CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 3220 vs 6300

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

Cinebench R11.5, Cinebench R10 32-bit, Passmark, GeekBench (32-bit) and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

Cinebench R11.5 (1-core), Cinebench R10 32-bit (1-core) and 1 more

Overclocking

How much speed can you get out of the processor?

Passmark (Overclocked), Unlocked, Maximum Overclocked Clock Speed (Air) and 2 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Performance Per Dollar

No winner declared

Too close to call

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i3 3220

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i3 3220

Report a correction
Is hyperthreaded Yes vs No Somewhat common; Maximizes usage of each CPU core
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Newer manufacturing process 22 nms vs 32 nms A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Lower typical power consumption 44.69W vs 77.19W More than 40% lower typical power consumption
Better PassMark (Single core) score 1,764 vs 1,446 More than 20% better PassMark (Single core) score
Better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 5,814 vs 4,101 More than 40% better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score
Higher Maximum Operating Temperature 65.3 °C vs 62.5 °C Around 5% higher Maximum Operating Temperature
Better performance per watt 10.37 pt/W vs 7.73 pt/W Around 35% better performance per watt
More l3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core vs 1.33 MB/core Around 15% more l3 cache per core
Lower annual commercial energy cost 48.18 $/year vs 83.22 $/year More than 40% lower annual commercial energy cost
Lower annual home energy cost 13.25 $/year vs 22.89 $/year More than 40% lower annual home energy cost
Front view of AMD FX 6300

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 6300

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 6 MB vs 0.5 MB 12x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Is unlocked Yes vs No Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking
Significantly more l3 cache 8 MB vs 3 MB Around 2.8x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
More cores 6 vs 2 Three times as many cores; run more applications at once
Higher clock speed 3.5 GHz vs 3.3 GHz More than 5% higher clock speed
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core
More threads 6 vs 4 2 more threads
Significantly better PassMark (Overclocked) score 7,541 vs 3,775.1 Around 2x better PassMark (Overclocked) score
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.78 GHz vs 3.44 GHz Around 40% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Significantly better performance per dollar 6.68 pt/$ vs 4.56 pt/$ More than 45% better performance per dollar
Better PassMark score 6,444 vs 4,229 More than 50% better PassMark score
Better 3DMark11 physics score 6,080 vs 4,030 More than 50% better 3DMark11 physics score
Better geekbench (32-bit) score 7,517 vs 5,360 More than 40% better geekbench (32-bit) score
Better cinebench r10 32Bit score 16,213 vs 12,548 Around 30% better cinebench r10 32Bit score
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.82 GHz vs 3.53 GHz More than 35% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i3 3220 vs FX 6300

GeekBench (32-bit)

Core i3 3220
5,360
FX 6300
7,517

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

Core i3 3220
4,030
FX 6300
6,080
Core i3 3220 FX 6300 @ community.futuremark.com

Cinebench R11.5

FX 6300
4.92
In the other straight CPU performance tests in Cinebench it shows a very slight advantage, though the improvements in single-threaded performance aren't as pronounced as with the FX-8350.
FX 6300 | by Tech Radar (Dec, 2012)

Cinebench R11.5 (Single Core)

FX 6300
1.07

Passmark (Single Core)

Core i3 3220
1,764
FX 6300
1,446

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i3 3220  vs
FX 6300 
Clock speed 3.3 GHz 3.5 GHz
Cores Dual core Hexa core
Socket type
LGA 1155
AM3+
Is unlocked No Yes
Is hyperthreaded Yes No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has vitualization support Yes Yes
Instruction-set-extensions
MMX
SSE
SSE4.2
AVX
SSE3
FMA3
SSE2
FMA4
Supplemental SSE3
SSE4.1
SSE4
SSE4a
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

gpu

GPU GPU None
Label Intel® HD Graphics 2500 N/A
Number of displays supported 3 N/A
GPU clock speed 650 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 1,050 MHz N/A

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1866
DDR3-1600
DDR3-1333
DDR3
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s

details

Core i3 3220  vs
FX 6300 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 6
L2 cache 0.5 MB 6 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 3 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core 1.33 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nms 32 nms
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 65.3°C Unknown - 62.5°C

overclocking

Overclock popularity 50 82
Overclocked clock speed 3.44 GHz 4.78 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.53 GHz 4.82 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 3,775.1 7,541
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.44 GHz 4.78 GHz

power consumption

TDP 55W 95W
Annual home energy cost 13.25 $/year 22.89 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 48.18 $/year 83.22 $/year
Performance per watt 10.37 pt/W 7.73 pt/W
Typical power consumption 44.69W 77.19W
Intel Core i3 3220
Report a correction
AMD FX 6300
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

Showing 23 comments.
Lino- sorry for the rant, but I can't use my 8 core AMD during the summer, it gets too hot. I resort using my laptop. BTW- of my four computers at home (HTC, 2 offices, 1 laptop) are AMD. I'm disappointed that AMD has not made any forward progress in releasing a competitive CPU in the last 4 years. My next CPU will be an Intel, which I have not owned since 2005.
My Intel system costs $37 a year to run and my AMD system costs $39 a year...
40W will never make a noticeable difference in your energy bills,neither will make you buy much more expensive PSU.That 40W difefrence becomes much lower when not using all power of your CPU,so i don't thinkpower consumption is a factor to consider here.
I really don't see how this comparison is "too close to call". By the numbers, the FX 6300 look like the superior processor. Is CPUBoss biased against AMD?
The fact that mantle is still crappy is irrelevant, some games do already benefit quite a lot from it, though BF4 may not be amongst them (and I won't be surprised if it never will since EA is a shitsack company). I don't care if we are not seeing great advantages yet, the point is that Mantle itself is supposed to take advantage of multiple CPU cores in a smarter way, period. Your claim that Mantle has nothing to do with CPUs is plain wrong. Or do you think that AMD plain invented "Close to linear performance scaling from recording command buffers onto multiple CPU cores" out of their ass? "O yeah it also makes your cock 10% bigger!", nah. Plus mantle has been around since barely two months ago, what are you talking about?
When i said "research", i meant a REAL research, not some wikipedia information based on AMD marketing bullshit, we don't see any kind of these "CPU thingies" in a real gaming scenario. It is just an API designed for GNC GPUs that is under "beta" status for almost a year, and up till now this so called 45% of improvement on BF4 is something that is just NOT happening, at all! all that i see is a large group of users complaining about the mantle washed out graphics on BF4 than people talking about performance gains.
Maybe YOU should try to "research a bit". I will post from Mantle's wikipedia page: Up to 45% faster than Direct3D in Battlefield 4 and up to 319% faster in the Star Swarm demo in single GPU configuration[in extremely CPU-limited situations AMD claims that Mantle can generate up to 9 times more draw calls per second than comparable APIs by reducing CPU overhead Close to linear performance scaling from recording command buffers onto multiple CPU cores[5] Multithreaded parallel CPU rendering support for at least 8 cores. Of course a GCN GPU card is required to take advantage of these, but these are all CPU thingies.
Mantle has absolutely NOTHING to do with AMD CPUs, it is an API designed for GPUs, for christ's sake, try to research a little bit more before posting things like that.
FX 6300!
Oh my God Rick...yeah, its 170$ on the paper but in reality its nothing. You are just AMD hater with stupid mission of loosing time searching for anything that can help you in your stupid holly war against AMD!
FX-6300 all the way
If this difference comes down to $7/month, it equates to $84/year. Most enthusiast keep their systems for 2 years, so now this difference is $170. So the question comes down to this: Is that AMD processor $170 less than an Intel?
Yeah cause that $7 a month going to bankrupt you. Most people blow more than that in a week buying a Coffee from their local Starbucks or buying lunch every day. Just makes me laugh when people try and throw the yearly cost into the fray. In 1 month most average Jo's spent more than $83.22 without even thinking about it.
With the launch of the next Gen Consoles which are all using amd 8 core processors expect more games coming out to favor of the amd processors. Tbh if you are looking at gaming and want a budget or entry mid range the fx 6300 is a better choice over the i3's.
With Mantle coming, the 6-core will likely blast away the i3s (it's still better than i3s on modern games) and reach some high end i5s in terms of gaming, that's where the extra cores will come in handy. I expect actual results before saying anything else, but it looks like AMD will have a huge comeback in gaming performance because of the API rendering on every core available.
the i3 is better for gaming (littlebit) but is a dual core. the fx got 6 core and its good for gaming, software, etc. the i3 got some lagg in the desktop menu win 8
Well you don't have to be rude about it, although that's what is expected from a conversation from the Internet.. . But I'm running an 8350 over clocked which stock is 140 watts but oc is way more wattage. I also have a Corsair liquid heat exchanger and the rooms I'm in doesn't get hot at all, and that's along with an old guy with a crappy fan which reaches 80C plus (not good for my tastes) .. But anyways it seems it's up to readers and responders to agree or disagree now. This is just a comparison of the two CPU 's not how one company sucks compared to the other. The key is just keeping an open mind and using what works for you not just "Intel sucks" or "AMD sucks."
Blainec- #1 My processor produces 140 Watts + all the other components in the system, chiefly the PSU, Video card and MoBo. #2 I have a Corsair liquid heat exchanger along with 7 5" fans that efficiently extract the heat. Considering items #1 and #2 where does that extracted heat go??????? In my office of coarse. Power efficiency is the key to the server market and AMD has all but lost it. If you don't understand it, you should not post a reply.
I see your point but i just wanted to point out that the 8150 making your office hot doesn't add to your point. Thats just crappy cooling. Haswell has extremely low power consumption and is also extremely hot and therefore needs better cooling standards. Also with the 8350 AMD is stepping up its game so I wouldn't say that its 6 years behind Intel, but maybe two or three excluding the 8320/8350 considering the 8350 matches the 3770k in a lot of tests but not most.. Although the 9000 series processors are a pretty big failure from AMD in my opinion.. they could have killed the 3770k or the 4770k if they wanted to with that.. but thats another debate.
Nexus, In the category of processing power per watt Intel is mopping the floor with AMD. The Atom processor is 5 years old and is obsolete. I have an Fx 8150 and it is a real power hog. In mid day I need to turn it off because it makes my office to hot to work in. AMD has lost the lucrative server market because of its inefficiency. When AMD sold off its foundries it lost all control of decreasing it's geometry size and is now 6 years behind Intel. Face the facts it signed its death warrant. Best thing for AMD is to be purchased by Qualcom, worst thing to happen is having a Nvidia/Intel alliance.
So, first time i see that AMD i better then intel, exaple, intel atom is better then AMD fx 8150??? MD has much better GPU in CPU, cant see that and much cheaper then Intel. About energy, it is not true, if you paly the game, or when your computer is on stand by-or hybernation,etc, don't forget green power on AMD technology, semetimes they use on or two cpu (max 6) and frequencu is very low, 3 timer lower, so then CPU saves your money and max Power Consuption is above 20 W. In that case, intel was expencive, so my opinion and test resoult is different in my laborotorywhen im tested!
The choice becomes obvious when you look at the power savings. In just one year the discount value of the AMD is wiped out by the power savings of the Intel. The only area where AMD dominates is graphic performance and I think this is how the company stays alive.
fx 6300 its my choise, much better than a i3 :)
comments powered by Disqus