Amd fx 6300 or 8300 ONLY FOR GAMING

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
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
guess I need to rip my cpu's out now seeing ther not working properly lol...

maybe you got poor binned chip ? and I assume it has thermal safety built in and gives as neded un like a straight oc that's 24/7

fact of the matter is your on 6+ year old tech and nothing a older intel can smoke anyway

even AMD admitted AM3+ was a mistake , but its all they got going for them at that moment

'Ultimately AMD’s focus on new “growth areas” isn’t the culprit. What has hurt AMD is a big bet on a Bulldozer architecture — in which two CPU integer cores share a floating-point unit and other components — that simply didn’t work out. “Everyone knows that Bulldozer was not the game-changing part when it was introduced three years ago,” then-CEO Rory Read said at a Deutsche Bank event. “We have to live with that for four years '' [2015]

and to add piledriver is bulldozer architecture and was just there attempt to fix it

sad part is there still making you live with it today
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


could you please share your source?
I've read in a magazine that the Bulldozer architecture was innovative and ballsy
that's what I like with AMD.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Andrew Feldman, Corporate Vice President and General Manager of AMDs server division made some interesting comments about how AMD views Bulldozer in retrospect:

Feldman candidly acknowledged that the Bulldozer failure cost AMD some credibility in servers. But the company is looking to rebound with a revamped management team led by CEO Rory Read and a new server roadmap comprising x86 and ARM chips for multiple server categories.

“Bulldozer was without doubt an unmitigated failure. We know it,” Feldman said.

“It cost the CEO his job, it cost most of the management team its job, it cost the vice president of engineering his job. You have a new team. We are crystal clear that that sort of failure is unacceptable,” Feldman said.
Click to expand...

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2040045/amd-bridges-road-to-arm-with-new-lowpower-x86-server-chips.html

^ This was 2013. AMD has since been late to market with their ARM CPUs, which was another failed initiative. Arguably the only great success they've had since maybe 2005 were the cat cores (Jaguar, Puma), which made it into the consoles, but AMD has discontinued them now too.

The company's survival at this point depends on Zen not being a complete flop as well, and unfortunately, Zen keeps getting pushed back.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I dont want the i3 cuz its showing lower fps and I want to play new titles with min. 30 FPS on high/ultra. And amd got bonus for the future and games like crysis 3, and this bonus is pretty good. But I saw some coments that as fact saying: OCed 8300 on the same Mhz frequency will be worse than fx 6300. Can you please explain to me how? And btw I dont mean this as harasment, I just wanna know your opinion, because Im very bad in IT zone.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Core i3 performs much better in modern games than either FX CPU, because the FX CPUs have lots of very slow cores, while games don't often use more than a couple of cores, leaving most of the AMD CPU unused. Benchmarks continually show i3's coming out well ahead of the FX CPUs a vast majority of the time.

Here's how the the older Haswell i3 performs compared with AMD's best in recent games:

fl_proz.jpg


hit_proz11.jpg


pc_proz.jpg


dr_proz.png



Bear in mind that an i3 6100 is a lot faster than an i3 4330.

And please don't say, "Well I'm not going to use 980Ti SLI, that's unrealistic". GameGPU uses fast GPUs to take GPU performance out of the equation, and show how well each CPU can perform with virtually unlimited GPU power.

In short: AMD CPUs are not bad for gaming, but Intel has better offerings at the same price points, making them inferior choices.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It depends on which i3 you're comparing it to.

GTA V is one example of a game where an FX-8 actually outperforms an older Haswell i3, but that's more an exception than the norm:

GTA5_proz.jpg


Again, an i3 6100 is much faster than an i3 4330, so expect it to be (at worst) tied with the FX-8, while drawing a tiny fraction of the power, generating much less heat, and running on a newer, cheaper motherboard with more features.

Overall the i3 is a better choice for gaming.

Rendering? You could make a case for the FX, but it's simply not a (comparatively good) gaming CPU. It's from 2012, and is already 4 years old, and is showing its age.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
SashaT - I've seen your other thread & you've misunderstood everything I've said.

I was talking about the 8300 vs the 6300 at stock speeds.
Running non-overclocked the 6300 will on the majority of cases (disregarding multi-threaded benchmarks) at least match & more likely beat the 8300 simply because it runs faster clocks out of the box.

Ifvypu run both chips overclocked at a straight 4gbz on all cores for example the 8300 will be stronger only because it has 2 extra cores - it don't perform any better in games though simply because no title I've seen personally makes significant use of 8 threads.

Because the 8300 has 2 extra cores it will hit a 125w tdp once overclocked & will therefore require both a better quality board & better cooler than the 6300 at the same speed.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The Fx CPUs are fine as long as they are cheap. In this year's new games, the Fx CPUs are very well justified for their price. Here are some benchmarks from this year's newest games. I am a bit surprised by their performance in this year's biggest titles. However, you should know that their performance varies from titles to titles. I was unable to find CPU benchmarks on Hitman 2016 and Rainbow Six Siege.

CPU_01.png


CPU_01.png


CPU_01.png


CPU_01.png

 
Upvote 0 Downvote


I chose these games at random from GameGPU's most recent reviews.

Release date:
Dirt Rally - December 2015
Fable Legends - unreleased, Microsoft just canceled it actually, was in beta
Project Cars - May 2015
Hitman - March 2016

^ I'm not sure what constitutes "new" if these are old games. One of them is actually unreleased.

Anyway, Benjiwenji's results are still showing the FX-8xxx behind the i3 6100, but still adequate for recent games, which I agree with. An FX-8320 will provide a fine gaming experience, but it's a worse choice than the i3, because it performs worse, needs a more expensive motherboard which has a much older chipset / less features, draws more power, and costs more.

EDIT: For what it's worth, what scene is used in the benchmark is important. GameGPU generally looks for rather CPU-intensive scenes, so you're seeing more of a worst-case scenario for each CPU in their tests.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ok, I've got this amazing brain that it thought ''Hitman'' was ''Hitman Absolution'' and there hasn't been a Fable game in ages so that made me think it must've been old too. Even thought the Dirt Rally one was from 2013/14... I don't know what I'm doing sometimes lol.

Anyways, those benches do make it look way worse than it actually is.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If we are to look at just gaming experience in benchmarks, then I would agree that the i3-6100 would slightly better than the Fx. Although I would argue that the Fx 8350 is generally on par in gaming with the i3-6100 rather than being worse. We can see that in the Division and Battlefront, the 8350 out performs the 6100. The 8350 and the 6100 are literally on par in the new Tomb Raider.

I am also aware that the OP asked for gaming performance. However, I want to point out that the Fx 8 cores are more well rounded CPUs than the i3-6100 as a CPU. If one wants to stream and record games, then the 8 cores will out perform the i3. The same for any CPU intensive tasks, including rendering.

To be fair, the Fx 8xxx with a quality mobo and cooler will be pricier than the i3-6100 with a cheap mobo.
I know that you can get the 8320E for $89 USD and an additional $40 off with any AM3+ mobo in MicroCenter. That's a steal if one is willing to OC.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote


The upgrade path is a plus. However, it is my personal preference to disregard upgrade paths. I am the kind of person that purchases the best parts within my budget.

And if my budget for a CPU is sub $150, then it is unlikely that I would have a $200-350 budget in the next couple years to upgrade the CPU. Nor do the majority of users upgrade CPU within 2 years. Sockets usually become dead before people are in need of upgrades. It is more or less a marketing ploy.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom