Dear forum members,
We are delighted to inform you that our forums are back online. Every single topic and post are now on their places and everything works just as before, only better. Welcome back!


Discussion on Article:
Intel Core i3-4340, Core i3-4330 and Core i3-4130 Review

Started by: moosebite | Date 12/20/13 09:11:31 AM
Comments: 36 | Last Comment:  07/13/16 11:16:12 AM

Expand all threads | Collapse all threads


too bad the g3420 wasn't added to this review.
g3420 performs similar to these i3's but for less than half the price.
the i3 hyperthreading just gives you a few frames more in games anyway.

i would go g3420 OR jump quad core.
0 0 [Posted by: moosebite  | Date: 12/20/13 09:11:31 AM]
- collapse thread

The haswell pent G's score about 3100 cpu marks.
Same-ish performance as a Q6600.
The 4xxx i3's score 5 grand. The difference is Vast; a 4130 is practically half a 4770 (passmark 10 grand); they have similar clock speeds and hyperthreading. The 54 watts power draw allows this. In normal desktop multitasking use, an i3 will widdle all over a pent G,but 1 task at a time not so much.The g3420 would not keep games smooth like the new i3's can. Intel's marketing has changed here, possibly to bring games into the cheaper end and lose AMD for good.What use is AMD's fastest octocore effort if an intel duo makes it feel rough in games? Only kids buy their power hungry short lived desktop stuff anyway,sad to say. Most intel gear has been held back for years..Perhaps they are now going for the throat.
0 0 [Posted by: chrisso  | Date: 12/24/13 02:09:18 AM]


These chips score 5000 cpu marks round abouts.
A 23% increase on the last gen. I couldnt work it out until I read
this review and it seems neither could you. In games,with a decent amd card(not the smoothest team) the 99th %ile frame rate stayed at the 60 fps mark. That says it all. It doesnt matter if the frame rate drops to 35 if it isnt choppy. At £82, I will take the 4130 any day. anything over 60 fps is wasted at this expenditure level.
In fact, with these 99% numbers anything over 60 fps is irrelevant.
0 0 [Posted by: chrisso  | Date: 12/24/13 01:26:38 AM]
- collapse thread

I cant Believe AMD FX 8 Core was beaten by an Intel I3 Dual Core.
1 1 [Posted by: kailrusha  | Date: 12/25/13 09:56:58 PM]
(1) FAKE CORES! those fake 8 cores cannot execute independently **>>EVER<<**.. all they can do is execute 1 core per MODULE.. **EVER**.

ps if your going to post "but it has real cores!!" .. then your cores are 1/4 as efficient as a intel core.. gratz on sucking.

(2) with 50% ipc per core versus intel. not a surprise. there are times when the fake 8 cores execute closely together.. encryption and encoding are great examples. but if you straight up gaming all day long or running *real* workstation apps not little boy kiddie apps... you want intel every time. you will pay more.. but thats beacuse you are buying the best.
0 1 [Posted by: amdzorz  | Date: 12/27/13 07:49:56 PM]
And in apps FX beat i5 handily...
0 0 [Posted by: rrr  | Date: 01/06/14 04:36:10 PM]

intel's advantage of almost 2 year in development pays out. amd's fx are trailing because they have a 5 years old platform, no wonder then, if you don't develop anything you trail behind. maybe people feel obsolete when they see new products, f*ck them, they are obstacles to the future. i have a i7 2600k and not envy of i7 4770 owners. gaming on budget for students and your children? think how power consumption affects you and you'll see if an amd cpu fits for you. i think apus are the best thing amd ever made and must push them
0 0 [Posted by: Emil Johan Majani  | Date: 03/07/14 06:53:09 AM]

This is a great article, once again by Xbitlabs. This is my favourite website for detailed reviews of CPU and GPU.

Thank you!
0 0 [Posted by: joehill  | Date: 11/29/14 02:05:24 AM]


Back to the Article

Add your Comment