Buddy, the link you have given, apart from sysmark benchmark, which is not officially supproted by any other Vendors apart from Intel due to their extreme Biasness towards Intell design, in all the other productivity related suits, FX-6300 is way ahead of i3 3220 and available at the same price point. And regarding single threaded performance, it is just little behind i3 whereas in Multithreaded performance, it is far ahead of it. In Cinebench 11.5 64 bit single threaded performance, i3's score is 1.37 and for 6300, it is 1.07 but in multithreaded, for 6300, it is 4.5 and for i3, it is 3.29. FX-6300 is more than 1.1 point ahead of i3 and you are saying it is not significant. DO you have any idea what those scores actually mean or imply?
In X264 Benchmark, in 2nd pass, a FX-6300 can process 29 frames/sec whereas i3 can only process 17.5 Frames/sec and you are saying it is very marginal difference. Try to read about those software suits and understand what those benchmarks actually do rather than saying "In my Opinion, it is marginal"
Now, I got it, you are here to prove your point, not helping OP. Then suggest an Intel config at OP's budget which will perform better than a FX-6300 in gaming and other tasks. DOn't forget that, at the same price point, AMD is giving you 6 cores, they aren't asking for more money.
Now, all the new games which have been released in last 2 years are more or less multithreaded. In games like Tomb Raider, Crysis 3, even a FX-4300 can beat the hell out of i3 and by a huge margin. And believe me, 95% of the upcoming games are gonna be pretty much multi -threading optimized to use as many cores as possible.
