# i3 3220 vs AMD A10-5800k vs FX 4300



## Cringe (Mar 14, 2013)

Hello everyone.
I am building this new gaming rig. I wont be playing all games on ultra settings, med/normal-settings would do for me. I won't be doing anyother heavy multitasking either.
I pretty much have everything else figured out, other than what CPU to use.

I am stuck between-
Intel i3 3220 
A10-5800k
FX 4300.

For the GPU I will be using-
1) Gigabyte's HD 7850 OC edition with 975 MHz GPU clock and 2gb GDDR5 256-bit 4800 MHz memory. 
2) OR Nvidia 650ti 2gb GDDR5(if I run out of my $600 budget).

I can switch to i5 3570 and run it on turbo mode, instead of OCing A10-5800k. But in that case, I will have to further downgrade my GPU to HD 7770 or equivalent. 

So what do you think i should go with?


----------



## suraswami (Mar 14, 2013)

i3 3220.


----------



## Fourstaff (Mar 14, 2013)

3220 or 4300, you will hear supporters from both camps extolling the qualities of either chips but I personally think you will not be able to tell the difference in usual day gaming. I personally think you should check the games you will be running and decide from the individual benchmarks, usually the 3220 will win but overclocked it will be fairly even. 7850 gets my vote, I see no reason to get the 650Ti.


----------



## Frick (Mar 14, 2013)

3220 and 7850. Depending a bit on how tight your budget is; amd setups are usually a wee bit cheaper. At least over here. Otherwise the i3.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Mar 14, 2013)

Crysis 3 loves FX4300 much better than the i3-3220. Other games might take a slight advantage of the 3220. I'd say 4300 and 7850.


----------



## Delta6326 (Mar 14, 2013)

For the CPU I would get i3 3220, lower TDP less heat
Also you may want to look at the GTX 660 if it fits in your budget as it does offer more performance.
And maybe go with this MB ASRock Z77 Extreme3 ATX Intel Motherboard - Newegg...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-3.html


----------



## suraswami (Mar 14, 2013)

What resolution are going to play?  If 720P 7770/650TI might also work good and can save bit more.  Used 6870 might also be an alternate option.

Overall if you want to save money then go with AMD setup.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 14, 2013)

FX 4300. Piledriver is great and a great choice for your setup.
Though I wouldn't have recommended the 1st gen FX 4100.


----------



## Cringe (Mar 14, 2013)

Well thanks for the replies everyone.
i3 3220 was my first choice too...But with the new games favoring quad cores, will i3 be able to handle them?(and that reminds me..anyone got a link to list of games that use quad cores?).

On the other hand, none of the amd MoBos have a PCIe 3.0 slot. How much will a PCIe 2.0 or PCIe 3.0 affect my GPU's performance?


----------



## Delta6326 (Mar 14, 2013)

AMD
AMD FX-4300 Vishera 3.8GHz (4.0GHz) Socket AM3+ 95... $119 - $8 Promo
ASRock 970 EXTREME3 ATX AMD Motherboard - Newegg.c... $85 = $204 - $8 = $196

Intel
Intel Core i3-3220 Ivy Bridge 3.3GHz LGA 1155 55W ... $129 - $15 Promo
ASRock Z77 Extreme3 ATX Intel Motherboard - Newegg... $125 = $254 -$15 =$239

Not a big deference, and plus the i3 uses less power and creates less heat and technically is faster in most situations.

Like posted, what games and screen res are you playing at?


----------



## cdawall (Mar 14, 2013)

PCI-E 2.0 vs 3.0 makes zero difference whatsoever. I would go with the AMD...can't even overclock the intel setup.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 14, 2013)

Delta6326 said:


> AMD
> AMD FX-4300 Vishera 3.8GHz (4.0GHz) Socket AM3+ 95... $119 - $8 Promo
> ASRock 990FX Extreme3 ATX AMD Motherboard with UEF... $119 = $238 - $8 = $230
> 
> ...



For what he is looking at doing a 990FX motherboard is overkill. A 970 would be perfectly adequate.


----------



## Cringe (Mar 14, 2013)

Around 720-1080p resolution is what I will be playing at.

I am not sure about the games. BF3, skyrim, crysis 3, guild wars 2, league or legends, metro 2033,etc. might even run ps3 emulators on it.


----------



## suraswami (Mar 14, 2013)

Cringe said:


> Around 720-1080p resolution is what I will be playing at.
> 
> I am not sure about the games. BF3, skyrim, crysis 3, guild wars 2, league or legends, metro 2033,etc. might even run ps3 emulators on it.



just get I5 and be done with it.


----------



## Delta6326 (Mar 14, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> For what he is looking at doing a 990FX motherboard is overkill. A 970 would be perfectly adequate.



Ah yes your right I'm not for sure what I was thinking Will up date my post.

I'm only showing the AsRock Extreme 3 because they are on both sides. I don't know know if they perform the same, but I would think ASRock would use similar quality parts.
ASRock 970 EXTREME3 ATX AMD Motherboard - Newegg.c...


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 14, 2013)

super xp said:


> fx 4300. Piledriver is great and a great choice for your setup.
> Though i wouldn't have recommended the 1st gen fx 4100.



+1


----------



## Cringe (Mar 14, 2013)

suraswami said:


> just get I5 and be done with it.



yeah ...thats the best solution. But again, will HD 7770 + i5 (with its integrated graphics, which i guess will be useless) be able to play them games? :S


----------



## Durvelle27 (Mar 14, 2013)

with your budget i would get a FX 6300 and be done with it. Best of both worlds and ocs nicely


----------



## de.das.dude (Mar 15, 2013)

FX4300. pile driver is great! 
if you were comparing with the bulldozer FX4100, i'd have said i3 3220

also there isnt any difference in TDP. note that intel and AMD calculate TDP in different ways. for AMD its the max. for intel its some form of average.


----------



## Ghost (Mar 15, 2013)

i3 3220 is as fast as FX-8350 in gaming. But if you can stretch to any i5, even something like 3350P, that would be great. Otherwise i3 3220 + HD 7850 is fine too.



de.das.dude said:


> FX4300. pile driver is great!
> if you were comparing with the bulldozer FX4100, i'd have said i3 3220


Piledriver is great only compared to BD. Gaming performance still sucks compared to Sandy/Ivy.


de.das.dude said:


> also there isnt any difference in TDP. note that intel and AMD calculate TDP in different ways. for AMD its the max. for intel its some form of average.


Vice versa. FX-4300 draws 40-60W more than i3 3220. So if it's labeled as 95W CPU, i3 should be labeled as 35-55W. Or FX-4300 should be labeled as 95-125W.


----------



## Mathragh (Mar 15, 2013)

Ghost said:


> i3 3220 is as fast as FX-8350 in gaming.



I don't like being this guy, but no, this is simply not true.

Perhaps if you only play >3 year old console ports the i3 3220 is as fast as a FX-8350 in gaming, but in most modern games, the i3 simply is inadequate compared to modern day quad cores(or 8 cores).

I'd say if you're only planning on playing old console ports, you should get the i3, otherwise, dont let yourself get fooled by the "i3 is enough". 2 Cores in this day and age is just really low end, and will quickly bottleneck in those newer applications and games.


----------



## Ghost (Mar 15, 2013)

Mathragh said:


> I don't like being this guy, but no, this is simply not true.
> 
> Perhaps if you only play >3 year old console ports the i3 3220 is as fast as a FX-8350 in gaming, but in most modern games, the i3 simply is inadequate compared to modern day quad cores(or 8 cores).
> 
> I'd say if you're only planning on playing old console ports, you should get the i3, otherwise, dont let yourself get fooled by the "i3 is enough". 2 Cores in this day and age is just really low end, and will quickly bottleneck in those newer applications and games.


Saying that i3 is not enough is the same as saying FX-8350 is not enough, because they perform the same. i5 is better than both of these, of course. There was already a difference between i3 and i5 when Sandy was released 2 years ago. And perhaps even before that.

Performance is not measured by cores or clocks. i3 has a much higher per clock performance, which matters most in games. Threads/cores come only after that. In applications 8 core PD is almost as fast as and sometimes faster than 4 core Ivy with HT (i7), but in games it's just as fast as 2 core Ivy with HT (i3).


----------



## Mathragh (Mar 15, 2013)

Ghost said:


> Saying that i3 is not enough is the same as saying FX-8350 is not enough, because they perform the same.



Benchmarks done with modern systems and games say otherwise.

However, lets stop arguing about this particular point, as we'll otherwise likely hijack the thread


----------



## Lionheart (Mar 15, 2013)

FX 4300 + HD7850 2GB has my vote


----------



## nt300 (Mar 15, 2013)

Ghost said:


> Saying that i3 is not enough is the same as saying FX-8350 is not enough, because they perform the same.


This comment made me laugh. It so not true and you are misleading readers. The 8350 runs circles around a i3.


----------



## Dent1 (Mar 15, 2013)

Cringe said:


> Hello everyone.
> I am building this new gaming rig. I wont be playing all games on ultra settings, med/normal-settings would do for me. I won't be doing anyother heavy multitasking either.
> I pretty much have everything else figured out, other than what CPU to use.
> 
> ...



None!

Get the FX-6300!

The FX-6300 costs about the same as the i3 3220, performs about the same in today's games, and significantly better in almost everything else. It's the better CPU for the price.


----------



## Frick (Mar 15, 2013)

nt300 said:


> This comment made me laugh. It so not true and you are misleading readers. The 8350 runs circles around a i3.



I actually found three graphs with the i3 besting the 8350. I should not have to use the word "single thread".  Seriously though, for a hardcore gamer who wants a high end machine Intel is the way to go currently. Most games ARE not good at multithreading..


----------



## nt300 (Mar 15, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> None!
> 
> Get the FX-6300!
> 
> The FX-6300 costs about the same as the i3 3220, performs about the same in today's games, and significantly better in almost everything else. It's the better CPU for the price.


The fx 8350 wins in games like Skyrim, Diablo 3, Dragon Age, Dawn of War 2, WOW, Starcraft 2 and is also faster in stuff like Adobe Photoshop, Win 8 pov-ray 3.7rc6 multi-thread and Cinebench 11.5 in multi-thread. Anything multi-thread I give the win to the 8350.

But you are right the AMD chips do well in multi-threading and most new games are multi-threading.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 15, 2013)

nt300 said:


> The fx 8350 wins in games like Skyrim, Diablo 3, Dragon Age, Dawn of War 2, WOW, Starcraft 2 and is also faster in stuff like Adobe Photoshop, Win 8 pov-ray 3.7rc6 multi-thread and Cinebench 11.5 in multi-thread. Anything multi-thread I give the win to the 8350.
> 
> But you are right the AMD chips do well in multi-threading and most new games are multi-threading.



I'm calling you out on SC2. SC2 does not run better on AMD machines. SC2 is not multi-threaded at all and quite frankly even can do badly on my 3820 (which is pretty pathetic considering it starts happening when a single core is maxed.  )

SC2 favors higher clocks and a better IPC over more cores/threads as this picture makes very obvious.


----------



## Ghost (Mar 15, 2013)

nt300 said:


> This comment made me laugh. It so not true and you are misleading readers. The 8350 runs circles around a i3.



I was talking about games.



Ghost said:


> In applications 8 core PD is almost as fast as and sometimes faster than 4 core Ivy with HT (i7), but in games it's just as fast as 2 core Ivy with HT (i3).



FX-8350 ~ i3 3220. And FX-4300 is way below. No contest here. You'd have to be really dumb to get FX-4300 over i3 3220 for _gaming_.


----------



## Dent1 (Mar 15, 2013)

Ghost said:


> You'd have to be really dumb to get FX-4300 over i3 3220 for _gaming_.



I agree. You'd also have to be dumb to get a  i3 3220 over a FX-6300 too.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 15, 2013)

Mathragh said:


> I don't like being this guy, but no, this is simply not true.
> 
> Perhaps if you only play >3 year old console ports the i3 3220 is as fast as a FX-8350 in gaming, but in most modern games, the i3 simply is inadequate compared to modern day quad cores(or 8 cores).
> 
> I'd say if you're only planning on playing old console ports, you should get the i3, otherwise, dont let yourself get fooled by the "i3 is enough". 2 Cores in this day and age is just really low end, and will quickly bottleneck in those newer applications and games.



+1 only a retro gamer would buy a dual core now , crysis 3  uses every ounce of all eight cores for eg and an i3  wont cut it, at all,,
N fact Sort your writing out all, the op wants advice, this gens consoles are multi core next will be octo so whps makeing single threaded games now.
Hardly anyone pro just indie, Future proof , heard of it???


----------



## cdawall (Mar 15, 2013)

Ghost said:


> i3 3220 is as fast as FX-8350 in gaming. But if you can stretch to any i5, even something like 3350P, that would be great. Otherwise i3 3220 + HD 7850 is fine too.




[yt]eu8Sekdb-IE[/yt]










Do you really really want to compare the i3 to an 8350? Like seriously? Is this some kind of stupid joke? The i3 is better in high clocked single IPC games no duh. It is also just as good as the i5 and i7 in those EXACT SAME GAMES. So if that's true why bother ever buying an i5? It's not any better than the i3 in games. Seems like a complete and utter waste of money to buy anything but the highest clocked i3. Oh wait there are games other than the horribly coded single IPC monsters out there! 

Any modern game that isn't terribly coded to only use two cores will make benefit out of both the 8350 and 3770K if they didn't no one would buy them. People like you are the exact reason why people buy garbage Intel i3 chips when for less money you can typically get a better budget AMD setup.


----------



## Dent1 (Mar 15, 2013)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> +1 only a retro gamer would buy a dual core now , crysis 3  uses every ounce of all eight cores for eg and an i3  wont cut it, at all,,
> N fact Sort your writing out all, the op wants advice, this gens consoles are multi core next will be octo so whps makeing single threaded games now.
> Hardly anyone pro just indie, Future proof , heard of it???



I think the biggest issue with dual core is its "just enough". If you get in to that mentality you'll always be upgrading. I'd rather a 4 core or a 6 core which performs about the same in gaming today if it means I can hold off upgrading for a few more years longer.

Perfect example, a couple of years back my friend was forced to upgrade his Core 2 Duo E5200 because Battlefield 3 didn't like it! My trusty old Athlon X4 620 was more than enough. For years he was saying that games don't like quad cores. Well who had to upgrade? - Not me.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 15, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> I agree. You'd also have to be dumb to get a  i3 3220 over a FX-6300 too.



This. FX-6300 is in a pretty sweet spot imho.


----------



## Fourstaff (Mar 15, 2013)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Future proof , heard of it???



Was thinking of that when I bought this laptop more than 3 years ago. It was obsolete when I bought it, yet I can still play the games I want (Dota 2, World of Tanks, Starcraft II) now. Future proofing is an argument which people fall back on when they overspec a machine due to lack of knowledge of the user's needs. 

I think you really need to consider what kind of games OP wants to play before saying things like "3220 is better than 8350". I will take 3220 over 8350 any day due to the games I play (other than Dota 2 which runs smoothly regardless of chip, the other 2 favours strong thread performance), whereas other people who play, say, Battlefield 3 as their primary game will pick 8350 any day. So if OP tends to play games which work well with multicore (and assuming he will be playing future iterations of that game), then 6300/4300 will be a good choice, whereas if OP is like me and tend to stick with games which favour strong single core then 3220 is the way to go.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 15, 2013)

Fourstaff said:


> Was thinking of that when I bought this laptop more than 3 years ago. It was obsolete when I bought it, yet I can still play the games I want (Dota 2, World of Tanks, Starcraft II) now. Future proofing is an argument which people fall back on when they overspec a machine due to lack of knowledge of the user's needs.
> 
> I think you really need to consider what kind of games OP wants to play before saying things like "3220 is better than 8350". I will take 3220 over 8350 any day due to the games I play (other than Dota 2 which runs smoothly regardless of chip, the other 2 favours strong thread performance), whereas other people who play, say, Battlefield 3 as their primary game will pick 8350 any day. So if OP tends to play games which work well with multicore (and assuming he will be playing future iterations of that game), then 6300/4300 will be a good choice, whereas if OP is like me and tend to stick with games which favour strong single core then 3220 is the way to go.



Got it so if the OP wants to play any game released in the future that is not written by trained monkeys purely for profit AMD is the way to go.


----------



## Fourstaff (Mar 15, 2013)

cdawall said:


> Got it so if the OP wants to play any game released in the future that is not written by trained monkeys purely for profit AMD is the way to go.



Yup, if OP wants to play games written by untrained monkeys 3220 is the better choice


----------



## cdawall (Mar 15, 2013)

Fourstaff said:


> Yup, if OP wants to play games written by untrained monkeys 3220 is the better choice


----------



## Crap Daddy (Mar 15, 2013)

I used to advocate the i3 over AMD FX for gaming but things are changing fast. The Crysis 3 CPU benchmark is a sobering experience as to what extent real cores make a difference in new games. Add to that the fact that PS4 and probably next Xbox will use 8-core Jaguar with DDR5 so I think it's better to choose now as many cores as you can get over better IPC.


----------



## tokyoduong (Mar 15, 2013)

Guys, this is turning into a fanboy argument thread again. Let me summarize it.

Buy AMD FX6300 if you want decent performance and bang for buck.
Look http://microcenter.com/product/4017...ion_35GHz_Six-Core_Socket_AM3_Boxed_Processor $119 and you save $50 instantly with any Asrock/Asus motherboard. So you will end up paying less than $200
-6 cores
-lower single thread performance than i3/i5/i7 
-higher multi thread performance than i3
-consume a little more power

Buy i3 32xx if you only care about single thread performance and not want to somewhat future proof your system
-High IPC
-only 2 cores
-value priced but not highest bang for buck
-still use same motherboard as i5/i7 1155

Buy i5 K if you want a good overall system without paying too much. 
http://microcenter.com/product/388577/Core_i5_3570K_34GHz_LGA_1155_Processor
$189 + $50 instant rebate if you buy Asrock/MSI/Asus board with it
- Quad core
- No HT(main difference between the i5 and i7)
- High IPC
- Relatively low power consumption
- Right at the heels of i7 in gaming

The A10 is pretty much an FX 43xx with a gpu. The problem is it uses a different socket and performance is somewhat hampered by its bandwidth/memory issues. If you disable the gpu then you'll see more comparable cpu performance to the FX. The FM2 socket pretty much eliminates your upgrade path to 8xxx processors.

I don't include the i7 or FX 8xxx because the 83xx is about the same price as the i5 3570k but it is not as good in gaming. The i7 is just too expensive.

Just to clarify, there's no such thing as being future proof. You can somewhat do it by over speccing your system. But I would just build a system to last 1-2 years, then think what I would need to do to "future proof" my system. Whatever that extra cost, it is better to save it and upgrade when you need it. It's the same philosophy buying 78xx or 79xx cards. People say 79xx is future proof. That $140 or so difference in price is better saved. Why? because in a year a 88xx card will perform as good or better than a 79xx while consuming much less power. That $140 you saved is only $20-30 short for a brand new card that will have the new architecture(which drivers will be supporting).


----------



## de.das.dude (Mar 15, 2013)

i just cant understand why the intel fanbois are being so daft.

i3 3220 is still a dual core CPU. newer games are all multithreaded to the max.

so buying an i3 3220 is only worthwhile if you are out of cash and plan on upgrading later.

OH WAIT! The FX costs the same as the i3... o well..


----------



## brandonwh64 (Mar 15, 2013)

de.das.dude said:


> i just cant understand why the intel fanbois are being so daft.
> 
> i3 3220 is still a dual core CPU. newer games are all multithreaded to the max.
> 
> ...



Only thing you left out was the I3 has hyperthreading which helps it out in multithreaded applications due to the 4 threads.


----------



## Dent1 (Mar 15, 2013)

tokyoduong said:


> lower single thread performance than *i3*/i5/i7.





tokyoduong said:


> Buy i3 32xx if you only care about single thread performance and not want to somewhat future proof your system.




The FX-6300 shows virtually the same single threaded performance as the i3, in games and otherwise, whilst also being somehat fureproof.



tokyoduong said:


> Buy i5 K if you want a good overall system without paying too much.
> http://microcenter.com/product/388577/Core_i5_3570K_34GHz_LGA_1155_Processor
> $189 + $50 instant rebate if you buy Asrock/MSI/Asus board with it
> - Quad core
> ...



I agree with this.



tokyoduong said:


> Just to clarify, there's no such thing as being future proof. You can somewhat do it by over speccing your system. But I would just build a system to last 1-2 years, then think what I would need to do to "future proof" my system. Whatever that extra cost, it is better to save it and upgrade when you need it.



Disagree with this.

In 1-2 years your Intel motherboard will be End of Shelf Life. So there will be no upgrade path for you.

Also in a few years there is a 50/50 chance the FX-6300 will be a good future proofed investment, with the i3 3xxx you have a 0/100 that it'll remain futureproofed. At the same price which sounds like better odds?


----------



## Cotton_Cup (Mar 15, 2013)

well I guess OP just needs to flip a coin or something, whichever he can get cheaper or whichever he likes just buy it, any of those chips should be able to play the games nicely. much better than my old pentium 4 with a fx 5200 back in the old days.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 15, 2013)

brandonwh64 said:


> Only thing you left out was the I3 has hyperthreading which helps it out in multithreaded applications due to the 4 threads.



Hyper Threading is a joke, and only does well in synthetic benchmarks. In real world, it doesn't provide as well as it should. Like I previously said, we are not talking about Bulldozer, we are talking about Piledriver a leap ahead of Bulldozer which is why I recommend either of the two FX-4300 or FX-6300, though for a few extra $$'s you are better off with the 6300.


----------



## tokyoduong (Mar 15, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> The FX-6300 shows virtually the same single threaded performance as the i3, in games and otherwise, whilst also being somehat fureproof.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/677?vs=699
single thread intel wins. Overall, FX6300 wins especially with multi thread. The FX6300 is the best value here.

You are confusing future proof and upgrade paths. You are also confusing shelf life with platform performance potential. Having a longer shelf life with lower performance does not equal future proof. Future proofing means what you can get now so you don't have to worry about it in the future. There's no point in guessing performance on next gen right now. Currently the performance upgrade path for 1155 is better than AM3+. In the future, nobody knows. If AMD does another bulldozer flop....

Please don't ever use "investment" describing computer parts unless you're using it to do work for a living.

Stop doing these 50/50 0/100 BS because neither you or anyone here knows. I can just easily say 99% of statistics are made up. 

What price sounds better right now? the FX6300 because it is a cheap CPU with above average performance overall. If you have an extra $60-70 then go for the i5 3570k and be more "future proofed". 

The FX6300 is a solid performer and a good value for under $200 cpu + board. Anyone who picks an i3 over that is crazy. If you must future proof then buy an EE processor.


----------



## Jack1n (Mar 15, 2013)

4300+gtx660.


----------



## suraswami (Mar 15, 2013)

I think either we all scared OP or he is just having fun watching all the I vs A fighting.

OP - please fill in exact components you are choosing including Power Supply then we can balance out your build based on your budget.

Another option is to get used parts from our forum members.


----------



## Ronnyv1 (Mar 15, 2013)

Going AMD offers alot of advantages, mainly: 
1. AM3+ socket [4100/6300/8300]so you have another gen to use [steamroller]
2. Bang for buck multithreadding

While the i5k is good its an EOL socket that offers no value for future upgrades in a world where more and more threads are being used.


----------



## RCoon (Mar 15, 2013)

I would never buy a 4xxx AMD CPU, not even in desperations, only 6xxx series or above with dedicated graphics. If it had to be an APU, i wouldnt get anything less than a 5800k.
Having used both 8350 and i5 3570k, i cant say i see any real world difference, people just like to get all hot and bothered over synthetic results.


----------



## Mindweaver (Mar 15, 2013)

Frick said:


> I actually found three graphs with the i3 besting the 8350. I should not have to use the word "single thread".  Seriously though, for a hardcore gamer who wants a high end machine Intel is the way to go currently. Most games ARE not good at multithreading..



Try using a benchmark that isn't bullshit. Why get a processor that's great at single threaded programs now? There is a lot of games and more to come that use multi threads. I'd get the 8350 or i5 or i7 over any i3 processor for gaming. Here is a benchmark he'll be interested in and not some bs single threaded benchmark.


----------



## Frick (Mar 15, 2013)

Mindweaver said:


> Try using a benchmark that isn't bullshit. Why get a processor that's great at single threaded programs now? There is a lot of games and more to come that use multi threads. I'd get the 8350 or i5 or i7 over any i3 processor for gaming. Here is a benchmark he'll be interested in and not some bs single threaded benchmark.
> 
> http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/642/bench/CPU_03.png



You sort of missed my point methinks.


----------



## itsakjt (Mar 15, 2013)

Get the FX 6300 and the HD7850 or the GTX660. For the setup, an AMD 970 chipset motherboard will do fine.
The AMD FX series is of great advantage over the i3. You get to overclock them like heaven, they support much higher speed RAMs. 
Since you will be playing latest games I assume, the difference between a (core i3, some i5s) and the FX6100 will be insignificant. An FX CPU will just simply kick the ass off those i3s.

I just assembled two systems of my friends with the FX6100 and the HD7770 and both of them are happy.


----------



## TRWOV (Mar 15, 2013)

I'd say FX6300 + 7850. The 6300 is just $20 more than a 4300, has twice the L3 cache and two extra cores.

If you can stretch the budget more then an i5 3350P + 7850 would be my recommendation.


----------



## de.das.dude (Mar 15, 2013)

itsakjt said:


> Get the FX 6300 and the HD7850 or the GTX660. For the setup, an AMD 970 chipset motherboard will do fine.
> The AMD FX series is of great advantage over the i3. You get to overclock them like heaven, they support much higher speed RAMs.
> Since you will be playing latest games I assume, the difference between a (core i3, some i5s) and the FX6100 will be insignificant. An FX CPU will just simply kick the ass off those i3s.
> 
> I just assembled two systems of my friends with the FX6100 and the HD7770 and both of them are happy.



6100 is not that great. 6300 is much better.


----------



## Cotton_Cup (Mar 15, 2013)

6300 + 7850 2gb is a nice sweet spot and with more budget I'd say an i5 with 660 ti


----------



## itsakjt (Mar 16, 2013)

de.das.dude said:


> 6100 is not that great. 6300 is much better.



Yes I know but 6300 was not available at that time. It was around 2-3 months back.


----------



## AsRock (Mar 16, 2013)

suraswami said:


> just get I5 and be done with it.



Yup....



Cringe said:


> yeah ...thats the best solution. But again, will HD 7770 + i5 (with its integrated graphics, which i guess will be useless) be able to play them games? :S




You can always upgrade the video card another time like a year or so from now.  A 7770 is not to bad of a card sure it not perfect but easier and cheaper to replace later.


----------

