AMD FX 6300 vs i3-4160

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
S

Sameer25

Reputable
Apr 23, 2015
270
0
4,810
hi i am going to be build a gaming pc and i need help
which processor (i3-4160 or Fx 6300) would be better in games like call of duty Advanced warfare, Black ops ii, counter strike go, Battlefield ( mostly COD )and other stuff like daily use, web browsing, video editing. i am on a budget and can't go over $500 ( maybe $20 more ). Can any one tell me what motherboard to pair with them and the motherboard and the processor cant be More than$140 - 150. i am going to use the sapphire radeon r9 280 gpu with these and I could also use the i3 4150 but which one would be a better choice. i looked up both the benchmarks and the fx 6300 has a better score than the i3-4160 (https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i3-4160+%40+3.60GHz
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-6300+Six-Core) and I would over clock the fx 6300 but only with the stock cooler
 
Solution
jaguarskx
A Core i3 will generally perform just as well or better in games compared to a FX-6xxx CPU, but actual performance depends on the specific game. Overclocking the FX-6xxx can help close the gap. For video editing, the FX-6xxx will likely provide better performance due to the fact that the many video editing programs can take advantage of more than 2 cores. For recording gameplay video using software like FRAPs, the FX-6xxx will provide better performance. When using an external capture device to record gameplay the Core i3 will generally provide better performance.

See below for benchmarks of recent games. All benchmarks are from Techspot.com.
http://www.techspot.com/features/gaming/gaming-benchmarks/...
Sort by date Sort by votes
depends if gaming is your only choice, rumors say amd will perform better when dx 12 comes out, if does great, the fx 630 is a solid cpu, and easy to overclock, also gives you slightly better rendering and and more cores, I can't speak much about intel as I don't run them, only due to having 2 that were messed from the beginning (probably just bad luck), but amd has served me great over the years, nice to overclock with right cooler, great for rendering, and for a budget system, I think they do pretty good for coming out years before current Intel stuff, you could also look at the fx 8320e which in return same power as fx 6300, and easy to overclock the 8 cores to get performance that you would with a fx 8350. so you have many options, I know many people on this site prefer Intel due to few things being better but price to performance you can never go wrong with AMD
 
Upvote -1 Downvote
Are you planning on overclocking the 6300 at all? If not then I would for sure go for the Intel. Also i don't know if you live near a microcenter but they have a deal going on right now that if you buy a i3-4370 you get 30$ off certain motherboards. It works out really nice because the i3-4160 is about 30$ less so you end up spending the same amount. Long story short though, i would get the intel unless you plan on overclocking your 6300.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


I agree with you for the most part(I also have always and still do run AMD) To me it kinda depends on if he is going to do any overclocking. If not then i'd say get the intel because its gonna run all the games he plans on playing well.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The i3 can usually beat almost EVERY AMD on the market. AMD is several generations behind. the i5 is extremely good. It will take a lot of time for the I5/i7 of today to be too slow for anything.
I happen to be using a AMD 260x card, and it performs quite will at 1920 by 1080. Higher resolution requires much more video card power. My video card probably has a few more years to go, before it's just too slow for gaming.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
It depends on the programs being used. In these bench's an 8320 was falling behind i5's and i7's both in cpu/gpu and cpu only rendering. More cores are meaningful when they're equally performing cores. More weak cores don't mean they'll perform better, cores getting more done perform better.

http://www.hyperactivemusic.com/vegaspro/vegaspro.html

That's why amd is working on a total redesign for zen, the 'moar' method failed horribly. More cores, more ghz just means more heat and power consumption.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A Core i3 will generally perform just as well or better in games compared to a FX-6xxx CPU, but actual performance depends on the specific game. Overclocking the FX-6xxx can help close the gap. For video editing, the FX-6xxx will likely provide better performance due to the fact that the many video editing programs can take advantage of more than 2 cores. For recording gameplay video using software like FRAPs, the FX-6xxx will provide better performance. When using an external capture device to record gameplay the Core i3 will generally provide better performance.

See below for benchmarks of recent games. All benchmarks are from Techspot.com.
http://www.techspot.com/features/gaming/gaming-benchmarks/

CPU_01.png


CPU_01.png


CPU_01.png


CPU_01.png


CPU_01.png


CPU_01.png


 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
Not sure how reliable cpubenchmark is, in general the i3 is ahead of the FX 6300 in nearly every category, consumes much less power and LGA 1150 still has an upgrade path despite the upcoming Skylake.

If the FX 8320E fits your budget and you're more attached to AMD, that's the one you should go for. I had one and enjoyed it however the motherboard I had held it back so I could have gotten better use out of it with a better motherboard.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Do you have it over locked at all? You must have gotten lucky with a good chip then. Most things unless it heavily favors having a lot cores the i5-4690k should beat an fx8320 in almost every situation. You interested in selling that chip???XD
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
most of the fx 8320e can be overclocked to 4.6-4.7 on a hyper evo 212 without much issues. I have built 5 systems using that processor and have yet to find one that didnt go 4.3 stock cooler and 4.7 with hyper 212. now the original 8320 I have only been able to get 4.5 stable before issues running all gigabyte boards
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A FX chip @ 5.5ghz would perform similarly to an i5 4440 but cost WAY more.


This-

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($176.95 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ASRock H97 Anniversary ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($69.89 @ OutletPC)
Total: $246.84


Would outperform this-

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8320E 3.2GHz 8-Core Processor ($148.96 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($26.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($79.89 @ OutletPC)
Total: $255.83



That is the cheapest FX8320e setup that would be worth a crap. The cpu is absolutely necessary, and that's the cheapest AM3+ motherboard that would provide a decent overclock.

The i5 setup is already cheaper, but the i5 would run at 100% on a $30 H81 motherboard if needed.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
depends what your doing yes, but will it perform the same all the way through no, but to say you need 5.5ghz to run with that INTEL is WRONG, my processor at 4.5ghz was surpassing it, its barely faster then a STOCK fx 8350, in only in single threading, and I know the fx 8320e can be bought for less :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


I'm not even sure what you're getting at with this post.

And OP, why did you create another thread with the exact same question again?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
What country are you in? The i3 is less than $10 more than a FX6300 and will run better on a cheap motherboard than the FX will. If you get a cheap 780 series AM3+ motherboard, you are going to regret it. Basically you can build a better i3 build that would also be cheaper.

 
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