Any reason to get AMD fx-6300?

[Jpeg666]

I am looking to upgrade and as I was looking around everyone seemed to like the fx-6300. After more research I ended up looking and AMD's Kaveri processors. My logic in thinking was Why would I ever want to get the FX-6300 with the AM3+ slot when I can get the AMD A8-5600K with the FM2 slot. Since I can buy a mother board that is FM2/FM2+ and upgrade to a Kaveri later. With the FX-6300 I have no upgrade options when it comes to next generation CPU's.

Edit: To be clear I will be buying a new motherboard. I am upgrading the CPU motherboard and memory.

 

[CTurbo]

The AM3+ socket is dead. The fm2+ socket doesn't really seem to offer a very good upgrade path. AMD is getting less competitive every day.

 

[SnakeGTX]

Here are a few more reasons, to not go with AMD.

1: AMD mobos only support PCI-e 2.0. This means, in the future of gaming, when games start taking advantage of PCI-e 3.0, your mobo will start bottlenecking the card. This means, that your card won't be able to use all of its resources, and therefor, decrease performance. In the Intel builds, their mobos PCI-e 3.0 support will help them to use their GPU to its full potential.

2: Your not getting a six-core CPU, your getting a three real cores. Each of those real cores (that contains two AMD cores) only account for 1.54 cores, where two real cores would account for 1.9-2.0 cores (Intel's Hyper-threading is equal to 1.23 cores.)

Source 1
Source 2 (scroll down to the list of FX CPUs, and look at their core number. Should be something like 3 (6).)
Source 3 (Most important to understand)

3: AMD CPUs use a lot more watts. So, eventually that energy bill will catch up to the extra money for the Intel CPU.

4: AMDs FX series, is old, and dead. Down the road, you have room to upgrade with Intel. With AMD, about your best CPU is going to be a eight "core" CPU, that is about equal to a i5 (here). Where, with Intel, you could upgrade to an i7.

Intel is the more "future proof" way to go.

 

[cmi86]

They are cheap as hell and do the job well enough. With a good GPU I get 60 fps steady in pretty much every game I play.
The socket is most likely dead and the AMD motherboards do lack some modern features but for the average user/gamer they are still plenty good enough.

 

[pit_1209]

Here are a few more reasons, to not go with AMD.

1: AMD mobos only support PCI-e 2.0. This means, in the future of gaming, when games start taking advantage of PCI-e 3.0, your mobo will start bottlenecking the card. This means, that your card won't be able to use all of its resources, and therefor, decrease performance. In the Intel builds, their mobos PCI-e 3.0 support will help them to use their GPU to its full potential.

2: Your not getting a six-core CPU, your getting a three real cores. Each of those real cores (that contains two AMD cores) only account for 1.54 cores, where two real cores would account for 1.9-2.0 cores (Intel's Hyper-threading is equal to 1.23 cores.)

Source 1
Source 2 (scroll down to the list of FX CPUs, and look at their core number. Should be something like 3 (6).)
Source 3 (Most important to understand)

3: AMD CPUs use a lot more watts. So, eventually that energy bill will catch up to the extra money for the Intel CPU.

4: AMDs FX series, is old, and dead. Down the road, you have room to upgrade with Intel. With AMD, about your best CPU is going to be a eight "core" CPU, that is about equal to a i5 (here). Where, with Intel, you could upgrade to an i7.

Intel is the more "future proof" way to go.

I think you´re in some way right but not for the valid reasons:

1- Not even the most powerful card right now can saturate PCI-e 2.0 and when that happens it won´t be a single motherboard supporting it, even now they´re talking about PCI-e 4.0.
http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Impact-of-PCI-E-Speed-on-Gaming-Performance-518/

2- Mostly right but it doesn´t matter, even intel guys talk about games not getting any benefit with more than 4 cores but in the long run games and applications are going the way of multithreading and in that way 4.62>4 cores but when that happens 4 cores would be standard so...

3- Annual home energy cost for i5-3450: 18.55 $/year
Annual home energy cost for FX-6300: 22.89 $/year

You save $4 a year on your bill if you bought the intel, when the cost catches up we won't be talking about Fx or haswell.

4- Yeah Fx is old and not that great in fact but it's a nice and cheap processor, enough for some gaming and more. if I have to choose a perfect processor for gaming right now, any i5 would be my choice hands down but those Fx aren't that bad and I prefer intel to have some competition for the time being.

 

[NerdCore]

The AM3+ socket is dead. The fm2+ socket doesn't really seem to offer a very good upgrade path. AMD is getting less competitive every day.

Your right, the AM3+ socket is dead. Especially when talking future upgrades. BUT your last sentence is very incorrect. AMD's 2015 line of APUs will kill the market for budget gaming PCs. Read up on them.

 

[SnakeGTX]

I think you´re in some way right but not for the valid reasons:

1- Not even the most powerful card right now can saturate PCI-e 2.0 and when that happens it won´t be a single motherboard supporting it, even now they´re talking about PCI-e 4.0.
http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Impact-of-PCI-E-Speed-on-Gaming-Performance-518/

2- Mostly right but it doesn´t matter, even intel guys talk about games not getting any benefit with more than 4 cores but in the long run games and applications are going the way of multithreading and in that way 4.62>4 cores but when that happens 4 cores would be standard so...

3- Annual home energy cost for i5-3450: 18.55 $/year
Annual home energy cost for FX-6300: 22.89 $/year

You save $4 a year on your bill if you bought the intel, when the cost catches up we won't be talking about Fx or haswell.

4- Yeah Fx is old and not that great in fact but it's a nice and cheap processor, enough for some gaming and more. if I have to choose a perfect processor for gaming right now, any i5 would be my choice hands down but those Fx aren't that bad and I prefer intel to have some competition for the time being.

(1) I understand that PCI-E 2.0 is fine for current gaming. Like I said, once stuff starts taking advantage of the PCI-E 3.0, then the PCI-E 2.0 slot on your motherboard, will bottleneck you. I can't agree that when GPUs start taking advantage of PCI-E 3.0, that there aren't going to be any motherboards supporting it.

(2) Most new comers to PC building, build their PC with AMD, just because of that stat. That's why it matters. People need to know, that they are not getting what they think their getting.

(3) More like $10 with an i3, but I get the point.

(4) Old, not that great, nice (as in false advertising, somewhat), cheaper for performance.

That slightly extra price, is worth it for all the perks of Intel. Like, PCI-E 3.0, functioning real cores, tons more energy efficient, ITX motherboard, possibilities to upgrade in the future - to something better than an i5 (8 "core" amd).

 

[slyu9213]

Here are a few more reasons, to not go with AMD.

1: AMD mobos only support PCI-e 2.0. This means, in the future of gaming, when games start taking advantage of PCI-e 3.0, your mobo will start bottlenecking the card. This means, that your card won't be able to use all of its resources, and therefor, decrease performance. In the Intel builds, their mobos PCI-e 3.0 support will help them to use their GPU to its full potential.

2: Your not getting a six-core CPU, your getting a three real cores. Each of those real cores (that contains two AMD cores) only account for 1.54 cores, where two real cores would account for 1.9-2.0 cores (Intel's Hyper-threading is equal to 1.23 cores.)

Source 1
Source 2 (scroll down to the list of FX CPUs, and look at their core number. Should be something like 3 (6).)
Source 3 (Most important to understand)

3: AMD CPUs use a lot more watts. So, eventually that energy bill will catch up to the extra money for the Intel CPU.

4: AMDs FX series, is old, and dead. Down the road, you have room to upgrade with Intel. With AMD, about your best CPU is going to be a eight "core" CPU, that is about equal to a i5 (here). Where, with Intel, you could upgrade to an i7.

Intel is the more "future proof" way to go.

1.) AMD's A88X FM2+ platform does support PCI-E 3.0, but it isn't useful as 1) FM2+ APU/CPUs are weak and 2) even current video cards don't utilize the PCIe 3.0 full potential/bandwidth.

2) Yes you're not getting 6 real-cores because two cores share resources. But the FX 63XX series are one of the best bang-for-the-buck CPUs for gaming.

3) Totally true in most cases.

4) True. AMD AM3+ is dead and honestly FM2+ is pretty much dead unless Carrizo releases to desktop and that will be 2016 at fastest probably which Intel will have newer architectures availabe and the current crop of Intel CPUs will be cheaper new or used.