Cheap i3 or FX?

[BallaTheFeared]

I wouldn't get either, I'd wait to get at least an i5, I'd even be willing to go used. The used market should saturate with decent chips when Haswell comes out.


I wouldn't get a dual core/i3 because they're locked and when you need more cores you need more cores.

I wouldn't get an FX because they're terrible.

 

[Gikaseixas]

For gaming the Pentium does not cut. He'll find himself cpu bottlenecked in a lot of situations. Just accept that the FX and 650ti are a better choice in this scenario.

Remember that he will save $10 by going FX instead of i3. He can then add those $10 to the gpu purchase and possibly get a 7850 2GB for $185 just like i did a month ago.

 

[Gikaseixas]

I wouldn't get an FX because they're terrible

The FX 6300? Terrible at what? One of the more attractive budget cpu buys right now. That thing @ $119 is a great deal. I just built a PC for a friend with it and a 7850, great budget gaming machine believe me.

 

[UaVaj]

to play mostly World of Warcraft and a few other mmo's.

based on the op's choices.
for the particular task. get the i3.
for everything else. get the fx.

based on the op's particular task.
another vote for the core g.

based on everyone else about the future.
get a i7-3770K.

 

[blastingcap]

With PS4/XBox3 being x86, code bases and compiled code are basically going to be very similar. As much as a particular crowd here hates to admit it primary dev target is consoles. With that in mind an FX-6300 is a closer match to the console CPU's then an i3. I would never go the pentium the lack of AVX will make a difference once the new consoles are released ( current games are rarely compiled with it).

FX-6300 vs i5 is a different story we are starting to see a cross over where more threads= win but there are still just as many if not more where "IPC" = win. If he intends to have have rig for a few years ( say 3) i would be 51% on FX-6300 side, 49% on an I5.

Try rereading my post. Both will be obsolete by the time devs get a hang of the new consoles.

 

[grimpr]

The FX 6300? Terrible at what? One of the more attractive budget cpu buys right now. That thing @ $119 is a great deal. I just built a PC for a friend with it and a 7850, great budget gaming machine believe me.

Thats a very good combo right there, paired with a 970 motherboard and some decent 1600 ddr3 kit makes a very potent gaming and workstation pc at a very good price.

 

[mojothehut]

Hey guys, OP here.
I had not expected this thread to get so many replies. Thank you for all the input.

I understand the argument about the FX and more cores, future proof for newer gamer, etc etc.
However, he really won't be going outside the games I have listed. He's a huge WoW addict who quit for a while but is now jonsing for the needle back in his arm.

With that being said, we're going to stick with the i3 (again, for the leading WoW performance) and a decent $90isg LGA 1155 chipset like this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157301&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-na-_-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10440897&PID=3332167&SID=u00000687

He said maybe later this fall he'd upgrade to an i5 or something on the very off chance he expands his video game selection.

Again, thank you for all the input, it was helpful :awe:

 

[Pilum]

The FX 6300? Terrible at what? One of the more attractive budget cpu buys right now.

For the intendend purposes of the OP? Definitely no. And generally, for gaming, also no. FX may be the only choice if your budget is limited to an inferior solution. If you want a decent and future-proof gaming CPU which can handle all kinds of games decently, i5 or bust. And if you really want long-term future-proofing, i7. As a general gaming CPU, AMD doesn't even enter the picture anymore. They're okay if you only want to play BF3, though.

 

[tweakboy]

Def get the AMD FX 8350 only 200 bones. 8 cores vs 8 threads. The i3 is a slow poke budget CPU. 8350 is AMDs latest. gl

 

[Durvelle27]

This is for everyone who said the FX 6300 would perform not so good in WoW

i3-2100 (red) vs FX 6300 (blue)

Anything over 60 FPS is good and really you won't notice the difference at all any higher.


Another Example

 

[Sleepingforest]

Hey guys, OP here.
I had not expected this thread to get so many replies. Thank you for all the input.

You posted what amounts to an AMD vs Intel thread. Of course we'll all coming swarming. :awe:

 

[tweakboy]

Its fact the 8350 crushes the i3 . Period!

If you want future proof grab the 8350. If you want to change your CPU again in 2 months get the i3. gl

 

[Pilum]

I understand the argument about the FX and more cores, future proof for newer gamer, etc etc.
However, he really won't be going outside the games I have listed. He's a huge WoW addict who quit for a while but is now jonsing for the needle back in his arm.

With that being said, we're going to stick with the i3 (again, for the leading WoW performance) and a decent $90isg LGA 1155 chipset like this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157301&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-na-_-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10440897&PID=3332167&SID=u00000687

He said maybe later this fall he'd upgrade to an i5 or something on the very off chance he expands his video game selection.

If an upgrade in the near future is an option, I'd recommend going with a Pentium. I built a G2020 machine recently, and it's really quite nimble considering the price. Single-threaded performance (which matters for WoW+GW2) should be as high as the FX6300, but these Pentiums are cheap.

For initial expense + upgrade cost, you're looking at something like the following, using Intels price list:
G2020: $64
i3-3220: $117
i5-3470: $184

Pentium+i5: $248
i3+i5: $301

But be aware that the current i5s will be slowly phased out once the new Haswells enter the market. To buy a new Ivy Bridge i5, the upgrade should really happen this year.

Also, if you want to keep the option open to overclock the i5 later on, you would want to get a Z75 board like this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157304.
You can overclock even the non-K i5s by +0.4 GHz, considering the turbo the 3470 will then run at 3.8 GHz if all four cores are loaded, up to 4.0 GHz for one or two cores. No CPU made by AMD can touch this for gaming. And the rig will be very future-proof for all kinds of games your friend may elect to play in the future.

 

[Maximilian]

For the intendend purposes of the OP? Definitely no. And generally, for gaming, also no. FX may be the only choice if your budget is limited to an inferior solution. If you want a decent and future-proof gaming CPU which can handle all kinds of games decently, i5 or bust. And if you really want long-term future-proofing, i7. As a general gaming CPU, AMD doesn't even enter the picture anymore. They're okay if you only want to play BF3, though.

If this was a year and a half ago after BD was released i would agree with you, today though nope, AMD is viable for gaming. PD improved the architecture a bit and the threads you get for the price makes the FX chips a nice deal. Newer games will perform well on these things. i3 and below will struggle because dual core, even dual core with HT is rather last decade.

This is for everyone who said the FX 6300 would perform not so good in WoW

i3-3220 (red) vs FX 6300 (blue)

Anything over 60 FPS is good and really you won't notice the difference at all any higher.


Another Example

Yeah, this.

I never paid much attention to the FX6300 benchmarks before this thread showed up but upon investigation its a pretty decent chip.

At the end of the day the i3 or the FX will do the job, both platforms have upgrades as well with FX8xxx or steamroller when it shows up and the i3 can be replaced by an i5/i7 but the best choice right now between i3 and FX6300 is the FX6300 without a shadow of a doubt.

 

[parvadomus]

You should see other games like BF3, FC3, Crysis 3, etc. FX6300 just walks over the i3 any time. Game engines are moving more and more towards multithreading, leaving dual core processors like i3 in the dust.

 

[Pilum]

If this was a year and a half ago after BD was released i would agree with you, today though nope, AMD is viable for gaming. PD improved the architecture a bit and the threads you get for the price makes the FX chips a nice deal.

And if your workload only use 2 threads, this matters how? Not at all.

And there are many workloads which are still limited to <=2 threads. Actually the majority of workloads are; with the exception of a few modern games and productivity applications, more than two threads are rarely used.

Newer games will perform well on these things. i3 and below will struggle because dual core, even dual core with HT is rather last decade.

That's true for a select few console ports. Not for RPG/MMO/strategy titles on the PC. For these, single-threaded performance is still the single most relevant parameter for overall performance.

And the really sad thing is, AMD is so far behind in single-threaded performance that a Pentium is equivalent to the FX series there, and you need to overclock the FX chips to beat an i3.

At the end of the day the i3 or the FX will do the job, both platforms have upgrades as well with FX8xxx or steamroller when it shows up and the i3 can be replaced by an i5/i7 but the best choice right now between i3 and FX6300 is the FX6300 without a shadow of a doubt.

Now that you've repeated this falsehood and also bolded it, you must be right. In your mind, that is.

Meanwhile in reality, for the OPs requirements even a Pentium is still a better choice than the 6300.

 

[Maximilian]

And the really sad thing is, AMD is so far behind in single-threaded performance that a Pentium is equivalent to the FX series there, and you need to overclock the FX chips to beat an i3.


Now that you've repeated this falsehood and also bolded it, you must be right. In your mind, that is.

Meanwhile in reality, for the OPs requirements even a Pentium is still a better choice than the 6300.

Yeah i get it you hate AMD

Dual core anything is a fail these days, i cant be bothered to argue with closed minded types like yourself but as i said before and ill say it again Exxxx vs Qxxxx all over again. We all know who was right in the end there

 

[Vesku]

And if your workload only use 2 threads, this matters how? Not at all.

And there are many workloads which are still limited to <=2 threads. Actually the majority of workloads are; with the exception of a few modern games and productivity applications, more than two threads are rarely used.

And if you are building around this premise get an IB Pentium.

 

[Gikaseixas]

If you want a decent and future-proof gaming CPU which can handle all kinds of games decently, i5 or bust.

Anybody on the OP situation would benefit more by having the FX 6300 than a Pentium chip as you are suggesting. And your comment (i5 or bust) is simply ridiculous because there isn't a single game where the FX 6300 would not work, plus the i5 is way of place since we're talking $120 or lower priced chips

 

[Gikaseixas]

You should see other games like BF3, FC3, Crysis 3, etc. FX6300 just walks over the i3 any time. Game engines are moving more and more towards multithreading, leaving dual core processors like i3 in the dust.

Well said

 

[Gikaseixas]

Hey guys, OP here.
I had not expected this thread to get so many replies. Thank you for all the input.

I understand the argument about the FX and more cores, future proof for newer gamer, etc etc.
However, he really won't be going outside the games I have listed. He's a huge WoW addict who quit for a while but is now jonsing for the needle back in his arm.

With that being said, we're going to stick with the i3 (again, for the leading WoW performance) and a decent $90isg LGA 1155 chipset like this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157301&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-na-_-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10440897&PID=3332167&SID=u00000687

He said maybe later this fall he'd upgrade to an i5 or something on the very off chance he expands his video game selection.

Again, thank you for all the input, it was helpful :awe:

if he's getting a i5 in a few months then that's a wise choice.

 

[JimmyH]

If your friend is raiding in wow, the fx 6300 will be faster than the i3 without overclocking. My i5 3570k @ 4.5ghz dips to low 30s fps during intense raiding. My friends fx 8350 @ 4.6ghz dips mid 20s in same settings.

I'd figure a fx 6300 under those situations would be low 20s with its agressive stock turbo @ 4.1ghz. The i3 has no turbo, low clockspeed, and only 3mb L3 versus 6mb on the i5. Now let's assume your friend playing a game this old is running vent in raid w/ tons of mods. All that will go futher to overwhelming the i3. I'd assume the i3 would be mid teens in those situations. That is serious chugging time in a raid. If he already bought the i3 then the answer is an i5 replacement.

 

[Pilum]

This is for everyone who said the FX 6300 would perform not so good in WoW

i3-3220 (red) vs FX 6300 (blue)

Is there any reason you omitted to provide a link to the original data? Like, this being the Sandy Bridge i3-2100 running at 3.1 GHz, instead of the Ivy Bridge i3-3220 running at 3.3 GHz?

Anything over 60 FPS is good and really you won't notice the difference at all any higher.

Unless you're participating in a big raid, which obviously can drop framerates something evil, from what I've read. The performance headroom provided by the i3 might come in handy there.

Another Example

So an obsolete two-year old Intel CPU @3.1 GHz is still better than the FX-6300 which should turbo up to 4.1 GHz in this game? The i3-3220 will easily gain 10% in this scenario due to improved IPC and higher clocks. Thank you for proving my point about the terrible single-threaded performance of AMD CPUs. BTW, the i3-2100 score may be a bit low; the database entry on the Sandry Bridge Pentium G850@2.9 GHz gives 47.8 FPS. So the performance difference of FX 6300 vs. i3-3220 may be more like 15%.

Heh, it will be fun to see how the HSW i3s will outperform the FXs. That should be brutal.

 

[Durvelle27]

Is there any reason you omitted to provide a link to the original data? Like, this being the Sandy Bridge i3-2100 running at 3.1 GHz, instead of the Ivy Bridge i3-3220 running at 3.3 GHz?


Unless you're participating in a big raid, which obviously can drop framerates something evil, from what I've read. The performance headroom provided by the i3 might come in handy there.


So an obsolete two-year old Intel CPU @3.1 GHz is still better than the FX-6300 which should turbo up to 4.1 GHz in this game? The i3-3220 will easily gain 10% in this scenario due to improved IPC and higher clocks. Thank you for proving my point about the terrible single-threaded performance of AMD CPUs. BTW, the i3-2100 score may be a bit low; the database entry on the Sandry Bridge Pentium G850@2.9 GHz gives 47.8 FPS. So the performance difference of FX 6300 vs. i3-3220 may be more like 15%.

Heh, it will be fun to see how the HSW i3s will outperform the FXs. That should be brutal.

are you kidding me. Ivy barely offered a performance boost over sandy so your comment is totally bs.


i3-2100 vs i3-3220 barely 5% increase in performance

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=677


please stop with your biasis comments

 

[aigomorla]

Again, if he's on a limited budget, I'd take an Ivy Pentium and a 7850 over a FX 6300 and a 650 ti. The video card matters more, and the Pentium performs on the level of the 6300 in WoW and Guild Wars 2 anyway.

+1

Im sorry in a gaming machine build.. primary GPU.. secondary CPU.

You basically build the gaming machine around the GPU, and knock off each bottleneck as u part it out to the best of your budget's ability.

If the AMD will net u a better GPU... go with the AMD.
If the intel will net you a better GPU... go with the Intel.

When your friend goes though steam and looks at 2013 catalog.. especially metro: last light... and asks "can my system run this?"
You can smile and say YES... watch him thank you again sincerely.