i3 6320 or FX-6300?

[Vossy96]

Would like genuine unbiased opinions here. I read a lot on here about how the i3 is better than the 6300, but never know if that's fact or opinion.

Based on real world gaming performance, paired with an R9 380 4GB, what would perform better?

 

[dark zero]

Would like genuine unbiased opinions here. I read a lot on here about how the i3 is better than the 6300, but never know if that's fact or opinion.

Based on real world gaming performance, paired with an R9 380 4GB, what would perform better?

i3, no joking. AMD is 4 generations behind Intel.

Also try to get an old skylake processor and one of the first motherboards and you can OC it.

 

[tweakboy]

Niether x7 will last you for years the i3 is a slow joke of a CPU for cheap chaps.. GL

 

[myocardia]

The real answer is both, depending on the game. For the games that can take advantage of more than 4 threads, the FX 6300 will win by a pretty good margin, and the more threads the game can take advantage of, the higher it will score above the i3. For the games that can only take advantage of 1 to 4 threads, the i3 will win, and the fewer the threads the game uses, the more the i3 will beat the FX. So, it really depends on which games you're wanting to play.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

Skylake i3s are breaking into Sandy i5 territory, even at stock. For gaming, I would absolutely pick the i3. Personally, I doubt there are many situations where the FX would win.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I agree, at least certainly without a good overclock on the 6300. Dont forget we are talking about a lower clocked chip with 2 less cores than the usual 8350 that AMD fans want to compare to the i3. FX 6300 traded blows with Sandy i3, but it is still the same chip, while the i3 is several generations newer, and has probably shown more improvement than the quad intel chips with Haswell and Skylake. If you can get it for 120.00 or less, the FX 8xxx is a viable competitor to an i3, depending on what games you play and how much you value efficiency, but I absolutely, no question would take an i3 over FX6xxx.

 

[AtenRa]

Would like genuine unbiased opinions here. I read a lot on here about how the i3 is better than the 6300, but never know if that's fact or opinion.

Based on real world gaming performance, paired with an R9 380 4GB, what would perform better?

First, What games ???

Second, FX 6300 is selling at $100 when Core i3 6320 is close to $170

If you are on a low budget get the FX + R9 390 and use VSR. But again it depends on what games you want to play. For DX-12 games the FX + Hawaii will be better vs Core i3 + Tonga.

 

[mikeymikec]

Due to my experiences with the AM3 chipsets (SB7xx, SB8xx), it would have to be a really compelling argument/usage scenario for me to consider AMD as a platform choice.

Across multiple boards/computers:
1) I saw issues to do with certain combinations of SATA ports not wanting to be used in IDE mode (maybe AHCI too)

2) My last AM3 board had a tendency to do weird things on AHCI if various optical drives were accessed in certain ways (weird enough to cause the optical drive to stop working until reboot, and for Windows to take ages to shut down because of AHCI difficulties).

3) USB filter drivers across two generations of chipset, 'nuff said.

4) Broken default RAID1 configuration; pretty much guaranteed to fail in about 6 months (documentation doesn't make any recommendations about what settings to use either), very iffy RAID drivers, updating to the latest was a risky gambit.

5) Iffy AHCI drivers, the last set of 'up-to-date' drivers I tried on SB750 would cause up to 30% CPU usage on "system interrupts" (a less iffy driver would cause a more normal ~1% even under load).

Over a three year period of using AMD chipsets for PC builds, I encountered at least one weird chipset-related issue a year. Since changing back to Intel, I've had one weird board-specific issue in four years.

PS - I'm not saying that these are issues that most people experience. The SATA port weirdness is down to pot luck (maybe Asus AMD boards too, but I doubt it), very few people use desktop RAID, most people will probably use the same AHCI driver on their single AMD box unless they have AHCI issues, etc. I just think that AMD's chipset driver QA leaves a lot of "room for improvement", to put it nicely.

 

[hojnikb]

Grab Z170M Pro4S (or any other cheap, OC ready board) and an i3 6100. Overclock the hell out of it and when its not enough, switch to i5/i7.

Forget about AMD, not worth it.

 

[frozentundra123456]

First, What games ???

Second, FX 6300 is selling at $100 when Core i3 6320 is close to $170

If you are on a low budget get the FX + R9 390 and use VSR. But again it depends on what games you want to play. For DX-12 games the FX + Hawaii will be better vs Core i3 + Tonga.

Of course pick the absolute worst value intel chip. On amazon right now, i3-6300 is 155.00, but the only slightly slower i3 6100 is less than 125.00. And the OP specifically asked how they would perform with the same gpu.

 

[lehtv]

Yep, i3-6300 and i3-6320 are super bad buys compared to i3-6100 and i5-6500.

 

[Denithor]

Guy seems to be a troll.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2467249

 

[Essence_of_War]

i3 6320 or FX-6300?

Yep, i3-6300 and i3-6320 are super bad buys compared to i3-6100 and i5-6500.

2nd'd. i3-6100 is the correct choice.

i3-6300 and i3-6320 are wildly over priced for their performance delta over 6100.

 

[Phynaz]

Would like genuine unbiased opinions here. I read a lot on here about how the i3 is better than the 6300, but never know if that's fact or opinion.

Based on real world gaming performance, paired with an R9 380 4GB, what would perform better?

Your other troll thread wasn't enough? What's your deal?

 

[hojnikb]

Slow day at AMDs PR office, eh ?

 

[TeknoBug]

i3 6320 has quite a bit of oomph, very high IPC and there was actuallya n article not long ago saying that the i3 6320 makes for a great mid-range gaming system. But the cost of the 6320 isn't justified that you may as well buy an i5 6500 for close to the price.

 

[ShintaiDK]

i3 obviously. Including the much cheaper i3 6100.

 

[Vossy96]

The majority of people on this website seem to be a bunch of Intel fanboys who can't take anything positive or neutral about AMD. If any of you actually read my last post you'll see that I called Intel much better for performance and in fact it's that last post that's made me question whether an i3 would be a better choice for gaming.

Anybody, thanks for everybody's reply who actually took the question seriously; much appreciated!

 

[frozentundra123456]

Huh? Nothing like asking for advice and then insulting those who tried to give an objective opinion by calling them fanboys.

 

[Vossy96]

Huh? Nothing like asking for advice and then insulting those who tried to give an objective opinion by calling them fanboys.

I'm talking about hojnikb and phynaz, but everybody else's serious opinions are greatly appreciated

Sorry, I probably shouldn't have said the majority and should've made it clearer - I was referring to those guys who were mentioning my post about AMD calling me a troll and saying I work for AMD.

 

[Sweepr]

Hope this helps:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2458324

 

[happy medium]

i3 6100 owner here...

I didn't pick the i3 6100 just because it plays games now well, I picked it because in a year or 2 I'll pop in a shiny new 4 core , 8 thread Kabylake 7800k cpu and overclock it and keep the PLATFORM for another 2 years at least.

The AMD platform is a dead end.

 

[Phynaz]

The majority of people on this website seem to be a bunch of Intel fanboys who can't take anything positive or neutral about AMD.

There's an answer to your having issues with the majority users of this forum. Can you guess what it is?

Hint...It's not not other people that's the problem.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Would like genuine unbiased opinions here. I read a lot on here about how the i3 is better than the 6300, but never know if that's fact or opinion.

Based on real world gaming performance, paired with an R9 380 4GB, what would perform better?

If you are going to be like most people and keep the setup for 2 or more years, its better getting a more expensive setup that's faster. Because later when there's a much better one, it'll be a platform overhaul anyway, so few $ you save for a worse performing but cheaper setup will be well made up by the price you spend on future overhaul.

Performance: You think of how it performs NOW

With a faster one you'll wait longer. Even if the 6320 is $70 more. Now, no question about 6100.

 

[Vossy96]

There's an answer to your having issues with the majority users of this forum. Can you guess what it is?

Hint...It's not not other people that's the problem.

Firstly, your post makes almost no sense, because using a double negative would mean you're siding with me, which seems extremely unlikely.

Secondly, your profile quote tells me that you can't stand the idea of AMD and will do anything in your power to slay them at every given opportunity, which tells me you're not the sort of person I should take much notice of. There's clearly a lot more people on this forum who have a much more valuable opinion than yours and actually make an effort to give positives about AMD and Intel, rather than going straight to the "AMD are a terrible company and have awful CPUs" bandwagon.


insulting other members is not allowed.
Markfw900