AMD FX-6330 Black Edition Six-core Processor Surfaces

For gaming purpose i3-6100 would be alot better option. Idk about the pricing on Intel chip though.

 

Not bad. Better TDP, too.

 

I don't think so. I play every game I want smoothly with my cheap AMD here.

 

Performance should be about the same, and considering it has six cores, it'll be better on multithreaded applications.

For the price range, it just looks like a better choice.

 

I disagree - people have way too much faith in HT. It isn't anywhere near as good as people make it out to be (for gaming purposes), especially on a dual core. If the game wasn't optimized for HT, which does happen, then you don't get any performance gain. Then again, the vast majority of software doesn't knowingly take advantage of both cores in an AMD module either.

So then, it really comes down to these worst-case scenarios:
A. Get a dual core with decent power efficiency
or
B. Get a triple core with poor power efficiency

Personally, I'd choose option B. For modern games (especially ones ported from consoles), AMD's module design works fine.

 

A lot of games benefit from higher IPC (or single core performance) which Intel excels in compared to AMD. That's why in quite a few games, a recent i3 will outperform a FX-8350. The effect can be amplified if combined with an AMD GPU which already suffers from more CPU overhead than the competition.

 

That was true maybe 2 or 3 years ago. I don't know of any modern single-threaded games that the average CPU can't handle.

 

It's getting worse... Games are becoming more intensive, more drawcalls, etc. CPU IPC is getting more important. That's why we have Mantle/DX12/Vulkan.

I'm not saying AMD CPU's can't handle games, but Intel handle them better.

 

Overhead has a serious impact on lowest/avg FPS. If the driver thread gets bottlenecked during an intensive scene or a poorly optimized game, FPS will drop from a steady 60FPS. Sometimes it's inevitable (streaming problems, etc) but a higher IPC can reduce it.
That's the problem AMD users are having now with AMD GPU's. NVIDIA has 70% or so less CPU overhead, in the overhead test anyway.

 

Generally speaking, the GPU is the bottleneck, not the CPU. The only game I play where the CPU is the bottleneck is Starcraft 2, and that's just simply because that game's engine was very poorly designed. My system doesn't really lag any more or less than others who are Intel+Nvidia users.

 

If that was the case, surely overclocking the FX-9590 wouldn't increase FPS, or if it did, not so much?

Spoiler

You can see it becoming GPU bound here but with an i7.

Spoiler

Comparing these 2 also shows the IPC (or core performance) importance in games. The 4770K at 2.5GHz is outperforming the FX-9590 at 4.5GHz.

Games are API bound in a way, that's why the low level API's are so important.

 

I said "generally speaking", meaning, not always. Also as pointed out before, if you only intend to get to 60FPS, then getting higher than that doesn't matter. If you intend to get beyond 60FPS, then what's the point of wasting time and money considering a mediocre CPU?

If you're an average gamer, a mildly overclocked FX-6330 will suffice.

 

CPU overhead doesn't just effect max FPS.

 

I think that future-proofness will come from software. Sooner of later DX12 will be main player and Vulkan will show itself.
Only at that time we can say that Dual Core with High IPC & HT is better than hexa core with bit lower IPC, but much higher total performance.

If ideologies behind those two rendering APIs reach their holes, then this will definitely live longer than any i3 made till today.
And 8-cored Bulldozers owners will outlive same generation of i5s.

I think we will see it in mid of 2016.

 

Yeah, and the sky is blue... As I said before, in most cases, the GPU is the bottleneck. So what's your point? Just seems like petty nit-picking to me.