[Techspot] The Best CPU for the Money: Intel Core i3-6100 vs. i3-4360, i5-4430 & AMD

[Hi-Fi Man]

http://www.techspot.com/review/1087-best-value-desktop-cpu/

The FX is getting thoroughly beat in games. They also tested the i3-6100 with 2133MT/s and 3000MT/s RAM. I would like to see how low timing 2133MT/s performs in comparison though.

 

[Sweepr]

Thanks for posting. This one deserves a sticky, Skylake Core i3 is not only viable for 2015 gaming but also beats AMD's 8-core power hogs in many popular titles.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

http://www.techspot.com/review/1087-best-value-desktop-cpu/

The FX is getting thoroughly beat in games. They also tested the i3-6100 with 2133MT/s and 3000MT/s RAM. I would like to see how low timing 2133MT/s performs in comparison though.

I couldn't help but notice you excluded this benchmark:

Does it really shock anyone that a 3 year newer CPU architecture running on a newer
memory standard is generally faster than something designed 3 years earlier? But thank you
for that insight, Captain Obvious.

 

[Raftina]

These benchmarks are missing something rather important:

Overclocking the 8320E to 4.6 Ghz causes it to have load power consumption that's about 200W higher than the TDP of 95W. The i3s should use about 60W under load--consistent with the TDP without overclocking.

How much extra does it cost to install a PSU that can sustain an extra 140W on its 12V rail? How much does it cost to get an AIO liquid cooler that's powerful enough to cool a 200W CPU? How much extra does it cost to get a case that has good enough airflow to cool all the components when there's an extra 140W in the case?

I am highly skeptical of the claim that the 8320E at 4.6 Ghz is actually in the same price range as the i3s and lower i5s.

 

[Erenhardt]

^yea, fx8300 is selling for the same price as i3.
We are told here that overclocking fx8300 from 3.2GHz to 4.6Ghz (More than 40%!) give only 2 FPS (3%) increase in Crysis3!

I dunno...

 

[Blue_Max]

Same price... until you factor in the power bill.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Same price... until you factor in the power bill.

Or the fact that most people who own an FX probably bought it 2 to 3 years ago. What about the cost of buying the new motherboard, DDR4 and CPU in order to upgrade to Skylake?

This kinda reminds me of the power consumption of overclocking the i7 920 to keep up with the newer CPU's:

 

[sm625]

There is no nice way to say it. The skylake i3 just eviscerates AMDs fastest processor. What sad times are these.

 

[Erenhardt]

There is no nice way to say it. The skylake i3 just eviscerates AMDs fastest processor. What sad times are these.

So stronk!

 

[SPBHM]

a shame they ignored AMD graphics cards, I think people considering those CPUs would also be likely to consider an AMD VGA, and the CPUs performance would not be the same.

another big win for Intel is that you can run the Intel CPUs on cheap H110 and h81/b85 boards and you tend to get more features (better sata and usb) and more adequate support for the CPU power requirements compared to cheap AM3+ boards (some have the ancient 760G and can't handle even a 6300 on full load, let alone the cost of cooling that 4.6GHz FX)

^yea, fx8300 is selling for the same price as i3.
We are told here that overclocking fx8300 from 3.2GHz to 4.6Ghz (More than 40%!) give only 2 FPS (3%) increase in Crysis3!

I dunno...

like the memory scaling fallout 4 graphic you were posting right? it's probably hitting some other bottleneck, on the test you can see that even at 4.6GHz it's much slower than anything else for example on l1 and memory performance, perhaps the l3 is also not very good and so on.

 

[Raftina]

Or the fact that most people who own an FX probably bought it 2 to 3 years ago. What about the cost of buying the new motherboard, DDR4 and CPU in order to upgrade to Skylake?

1. The 8320E didn't exist 2 to 3 years ago. Anyone who owns a FX 8320E bought it no earlier than H2 2014, at which point they could also have bought a Haswell i3 system.
2. This comparison includes Haswell i3s, which also beat the 8320E. Haswell i3s can use DDR3 RAM.
3. Skylake is compatible with DDR3 RAM, and there exists motherboards with DDR3 RAM support.
4. Certainly the cheapest H81 and H110 boards are cheaper than the cooling solutions necessary for the 8320E at 4.6 GHz.

 

[Erenhardt]

like the memory scaling fallout 4 graphic you were posting right? it's probably hitting some other bottleneck, on the test you can see that even at 4.6GHz it's much slower than anything else for example on l1 and memory performance, perhaps the l3 is also not very good and so on.

Bingo! We have a winner here. Gtx960 running Crysis3 at high settings @1080p is just not enough to show any CPU advantage that comes from overclocking.

 

[LTC8K6]

I couldn't help but notice you excluded this benchmark:

Does it really shock anyone that a 3 year newer CPU architecture running on a newer
memory standard is generally faster than something designed 3 years earlier? But thank you
for that insight, Captain Obvious.

Well, the i3-4360 is about 4 months older than the FX-8320E...

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

1. The 8320E didn't exist 2 to 3 years ago.

Yes, it did. All the E is an FX-8300 (debuted in Japan in 2012) with a different multiplier. Same chip, only difference is more mature yield. The FX-8320E is a rebrand -- much like the Radeon 300 series is to the Radeon 200 series. The reality is that Vishera is a 2012 design.

 

[LTC8K6]

Piledriver and Haswell are not that far apart time-wise, are they?

June 4th 2013 Haswell intro.

May 2012 for Piledriver APUs.

October 2012 for Vishera.

A year for the APU and 8 months for the FX.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Or the fact that most people who own an FX probably bought it 2 to 3 years ago. What about the cost of buying the new motherboard, DDR4 and CPU in order to upgrade to Skylake?

I agree. That chart all was saying is that 8320E overclocked is still viable for 2015-2016 games, but if you are building a new system, for the same money, it's better to get a Skylake i3. That's how I understand it. Unless of course you could get a 95W FX SKU at a really low price. Like maybe $50.

 

[AtenRa]

a shame they ignored AMD graphics cards, I think people considering those CPUs would also be likely to consider an AMD VGA, and the CPUs performance would not be the same.

You know what ??? Using the R9 380 + the 8-Core CPU will be much better than the Core i3 + GTX960 on the Games that support Mantle or DX-12 titles.

So if we had the same review with the AMD FX8320E + R9 380 it would be faster and with lower frame-times than the Core i3 6100 + GTX960 on Battlefield 4 MP, Thief, Civilization BE etc.

Shame they didnt included a Tonga GPU as well.

 

[LTC8K6]

What happened to the 4330 and 6330 FX chips?

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

I agree. That chart all was saying is that 8320E overclocked is still viable for 2015-2016 games, but if you are building a new system, for the same money, it's better to get a Skylake i3. That's how I understand it. Unless of course you could get a 95W FX SKU at a really low price. Like maybe $50.

Exactly, if someone already owns an FX -- Skylake i3 is probably a sidegrade.
If you're building a brand new machine, Skylake with DDR4 for the win.

 

[Leyawiin]

If I weren't going to upgrade or do a new build for three or four years and had no interest in OCing I'd get a cheaper socket 1150 i5 and reuse some DDR3. Newegg has an i5 4460 for $177. At least thats what I would do if it were down to just the CPUs in that Techspot review.

 

[master_shake_]

Or the fact that most people who own an FX probably bought it 2 to 3 years ago. What about the cost of buying the new motherboard, DDR4 and CPU in order to upgrade to Skylake?

The kinda reminds me of the power consumption of overclocking the i7 920 to keep up with the newer CPU's:

D:

wow.

that is something isn' it?

 

[CHADBOGA]

Does it really shock anyone that a 3 year newer CPU architecture running on a newer
memory standard is generally faster than something designed 3 years earlier? But thank you for that insight, Captain Obvious.

Well when the new CPU architecture has 1/4 of the cores, is clocked 700+ mhz slower and is a mid range product at best, vs the 3 yr old upper end product, yes it is surprising.

How do you think this new product would compare to an 8 core Sandy or Ivy Bridge that is clocked higher than the new CPU architecture?

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Well when the new CPU architecture has 1/4 of the cores, is clocked 700+ mhz slower and is a mid range product at best, vs the 3 yr old upper end product, yes it is surprising.

How do you think this new product would compare to an 8 core Sandy or Ivy Bridge that is clocked higher than the new CPU architecture?

How does anyone consider the FX "an upper end product" in a world of Xeon's and Extreme Editions? Seriously, the FX-8350 debuted at a retail price of $199.00 in October 2012. The Intel i7 3970X debuted a month later at the retail price of $1,000.00.

I just dropped the mic.

 

[CHADBOGA]

How does anyone consider the FX "an upper end product" in a world of Xeon's and Extreme Editions? Seriously, the FX-8350 debuted at a retail price of $199.00 in October 2012. The Intel i7 3970X debuted a month later at the retail price of $1,000.00.

The FX-8350 is an upper end product of AMD's range.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

The FX-8350 is an upper end product of AMD's range.

I'd actually give that title to the 16 Core Opteron 6386 SE.