Intel Core i3 4340 Review – Beating AMD At Their Own Game

Boomstick777 · 19 Dec 2013 at 12:46

Can a dual core i3 CPU take on an 8 core AMD FX 8350 for gaming with a dedicated GPU, can it take on the IGPU of AMD's Richland A10 6790K APU?

Surprising results?

Full Review here - http://www.hardcoreware.net/intel-core-i3-4340-review/1/

*Thread updated (Page 3) with a new review from Xbitlabs.com, their review shows another great fight from the lil i3 against AMD's FX 8350. Very impressive stuff from such a low power dual core CPU.*

With Dedicated GPU. Up against 8 core AMD FX.

Power Consumption, Massive difference.

Perhaps the most surprising is the i3 beating AMD's Richland APU in BF4

ALXAndy · 19 Dec 2013 at 12:54

More utter rubbish.

Comparing a locked CPU with a factory clocked unlocked CPU = rubbish. Where was the part where they overclocked the 8350 to 4.8ghz or more?

LMAO. Little Timmy only has one leg. Therefore, if you enter a running race with him we're going to tie one of your legs up so you can only use one. Then when Timmy wins we're going to go on and on about how he beat you.

SIGH. Is it your life's ambition to post crap on forums? I'm seriously beginning to think it is.

And no, the results are not surprising if you have more than one brain cell bouncing around in your head. It's all simple arithmetic.

Intel = higher IPC. AMD = unlocked, so able to make up ground against locked Intels when you overclock them.

Locked Intel vs stock AMD = Intel win on IPC. So no, it doesn't come as a surprise at all.

mothermachine · 19 Dec 2013 at 12:55

Good. Let us hope these are priced well and OCUK do some nice bundles. I am in need of a new budget gaming machine and this looks like an excellent option.

Boomstick777 · 19 Dec 2013 at 12:59

ALXAndy said:
More utter rubbish.

Comparing a locked CPU with a factory clocked unlocked CPU = rubbish. Where was the part where they overclocked the 8350 to 4.8ghz or more?

LMAO. Little Timmy only has one leg. Therefore, if you enter a running race with him we're going to tie one of your legs up so you can only use one. Then when Timmy wins we're going to go on and on about how he beat you.

SIGH. Is it your life's ambition to post crap on forums? I'm seriously beginning to think it is.

And no, the results are not surprising if you have more than one brain cell bouncing around in your head. It's all simple arithmetic.

Intel = higher IPC. AMD = unlocked, so able to make up ground against locked Intels when you overclock them.

Locked Intel vs stock AMD = Intel win on IPC. So no, it doesn't come as a surprise at all.

Ha, so your saying they should have overclocked the FX 8350 to 4.8Ghz and then compared? How embarrassing if it still got beat and power consumption was off the charts. I think a stock FX 8350 being beaten by a dual core i3 in gaming is already bad enough to be honest mate.

This review speaks for itself, AMD need to update their desktop CPU's. Getting beat by a dual core VS 8 core, something is really wrong..

Boomstick777 · 19 Dec 2013 at 12:59

mothermachine said:
Good. Let us hope these are priced well and OCUK do some nice bundles. I am in need of a new budget gaming machine and this looks like an excellent option.

^^ This.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 19 Dec 2013 at 13:02

According to that review the HD4600 is matching or beating the AMD A10 IGPs in all instances. Eh,OK. This kind of contradicts all desktop reviews of the HD4600,which at best(outside GRID2),are slower,and most of them were done on Core i7 4770K CPUs too,with higher Turbo clockspeeds. That alone should ring alarm bells for how well it has been done.

Even regarding CPU testing,what parts of the games were tested?? For example,the most CPU intensive part of Crysis3 has vegetation animation,which is well threaded and where a Core i7 pulls ahead. If it is another part of the game,the load is less well threaded.

I think I am going to wait on some more reviews from better known sites TBH.

Edit!!

Moreover,those results make a Core i5 4670 look entirely pointless,as the Core i3 is the same performance.

Second Edit!!

The Core i5 4670 consumes the same amount of power as a Core i3 4340??

LOLWTF??

cheesyboy · 19 Dec 2013 at 13:04

Those BF4 IGP results....!

Something's fishy

ALXAndy · 19 Dec 2013 at 13:11

Boomstick777 said:
Ha, so your saying they should have overclocked the FX 8350 to 4.8Ghz and then compared? How embarrassing if it still got beat and power consumption was off the charts. I think a stock FX 8350 being beaten by a dual core i3 in gaming is already bad enough to be honest mate.

This review speaks for itself, AMD need to update their desktop CPU's. Getting beat by a dual core VS 8 core, something is really wrong..

Your hypocrisy cracks me up. What if it were the other way around? huh?

What if AMD released a locked CPU and Intel released an unlocked one? would you compare the two out of the box? So by your reckoning overclocking a K series Intel shouldn't be done when benchmarking?

You're basically ignoring a function on the AMD CPU completely.

Do you see? UNLOCKED. Meaning that you can overclock them !

And when you do? the performance increases ! You know? the same way it does when you overclock a K series.

So as I said before, this comes as no surprise whatsoever. It's just the result of skewed benchmarking in order to brown nose Intel and it's nothing new.

Boomstick777 · 19 Dec 2013 at 13:14

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Moreover,those results make a Core i5 4670 look entirely pointless,as the Core i3 is the same performance.

Yeah, I think that's what the reviewer was illustrating, that newer lower tier CPU's are just as good for gaming as the higher tiered CPU's especially the older ones.

I've built a few Pentium Haswell gaming PC's. They are surprisingly fast, and use hardly any power, they just don't seem to bottleneck GPU's at all. Maybe if you're running 2or3 cards, but for a budget gaming rig, with a single GPU, Haswell Pentiums and i3's can't be beat imho.

@ALXAndy

Yeah that's great that it's unlocked, but I think your missing the point, all that power use and such woeful performance in gaming.. Come on man, the FX 8350 @ Stock shouldn't be getting beaten by a i3, just be thankful they didn't test the £47 Intel Pentium G3420 against the FX, there would be a few very upset people for sure.. AMD need a new arch on a better process. Less power consumption and higher IPC.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 19 Dec 2013 at 13:19

Boomstick777 said:
Yeah, I think that's what the reviewer was illsutaring, that newer lower tier CPU's are just as good for gaming as the higher tiered CPU's especially the older ones.

I've built a few Pentium Haswell gaming PC's. They are surprisingly fast, and use hardly any power, they just don't seem to bottleneck GPU's at all. Maybe if you're running 2or3 cards, but for a budget gaming rig, with a single GPU, Haswell Pentiums and i3's can't be beat imho.

The problem is that I don't trust those results.I played Crysis3 and it easily maxes out 4 to 8 threads. Its one of the few games which can use HT well during intensive parts of the games. The SB and IB Core i3 CPUs running at a higher clockspeed were worse off than Core i5 running at a lower clockspeed. There is no way that a Haswell Core i3 is matching a Haswell Core i5 unless they bench some corridor scene with no enemies.

The part I am thinking off is "welcome to the jungle" which is very well threaded. I suspect they used "fields" which is mostly corridor based with some outdoor parts.

Edit!!

Those IGP results are also weird too. I think I am going to wait until January,since Kaveri will most likely be tested against the Haswell Core i3 CPUs(and probably the FX CPUs) by the major sites.

drunkenmaster · 19 Dec 2013 at 13:19

More trolling, but with a disclaiming of "i'm not trolling" which apparently makes trolling immune,also if you say something like "I'm not trolling, I want to buy produce xxxx from AMD therefore I can't be a troll".

yes, the FX8350 had more power consumption IN CINEBENCH, but it was almost twice as fast in Cinebench.

You failed to mention that the i3 came within a few percent of beating the i5, while in another thread you're banging on about only buying a £270 cpu because everything below it is soooo much slower. But in this thread showing a dual core matching the quad core suits your purposes so you'll ignore that.

FIrstly that review is bogus, second, you're comparing power usage in the one area AMD trounces the dual core and beats comfortably the quad core performance..... but you did not show that performance, you casually left that benchmark out to make it look as bad as possible. Imagine my shock at that kind of manipulative posting. Should we forget also that Cinebench is compiled with Intel's compiler with exceptionally few performance flags for AMD processes included. In software which uses other compilers that are updated for AMD's latest CPU's it's significantly more competitive.

The very fact that Intel's dual core is basically matching it's quad core is both showing the limitations of DX(don't worry AMD fixed that now), and the limitations of games whose main release platform is the old consoles(don't worry AMD fixed that too).

Let's not forget that

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7189/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-september-2013

a 4670k offers almost identical gaming performance to the 4770k, and you're showing a review that is showing a i3 4320 offers almost the same performance. Can you make you up your mind. The 4770k is the best gpu trounces everything and is the best value one day, the next day the i3 4320 is barely behind the i5 which is barely behind the 4770k.

MooMoo444 · 19 Dec 2013 at 13:22

AMD really need to get competitive in the CPU market again :\

Intel are gonna rip all our balls off if they don't.

ALXAndy · 19 Dec 2013 at 13:25

The Sisoft results are absolutely hilarious.

Things are off to a great start for the Core i3 4340, as it is able to keep up with the FX 6300 in both integer and floating point performance. This is despite the FX 6300 having 4 more physical cores than the Core i3 4340.

lmfao. That's absolute comedy gold. So I ran Sisoft 14 on my 8320 at 4.8ghz, here's the result.

*cough*

David Bisset · 19 Dec 2013 at 13:26

the frame times for the 4340 in bf4 were substantially worse than for the 8350 too, oddly not one of the charts boom chose to quote. The 8350 was a little better than the i5 in that.

Edit: Really not convinced by the quality of this review tbh.

The 4340 costs ~the same as an 8320 anyway and is locked so it would need to be better for me to care.

Martini1991 · 19 Dec 2013 at 13:27

I'd never pick an i3 over an fx8320, that said.
People rant on and on about now much cheaper it costs for an fx8320 over clocked system is over an over clocked i5....

But then when it comes down to the fx8320 being the more expensive in the way of against the i3, it's ignored and the fx8320 needs to be over clocked and at a higher base set up to 'fairly' compare? Pull the other one.

But what do I know, I'm blates a fanboy, because I have an Intel CPU, whereas everyone with their AMD chips are totes unbiased.

Skewed opinions and hypocrisy galore more like.

That said, I'm with cat somewhat on the results lol, I know that an i3 2120 is capable of, and I see that bottlenecking a 7870.

MooMoo444 · 19 Dec 2013 at 13:31

ALXAndy said:
The Sisoft results are absolutely hilarious.

Things are off to a great start for the Core i3 4340, as it is able to keep up with the FX 6300 in both integer and floating point performance. This is despite the FX 6300 having 4 more physical cores than the Core i3 4340.

lmfao. That's absolute comedy gold. So I ran Sisoft 14 on my 8320 at 4.8ghz, here's the result.

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i174/timmahtiburon/timmahtiburon007/sisoft.jpg[/IMG[/URL]

*cough*[/QUOTE]

You don't see any validity in reviewing stock vs stock? Overclockers are vastly outnumbered by stock users in the PC world.

ALXAndy · 19 Dec 2013 at 13:33

Martini1991 said:
I'd never pick an i3 over an fx8320, that said.
People rant on and on about now much cheaper it costs for an fx8320 over clocked system is over an over clocked i5....

But then when it comes down to the fx8320 being the more expensive in the way of against the i3, it's ignored and the fx8320 needs to be over clocked and at a higher base set up to 'fairly' compare? Pull the other one.

But what do I know, I'm blates a fanboy, because I have an Intel CPU, whereas everyone with their AMD chips are totes unbiased.

Skewed opinions and hypocrisy galore more like.

The point here Martini is that people are comparing a locked CPU to an unlocked one and not overclocking it. Then declaring a win, whilst completely ignoring the fact that the CPU they are comparing it to is completely dormant.

IE - they're completely ignoring a function and therefore the results are complete BS.

When, for example, a CPU like the 4670k is reviewed you get a page like this one here.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/12/intel-core-i5-4670k-haswell-cpu-review/7

Titled, Overclocking, Performance Analysis and Conclusion. At which point the results of which are put into a spread sheet, with the gains, and then a final score worked out. Negating to do that is completely and totally ignoring a function of a product and thus, they may as well not bothered as it's clear they're rimming one side.

ALXAndy · 19 Dec 2013 at 13:37

MooMoo444 said:
You don't see any validity in reviewing stock vs stock? Overclockers are vastly outnumbered by stock users in the PC world.

OK. First up it's hardly a review. It's a comparison. Thus, compare the products fairly, showing all of their merits.

Out of the box my 8320 is completely lame. The Cinebench score was 540 odd. That's at 3.5ghz (the actual correct clock speed for my CPU). Push to 4.8ghz? 780. Push to 5ghz and beyond? I start to see scores in the high 790s and eventually 800+.

That's what? a 40% improvement? so basically because I paid for an FX unlocked I was able to get, completely free and without much hassle, 40% out of my CPU in that benchmark. Those improvements will be wide spread, across everything I decide to do with my CPU (be it gaming, Sisoft, etc).

So ignoring that is just plain stupidity. I can bet you that if the I3 was unlocked they would overclock it and then go on and on about how well it overclocks (remember the Clarkdale?).

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 19 Dec 2013 at 13:47

It seems they used a simulated FX6300,by disabling one of the modules and "adjusting the clockspeed" or something along those lines?? They used an overclocked Core i3 3220(means memory is also overclocked) to simulate a Core i3 3240.

They use a revision one Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3.

BTW,they are a Canadian review site(not heard of them before.

FX6300 ~ $120CAN

http://products.ncix.com/detail/amd...-3-5ghz-14mb-95w-retail-box-60-76934-1012.htm
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113286

Core i3 4340 ~ $165 to $180CAN

http://products.ncix.com/detail/int...lga1150-haswell-4mb-cache-retail-76-89852.htm
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116944

Why are they are using such an expensive Core i3??

The lower clocked Core i3 4130 is still more expensive:

http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116946
http://products.ncix.com/detail/int...lga1150-haswell-3mb-cache-retail-93-89854.htm

Thats around $135 to $150CAN.

FX8320:

http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113285
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113285

Around $160 to $170CAN.

Martini1991 · 19 Dec 2013 at 13:47

They only tend to overclock the product they're running in pretty much all the review sites I see.