I dont get it ... why is an i3 even close to an FX - 6300

[ilovecomps]

How are they even in the same league is what i dont get ... Is it just me or is the amd better ... honestly i hate amd as the laptop my parents got me is an e-300 which makes me want to kill myself every day ... but in terms of gaming multi tasking and video playback along with premier pro which is better>?? also what is steam roller??
Thanks guys!!

 

[CTurbo]

Because the i3 stomps the FX in single thread performance. The FX only comes out ahead in heavy multitasking.

 

[ilovecomps]

but how often do ppl use only one core??

 

[lxgoldsmith]

Most games make use of 2-3 cores, with some using 4. the 6 core PCs are there in hopes that games will use more than 4 threads in the future. Meanwhile, the core-i cpus kill in single threaded performance compared to amd at the right number of cores and threads

 

[CTurbo]

You use 2 cores or less a lot more than you think. The i3 is a dual core with hyperthreading. Often, it's so much faster in single core performance that it can handle 3 or 4 threads just as fast as the FX can.

 

[ilovecomps]

i usualy have around 20-30 tabs open ... and am constantly flippping through all while doing word and a whole bunch of other things open too ... are you sayin an i3 is better for me?

 

[USAFRet]

but how often do ppl use only one core??

People don't use 'cores'. They the PC, and applications. And we've been doing multiple applications long, long before multi-core CPUs.

Currently, I have 3 Firefox windows open (multiple tabs each), Excel (twice), Outlook, a VirtualBox instance running a Linux VM, Lightroom, Win 8.1 thinks I still need the Weather app open somewhere in the background, and CPUID monitoring temps.

How many 'cores' am I using? Don't know, don't care.

 

[Whammy]

Yea just cuz you have 30 or 50 tabs open with a bunch of word documents doesn't mean you're "multi-tasking" per say. Internet tabs aren't really demanding... Unless you're doing heavy video editing, you really shouldn't care that much of number of cores if you have atleast 4 or 2 with hyper-threading.

 

[FALC0N]

I am among those that feels that the bulldozer module should be considered a single core with two threads. When viewed from that perspective, you have 3 AMD cores with symmetrical multiprocessing vs two intel cores with SMP. If it was really 6 cores, it wouldn't be close.

 

[CTurbo]

Would you rather have a cpu with 2 very strong cores or a cpu with 6 medium strength cores?

 

[ethereal essence]

but how often do ppl use only one core??

I am among those that feels that the bulldozer module should be considered a single core with two threads. When viewed from that perspective, you have 3 AMD cores with symmetrical multiprocessing vs two intel cores with SMP. If it was really 6 cores, it wouldn't be close.

This.

The bulldozer arch is great if you want to edit videos, or do any kind of work that doesn't require much of the floating point unit. The second that you do need it, such as in gaming, it falls way behind.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

the fx6300 can actually come close to the i3 in many modern games, there are still quite a few that dont work well on amd's architecture mostly due to the way it handles threads and weak per-core performance. Take Skyrim for example, there is a benefit from jumping up from a core i3 to a core i5, so it is using 4 cores well and truly

but yet still the i3 can outperform any AMD quad core cpu despite only having 2 cores. This game and starcraft are probably the 2 most well known games that do not run so well on AMD hardware. It is more than how it uses the cores as much as it is the architecture itself.

 

[ilovecomps]

I guess my question is then: If i have 10-30 tabs open along with word, music in the background,skype, while gaming+streaming and i will have premier pro open usually occumpanied by the 10-30 tabs and music and word + skype all at the same time ( i will not have premier pro open while i game ) which one would be better for me ... I will also be on youtube alot ... which one would be better for me... The games I play are League of Legends and Planet side two ... I would like to get into more games thats are fps and stuff but this E-300 apu ... what do you guys think ... honestly im open to any processor that doesnt exceed 120 and juuust maybe 130... and since i come from an e-300 i will be happy with any fps that is 20 or higher on low settings but pref. 30 or higher on medium or low ... I will be getting a gpu any suggestions?? wont exceed 100 bucks I believe and what is steam roller?? THANKS A BUNCH GUYS!!!

 

[CTurbo]

The FX6300 is a great deal for $110

 

[ilovecomps]

How much power do i need for that? 400 watts?

 

[chairsgotoschool]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-frame-rate-performance,3427-4.html

you can see the 2 big games that intel has the big upper hand, skyrim and star craft 2. both use 2 cores (I think) but at the same time need a power full cpu. terrible example and it is very extreme imagine if a graphically hard to run game like BF4 or crysis 3 but it would only use 50% of any gpu. thats kind of how I see skyrim and star craft 2 but for processors. only using 2 cores but being a rather cpu heavy game.

they bench a few games the fx cpus are all very close together, generally in a margin of error. also the top cpu compared to the fx 6300 is usually a rather small gap

64 vs 58fps
74 vs 69
59 vs 54
then of course skyrim and star craft
94 vs 59
50 vs 37
The last 2 of course being the biggest difference and probably the only noticeable differences, the rest are within 7fps, and thats not comparing it to an i3, thats an i5 3550 in all the games besides skyrim and star craft 2 the 6300 and i3's are within a margin of error of 2-3fps and those are benchmarks, not real world where you might want to stream or have internet in the back, skype, music. all those little things can add up.

So is it worth the big difference is just a handful of games to get the i3, possible losing the option to record/stream your games. that's what I love about my cpu, for now at least, I can play any game I want and stream or record it with very little or no impact on my games.

 

[jacobian]

but how often do ppl use only one core??

Most of the applications on the desktop PCs depend heavily on single core performance, and would do just fine with one core. It's true that most PCs have many cores, and the operating system may schedule things like anti-virus to utilize more cores, but those background processes are an inconsequential amount of CPU power. It's the heavy hitters that really count, but we humans do not normally browse the web, run a full filesystem virus scan, compile software, and a 3D game all at the same time. Normally, we just run one heavy hitting app on the desktop at once, and most do not need many cores. Apps like games, meadia encoding, and compression are slowly starting to use more and more cores, depending on the application. And this explains why Core i3 can hang with six core FX just fine. The AMD cores are noticeably slower than on Intel CPUs.

 

[jacobian]

Having 30 tabs open is a terrible idea if you're not using Firefox extensions such as those that replace flash videos with a button or selectively disable javascript. I mean, there exist legitimate but nasty news web sites that will load a bunch of "video ads" and other crap as you're trying to read news. Open fives tabs like that and your PC can nearly freeze sometimes. Of course, under such conditions they will consume all CPU power you have with just two cores.

 

[jghaverty]

I love how people compare stock speeds of the FX series, when they are well known to overclock extremely well, and in some cases well above their stock limitations with almost no effort. Show those same stats after even a "medium" overclock on the fx6300.

 

[vmN]

That is how you normally compare products.
I3 will still beat fx 6300 in 6-8/10 things.

 

[jghaverty]

Im not disagreeing with you, but thats for consumer reviews. In real world applications, bring that 6300 up to 4.Xghz(very feasible, and sorta what the chip was intended to do) and that gap closes considerably.

 

[vmN]

No, it still doesn't.
And it is completely depended on what kind of applications he is running.
Overall i3 wins 6-8/10 times over fx 6300 even with overclock.

 

[ghostarcher12]

The intel architecture is dominate over AMD. The multi thread processing of the i3 also defeats that of the AMD. AMD over hypes their products with high clock speeds that don't usually mean it's better.

 

[jghaverty]

Well, tons of people running 4.5+ghz fx6300's. Thats a 23.3% across the board raise in computation power.

Using that graph up there... Theres.... *gasp* a 23.3% difference between the FX6300 and the i3. Im not saying the i3 isnt a superior platform, Im just saying its not this overbearing titan that the 6300 can't touch. Do you really think that i3 is touching my 8320 @ 5.0 ghz? Cmon now. In real world applications, with overclocks and proper system setup, AMD's hold their own in certain niches.



edit: before you call me a fan boy, go look at my post in this thread (last one down)
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2029143/processor-gpu.html

 

[vmN]

Implying computing power scales perfectly.
Second cycles have little to do with actual performance, hence why a 3.0GHz can outperform a 5GHz with a different architecture in certain applications.
In the basics a FX will only truly outperform a intel product by pure integer instructions.
Games also rely on the FPU which piledrivers cores share through their modules.