Fx 8300 or i5 6600k

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
H

HiddenGem

Commendable
Nov 11, 2016
27
0
1,530
I currently have an i3 6100 with an rx 480 8gb for my gpu. Im looking to upgrade so i can push graphics in games a little bit more, as well as record gameplay with fraps or obs while maintaining 60+ fps without sacrificing the graphics, maybe not every setting on ultra but mostly.
I have an h110m motherboard and plan on overclocking the i5 6600k if i get one but that also means buying a z170 board. Would you recommend getting the 4.0ghz version of the fx 8300 and a new board, or spend the extra money by getting the i5 6600k and new board. Will the i5 be worth the extra 100 or so, would it do what i want, or will the fx 8300 do the same?
I could also get the i5 with my current board and upgrade the board and cooler later to overclock but would that be a big improvement to my i3, or would the fx 8300 and board for cheaper then just the i5 6600k without the z170 board be a better option? Any help and feedback appreciated youtube is only giving me more questions lmao
 
Solution
logainofhades
An i7 6700 would make the most sense here. Changing boards, and cpu's, and possibly having to get a new windows license for the new board, it is just simpler, and possibly cheaper, in the long run, to get the locked 6700.

FX is a bad idea, because you would need to get new CPU, motherboard, and DDR3 ram, plus the possible windows license.
Sort by date Sort by votes
Just get one of the locked Skylake i5s. 6500 is probably the sweet spot right now. Paying extra to get a -k CPU, plus replacing your mobo, plus buying an aftermarket cooler simply isn't worth it as far as I'm concerned. Unless you really want to overclock.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Get the i5 6600k over an FX 8300. You'll need it to get the most out of your 480, or there's no point having such a good card. You could always use the h110 board for the time being, as you wouldnt need to overclock the i5 just yet as it'll be plenty at stock, then you can get a z170 board in future and it'll have the potential to be upgraded to an i7 6700k or even a Kaby Lake chip. There is no upgrade potential when getting an FX 8300.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


I wouldnt mind selling mine for a fx 8350 i found one with a nvidia 1070 fairly cheap, i just dont know if getting the fx with the 1070 would be worth it and how it stacks up with the i5 6600k before/after overclocking the i5. As i said i plan on playing very demanding titles and recording gameplay, now that i found that fx with the 1070 i feel it would be dumb to pass up such a great deal as the 1070 is a big step up from my rx 480, but would the i5 before/after overclocking be a huge and big enough upgrade from my i3 6100 or that fx 8350
To be worth it?



 
Upvote 0 Downvote


What will the pricepoint for the ryzen chipset be any clue? Im sorta balling on a budget if you catch me drift hense my heavy decision making lol. Would an fx 8320 or 8350 not bottleneck with a 1060? And im sure you would recommend paying the extra 50$ for the i5 6600k instead of the locked 6500, my question is if i do get the 6600k, keep my motherboard and don't overclock will i receive a vast improvement compared to my i3 6100? Would it be wiser getting a z170 board and just overclocking my i3? Theres too many options its my first build and as i said youtube just gives me more.options and more questions. Tomshardware seems the only place i actually get good answers lol
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You can't overclock your i3, it's a locked chip. You can only overclock k chips. You wont see any performance decrease with the 6600k on a h110 board really, you just wont be able to overclock it or SLI two graphics cards.You only need to get a z170 board when you decide you need to overclock the CPU. Then you can put a more powerful chip (even Kaby Lake will be compatible with z170) in it in a few years.When youre on a budget its even less of a good idea to throw money into a dead platform. Have no idea about Ryzen but it'll be similar price to Kaby Lake I guess. No info on it yet.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Ive seen a few videos on youtube about overclocking a non k chipset to around 4.3 ghz i would just need a new mobo and cooler of course, but even so i would prefer the i5 6600k, my question is i guess, how much of an improvement would i see upgrading from the i3 to the i5 stock with no overclock would it be enough of an improvement to justify the extra $250 And make what I'm looking to do possible? Im pretty sure with my current gpu ill be seeing a 10-20 increase in fps which is defffff a plus and what im looking for if so
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It's a massive increase even at stock. More like 50fpps increase at 1080p.. and overclocking a non K chip is not a good idea and will have to be done via t bclk which is limited in lots of ways. You dont and cant overclock a non K chipset, but you can overclock a non k chip. Just its a bad idea.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I find it amazing to see such a question again... Haven't you tried to do a little research here before posting? No one here will ever tell you to pick an FX CPU over any Intel, they will always go for the Intel no matter your present configuration or question.
Difficult not to think it's intentional...
As for your answer, if you are willing to change everything, then wait for RyZen. Or not.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
And I find it amazing that you can insult a poster who came here for good advice. We deal with all questions without expecting folks to research things for themselves. That's what tech fora are for and if you can't accept that, don't post.

For the record, Tom's is even handed with all manufacturers and has no bias whatever. Individual posters' opinions will naturally vary and if it's on those you're basing your comments, you should acknowledge that.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Where do you see an insult in my post? Read it again with your finger, find me the insult and please re-post it here. I just told him to do some fast research on TH before asking if a FX is still a good buy and you'll find DOZENS of posts saying they are just crap. Even compared to the lower Intel's, they are always burned down to flames, even by people who never owned one.
So please don't tell me that you have no bias whatsoever... You perfectly know it's not true.
You should acknowledge that at least. But I'm betting you will just delete my posts and ban me, way easier solution...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Firstly there is no point moving to a GTX 1060 from an RX 480- in the latest tests the RX 480 is on average faster than the 1060.

As for the i3 vs the i5- the performance improvement isn't going to be that big. People vastly *underestimate* the i3 from what I've seen, although it depends on the game. If your plan is to be able to do *cpu based* video recording whilst gaming- well you'll need an i7 for that. Both your current i3 and the i5 are limited to 4 threads, which is what most games need. The extra threads available on the i7 should make all the difference. Imo you are better getting a locked i7 rather than an unlocked 'k' series i5.

The only downside to that is the Skylake i7's are so expensive. There are cheaper options to get 8 threads but honestly I don't think it's worth it (the AMD fx cpu's are about to be replaced, and as an FX 8320 owner, whist it does game well enough I have to drop graphics settings in most games to keep frame rates up *without* streaming as well- they are just very out of date these days).

Maybe have a look online for a second hand haswell i7 + mobo? That might be within budget- Haswell is very close to skylake in terms of performance and the extra threads on something like an i7 4770 would be worth it for what you want to do.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I regard it as an insult just to suggest a poster should have researched before posting and I wrote, you had the option to stay out of the thread.

You accuse Tom's of being pro-Intel but in my experience of probably seeing more threads than you will, the majority of posts are in favour and defence of AMD. Something else about Tom's you didn't know is you don't get banned for disagreeing with a Moderator.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


and I had the right also to jump in and say what I wanted to say, right? As long as I wasn't trolling or cursing or... insulting?

It's not an insult when you just point out that the first thing to do when you post something is do a little, little research before, just in case you're not the 132 one on the same page with the same question. It's even a rule on some forums, you know?



I do accuse indeed, because I do think it's a fact. How come when someone is asking for an advice to upgrade an AMD config people are always always bringing the Intel in the thread? I know what you're gonna say "they are just giving their honest opinion and they are right to do so because it's a fact" I've never ever read here someone saying "you know, they don't suck. They are good for what you are doing, and they will be for some time to come still. Stick to what you have and save your money." Nope. Never
And hey, you don't know how many threads I read, right? Please don't assume anything like that.
Ah, and here is something you didn't know about Tom: a mod already wanted to ban me just because I was "polluting" a thread with my "fanboyish AMD attitude"... Only because I was stating a fact: they don't suck! So maybe now you understand my post a little bit more.

but back to the topic: FXs are not a good choice if someone is starting from scratch. Either an .... Intel, or wait for RyZen. Or not.

Oh: and I appreciate your answers. Seriously.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


In regard to the OP's question- an FX part does't strike me as a good buy (the i3 6100 is already better from the benches I've seen). I can't speak for everyone on here but personally I am a fan of AMD hardware. My main rig is an FX 8320 and R9 280- which has kept pace remarkably well. Previously I had a Phenom II X6 setup that initially I used at work for a bit and has now found a home with a friend of mine to replace his ancient Core 2 Duo rig. I don't view the FX as the disaster many make it out to be- the main issue is the FX 8XXX and 9XXX parts are now several generations behind, they were a good proposition against Sandy based i7's (at least in multi threaded stuff) however the latest Intel core stuff is very far ahead. As a new build an FX 8300 is still a good buy in a few cases due to it's very low price (8 threads are good for a pure video encoding machine vs an i3). I don't think it has the chops to run a game *and cpu encode* though these days.

As for asking the OP to research- the current CPU landscape is a bit of a minefield. I can't say I blame them for asking for help. We've got what, 3 concurrent generations of Core available to buy, 3 generations of AMD cpu's on sale, then if you look at laptops and mobile parts you've got parts with totally different cores being mixed in the same branding (puma cores showing up in A8 apu's from AMD, or Atom cores being branded Pentium in the same line as Core based products). Then you have the differences in architecture meaning 1 core from one company != 1 core from another. It doesn't strike me as an unreasonable question.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
That's the thing actually. Lots of people think only about games. So when they ask "which CPU should I get?", they only think about FPS, FPS, and FPS. But if games are so important, then a console should be bought instead. They don't think about the other apps they can and probably will use on their computer. Encoding, using apps like Photoshop & Cie, apps that use more than one thread, well even the OS that can use all the threads available. The more cores, the more threads, the better. My 8370 handles everything perfectly. I can play my games without having lags or FPS drops. I can even encode while playing, and listening to music at the same time. My FX didn't cost me an arm, I saved even enough to get more RAM for my system. It's been running great since I bought it, and will continue till I think it's time to change but I'm betting this won't happen for a couple of years still.

As for the research, I have to disagree again. It's either Intel or... Well. Intel mainly. And then it's the usual questions about gaming, should I get a iK or just plain Intel, which one is better for this game, will I surf faster with a I7 or...?
So a question starting with "AMD or Intel", seriously...
But it's a forum, free to all, so. I was just sharing my thought about this thread :)
 
Upvote -1 Downvote
At the risk of making you blow a gasket lol, an AMD chip may be ok for what it is, but they don't compare to current Intel chips for any task. AMD make great GPU's still, and I often recommend people to get a 480 over a 1060 for example, but we have to face facts here. And what's the point of getting an FX that cant make the most of a GPU you just paid hundreds of dollars for? The documentation and proof is all around you http://hwbench.com/cpus/amd-fx-8300-vs-intel-core-i5-6600k.

Personally I have better things to do than get angry about it tho :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think it's worth noting that the FX 8xxx are very old. It's equivalent to Intel still selling Ivy Bridge (which also look dated in a lot of tasks now).

If AMD had released updated FX parts based on the newer SteamRoller and Excavator cores, whilst they wouldn't have outpaced Intel they probably would have offered competitive performance with Haswell and Skylake in multi threaded scenarios. The issue was none of the newer 'dozer core derivations really compensated for the designs main weakness- in single thread. I guess AMD just didn't think they would sell enough to make it worth the investment.

The latest APU's are actually a really good option for a number of cases- I use a couple of A10 based machines for light CAD duties / training. They are also excellent in laptops- offering decent graphics and cpu for the money (usually you are talking an Intel i3 with 2 cores and a cut gpu for the same money). It's a shame AMD didn't manage to get more traction in that arena. A large part of that is down to mind share- Intel have the best, so people want the Intel badge (even if the part they are getting is inferior to the equivalent priced AMD solution).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
An i7 6700 would make the most sense here. Changing boards, and cpu's, and possibly having to get a new windows license for the new board, it is just simpler, and possibly cheaper, in the long run, to get the locked 6700.

FX is a bad idea, because you would need to get new CPU, motherboard, and DDR3 ram, plus the possible windows license.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
Solution

Sorry but do you own a FX?
Like I said, if gaming is the only thing someone would look out for a PC, then the cheapest and best solution would also be an i3, or... an FX.
But if not, then the FXs are still a great solution. More cores, the better, again. My use of my computer is way better with my 8370 than it would be with a i3/i5. Why? Because I'm not just playing, I'm also doing stuffs that require more threads, more cores, more RAM.
Which documentation are you referring to? Benchmarks? <-- games... Not "real" use. It's exactly like benchmark of cars. Not regular uses. You know that while you'd be counting your FPS with a i3, you'd also be able to do something else with an FX, and not dropping a single image? :)

Now, again and again: if the OP has to buy a new rig, then I would suggest Intel or RyZen. Or not. I wouldn't go for the FX line anymore. Intel = DDR4, evolution, ...
I'm fine with my FX because I have it and I use it. If I had to buy something new, well... :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Agreed. At the level of machine my customers want me to build, sometimes by the dozen, it really matters not what CPU I put on whichever motherboard that accepts it. I rarely include a separate graphics card because the onboard graphics are adequate.

I steer clear of the argumentative Intel -v- AMD threads other than to intervene in the inevitable war between what is rather demeanngly known as fanboys but my own machines past and present have been based on both manufacturer's products. I have to say I have no preference and both perform equally well. Going up into the realms of gaming, things become quite different.

I also have to say how pleasureable it is to read a thread on the subject which doesn't degenerate into an argument.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


I do own an FX it has just been in the cupboard for the last few years. When I first got into building PC's it was AMD all the way as they were competitive but a lot cheaper, and for a teenage kid that was crucial, but times have moved on, and AMD havent produced an enthusiast/pro level chip for some time now.

The extra cores of an FX do not inherently equate to superior multi-tasking, as highlighted by the much greater efficiency of multi-tasking/video rending etc tasks in the benchmark I posted above. The i5 out-performs the 8300 in every conceivable situation, even with half as many cores (although FX's 8 core is more akin to a HT quad as the architecture is such that it is effectively half of what it is marketed as).

One thing I will say for AMD, and agree with several posts here on about, is the viability of AMD chips as lower end, every day solutions. The vast majority of people don't need the level of hardware you commonly see being touted around this site, and pound for pound packs a far better punch than Intel's low-end, similarly performing equivalents.

I am by no means a fanboy, and have always rooted for the underdog in life, but the reality is AMD have not released a competitive chip for a long time and Intel have dominated the CPU chip market for some time now. I am truly hoping that changes with Ryzen because for one company to have market dominance is both bad for consumers and tehchnology advancement alike, but sometimes we have to rise above our personal biases and make objective analyses based on cold, hard facts.

I hope we can keep this cordial and friendly because I certainly have no desire to engage in keyboard warrior wars and likewise in real life. I know I can look after myself and dont feel a need to prove it to anyone. Anyway I have enjoyed the conversation. You take care of yourself. And go team AMD!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
@ LeKeiser, I understand what you are saying, but I do not understand how you can be surprised and/or annoyed about it. When Bulldozer came out in '11, it was kind of a flop. One year later, Piledriver was much improved and was actually very competitive against Intel's current offerings at the time which was Sandy Bridge and then Ivy Bridge. Now fast forward 4 years later and Intel has released 3 and almost 4 more generations of cpus since then while AMD is still trying to sell these 2012 FX cpus. Would you really be expecting the collective on this site to be pushing these 2012 cpus against Intel's brand new cpus of today? This is almost 2017. Those old FX cpus just simply cannot compete anymore nor should they have to. If you want to be mad at somebody, why aren't you mad at AMD for waiting almost 5 years to release a meaningful cpu?

The old FX cpus are not terrible garbage... they DO "get the job done" but there is literally ZERO upside when compared to a 6th gen Intel cpu. They are NOT cheaper. They are NOT better at anything. They are NOT a better bang for buck. There is simply NO reason to consider a new build with them anymore. This is like getting mad that people aren't recommending Ivy Bridge cpus for new builds these days, but why would they?

The worst part is that the FX cpus do SEEM like a great deal. I can get an 8 core cpu clocked at 4.0ghz for ~$150? That sounds awesome doesn't it? But then you start to look at the fine print, and you see that 75% of the AM3+ motherboard cannot even properly power a 125w cpu, so you're forced to pay at least $80+ for a motherboard, and then get a decent cpu cooler, because you pretty HAVE to overclock to at least attempt to be competitive, and then after all that, the $110 dual core i3 6100 on a $50 motherboard outperforms it in nearly every game!! And the $190 i5 6500 on a $50 motherboard outperforms it in pretty much every processing task that exists while also being cheaper at the same time??? I would be so mad.

So you can call me an Intel fanboy if you want, but you can also go back to 2013 and see that I used to really push for those FX builds back then on this very sight. At one point, there WERE a better deal and I always recommend them against Sandy Bridge especially. I was even called an AMD fanboy a couple times back then. How ironic.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom