AMD FX 8300 vs. Intel i3 6100 benched. (video)

[cageymaru]

AMD FX 8300 vs. Intel i3 6100. Yes, it is a 7 min video. Those i3's do have a ton of single thread performance. Just needs more cores to be useful though. The i3 definitely won in the heat category. It was much cooler according to the tester. Otherwise the FX 8300 walked all over it in frame rate, minimum frame rate, rendering speed, etc. 5 year old 32nm tech still doesn't look bad compared to the new 2016 14nm tech.

 

[Pieter3dnow]

Awesome

 

[LigTasm]

Having owned an i3-6100, I would honestly take an FX any day unless I was doing emulators or something purely single threaded. That i3 was the most miserable, stuttery gaming experience I've ever had.

Add in the fact that the overclocking options are going away fast and it is even less appealing.

 

[pendragon1]

best $50CAN I ever spent was a used FX-8120 to replace my fx-4100(both run at 4560).

unless I was doing emulators

every emu ive used works fine. what have you had issues with?

 

[LigTasm]

best $50CAN I ever spent was a used FX-8120 to replace my fx-4100(both run at 4560).
every emu ive used works fine. what have you had issues with?

I have none, I was just suggesting a possible use for the i3 if you were looking for just single-thread performance.

 

[KazeoHin]

Cool Beans, dude. I love the 6300 and 8300 chips.

 

[JustReason]

Well hopefully this will put to rest some posters need to tout the i3 as some super-chip over the FXs. Some how I doubt it will quell their agenda...

But I gotta say, he must have been using the stock cooler, because even a modest tower cooler can sneeze 4.4 to 4.6 Ghz. Those stock coolers are terrible for the 8 cores.

 

[LigTasm]

Well hopefully this will put to rest some posters need to tout the i3 as some super-chip over the FXs. Some how I doubt it will quell their agenda...

But I gotta say, he must have been using the stock cooler, because even a modest tower cooler can sneeze 4.4 to 4.6 Ghz. Those stock coolers are terrible for the 8 cores.

I thought the same thing. I've lost count of how many 8-core FX chips I've owned (about to pick up another 8320E tomorrow) and getting 4400mhz was as easy as 200x22 with any adequate motherboard. He said it was using a Kraken X31 cooler, so I'm not sure why it was so hard. Maybe the worst FX chip in history?

 

[pendragon1]

Shitty mobo maybe? I don't recall if he said which mobo he was using. 4.4 should be a breeze. I switched from my 4100 @ 4560 to my 8120 @ 4560, used the same 212evo with the same bios settings, just dropped it in and out worked. Either it's shitty mobo or worst FX chip ever.

 

[Quix]

The top-end FX processors just barely edge out the bottom of the line i3? AMD needs to rush out new product quick. Intel thinks they can rip us off unless they've got some competition.

Dolphin (Gamecube and Wii) would be an emulator where you want single-threaded performance.

 

[pendragon1]

8300 isn't the top chip. You know that. When comparing AMD vs Intel you have to look at cost/performance AND usage. with the 6100 vs 8300, current price on newegg.ca is $360 vs $170. That's a HUGE difference in cost vs performance. You can get a 8300, mobo and ram for the price of the 6100. And the only place you'll see a difference is in encoding and an occasional game. So like the conclusion of the video says if you need encoding/rendering power go Intel. Gaming and everyday use go AMD. To a point...
Because, unfortunately they don't have a fast enough CPU to support their highest gpu but hopefully Zen will fix that.

Edit: Forgot about the emus. no problem there. Every emu works fine with AMD now. Years ago was a different story. And emus as an Intel over AMD argument is pretty weak.

 

[cageymaru]

The top-end FX processors just barely edge out the bottom of the line i3? AMD needs to rush out new product quick. Intel thinks they can rip us off unless they've got some competition.

Dolphin (Gamecube and Wii) would be an emulator where you want single-threaded performance.

Both CPU are priced the same. This isn't a top level FX chip. Actually the FX won the rendering test also. The only thing it was slower at was Tomb Raider under DX11.

FX-8300 is $118.95.
Amazon product ASIN B00TR8YL4W
i3-6100 is $117.95
Amazon product ASIN B015VPX2EO
The FX-8300 kicked ass.

 

[Araxie]

8300 isn't the top chip. You know that. When comparing AMD vs Intel you have to look at cost/performance AND usage. with the 6100 vs 8300, current price on newegg.ca is $360 vs $170. That's a HUGE difference in cost vs performance. You can get a 8300, mobo and ram for the price of the 6100. And the only place you'll see a difference is in encoding and an occasional game. So like the conclusion of the video says if you need encoding/rendering power go Intel. Gaming and everyday use go AMD. To a point...
Because, unfortunately they don't have a fast enough CPU to support their highest gpu but hopefully Zen will fix that.

what...?

i3 6100 = 115$, FX8300 = 120$.. actually the FX8300 in US market is more expensive..

about the topic, what now a couple of slides with random numbers from a un-known guy are the truth?

what about a reputable site?

The Best CPU for the Money: Intel Core i3-6100 Skylake Tested

 

[pendragon1]

yeah idk what was going on with the pricing on the i3... its now says its $165. I followed a link somewhere, maybe it was a combo with a mobo.
yeah f this guy. I commented that the price difference was better than he thought and got a dick response about how he doesn't care about prices not in USD. BUT your link does not compare OC to OC scores. yes at stock the i3 is slightly faster.

 

[a3venom]

It is nice to see that the FX is holding it's own against an i3, but the thing is when you search 6100 vs 8350 in youtube the first page is just full of videos where the i3 is beating it in most games.

Since we are just going to be impressed by random youtube uploaders testing these 2 CPUs, it is not hard to see that there are cases here when at low 1080/720p the dual core can score upto 50 FPS more in games like fallout 4 but it is very impressive that the 8-core can even run these newer titles.

I am a bit late to the party but this is going to be the most hilarious thread in this forum where someone is trying to prove the impossible. Yes the 8 cores are going to help and win in productivity benchmarks, where the 2 cores are still pretty impressive because of the massive IPC difference. But they stand no chance in gaming - from a 380 to 970 to 980ti.

FX does clearly win in witcher 3 though. Keep in mind you are spending just under 160$ for the i3 combo whereas you would need atleast a semi-decent mobo for the FX because you want to OC. Intel Core i3-6100 - System Build - PCPartPicker

 

[a3venom]

Someone who is interested should really check out these vids, one of the dudes even has 300k subscribers which gives some a little more psuedo-credibility i suppose. ( i think the last one)

 

[pendragon1]

But they stand no chance in gaming - from a 380 to 970 to 980ti.

if you need encoding/rendering power go Intel. Gaming and everyday use go AMD. To a point...
Because, unfortunately they don't have a fast enough CPU to support their highest gpu but hopefully Zen will fix that.

that was what I was pointing out here. yes with the very highest end gpus fx chips cannot keep up. hopefully zen will improve on that. but on another note, if your capped at 60FPS like most players you would not see the higher fps BUT you do see the visual improvements the difference between a 960 and a 980ti or a 380 and a furyx will make. being able to do 60fps@ultra vs 60fps medium. that make sense?

 

[JustReason]

The guy goes as far to say he is only giving the truth and cant believe he is recommending the 8350 in the scenario he is. And keep in mind this is another extreme OCing issue with the i3 which at default is locked. More than enough proof that the 8350 can easily OC to 4.4-4.6Ghz or even further with slightly better cooling. So taking that into consideration, again the 8350 would be the clear winner in gaming. And keep in mind he mentions DX12 and the use of more cores. i3s for Gaming are asinine to begin with and even more so under DX12 or any game that can utilize cores.

Remember I think it was COD III in his gaming benchmark that he said ran better on lower core counts: SOME GAMES SHUT DOWN ASPECTS TO ALLOW LOWER CORES TO RUN THE GAME ADEQUATELY so comparing them ever in any benchmark is more often than not, an apples to oranges debate. Even as I mentioned in another thread for AotS:

In Ashes, the AI operates on multiple CPU cores at once (a minimum of 4) and does so asynchronously from the rest of the game simulation.

4. The hardware requirements had a significant impact on our sales reach
Our hardware requirements include a 2GB GDDR 5 video card and a CPU with at least 4 cores. Those requirements cut off about half the user base. We knew this going in and it was a price we were willing to pay to make sure we could create a future-proof game

Postmortem: Stardock and Oxide Games' Ashes of the Singularity (a really good read by the way)

 

[a3venom]

The guy goes as far to say he is only giving the truth and cant believe he is recommending the 8350 in the scenario he is. And keep in mind this is another extreme OCing issue with the i3 which at default is locked. More than enough proof that the 8350 can easily OC to 4.4-4.6Ghz or even further with slightly better cooling. So taking that into consideration, again the 8350 would be the clear winner in gaming. And keep in mind he mentions DX12 and the use of more cores. i3s for Gaming are asinine to begin with and even more so under DX12 or any game that can utilize cores.

Remember I think it was COD III in his gaming benchmark that he said ran better on lower core counts: SOME GAMES SHUT DOWN ASPECTS TO ALLOW LOWER CORES TO RUN THE GAME ADEQUATELY so comparing them ever in any benchmark is more often than not, an apples to oranges debate. Even as I mentioned in another thread for AotS:


Postmortem: Stardock and Oxide Games' Ashes of the Singularity (a really good read by the way)

So you completely ignore the videos i posted (like what? 9) in which the FX is obliterated?
You also completely ignore the fact that windows recognizes an i3 as 2 physical cores and 4 logical cores. Same way as a 8350 would be recognized as 4 physical cores and 8 logical cores. Which doesn't mean anything it is indeed 2 cores vs 8 but everything really cares about how many threads it sees.
It is so too that there isn't a single benchmark/website in which the fx 8350 had more fps than an i3 6100 in DX 12 Ashes Benchmark.

What is the counter argument to benchmarks that show results? It is not supposed to even run on dual cores and all tech sites are owned by intel??

 

[Pieter3dnow]

So you completely ignore the videos i posted (like what? 9) in which the FX is obliterated?
You also completely ignore the fact that windows recognizes an i3 as 2 physical cores and 4 logical cores. Same way as a 8350 would be recognized as 4 physical cores and 8 logical cores. Which doesn't mean anything it is indeed 2 cores vs 8 but everything really cares about how many threads it sees.
It is so too that there isn't a single benchmark/website in which the fx 8350 had more fps than an i3 6100 in DX 12 Ashes Benchmark.

But you are ignoring the video that is in the original topic. I3 is a dead cpu. DX12 engines will make use of more cores. It is the only way to get more performance.

 

[a3venom]

But you are ignoring the video that is in the original topic. I3 is a dead cpu. DX12 engines will make use of more cores. It is the only way to get more performance.

I am not ignoring, i am just providing more contradictory information. If there is more information contradicting my information then i am proved wrong.

It is dead because you don't like the concept of dual cores but there will be no universe where you can game better on a budget than an i3. My only point is that people are misled to believe that Intel is overcharging for crappy i3 and AMD has good budget offerings for gaming. If someone has very limited cash to buy a PC for gaming, buying/recommending an AMD FX one would be retarded and there is no amount of therapy/medicine that can help that retardation. On the other hand if someone has extra money that they can buy a crappy CPU to "support" AMD or "stick it" to Intel, that is just trivial.


There is nothing in the world that can suggest that AMD is a good budget offering since 2014 atleast, you cannot build a FX based system in pcpartpicker that will outshine the i3 6100 based system while costing same or less...

 

[Pieter3dnow]

I am not ignoring, i am just providing more contradictory information. If there is more information contradicting my information then i am proved wrong.

So all of those videos you linked used the same setting for each piece of hardware ?

If you want to make your point can you do that also without calling names. Someone will shout fanboy then it is all over ...

 

[a3venom]

So all of those videos you linked used the same setting for each piece of hardware ?

If you want to make your point can you do that also without calling names. Someone will shout fanboy then it is all over ...

I am sorry if I offended you. I know you have a good use for your CPU and a lot other people too as they use it for what it's made for. But when people recommend AMD CPUs to some newbie trying to build a PC on a tight budget, that is just misleading, wrong and really bad for the PC community. It is pure fanboyism to recommend AMD but then again I would say even most die hard AMD fans will not recommend an AMD CPU over an i3 for gaming today.

Also, there are people asking for which is a "high end" motherboard to pair with a FX 8350 for their $1200 gaming build in other forums, and people give them advice on the mobo rather than telling them they are seriously wasting their money by buying that stuff in that type of budget.

All those videos are comparing an i3 and 8350 with the same GPU. Some of them seem reliable too.

Also there is no argument for being an Intel fanboy as there is a monopoly and no second company to choose from. Anyone would generally think the better product is better just because it is proven to be better.

 

[cageymaru]

i3 is shit. Will always be shit. i5 and i7 are the gaming CPUs. Dual cores are DEAD. R.I.P.

Recommending a dual core in the DX12 age is retarded.

 

[a3venom]

i3 is shit. Will always be shit. i5 and i7 are the gaming CPUs. Dual cores are DEAD. R.I.P.

Recommending a dual core in the DX12 age is retarded.

You are right, anyone in their right mind would pay slightly extra for the 8350 and be happy with lesser frame rates while maintaining their 8 core pride.

 

[Red Falcon]

i3 is shit. Will always be shit. i5 and i7 are the gaming CPUs. Dual cores are DEAD. R.I.P.

Recommending a dual core in the DX12 age is retarded.

The number of cores is irrelevant.
What matters most is IPC.

It takes nearly 2.5 of those FX (X300) cores to match 1 Skylake core, not to mention those FX cores must be clocked faster as well.
I know, because I've owned FX systems since 2011, and compared to Skylake, they are hot, power hungry, inefficient CPUs with 2013-era technology, which was at best, on par with Sandy Bridge 2010-era Intel technology.

Would I recommend an i3 for budget gaming? Yes.
Would I recommend an FX 8-core for budget gaming? In this era? Hell no.

Yes, in full SMP, the FX 8-core will normally outperform a Skylake i3.
But for most things, that i3-6100 comes very close in terms of performance, and even though it is a dual core, it also has Hyper-Threading, so it can run up to four logical threads simultaneously if needed.

Most desktop applications are single-threaded anyways, so for around 2.5x the performance of those FX CPUs, yeah, recommending an i3 is easy.

 

[cageymaru]

Intel is thinking forward and trying to make their 6 and 8 cores more affordable in their next release. If the corporation that makes the darn chips thinks that there is a market for 6 and 8 core chips with mainstream users, why in the heck are you'll sticking with a dual core? I have a Dell notebook with a dual core from the Windows XP age sitting here. I'm sorry. It's dead and gone for gaming. R.I.P.

At least you can buy a real gaming chip later on and upgrade.

Everyone knows that the FX chips are old. My motherboard will be 6 years old soon. The fact that it plays games at the same frame rate as Intel's 2016 "budget gamer" lineup tells you how crap the CPU market has become. And I can multitask like a SOB still. I'm sorry. I couldn't recommend a i3 to a serious gamer. Maybe if they were only playing StarCraft II and other single threaded games only. Even then I would wonder why are they upgrading in the first place? IPC without cores is not a good idea for DX12. It's a catch 22 situation.

 

[Red Falcon]

Intel is thinking forward and trying to make their 6 and 8 cores more affordable in their next release. If the corporation that makes the darn chips thinks that there is a market for 6 and 8 core chips with mainstream users, why in the heck are you'll sticking with a dual core? I have a Dell notebook with a dual core from the Windows XP age sitting here. I'm sorry. It's dead and gone for gaming. R.I.P.

At least you can buy a real gaming chip later on and upgrade.

Everyone knows that the FX chips are old. My motherboard will be 6 years old soon. The fact that it plays games at the same frame rate as Intel's 2016 "budget gamer" lineup tells you how crap the CPU market has become. And I can multitask like a SOB still. I'm sorry. I couldn't recommend a i3 to a serious gamer. Maybe if they were only playing StarCraft II and other single threaded games only. Even then I would wonder why are they upgrading in the first place? IPC without cores is not a good idea for DX12. It's a catch 22 situation.

Or, you could be a real man and start using a Motorola 68000 for your daily tasks.
pffff, who cares about the DX12 API when you can use assembly code!

 

[Pieter3dnow]

Or, you could be a real man and start using a Motorola 68000 for your daily tasks.
pffff, who cares about the DX12 API when you can use assembly code!

Well it allows the graphics card to get used to the maximum. Makes IPC less of a factor in performance that is if they use enough cores.

 

[LigTasm]

Actually, I am now understanding why he had a hard time with getting to 4.4ghz. I'm using an 8320E on a UD3 R5 rev 2.0 like he was, and I found some interesting things compared to my rev 1 board and the previous non R5 UD3's. First, the max memory divider is now 10.67 so at a generic 200mhz BLCK you're only going to get 2133mhz RAM at most.

Second, this revision board seems to be allergic to a multi over 22.0x, for example I can boot to windows at 225x20 or 250x18 for 4500mhz with only 1.375V vcore, but it won't even POST at 200x22.5, nor any multi above that. Very strange, I think some of this needs to be addressed in the BIOS as is usual for Gigabyte boards.

 

[thebufenator]

What if I buy an FX8320e for $90 with a free motherboard?

 

[cageymaru]

I agree the the FX chips are old. I would recommend that instead of a i3 that a person gets a i5 or i7. If that doesn't fit their budget then a used older 6 or 8 core Xeon from EBAY would be the proper way to upgrade. Dual cores are dead to me. I value my ability to multitask. I like being able to have my new favorite MMO Black Desert Online running it's AFK fishing script in the background, while I play another game. Two different browsers running with multiple tabs displaying recipes for BDO and the proper areas I need to farm materials at; with music from Youtube playing also and maybe a stream. Try that on a dual core. The dual core ship sailed a long time ago.

I don't think that the scenario that I do everyday is special. Every MMO player I know multitasks. I don't think it is possible to remember all of the stuff in BDO so you have to multitask. I don't even think I should be having this conversation in this day and age of multitasking.

 

[a3venom]

I agree the the FX chips are old. I would recommend that instead of a i3 that a person gets a i5 or i7. If that doesn't fit their budget then a used older 6 or 8 core Xeon from EBAY would be the proper way to upgrade. Dual cores are dead to me. I value my ability to multitask. I like being able to have my new favorite MMO Black Desert Online running it's AFK fishing script in the background, while I play another game. Two different browsers running with multiple tabs displaying recipes for BDO and the proper areas I need to farm materials at; with music from Youtube playing also and maybe a stream. Try that on a dual core. The dual core ship sailed a long time ago.

I don't think that the scenario that I do everyday is special. Every MMO player I know multitasks. I don't think it is possible to remember all of the stuff in BDO so you have to multitask. I don't even think I should be having this conversation in this day and age of multitasking.

I am sure none of that except streaming requires any CPU power at all and can probably even done with a pentium. Coz everyone has YouTube Spotify Chrome tabs (twitch)and probably some downloads running in the BG.
You don't need 8 cores to achieve that without taking a performance hit.

On the other hand something like power multitasking would be playing GTA5 maxed out while you are waiting for your match of dota to be ready and closing none of that and watching Netflix or YouTube while you're dead in dota.
That is what the i7 does very well although there is a drop in frames because of the dota in background. I am sure you can't do that with the FX. I3 isn't even in the question in a scenario like that as it will stutter.
I can't think of anything else that i do except those apps and games and an i7-4770 handles that very well on my brothers PC.
The i3 I had is not going to be useless till you add something like GTA5 to the mix or anything that uses heavy resources when minimized. WoW doesn't. You can open as many instances of WoW as your ram allows on a Pentium and it will have more frames than a FX

 

[a3venom]

Raw power can not always be applicable in real life usage.

You would never believe that a MacbookPro or maybe even air will render 4k videos considerably faster than a 6700k @ 4.6ghZ - but that doesn't make it a bogus statement.

Same way you think about an i3 being obsolate for the tasks you mentioned, but that's just what you think because of ignorance.

 

[Pieter3dnow]

I agree the the FX chips are old. I would recommend that instead of a i3 that a person gets a i5 or i7. If that doesn't fit their budget then a used older 6 or 8 core Xeon from EBAY would be the proper way to upgrade. Dual cores are dead to me. I value my ability to multitask. I like being able to have my new favorite MMO Black Desert Online running it's AFK fishing script in the background, while I play another game. Two different browsers running with multiple tabs displaying recipes for BDO and the proper areas I need to farm materials at; with music from Youtube playing also and maybe a stream. Try that on a dual core. The dual core ship sailed a long time ago.
I don't think that the scenario that I do everyday is special. Every MMO player I know multitasks. I don't think it is possible to remember all of the stuff in BDO so you have to multitask. I don't even think I should be having this conversation in this day and age of multitasking.

Hang on are you AFK fishing while playing another game that is so cheating .

 

[JustReason]

I am sure none of that except streaming requires any CPU power at all and can probably even done with a pentium. Coz everyone has YouTube Spotify Chrome tabs (twitch)and probably some downloads running in the BG.
You don't need 8 cores to achieve that without taking a performance hit.

On the other hand something like power multitasking would be playing GTA5 maxed out while you are waiting for your match of dota to be ready and closing none of that and watching Netflix or YouTube while you're dead in dota.
That is what the i7 does very well although there is a drop in frames because of the dota in background. I am sure you can't do that with the FX. I3 isn't even in the question in a scenario like that as it will stutter.
I can't think of anything else that i do except those apps and games and an i7-4770 handles that very well on my brothers PC.
The i3 I had is not going to be useless till you add something like GTA5 to the mix or anything that uses heavy resources when minimized. WoW doesn't. You can open as many instances of WoW as your ram allows on a Pentium and it will have more frames than a FX

That is your problem: you have no experience at all with the FX line. There have been even in this thread multiple 8350 (or the other 8core versions) owners speaking to you about multitasking with these chips, it is a non-issue.

Not to mention you as always leave out any criteria. If both CPUs achieve greater than 60fps and both use 60Hz monitors then the 3-5 fps by the winner is likely of little consequence in the grander scheme.

Fact: 8 cores will handle multi-tasking far better than any 2 cores regardless of IPC (within a reasonable degree).

In general across all these AMD threads where you have continued to spread this trite drivel, most if not all posters have mentioned that 2 core/i3 are not even remotely able to be considered Gaming CPUs, outside of laptops where their power usage is of great import. That the majority of us with EXPERIENCE with a multitude of CPUs understand this and why we see your stand as nothing more than an attempt to rationalize your own purchase.

Case in point, this video the guy goes so far as to explain that DX12 and its use of more cores makes any and all i3s obsolete, and hence against his usual stance (whereby he usually recommends the Intel CPUs over AMD CPUs) he reluctantly recommends the 8350 over the i3 and with his few real world tests that backed up his stance.

And keep in mind that OCing said i3 was an exercise in jumping thru hoops, something most users will not do, whereas OCing the 8350 is widely supported and easy for most users of varying expertise to accomplish.

Of my plethora of games, over 200 between steam and Origin and GoG and non-affiliates with another number in emulators of PS1/PS2/Nintendo/Sega, I have yet to have a single issue that was related to my CPU where it limited my Frame rate (60Hz monitor usually capped to 75fps).

So on the whole if someone were looking to upgrade now and had to, no waiting, then my recommendations usually go if AMD 8cores, if Intel 4 cores where I lean more to the i7 recommendations but i5 can suffice. i3s are terribad and worthless as gaming CPUs other than for livingroom console-like setups where multitasking is not really an issue or laptops where power usage is a concern.

 

[a3venom]

That is your problem: you have no experience at all with the FX line. There have been even in this thread multiple 8350 (or the other 8core versions) owners speaking to you about multitasking with these chips, it is a non-issue.

Not to mention you as always leave out any criteria. If both CPUs achieve greater than 60fps and both use 60Hz monitors then the 3-5 fps by the winner is likely of little consequence in the grander scheme.

Fact: 8 cores will handle multi-tasking far better than any 2 cores regardless of IPC (within a reasonable degree).

In general across all these AMD threads where you have continued to spread this trite drivel, most if not all posters have mentioned that 2 core/i3 are not even remotely able to be considered Gaming CPUs, outside of laptops where their power usage is of great import. That the majority of us with EXPERIENCE with a multitude of CPUs understand this and why we see your stand as nothing more than an attempt to rationalize your own purchase.

Case in point, this video the guy goes so far as to explain that DX12 and its use of more cores makes any and all i3s obsolete, and hence against his usual stance (whereby he usually recommends the Intel CPUs over AMD CPUs) he reluctantly recommends the 8350 over the i3 and with his few real world tests that backed up his stance.

And keep in mind that OCing said i3 was an exercise in jumping thru hoops, something most users will not do, whereas OCing the 8350 is widely supported and easy for most users of varying expertise to accomplish.

Of my plethora of games, over 200 between steam and Origin and GoG and non-affiliates with another number in emulators of PS1/PS2/Nintendo/Sega, I have yet to have a single issue that was related to my CPU where it limited my Frame rate (60Hz monitor usually capped to 75fps).

So on the whole if someone were looking to upgrade now and had to, no waiting, then my recommendations usually go if AMD 8cores, if Intel 4 cores where I lean more to the i7 recommendations but i5 can suffice. i3s are terribad and worthless as gaming CPUs other than for livingroom console-like setups where multitasking is not really an issue or laptops where power usage is a concern.

Since you have a long post, it must be right.

People who actually make a living from doing reviews must be wrong. The Best CPU for the Money: Intel Core i3-6100 Skylake Tested

There is no such notion for dual cores being only for laptops or HTPCs, so your statements are pure ignorance my friend. This is 2016, things have changed since you started building computers.

And by your definition what is a gaming CPU? I would be interested to know.

 

[JustReason]

Since you have a long post, it must be right.

People who actually make a living from doing reviews must be wrong. The Best CPU for the Money: Intel Core i3-6100 Skylake Tested

There is no such notion for dual cores being only for laptops or HTPCs, so your statements are pure ignorance my friend. This is 2016, things have changed since you started building computers.

And by your definition what is a gaming CPU? I would be interested to know.

Ignorance? Based on what? I HAVE experience with a great deal of platforms and can speak to the validity of claims. You have none apparently with the hardware in question.

A GAMING CPU: Must be 4 cores minimum, generally OCing must be capable but that can be disputed, There is a cost to the platform where then the cost of the CPU has a bit more merit for discussion.

2 cores are not ever gaming CPUs and Honestly should never be in any desktop environment. I only entertained the notion of HTPC because there is a good argument for it there though I would still advise against it. Laptops are a bit more of an issue since they have batteries and power usage is a big factor, hence why 2 core processors are fine there and a good argument for.

I am not saying you cant game on a 2 core, it can be done, even on a 10 year old single core CPU. Is it a wise idea to still game on the 10 year old CPU? No, but it can be done but doesn't mean it should.

Frame rate in and of itself is not a good metric in this discussion, it is only a single metric and seems to be the only one you use. Multiple cores moving forward in DX12 alone are obsoleting dual cores/2 cores. And the fact that most people today gaming are running far more than a single application goes so far as to push the minimum CPU core count to be 4 cores. Even some games are now requiring this.

Remember Benchmarks don't tell the whole story as I have mentioned more than once to you. A lot of games turn off stuff (technical term) for 2 cores so benchmarks are rarely apples to apples in these cases.

Besides I am sure the consensus is "give me all the cores I can get with $XXX.XX".

 

[LigTasm]

Since you have a long post, it must be right.

People who actually make a living from doing reviews must be wrong. The Best CPU for the Money: Intel Core i3-6100 Skylake Tested

There is no such notion for dual cores being only for laptops or HTPCs, so your statements are pure ignorance my friend. This is 2016, things have changed since you started building computers.

And by your definition what is a gaming CPU? I would be interested to know.

The difference is the people doing those reviews rarely ever use the stuff they review for extended lengths of time unless its super high end stuff. I bought into the i3 hype when the SkyOC stuff was new, and it was nowhere near as good in practice as reviews with nicely sanitized Windows installations with nothing else running would make it seem.

I literally used that CPU for a week before I gave up and bought a 6600k to slap in the board, playing a game with browsers and other things open was just a miserable experience. Every game I tried was a stuttery mess (interestingly it behaves much like the 860K in that regard, it lacks any sort of smoothness). Switching to an i5 was a night and day difference.

 

[pendragon1]

maybe they only play dota/lol/candy crush and his 2 core is fine for that? outside of browsing and playing shitty games dual cores are dead. accept it on move on ffs.