Fx 6300 vs i5 4690k?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Solution
geofelt
Is 6 cores better than 4??
The answer as usual is : It depends.

If the effectiveness of the individual cores were equal, and the price were the same, it would be no contest.
6 is better than 4.

Such things are not equal.
Intel cores are faster than FX cores across the board, and by a considerable margin. Perhaps 50% better.

Then, one needs to consider the use the cpu will be put to.
For a multi threaded app where all cores can be fully utilized, the FX chips can hold their own, and even beat intel for lower priced builds.
Not in the case of the FX-6300 vs, 4690K though.

For gaming, it also depends.
Few games can effectively use more than 2-3 cores. Probably the best case for a many core cpu would be multiplayer games with many...
Sort by date Sort by votes
The 4690k is far better, and should outperform the 6300 in every situation. Comparing number of cores between Intel and AMD is largely pointless, because Intel's per-core performance is much higher.

Edit: an FX 6300 is typically closer to the performance of an i3. The FX-8350 is a better comparison to the 4690k, but will still lose the the 4690k most of the time.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The passmark rating for a FX-6300 when all 6 cores are in use is 6344. The power of a single core which is important for gaming is 1409.
By comparison, the i5=4690K total rating when 4 cores are in use is 7715, and the single core rating is 2236.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You're comparing a lower-mid budget fx to s mid-high end budget i5

I'm not sure in what non-sensical world you'd honestly expect a $100 amd CPU to match an Intel that costs nearly 2 1/2 times as much .
On a price to performance ratio the fx is plainly & unarguably better value but in real world performance not even close.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Is 6 cores better than 4??
The answer as usual is : It depends.

If the effectiveness of the individual cores were equal, and the price were the same, it would be no contest.
6 is better than 4.

Such things are not equal.
Intel cores are faster than FX cores across the board, and by a considerable margin. Perhaps 50% better.

Then, one needs to consider the use the cpu will be put to.
For a multi threaded app where all cores can be fully utilized, the FX chips can hold their own, and even beat intel for lower priced builds.
Not in the case of the FX-6300 vs, 4690K though.

For gaming, it also depends.
Few games can effectively use more than 2-3 cores. Probably the best case for a many core cpu would be multiplayer games with many participants.

Some games depend heavily on the performance of a single master core. This is typical of sims, strategy and mmo types.
For such games do not be misled that it is multithreaded just because you see activity on all cores in windows task manager.
That is just windows distributing the activity of a single thread across all available threads.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution


As has been already said the FX 6300 is a budget gamer set to compete against Intel i3 processors. To compare an AMD processor against the i5 4690K you would have to look at an FX 8 core processor such as a FX 8370. The single core performance of the i5 4690K is going to be better than the the FX 8 core processors, however the multi-core performance of the FX 8370 is going to be better than the i5 4690K. The i5 4690K retails for $229.99 and the FX 8370 retails for $189.99 (newegg prices). Which one is better comes down to individual needs. If you all you are interested in is gaming the better single core performance of the i5 4690K is the way to go (especially with DX 11 games). If however you need a multi tasking system that is capable of gaming but also needed for heavy rendering, video editing, power surfing and streaming (having over 10 windows of a web browser open at once) then the FX 8370 would better suit your needs. AMD FX has nothing that can compete with the Intel i7 line, AMD FX only competes against the i3 line (FX 6300 and FX 6350) and i5 line (FX 8320 - FX 9590 although I wouldn't recommend anything above the FX 8370 as the FX 9xxx series is 220W).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Better is a relative term. The OP is going to have to compare AMD 8 core processors (best one being the FX 8370) to the i5 4690K, as an FX 6300 is not produced to compete against the i5 line. For gaming (and only gaming) or any other single threaded application the the i5 4690K is better. If the OP games and also does other CPU intensive tasks (ie rendering, video editing, any heavily multi-threaded task) then the FX 8370 is a better build than the i5 4690K. The FX 8370 is also capable of running all the games that the i5 4690K can although will usually come in at ~ 5-10FPS lower than the i5 4690K.

So if all your doing is gaming and barely do anything else with the system the i5 4690K is better and the best build. If however you need the computer to not only game on but are also into doing heavily multi-threaded tasks then the FX 8370 becomes the better build.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Because it is in all honesty such a daft hyperthetical question I'm going to offer a daft comparison.

You've got £450 to spend on a choice of 2 builds only - & its one or the other with no component changes.
Which would you pick seriously?? & this is not trolling (although I think the original post may be) - I am honestly interested in to what extent some members really think the Intel will always be the better choice for gaming when it comes to going a whole tier up on the GPU with an smd CPU in the budget.
& I've been as fair as possible with comparable quality boards & gpu’s here.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor (£83.99 @ Ebuyer)
CPU Cooler: RAIJINTEK THEMIS 65.7 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler (£19.99 @ Amazon UK)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard (£66.97 @ Amazon UK)
Video Card: MSI GeForce GTX 970 4GB Twin Frozr V Video Card (£274.32 @ Aria PC)
Total: £445.27
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-02-15 18:13 GMT+0000

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor (£185.96 @ Amazon UK)
CPU Cooler: RAIJINTEK THEMIS 65.7 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler (£19.99 @ Amazon UK)
Motherboard: Asus Z97-P ATX LGA1150 Motherboard (£72.99 @ Amazon UK)
Video Card: MSI GeForce GTX 960 2GB Video Card (£164.99 @ Amazon UK)
Total: £443.93
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-02-15 18:20 GMT+0000
 
Upvote 1 Downvote


i would go with a locked i5 stock cooler cheaper mobo and a r9 390. that should do wonders against a fx cpu. and if it was me actaly building a computer i would get a used x5687 for $60 a $40 mobo a r9 390x and have money to spare
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
^ I'm not disagreeing with either of you 2 guys , they're entirely valid comments.
My post was rhetorical really , it makes about as much sense as the original post question.
Of course compromising somewhere between the two is more sensible.

& at that I'm actually running a 6300 with a 970.
It was never built as a gaming machine , its my old htpc from 2012/2013.
The choice was either a new gen console for me or a big spend on a GPU to try out some PC gaming.
It was in all honesty a risk that IMO paid off, because simply at the end of the day even the old 6300 is entirely capable of current title gaming IF you're not obsessed with stupidly high frame rates.
There's an unhealthy & ultimately pointless obsession of wanting 100fps+ even on 60htz screens rather than just enjoying a game with perfectly playable 50-60fps.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


You have several totally valid points in your post. 1. most people game on a console and are totally happy with it. The FX 6300 and GTX 970 of you build is going to game much better at 1080p than either the PS4 or Xbone, yet in the world of gaming its looked upon as a processor that can't game. 2. What is the point of benchmarking at 100FPS if you are gaming on a 60htz 1080p monitor? And if you have a high end gaming monitor than you have no problem dropping several extra bills on an Intel build so FX processors don't even come into the equation. 90% of people are still using 60htz 1080p monitors or lower, yet everyone acts like they really need to be running 100FPS or its just not good enough.

At any rate, I stand by my original statement to the OP. If you are only interested in gaming and don't use your computer for anything else then the obvious choice is the i5 4690K and GTX 980Ti to get near maximum FPS in every game going. Now if that's out of the budget then (like madmatt30 pointed out) you have to look at what processor will allow you to get the best GPU possible because gaming requires a good (capable) CPU and an even better GPU. If you are interested in gaming and also need to do heavy rendering, video editing, ect on a regular basis you would get better performance out of something like the FX 8370 which is still cheaper than the i5 4690K. As a bonus an FX 8370 teamed with something like the R9 290 will allow you to play all AAA titles at or near 60FPS (I know as I have the FX 8370 and R9 290 and its a great gaming platform).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I can relate to the situation. I myself had a FX-6300 and it was a good chip for what it was. A budget chip to get mediocre performance from. I just upgraded to a i5-4690k and I can attest to it being leagues ahead of the 6300. Games, believe it or not, run smoother with less FPS dips. More constant performance. If I wouldn't have held an AMD torch for so long and actually tested Intel waters sooner, I would probably not have spent as much trying to squeeze every ounce of performance out of the 6300. I vote get the Intel chip build and don't look back.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
amd is still better value. its a no brainer that the intel is the better cpu, but value plays a huge part in a lot of peoples minds when buying a pc. madmatt made a very valid point, and it holds true. you see far too many recommending i5s and a 960/380 when a 6300 or i3 is clearly more for your money. with that said, even one step up to the fx 83xx, its literally neck in neck compared to an intel thats twice the cost, though realistically its almost 3 times the cost all components included, and im talking about workstation apps of course. for gaming, you shouldnt get an 6300, but instead get a i3 and the best gpu you can afford, to get the most out of your money. the fanboys take over as soon as the 6300 is compared against the i3, even though multithreaded apps are a requirement as well. im personally tired of seeing this, but why do so many care about how other people spend their money. theyll never learn if people do everything for them....
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Oh no doubt the AMD is the better value. They have mostly been the better value. There are very valid points being made for both side. I have yet to see a fanboy post. I see people giving their opinion on the situation and some with experience in the aforementioned comparison. I got my i5-4690k and MSI Z97 Gaming 5 mobo for $300. Thats not bad for something that outperforms what I had.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
and just a heads up for anyone looking for a cpu right now. xeon E5-2670s had a crazy price drop and are now around $60 used they are a 8 core at 3.3ghz for the 2011 socket. i just picked up two for a rig im building consisting of a EVGA srx board i got and repaired and two of them. so far a single one of them is beating a i7 5820k in everything but single core. another good value is a socket 1366 xeon and a dell t3500 mobo its the cheapest way to get a decent rig. the x5677 and x5687 were the two best cpus on the socket for gaming but prices have gone up a bit for them since last time i built a rig with them.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom