I3-3220 vs FX-4300 @5Ghz

[Forde3654Eire]

Alright here's the run-down: My budget gaming rig consists of an i3-2100, Radeon 6850 and a mATX B75 motherboard. Have them a few months now. I've been offered a sale price for the i3-2100 and mobo... for the same price that I bought them (since I've moved from Saudi to Jordan recently, where computer parts are significantly more expensive). So, in a nutshell... I don't lose anything!

Now that I have the chance to change from an i3-2100 and mATX board... what should I be looking at? I thought at first to simply go for an i3-3220 and full ATX B75. Delved deeper in, now considering an FX-4300, AM3+ motherboard, aftermarket cooler and OC that bad-ass to 5Ghz.

Not interested in an i5-3570K and Z77. Too expensive and performance is way more than what I would ever need... on top of that, LGA 1155 will be EOL very soon

Now which would you choose? An i3-3220 with a B75 motherboard? Or an FX-4300 OC'd to 5Ghz and AM3+ motherboard? Keep in mind that this is a gaming rig and I also do a fair bit of video-editing for Youtube videos...

At the moment, I am drawn to the FX-4300 for a few of reasons:

1) Overclocking, unlocked multiplier, I've really enjoyed overclocking my 6850.
2) I've always felt annoyed about not being able to tinker with the i3-2100, overclocking that is.
3) I'm presuming an FX-4300 @ 5Ghz should be able to beat an i3-3220, if not, at least compete on par with it.

Oh and my power supply is a Corsair CX500, 80+ certified 500W power supply.

I'll be getting my parts from Saudi when I go back there during my upcoming holidays (after 4 weeks). On a side note, I'm even considering an FX-6300 if its not much more expensive than the FX-4300... that I will also be OC'ing. Please note, I am aware most current games don't use any more than 4 cores at the most... however, those 2 extra cores would be helpful when I do my video-editing... is that correct? Anything I'm missing?

Thanks for reading, looking forward to hearing your opinions.

 

[iceclock]

u cant overclock i3s much, so id go with the intel if you wanna game, if you wanna use videoencoding and multi-threaded programs id go with amd, depends on ur needs, intel= gaming and amd= better for multitasking

 

[Forde3654Eire]

i3 3220 ocing to 4ghz

 

[Scott_D_Bowen]

I don't imagine that AMD FX will ever reach 5GHz either, and even if it got to 4.25GHz it would perform about the same as a 3.45GHz Intel Core i# processor.

Not to mention the money you save on the power supply, as clocking an AMD FX near 5GHz will require some seriously stable parts (both overpriced motherboard AND power supply unit).

He's not kidding, AMD really are moving backwards with their SMT implementation.

 

[masterman467]

Avoid amd like the plague. Not kiding. I3 will be more then capable of taking anything you throw at it. I would buy a few I3's and sell them in jordon and make $$$

 

[DJDeCiBeL]

If you can get the 4300 to 5Ghz, it should beat (or at the very least, equal) a 3220 in most situations. Since the 3220 can't be OC'd (very much), it can't catch up to a heavily OC'd 4300.

And I agree that you should really be thinking about the 6300 instead. Very nearly the same price for two extra cores.

Getting either a 4300 or 6300 to 5Ghz won't be extremely easy, though. They should probably get there, but cooling may be an issue and the motherboard you choose will be important as well.

Edit: Even though I lean towards Intel, I prefer a quad over the i3. An i3 is great for now, but maybe not 2 years or so from now. A quad or better just makes the most sense.

 

[lazyboy947]

Wow so much AMD hate going on lol

 

[DJDeCiBeL]

Wow so much AMD hate going on lol

I agree, lol. I've been busy and haven't been able to be around much lately, but that seems to have stayed the same...

 

[lazyboy947]

I mean i dont find the difference in gaming situations where people argue over the processor as its more the graphics card lol I mean in the case of this thread for i3 over fx 4300 for gaming there basically the same, and similar to other cpus as long as the video card is good enough and theres like a 5-10 fps difference in games and just not to get more arguing this is not including cpu intense games, but i bet id barely see a difference from an i7 2600k over a PII X6 1100t paired with a 7970/670/680 @ 1080p

 

[ohyouknow]

No don't get the FX 4300. The 6300 is just so much better for the same price.

 

[maxalge]

Wow so much AMD hate going on lol

http://techreport.com/review/21516/inside-the-second-a-new-look-at-game-benchmarking
http://techreport.com/review/24022


http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/134999-measuring-the-impact-of-cpu-choice-on-gaming-performance

Where have you been hiding???

 

[iceclock]

i wish amd made a chip that would equal mainstream i5s 2011s and 1155 socket, would be fun for them to get back in the performance gain, i think they hung up there performance shoes. sadly

 

[lazyboy947]

U basically just gave me a link to a article that didn't seem relevant, one that gave info showing that win8 makes a 7950 lag, and one that shows the cpu difference in milliseconds and fps when most people wont notice more than 60 fps unless a better refresh rate and response time, and win8 is new it has issues with almost everything, and didnt rlly tell me much

 

[rdc85]

......And I agree that you should really be thinking about the 6300 instead. Very nearly the same price for two extra cores......

+1

 

[maxalge]

U basically just gave me a link to a article that didn't seem relevant, one that gave info showing that win8 makes a 7950 lag, and one that shows the cpu difference in milliseconds and fps when most people wont notice more than 60 fps unless a better refresh rate and response time, and win8 is new it has issues with almost everything, and didnt rlly tell me much

1. They tested it in win7, same result.


2. Even at 60 fps, if your frames are rendered over 16 milliseconds, you WILL see stutter/lag.


Look at the amd cpu break down of time over the recommended millisecond timings for smooth gameplay.


Amd cpu's spend a LOT of time in the stutter "zone".

 

[lazyboy947]

I'm just going quit posting as i see no end, but for me im just not that picky to care about a 4 sec "stutter zone". And not sure how a 7950 lagging, and comparing of a x4 and i5 related to an fx over i3, i mean beside core to core performance u got a dual core with hyperthreading and 2 module cores ending both in a quad core but not 4 physical core performance. And would take a i5 over an x4 any day but now where a PII X4 costs $90 and a i5 about $220

 

[Scott_D_Bowen]

Let me spell it out for you, the AMD FX's of today are causing people to get massive stuttering in their games (not micro-stuttering).

60fps = 16.66666~ ms per frame
- Using AMD FX: 10% of the frames, in the case above, are under 66fps.... doesn't matter what the average is, once you're below 64fps you can 'feel' it through the mouse in most twitch fests.

Now look at the Intersection points... it's a terrible value proposition.

The extra cores also reduce the overclock potential of the processor by their power draw/heat output.

 

[Tom Burnqest]

Let me spell it out for you, the AMD FX's of today are causing people to get massive stuttering in their games (not micro-stuttering).

http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/crysis-latency.gif

60fps = 16.66666~ ms per frame
- Using AMD FX: 10% of the frames, in the case above, are under 66fps.... doesn't matter what the average is, once you're below 64fps you can 'feel' it through the mouse in most twitch fests.

Now look at the Intersection points... it's a terrible value proposition.

The extra cores also reduce the overclock potential of the processor by their power draw/heat output.

Moot for those of us that use Vsync.

 

[Sakkura]

How about a cheap Core i5, like a Core i5-3350P, with a B75 motherboard?

 

[Forde3654Eire]

Haha looks like this is going to be big.

Once again, I'm rooting for AMD because:

1) FX-6300, not much more expensive than FX-4300, 2 extra cores.
2) Unlocked multiplier, yes I want to overclock.
3) 6 cores will really help me with my video-editing.
4) Don't want even a basic i5, more expensive, not unlocked, have to get a cheap mobo to compensate for higher price.
5) LGA 1155 wil be EOL very very soon.

I'm seeing a couple of posts here regarding stuttering in games with the AMD CPUs... will someone please verify this?

Correct me if my points are not valid. This is the opinion I have formed from all I've read of the new Vishera CPUs. However, I am no expert and wish to seek some guidance as to whether my choice will be a good one or a big mistake. I still have some time till I buy the CPU and mobo. From what I've read all over Tom's Hardware's articles and articles of other forums, the FX-6300 seems to be a valid choice.

 

[Forde3654Eire]

If you can get the 4300 to 5Ghz, it should beat (or at the very least, equal) a 3220 in most situations. Since the 3220 can't be OC'd (very much), it can't catch up to a heavily OC'd 4300.

And I agree that you should really be thinking about the 6300 instead. Very nearly the same price for two extra cores.

Getting either a 4300 or 6300 to 5Ghz won't be extremely easy, though. They should probably get there, but cooling may be an issue and the motherboard you choose will be important as well.

Edit: Even though I lean towards Intel, I prefer a quad over the i3. An i3 is great for now, but maybe not 2 years or so from now. A quad or better just makes the most sense.

Thank you for your helpful and unbiased post. Yes I think I will get the FX-6300 if it is not much more expensive than the FX-4300. I will be getting a Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO to manage the heat.

Probably most people here will say, as usual, get an i5-3570K... problem is that CPU is way out of budget, and I will still have to get a decent Z77 for it as well as the same Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO for OC'ing...

 

[darth pravus]

http://media.bestofmicro.com/9/G/364516/original/CPU-scaling.png

They are a fair way back

 

[azathoth]

I always see the new AMD lineup as half the core count that they state. This is because they count each module as two cores.

For gaming, the intel i3-2100 would provide *slightly* superior frame-rates. The i3-2100 can be overclocked by 400Mhz through the limited unlock it has. But no more.

The AMD lineup I would first recommend you get the FX-6300 because you would be doing some video editing, and the extra core would provide a substantial performance boost.

Don't at ALL expect to hit 5Ghz with the processor, maybe 4.4Ghz tops in my opinion. But it will satisfy your desire to tinker with it, and will be MUCH faster for video editing, and the gap in gaming will be absolutely negligible.

 

[Sakkura]

For gaming, the intel i3-2100 would provide *slightly* superior frame-rates. The i3-2100 can be overclocked by 400Mhz through the limited unlock it has. But no more.

That only applies to the processors with Turbo Boost, ie. Core i5s and Core i7s that are not fully unlocked. It also varies how much they can be overclocked by, usually either 400 or 200 MHz AFAIK.

 

[Guest]

5) LGA 1155 wil be EOL very very soon.

how so? you have a crystal ball?

just because haswell will be out next year (and pretty much towards the end of it) doesn't mean the 1155 socket will not be supported any more. there still are "new" motherboards being released (4 days ago):
Gigabyte Z77X-UP4 TH & Z77X-UP5 TH Motherboard Review

you know more than gigabyte?