overclocking i3 6100 on a budget, worth it?

Status
Not open for further replies.

monstreys

Reputable
Dec 29, 2015
24
0
4,510
0
hey everyone,

i'm going to make my first build soon and have sort of settled on pairing the i3 6100 with an r9 280x, i was planning on going with a b150 motherboard which will allow me to install a second 280x in crossfire in a couple of years (when this one becomes too slow)

should i want to overclock the gpu (working with the base clock) i would have to invest in a z170 board and a better cpu cooler, in total this would be an extra 60-70 euros.

would that investment be worth it? considering my build? i'd be working with 1833 ddr3 ram.

already thanks for all your help,
kindest greetings,
monstreys
 

lodders

Admirable
Nov 2, 2015
1,888
0
6,460
315
In a couple of years time, I very much doubt you will want to buy another GPU in SLi. By then, Nvidia and AMD will have both bought out a much faster GPU with twice the memory etc for less money, which will be even faster than 2 of your GPU in sli.

Buying a Skylake i3 is not a bad idea, but only if you plan to upgrade it to a Skylake i5 in a couple of years time (before intel change the socket again). Otherwise, if you can afford it, buy an i5 now - will last you years and years.
 

DasHotShot

Admirable
Feb 17, 2015
2,366
2
6,465
322
You don't need a different board to overclokc the GPU. That can be done on all of em.

You won't be balke to OC the CPU. Also your CPU will be a noticeable bottleneck in the system from the beginning. I would invest the 60-70 euros in a basic i5 or go AMD with a fx-8350
 

kwa-e

Admirable
Mar 1, 2015
2,835
0
7,460
394


Overclocking on non Z170 boards would disable hyperthreading (Unless it's that one H170 board from supermicro.)
 

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator


Actually it is not, because it still wouldn't beat a stock i5, and would cost more.

Ddr3 1866 ram runs at too high of a voltage for skylake, nor are there many DDR3 capable Z170 boards. Skylake is better paired with DDR4.
 

Pr0tEN

Reputable
Apr 11, 2015
98
0
4,660
5


Wouldn't beat a stock i5?
It depends,
Core i5 beats the FX 8350 in single threaded apps and gaming,
But in games that are optimized for more than 4 cores the FX 8350 will offer equal or better performance.
but the FX 8350 beats a stock i5 in multi threaded apps.
 

monstreys

Reputable
Dec 29, 2015
24
0
4,510
0


so a z170 board would be necessary anyway to get get full crossfire capability? i know it's always better to go with an upgrade bur if adding a second card would make it usable an extra year or so i'd maybe risk it... i'd only be adding the second card in one or two years anyway
 

Dulith1118

Admirable
Dec 16, 2014
1,962
0
6,160
192


since the price of the 8350 and the i5 are the same i would go for the i5 for sure... he can go for a 6300 which can be overclocked as hell...... my mistake for suggesting the 8350 and no most of the games doesnt need more than few cores so the i5 out performs it but in the future more cpu intensive games will require more cores and at that point the 8350 will out perform the i5 plus the 8350 can be overclocked a fare amount which will give it more performance.... if hes in a budget i suggest get a 6300k and a am3+
 

lodders

Admirable
Nov 2, 2015
1,888
0
6,460
315
In a couple of years time, I very much doubt you will want to buy another GPU in SLi. By then, Nvidia and AMD will have both bought out a much faster GPU with twice the memory etc for less money, which will be even faster than 2 of your GPU in sli.

Buying a Skylake i3 is not a bad idea, but only if you plan to upgrade it to a Skylake i5 in a couple of years time (before intel change the socket again). Otherwise, if you can afford it, buy an i5 now - will last you years and years.
 

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator
FX is simply not a good idea. Fallout 4 is a very demanding title, and the FX 9590 loses to an i3 6100. FX is old, and its age is showing. FX has been stagnant, while Intel keeps making minor improvements. Future titles being more multithreaded, is not going to magically make FX better, than i5. The cost to overclock an FX 8350, to match an FX 9590, would surpass the cost, of just getting the i5. Not to mention the more powerful PSU you would need, to handle it all.



Witcher 3 is pretty demanding. The 9590 does do better, vs i3, but still loses to an older locked ivy bridge i5.
 

monstreys

Reputable
Dec 29, 2015
24
0
4,510
0
hey everyone,

thanks for all your notes, for now i'm going to stick with the b150 (improved audio, sata express, m2) and keep the extra money in stock to invest in a newer gpu several years down the line, stock i3 will be good for now and in 2 or 3 years i might buy a secondhand i5 to install instead
 


Posts like this are exatly what is wrong with the intel fans perspective .
The OP will be using a 60 Hz monitor . That means that the most the monitor will ever display is 60Hz or 60 fps . If it receives a signal to display more fps it drops the frame or tears the image . Once you know that it becomes obvious that exceeding 60 fps is utterly pointless and will not change the user experience for the better ........BUT COULD MAKE IT WORSE .

With out knowing it you have actually proved that spending more on the intel is pointless .

 

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator
Except you are not paying more for Intel. An i3 can keep up with, or even beat an FX 8350, while being a good deal less. FX 8350, with a proper board, and cooling, would cost as much, if not more than an i5, that doesn't need a more expensive board or cooling. Lower wattage/less expensive psu's can be used with Intel too.
 


There could be exceptions but the FX is a way more powerful processor and when there is a lot of cpu load as might happen in a 64 player map , and the game can use all cores then the i3 is not competitive .

Unfortunately the only repeatable benchmarks are single player and that can produce a result , but only one that is relevant to single player . Not something that most gamers build pc's for
 


The FX 8320e is a lower power , low clocked variant of the FX line . Its clock speed is 3200 Mhz , vs the 3500 Mhz of an 8320 .
It also seems to have much more aggressive use of cool'n'quiet compared to a regular FX so it speeds up later and slows down sooner under load .

The only reason you would include it in a comparison is if you wanted to distort the results , or you were too lazy to get a full fat chip

And of course this is another single player benchmark which as I said previously doesnt coincide with the way most people play games on their computer
 

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator
Even clocked to 4.6ghz, it lost in frame time, to the i3. When the i3 6100 was paired with faster memory, it beat the 4.6ghz FX. Crysis 3, is a multithreaded title. When first released, THG recommended an i7, to get the most out of it. Also most multiplayer games, are MMO's, which are notorious for being poorly threaded.
 


Again : all single player benchmarks
 

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator
Single player doesn't mean it isn't a well threaded title, just as much as multiplayer doesn't mean it is well threaded. Crysis 3 and fallout 4 are single player, but well multithreaded. WoW is multiplayer, but is notorious for being poorly threaded, as are most MMO's. I do outdoor 40 vs 40 man pvp battles, quite regularly. World bosses can be tagged by as many people that show up to take it down.
 
The cpu work load in a multiplayer map is much higher . More threads will help , but total usable cpu horsepower is more important . And since an FX 8350 is more powerful than even a skylake i5 the i3's weaknesses appear .
Even an overclocked FX6300 will be better than an i3 in loads like that .

But would I build using FX cpu's at this point? Probably not . But you are not correct in making the kind of comparison you have since it is largely meaningless . Bad test = bad results
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS