Intel Core i3 4130  vs AMD FX 6300 

its a tie period

The AMD score was skewed.... The score should have been 7.9 based on the average... This site is a hoax.

No need to be ugly over a cpu discussion. i3s are fine cpus, but it is pricey for what it is. Although AMD is fine behind Intel, it has its markets. It is counter intuitive to buy a dual core cpu in 2015 unless you're looking at a HTPC, home office PC, or equivalent. Even for those purposes, the G3258 or AMD APUs would better options, in terms of value, than the i3. For gaming, however, the FX 6300 will perform just fine. The i3 and fx6300 have similar performance in game but the FX 6300 can be overclocked easily and is cheaper by margin. You will also find that the FX 6300 has some advantage over the i3 if you decide to stream. In terms of professional tasks, look at the real world performance. For what each of the cpu is marketed to do, the FX 6300 is either on par with the i3 or can do better. If you really need top notch single core performance with tasks such as video rendering, then neither the i3 or 6300 is particularly good for that. i3 just doesn't have a market to shine in. As much as you referred the FX 6300 as 'trash'. The 6300 seems to do just fine on everything that the i3 does, but the 6300 is slightly cheaper. Here is my question, why would I buy the i3 over the 6300? P.S. don't bash AMD too much, you ever wonder why i7s are north of $350 and Xeons cost an arm? Those are territories where AMD has absolutely no competition, as in zero presence, Intel can charge whatever they want.

Future is now, Witcher 3, GTA 5 etc, intel build cpu for past but amd for now... look at price now and say again who is more smart intel with expensive processors or amd looking in future...

See the result!!! CPU Boss Intel fan

The i3 4130 is long better than the fx6300. I have an Intel core i5 4460 and this processor kick off my old fx8350

Most programs and games don't USUALLY use more than 4 cores. Video editing and the like use all the cores the cpu has- but most games nowadays usually only need less than 4, so, yeah. cores are important but not essential. intel wins, kind of

You know what, Between all the arguments, and rampaging, I think I should put in My two cents. Both are actually very solid cpu's for the price, But both are entry level (anything below these seriously shouldn't count, if your even remotely bothered) For multi core orientated tasks, the AMD wins, for single core, the Intel wins It's really that simple. Which is the best cpu? imo that really depends on what you want to do. At this price point you just have to compromise. But if you really want high end performance you should just save your money and get something better, as boh are far from perfect. But even so, which ever you choose, neither would disappoint, as long as your expectations are realistic. Personally having to, make this exact choice early last year, I actually went for the 4130. I was strapped for cash, but since my old rig went up in a plume of smoke, and fire, and I absolutely relied on it for my livelihood, i had little choice but to build a new one asap. While sceptical at first, It actually performs nicely in most tasks, even in video editing, the i3 performed better than expected (I wasn't expecting a lot mind you) As for gameng (which I find little time for these days, sadly) I recently Paired it with an AMD R9 280 I was getting very good performance. But. above all, the main reason for choosing this cpu, is my intention was always to upgrade to an i5, (which I since have) as the performance boost is more than welcome for some of the things I need to do, and choosing the right motherboard from the start, just made the upgrade much cheaper, and a hassle free 5 minute job. Rather than pretty much a full rebuild which would involve removing the motherboard.

Then tell me why i3 is more expensive? You think Intel is crazy. Hopefully with us they know what they do and the dont make trash cpus like amd. 1. Intel chose to make better sinlge-core perfomance on their cpus because it's usually more important 2. You have no idea of technology cause you should know the more money i will spend on the i3 i will have them back within 6-12 months 3. Amd cpus have more cores and they sell a cpu with 6 cores for 95euros because they cant reach the perfomance that intel's cpus have Unfortunatelly amd fanboys will never understand but hey that's more good cpu for us and you say 2 core in 2015 are nothing LOL i just cant stop laughing. I can do any job on a pc with pentium 4. All cpus can. They will just take longer to do it. Go learn the basics and then come and argue.

HOLY MOLLY A SMART PERSON!!!

I really hope that you realize that difference games are optimized different than other. Some games intel cpus can be better because the development can make it work better for thay certain game. If onr game were to use both at full power, the fx would destro. And it depends what gpu cpu combo you have. A gtx 770 may run better with a phenom processors than an i3 in certain games vs others. You are proving my point that it depends on how devs optimize their games, meaning it will be better or worse in certain games. And why are you showing articles to prove you point, I could as easily show you articles of fx 6300 destroying an intel i3. So you are proving nothing but showing me articles making you seem right when I could do the same thing.

These benchmarks that cpu boss use, mean nothing in real life the i3 isn't on the fx 6300 level IT'S TAKING ON THE FX 8320 on some games lol check the real benchmarks I posted below http://www.techspot.com/review/917-far-cry-4-benchmarks/page5.html http://www.techspot.com/review/903-alien-isolation-benchmarks/page5.html http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/11/14/intel-core-i3-4130-haswell-review/5 http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_5.html http://www.hardcoreware.net/intel-core-i3-4340-review/2/ http://www.hardcoreware.net/intel-core-i3-4340-review/3/

Dude look at what you are saying. The fx destroyed the Intel cpu in every benchmark the only reason it gets good single core performance is because it only has two cores. Two cores in 2015 is nothing. The fx is better because it's more powerful, has more cores, more threads, way better at overclocking which will make it even stronger. I3 is weak. If you buy it you're stupid and wasting your money for garbage.

Sorry but in every benchmark the fx destroyed the intel cpu. Fact is the fx cpu eill run any game in the next few years while the intel dual core will not in 2015. The only reason it gets good single core performance is because it only has two cores. The fx is much more powerful and if you overclock it the fx will be much faster than it all ready is. There is no argument. If you choose the i3, you are stupid and wasting your money

yeah. then you'd see i3 is a better choice for most of tasks

and if one doesn't need heavy multitasking and rendering, still go for amd even though it consumes more power and has similar results in games and worse results in everyday tasks?

Well. I have been on both sides of the fence. I love both companies because they have amazing things to offer. Last year (2013) i switched from Intel to amd. I have got to say, since i am not only doing everyday tasks and gaming, i also render videos and stream. Here the FX-6300 was superior to the i3. I dont know how the pricings in your countries are, but in mine the fx is around 20euros cheaper than the i3. As far as gaming goes i didnt lose any fps. I also didnt gain any. So as far as gaming goes to me these processors are even. And to be fair right now the GPU-s are more important than cpus. The i3 has an upgrade path to the i5 or even i7, but in order to do that you need a solid chunk of money. I upgraded my fx 6300 to a 8350, and then i saw the big differnce. Here the most expensive i3 costs as much as fx 8350, and i have got to admit, that although intel is stronger than amd, amd also has some great bang for the buck deals. I think that every budget builder, should go with amd. Just the price to performance ratio is so good compared to intel. Yet if you have got some spare money to spend just go with an i5 4570k.

honestly instead of coming here go and look at some acutual benchmarks and reviews of less bias people on youtube

I have a AMD FX 6300 and he is very fast!

....

Yes, cpuboss is intel fan. Trying fool amd as much possible in everyway. I still go for AMD because of price and performance.

either it's i3 or FX 6300 or i5(but not lower than these) the results in games are gonna be pretty similar. i5 should be more future proof because it has very fast 4 cores, while FX 6300 has 6 slower cores. If you overclock both of these the results are gonna be pretty similar. FX 6300 may be a little better in SOME synthetic tests(those which only rely on multythreaded perfomance) while i5, like i3 will lead in everyday tasks and games, and will consume less power

That's odd, my friend and I have the exact same builds apart from the CPU, he has a i5 3570K and I have an FX6300 (We're both waiting for our local shop to get Hyper 212 stock so we can OC) but as it is we get pretty much the same with a <10FPS differnce in games, results vary from game to game in favour of both our CPU's, his kicks mine hands down in synthetic benchmarks.

I'll tell you that. Intel(the most developed and richest processor creating company) focuses on single core perfomance for a reason. It's usually more important, that's why they choose it instead of creating a lot of slower cores like AMD does

people who do everyday tasks and gaming should buy an i3. people who do heavy rendering, professional editing and things like that FX 6300. However I'd recommend an i5, cause you don't need to overclock it for high perfomance and it performes just as good as FX 6300 overclocked(in games even better)