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

[Rvenger]

Originally Posted by minitron

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.

Here we go again with promoting dual core CPUs. Well if you lived in 2006 your outlook would look great now. But we are going from 2012 to 2013... Sooner or later the dual core cpu will go the way of the

[SPBHM]

Originally Posted by Rvenger

Here we go again with promoting dual core CPUs. Well if you lived in 2006 your outlook would look great now. But we are going from 2012 to 2013... Sooner or later the dual core cpu will go the way of the

it's a dual core, but each core performs a lot better than a 2006 CPU, also HT makes this CPU handle 4 threads a lot better than 2006 dual core CPUs, at the best cases it performs much higher than a 2006 CPU and the FX 6100, now on the worst cases (MT, rendering like: http://www.hardware.fr/articles/863-...ray-v-ray.html) we are talking about +- q6600-q6700 stock performance (but with much lower power usage), so for ST the i3 is MUCH faster than a 2006 CPU, for MT is equivalent to a quad core from 2006-2007, now the i3 supports instructions that the 2006 CPUs doesn't and it have much higher I/O performance I think, so it's not accurate to compare it to old dual core CPUs.... now for gaming and basic usage the i3 is great, for rendring not so much, but still much better than old dual cores.

in some cases it's clear that the i3 lacks in terms of MT performance, but single/dual core performance is still important for many applications, and the i3 is clearly faster for that than the FX6100, so it's not that simple.

[Stingercjc]

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

Good plan. There's probably no hope of changing his mind even with facts. He sounds like your typical forum blowhard.

[infoiltrator]

The I3 3220 and B75 are a fine choice.
Some people are just fanatical.

Have fun!

[frozentundra123456]

Originally Posted by SPBHM

it's a dual core, but each core performs a lot better than a 2006 CPU, also HT makes this CPU handle 4 threads a lot better than 2006 dual core CPUs, at the best cases it performs much higher than a 2006 CPU and the FX 6100, now on the worst cases (MT, rendering like: http://www.hardware.fr/articles/863-...ray-v-ray.html) we are talking about +- q6600-q6700 stock performance (but with much lower power usage), so for ST the i3 is MUCH faster than a 2006 CPU, for MT is equivalent to a quad core from 2006-2007, now the i3 supports instructions that the 2006 CPUs doesn't and it have much higher I/O performance I think, so it's not accurate to compare it to old dual core CPUs.... now for gaming and basic usage the i3 is great, for rendring not so much, but still much better than old dual cores.

in some cases it's clear that the i3 lacks in terms of MT performance, but single/dual core performance is still important for many applications, and the i3 is clearly faster for that than the FX6100, so it's not that simple.

A well reasoned post. Both pro intel and pro AMD camps tend to simplify to show their particular processer favorably. AMD fans always bring up multi-threaded benchmarks, and say "but it costs less", while intel fans retort that it is faster per core and uses less power.

So it really comes down to your usage. Personally, I only game and do lightly threaded tasks, so I would not even consider AMD for the desktop, period. I also would not actually consider dual core intel. For gaming, I think the minimum should be an i5. As I have already said, if you have the money to get into gaming, I think it is worth it to save up or do whatever is needed to get a quad core intel. For light gaming on the go, an I would consider an AMD laptop, but again, AMD fans tend to overstate the capabilities of their APU.

If you are into the particular productivity tasks that AMD is good at, AMD offers attractive performance per dollar, although the power consumption does still bother me. I do not agree with the posters who are so ready to dismiss dual cores though, especially the i3. I work in a research lab, and we handle some large patient data bases in access and excel, and even previous generation dual cores without HT are more than adequate. Even for gaming, I dont think anyone can say how long an i3 will be adequate, unlike the poster above who says it will be useless in a year. For gaming though, it just makes sense to me to get at least i5.

[Born.9inety4our]

Originally Posted by infoiltrator

The I3 3220 and B75 are a fine choice.
Some people are just fanatical.

Have fun!

nice. thanks, that's the only answer i'm looking for.
yeah i agree, they're too off topic LOL

[sm625]

Keep in mind that if you buy an A10 you can always retire it into a competent backup gaming rig for LAN type parties. I would get the A10 if prices were equal. The 3220 should be cheaper than the A10. It would have to be at least $20 cheaper for me to take it over an A10.

[minitron]

Originally Posted by sm625

Keep in mind that if you buy an A10 you can always retire it into a competent backup gaming rig for LAN type parties. I would get the A10 if prices were equal. The 3220 should be cheaper than the A10. It would have to be at least $20 cheaper for me to take it over an A10.

He's already getting a dedicated video card and the i3 has superior CPU performance. Why should he get the A10 when he's not going to use it's iGPU, the primary reason to get the A10.

[Rvenger]

Originally Posted by minitron

He's already getting a dedicated video card and the i3 has superior CPU performance. Why should he get the A10 when he's not going to use it's iGPU, the primary reason to get the A10.

IMO, the A10 wouldn't make sense if you were planning on using a dedicated card. I purchased an A8-5600k and overclocked it to 4ghz on all 4 cores. Right now its running faster than an A10 and its dead even with an i3. I paid $87 for the CPU. (Had a gift card from newegg)

[infoiltrator]

And for overclocking you generally need to spend more on the motherboard and cooler, which counts.
Unless you like overclocking for the sake of overclocking.

I also prefer the clear upgrade path of the Ivy Bridge/Sandy Bridge.

[phenomkid7]

Originally Posted by inf64

Yeah just buy a locked dual core i3 @ 3Ghz and be "good" for a decade,right? Just don't try doing more than 2 things at the same time on your PC,it might feel a bit sluggish.

What a fucking toolbag fanboy

[Phynaz]

Originally Posted by phenomkid7

What a [nice guy]

Suggestion: Read the rules before posting.

[inf64]

Originally Posted by phenomkid7

What a fucking toolbag fanboy

Wow,you came up with that all by yourself? Or somebody helped you