1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

$600 target build

Discussion in 'System Builder's Advice' started by Lopez0101, Jun 14, 2014.

  1. THE_EGG

    THE_EGG

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,568 (1.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    532
    Location:
    Brisbane QLD, Australia
    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.
     
  2. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,238 (1.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    955
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2014
  3. THE_EGG

    THE_EGG

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,568 (1.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    532
    Location:
    Brisbane QLD, Australia
    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.
     
    Dent1 says thanks.
  4. Vario

    Vario

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Messages:
    3,093 (0.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,021
    Devil's Canyon Pentium might be an option too. Dual core with no hyperthreading that might hit 5.0ghz plus

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

    LaytonJnr

    Joined:
    May 3, 2014
    Messages:
    497 (2.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    231
    Location:
    UK
    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 says thanks.
  6. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,238 (1.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    955
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2014
    THE_EGG and LaytonJnr say thanks.
  7. Vario

    Vario

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Messages:
    3,093 (0.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,021
    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 " :ohwell:
     
  8. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,238 (1.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    955
    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.
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page