amd fx 6300 vs i3 4170

[superninja12]

i want to build a budget gaming pc to play csgo and league of legends perhaps some streaming i cant decide between an amd fx

 

[LookItsRain]

Dual Core I3, hyperthreaded or not, is a no go from me. Games coming out, like Witcher 3 have minimum requirements that are at least a REAL quad core. I am under no illusion that the FX is a better CPU than the Intel offering, or the upgrade path, which for Intel is REALLY good

But for a budget gaming rig with the FX-6300, you can play everything coming for a while, then when you upgrade, you will have to get a new motherboard. The problem is people saying the AM3+ is dead, and so is 1150. New intel chip coming on a new socket, then next year new AMD CPU's coming on a new socket, so no matter what you get, when you upgrade, unless you want to move up on the "older" Intel platform, you will need a new motherboard.

So the ONLY reason to get an I3 is if you plan to upgrade, neither is going to blast through gaming like an I5, and they both have their strengths and weaknesses, but with all these new games coming that require a real quad core, an I3 is just not worth it for a gaming rig that you plan on using as-is for a while

The requirements for games of an i5 are an honest joke, every game that claims that i need an i5 runs perfectly fine on my i3 + r9 270x. That arguement of an i5 being wrote down on a requirements page needs to go away.

http://www.techspot.com/review/972-intel-core-i3-vs-i5-vs-i7/

 

[Nextg_Rival]

Dual Core I3, hyperthreaded or not, is a no go from me. Games coming out, like Witcher 3 have minimum requirements that are at least a REAL quad core. I am under no illusion that the FX is a better CPU than the Intel offering, or the upgrade path, which for Intel is REALLY good

But for a budget gaming rig with the FX-6300, you can play everything coming for a while, then when you upgrade, you will have to get a new motherboard. The problem is people saying the AM3+ is dead, and so is 1150. New intel chip coming on a new socket, then next year new AMD CPU's coming on a new socket, so no matter what you get, when you upgrade, unless you want to move up on the "older" Intel platform, you will need a new motherboard.

So the ONLY reason to get an I3 is if you plan to upgrade, neither is going to blast through gaming like an I5, and they both have their strengths and weaknesses, but with all these new games coming that require a real quad core, an I3 is just not worth it for a gaming rig that you plan on using as-is for a while

The requirements for games of an i5 are an honest joke, every game that claims that i need an i5 runs perfectly fine on my i3 + r9 270x. That arguement of an i5 being wrote down on a requirements page needs to go away.

http://www.techspot.com/review/972-intel-core-i3-vs-i5-vs-i7/

I honestly think that games overstate their requirements on purpose. Originally when I checked, an i3-4005U couldn't even run Dark Souls 2 according to the requirements. Well it did. At medium quality to boot.

 

[crispytheone]

The i3 will destroy anything that amd has to offer gaming wise, plenty of benchmarks all over the web, wont beat on that dead horse anymore, plus, i own one.
For streaming with an i3, you be pushing it, i would buy an 8320 in this case unless you have the budget to get a i5.

Destroy is a very big word for a dual core vs a 8 core overclockable CPU

The new games, like GTA 5 perform better on the 8350 than the I3, and its gonna just get worse for the I3, Hyperthreading is just a way to take advantage of unused resources, so when the CPU gets to 100% its a dual core, a beast of a dual core, but still a dual core.

The ADVANTGE of the I3 is the upgrade path, AMD kinda stops at the 8350 right now, but with Intel you can get a very very powerful CPU with the same motherboard

The reality is this

FX-6300 May not be able to outperform the I3 in current gaming, but it will play every modern game, and upcoming releases.

Very powerful dual core that has a fantastic upgrade path, and can play pretty much everything right now, but as titles start to become more heavily threaded, could find itself at a disadvantage.

just look at the minimums for Witcher 3

AMD Phenom II X4 940
I5 2500k

I know everyone here knows the I5 is significantly more powerful than the Phenom, but what matters is true quad core

 

[uplink-svk]

The dispute is more or less irrelevant. OP is going with this configuration + 2 x 4 GB DDR3 Crucial Sport 1600 MHz RAM:

 

[madmatt30]

He should have gone with a mid range h97 board for €70 & sunk another 25€ into a r9 270 IMO.
The 750ti is weak now.

 

[uplink-svk]

madmatt30 - he's playing League of Legends. League of Legends go in 4k on 750 Ti, just FYi and also, one more thing. Why going with locked down h97 motherboard, when he can have z97 motherboard, which is fully capable of OC in the future? Chosing GTX 750 Ti, or AMD graphics card of the same class is irrelevant now, but having there a motherboard, that can hold up 4790k and most likely 5970k is the key to success in this situation.

 

[PCBuilderProbs]

I'm ending this.

Get the damn FX-6300. Why? Oh, but the i3 in this benchmark gives .2-.4% more performance than the FX-6300.

Wow that's great, except that OP can overclock the shit out of the fx chip, whereas the i3 chip is useless regarding overclocking. Get the damn 6300, I'm sick of this AMD vs Intel fight. And for god's sake don't recommend an i5 for League of Legends and CS:GO.

 

[LookItsRain]

I'm ending this.

Get the damn FX-6300. Why? Oh, but the i3 in this benchmark gives .2-.4% more performance than the FX-6300.

Wow that's great, except that OP can overclock the shit out of the fx chip, whereas the i3 chip is useless regarding overclocking. Get the damn 6300, I'm sick of this AMD vs Intel fight. And for god's sake don't recommend an i5 for League of Legends and CS:GO.

Im sick of people who have zero understanding of why intel is always recommended over amd. The fx has to be overclocked to get the same performance as an i3, uses 4x more power and have to buy a decent mobo and cooler to get near i3 performance. Overall, the fx will cost more from the start, and alot more in countries were power usage is a big deal money wise.

While lga 1150 is now technically dead, you do have an upgrade path from an i3, while going from a 6300 to an 8320 literally nets nothing in 99% of games.

My current system beats my friends rig with an fx 6300 @4.2ghz with a 7870@1125mhz. My i3 is at 3.8ghz and my 270x(rebranded 7870)@ 1100mhz. My system wins in all games, especially cities skylines, which claims more cores is better in the system requirements, in which its not.

Typing this is getting old.

and no, dx12 is not magically going to make a 6300 beat an i3, nor will consoles having 8 cores makes the fx perform better, the last gen of consoles had triple cores and games today still mostly use 2 cores.

 

[uplink-svk]

PCBuilderProbs - get the 3 years old FX-6300, "yay", get the super old 4-6 years old chipset and socket, that has absolutely and utterly no future, "yay #2".

For goodness' sake. Wake up buddy. The motherboard I chose him has Z97 [latest] chipset from Intel, that will run the next generation of desktop processors [that would most likely be 5970k], which will at it's basic clock destroy anything, that even goes around AM3+. Secondly, he can pile the Z97 with up to 32 gigs of DDR3 ram. Thirdly, he has the newest PCi-e 3.0 support, and another for SLi.

Next he has there m.2 socket 3, for ultra fast SSD drives, and many more.

Why in the God's name should he even think about AMD? Because it goes faster when You OC it? NO! That's just wrong. Buying dead-end architecture, with absolutely no hope for upgrade is a monstrosity, mostly nowadays.

What I offered him is freedom. He will have i5 processor, that packs a LOT of punch. And he can get 4xxx, or 5xxx, when he feels like to. That's what's freedom. Not a burning and heating AMD processor, where the strongest Vishera can't even theoretically compete with midranged i5 processors in per-core performance.

Once and for all, AMD does have some innovative and groundbreaking technologies, even FX-6300 packs them. Problem is, these techs are mere ressurection of their former glory. Intel is ruling actual global waters cpu-wise. It may and most likely will change, I hope it will, but it's not gonna happen today, or tomorrow, or in a month, or in a quarter, or half a year. Maybe in a year, maybe two, but not now...

P.S.: Core i5 4460 packs 6672 in cpu benchmark, that's a raw power. AMD FX-6300 Six-Core packs 6358 in cpu benchmark in all core performance. When it runs down to 4 cores, it's merely 4238 points. Now include hyperthreading feature, that rises effeciency of cores by 15-20%. FX-6300 is a disaster. Without some rock solid cpu cooler, he can't even OC it right. When he feels like it, he'll get anything for Z97-P, in a year, or two. But, all he can do with AMD platform is sell it. And only people who don't know better will buy it, extremely under price.

P.S.2.: Now I understand. Checked Your specs. You're stuck with AMD, and You want others on Your sinking boat. That's not a nice thing to do buddy, not really

 

[PCBuilderProbs]

PCBuilderProbs - get the 3 years old FX-6300, "yay", get the super old 4-6 years old chipset and socket, that has absolutely and utterly no future, "yay #2".

For goodness' sake. Wake up buddy. The motherboard I chose him has Z97 [latest] chipset from Intel, that will run the next generation of desktop processors [that would most likely be 5970k], which will at it's basic clock destroy anything, that even goes around AM3+. Secondly, he can pile the Z97 with up to 32 gigs of DDR3 ram. Thirdly, he has the newest PCi-e 3.0 support, and another for SLi.

Next he has there m.2 socket 3, for ultra fast SSD drives, and many more.

Why in the God's name should he even think about AMD? Because it goes faster when You OC it? NO! That's just wrong. Buying dead-end architecture, with absolutely no hope for upgrade is a monstrosity, mostly nowadays.

What I offered him is freedom. He will have i5 processor, that packs a LOT of punch. And he can get 4xxx, or 5xxx, when he feels like to. That's what's freedom. Not a burning and heating AMD processor, where the strongest Vishera can't even theoretically compete with midranged i5 processors in per-core performance.

Once and for all, AMD does have some innovative and groundbreaking technologies, even FX-6300 packs them. Problem is, these techs are mere ressurection of their former glory. Intel is ruling actual global waters cpu-wise. It may and most likely will change, I hope it will, but it's not gonna happen today, or tomorrow, or in a month, or in a quarter, or half a year. Maybe in a year, maybe two, but not now...

P.S.: Core i5 4460 packs 6672 in cpu benchmark, that's a raw power. AMD FX-6300 Six-Core packs 6358 in cpu benchmark in all core performance. When it runs down to 4 cores, it's merely 4238 points. Now include hyperthreading feature, that rises effeciency of cores by 15-20%. FX-6300 is a disaster. Without some rock solid cpu cooler, he can't even OC it right. When he feels like it, he'll get anything for Z97-P, in a year, or two. But, all he can do with AMD platform is sell it. And only people who don't know better will buy it, extremely under price.

P.S.2.: Now I understand. Checked Your specs. You're stuck with AMD, and You want others on Your sinking boat. That's not a nice thing to do buddy, not really

lol you need to get out more, that's all I have to say about this. Now I'm gonna go render shit on my 4 background cores while I play Warframe with my friends, have fun trying to do that with an i3. Also, comparing the FX-6300 to the i5 pretty much means you know that the i3 is terrible, and you choose to dodge the idea that the fx-6300 is more than $100 cheaper than the i5, but no, don't take that into account or anything. Also, you forgot that I already said a while back that my next build is an i7. Nice assumption there lol

 

[LookItsRain]

PCBuilderProbs - get the 3 years old FX-6300, "yay", get the super old 4-6 years old chipset and socket, that has absolutely and utterly no future, "yay #2".

For goodness' sake. Wake up buddy. The motherboard I chose him has Z97 [latest] chipset from Intel, that will run the next generation of desktop processors [that would most likely be 5970k], which will at it's basic clock destroy anything, that even goes around AM3+. Secondly, he can pile the Z97 with up to 32 gigs of DDR3 ram. Thirdly, he has the newest PCi-e 3.0 support, and another for SLi.

Next he has there m.2 socket 3, for ultra fast SSD drives, and many more.

Why in the God's name should he even think about AMD? Because it goes faster when You OC it? NO! That's just wrong. Buying dead-end architecture, with absolutely no hope for upgrade is a monstrosity, mostly nowadays.

What I offered him is freedom. He will have i5 processor, that packs a LOT of punch. And he can get 4xxx, or 5xxx, when he feels like to. That's what's freedom. Not a burning and heating AMD processor, where the strongest Vishera can't even theoretically compete with midranged i5 processors in per-core performance.

Once and for all, AMD does have some innovative and groundbreaking technologies, even FX-6300 packs them. Problem is, these techs are mere ressurection of their former glory. Intel is ruling actual global waters cpu-wise. It may and most likely will change, I hope it will, but it's not gonna happen today, or tomorrow, or in a month, or in a quarter, or half a year. Maybe in a year, maybe two, but not now...

P.S.: Core i5 4460 packs 6672 in cpu benchmark, that's a raw power. AMD FX-6300 Six-Core packs 6358 in cpu benchmark in all core performance. When it runs down to 4 cores, it's merely 4238 points. Now include hyperthreading feature, that rises effeciency of cores by 15-20%. FX-6300 is a disaster. Without some rock solid cpu cooler, he can't even OC it right. When he feels like it, he'll get anything for Z97-P, in a year, or two. But, all he can do with AMD platform is sell it. And only people who don't know better will buy it, extremely under price.

P.S.2.: Now I understand. Checked Your specs. You're stuck with AMD, and You want others on Your sinking boat. That's not a nice thing to do buddy, not really

lol you need to get out more, that's all I have to say about this. Now I'm gonna go render shit on my 4 background cores while I play Warframe with my friends, have fun trying to do that with an i3. Also, comparing the FX-6300 to the i5 pretty much means you know that the i3 is terrible, and you choose to dodge the idea that the fx-6300 is more than $100 cheaper than the i5, but no, don't take that into account or anything. Also, you forgot that I already said a while back that my next build is an i7. Nice assumption there lol

My computer in my sig beats my friends rig with the same graphics card at a slightly higher clock with a 6300@ 4.2 ghz. It loses in most games by a few fps, but some games are double digit losses, also, it cant run pcsx2 with good frame rates.

 

[PCBuilderProbs]

[

Im sick of people who have zero understanding of why intel is always recommended over amd. The fx has to be overclocked to get the same performance as an i3, uses 4x more power and have to buy a decent mobo and cooler to get near i3 performance. Overall, the fx will cost more from the start, and alot more in countries were power usage is a big deal money wise.

While lga 1150 is now technically dead, you do have an upgrade path from an i3, while going from a 6300 to an 8320 literally nets nothing in 99% of games.

My current system beats my friends rig with an fx 6300 @4.2ghz with a 7870@1125mhz. My i3 is at 3.8ghz and my 270x(rebranded 7870)@ 1100mhz. My system wins in all games, especially cities skylines, which claims more cores is better in the system requirements, in which its not.

Typing this is getting old.

and no, dx12 is not magically going to make a 6300 beat an i3, nor will consoles having 8 cores makes the fx perform better, the last gen of consoles had triple cores and games today still mostly use 2 cores.

I applaud you for using logic and reasoning in your reply and not bringing and recommending an i5 into the conversation like that lunatic elitist in these comments. I still think overclocking support makes the 6300 more of a viable option, but your points were pretty good. I do have to say though, the fx chip won't really cost "a lot" from the start, considering the price of an fx chip isn't a lot to begin with, and recent sales have been lowering the prices too. Mobos aren't expensive either, so not sure where you're coming from regarding that. If you're talking about power consumption, 95 watts on the 6300 isnt that much compared to at least the other fx chips at 125w. Though I do have to say the 9000 series and that 225w TDP... damn man... what were they thinking...

 

[LookItsRain]

[

Im sick of people who have zero understanding of why intel is always recommended over amd. The fx has to be overclocked to get the same performance as an i3, uses 4x more power and have to buy a decent mobo and cooler to get near i3 performance. Overall, the fx will cost more from the start, and alot more in countries were power usage is a big deal money wise.

While lga 1150 is now technically dead, you do have an upgrade path from an i3, while going from a 6300 to an 8320 literally nets nothing in 99% of games.

My current system beats my friends rig with an fx 6300 @4.2ghz with a 7870@1125mhz. My i3 is at 3.8ghz and my 270x(rebranded 7870)@ 1100mhz. My system wins in all games, especially cities skylines, which claims more cores is better in the system requirements, in which its not.

Typing this is getting old.

and no, dx12 is not magically going to make a 6300 beat an i3, nor will consoles having 8 cores makes the fx perform better, the last gen of consoles had triple cores and games today still mostly use 2 cores.

I applaud you for using logic and reasoning in your reply and not bringing and recommending an i5 into the conversation like that lunatic elitist in these comments. I still think overclocking support makes the 6300 more of a viable option, but your points were pretty good. I do have to say though, the fx chip won't really cost "a lot" from the start, considering the price of an fx chip isn't a lot to begin with, and recent sales have been lowering the prices too. Mobos aren't expensive either, so not sure where you're coming from regarding that. If you're talking about power consumption, 95 watts on the 6300 isnt that much compared to at least the other fx chips at 125w. Though I do have to say the 9000 series and that 225w TDP... damn man... what were they thinking...

An overclocked 6300 will draw about 125-170 watts when overclocked, tdp is not power draw.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_design_power

The fx chip simply cost more at the start and let me use pcpartpicker to show you.

Intel build:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i3-4160 3.6GHz Dual-Core Processor ($99.95 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($42.99 @ Directron)
Memory: A-Data XPG V2 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($47.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($44.10 @ SuperBiiz)
Video Card: Sapphire Radeon R9 270X 2GB Dual-X Video Card ($132.98 @ Newegg)
Case: NZXT Source 210 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case ($35.10 @ SuperBiiz)
Power Supply: Antec EarthWatts Platinum 550W 80+ Platinum Certified ATX Power Supply ($43.49 @ Newegg)
Total: $446.60
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-05-22 22:14 EDT-0400

Amd build:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor ($85.50 @ SuperBiiz)
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 ($72.00 @ SuperBiiz)
Memory: A-Data XPG V2 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($57.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($44.10 @ SuperBiiz)
Video Card: Sapphire Radeon R9 270X 2GB Dual-X Video Card ($132.98 @ Newegg)
Case: NZXT Source 210 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case ($35.10 @ SuperBiiz)
Power Supply: Antec High Current Gamer 620W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($69.49 @ Newegg)
Total: $524.14
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-05-22 22:16 EDT-0400

Amd build is more expensive, uses more energy, and you have to take time to overclock to get close to i3 level performance.

The recording arguement really holds no water either, i can record with my i3.....by not recording with cpu encoding, i use the h.264 encoder in my gpu with bandicam.

 

[PCBuilderProbs]

An overclocked 6300 will draw about 125-170 watts when overclocked, tdp is not power draw.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_design_power

The fx chip simply cost more at the start and let me use pcpartpicker to show you.

Intel build:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i3-4160 3.6GHz Dual-Core Processor ($99.95 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($42.99 @ Directron)
Memory: A-Data XPG V2 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($47.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($44.10 @ SuperBiiz)
Video Card: Sapphire Radeon R9 270X 2GB Dual-X Video Card ($132.98 @ Newegg)
Case: NZXT Source 210 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case ($35.10 @ SuperBiiz)
Power Supply: Antec EarthWatts Platinum 550W 80+ Platinum Certified ATX Power Supply ($43.49 @ Newegg)
Total: $446.60
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-05-22 22:14 EDT-0400

Amd build:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor ($85.50 @ SuperBiiz)
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 ($72.00 @ SuperBiiz)
Memory: A-Data XPG V2 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($57.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($44.10 @ SuperBiiz)
Video Card: Sapphire Radeon R9 270X 2GB Dual-X Video Card ($132.98 @ Newegg)
Case: NZXT Source 210 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case ($35.10 @ SuperBiiz)
Power Supply: Antec High Current Gamer 620W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($69.49 @ Newegg)
Total: $524.14
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-05-22 22:16 EDT-0400

Amd build is more expensive, uses more energy, and you have to take time to overclock to get close to i3 level performance.

The recording arguement really holds no water either, i can record with my i3.....by not recording with cpu encoding, i use the h.264 encoder in my gpu with bandicam.

You could probably get away with a 550w PSU to be honest, but anyways, I mentioned rendering in my other post, as in CPU-based video rendering (I always do CPU-based, my GPU sucks atm), by setting the affinity to the background few cores you leave the first couple of cores free to do whatever you want while still rendering in the background. Yes, the background cores are not nearly as efficient as the first four cores, but you get that option I guess with AMD

 

[LookItsRain]

An overclocked 6300 will draw about 125-170 watts when overclocked, tdp is not power draw.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_design_power

The fx chip simply cost more at the start and let me use pcpartpicker to show you.

Intel build:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i3-4160 3.6GHz Dual-Core Processor ($99.95 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($42.99 @ Directron)
Memory: A-Data XPG V2 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($47.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($44.10 @ SuperBiiz)
Video Card: Sapphire Radeon R9 270X 2GB Dual-X Video Card ($132.98 @ Newegg)
Case: NZXT Source 210 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case ($35.10 @ SuperBiiz)
Power Supply: Antec EarthWatts Platinum 550W 80+ Platinum Certified ATX Power Supply ($43.49 @ Newegg)
Total: $446.60
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-05-22 22:14 EDT-0400

Amd build:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor ($85.50 @ SuperBiiz)
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 ($72.00 @ SuperBiiz)
Memory: A-Data XPG V2 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($57.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($44.10 @ SuperBiiz)
Video Card: Sapphire Radeon R9 270X 2GB Dual-X Video Card ($132.98 @ Newegg)
Case: NZXT Source 210 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case ($35.10 @ SuperBiiz)
Power Supply: Antec High Current Gamer 620W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($69.49 @ Newegg)
Total: $524.14
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-05-22 22:16 EDT-0400

Amd build is more expensive, uses more energy, and you have to take time to overclock to get close to i3 level performance.

The recording arguement really holds no water either, i can record with my i3.....by not recording with cpu encoding, i use the h.264 encoder in my gpu with bandicam.

You could probably get away with a 550w PSU to be honest, but anyways, I mentioned rendering in my other post, as in CPU-based video rendering (I always do CPU-based, my GPU sucks atm), by setting the affinity to the background few cores you leave the first couple of cores free to do whatever you want while still rendering in the background. Yes, the background cores are not nearly as efficient as the first four cores, but you get that option I guess with AMD

I bet your gpu has an encoder just like mine does

 

[crispytheone]

This argument is getting tired, g3258's and I3's are dual cores, for gaming going forward they probably should be avoided

The FX line is old, and slower than current intel offering. that is a fact

For gaming try try try to push your budget to an I5, if not, the FX-6300 has one advantage, its still above all the minimun requirements for all the new top games coming out, something the Pentium and I3 are not, does not mean you cannot play the games on those chips, just that they fall under the minimum specs.

Games are becoming core dependant, and if you look at the minimum, like the Phenom x4 and i5-2500k, obviously it has a lot less to do with the power of the CPU, an 860K is better than a Phenom x4, and more the fact they have 4 real cores.

For gaming really the I5, almost any of the current ones, are the best for gaming, if you can either find a way, or wait for a special, that would be the wise thing to do, but the FX-6300 is fine for gaming and anything else, just know what it is at this point, a budget CPU, but probably the best budget CPU

 

[LookItsRain]

This argument is getting tired, g3258's and I3's are dual cores, for gaming going forward they probably should be avoided

The FX line is old, and slower than current intel offering. that is a fact

For gaming try try try to push your budget to an I5, if not, the FX-6300 has one advantage, its still above all the minimun requirements for all the new top games coming out, something the Pentium and I3 are not, does not mean you cannot play the games on those chips, just that they fall under the minimum specs.

Games are becoming core dependant, and if you look at the minimum, like the Phenom x4 and i5-2500k, obviously it has a lot less to do with the power of the CPU, an 860K is better than a Phenom x4, and more the fact they have 4 real cores.

For gaming really the I5, almost any of the current ones, are the best for gaming, if you can either find a way, or wait for a special, that would be the wise thing to do, but the FX-6300 is fine for gaming and anything else, just know what it is at this point, a budget CPU, but probably the best budget CPU

i3 beats the FX as well

The issue is not whether amd or intel is "better" its that games rely on fewer stronger cores compared to more weaker ones. If games were able to fully utilize amd cores then amd would be ahead, but games dont do that, nor is it simple to make games/software do that.

http://www.techspot.com/review/972-intel-core-i3-vs-i5-vs-i7/

 

[crispytheone]

This argument is getting tired, g3258's and I3's are dual cores, for gaming going forward they probably should be avoided

The FX line is old, and slower than current intel offering. that is a fact

For gaming try try try to push your budget to an I5, if not, the FX-6300 has one advantage, its still above all the minimun requirements for all the new top games coming out, something the Pentium and I3 are not, does not mean you cannot play the games on those chips, just that they fall under the minimum specs.

Games are becoming core dependant, and if you look at the minimum, like the Phenom x4 and i5-2500k, obviously it has a lot less to do with the power of the CPU, an 860K is better than a Phenom x4, and more the fact they have 4 real cores.

For gaming really the I5, almost any of the current ones, are the best for gaming, if you can either find a way, or wait for a special, that would be the wise thing to do, but the FX-6300 is fine for gaming and anything else, just know what it is at this point, a budget CPU, but probably the best budget CPU

i3 beats the FX as well

The issue is not whether amd or intel is "better" its that games rely on fewer stronger cores compared to more weaker ones. If games were able to fully utilize amd cores then amd would be ahead, but games dont do that, nor is it simple to make games/software do that.

http://www.techspot.com/review/972-intel-core-i3-vs-i5-vs-i7/

You do understand that the NEW games ARE utilizing more cores, a FX-6300 is a better choice in say GTA 5 than an I3, and a FX-8350 is actually one of the recommended processors

Please be real about these processors, each has strengths and weaknesses, an I3 is better in older games, but the new games will actually benefit from more cores, even if they are weaker

 

[uplink-svk]

crispytheone - I don't think that the performance in GTA 5 is the problem here. AM3+ is most likely a dead platform, that's the problem here. Going AMD is kind of contraproductive nowadays. ANd if a budget allows one to go Intel, there's not a single reason not to. Lesser power consumption, higher reliability, lower heat dissipation, and with K models, higher OC increase in overall computer power [not in "GHz", there AMD leads, but their GHz are weaker, than Intels "GHz"].

 

[Nextg_Rival]

First off, I want to mention that I am surprised you guys are still going at it. Secondly, crispytheon made a very good point. The FX 6300 would probably perform better than an i3 in the brand new games like GTA V. That however, is irrelevant to this thread as the OP asks for a CPU that can run LoL and CS:GO, as well as stream them. I am convinced that the i3 will be sufficient, if not better, while also providing an upgrade pathway.

 

[madmatt30]

If you want to run a PC for the next 4-5 years without upgrading the 6300 is the better buy IMO.
If you're going to have $200 spare in the next 2 years to upgrade to an i5 because to run new titles you will most likely have to,go go with an i3.

If the only games you're likely to be bothered about in the coming 5 years are cs go & lol its largely irrelevant - they'll both do the job.

Live twitch streaming ?? The 6300 will pretty much rape the i3.

Power draw ,temps ,reliability ??? Absolute fantasty regarding the 6300 having particularly high anything in this regard ,2,3,4 threaded workload a 65w i3 will run 95%+ to cope using its full tdp ,temps around 70c.
A 6300 will run 60-70% load ,sit around the same wattage & is unlikely to touch 65c even on a stock amd cooler.

Sat & watched the thread ,wasn't going to get involved - too much false information dragged me in though ;-)

 

[LookItsRain]

So, the power draw is a fantasy right?
http://www.techspot.com/review/679-intel-haswell-core-i7-4770k/page13.html

 

[madmatt30]

^ I don't see a 6300 in there - all the fx chips on there are rated at 125w & come with overinflated stock voltages.
The 6300 stock has a 95w tdp & much lower stock voltage
You can knock at least 50w off the 6350's power consumption on that list - very likely more.

 

[LookItsRain]

^ I don't see a 6300 in there - all the fx chips on there are rated at 125w & come with overinflated stock voltages.
The 6300 stock has a 95w tdp & much lower stock voltage
You can knock at least 50w off the 6350's power consumption on that list - very likely more.

Still, 180 watts is well over the ivy i5.

 

[madmatt30]

^ admittedly but its insignificant to most people.

Im not 100% sure of those results though anyway.
My 8320 pulls around the same draw as my 6300 at the same speed - on fx chips board quality plays a big part.
My 8 phase 8320 board runs at a far lower voltage than the cheap Asus 4 phase board the 6300 is in because it has better voltage regulation.
Unless they're running everything on a comparable quality board (which is impossible when crossing platforms) the results are skewed substantially.

Nothing against the i3 - its a good chip, I have 3 Intel builds sat at my house & the 2 amd builds in my sig.
They all do their jobs admirably ,the 35w hyperthreaded i5 in my little lenovo htpc has an insane performance to power ratio running on a 65w external PSU.

Just sick of hearing talk that the 6300 is crap & the i3 is amazing.
They're the same budget ,they're both good chips.
The i3 is easier ,drop it in a cheap board & it will run to its full capability.
The 6300 requires more attention to other component choices, if it comes to building a one time budget build with no plans to upgrade in the next few years the 6300 is more future proof full stop