I would say yes to the i3 and use some of the savings to upgrade the mobo features if needed then upgrade to an i5 or i7 when budget allows. If on the other hand you could see yourself getting bitten by the upgrade and overclock bug as most of us have here then AMD is way more bang for buck......really not even close. Reading your needs then go i3 and get 2x4gb ram modules so you can upgrade to another matched pair later as well. Choose ram of at least 1866 mhz.
At that point, it's 6 of one and half dozen of another. I prefer Intel based platforms because of the superior chipset features. If you can scrounge up the cash for a higher end I3 or a lower end I5 you will be doing yourself a big favor. I would opt for the Intel system if it were my money.
Hmm, OK then is it worth getting a Haswell chip, or going down a slightly cheaper route with the Ivy Bridge line up? From what I've read the biggest improvement is the power usage, but not much else significant, would that be right?
Benchmarks show Haswell has a better IPC than Ivy Bridge, and if you aren't going to OC, they run really good. Plus, Ivy Bridge is a dead platform.....there is still going to be another revision of chips coming to the socket 1150 platform.
I was reading that getting the 6300 would bottle neck my GPU, and getting an Intel CPU (even an i3) would be the better choice. My problem with it is that the i3 only has two cores whereas the 6300 has six. Three times as many cores. I just don't see how that doesn't make it better at mutlitasking than the i3. And its got a slower clock, and yet it matches the 6300 in benchmarks, although it may not reflect performance in the real world.
Would it bottle neck my GPU?
The cores in the Intel CPU are much more powerful than AMD's current offerings. I doubt the I3 could outperform the AMD in heavily threaded applications, but I doubt you are using any heavily threaded applications. As most applications are still single/dual threaded, you hardly gain anything having six cores. Technically, the six core will be faster in applications that can use more than 2 cores, and unless you know you are going to use more than 2 cores, I would still opt for the I3 with plans for an I5 later on.....or save up and start out with an I5.
I understand your confusion about how it's possible the Intel CPU is faster, and it is really hard to explain because it's very application specific but the fact is, Intel CPU cores are SO much faster and more powerful than AMD, that 2 Intel cores can process and calculate just about as much as a handful of AMD cores. A quad core Intel I5 is really the sweet spot unless you are going for a super budget build. In the end, it is your dollar and your decision. The AMD processor is a pretty damn good CPU for a little over $100, and the Intel is as well, it just comes down to what platform you want to build off of, and I think Intel is the best bet.
OK, thanks for your advice. One last thing though, if I got the six core and I have three two core programs open, couldn't Windows set it up so that the program has two dedicated cores each, instead of sharing the cores across all the programs? Just a thought.
Thanks again
Not that I know of.......Windows will just allow the CPU to work where it's needed. Some cores are used for some things, and some for other.......it all depends on how the program or application is written.
Quote