test that even remotely comes close to showing true stutter is the BF3 test, and looking at those charts the 8350 shows less stutter than the Core i5 and i7.

Now, what is the worst CPU from that test? The dual-core Pentium G2120, and that can be easily replicated. So the i3 has hyperthreading while the Pentium doesn't, which helps, but not always. So what do you do when hyperthreading fails you?

Its not garbage, the BF3 bench in THIS article is probably a special case like Skyrim (which AMD flops badly). BF3 might not be benched in multiplayer and does not show big latency spikes for ANY cpu save for the G2120 nor does the framerate show a big range in performance/latency - 81 to 88fps/80ms to 177ms(excluding the G2120) from the slowest cpu to the fastest (which seems to me that mp is not tested).

Take a look at the other games like Batman Arkham or the other link I provided for instance and the 8350/8150 has much more latency spikes compared to the i3. The i3 does not have the stuttering issue that AMD cpus have.

[bononos]

Originally Posted by inf64

Funny thing that no AMD CPU user notices this mythical stuttering. Usually there is a contra argument,they report another thing: "a smoother" framerates on their AMD based machines.

Which is probably a good thing since theres empirical data that shows AMD bulldozer cpus falling short in measurements of single framerate latencies.

[Born.9inety4our]

thanks guys, can you recommend me some cheap h77 or b75 motherboards? because as you said i should not get the h61m one

[Born.9inety4our]

CPU: CORE i3-3220 3.30Ghz 3MB LGA1155

GPU: SAPPHIRE HD 7750 1GB GDDR5 128BIT

Monitor: LG 16” WIDESCREEN LED

Chassis: M59 STEEL MID TOWER

HD WESTERN DIGITAL 500GB SATA3

Motherboard: GIGABYTE GA-B75M-D3V LGA-1155

PSU: ANTEC VP550 550W 80% EFFICIENCY

RAM: TEAM ELITE 4GB DDR3 w/ Heat Sink



so guys here is my final specs, im on a budget, and should there be a problem with this combination, bottlenecks, fit problems, etc., just tell me, so i can change some of it..

ps. i will not change my cpu and gpu anymore, just for some reasons))

[Insert_Nickname]

Originally Posted by Born.9inety4our

CPU: CORE i3-3220 3.30Ghz 3MB LGA1155

GPU: SAPPHIRE HD 7750 1GB GDDR5 128BIT

Monitor: LG 16” WIDESCREEN LED

Chassis: M59 STEEL MID TOWER

HD WESTERN DIGITAL 500GB SATA3

Motherboard: GIGABYTE GA-B75M-D3V LGA-1155

PSU: ANTEC VP550 550W 80% EFFICIENCY

RAM: TEAM ELITE 4GB DDR3 w/ Heat Sink



so guys here is my final specs, im on a budget, and should there be a problem with this combination, bottlenecks, fit problems, etc., just tell me, so i can change some of it..

ps. i will not change my cpu and gpu anymore, just for some reasons))

Looks very nice... I have no further recommendations...

[Born.9inety4our]

Originally Posted by Insert_Nickname

Looks very nice... I have no further recommendations...

cool, thanks. what about the motherboard? because it lacks the SLI/Crossfire feature

[Vesku]

If you think you might upgrade this computer in the future an entry level Z77 motherboard would be a good idea if the price difference is reasonable. On Newegg US there's about a $20-30 difference. But if you don't think you'll ever be tempted to pop in a K series and do some simple OCing then your current motherboard choice is fine.

[infoiltrator]

Asrock B75
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157335

Asrock Z75 ATX
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157304

Do not know local availability or prices

[Insert_Nickname]

Originally Posted by Vesku

If you think you might upgrade this computer in the future an entry level Z77 motherboard would be a good idea if the price difference is reasonable. On Newegg US there's about a $20-30 difference. But if you don't think you'll ever be tempted to pop in a K series and do some simple OCing then your current motherboard choice is fine.

^^This...

[Stingercjc]

Originally Posted by minitron

The FX-6300 is ~10% slower than the i3 when it's clocked at 4.1 Ghz with Turbo. I doubt you're getting it much higher than 4.1 Ghz with stock cooling/volts. In fact, I would like to see any evidence you can sufficiently overclock on the stock cooler and volts.

I can vouch for overclocking on stock cooler and stock volts on my FX-6300. It was 24 hour stress test stable at 4.2Ghz. Once I upgraded the cooler to a Hyper 212 (what's with AMD shipping these with such crappy coolers anyway?) and messed with the voltage I hit 4.8 with no problems. I bet it could do 5 easily, however it's my media center PC that gets some lite gaming use so I see no reason to use the extra juice.

Good to know the extra performance is there if I ever need it.

[Stingercjc]

Originally Posted by Born.9inety4our

CPU: CORE i3-3220 3.30Ghz 3MB LGA1155

GPU: SAPPHIRE HD 7750 1GB GDDR5 128BIT

Monitor: LG 16” WIDESCREEN LED

Chassis: M59 STEEL MID TOWER

HD WESTERN DIGITAL 500GB SATA3

Motherboard: GIGABYTE GA-B75M-D3V LGA-1155

PSU: ANTEC VP550 550W 80% EFFICIENCY

RAM: TEAM ELITE 4GB DDR3 w/ Heat Sink



so guys here is my final specs, im on a budget, and should there be a problem with this combination, bottlenecks, fit problems, etc., just tell me, so i can change some of it..

ps. i will not change my cpu and gpu anymore, just for some reasons))

I'd only recommend you do 8GB or RAM instead of 4. The price difference between 4GB and 8GB is pretty negligible.

[minitron]

I would get a bigger monitor; something with 1600x900+ resolution.

You don't need that big of a PSU; 400W from a quality PSU should be plenty even if you decide to upgrade your video card and CPU.

8GB of RAM is also recommended if the price difference is similar to the US.

Originally Posted by Stingercjc

I can vouch for overclocking on stock cooler and stock volts on my FX-6300. It was 24 hour stress test stable at 4.2Ghz. Once I upgraded the cooler to a Hyper 212 (what's with AMD shipping these with such crappy coolers anyway?) and messed with the voltage I hit 4.8 with no problems. I bet it could do 5 easily, however it's my media center PC that gets some lite gaming use so I see no reason to use the extra juice.

Good to know the extra performance is there if I ever need it.

So you went from 4.1 Ghz to 4.2 Ghz, bravo.

[Stingercjc]

Originally Posted by minitron

So you went from 4.1 Ghz to 4.2 Ghz, bravo.

3.5Ghz is the stock speed when all six cores are active. It can hit 4.1Ghz max turbo however it does so based on the usage of cores, temps, etc. Thus at 4.1Ghz it's more than likely not using all cores. It also constantly adjusts the clock speed - so while 4.1 is the max, you are rarely at that speed for a sustained period of time. You can read how this all works on many different web sites.

I had it overclocked to 4.2Ghz on all six cores and it runs at that speed at all times with the stock cooler and no voltage adjustments. It does make quite a difference in performance overall.

Bravo indeed smartass.

[inf64]

Never mind minitroll, he can't help but troll on AMD users. Best advice is to ignore him.

And remember,usually FX6x00 cannot even run games,it crashes with BSODs. If it manages to run them you get 10fps and unplayable system. /sarcasm

[Rvenger]

Originally Posted by inf64

Never mind minitroll, he can't help but troll on AMD users. Best advice is to ignore him.

And remember,usually FX6x00 cannot even run games,it crashes with BSODs. If it manages to run them you get 10fps and unplayable system. /sarcasm

If AT had the only CPU forum in the world, AMD would have been out of business 10 years ago. In my 8.5 years here as a member its best to ignore the AMD haters.

And just to clear the air.. I am well aware that AMD CPUs are slower and hog more power. I just don't go to the extent that they are the worst CPUs ever because they are still competitive in their price points.

[spaceman]

u might find better advice from the geek squad

[frozentundra123456]

Originally Posted by inf64

Never mind minitroll, he can't help but troll on AMD users. Best advice is to ignore him.

And remember,usually FX6x00 cannot even run games,it crashes with BSODs. If it manages to run them you get 10fps and unplayable system. /sarcasm

Talk about "the pot calling the kettle black".

[inf64]

I was being sarcastic if you haven't noticed the /sarcasm. He was being serious though(and you are too). That's a massive difference.

And yes,I'm aware that intel core chips provide higher fps in games,that's not the point. The point is that AMD chips run games just fine ,it's not Cyrix situation all over again when it was great in one stuff(integer) and sucked at other (games which were FP/MMX intensive;it really was bad in games).

[minitron]

Originally Posted by Stingercjc

3.5Ghz is the stock speed when all six cores are active. It can hit 4.1Ghz max turbo however it does so based on the usage of cores, temps, etc. Thus at 4.1Ghz it's more than likely not using all cores. It also constantly adjusts the clock speed - so while 4.1 is the max, you are rarely at that speed for a sustained period of time. You can read how this all works on many different web sites.

I had it overclocked to 4.2Ghz on all six cores and it runs at that speed at all times with the stock cooler and no voltage adjustments. It does make quite a difference in performance overall.

Bravo indeed smartass.

So it is very possible that it is running at 4.1 Ghz in games, especially lightly threaded ones where only two threads are needed?!?

Like I said, 4.1 Ghz to 4.2 Ghz, bravo.

Originally Posted by inf64

I was being sarcastic if you haven't noticed the /sarcasm. He was being serious though(and you are too). That's a massive difference.

And yes,I'm aware that intel core chips provide higher fps in games,that's not the point. The point is that AMD chips run games just fine ,it's not Cyrix situation all over again when it was great in one stuff(integer) and sucked at other (games which were FP/MMX intensive;it really was bad in games).

Yes, I'm completely serious that the i3 offers distinct advantages over it's AMD counterparts such as lower power consumption, superior single-threaded performance and a superior upgrade path.

This coming from the person who claims that an i3 will be bogged down by light multitasking which somehow C2D's and Athlon X2's still handle fine.

AMD fanboys get uptight when you use factual data.