Which is better? i3 4130 or fx 4350

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
J

Jellyboi

Reputable
Apr 24, 2014
13
0
4,510
Which is better for gaming. Battlefield is not a game im going to play so keep that in mind.

Or should i get the i3 4330 or is the fx 4350 better than that?
Im going to be playing most games but want better single core peformance because i want
to run minecraft shaders on multiplayer.

so which should i get? will the fx 4350 be better if i overclock?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
i3 4330 is slightly faster than the FX4350 at stock speed. With a reasonable OC to the FX4350, you can just about make up the difference and catch the i3, but the i3 is the better chip of the 2 and uses far less power.

However, the FX 6350, which is slightly more expensive, is a much better chip than either of these, and a better value. I recommend that one. If you're overclocking, save some money and get the FX 6300, it's cheaper and overclocks about the same.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
No amount of overclocking of any FX chip will catch any Haswell i3 in single core performance. It's true that a heavily overclocked FX4300 or FX6300 would equal or exceed the i3 4130's overall performance, but a heavily clocked FX system would be considerably more expensive than an i3 setup. At that price point, you would be better off getting a Haswell i5.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Haswell is about 65% faster per clock than Piledriver FX, which means that the AMD chip needs 5.6ghz to match the i3 in single-core performance. That's not going to happen without exotic cooling methods, so I'll give you that much.

However, a $110 FX-6300 with a $30 air cooler ($140 total) will net you 4.5 to 4.8 ghz, giving you most of the single core performance of a locked i3 or i5. In multithreaded performance, it will blow away the i3 and compete with a $200 locked i5.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If you enjoy performance tuning and overclocking the FX-6300 may represent a higher intrinsic value to you. On the other hand, if you just want it to work well without any monkey business, the i3-4130 is a nice shortcut to great performance for the money. When we invest in the additional heatinking and/or motherboard robustness and/or PSU sizing required to overclock the FX-6300, it winds up costing about as much as an i5-4570 to implement, but can trade blows with it in non-real-time workloads when overclocked. In terms of gaming (real-time stuff), even at 5ghz the FX-6300 struggles to keep pace in many titles with a stock clocked i3 or i5 (but is close enough not to be a problem for most users).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


AMD is using a new architecture. Intel is the one that's not entirely using a new architecture. New architectures are risky but they can pay off. Remember when Intel made the Pentium 4? That was a new architecture and the first iterations of it couldn't even compete with the Pentium 3. AMD was king back then. Now AMD is the one with the new architecture and it's a very similar story compared to the old Pentium 4. Last gen AMD CPUs can beat the bulldozers. I say kudos to AMD for trying. Really even though AMD has created a new architecture they are still doing what they have been doing for a long time now. That is... giving us more cores for less money.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
honestly if you're not playing Battlefield I'd have no problems whatsoever getting a haswell i3 and calling it a day. If you can spend about $220 you can get the Xeon 12030 v3 and get 8 threads, it's basically an i7 4770 without built in graphics. If you could possibly squeeze to the i5 4440 that would be ideal, but the i3 is very stout with the haswell cores.

it would also save you money since you can stick an i3 with a cheap h81 motherboard and use the stock heatsink, and a lesser wattage power supply, vs if you wanted to overclock an FX, you need a good motherboard and heatsink as well as a beefy power supply in comparison. It'll also slightly save you money each year, so after a year or two the FX will actually end up being more expensive even if you're saving money up front.

For minecraft I'd definitely go Intel. You might even be fine with the hd4400/hd4600 graphics built in, but on a budget the gtx 750ti is nice
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
AMD is the Smarter choice. Check out the video of AMD just absolutely killing intel. Even the hexacore 980x can't stand up to this unrivaled, unlocked, and unbelievable CPU. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yFRpgumGwM
AMD clearly had the fastest CPU on the planet when they overclocked a Bulldozer to over 8GHz. Now AMD has beat intel to 5GHz for a consumer based product. That's clearly because the GHz race is back! Intel is obviously struggling to release their own 5GHz CPU.

The Core i3 beats the FX 4300 in single threaded AND multithreaded performance.. Despite the info above. Not all true BTW... But AMD seems to believe it all.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Yes, they are using old architecture. They are still on 32nm while Intel is on 22nm & soon it can even go to next nm step. They are always step forward. AMDs best CPUs still can't beat even an i5. They put more cores & give higher GHzs thinking it will change something, but it doesn't work that way & they still have many things to do to compete with Intel. Now talking about money... Considering the fact that you need high performance cooler to overclock the AMD cpu (without it it's very weak) & also it gonna consume more power again because of their old architecture in general you pay even more rather than with Intel. So, Intel CPUs are simply the best decision if you are with high or even low on budget.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
No No No... That's a die shrink what you are talking about. Usually Intel does a die shrink and then makes a new microarchitecture. Usually they only make some small changes to their old microarchitecture and TADA! We have slightly faster processors. AMD took a totally different approach. They made something entirely new. Just like intel made something new with their netburst microarchitecture.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
RickMa you are cracking me up! lol

AMD is the Smarter choice. Check out the video of AMD just absolutely killing intel. Even the hexacore 980x can't stand up to this unrivaled, unlocked, and unbelievable CPU.
Click to expand...

Hahaha you sound like a AMD rep with this stuff. Did you copy and paste that directly from AMD's home page?

I do give AMD kudos for trying something new. Bulldozer was a bold move, but it was a failure, and it is 3 years old now, making it old and in dire need of replacing.

Who cares about getting to 5.0ghz when it gets destroyed by Intel's 3.0-3.8ghz i5s? AMD won nothing by releasing a 5ghz FX, and if anything made themselves look bad considering a $59 3.0ghz Pentium still beats in in single core performance.

Intel can afford small increases each new generation because they are already so far ahead at this point. There's no point in them releasing a 5ghz cpu because AMD is years away from even matching their 4ghz cpus.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


I put all of that there as a joke and I didn't copy and paste anything. I think I could make a pretty good AMD rep. I own an FX 8120. It was an impulse buy. Saw it on ebay back in 2012 for $100 and I thought it was a very good deal. Which it was really a good deal back then. I had an Athlon II x4 CPU and it was a pretty good upgrade for me considering I didn't have to do anything but swap processors. I later went on to sell the Athlon II x4 for $100. So it was pretty much an even trade.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

So someone needs help and asks a serious question and your answer is to reply with skewed information as a joke?
I really don't see a place for that here.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Single core performance is on the way out. Get the 6300 and a Cooler Master 212 evo cooler. The 6300 has enough power for any single core game, at standard clocks, while giving you some extra ability over the i3 in desktop applications, and a few extra cores to play with for future games. It really is the budget king of CPUs at the moment.

If you decide to spend more, get an i5.

Hands mic back to fanboys...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Why is anyone here any more of a fanboy than you?

I would like to see evidence that single-core performance is on the way out, as it is not. The 6300 is not powerful enough for any single-threaded game - FX's often struggle in games like WoW, starcraft and the like.

Future games using more cores is also speculation, there's no sense in making a decision based on that.

As it stands, the i3 outperforms the FX in most tasks.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


You must be joking...my old Athlon 64 x2 4800+ setup played WoW flawlessly and had no trouble with starcraft, nor any game up to a year and a half ago. I have no doubt there were bottlenecks with my old system, but the games played fine at decent settings regardless. When you take this to its logical conclusion...it means that the FX CPUs have no issues playing modern games.

And since I use an i5, telling me I am a fanboy is funny indeed. I am a realist, that is all. Friends with the FX setups have no issues with any game, overclocked or factory clocked. They make a nice budget gaming setup.

As for a multithreaded future being conjecture, I don't see how anyone can fight this. Both new consoles have this setup, intel itself is producing CPUs with more cores. Unless you are telling me that the trend from the last two console releases, and the way things went, means that this time it can be ignored? That isn't logical.

That doesn't mean intel processors won't do the trick, especially 4 cores and up, they will handle things easily with their powerful cores, but I think dual core is going to be eclipsed sooner rather than later.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Some gameplay, yes a weaker CPU will do fine. High man raids etc. in WoW, stressful situations, it will not cope so well.

You were the one to initially mention fanboyism, not me.

Intel are producing CPUs with more cores - in the extreme series, not what they deem to be the consumer series (Core i). Moreover AMD are not producing any more CPUs with a high number of cores, and seem to be focusing on HSA.

I believe 2 cores in the consoles are reserved for OS. Leaving 6 weak jaguar cores to play with. I'm not saying the trend should be ignored, just that it's overstated. Multithreading is currently poorly implemented, and weak hexacores aren't going to be more powerful than a strong quad core. A strong dual core with hyperthreading is still more relevant than a weak quad core.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The intel extreme series is merely the standard desktop series of the future. This has always been the case. The same used to apply with the AMD FX series (the old FX cpus...).

Eventually, the i5/17 will be a hexacore, unless something strange occurs. Perhaps HSA will take off. More likely AMD will bring out an APU hexacore, so that both sides will have hexacores with igpus on them. I still believe, from all trends, past and present, that more cores is the way forward for performance chips.

As you say, multithreading is currently poorly implemented. This cannot really stand for long, as those consoles do have 8 weak laptop cores in them. Developers will have to learn how to suck more and more out of multithreading, on bulldozer like modules at that. Using an APU too.

As I myself use an i5, obviously I agree with you that the four strong cores defeat the 6 weaker cores. For the price though, I would put my money on the weaker 6 beating the stronger 2 in virtually all future applications, not to say quite a few that are around right now. Hence why if I was on a budget and wanted to use either the i3 or the FX 6300, as of today, I would buy the 6300 and build a PC around that.

When the new intel cpu line is released, I will again re-evaluate that position.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom