AMD FX Vs. Intel Core i3: Exploring Game Performance With Cheap GPUs
Skip to main content
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here’s how it works.
At the end of January, we published our analysis of the sub-$200 gaming processor market called Picking A Sub-$200 Gaming CPU: FX, An APU, Or A Pentium?. We were surprised to find that Intel’s budget-oriented LGA 1155 offerings are surprisingly capable when it comes to handling modern titles. In fact, the $125 Core i3-2100 beat out AMD’s entire line-up including top-tier Phenom IIs, Athlon IIs, APUs, and even the new FX models. Although they’re easier to overclock, AMD’s best efforts could only achieve parity with the Core i3-2100, and Intel’s Core i5 was so far ahead of the sub-$200 pack that it sat in a league of its own.
Now, we used a very high-end Radeon HD 7970 graphics card in that article because we wanted to isolate CPU performance. You can’t draw conclusions about a CPU’s potential when you’re faced with a graphics card bottleneck, after all. But some of our readers rightly pointed out that, when it comes to building an inexpensive machine, our combination is unrealistic. A $110 CPU would never accompany a $550 graphics card. And if we used an entry-level GPU, the resulting bottleneck would have masked the differences between processors to a greater extent. The counter, of course, is that a cheaper graphics card would have also imposed lower resolutions and detail settings, shifting load back in the direction of the CPU.
As you know, though, we put a big emphasis on addressing your feedback, so we went back to the lab to run some follow-up data on two of the most interesting $120 options from our previous story. Intel’s Core i3-2100 is the low-cost processor to beat, so we made sure to include it. On the other hand, with AMD’s Phenom II and Athlon II lines disappearing from store shelves, the $110 FX-4100 represents that company’s best low-priced option.
Every game’s workload is different, but Intel’s i3-2100, on average, achieved 18% higher minimum frame rates and 11% higher average frame rates compared to the FX-4100 in our previous story. As we said, though, that was with a Radeon HD 7970. This time around, we’re using a broader range of graphics cards ranging from the Radeon HD 5570 up to the Radeon HD 6950 to see if the bottleneck situation changes.
Swipe to scroll horizontally
| Header Cell — Column 0 | AMD FX-4100 | Intel Core i3-2100 |
|---|---|---|
| Codename: | Zambezi | Sandy Bridge |
| Process: | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Cores (Threads): | 4 (4) | 2 (4) |
| Clock Speed (Turbo): | 3. 6 (3.8) GHz |
3.1 GHz |
| Interface: | Socket AM3+ | LGA 1155 |
| L3 Cache: | 8 MB | 3 MB |
| Thermal Envelope: | 95 W | 65 W |
| Online Price: | $110 | $125 |
We also received some feedback on our test platform’s memory configuration; it was suggested that AMD’s FX might perform better complemented by higher memory data rates. So, this time we’re using 8 GB (2 x 4 GB) of Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1600 at 8-8-8-24 timings.
- 1
Current page:
FX-4100 And Core i3-2100 Go Head-To-Head
Next Page Test System And Benchmarks
Get instant access to breaking news, in-depth reviews and helpful tips.
Contact me with news and offers from other Future brandsReceive email from us on behalf of our trusted partners or sponsors
Tom’s Hardware is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher.
Visit our corporate site .
©
Future US, Inc. Full 7th Floor, 130 West 42nd Street,
New York,
NY 10036.
AMD FX-6350 CPU Review | RelaxedTech
Introduction
Many gamers on a budget choose AMD FX processors for their builds because they provide the best price/performance ratio.
The stock cooler that ships with a processor is often thrown away because they are loud and don’t
provide acceptable cooling performance and that’s why AMD designed the Wraith cooler which can handle TDPs of up to 125 watts.
In terms of price, the direct competitor of the FX-6350 is the Core i3-6100 which is the processor that I will be comparing the FX-6350 to in this review.
AMD initially announced the Wraith with the FX-8370 and A10-7890K processors but the FX-8350 and FX-6350 are also shipping with the Wraith.
The Wraith comes bundled only with these processors and it’s not available as a standalone cooler.
The Wraith Cooler has the same 125W cooling rating as its predecessor but it has more surface area and an improved fan that cools better while being much quieter.
AMD has done a great job designing the Wraith and you can read my Wraith review here.
The packaging is secure and it has a see through side showing the CPU.
It sports a black and orange color scheme which makes the box stand out.
The label at the top lists the specifications of the processor and the items that you will find inside the box.
The rear of the packaging has some marketing information.
Once open, you’ll see the CPU, FX sticker and the Wraith cooler that is in a cardboard box.
Comparison
| CPUs Tested In This Review | ||
|---|---|---|
| Model: | AMD FX-6350 | Intel Core i3-6100 | Price: | $130 | $120 | Core Name: | Vishera | Skylake |
| Manufacturing Tech: | 32nm | 14nm |
| Cores / Threads: | 6/6 | 2/4 |
| Base Freq: | 3.9 Ghz | 3.7 GHz |
| Boost Clock: | 4. 2 Ghz |
N/A |
| L2 Cache: | 3 x 2 MB | 2 x 256 KB |
| L3 Cache: | 8MB | 3MB |
| TDP: | 125W | 65W |
| Socket: | AM3+ | LGA 1151 |
| Unlocked: | Yes | No |
The FX-6350 processor has six cores based on the 32nm process and is clocked at 3.9 GHz with a boost clock of 4.2 GHz.
The chip comes with 6 MB of L2 cache and 8 MB of L3 cache and it is compatible with the AM3+ platform.
The Intel Core i3-6100 is a hyperthreaded dual-core that is based on the 14nm Skylake CPU architecture.
It is clocked at 3.7 GHz and doesn’t feature any Turbo Boost clock. It comes with just 3 MB of L3 cache and a TDP of 65W.
Test Setup & Power Consumption
| Test Setup | |
|---|---|
| Processor: | AMD FX-6350 Intel Core i3-6100 |
| Motherboard: | MSI 970 GAMING MSI h210M Pro-VD |
| RAM: | Kingston HyperX 8GB DDR3 1866Mhz G.  SKILL Ripjaws 8GB DDR4 2133Mhz |
| Graphics Card: | Sapphire R9 390X |
| Storage: | Samsung 840 Pro 256GB |
| Power Supply: | Antec HCP 850W |
| Case: | Corsair 750D |
| OS: | Windows 8.1 64Bit |
| Thermal Compound: | Noctua NT-h2 |
| Heatsinks: | AMD Stock Cooler Intel Stock Cooler |
I have prepared a number of different synthetic benchmarks and game benchmarks for the FX-6350 processor.
Testing will be conducted by comparing the FX-6350 against Intel’s Core i3-6100.
I’m comparing the FX-6350 against the i3-6100 because both retail for around the same amount of money
and both offer good performance to PC gamers. I will be using the Sapphire R9 390X for benchmarking the processors in games.
Idle power consumption of the entire computer will be measured after leaving the computer idle for 20 minutes.
Load power consumption of the entire computer will be measured after playing Witcher 3 on high settings at 1080P for 20 minutes.
I want to make it clear that the power consumption measurements will differ per computer and components from
my measurements if you add optical drives, HDDs etc.
All of the testing is done with an ambient temperature of ~19C.
CPU-Z will be used to verify the CPU speed and the voltage being used in Windows 8.1.
Also, the CPUs are tested with the default settings (Turbo, C1E etc) enabled in the BIOS.
The Intel Core i3-6100 is built on a 14nm fabrication node while the FX-6350 is built
on a 32nm fabrication node so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the i3-6100 uses less more power.
The R9 390X alone consumes anywhere from 150W to 250W in gaming so you can use that to get an idea of how much power the CPUs consume without the GPU.
CPU Performance Results
Cinebench R15 is the perfect benchmarking tool for comparing CPU performance across various systems and platforms.
Looking at the chart above, we can see that the FX-6350 wins in multi core performance but loses in single-core performance against the i3-6100.
The FX-6350 was able to finish this test in 7 minutes due to having more cores than the i3-6100.
Geekbench 3 shows a similar result as Cinebench. The FX-6350 wins in multi-core performance but loses in single-core performance.
Once again, we see the FX-6350 winning this test with 6735 points and the i3-6100 with 6391 points.
AMD FX-6350 In Gaming
Both CPUs delivered playable fps in GTA V but the i3-6100 was a little bit faster.
In Metro Last Light, I recorded an average of 67 FPS with the FX-6350 and 61 FPS with i3-6100.
The game was smooth on both CPUs but the FX-6350 achieved higher FPS overall.
Battlefield 4 is a game that is well optimized and we can see that both CPUs did very well with the i3-6100 doing a little better.
The i3-6100 struggled with Witcher 3 but the FX-6350 offered great performance and had no trouble maintaining above 50 FPS.
Value & Conclusion
Both chips retail for around the same and both are aimed at budget users.
With that being said, the FX-6350 is hard to beat and having an unlocked multiplier makes the FX-6350 a much better product than the i3-6100 CPU.
Not only did the Wraith cool much better than Intel’s stock cooler but it was much quieter.
With Wraith, you can squeeze a lot of performance out of the FX-6350 without breaking the bank.
I measured 39 dBA under full load and 33 dBA in idle for Wraith while Intel’s stock cooler was 46 dBA under full load and 38 dBA in idle.
So that gives an idea of how much quieter the Wraith is compared to Intel’s stock cooler.
At stock settings, I never saw the temperature go above 46c so you can easily push the FX-6350 to 4.4Ghz+ while still keeping the temperature low.
Intel CPUs have fewer cores but the performance of each individual core is stronger compared to an AMD CPU.
Most games nowadays are optimized for multi-cores and those games tend to run better on AMD CPUs.
As you saw on the previous page, the FX-6350 performed much better than the i3-6100 in Witcher 3.
I recorded an average FPS of 58 for the FX-6350 and 49 for the i3-6100 in Witcher 3 and
the game was much smoother on the FX-6350 and the fps was consistent while the fps kept dropping on the i3-6100.
Pros:
+ Compatible With AM3+ Socket
+ Cheap Platform Price
+ Good Multi-Core Performance
+ Silent Stock Cooler
Cons:
— Weak Single-Core Performance
— High Power Consumption
The AM3+ platform is affordable and is great for users who are on a tight budget that just want to build a nice cheap gaming
machine but with Zen on the horizon, you might want to wait.
Power consumption is an area where Intel has always been better than than AMD.
At idle, the Intel chip draws 42W while the AMD CPU draws 68W.
When playing Witcher 3, the i3-6100 tops out at 218W, while AMD’s FX-6350 pulls 263W.
Overall, the FX-6350 is a decent chip for users who want a midrange CPU for multi-tasking and gaming.
Final Score 9.0
Processors amd fx series in the category «Appliances and electronics»
Processor AMD FX-Series FX-8300 (8-core) 3.3-4.2GHz, 95W FX8300
Delivery from Kyiv
1 700 UAH
1 UAH
Buy
Online store «Memory-Store.com.ua»
Processor AMD FX-6300 6 cores at 3.5GHz FX-Series FD6300WMW6KHK Socket AM3+
Delivery from 9 Slavuta
1
2
1 379 UAH
Buy
Lots24.com.ua
Processor AMD FX-Series FX-6100 (6 core) 3.3-3.9GHz 95W
In stock in Lutsk
Delivery across Ukraine
880 UAH
Buy
Online store «MecommoryStore .ua»
Processor AMD FX-Series FX-6300 (6 core) 3.5-4.1GHz 95W, FX6300
In stock in Kyiv
Delivery across Ukraine
«Memory-Store.
com.ua»
Processor AMD FX-Series FX-4300 3.8-4.0GHz 95W, FX4300
In stock
Delivery across Ukraine
700 UAH
Buy
Online store «Memory-Store.com.ua»
Processor AMD FX-Series FX-8120 (8-core)1. 4.0ghz, 125W
In stock
Delivery in Ukraine
1 350 UAH
Buy
online store «Memory-store.com.ua»
processor AMD FX-4100 3.6 GHZ/8MB SOCKET AM3+
In stock
Delivery across Ukraine
770 UAH
690 UAH
Buy
Fleshka
processor AMD FX-8320 3.5GHZ/5200MHz/8MB (FD8320FRHKBOX) SAM3+
2 500 GrN
$ 9000 rtuns FX-6300 6×3.5 GHZ
in a warehouse in Ivano-Frankivsk
Delivery in Ukraine
1 190 UAH
Buy
Etalonplast
AMD FX 8-Core FX-8320 OEM (FD8320FRW8KHK)
On order
Delivery in Ukraine
2 990 UAH
Buy
Berloga
AMD FX-SERIES FX-4100 3.
6-3.8GHZ 95W
in a warehouse in Lutsk
Delivery
470 UAH
Buy
Online store «Memory-store.com.ua»
processor AMD FX-6100 3.3GHZ/5200MHz/8MB (FD6100WMGUSBX) SAM3+ 9000
ItUnit
AMD FX-6300 3.5GHZ/5200MHZ/8MB (FD6300WMHKBOX) SAM3+
Delivery in Ukraine
1 400 UAH
Buy
ITUNIT
AMD FX-8120 3.1GHZ/8MBM (FD8120 SAM3+
Delivery in Ukraine
1 750 UAH
Buy
ITUNIT
AMD FX-9370 4.40GHZ/8M/2200MHz (FD9370FHW8KHK) SAM3+
Delivery
9000 2 9000 2 9000 20002 Itunit
See also
processor AMD FX 8120 SOKKET AM3+ (FD8120WMW8KGU) used (TF)
Ends
Delivery
1 600 UAH
TERA- FLOPS.COM.UA
AMD FX 6100 Socket AM3+ processor (FD6100WMGUSBX) used (TF)
ends
Delivery in Ukraine
950 UAH
TERA-FLOPS.
com.ua
AMD FX 4100 Socket AM3+ (FD4100 Used (TF)
Delivery from Kyiv
UAH 450
Buy
tera-flops.com.ua
Processor AMD FX 8300 Socket AM3+ (FD8300WMW8KHK) used (TF) 9000 2 850 UAH
Buy
TERA-FLOPS.com.ua
AMD FX 4320 SOKKET AM3+ (FD4320WMW4MHK) used (TF)
ends
Delivery
650 GRN
TERA-
TERA- flops.com.ua
Processor AMD AM3+ FX-4100 (3.6GHz 4 Core 95W) Refurbished Tray
in warehouse
Delivery in Ukraine
460 UAH
Buy
PowerCube Store
AMD AM3+ FX-8120 processor (3.1GHZ 8 Core 125W) REFURBISHED TRAY
in slices
1 565 uah
Buy
PowerCube Store
Processor AMD AM3+ FX-8300 (3.3GHz 8 Core 95W) Refurbished Tray
In stock
Delivery across Ukraine
5 UAH
Buy
Powercube Store
AMD AM3+ FX-8120 processor (3.
1GHZ 8 Core 95W) Refurbished Tray
in warehouse
Delivery
9000 1 658 GRN
9000 AMD FX-Series FX-8120 (8-core) 3.1-4.0GHz, 95W
In stock in Lutsk
Delivery across Ukraine
1 399 UAH
Buy
Online store «Memory-Store.com .ua»
Processor AMD X4 FX 4300 / FX4300 3.8GHz/8MB/2000MHz 95W SAM3+
Delivery in Ukraine
559 UAH
Buy
Internet Shopi Compi
processor AMD X6 FX 6100/FX6100 3.3GHZ/8MB/2000MHz 95W SAM3+
9000 Computer0002 AMD X4 FX 4170/FX4170 4.2GHZ/8MB/2000MHz 125W SAM3+
Delivery in Ukraine
749 UAH
Buy
izhtornet Compay
Comparison AMD RYZEN 5 2600 and AMD FX-9590
Comparative analysis of AMD Ryzen 5 2600 and AMD FX-9590 processors by all known characteristics in the categories: General information, Performance, Memory, Compatibility, Peripherals, Technologies, Virtualization.
Analysis of processor performance by benchmarks: PassMark — Single thread mark, PassMark — CPU mark, Geekbench 4 — Single Core, Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core, 3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s).
AMD Ryzen 5 2600
versus
AMD FX-9590
Benefits
Reasons to choose AMD Ryzen 5 2600
- Approximately 67% higher maximum core temperature: 95°C vs 57°C
- Newer process technology allows the processor to be more powerful, but with lower power consumption: 12 nm FinFET vs 32 nm SOI
- L1 cache is about 50% larger, which means more data can be stored in it for quick access
- L3 cache is 2 times larger, which means more data can be stored in it for quick access
- 3.
4 times less power consumption: 65 Watt vs 220 Watt - Approximately 24% improvement in PassMark — Single thread mark performance: 2250 vs 1814
- Approximately 96% improvement in PassMark — CPU mark performance: 13243 vs 6744
- Geekbench 4 performance — Single Core approximately 54% larger: 974 vs 633
- About 75% better performance in Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core: 5321 vs 3042
- About 71% more performance in 3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score: 5712 vs 3336
- Compunch.5 benchmark Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) about 81% more: 46.475 vs 25.735
- Performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) 2x more: 0.922 vs 0.45
| Issue date | 19 April 2018 vs July 2013 |
| Number of threads | 12 vs 8 |
| Maximum core temperature | 95°C vs 57°C |
| Process | 12nm FinFET vs 32nm SOI |
| Level 1 cache | 576 KB vs 384 KB |
| Level 3 cache | 16MB vs 8MB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt vs 220 Watt |
| PassMark — Single thread mark | 2250 vs 1814 |
| PassMark — CPU mark | 13243 vs 6744 |
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 974 vs 633 |
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 5321 vs 3042 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score | 5712 vs 3336 |
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
46.475 vs 25.735 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.922 vs 0.45 |
Reasons to choose AMD FX-9590
- 2 more cores, the ability to run more applications simultaneously: 8 vs 6
- About 28% more clock speed: 5 GHz vs 3.9 GHz
- 2.7 times L2 cache ( a) more means more data can be stored in it for quick access
| Number of cores | 8 vs 6 |
| Maximum frequency | 5 GHz vs 3.9 GHz |
| Level 2 cache | 8MB vs 3MB |
Benchmark comparison
CPU 1: AMD Ryzen 5 2600
CPU 2: AMD FX-9590
| PassMark — Single thread mark |
|
|||||
| PassMark — CPU mark |
|
|||||
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core |
|
|||||
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core |
|
|||||
| 3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score |
|
|||||
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) |
|
| Name | AMD Ryzen 5 2600 | AMD FX-9590 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark — Single thread mark | 2250 | 1814 |
| PassMark — CPU mark | 13243 | 6744 |
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 974 | 633 |
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 5321 | 3042 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike — Physics Score | 5712 | 3336 |
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
46.475 | 25.735 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.922 | 0.45 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 10.765 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) | 1.418 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 8.59 |
Performance comparison
| AMD Ryzen 5 2600 | AMD FX-9590 | |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture name | Zen+ | Vishera |
| Family | AMD Ryzen Processors | AMD FX-Series Processors |
| Production date | April 19, 2018 | |
| OPN PIB | YD2600BBAFBOX | FD9590FHHKWOF |
| OS Support | Windows 10 — 64-Bit Edition, RHEL x86 64-Bit, Ubuntu x86 64-Bit | |
| Place in the rating | 825 | 1594 |
| Price now | $159. 99 |
$99.99 |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 5 Desktop Processors | AMD FX 8-Core Black Edition Processors |
| Price/performance ratio (0-100) | 24.89 | 30.03 |
| Applicability | Desktop | Desktop |
| OPN Tray | FD9590FHW8KHK | |
| Support 64 bit | ||
| Base frequency | 3.4 GHz | 4.7 GHz |
| Crystal area | 213 mm | 315 mm |
| Level 1 cache | 576KB | 384KB |
| Level 2 cache | 3MB | 8MB |
| Level 3 cache | 16MB | 8MB |
| Process | 12nm FinFET | 32nm SOI |
| Maximum core temperature | 95°C | 57°C |
| Maximum frequency | 3. 9 GHz |
5GHz |
| Number of cores | 6 | 8 |
| Number of threads | 12 | 8 |
| Number of transistors | 4940 Million | 1200 million |
| Unlocked | ||
| Voltage P0 Vcore | Min: 1.375V — Max: 1.5375V | |
| Maximum number of memory channels | 2 | |
| Supported memory frequency | 2933MHz | 1866 MHz |
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR3 |
| Maximum number of processors in | 1 | 1 |
| Supported sockets | AM4 | AM3+ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 220 Watt |
| Thermal Solution | Wraith Stealth | |
| PCI Express revision | 3.
|