FX 6300 + SSD boot drive VS. i5 4670 + 1TB WD Blue

[demzo]

okay so I'm building a budget PC, and I want to know if the FX 6300 + SSD boot drive would be faster than the i5 4670 with a regular HDD. note that the criteria is not only for gaming (because I have no problems with turning down the settings to med-high), but also overall responsiveness and speed when doing day-to-day activities.

here's the rig i'm planning to build:

i5 4670 + 1TB WD Blue OR FX6300 + 128GB SSD (might go for a 256GB SSD if i find a good deal)
8GB 4x2 Gskill ares 1600mhz
Zotac gtx 760
Seasonic M12II 620w

is the SSD really worth it? I don't plan on overclocking nor SLI/Crossfire. I'm not a hardcore gamer so I don't really care if I can crank it up to ultra. as long as my rig's responsive and fast.

apps I'll use:

photoshop
microsoft visual studio 2010 (programming)
video editing (light editing only, no hardcore stuff)
music/audio editing
microsoft office
skype
chrome

games I'll play:
NBA 2k14 (or 2k15 when it comes out)
BF4
COD Ghosts
DA Inquisition (when it comes out)
Mass Effect 3
Skyrim

I need opinions on two things, first is overall speed and responsiveness (using apps listed above) of each build, then second is gaming (games listed above) of both builds. thanks

P.S. I wont be asking about boot times since I know the SSD will blow the HDD away
EDIT: (if this helps) If I were to go SSD, apps listed above will all be installed in the SSD, but games would be installed in a 500GB HDD

 

[dacquesta1]

I would say the ssd is completely worth it, probably one of the single most noticeable upgrades. I'll put it to you this way, after owning an ssd for my boot drive and for BF4 I will never go back to mechanical drives for my boot drive.

 

[boosted1g]

Overall system speed will be better with an fx-6300 and ssd.
SSD is just so much faster since it does not have to spin to each individual file on the drive.

Often they have the fx-8320 on sale for $130-140 USD, so if you can get and an SSD even better.

 

[junkeymonkey]

I don't know your answer but I still use a platter hard drive and have not used a ssd as of yet and everything seems to work fine and dandy, but I'm sure they booth got there pro's and con's and you can get a good one or a bad one. I like wd black drives and theres a lot of folks that really like ssd's .. but I don't see the need to go ssd for my self . it just what you feel you want to go with and hope you get a good one.. I think in the end that's all you can hope for with either one you choose...

 

[WhiteSnake91]

I'd go for the fx6300 and the SSD. I wouldn't go back to a HDD based system if at all possible and using this laptop with its slow 5400rpm feels icky alot of the time >_>.

Don't get me wrong Intel is better, but unless you're nit picky about having every little detail cranked up and 60fps constantly then AMD can be fine if you're not playing CPU intensive games, and it's fine for day to day stuff. My bro paired a good gpu the GTX 660ti with a worse cpu than the 6300, only the quad core a10 5800k apu and he matched my fps on 1080p ultra bf4, on 64man conquest on shanghai I got 5 more fps than him at the worst, big whoopy

 

[demzo]

thanks guys! if only I could pick all your replies as the solution. thanks for everything! now I have no doubts about getting the ssd

 

[WhiteSnake91]

you're welcome, hope you enjoy your new pc, if I could do it over again I probably would have just got the 6300 and saved money (or even got a better GPU) as well and an SSD. I used a HDD for about 6 months after I built my pc and gradually got more and more annoying with the freezing, no problems since I got the SSD last summer, everything is pretty much instant when I click it, I used to think it was my internet connection, but it was the HDD

 

[penn919]

I'd go for the fx6300 and the SSD. I wouldn't go back to a HDD based system if at all possible and using this laptop with its slow 5400rpm feels icky alot of the time >_>.

Don't get me wrong Intel is better, but unless you're nit picky about having every little detail cranked up and 60fps constantly then AMD can be fine if you're not playing CPU intensive games, and it's fine for day to day stuff. My bro paired a good gpu the GTX 660ti with a worse cpu than the 6300, only the quad core a10 5800k apu and he matched my fps on 1080p ultra bf4, on 64man conquest on shanghai I got 5 more fps than him at the worst, big whoopy

Question, what CPU & GPU combo do you have? I'm also deciding whether or not to upgrade my FX-4100 to either FX-6300 or FX-8300 (OEM) and your little anecdotal story might sway me towards the FX-6300. It all depends on what CPU and GPU you were running that your brother was able to match with an a10 5800k and 660 ti.

 

[WhiteSnake91]

I have an i5 3570k overclocked to 4.2ghz and an hd7950, which is on par with his gtx 660ti. By all accounts, my cpu really chumps his, but in real world usage and gaming? The difference isn't as big as they make it out to be. His FPS matched mine in BF4 on 64man 1080p Operation Locker at 60fps constant basically, we both got 40-50ish fps on Flood Zone conquest, and the only difference was with lots of tanks exploding,etc on 64man Shanghai conquest, his fps dipped to 35 at the very worst, and mine dipped to 40 with even my "godly" cpu in comparison. I used to believe the hype, but, that really opened my eyes that AMD really isn't as bad as everybody makes them out to be.

Mind you I haven't personally tested something cpu intensive like Starcraft 2, but I assume it could play it well on ultra on 1080p, my bro played some before and he never complained that it was choppy or anything.

You would see a nice improvement even going to the piledriver fx 6300, but that 8300 is a nice cpu and low wattage in comparison to the 8350

I don't see very many talking about the fx 8300, I think it's a nice little hidden gem, it's 95w and 8core and piledriver

For awhile there I was wanting to build an AMD system myself as a secondary, I still may, or may just get a better laptop.

 

[penn919]

Thanks for all that information. It was very helpful!

I don't see very many talking about the fx 8300, I think it's a nice little hidden gem, it's 95w and 8core and piledriver

For awhile there I was wanting to build an AMD system myself as a secondary, I still may, or may just get a better laptop.

The reason you don't hear much about it is because it was never released at retail here in the states. Even now, You can only buy them from either Japan or Korea for around $190 through $200 shipped. The main reason I started to look into that processor was because I wanted a shot at playing Watch Dogs, but then realized I would at least have to have either a Core i7-3770 4-Core 3.4GHz Or FX-8350 just to play at recommended settings! I quickly realized that my best bet was to get the FX-8300 because my motherboard only supports up to 95w AM3+ cpus. However, reading your posts makes me wonder whether the specs are over-exaggerated and perhaps I could get by with a 6300.

 

[dacquesta1]

I would think a 6300 overclocked to 4.2-ish would be enough...just my guess though.

 

[wh3resmycar]

you'd be stuck with that sluggish fx6300 for a long time. it's not like you can't buy an SSD later.
platform wise the intel is the safer beth (think long term).