AMD FX-6300 vs Intel Core i3-4330: comparison in games.
Are you looking for a processor for about 100 euros? Then you are interested in reading the following article, where we are going to compare the AMD FX-6300 six-core processor with the Intel Core i3-4330 dual core, both located at a price of around 100 euros (today, 98 euros per AMD and 126 euros for Intel), and whose objective is undoubtedly that of an affordable mid-range PC.
The AMD vs Intel discussion is always on the lips of all hardware fans when it comes to choosing a platform to buy a new PC. AMD always bases its reasoning on price, since it is true that they provide a greater number of physical cores for the same price compared to Intel, and proof of this are these two processors that we are going to compare today, the AMD with six cores and Intel with two, although it is true that the latter has hyper threading technology that allows each core to have two processing threads, four in total.
The question of price
As we mentioned at the beginning, AMD’s processor is much cheaper than Intel’s, and if we were more emphatic in this regard, we should have chosen the Intel Core i3-4150 to compare. However, both processors are pretty much the same except that the i3-4150 has 1MB less cache, so the performance of both should be similar.
Two processors and two different worlds
The FX and i3 are completely different in every way. While the FX-6300 is based on the same Vishera architecture as AMD’s high-end octa-core processors, Intel’s Core i3 is based on the already penultimate generation Haswell architecture. The FX-6300 has six cores running at 3.5 Ghz base speed and 4.1 Ghz turbo, it is equipped with 6 MB L2 cache and 8 MB L3 cache. It features a dual channel DDR3-1866 Mhz memory controller and has a TDP of 95 watts. The processor, like the entire FX range, is unlocked, making it suitable for overclocking.
On the other hand, we have that the Intel Core i3-4330 has two cores that work at 3.5 Ghz, without turbo speed. It does have hyper threading, which, as we explained before, allows it to “emulate” the efficiency of a quad core with four processing threads. It integrates 512 KB of L2 cache and 4 MB of L3 cache, and unlike AMD’s processor, it integrates a graphics chip. Its TDP is 65 watts.
We have used equivalent platforms for both processors, with the same RAM, SSD and graphics card (the only variation is logically the motherboard). In any case, we are talking about processors that are around 100 euros and whose destination is that of a mid-range PC with an affordable price, and therefore we have chosen components accordingly: for the AMD processor, an MSI 970A-G45 that costs about 60 euros, and for Intel a Gigabyte H81M-HD3 board, for 65 euros. Although it does not affect the comparison since we have used the rest of the components exactly the same in both, the graphic used has been a Gigabyte GTX 770 OC 2 Gb.
All the tests have been carried out with Full HD resolution, and the data shown is the average FPS measured with FRAPS.
We can see that in general terms both processors behave similarly in games; in some titles the AMD processor takes advantage and in others the Intel processor, although it is true that there is not a big difference except for those almost 10 FPS advantage of the Intel processor in Thief with medium settings (for some reason with the settings graphics at maximum the difference is minimal).
There is no doubt that both processors represent a great option for users who want to buy a processor to play without spending too much money. But you have to give the AMD processor a certain advantage, both for the price and for the greater number of physical cores, which give it an advantage in other types of tasks. Later we will expand this comparison with synthetic benchmarks.