Core i3-4130 vs AMD FX-6300

Hi guys, sadly I had to sell my beasty set-up a while back and I should soon be able to get new PC. I wont be as good as my last one but it will have to do.
Which one of this would you pick??

FX-6300 one https://www.aria.co.uk/WishList/6455ZiWvKHRrUtThj13g8w,,

Core i3 one https://www.aria.co.uk/WishList/uHKyXQhN-NUi-y8cDr95uw,,

Also I'm not sure if I should go with that Radeon card or GeForce GTX 660??
Another think is the motherboard, I would OC that 6300 cpu but not sure how far on that motherboard, does anyone here have it??

Thanks Guys :banana:

 

i3-4130 Haswell socket 1150 (imho)

upgrade path leads to the i7-4770...

Edit: I would like to see what a Core i3-4340 can do!

 

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i3-4130-vs-AMD-FX-6300

But as you know the 6300 will overclock, personally i prefer Intel for low power consumption.

 

6300 is tough to beat in its price range, overclocked its not even close any more.

 

The 6300 will be more fun to play with. I personally wouldn't touch a dual core chip at this point.

 

outside of a low-budget, HTPC, dual core is a waste of money these days....

 

I have to agree a dual core I3 is a waste of money and performance in gaming
is a quite terrible.

Any chance you could look for a 2nd hand I5 and Motherboard a lot of people are selling them Cheap.
If not i'm sure the FX 6300 would be fine

 

OK so I will go with the FX-6300 rig but what do you think of the card. GTX-660 or Radeon R9 270X?? I've heard the nVidia drivers work better on a multi-core cpu like this one.

 

Why, the 4340 is faster :bang:

 

+1 with the above, you can later upgrade to something stronger ie 4770K

 

Yep, thanks -Tj-^....The 4340 is 52% faster per core and is only 54 watts vs 95watts....

Upgrade Path is the Big Kicker.......

 

Also Note....4340 has Hyper-threading and clocked @ 3.6

 

Got a link to that review? Hilbert's review of the FX-6300 looks quite a bit different..... Reading the Vishera review over at Hardcoreware.net.....it looks like they've fudged all of the numbers. According to their numbers, the Core i3 3240 is just as fast as (and in some cases, faster than) a Core i5 3570K.....which we all known is bull****. That's the first review I've seen showing 100% scaling for HyperThreading.....which doesn't happen.

 

LOL wow this looks legit....an i3 spanking the 8350 by 10fps in Crysis3....a game in which 8350 is known to pull ahead of the 3570K. So I guess this means i3 is faster than i5? mmmmk lol

Who the heck is Hardwarecore anyway?

 

not sure what you mean butt...i3-4340 is faster than your 8350....


Period....

Edit: 8350 losses to 4340...peoried

 

Sorry, I didn't provide a link to the article I found......

http://www.hardcoreware.net/amd-piledriver-fx-review-vishera-8350/3/

In Batman Arkham City they claim 123fps for the Core i3 3240 and 122fps for the Core i5 3570K. 125fps for the FX-6300 though.
In Battlefield 3 they claim 50fps for Core i3 3240, Core i5 3570K, Core i5 3450, FX-8350, FX-8150 and FX-8320. Only 59fps for FX-6300
In Crysis 2 they claim 61fps for FX-8350 and FX-6300. 58fps and Core i3 3240. The remaining processors at 60fps.
In Skyrim they claim 89fps for Core i5 3450 and i5 3570K. 88fps for Core i3 3240. Vishera ranged from 81-84fps.

Based on hardcoreware.net....we should all be running Core i3 processors cuz that's the sweet spot....

Nope....not in a legitimate review it doesn't.... In a multi-threaded benchmark (of any type), the FX-8350 is going to be faster than a dual core processor.

 

Um, no it doesn't. Period. That would mean i3 is also faster than both 3770k and 3570k.

 

Wrong....Clock speed is 3.6....

Edit: Why the **** you guys show older I-3 ......

 

Hardcoreware.net did claim in one of it's "benchmarks" that the i3 3240 is faster than the i5 3570K....

 

Clock Speed!!!:bang: