AMD FX 6300 vs Intel i3 4370 (GAMING WISE)

[FaceAdrenalin]

Pretty much in the titel. Yes I know the i3 will be better so I can then have more selections to choose from when upgrading but, which cpu is better vs gaming?

 

[FaceAdrenalin]

I'm pretty much going to play fallout 4, so which cpu is best for that

 

[Archaic59]

If you want to play Fallout 4 an Intel Core i5 is what you want. Both the CPU's you mentioned are not going to give you the performance you want.

 

[FaceAdrenalin]

If you want to play Fallout 4 an Intel Core i5 is what you want. Both the CPU's you mentioned are not going to give you the performance you want.

But if I have to choose one? What about the amd fx 8320?

 

[Onefurrybanana]

I used to game with an 8350 (basically slightly overclocked 8320) but mine was at 5ghz and i gamed at 4k with no problem

 

[FaceAdrenalin]

I used to game with an 8350 (basically slightly overclocked 8320) but mine was at 5ghz and i gamed at 4k with no problem

So you think i can get a smooth 60 fps at medium settings with the amd fx 8320 and a gtx 950?

 

[Onefurrybanana]

At 1080p i would think so

 

[RCFProd]

Intel i3-4370 costs 140+ dollars, the i3-4170 costs about 110 dollars. For gaming go for the 4170, not the 4370. Saves you a lot of money.

Only go for FX-8320 if you can afford a good motherboard and CPU Cooler. A cheap mobo is going to throttle the 8320.

 

[FaceAdrenalin]

I used to game with an 8350 (basically slightly overclocked 8320) but mine was at 5ghz and i gamed at 4k with no problem

So you think i can get a smooth 60 fps at medium settings with the amd fx 8320 and a gtx 950?

No way. Intel i5 and GTX 950 gets 35-50 fps. AMD cpu will be less fps.

Well Holy crap, alright thx.

 

[Archaic59]

Here's a bunch of testing with different cpu's and gpu's if you want to read it-
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-the-best-pc-hardware-for-fallout-4-4023

 

[Onefurrybanana]

All you really need to do is overclock your gpu and the processor you choose won't make much of a difference. Just becareful to buy a cpu that can actually launch the games you want to play

 

[ohiou_grad_2006]

Intel is better, but AMD is good for those on a budget. I've got the AMD FX 8120 and am overclocked at 4.2ghz, runs everything I play.

 

[dudeman509]

8320 here, clocked to 4.5.

Fallout-4 is a bad example. You'll do 60 FPS in-town (GTX 970 here), and then drop to 40 in large cities. Everything set to high/ultra settings in that game. Intel CPUs have issues too - it's a badly optimized game.

 

[madmatt30]

^ 6300@4.3ghz- exactly the same scenario as above , 50% of the time a straight 60fps solid , rest of the time mid-40s.
Still eminently playable & nvidia adaptive vsync does a good job here.

The 6300 is good enough easily if you push iit past 4gh. Theres absolutely no benefit gained in gaming at the minute going 8 cores over the 6300's 6 cores.

 

[superstition]

Incorrect. 8 core FX chips have better performance due to 4 FPU units being able to combine to do 256-bit FPU math as well as there being an extra FPU unit. Plus, most 8 core chips have more cache than the 6 cores.

Games don't really take advantage of 8 integer cores but the FPU can make a difference. You'll see the 8 core chips outperform 6 cores chips in gaming benches.

8320E with UD3P board is the best bang for the buck. It can go to 4.5 GHz with proper overclocking and proper parts.

 

[madmatt30]

^ not incorrect at all mate - all those extras are per module - theres not a single game out there that make significant use of 6 threads let alone 8.
The extra cores make no difference in gaming at all, not even 1%.
At the same relative clock speed on a 6300/8320/8350 performance in current games is not similar , its exactly the same .
Gaming benches meaning ??

Only 3dmark will show a different bench score between a 6 & 8 core, & that info is estimed not accurate - in game benches like GTA v, mordor, tomb raider etc won't.

 

[superstition]

^ not incorrect at all mate - all those extras are per module - theres not a single game out there that make significant use of 6 threads let alone 8.
The extra cores make no difference in gaming at all, not even 1%.
At the same relative clock speed on a 6300/8320/8350 performance in current games is not similar , its exactly the same .
Gaming benches meaning ??

Only 3dmark will show a different bench score between a 6 & 8 core, & that info is estimed not accurate - in game benches like GTA v, mordor, tomb raider etc won't.

Tomb Raider is extremely light on CPUs, something which is well known. Since you listed it that shows you are not knowledgable about this subject.

I have never seen a 6 core FX beat or equal an 8 core FX in any game that is at all CPU bound.

 

[madmatt30]

^ nah mate , not knowledgeable at all me .
Check my SIG's , there's both an 8 core & 6 core build there - both still in my possession .
I spent 100+ hours myself specifically benching each against the other in games with a multitude of different gpu's & at a multitude of different clock speeds with a huge amount of different game titles.

There's no difference at all in gaming performance between the two at the same speed , none,zero,nada in any of the 20-30 titles I tried , sometimes the 6300 outpaced the 8320 by 1-5 fps, sometimes the other way around - just down to background processes etc.

On a tight budget the 6300 is a better buy - you can run & overclock it on a cheaper board with a cheaper cooler than you can an 8 core.

Yeah the 8320e Is good at the right price if you know what you're doing but you're going to he messing with voltages to get it anywhere near what the 6300 will do at stock voltage.