AMD FX-4300 or I3 2100

[asand1]

I have two systems currently running Windows 10. I am at a loss for which one I should be gaming on, as they seem to be about equals.

"Systemax"
AMD FX-4300 "quad core" 3.8Ghz -Dual core with hyper threading
8Gb 1600Mhz RAM

Lenovo K330A
Intel Core i3 2100 3.2Ghz -Dual core with hyper threading
8GB 1333Mhz RAM

I have a Gigabyte Windforce GTX960 OC 4GbGDDR5 video card that I will use in the better system.

I am currently benchmarking both systems, but thought I would ask here anyone might think.

 

[Quattro Pete]

According to CPU benchmark, the AMD CPU is faster, but I'm not sure the difference is large enough to matter.

 

[asand1]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
According to CPU benchmark, the AMD CPU is faster, but I'm not sure the difference is large enough to matter.


This was my thought as well. I am thinking the slightly better AMD and 1600Mhz RAM will tip the scales. I also spent in the neighborhood of $240 on the AMD machine including RAM, CPU cooler, MOBO, and CPU. I also believe a CPU upgrade would be more cost effective on the AMD side.

I just installed the GPU into the Lenovo and am installing drives now.

I hate the thought of abandoning the Systemax (AMD) machine as I have spent time and money building it up. The Lenovo is a good machine too, but the only advantage I see (literally) is the more attractive case.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: asand1
I also believe a CPU upgrade would be more cost effective on the AMD side.

Yeah, that's what I'd look at, too - the ease/cost of upgrade should you need to a year down the road.

 

[901Memphis]

According to the benchmarks i see the i3-2100 is faster in everything but multi threaded. I would rather have the intel because the upgraded intel processors are much faster, if the board will support an i5 down the road it would be a sweet upgrade.

FYI they are both technically dual cores with hyperthreading even though AMD claims 4 core its a dual core die.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-2100-vs-AMD-FX-4300/m41vs2879

 

[dparm]

AMD's "multi-core APU" stuff is a bit confusing. The base CPU speed is fairly low (good for heat and power consumption), but it can throttle up very high when needed. It should do well for multi-threading, but the problem is that most activities (web browsing, YouTube, word processing, etc) are single-threaded....and the Intel will smoke it there.

Only some games are going to take advantage of multi-core CPUs.

 

[901Memphis]

Also you will need a higher wattage psu to run a GTX 960 if using the oem psu in those systems. 960 can run a solid 400 watter, max tdp is 120 watts for the gpu alone.


If you are on a budget grab this.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817438016

If you want something more efficient with 80 plus gold try this - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817438053&ignorebbr=1

 

[asand1]

Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Also you will need a higher wattage psu to run a GTX 960 if using the oem psu in those systems. 960 can run a solid 400 watter, max tdp is 120 watts for the gpu alone.


If you are on a budget grab this.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817438016

If you want something more efficient with 80 plus gold try this - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817438053&ignorebbr=1



The Systemax has an Antec Eathwatts 500W, and the Lenovo has a Corsair 450W.

I've been busy swapping parts between 5 machines that were given to me.

 

[asand1]

Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
According to the benchmarks i see the i3-2100 is faster in everything but multi threaded. I would rather have the intel because the upgraded intel processors are much faster, if the board will support an i5 down the road it would be a sweet upgrade.
While an i5 or i7 would be sweet, an unlocked AMD seems to be more bang for the buck.

Quote:
FYI they are both technically dual cores with hyperthreading even though AMD claims 4 core its a dual core die.

I'm aware and made note of this in OP.

 

[Rand]

The amd quadcore is around 4300cpumark but thats on "4" cores

the intel is around 3600 on 2 cores..

So depending on the game the intel could be much better if the game doesnt use 4 cores efficiently.

Neither is esp. great my 5 year old sandybridge [email protected] is around twice as fast.

 

[dparm]

OP, why don't you just build a system to your specs? Seems like you know a thing or two.

 

[901Memphis]

The unlocked amd is useless in an oem motherboard without bios overclocking options.

 

[asand1]

Originally Posted By: dparm
OP, why don't you just build a system to your specs? Seems like you know a thing or two.


I just got done building the AMD rig to my budget, wy wife would say it was over budget. I am simply wondering if the i3 rug would be any better now or with an upgrade vs the upgraded AMD rig.

 

[asand1]

Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
The unlocked amd is useless in an oem motherboard without bios overclocking options.


Despite being low end ECS, it is not OEM. I have had this FX-4300 OCed to 4Ghz already. I did install a big cooler last week for OCing, but haven't turned it back up yet.

I suppose OCing the 4300 would be my best bet, while the i3/Lenovo mobo is likely locked.

I had my old ATHLON 64 OCed from 2.0 to 2.4Ghz for a year with no instabilities.

 

[901Memphis]

I have had my 6600k up to 4.9+ ghz benchmark stable recently but can only get 4.7 ghz 24/7 stable on high end air.