$600 target build

[THE_EGG]

Well, the single core performance of the i3 is better than the FX 8350, so perhaps in heavily stressed single-core gaming such as strategy gaming, then perhaps the i3 is likely to be on top. That being said, the FX 8350 or 6300 do perform very well in gaming, and are better for multi-core applications.

Layton

Exactly, I just tried to be as unbiased as possible in my post. I know how sensitive some people can get sometimes if one recommends something over another. In this case though I really think the performance difference overall is minimal. Either chip is a great choice.

 

[Dent1]

Well, the single core performance of the i3 is better than the FX 8350, so perhaps in heavily stressed single-core gaming such as strategy gaming, then perhaps the i3 is likely to be on top. That being said, the FX 8350 or 6300 do perform very well in gaming, and are better for multi-core applications.

Layton

That isn't strictly true.

If you were to disable 7 of the 8 cores of the FX 8350. Then yes the i3 would be much faster per core in single threaded gaming.

But out the box the FX 8350 additional cores compensate in background tasks. That is why whenever you see an FX 8350 and an i3 on the same chart typically the FX 8350 is able to still pull.

 

[THE_EGG]

Found a review here;
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/11/14/intel-core-i3-4130-haswell-review/4

It doesn't have a 6300 but a 8350 instead on the charts but it will hopefully give an insight. They really do perform similarly overall. At stock the i3 is better but OCed the 8350 wins out with a nice lead over the i3. Handbrake and Cinebench which heavily utilize the extra cores in the AMD chips were the benchmarks where the 8350 had very healthy lead over the i3 with in the review. But yeh overall, either chip is great and perform similarly.

 

[Vario]

Devil's Canyon Pentium might be an option too. Dual core with no hyperthreading that might hit 5.0ghz plus

The other new chip launching today is Intel's Anniversary Edition Pentium. Released to celebrate the 20 year launch of the Pentium brand, the G3258 will be clocked at 3.2GHz with two cores (no Hyper-Threading), a 3MB L3 cache, and a fully unlocked multiplier. With an estimated price of $70-$85, this chip could echo the old Celeron cores of the early 2000s, when chips that could match Intel's Pentium II family were going for a relative song.

http://hothardware.com/News/Intel-Announces-New-Devils-Canyon-CPU-4GHz-Base-Clock-44GHz-Turbo-Mode-/

 

[LaytonJnr]

That isn't strictly true.

If you were to disable 7 of the 8 cores of the FX 8350. Then yes the i3 would be much faster per core in single threaded gaming.

But out the box the FX 8350 additional cores compensate in background tasks. That is why whenever you see an FX 8350 and an i3 on the same chart typically the FX 8350 is able to still pull.

Having looked at some gaming benchmarks, then yes the FX 8350 beats the Core i3 in any game that has support for more than one core. But I still stand that for a single-core ONLY game (such as Civ 5 - man that game needs great single-core performance sometimes) - I cannot find a good review of an i3 with a single-core game being tested, however based on Passmark Single Core benchmarks, the i3 has superior single-core performance. However, I chose my AMD FX CPU over an i3 CPU purely because the extra cores are very useful for gaming, and in reality most games can utilise more cores now.

Layton

 

[Dent1]

Trying to be as unbias as possible. I think both CPUs is enough for gaming.

For me it really comes down to longevity and all purpose applications.

I was looking at Anandtech. FX 6300 vs Intel Intel Core i3 3220. And the disparity when comparing general applications is so signifcantly in favour of the FX 6300 I feel it compensates for any slight performance loss in single threaded gaming. Granted the i3 3xxx is only Ivy Bridge, but Haswell is only a minor refresh mostly on the integrated GPU.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/699?vs=677

Edit:

Saying that, if I was building a strictly gaming rig, to upgraded within 2-3 years I would select the i3 in that scenario.

 

[Vario]

Found a review here;
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/11/14/intel-core-i3-4130-haswell-review/4

It doesn't have a 6300 but a 8350 instead on the charts but it will hopefully give an insight. They really do perform similarly overall. At stock the i3 is better but OCed the 8350 wins out with a nice lead over the i3. Handbrake and Cinebench which heavily utilize the extra cores in the AMD chips were the benchmarks where the 8350 had very healthy lead over the i3 with in the review. But yeh overall, either chip is great and perform similarly.

Weird how the 2500k is greater than the 4670k
edit: haswell doesn't do well on that chart overall.

" Multi-tasking Applications: mplayer and 7-Zip "

 

[Dent1]

Weird how the 2500k is greater than the 4670k
edit: haswell doesn't do well on that chart overall.

" Multi-tasking Applications: mplayer and 7-Zip "

That's the thing with review sites, sometimes you get bizarre results that can't be explained. I think it's because the application isn't stressing the cores enough. People often assumes because its multithreaded each core is efficiently being used but not always as that chart shows.