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

Discussion in 'CPUs and Overclocking' started by Born.9inety4our, Nov 11, 2012.

  1. Rvenger

    Rvenger Elite Member <br> Super Moderator <br> Video Cards
    Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2004
    Messages:
    6,292
    Likes Received:
    4

    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


    [​IMG]
     
  2. SPBHM

    SPBHM Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2012
    Messages:
    4,037
    Likes Received:
    9
    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/863-13/rendu-3d-mental-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.
     
  3. Stingercjc

    Stingercjc Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good plan. There's probably no hope of changing his mind even with facts. He sounds like your typical forum blowhard.
     
  4. infoiltrator

    infoiltrator Senior member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    The I3 3220 and B75 are a fine choice.
    Some people are just fanatical.

    Have fun!
     
  5. frozentundra123456

    frozentundra123456 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    Messages:
    9,085
    Likes Received:
    44

    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.
     
  6. Born.9inety4our

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2012
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    nice. thanks, that's the only answer i'm looking for.
    yeah i agree, they're too off topic LOL:)
     
  7. sm625

    sm625 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2011
    Messages:
    7,767
    Likes Received:
    23
    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.
     
  8. minitron

    minitron Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  9. Rvenger

    Rvenger Elite Member <br> Super Moderator <br> Video Cards
    Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2004
    Messages:
    6,292
    Likes Received:
    4

    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)
     
  10. infoiltrator

    infoiltrator Senior member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  11. phenomkid7

    phenomkid7 Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2012
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    What a fucking toolbag fanboy
     
  12. Phynaz

    Phynaz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    8,950
    Likes Received:
    90
    Suggestion: Read the rules before posting.
     
  13. inf64

    inf64 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2011
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Wow,you came up with that all by yourself? Or somebody helped you :D
     
Loading...