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

 

[Nextg_Rival]

TBH an i3 should be more than sufficient for streaming LoL. I used to do that with some random good-for-nothing dual core, so an i3 should definitely manage. The 6300 is OK for playing games, but it kind of struggles most of the other time with normal applications. I heard that hyperthreading utilises unused resources, so I would really love ot have had an i3 build so I could compare, since my PC with the FX 6300 sometimes freezes even though the CPU is only running at like 10%.

 

[madmatt30]

^ I do honestly think you have some intermittent problem with yourcrig as youvevmentioned this before.

The 6300 is actually a better general desktop chip than it is a gaming CPU imo.
In real life use & multitasking an hyperthreaded i3 absolutely pales in comparison seriously.
That's not just hearsay but personal experience.

 

[Nextg_Rival]

It's possible, unfortunately for me I barely had any knowledge in hardware back in the day so I was unlucky enough to purchase a pre-built PC.

 

[LookItsRain]

An i3 will lose in video editing etc...but if you need a strong processor for video editing etc, your not going to be in i3 price range anyways.

You can record with an i3 by not using cpu encoding and use other methods of recording, h.264 works great for me.

 

[Cryio]

IMO, today, you can get the FX8300 for not much money than a FX 6300 and it's in the same price bracket as the the cheaper i3 Haswell. Since it's an 8 core CPU and can be overclocked quite a bit, I would suggest you go for the 8300 for the best bang for your buck.


AND ANYWAY, it depends on GPU really. If you have a GPU up to a 280/GTX 760, will see no difference between an overclocked 6300/8300 and an i3.

 

[Stackimaginable]

Hi,
I personally prefer AMD, and I love the FX6300. I prefer it to Intel, as it has a good power to performance ratio, but if you want a bit more power, I think the i3 has better core performace, when only utilising a few of it's cores.
Hope this helped dude.

Damo

 

[uplink-svk]

madmatt30 - erm, the FX-6300 will most likely not be sufficent for next 5 years. My personal doubt is about 1-2 years. Windows 10 and DX12 with it's magical AMD loving properties won't heal the mess AMD did to their processors for past few years.

AMD should've never get pff the mainstream train, like they said they will, and now they want to magically return to the mainstream CPU train + they want to dethrone nvidia with their HBM and DX12 GCN + cpu Core super effective usage architecture.

Many good things will happen, but remember, we're talking about Intel and Nvidia. Whilst AMD is probably most likely transparent about their technologies, Intel and Nvidia brew their secret weapons in secrecy, earn money slowly and steadily, pushing new techs slowly and steadily, and when needed, they unleash some of their weapons of mass destruction. It wouldn't be the first, nor the last time in hostory of iT hardware wars.

And all that AMD has is a bunch of colorful graphs, one impressive DX12 demo and that's that. We haven't seen a single of their new CPU live, nor single of their Pirate Islands graphics cards in real life yet, so it's all just a blabber blabber...

 

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

FX 6300 of course. How is this even an argument. It will beat the i3 at streaming, it will beat it at multitasking.

 

[madmatt30]

^ I disagree entirely - the 6300 is a budget chip but gaming requirements over the last 3 years have become more dependant on multi threading than single core performance.
Intel are more guilty than amd when it comes to nonsensical socket changes etc.
There's very little difference performance wise between an old sandy bridge 2130 & an haswell 4150 apart from a slightly lower tdp & better integrated graphics which no one uses anyway.

The GPU is playing a much bigger part than any CPU bound limitations nowadays - I honestly don't see an amd 6 core struggling a few years down the line at all.

 

[kwa-e]

^ I disagree entirely - the 6300 is a budget chip but gaming requirements over the last 3 years have become more dependant on multi threading than single core performance.
Intel are more guilty than amd when it comes to nonsensical socket changes etc.
There's very little difference performance wise between an old sandy bridge 2130 & an haswell 4150 apart from a slightly lower tdp & better integrated graphics which no one uses anyway.

The GPU is playing a much bigger part than any CPU bound limitations nowadays - I honestly don't see an amd 6 core struggling a few years down the line at all.

Amen!

 

[Nextg_Rival]

madmatt30 - erm, the FX-6300 will most likely not be sufficent for next 5 years. My personal doubt is about 1-2 years. Windows 10 and DX12 with it's magical AMD loving properties won't heal the mess AMD did to their processors for past few years.

AMD should've never get pff the mainstream train, like they said they will, and now they want to magically return to the mainstream CPU train + they want to dethrone nvidia with their HBM and DX12 GCN + cpu Core super effective usage architecture.

Many good things will happen, but remember, we're talking about Intel and Nvidia. Whilst AMD is probably most likely transparent about their technologies, Intel and Nvidia brew their secret weapons in secrecy, earn money slowly and steadily, pushing new techs slowly and steadily, and when needed, they unleash some of their weapons of mass destruction. It wouldn't be the first, nor the last time in hostory of iT hardware wars.

And all that AMD has is a bunch of colorful graphs, one impressive DX12 demo and that's that. We haven't seen a single of their new CPU live, nor single of their Pirate Islands graphics cards in real life yet, so it's all just a blabber blabber...

I don't know, NVidia seem to be walking backwards by pulling off the GTX 970 stunt, overpricing the GTX 980 for the extra half GB VRAM and 5% additional performance and finally by removing double precision from the Titan X, a feature present in previous Titans, while Intel hasn't made any significant improvements to their CPUs in terms of power and have only reduced power consumption/overheating throughout the different CPU generations. AMD are definitely winning in the GPU market ATM IMHO. For the CPU market it's a long shot, but if they really get to it maybe they can come back in a year or two, unless they pull off a miracle, but that's unlikely.

 

[B3H1NDu]

####################
The Fanboys (on both sides) are real.
####################
I currently run an AMD system but I have a personal preference towards Intel and every other system I have is Intel. I have never used an AMD Radeon graphics card though. But in your place I would go for the AMD, as it seems to have better performance, for a better price, also, in general mobos can be cheaper. If you look at passmark, you can see the two CPUs, what they cost and how they perform. The AMD cpu beats out the Intel one. BUT you might want Intel for better boost speeds, lower power draw and for the upgradability of the lga11 socket. I would go for AMD just for the better performance, which is what I did. Here is the pasmark link for you to check out for yourself.


Best of luck! Don't worry about the fanboys! And most of all HAVE FUN!!!

========
PS. Just double checked the chart, and your particular i3 processor dosent seem to be on there but assuming the i3 dosen't perform like an i5 4400 or better, it looks like the AMD chip beats it out in raw processing power. And in terms of the more cores/less cores arguments, games that don't give higher dividends to faster CPUs with more cores either are in development, so old that it doesn't make a difference or not worth playing, I am speaking from experience.
========

 

[kwa-e]

####################
The Fanboys (on both sides) are real.
####################
I currently run an AMD system but I have a personal preference towards Intel and every other system I have is Intel. I have never used an AMD Radeon graphics card though. But in your place I would go for the AMD, as it seems to have better performance, for a better price, also, in general mobos can be cheaper. If you look at passmark, you can see the two CPUs, what they cost and how they perform. The AMD cpu beats out the Intel one. BUT you might want Intel for better boost speeds, lower power draw and for the upgradability of the lga11 socket. I would go for AMD just for the better performance, which is what I did. Here is the pasmark link for you to check out for yourself.


Best of luck! Don't worry about the fanboys! And most of all HAVE FUN!!!

========
PS. Just double checked the chart, and your particular i3 processor dosent seem to be on there but assuming the i3 dosen't perform like an i5 4400 or better, it looks like the AMD chip beats it out in raw processing power. And in terms of the more cores/less cores arguments, games that don't give higher dividends to faster CPUs with more cores either are in development, so old that it doesn't make a difference or not worth playing, I am speaking from experience.
========

Not really attempting to fanboy much, But the verdict in budget builds:

Have a crapton of money to throw at a new processor down the line?: I3.

Won't be upgrading for a long while, and want good price to performance?: FX 6300

They're just about on par on stock speeds nowadays.

 

[Tim Gueguen]

A new CPU manufacturer is needed to give the participants in these threads something new to vehemently argue about.

 

[ArmswieldTheHero]

Eh the difference between to the two is little to none, I own an FX-6300 and I havent had any problems gaming at 1080p 60 FPS with it, and truly, thats all I need it to do.

 

[Angelo Regene]

choose intel i3 4170 , its not with the number of cores, when you play we also consider the video card power, nowadays im running amd a6 6400k plus r7 gpu, but today with the help of asking and research.. i have core i3 4170 with partner of radeon r7