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

i3 3220 vs AMD A10-5800k vs FX 4300

C

Cringe

New Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
4 (0.00/day)
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?
 
i3 3220.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
FX 4300. Piledriver is great and a great choice for your setup.
Though I wouldn't have recommended the 1st gen FX 4100.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
PCI-E 2.0 vs 3.0 makes zero difference whatsoever. I would go with the AMD...can't even overclock the intel setup.
 
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

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?
Click to expand...

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

just get I5 and be done with it.
 
Aquinus said:
For what he is looking at doing a 990FX motherboard is overkill. A 970 would be perfectly adequate.
Click to expand...

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...
 
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.
Click to expand...

+1
 
with your budget i would get a FX 6300 and be done with it. Best of both worlds and ocs nicely
 
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.
 
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Ghost said:
i3 3220 is as fast as FX-8350 in gaming.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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).
 
Ghost said:
Saying that i3 is not enough is the same as saying FX-8350 is not enough, because they perform the same.
Click to expand...

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 :p
 
FX 4300 + HD7850 2GB has my vote :toast:
 
Ghost said:
Saying that i3 is not enough is the same as saying FX-8350 is not enough, because they perform the same.
Click to expand...
This comment made me laugh. It so not true and you are misleading readers. The 8350 runs circles around a i3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top