4690K vs fx6300 real world gaming performance?

Status
Not open for further replies.

zachfeen

Reputable
Jul 12, 2014
15
0
4,510
Hey there,

I initially built a very modest gaming comp to run iracing and have upgraded to triple screens and a 780ti. Now I am worried that my Fx6300 and gigabyte 970 mobo are holding the rest of my setup back. Would going to a 4690k and gigabyte gaming z97 mono have measurable real world gaming effect? O would I be wasting 350 bucks for not much gain? Reason I am asking is a did a 3dmark fire strike test and my graphics score was good but my physics and combined score were quite low which I attribute to the CPU. I will be playing project cars/battlefield 4 so they are much more demanding than iracing, which my current combo runs great at a locked 123 FPS. The CPU is currently over clocked to 4.3

Comp specs

Fx6300
Gigabye 970a-d3p
EVGA superclocked 780ti
8Gb Hyper x 1600Mhz Ram
Thermaltake 750 watt PSU
Samsung SSD
 
Solution
The fx-6300 can in no way be overclocked as much or as efficiently as the 8350. That's just a fact. To start with, it has a half gig slower stock clock so while you can easily gain 4.5ghz with the 8350 you would have to overclock the 6300 a full gig which is going to require a significant voltage increase and that means a lot of heat and instability. Secondly, the 8350 has two more threads which means not just additional thread capacity, but additional thread capacity at a much higher clock speed.

Aside from that, at stock clock speeds the 8350 performed between 20 and 40% higher in every category with graphics and video benchmarks being at the higher end of the spectrum but also in both single threaded and multithreaded applications...
My FX 6100 bottlenecks my HD 7970. While it is older, and slower it still gives similar performance to a FX 6300. I can tell my GPU is bottlenecked since my GPU doesn't usually get to 100% usage, so you can check this with a program call MSI Afterburner. Also you can tell by seeing your FPS. My HD 7970 is capable of maxing out BF4 @ 1080p but I don't really get over 60 FPS, and get frequent drops to 30 FPS. So you look at your FPS, and tell the results. A camand in BF4 to show FPS is hit "`" Then type perfoverlay.drawfps 1
 
It would be a whole lot cheaper and probably work comparably well to just upgrade to an FX-8350 which your board does support. You might even throw two more RAM modules in there to bring the total to 16GB but that's not necessary, although it couldn't hurt it does kind of defeat the purpose of saving more money. The FX-8350 would only cost you about 169.00 and give you similar performance, especially if you OC it a little bit. The i5 and the board would run you about 340.00 minimum, depending on which version of the board you went with.
 
From a lot of the research that I have done, upgrading to any other fx processor os pretty much worthless as a oced 6300 can (mostly) match the 8000 series AMD's. That is why I was looking at the intel's, If I don't need to upgrade than I won't upgrade. But if I am, i want it to be worthwhile.
 
I have heard of cases of FX 8320s bottlenecking a GTX 780 Ti So I suggest testing BF4 and see what kind of framerate you are getting.

 
The fx-6300 can in no way be overclocked as much or as efficiently as the 8350. That's just a fact. To start with, it has a half gig slower stock clock so while you can easily gain 4.5ghz with the 8350 you would have to overclock the 6300 a full gig which is going to require a significant voltage increase and that means a lot of heat and instability. Secondly, the 8350 has two more threads which means not just additional thread capacity, but additional thread capacity at a much higher clock speed.

Aside from that, at stock clock speeds the 8350 performed between 20 and 40% higher in every category with graphics and video benchmarks being at the higher end of the spectrum but also in both single threaded and multithreaded applications when at the same clock speed (6300 overclocked to 4ghz).

The i5 scores higher than the 8350 in those benchmarks, but not 20% higher. So it's just a question of what does your wallet say. Mine says save the money because the performance difference isn't worth the extra cost. Especially with Broadwell coming soon. Maybe just wait and get a Broadwell chip.
 
Solution
Still though a FX 8350 isn't a good pair for that GPU. He is better off sticking with the FX 6300 until he can buy an Intel I%. Honestly I would't recommend AMD CPUs for high end GPUs anyday, they are really lacking behind.

 
after using the fx 6300 for a year at 4.9ghz and now switching to the 4690k and using it at 4.6ghz i can safely say i wish i had the fx 6300 back. it plays gta 5 much better than this intel cpu. in fact it score much higher on everything on pass mark besides the single thread score. i figured since this is supposed to be a better gaming cpu it wouldn;t matter. but the 6300 so far is the better gaming cpu. gta 5 pauses left and right with the 4690k its making me mad i spent more for less
 
No, it's not. You have a problem with your chipset configuration. You probably did not do a clean install of the operating system which is why you're not getting better performance. Or you have a GPU card driver issue. Doing clean installs of both the OS and GPU drivers would be highly recommended. In no world does the FX-6300 outperform the 4690k. Ever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.