i3 6320 or FX-6300?

[lehtv]

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.

That's not a bandwagon. You're implying that there are people here who think AMD CPU's aren't good just because it's popular to think that. I very much doubt that's the case. Pretty much everyone here knows, based on facts, benchmarks, comparisons etc. that AMD CPU's are pretty bad. Obviously, the only context in which "bad" even makes sense is when compared to something else, and currently that happens to be Intel's processors from Sandy Bridge onwards. Calling them bad isn't mocking them or being an Intel fanboy, it's stating an evidence-based fact.

 

[Phynaz]

Oh look, we have Grammer Police.

It's not a bandwagon by the way, it's the truth. Do you know anything about the history of AMD's leadership? Can you say they are a well run company with a straight face?

 

[Vossy96]

Oh look, we have Grammer Police.

It's not a bandwagon by the way, it's the truth. Do you know anything about the history of AMD's leadership? Can you say they are a well run company with a straight face?

I have stated on many numerous occasions that Intel are better than AMD. I know that's a fact, I'm even 100% going to switch to Intel at some point in the next 2 months; what my argument is pointing out is that AMD aren't as bad as everybody makes out. Sure, they lose on benchmarks by quite a lot, but their "top end" CPUs are almost 5 years old now.

Maybe a better comparison will be to wait until Zen comes out, but I'm sure even then, even in the unlikely case that Zen matches up or beats Intel, you'd still find some sort of argument rather than admit AMD aren't so bad.

 

[lehtv]

what my argument is pointing out is that AMD aren't as bad as everybody makes out.

There's that "everybody" again. A while ago it was just two guys, now it's everybody.

FWIW I'm not part of your "everybody". I think AMD is bad, and it's just as bad as I think it is bad. I look at the benches and data and that's how bad it is. Not worse, not better.

 

[Markfw]

There's that "everybody" again. A while ago it was just two guys, now it's everybody.

FWIW I'm not part of your "everybody". I think AMD is bad, and it's just as bad as I think it is bad. I look at the benches and data and that's how bad it is. Not worse, not better.

I agree. So I have 2 6234 12 core Opterons @ 2.4 (stock) that can't match the performance in F@H compared to 5 year old (or so) socket 1366 Xeon's @ the same clock, and that counting hyper-threading virtual cores as real cores, 24 vs 12 with HT on. And the heat they put out is outrageous. And I have a 290 video card that does 1/2 the points of a current comparable Nvidia card, or less than a 780 from years ago, and again, the heat actually heats my house. My new 980ti and my 980's, you can barely feel the heat coming off them.

 

[USER8000]

There's that "everybody" again. A while ago it was just two guys, now it's everybody.

FWIW I'm not part of your "everybody". I think AMD is bad, and it's just as bad as I think it is bad. I look at the benches and data and that's how bad it is. Not worse, not better.

The problem this is a tech forum,full of enthusiasts, in a world of people using consoles and cheap laptops and tablets.

Even a "bad" gaming PC from the last 4 to 5 years is probably better in many tasks like gaming that the vast majority of PCs or consoles in the world. In many cases I expect a new graphics card would breath some life into an old PC.

I am "only" running an Ivy Bridge Core i7 and a GTX960 which is probably subpar by latest enthusiast standards,but I can still run many games and tasks(like processing RAWs from my Nikon full frame dSLR) fine.

Have mates,who have older AMD,Intel and Nvidia hardware who can still run all the same games I can,even if it means they drop some settings and likewise have mates with much better hardware who can run the same games but at higher resolution and framerates.

They can still do all the same tasks I can do on my system,whether it be slower or faster.

As enthusiasts we sometimes lose that perspective.

It is why we need to keep breaking out graphs to determine what CPU or card is faster at every price-point.

The OP might be someone who finds is computer being fine for what he is playing,so it might be why he is wondering why his system its meant to suck,according to what enthusiasts say, when it does the job for them.

 

[Shivansps]

i build pcs every day and AMD FX are just a big noisy space heaters, so are A8 and A10 as well, just a bit less. Issues not present on AM1 or any Intel CPU.

Not to mention how old AM3 is, hell even FM2 is old, now a H110 board is on the same level I/O than an A78 chipset, minus 2 SATAs, and A88X is not that much better.

Even whiout considering performance Intel CPU are already better, and the I3-6100 is an excelent CPU performance wise.

AMD needs to launch AM4 ASAP and just kill everything else.

 

[Vossy96]

The problem this is a tech forum,full of enthusiasts, in a world of people using consoles and cheap laptops and tablets.

Even a "bad" gaming PC from the last 4 to 5 years is probably better in many tasks like gaming that the vast majority of PCs or consoles in the world. In many cases I expect a new graphics card would breath some life into an old PC.

I am "only" running an Ivy Bridge Core i7 and a GTX960 which is probably subpar by latest enthusiast standards,but I can still run many games and tasks(like processing RAWs from my Nikon full frame dSLR) fine.

Have mates,who have older AMD,Intel and Nvidia hardware who can still run all the same games I can,even if it means they drop some settings and likewise have mates with much better hardware who can run the same games but at higher resolution and framerates.

They can still do all the same tasks I can do on my system,whether it be slower or faster.

As enthusiasts we sometimes lose that perspective.

It is why we need to keep breaking out graphs to determine what CPU or card is faster at every price-point.

The OP might be someone who finds is computer being fine for what he is playing,so it might be why he is wondering why his system its meant to suck,according to what enthusiasts say, when it does the job for them.

That's pretty much my point. Sure, Intel wins by miles performance wise, but I struggle to understand how a CPU that can run fallout 4 on high at 1440p can be considered a bad chip.

 

[lehtv]

That's pretty much my point. Sure, Intel wins by miles performance wise, but I struggle to understand how a CPU that can run fallout 4 on high at 1440p can be considered a bad chip.

Because "bad" means "bad compared to Intel". There's nothing else to compare it to. You seem to be interpreting "bad" as bad per se, or as "doesn't work". All those people who you see saying AMD is bad, aren't saying it doesn't work, they're saying it just isn't competitive with Intel.

You could just as well run Fallout 4 with a Phenom II X6 from 2010. Or an i7-8xx from 2009. Does that make a new retail FX-6300 look good to you?

 

[ElFenix]

I agree. So I have 2 6234 12 core Opterons @ 2.4 (stock) that can't match the performance in F@H compared to 5 year old (or so) socket 1366 Xeon's @ the same clock, and that counting hyper-threading virtual cores as real cores, 24 vs 12 with HT on. And the heat they put out is outrageous. And I have a 290 video card that does 1/2 the points of a current comparable Nvidia card, or less than a 780 from years ago, and again, the heat actually heats my house. My new 980ti and my 980's, you can barely feel the heat coming off them.

this is going far off topic, but it sounds like you're not using the 290 to its strengths. in something heavy on double precision the 290 should destroy any maxwell based card.

 

[Vossy96]

Because "bad" means "bad compared to Intel". There's nothing else to compare it to. You seem to be interpreting "bad" as bad per se, or as "doesn't work". All those people who you see saying AMD is bad, aren't saying it doesn't work, they're saying it just isn't competitive with Intel.

You could just as well run Fallout 4 with a Phenom II X6 from 2010. Or an i7-8xx from 2009. Does that make a new retail FX-6300 look good to you?

This is almost identical to what I stated on the other post. I stated that AMD are only considered bad because Intel are better and most of the people who replied about AMD just said AMD is straight up bad

 

[Markfw]

this is going far off topic, but it sounds like you're not using the 290 to its strengths. in something heavy on double precision the 290 should destroy any maxwell based card.

Far off-topic talking mostly about my AMD vs Intel CPU's ? I make one comment about my GPU having the same problem ? And for what I am doing, I said F@H.

 

[USER8000]

Because "bad" means "bad compared to Intel". There's nothing else to compare it to. You seem to be interpreting "bad" as bad per se, or as "doesn't work". All those people who you see saying AMD is bad, aren't saying it doesn't work, they're saying it just isn't competitive with Intel.

You could just as well run Fallout 4 with a Phenom II X6 from 2010. Or an i7-8xx from 2009. Does that make a new retail FX-6300 look good to you?

The only problem is that both the CPUs you listed were closer to £250 at launch and the FX6300 was £100 at launch.

Its like saying the Core i3 6100 is poor value,on average since it might trade blows with a Core i5 from many years ago which was significantly more expensive.

I think it is doing OK for what is an ancient chip which was more a Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge Core i3 competitor and with some of the deals that seem to appear in the US,it makes them look decent value. It is a shame AMD never really updated the platform with newer core designs such as Steamroller. It pretty much means the Core i3 6100 does have the edge in almost every case now.

In the UK we tend to get less of those kind of deals - in fact probably more deals with the Intel motherboards like free DDR4,etc.

 

[lehtv]

The only problem is that both the CPUs you listed were closer to £250 at launch and the FX6300 was £100 at launch.

No, my point had nothing to do with pricing. FX-63xx is AMD's current best 6-core processor. Regardless of pricing, it's not a good CPU - it may be cheap for what it is, but that doesn't make it a good CPU. Compared to Intel ofc.

 

[AtenRa]

No, my point had nothing to do with pricing. FX-63xx is AMD's current best 6-core processor. Regardless of pricing, it's not a good CPU - it may be cheap for what it is, but that doesn't make it a good CPU. Compared to Intel ofc.

Without pricing there can be no comparison. Nobody gets CPUs for free.

 

[TeknoBug]

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!

I was an AMD fan from the 90's up until the FX line, sorry Charlie but that's the way it goes, why go with an inferior setup that sucks a lot more electricity?

 

[lehtv]

Without pricing there can be no comparison. Nobody gets CPUs for free.

Wrong, you can compare CPU's based on their perf/watt, perf/core, perf vs. current top CPU, perf vs. older top CPUs...

Here: FX-6300 is slower than i5-6500 and consumes more power, thus it is a worse CPU.

There, I just made a comparison that had nothing to do with price.

 

[USER8000]

Wrong, you can compare CPU's based on their perf/watt, perf/core, perf vs. current top CPU, perf vs. older top CPUs...

Here: FX-6300 is slower than i5-6500 and consumes more power, thus it is a worse CPU.

There, I just made a comparison that had nothing to do with price.

An IBM Power 8 destroys both in supercomputer usage. There,i did a comparison too!

The radiation hardened RAD750 obliterates both for use in space!!

Wait,I did it again!! :thumbsup:

Ni!!

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Wrong, you can compare CPU's based on their perf/watt, perf/core, perf vs. current top CPU, perf vs. older top CPUs...

Here: FX-6300 is slower than i5-6500 and consumes more power, thus it is a worse CPU.

There, I just made a comparison that had nothing to do with price.

Yeah, and I can buy four A6-7400K with motherboards for the price of a single Skylake i7 with motherboard. Price is everything to the majority of consumers -- or everyone would be driving Lamborghini's instead of Camry's.

Is a Camry as fast as a Lamborghini? Nope. But is it good enough for the consumer's needs? Most likely, judging from Toyota sales.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Wrong, you can compare CPU's based on their perf/watt, perf/core, perf vs. current top CPU, perf vs. older top CPUs...

Here: FX-6300 is slower than i5-6500 and consumes more power, thus it is a worse CPU.

There, I just made a comparison that had nothing to do with price.

Price is a consideration. But for a lot of buyers, not the major one. Like I have said before, I dont mean to insult those on very limited incomes, but to do it fully, PC gaming requires a certain amount of disposable income. Compared to everyday expenses of most consumers an extra hundred or even two hundred dollars for a much better cpu is chicken feed, especially when a system can last several years and the initially cheaper system uses more energy. CPUs are one of the few areas where if one wants the best available, it only costs a relatively small amount of money to get it. (No, I am not talking about a 1000 5960x, but an overclocked 5820k or overclocked quad skylake).

I do have to admit, I dont like it when posters call AMD cpus "bad" or "junk" or "trash". I am an old timer, and my first computer was a 233mhz intel. So in the historical context, current AMD cpus are pretty good, but in most cases intel offers a better alternative at a very reasonable cost.

 

[Yuriman]

Yeah, and I can buy four A6-7400K with motherboards for the price of a single Skylake i7 with motherboard. Price is everything to the majority of consumers -- or everyone would be driving Lamborghini's instead of Camry's.

Is a Camry as fast as a Lamborghini? Nope. But is it good enough for the consumer's needs? Most likely, judging from Toyota sales.

Why do so many people buy new cars for $25-40,000, or get on a lease, when you can get a perfectly reasonable car for $3-5,000? If price were everything, people would not buy new cars nearly as frequently and would instead hold onto old ones for much longer.

E.g. I just bought a Honda Civic hybrid for $3,000, while my in-laws bought a new Prius for $24,000. My Civic has 125,000 miles. Both get 50-60mpg. I would have to replace mine twice as often due to starting at higher miles, but could buy 8 of my car for the price of one of theirs.

And don't even get me started on AMD vs NV video cards.

Clearly, pure economics are not what drive most peoples' buying decisions.

 

[Essence_of_War]

Why do so many people buy new cars for $25-40,000, or get on a lease, when you can get a perfectly reasonable car for $3-5,000?

One reason is protections of the state lemon laws, and magnuson-moss warranty acts.

You can get some warranty protections on used vehicles, but they are almost always disclaimed "as-is" by the sellers.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Well, it really is a non-sequitor. The price differential between a used car, a Camry, and a supercar is huge compared to most buyer's income. Not to mention a more expensive car continues to cost more in insurance and license fees. We are talking many thousands of dollars here. Not at all an analogous situation to paying an extra hundred or even two hundred dollars for a cpu.

 

[TheELF]

Well, it really is a non-sequitor. The price differential between a used car, a Camry, and a supercar is huge compared to most buyer's income. Not to mention a more expensive car continues to cost more in insurance and license fees. We are talking many thousands of dollars here. Not at all an analogous situation to paying an extra hundred or even two hundred dollars for a cpu.

This extra money is going to give you zero benefit for ~3 years at least though.
(If we are still talking about normal use and gaming)
Plus the possibility of something groundbreaking being released that may not work on your platform,like 3dxpoint for example.

 

[jhu]

This extra money is going to give you zero benefit for ~3 years at least though.
(If we are still talking about normal use and gaming)
Plus the possibility of something groundbreaking being released that may not work on your platform,like 3dxpoint for example.

This is the problem when people ask for build advice but don't mention budget and anticipated usage scenario. Should I get an FX8350 or Core i7 for 24/7 rendering? Sure, the cost of FX8350 is definitely lower, but the Core i7 will save money in the long run for such usage because it uses less energy (it's also faster).