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!!

 

[jghaverty]

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.

I like these graphs better. They seem more reliable then that one arbitrary post. These are multiple sources, multiple tests. Yes the i3 wins some things, but these are all stock for stock comparisons. When you bring in the overclocking game, Im pretty damn confident who comes out on top

I can go on all day. And Im not sniping off the "good ones" either.

 

[vmN]

I'm pretty sure I was only talking out from architecture point of view, and as said it all depends on application.
First that are just about reliable as my post, as everyone could simply make a excel document with inserted numbers.(not saying they are).

 

[jghaverty]

I'm pretty sure I was only talking out from architecture point of view, and as said it all depends on application.
First that are just about reliable as my post, as everyone could simply make a excel document with inserted numbers.(not saying they are).

No no no. You made it VERY clear that the i3 wins 6-8(nice number)/10. Now its just "Architecture point of view" "Depending on application".

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

I showed you several sources, sometimes with the i3 on top, most of the time with the 6300 on top. Pray tell where you are getting this "6-8/10" number from? I can't find anything supporting your claim, much less when bringing overclocking into the mix.

edit: Im STILL saying the I3 is a better chip all around. But with some solid overclocks, its not "6-8/10" anything with a 6300

 

[vmN]

I said:"And it is completely depended on what kind of applications he is running." and "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." So yes I'm talking about architecture point of view and applications.

You showed me a bunch of pictures. I'm getting it everything from everyday(general light usage) to heavy computing, general knowledge.
Your argument: If we overclock fx 6300 to 4.5GHz, which I would really recommend a cooler for, for that price you could get an I5 4440.

 

[FALC0N]

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.

No it isn't. Its about the same if you count 2 module/4 core against 2 core/4 thread at similar clocks. Its gaming that Intel's single thread performance really shines.

 

[Egonieser]

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.

You do know that is only for now.
The tides have changed with new generation consoles, while it might not seem a big deal for PC users, in fact it is.
Most major game companies are console oriented, which are AMD and Octacore, weak one, but nontheless.
Current games are quad core or less, rarely AMD optimized apart from their partner games of course.
Future games, that are going to be multiplatform are and will be AMD Octacore orientated and optimized, plain and simple.
When all the games are purely optimized to take advantage of all the power of octacore AMD CPU's, the Intel quadcores or duals, even strong single-core ones will not have a lead anymore. Of cource a 4670k or 4770k or higher will be viable for a while time, yet they will not be the dominant and only "true" gaming CPU's, because most games will simply not be optimized for them.
That's if we are just talking gaming.
For other tasks such as videos, streaming, editing, servers etc - yeah, Intel's strong per-core performance will dominate. But then again, that is a relatively small group of people that do those things, compared to gamers worldwide. Plus the price/performance ratio, AMD always had the lead.
An average Joe with medium wages will rather get a future-proof CPU that is more than affordable and does most things nicely, not to mention be future-proofed for gaming, as long as next gen consoles last.
Cause lets face it, gaming industry is mostly determined by console market not PC's.

We have to look at the future not current statistics. To determine if you really get the bang for your buck, not just a temporary power boost that might seem a nice idea at the time, but down the line you realize you spent a whole load for nothing.

 

[maxalge]

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.

You do know that is only for now.
The tides have changed with new generation consoles, while it might not seem a big deal for PC users, in fact it is.
Most major game companies are console oriented, which are AMD and Octacore, weak one, but nontheless.
Current games are quad core or less, rarely AMD optimized apart from their partner games of course.
Future games, that are going to be multiplatform are and will be AMD Octacore orientated and optimized, plain and simple.
When all the games are purely optimized to take advantage of all the power of octacore AMD CPU's, the Intel quadcores or duals, even strong single-core ones will not have a lead anymore. Of cource a 4670k or 4770k or higher will be viable for a while time, yet they will not be the dominant and only "true" gaming CPU's, because most games will simply not be optimized for them.
That's if we are just talking gaming.
For other tasks such as videos, streaming, editing, servers etc - yeah, Intel's strong per-core performance will dominate. But then again, that is a relatively small group of people that do those things, compared to gamers worldwide. Plus the price/performance ratio, AMD always had the lead.
An average Joe with medium wages will rather get a future-proof CPU that is more than affordable and does most things nicely, not to mention be future-proofed for gaming, as long as next gen consoles last.
Cause lets face it, gaming industry is mostly determined by console market not PC's.

We have to look at the future not current statistics. To determine if you really get the bang for your buck, not just a temporary power boost that might seem a nice idea at the time, but down the line you realize you spent a whole load for nothing.

Except bf4 shows that amd needs double the core count AND overclock to reach parity with the locked i5's in terms of fps.


Mantle was made to try to close the gap, yet still doesn't help with frame latency issues.



Amd still can't touch 4 core overclocked i5's: Better fps minimums and render frame times.

 

[jghaverty]

Except bf4 shows that amd needs double the core count AND overclock to reach parity with the locked i5's in terms of fps.

Mantle was made to try to close the gap, yet still doesn't help with frame latency issues.

Amd still can't touch 4 core overclocked i5's: Better fps minimums and render frame times.

Its not that they "need to", its that they have already done so. Intels Architecture is vastly superior to AMD's FX line. That said, depends which i5 really. My (albeit overclocked) 8320 will do better in most games then most 2500/3570s and certainly will do better than any locked i5. That said, its simply boiling down to cost effectiveness. If it were cost effective for me to go intel, I'd have done so. If the amd's were locked, then everyone would be running around with i3's and phenoms or something, i dunno.

 

[probal malakar]

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?

it sure isn't. that way u might need more cores to handle all the processes going on. and fx6300 is an awesome processor even better then fx8320. i built a pc using fx6300 last year and it really gives my fx8320 a run for his money. my roomate has an i7 4770k and it lags sometimes during all rendering work. but that i7 is a best!

 

[AMDUSERJOE]

I have i3 2100 and AMD FX 8320 run on two computers. The i3 2100 is a 3 or 4 year model and the FX is a little newer. But the difference between the two is hardly noticeable when doing regular tasks (IE downloading, word processing, browsing the web). But when it comes to watching movies or playing games the FX completely out performs on frame rates and consistency. That's because in regular tasks the intel uses hyper threading To give it the illusion of more processor cores. But in gaming it do'sent beat having real cores.

 

[Jessepog]

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.

Agreed the 6300 will overclock well were as the i3 is total shit for oc this is where the 6300 will come into its own. Tho i would still tend to want to go for an i5 at least for a gaming machine its not that much more expensive and 4 cores seems to be the sweet spot for gaming these days even tho games like crysis 3 and bf3 and bf4 will use 6 or even 8 cores.

 

[navyboy887]

Depends on what you are doing. If you don't do a ton of multitasking or use a lot multi-thread multi-core programs the i3 will be faster. Intel's architecture is just so much more efficient than AMD's is. If you mainly game and do video editing the FX-6300 will run because it has 3 times the physical cores.