Originally Posted by kamimaru
It's turned into an Intel VS Amd war ... Guys we're trying to help someone here.
So personal rancors put aside,
if you go for an intel core i3, you go for a processor that is a dual core with hyperthreading so multithreads apps will benefit from that. Intel's architecture being more efficient in games comparing to amd's processors, if we compare based on the same clock speed.
Now if you go Amd, you benefit from cheaper MHz so maybe you could get more performances out of an amd cpu for the same price but you'd have to consider overclock. Also Amd fusion works better than lucid virtu meaning that you would benefit from the internal graphics core while you simply wouldn't with an intel cpu. That is if you choose an Amd graphics card of course.
Overall if you are not interested in raw stock power but more on the educational virtues that building a computer brings, you might want to get the amd version.
You are wrong. AMD have the core advantage, Intel the single thread. Hyper threading isn't nearly as effective as actual cores, as has been proven repeatedly. A dual core, whether AMD or Intel, will become obsolete soon enough and there's no way hyper threading can solve the lack of real core. Benchmarks have proven in this thread that an FX6300 is superior to the i3, in some cases massively so.
Personally I think OP will regret it if he gets the i3, especially as ever more programs become multi threaded. Skype easily runs my laptops CPU at 100%, leaving one core available and that can really slow the system down.
Originally Posted by DaveLT
^ Hyperthreading sometimes does not benefit much apart from being a dual-core. I have seen stuff that runs well on a native hexa-core (Not ACTUALLY a hexa-core but recognized as 6C/6T anyway) but is just SLOW on a native dual-core with hyperthreading
If you are referring to the FX6300 it is a real hexacore.