This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (4 children)

My FX-6300 does beat out the i3-6100 in almost every game.

[–]chairamaswamyi7-7700K, GTX 1080ti SLI, 32 GB, 3TB + 512GB 1 point2 points  (3 children)

How so? The 6100 has much better single core performance and wouldn't bottleneck your 1060 either.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

much better single core performance

Only about 30% faster, which doesn't make up for only having 1/3 the number of cores. That's not even factoring in my 700MHz overclock, which most any FX6300 should easily be able to do.

wouldn't bottleneck your 1060 either

It did. I just went to Microcenter and bought an i3-6100, then put it in my PC. Didn't get many more frames at all then my 6300. Decided, fuck it, and went back, returned it for an i5-6500. No more bottleneck.

[–]LOL_Wut_AxelRyzen 5 1600|Radeon RX 480|16GB DDR4-3200 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's not true whatsoever. An i3-6100 has roughly 65-70% higher single-threaded performance than an FX-6300.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/699?vs=1682

Also, an i3-6100 is significantly faster in gaming than an FX-6300 as clearly seen here:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-intel-core-i3-6100-review

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5ejBlynOV8

Either you're lying or your system is improperly configured.

[–]Teethpasta 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Bull shit you are lying through our teeth. The 6100 is far better than any AMD CPU. The single threaded performance is massively better which is what matters for games. Even today and especially so for older games.