Amd fx 6300 or 8300 ONLY FOR GAMING

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
S

SashaT

Commendable
Apr 23, 2016
10
0
1,510
Hello there. Im planning to build a new PC and i cant chose, or definitely find out which one (6300 3.5 Mhz or 8300 3.3 Mhz) is better for gaming. Im not sure if I want to OC them, but maybe I will (the main reason is that I dont know how to do OC, but mostly ppl says that its easy). In my country fx 8300 costs 20 dollars more than fx 6300. Im going to buy gtx 950 in this PC, so maybe one of them works with 950 better?
PS: I mostly want to play the newest titles and for example Fallout 4, Witcher 3, BF4, etc.. So Im sure that i wont play games like WOT which are using only one core. And im not rendering videos or streaming. Sorry for my English, ty.
 
Solution
RCFProd


The i3-6100 is better at the moment. Besides, your decision making has to be utterly on point if you're going with AMD. The inexperienced ones often make the wrong decision and overheat their system because they chose the wrong motherboard with a 125w TDP AMD CPU. So you have to absolutely know what you're doing if you want a system that isn't held back by overheating/throttling.

FX-6300/FX-8300/8320E + ASRock 970M Pro3 is a fair combination. Rule out FX-8320/8350/8370 or any other 125w TDP ones. Since you don't have the budget for i5 it also means that you don't have the budget for a good AMD motherboard that has...
Sort by date Sort by votes
Upvote 0 Downvote
Wouldn't say I3's are worse or better , the 6100 is actually stronger in the majority of games.

Between the 6300 & 8300 for gaming the 6300 is going to perform slightly better at stock due to the higher base clocks.

The other benefits are
1. Obviously its cheaper
2. Should you decide to overclock you can do it on a substantially cheaper board & cooler than you can the 8 core.

My advice is take the 6300 & spend that $20 saving on an aftermarket cooler
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


The i3-6100 is better at the moment. Besides, your decision making has to be utterly on point if you're going with AMD. The inexperienced ones often make the wrong decision and overheat their system because they chose the wrong motherboard with a 125w TDP AMD CPU. So you have to absolutely know what you're doing if you want a system that isn't held back by overheating/throttling.

FX-6300/FX-8300/8320E + ASRock 970M Pro3 is a fair combination. Rule out FX-8320/8350/8370 or any other 125w TDP ones. Since you don't have the budget for i5 it also means that you don't have the budget for a good AMD motherboard that has proper VRM cooling.

Anyways, you are only gaming, so go for i3-6100 + Gigabyte H110M-A and upgrade your CPU whenever that time comes.

[video="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3G-7bfPG2dE"][/video]
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
dont get an fx series, you will find later down the line when you get a better gpu than the cpu will bottleneck it, get the i3 because then you have an upgrade path, the only way from an fx 8350 is a 9590 which is a ridic cpu that eats power and needs good cooling.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
I have an FX-8320E system used for other purposes, rendering and 3D software in general, not just gaming. Still a very good CPU for those tasks. For gaming only It's not a good idea. Might upgrade the system to AMD Zen too if there are good cheap-ish options.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
''Between the 6300 & 8300 for gaming the 6300 is going to perform slightly better at stock due to the higher base clocks''

why I said go with the 8 core 8300 and bump it up and at least have the benefit of the cores when needed that's all there is to it


if the price gap was more then 20 bucks then I may of said just go with the 6300


''Overclock to 4.5ghz really easily''

''I'm running it OC at a stable 5.0GHz on a MSI 970 Gamer board ''

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113399
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


To be fair the FX-6300 seems to still be a solid option when it comes AMD. I like how well this channel shows the performance paired with a GTX 960 4GB:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjSASkBBIJ_-g9Cw2WBUgNg/videos

Uploads very regularly, and often 60 fps solid.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The difference in price becomes way more between the 6300 & 8300 once you factor in the fact you need both a better board & better cooler to overclock the 8 core.
In essence you're looking $70-80 more by the time you've done for not a great deal more performance for gaming.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Upvote 0 Downvote


I know just said that the gpu is doing the work fine with the 6300.......

Anyways, junkeymonkey, I'm sure you're wise enough to know that one benchmark showing they're the same doesn't mean the performance will always be the same. If that's what your argument was anyways.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
know just said that the gpu is doing the work fine with the 6300.......

I said it would / should be fine above ?? but ..... what would I get a 6 core over the 8 for that 20 bucks ?? I don't see nothing so hard to understand on that?? then even if tyou just bump the 8300 to the 6300 clocks your well ahead on that cause at matched clocks that 6 core is not hanging with that 8 in some tasks it showed above from the links I gave the only results the 6300 beat the 8300 in was do to the 8300 being clocked lower

let re do them at equal clocks and all then see the results ???

good luck
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I found this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koiBqmZ2VpE . Theres is 8350 compared to 6300. But when 8350 got 4 Mhz and 6300 "only" 3.5, there is around 7-8 FPS diference which is 8350 showing more in witcher 3. But in crysis 3 there is diference about 10 - 15 FPS cuz of 8 core. So maybe its better to sacrifice those 0.2 Mhz for better performance in games like crysis and for the future? I think that in the future there will be games using all cores just like crysis 3. Isnt that true?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Got a 6300 & a 8320 her both clocked at the same speed - gaming performance is identical .

The 8320 is on a £80 motherboard with a £30 cooler , the 6300 is on a £40 motherboard with a £20 cooler.

At that the 6300 runs cooler & pulls less power & the mb/cooling setup cost £50 less not even taking into account the difference in CPU price.

Any 8 core with any kind of overclocking plans is going to need a 6+2 phase mb & a decent 120mm tower cooler at a minimum.

The 6300 can do well over 4ghz with a cheap 4+1 phase board & a 92mm cooler.

I'm not saying overall the 8 core isn't the better option if you have the budget but the 6300 setup works out a lot cheaper if money is tight.

Those results are skewed completely , the majority of that fps increase is down solely to the faster 500mhz base clock on the 8350 not the extra threads.

Crysis 3 has never utilised more than 4 threads, neither has the witcher 3.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


You could save 30 dollars approx with the FX-6300 and combine it with a 4GB graphics card for the same budget you'd get a 2GB graphics card with an FX-8320. Could be a better idea, I don't see a big of a difference between the FX-8320 and FX-6300 right now.

Anyways, I didn't even want to create an argument. You can already get decent performance with an FX-6300, that was literally my entire argument. No comparisons made to an AMD FX 8 core or whatever.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
'At that the 6300 runs cooler & pulls less power & the mb/cooling setup cost £50 less not even taking into account the difference in CPU price.

Any 8 core with any kind of overclocking plans is going to need a 6+2 phase mb & a decent 120mm tower cooler at a minimum.''


there both 95w chips ?? so explain
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
As soon as you overclock any 8 core irregardless of what model that 95w tdp becomes inflated.
An 8300 overclocked to 4ghz becomes essentially an 8350 with a 125wtdp - its rated at 95w tdp because of its lower 3/3ghz base clock & the fact it will only turbo on 2 cores.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
& the fact it will only turbo on 2 cores?

how bout a link to a article on that

well my rib's are hurting now so my last word on all this is

AM3+ is what drove me over to intel for my first time ever - if you can hold off and save up for a nice haswell rig you maybe for the better .. this amd is like buying the past today and a near 6+ year old platform

I cant recommend a issue full / more proprietary/ win-10 favored skylake at all wile a tried and proven haswell is still available

I moved off AMD to intel and cant say be any means it was a bad move and I'm much more satisfied , much more...


good luck
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


ive always thought the way amd turbocore works is common knowledge but the amount of times ive been questioned over it (you are not the first & this isnt a dig at you) it would seem not.
It works the same as intels boost technology on their cpu's - you cant expect any chip to boost on all available cores to max speed under full load while maintaining their advertised tdp.

depending on core loading there are set clock speeds which differ depending on core usage.
the 8300 can do 4.2ghz on 1 core,4ghz on 2 cores,3.8ghz on 3 cores - during this time the remaining cores will have their clock speeds dropped to the 3ghz mark to compensate for the increased power required by the overclocked cores.

this is my 6300 at both stock clocks (3.5ghz with 4.1ghz turbo) vs a straight 3.8ghz with turbo disabled running a passmark 6 thread benchmark.

stock
test_stock.jpg


3.8ghz (turbo disabled)

test_3800.jpg


3.8ghz pulls less voltage & performs substantially stronger on a multithreaded 6 core run than it does at stock, all cores run at full speed with no drops as opposed to the stock run where 3 cores hit 3.8ghz while the remaining cores stay at 3.5ghz, the 8300 will drop remainig clocks lower than that.
for this reason I advise anyone who owns a 6300 or 8320 to instantly drop in bios,disable turbocore completely & set a minimum 19x multiplier for 3.8ghz (this can be done with the stock amd cooler as temps increase only very very slightly if at all - full load voltage will actually be less than stock)

ther is nothing wrong with the 6300 as a gaming cpu paired with a midrange gpu if you take 5 minutes to set it up properly for optimum performance - no you shouldnt have to I admit but its hardly rocket science to do so .
If you run any fx chip at stock settings then you are seriously crippling performance quite simply because turbocore is an archaic way of doing things ( its 5-6 year old technology) & is in 99% of cases detrimental to gaming performance in the majority of newish titles.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom