Is it worth the upgrade FX-4300 to i3 7100?

[KRCRAY]

Hi,

Ok, so I am running a second rig with an overclocked AMD FX-4300 @ 4.2ghz on an asus m5a/usb3 mobo with a GTX 770 2gb twin frozr, 2x4gb Corsair Vengeance 1600mhz Ram, SSD's etc and everything is great.

Now I am confused as I have the opportunity for a free Intel i3 bundle from my place of work, which consists of H110M Mobo, i3 7100 cpu and 1 stick 8gb DDR4 2133 Ram and an Intel SSD.

What do I do, do I upgrade or not?

I know I can use the i3 as an upgrade path to an i5 or i7 later on, but I don't want to do this yet.


Should I keep the FX build or not and will i get better performance with the i3 7100?

Thanks.

 

[madmatt30]

For free ?? Yes absolutely
I wouldn't buy an i3 personally but its far stronger than that fx4300 even overclocked.

 

[manddy123]

Just as stated above, it may not look like it's a better choice, but the i3 7100 out-performs the FX 4300 by a gigantic difference.
For free you say? I wouldn't think twice before picking that up.

Not only will you get a much better CPU, you'll also get a better/faster RAM and a 'fresh' new platform, compared to the dead FX series.

Go for it before someone does.

 

[KRCRAY]

Thanks for the replies.

I'm also thinking about dolphin, pcsx2 etc...

Would i3 still be better in that department?

 

[madmatt30]

Both those emus use 2 cores max.
The i3 is some 40% stronger in IPC.

Meaning you'd have to be running an fx in excess of 5ghz to come close to the Intel's performance.

So yes mate , for those the i3 is far far stronger.

 

[manddy123]

Thanks for the replies.
I'm also thinking about dolphin, pcsx2 etc...
Would i3 still be better in that department?

Yup, even tho the i3 has less cores, it has hyperthreads, which means it has double the amount of threads per core. Providing a much better solution for processing multi-threaded tasks. While those softwares, if i'm not wrong, only use 2 cores so it will be a IPC contest.

With that said, the IPC(Instructions Per Cycle) of the i3 compared to the FX is still much much better.
I can't really name anything that that i3 would lose against the FX 4300 to be honest...

 

[Shumok]

I'm not confident you will see that big of a difference. Maybe....not sure though. 1 stick of ram means you will running single channel....might slow you down some. I wonder if something like an FX-8320e for $80 would be a better upgrade (just a cpu swap...though you may need a bios update).

(just saw you mentioned Dolphin....I do believe it runs much faster on Intel cpu's)

 

[Dunlop0078]

I am pretty confident an i3 7100 will smoke any fx cpu in emulators and pretty much any modern game. And it's free, I think it's quite ridiculous to suggest an 8320 in the OP's situation.

 

[KRCRAY]

Thanks Guys,

I think I will upgrade then.

Is it worth keeping the GTX 770 with the i3 7100 or just get some newer technology like a 1060/1070. Ive had the GTX 770 since I had a 3770k about 3 and a half years ago and its still going strong and is as quiet as a mouse.

 

[manddy123]

Thanks Guys,
I think I will upgrade then.
Is it worth keeping the GTX 770 with the i3 7100 or just get some newer technology like a 1060/1070. Ive had the GTX 770 since I had a 3770k about 3 and a half years ago and its still going strong and is as quiet as a mouse.

If it's worth or not, only you can say.
Are you experiencing any problems with it? Low fps, high temps, anything?

If nothing's bothering you, i wouldn't change.

But it would be an obviously better choice to get a brand new GPU to keep up with the current tech while getting those nice and smooth 60FPS @Ultra settings.

 

[Shumok]

I am pretty confident an i3 7100 will smoke any fx cpu in emulators and pretty much any modern game. And it's free, I think it's quite ridiculous to suggest an 8320 in the OP's situation.

Sorry bad response on my part....I think you are mistaken about modern games though.

But yeah...emulation...go for the i3....it's free anyways. I'd be awfully tempted to wait and pay for those new 6 core i5's that are right around the corner though....if I am going to go thru all the trouble of changing motherboards.

 

[King_V]

No FX upgrade is going to be worth it - not even considering the dead-end platform, etc., there is one simple fact.

He's getting the i3 stuff for free. This is a no-brainer.

 

[Shumok]

No FX upgrade is going to be worth it - not even considering the dead-end platform, etc., there is one simple fact.

He's getting the i3 stuff for free. This is a no-brainer.

It might not be for him if he is going to do a lot of emulation.....but your statement is so wrong in a general sense. I'm already running into problems with my i5-2400, where I can't even keep a few mild programs running in the background or my game runs too choppy. Going from 4 to 8 cores can be huge for anyone running more than a couple programs. So annoyed by fanboys that don;t know how to qualify anything.

 

[madmatt30]

One of the biggest amd fanboys here me ;-)

BUT there is not a single scenario where that i3 won't eclipse an fx 4300.

Not one!

& the skylake i3 is head & shoulders above an old 2400 even considering its just a hyper threaded dual core
Its just supremely for what it is due to that 3.9ghz clock speed .

You're talking virtually the same single core performance as a 7700k

Would I buy one ? No
Would I taken it as a free upgrade ?? Yes absolutely , only a manic wouldn't.

 

[King_V]

No FX upgrade is going to be worth it - not even considering the dead-end platform, etc., there is one simple fact.

He's getting the i3 stuff for free. This is a no-brainer.

It might not be for him if he is going to do a lot of emulation.....but your statement is so wrong in a general sense. I'm already running into problems with my i5-2400, where I can't even keep a few mild programs running in the background or my game runs too choppy. Going from 4 to 8 cores can be huge for anyone running more than a couple programs. So annoyed by fanboys that don;t know how to qualify anything.

Fanboys? You're out of your mind. If anything, I generally tend to favor AMD. However, I am something of a realist.

So, can you explain where, exactly, there will be performance losses in going from an FX-4300 (2 core, 4 thread) to an i3-7100 (2 core, 4 thread, far better IPC)?

Unless you mean specifically the upgrade to the FX-8320e? Not just general "oh, things with more threads" but specific real-world examples?

And, any of which are relevant to the OP's stated use case? As you've already stated, may not be for him. In the general case, I imagine the places where an upgrade is a good idea have to be extremely narrow, as it's NOT just a matter of an upgrade, but of putting money into a platform that is done with.

 

[Shumok]

No FX upgrade is going to be worth it - not even considering the dead-end platform, etc., there is one simple fact.

He's getting the i3 stuff for free. This is a no-brainer.

It might not be for him if he is going to do a lot of emulation.....but your statement is so wrong in a general sense. I'm already running into problems with my i5-2400, where I can't even keep a few mild programs running in the background or my game runs too choppy. Going from 4 to 8 cores can be huge for anyone running more than a couple programs. So annoyed by fanboys that don;t know how to qualify anything.

Fanboys? You're out of your mind. If anything, I generally tend to favor AMD. However, I am something of a realist.

So, can you explain where, exactly, there will be performance losses in going from an FX-4300 (2 core, 4 thread) to an i3-7100 (2 core, 4 thread, far better IPC)?

Unless you mean specifically the upgrade to the FX-8320e? Not just general "oh, things with more threads" but specific real-world examples?

And, any of which are relevant to the OP's stated use case? As you've already stated, may not be for him. In the general case, I imagine the places where an upgrade is a good idea have to be extremely narrow, as it's NOT just a matter of an upgrade, but of putting money into a platform that is done with.

Never said there would be a performance loss, just indicated it might not make a big difference to him (before he mentioned doing emulation).

Mentioned the FX-8320e before I saw he wanted to do emulation, because depending on what he's doing I thought it could be a better upgrade than i3.

Not sure what real world examples you need. Are you saying you want to see specific applications where an FX-8320e outperforms an i3-7100 in that one application with nothing else running at the same time so that the i3 looks as good as possible?

$80 is not a lot more money than $0 if it works better for him and is a more seamless upgrade, but I've already agreed if he is going to do emulation.....go for the freebie. My further responses were not to him so that I could convince him to get the FX.....but for you other folks. My pride was hurt that anyone would dare to criticize my recommendation :O ....I apologize.

By the way...the FX-4300 is 4 cores/4threads...not 2 cores/4 threads.

 

[Dunlop0078]

No FX upgrade is going to be worth it - not even considering the dead-end platform, etc., there is one simple fact.

He's getting the i3 stuff for free. This is a no-brainer.

It might not be for him if he is going to do a lot of emulation.....but your statement is so wrong in a general sense. I'm already running into problems with my i5-2400, where I can't even keep a few mild programs running in the background or my game runs too choppy. Going from 4 to 8 cores can be huge for anyone running more than a couple programs. So annoyed by fanboys that don;t know how to qualify anything.

Fanboys? You're out of your mind. If anything, I generally tend to favor AMD. However, I am something of a realist.

So, can you explain where, exactly, there will be performance losses in going from an FX-4300 (2 core, 4 thread) to an i3-7100 (2 core, 4 thread, far better IPC)?

Unless you mean specifically the upgrade to the FX-8320e? Not just general "oh, things with more threads" but specific real-world examples?

And, any of which are relevant to the OP's stated use case? As you've already stated, may not be for him. In the general case, I imagine the places where an upgrade is a good idea have to be extremely narrow, as it's NOT just a matter of an upgrade, but of putting money into a platform that is done with.

Never said there would be a performance loss, just indicated it might not make a big difference to him (before he mentioned doing emulation).

Mentioned the FX-8320e before I saw he wanted to do emulation, because depending on what he's doing I thought it could be a better upgrade than i3.

Not sure what real world examples you need. Are you saying you want to see specific applications where an FX-8320e outperforms an i3-7100 in that one application with nothing else running at the same time so that the i3 looks as good as possible?

$80 is not a lot more money than $0 if it works better for him and is a more seamless upgrade, but I've already agreed if he is going to do emulation.....go for the freebie. My further responses were not to him so that I could convince him to get the FX.....but for you other folks. My pride was hurt that anyone would dare to criticize my recommendation :O ....I apologize.

By the way...the FX-4300 is 4 cores/4threads...not 2 cores/4 threads.

The fx 4300 has two modules with two cores in each, the two cores in the modules share cache and other resources. It is not a quad core cpu in the same way an intel i5 or ryzen 3 cpu is a quad core. However you are correct it technically has 4 cores and 4 threads.

 

[King_V]

Ah - ok, when I looked it up, the info I'd come across said the FX-4300 was 2-core, 4-thread. Weird.

 

[Dunlop0078]

Ah - ok, when I looked it up, the info I'd come across said the FX-4300 was 2-core, 4-thread. Weird.

I have heard people say that a lot. People often call the fx 8xxx cpu's 4 cores 8 threads, it is not really true, their are 8 real cores, it's just 4 of them share resources.