Athlon X4 860K or FX-6350

[box o rocks]

If both are overclocked to the same speed, and both have comparable systems under them, which would be the better gamer?

 

[Uberragen21]

www.cpubenchmark.net is a good source if you are curious. Though this is just other people's sample testing. Nothing to really substantiate it, so take it with a grain of salt. The Hexacore 6350 will perform slightly better in multi-threaded tasks than the 860k. Price difference is roughly $50 higher for the 6350.

CPU Mark Rating
As of 13th of May 2015 - Higher results represent better performance
AMD FX-6350 Six-Core
6,986
AMD Athlon X4 860K Quad Core
5,622
PassMark Software © 2008-2015

One of the main differences is: # of Physical Cores 2 (2 logical cores per physical) [860k] 3 (2 logical cores per physical) [6350]

 

[CTurbo]

The 860k is a little better in most games as it has a higher IPC. You can also benefit from a much cheaper motherboard for the Athlon as well since the FX6350 will run like crap on every motherboard under $75-80.

These are also in two completely different price range. The i3 is better in the same price range as the FX6350.

 

[Martin1982]

I would go with the 6 core it's the am3+ platform then you can upgrade in the future to a newer 8 core if needed

 

[CTurbo]

I would go with the 6 core it's the am3+ platform then you can upgrade in the future to a newer 8 core if needed

But there's not going to be new 8 core cpus released on AM3+ "later" That platform is OLD OLD OLD and the 8 core FXs are barely upgrades over the 6 core FXs for gaming anyway.

 

[Martin1982]

He is asking between fm2+ socket and am3+
And yes then am3+ is better for gaming..

 

[palladin9479]

The fx6350 is going to perform better, it's typically on the same level as the i3-4130/4160 give or take. The 860K on the other hand is an APU with the iGPU disabled so it's really more comparable to the fx43xx line.

That being said, the FM2+ platform is newer and has more utility then the AM3+ platform. Previously there was a cost argument but there has been several solid 970 boards made. Looks like OEM's stopped treating the 970 as a trash part and using cheap VRM's and other low quality components for their boards. So the verdict, in a strictly gaming context, would be the fx6350. Currently single GPU's are saturating a PCIe 2.0 16x slot and that would be the only gaming related difference between the two platforms.

What is the purpose of the question? Is there a specific build in mind or just an academic question?

 

[crispytheone]

I would go with the 6300 then overclock that, it is a great budget CPU, probably the best, and the I3 is a dual core...Witcher 3 says PASS!

 

[box o rocks]

Wow, thanks guys for all the feedback. Good info there. Unfortunately there seems to be a bit of a disagreement amongst you. If the motherboard each CPU will be on is one of the determining factors, it will be these:
AM3+: http://www.msi.com/product/mb/970-GAMING.html#hero-overview
FM2+: http://www.msi.com/product/mb/A88XM-GAMING.html#hero-overview

It has to be one of those two boards. The reason is too convoluted and boring to go into here. Just accept the fact it has to be those boards. The Power supply will be a Rosewill HIVE 750W (which I already have). The graphics card is yet to be determined. Maybe this one: http://www.evga.com/Products/Product.aspx?pn=02G-P4-2968-KR

It sounds like the FM2+ platform will have a bit more longevity than the AM3+, huh?

 

[CTurbo]

I stick with my 860k recommendation since it has stronger cores and is cheaper too. I wouldn't count on a whole lot of longevity out of either of them though, and neither have a significant upgrade path. Get an i3 if you want longevity and/or upgrade path.


I also would not get a GTX960 since the 280 is just as good and is $30-40 cheaper.

 

[palladin9479]

Wow, thanks guys for all the feedback. Good info there. Unfortunately there seems to be a bit of a disagreement amongst you. If the motherboard each CPU will be on is one of the determining factors, it will be these:
AM3+: http://www.msi.com/product/mb/970-GAMING.html#hero-overview
FM2+: http://www.msi.com/product/mb/A88XM-GAMING.html#hero-overview

It has to be one of those two boards. The reason is too convoluted and boring to go into here. Just accept the fact it has to be those boards. The Power supply will be a Rosewill HIVE 750W (which I already have). The graphics card is yet to be determined. Maybe this one: http://www.evga.com/Products/Product.aspx?pn=02G-P4-2968-KR

It sounds like the FM2+ platform will have a bit more longevity than the AM3+, huh?

The FM2+ isn't really a gaming orientated platform and neither of these two will see another CPU line. I wish there was a SR version of the fx6 but since there isn't your in a bit of a bad place choice wise. The 860K is a budget CPU but it's very limited in what it'll let you do, it's the SR version of an FX43xx and those always end up at the bottom. The FX6350 has more performance headway and will perform better overall, also don't get an AMD GPU with these CPUs because the AMD drivers have some serious issues with single thread locking.

 

[crispytheone]

Wow, thanks guys for all the feedback. Good info there. Unfortunately there seems to be a bit of a disagreement amongst you. If the motherboard each CPU will be on is one of the determining factors, it will be these:
AM3+: http://www.msi.com/product/mb/970-GAMING.html#hero-overview
FM2+: http://www.msi.com/product/mb/A88XM-GAMING.html#hero-overview

It has to be one of those two boards. The reason is too convoluted and boring to go into here. Just accept the fact it has to be those boards. The Power supply will be a Rosewill HIVE 750W (which I already have). The graphics card is yet to be determined. Maybe this one: http://www.evga.com/Products/Product.aspx?pn=02G-P4-2968-KR

It sounds like the FM2+ platform will have a bit more longevity than the AM3+, huh?

The FM2+ isn't really a gaming orientated platform and neither of these two will see another CPU line. I wish there was a SR version of the fx6 but since there isn't your in a bit of a bad place choice wise. The 860K is a budget CPU but it's very limited in what it'll let you do, it's the SR version of an FX43xx and those always end up at the bottom. The FX6350 has more performance headway and will perform better overall, also don't get an AMD GPU with these CPUs because the AMD drivers have some serious issues with single thread locking.

Not that it will be a HUGE jump, but the Godavari chips are coming to FM2+, and it could include another Athlon, probably not, but maybe, doesn't look like a very big jump though, its like AMD is on pause untill Zen hits

 

[clutchc]

Kind of an old post (necro?), but I thought I'd jump in anyway since I have both CPUs and good boards to test them on. The FX-6350 is a much better gamer than the Athlon X4 860. And it OC's higher too. Firestrike Example...
FX-6350 @ 4.2 GHz, GTX 960 FTW: 6471
Athlon X4 860K @ 4.2 GHz, Evga GTX 960 FTW: 5970

The 860K @ 4.2 GHz was at it max stable OC for me. The 6350 I could get to 4.7 GHz and still be stable. Its Firestrike score then improved to 6610.

 

[Martin1982]

Kind of an old post (necro?), but I thought I'd jump in anyway since I have both CPUs and good boards to test them on. The FX-6350 is a much better gamer than the Athlon X4 860. And it OC's higher too. Firestrike Example...
FX-6350 @ 4.2 GHz, GTX 960 FTW: 6471
Athlon X4 860K @ 4.2 GHz, Evga GTX 960 FTW: 5970

The 860K @ 4.2 GHz was at it max stable OC for me. The 6350 I could get to 4.7 GHz and still be stable. Its Firestrike score then improved to 6610.

Nice with some real data, nice work