Well, I would never go for an i3 if my major requirement is multi tabbed browsing. AMD FX Series' more number of cores will definitely come in handy for this.
Any proof for the AMD FX's performing better?
Well, I would never go for an i3 if my major requirement is multi tabbed browsing. AMD FX Series' more number of cores will definitely come in handy for this.
Any proof for the AMD FX's performing better?
The FX 6300(to be launched in India I'm this month) is at the same price,
pretty much matches the single threaded performance and dominates it in multi threaded, and can be overclocked
Unfortunately, contemporary Socket AM3+ processors can’t offer us decent performance under single-threaded load. The weakness of Bulldozer (and now Piledriver) cores pushes even the top FX-8350 behind the Pentium G2120. Vishera processors have becomes a little faster than their predecessors, but it didn’t change anything in the global scope.
The six-core Vishera modification, FX-6300, seems to make a pretty weak overall impression at first glance. One of the four dual-core modules in this processor is disabled that is why its peak performance is relatively low compared with Intel’s quad-core processors even under multi-threaded load. This is quite logical, because two contemporary AMD cores are pretty much as fast as one Intel core: this is exactly what we saw throughout our today’s test session. However, the first impression is not always the right one, and it immediately disappears once you check out the price list. AMD priced their FX-6300 in such a way that it becomes a direct competitor to Core i3, instead of Core i5.
Please keep in mind that AMD processors perform best in multi-threaded tasks, but they are not as universal as Intel products. Therefore, Socket AM3+ platform probably won’t be a good choice for everyday use, and will best fit into an inexpensive workstation system.
If the 7-zip benchmark is the best case scenario for AMD, Mozilla's Kraken test is among the worst. Largely dominated by single threaded performance, the FX-8350 is significantly slower than a Core i3 3220. Only Intel's old Core i7 920 is slower here, and that's a chip that debuted in 2008.
AMD does manage to pull away with some very specific wins when compared to similarly priced Intel parts. Performance in the latest x264 benchmark as well as heavily threaded POV-Ray and Cinebench tests show AMD with the clear multithreaded performance advantage. Other heavily threaded integer workloads also do quite well on Vishera. The only part that didn't readily beat its Intel alternative was AMD's six-core FX-6300, the rest did extremely well in our heavily threaded tests. Look beyond those specific applications however and Intel can pull away with a significant lead. Lightly threaded applications or those whose performance depends on a mixture of single and multithreaded workloads are typically wins for Intel. The story hasn't really changed in that regard.
Power consumption is also a big negative for Vishera. The CPU draws considerably more power under load compared to Ivy Bridge, or even Sandy Bridge for that matter.
FX6300 wins some and i3-3220 wins some. But if multi threaded application such as video-encoding, photoshop and as in Op's case, tabbed browsing, FX6300 will perform better. There wont be any noticeable difference if there are 2-3tabs, but if there are 20 tabs opened, well, you know the rest.
Although i3 is not all that bad, BUT FX6300 will be better considering OP's requirements. If it would have been gaming, then i3 will definitely make a better choice.
Intel shifted the iGP from the motherboard onto the processor die since the Clarckdale era (Generation 1 Core i3's).
And yes the Core i3 carries a decent one which the B75 based motherboard supports and you get a choice of DVI-OUT and HDMI-OUT.
Hope this helps and wishing you a Happy, Healthy and Prosperous New Year. Cheerio!
Dude seriously, if tabbed browsing is so multi-core intensive why does the FX-8350 trail behind the Core i3 3220 in Mozilla's Kraken bench?
OP has not mentioned anything about Photoshop, video-encoding which can be done faster with the Intel HD series iGP in the background.
RAM is what is needed, not super-macho multi-core processors.
Also, OP clearly states something power-efficient, he is purchasing a tablet with that end in mind. AMD FX series are no where close to that.
P.S. -- I refer to the same benches that you have linked, I posted them earlier in-case you did not go through my previous post along with two reviews quote-unquote.
well, yea. With tabbed browsing, more memory would be helpful. Processing power is not needed, so any would do
so for me to prove a point, i have to spend three posts of varying length and depth. After all this people say i have an ego.
Seems legit.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXD
I didn't think much initially. It was only until I read your line avlut memory.
To begin with, there was not much point in our conversation. And I'm still not convinced why i3 is better than fx6300.
And man, WTF ego? >_>
^^ Thanks ! UPS was about 4.4K, 2 years warranty.
any idea what the load draw of this system would be? I am thinking about attaching the LCD TV(rated ~130W) to the UPS. (800VA,480W)
Forgot to mention that I carried over my existing Gigabyte Superb 460W PSU into this rig.