Confusing much? i3 6100 VS I5 3570K VS FX 6300

[Atomicdonut17]

So, just a prompt, I don't intend to start an NVidia VS AMD/ATI argument. Just a question.

So, I've had my head set on a budget CPU for a bit now, and for a bit I was stuck between the Intel option of the I3 6100 which has 2 cores, 4 thread, and the FX 6300 which sports an enticing 6 cores, and a similar clock. However, understanding these two CPUs don't use the same architecture (6100 is a Skylake and the 6300 is a Vishera), and a bit of research, the i3 outguns the FX in a few places. However, when pitting the 6300 on the I5 3570K, which by standard outperforms the i3 in a few choice places, I get a good deal of mixed scores, and CPUBoss ultimately tells me the FX 6300 is the better choice based on value- a 300 dollar CPU that barely out-preforms an 90-dollar CPU. Definitely made me raise my eyebrows. I don't intend to purchase the i5, it was only for comparing prowess to price.

However, when pitting the same i3 against the 6300, I get a score roughly similar to the i5, but it tells me the I3 is better. Now, granted, it IS better, but the 6300 can OC over the i3 with little issue, especially considering the stock i3 is locked to OC if it's a Kaby (the one I want is a Skylake, but just for reference).

End question: FX 6300 or i3 6100?

 

[Atomicdonut17]

*** PROMPT MISSPELL: I said NVidia. I meant Intel. Sorry.

 

[Berkin]

If your budget is going to be fine if you get the i3 6100 then you should do that. Don't get hung up on the 6 cores of FX 6300, trust me it is not going to be better than the i3. So, intel all the way there. But ryzen's lower end chips are also coming fairly soon and seems like one of those might fit your needs if you can wait a bit.

 

[weberdarren97]

So, just a prompt, I don't intend to start an NVidia VS AMD/ATI argument. Just a question.

I'll use my inside voice then. 😀

So, I've had my head set on a budget CPU for a bit now, and for a bit I was stuck between the Intel option of the I3 6100 which has 2 cores, 4 thread, and the FX 6300 which sports an enticing 6 cores, and a similar clock.

FX 6000 series only have 3 cores that Windows can recognize and use. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgejkSWzvNs

However, understanding these two CPUs don't use the same architecture (6100 is a Skylake and the 6300 is a Vishera), and a bit of research, the i3 outguns the FX in a few places. However, when pitting the 6300 on the I5 3570K, which by standard outperforms the i3 in a few choice places, I get a good deal of mixed scores, and CPUBoss ultimately tells me the FX 6300 is the better choice based on value- a 300 dollar CPU that barely out-preforms an 90-dollar CPU. Definitely made me raise my eyebrows. I don't intend to purchase the i5, it was only for comparing prowess to price.

CPU Boss is not a good place to compare CPUs. They compare raw specifications, but that doesn't do much good when the CPUs are different architectures.

Imagine if I had a gasoline car and a diesel car. Imagine they weighed the same and had similar aerodynamics. If I told you that they both had the same amount of horsepower, you'd probably go for the diesel one. However, if I told you that the gasoline one only had a straight 4 and got much better fuel economy, you'd probably go for the gasoline one. You need to gather all the details before making decisions, especially financial decisions like buying tech on a budget.

However, when pitting the same i3 against the 6300, I get a score roughly similar to the i5, but it tells me the I3 is better. Now, granted, it IS better, but the 6300 can OC over the i3 with little issue, especially considering the stock i3 is locked to OC if it's a Kaby (the one I want is a Skylake, but just for reference).

FX series has low IPC. It may achieve a high clock speed, but doesn't do as much work per cycle as Skylake does.

Kaby Lake and Skylake have identical IPC. The only differences are integrated graphics and the fact that Kaby Lake has a higher clock speed (and higher default voltage in many cases).

End question: FX 6300 or i3 6100?

i3.

 

[boosted1g]

Worst to best:
FX6300 < i3 6100 < overclocked i5 3570.

 

[TJ Hooker]

There's little reason to get an i3 6100 over the cheaper G4560.

 

[weberdarren97]

There's little reason to get an i3 6100 over the cheaper G4560.

True. The reduced cache doesn't hurt gaming performance enough to notice. It's professional workloads with lots of complex instructions that seem to be held back by the lower amount of cache.

 

[Supernova1138]

There's little reason to get an i3 6100 over the cheaper G4560.

True. The reduced cache doesn't hurt gaming performance enough to notice. It's professional workloads with lots of complex instructions that seem to be held back by the lower amount of cache.

I don't think it's so much the lower cache that hurts the G4560 in certain professional workloads as it is the lack of AVX support. Most games don't use AVX so it doesn't hurt the G4560 as a gaming CPU, at least in the short term.

 

[TJ Hooker]

i3-6100 and G4560 have the same amount of cache. The only difference is a 200 MHz difference in clock speed, and lack of AVX and ECC on the Pentium. Which aren't needed for gaming anyway.

 

[weberdarren97]

i3-6100 and G4560 have the same amount of cache. The only difference is a 200 MHz difference in clock speed, and lack of AVX and ECC on the Pentium. Which aren't needed for gaming anyway.

Really? Well I guess I only breezed through the specs... I'm used to Pentiums having less cache than i3's and above.