True, but this is CPU and
Overclocking section of
enthusiast's Forum 
Also, Multitasking is something that 99% of people does every day. You can encode while playing or doing something else on your PC. And FX83xx is ways better doing that than Core i3.
Hell, we were doing Multitasking on Single Core CPUs (without even know it), now that we have 8 cores/threads people will stop using there PC when they Encode ??
You start encoding, then you don't worry about it. It'll be done when it's done. The OS mostly handles how much it can get in your way, being a non-interactive task (specifically, a time-slice hog, so it will be treated as secondary to processes using less of their time), usually automatically set to a lower priority than normal, to boot.
, indeed. I used a Core 2 Duo for video transcoding, and it was simply not noticeable, except for taking a few more seconds to become snappy again after being idle, if encoding. Nothing has changed going to a Xeon E3-1230V3, except the total time taken. Same goes for file compression, and other batch processing tasks. It only matters if you are going to do those things enough that they are a reason for buying that particular CPU, if you are in fact waiting on their completion to do whatever you need to be doing.
With a Core i3, multitasking will be primarily IO-limited, for most power users, most of the time (all of the time for all normal users). What needs the HW thread and cache is the IE or Chrome tab with Dropbox, Lucidhcart, Google Docs, Owncloud, etc., chewing up CPU with Javascript, or Excel running a little something, etc., which i3s handle very well--usually better, due to higher typical IPC. A Haswell Core i3 is a very good multitasking CPU, so long as the number of concurrent tasks is fairly limited.
Can I use more than an i3? Sure. For example, I don't want to need to shut down VMs or browsers to play games at decent performance; don't want to have to stop one VM to use others, deal with laggy programs due to too many processes trying to be active at once, that the OS thinks might all be interactive; etc.. An i3 is not going to handle that so well (even with only 10-15% total CPU use, and no core staying near 100%). But, I am willing to admit that, even amongst power users, I'm not the norm. If your usage uses the 4M8T to its strengths, that doesn't mean everyone should want one, when they aren't doing any of that.
That an i3 gives you a better platform for the money is icing on the cake, and can make it cheaper, if there's no need for a video card with the i3 (FM2+ would be more comparable, there).
Well core i3 should only be compared to FM2+ Kaveri APUs and again it still comes behind in MT loads.
Except everywhere that it doesn't, which is pretty much in everything but gaming with IGP (not something I'd want to do with Intel's lack of video driver settings, anyway, nor recommend--AMD has that niche covered better, IMO, due to the Cats, even when performance will be CPU-bound). For most uses, there won't be a bit of perceivable difference in performance, and the i3 uses less power and takes as little or less time for any CPU/RAM-bound task (but, against FM2+, does not have the advantage it does over AM3+).
And, there should not be limits to what can be compared against what, except price. Features and performance for the cost matter, nothing else. If an A10 offers competitive performance for the cost, it shouldn't be ignored just because you might get a video card. Likewise, an i3 is quite comparable to an FX-8320, being of similar cost (iff you're going to get a video card anyway), no matter that one is 2C4T and the other 4M8T.
Facebook
Twitter