Fx 8300 or i5 6600k

[HiddenGem]

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

 

[logainofhades]

I remember getting called a fanboy, for pushing FX 6300/8320 rigs too, even though I was using a 3570k at the time. :lol:

 

[madmatt30]

There are instances where I'd still use an fx 6300/8320 over a skylake i3 still now , just not primarily for gaming.
Been called an amd fanboy in derogatory terms so many times (owning 2 amd rigs & 3 Intel ones at that) .
I think primarily back in 2012 amd made a predictive decision regarding the way things would go multi threading wise & it was quite simply the wrong one.
I don't think at the time anyone could have predicted the explosion we've seen in PC gaming & also the advances in open world games , the CPU grunt needed & how much GPU processing power has progressed.
In 2012 the piledrivers were honestly good CPU's IMO , there wasn't really any kind of IPC limitations gaming wise back then & the multithreading worked incredibly well for heavy workloads.
Even now you can run more simultaneous heavy workloads on an 8 core fx as opposed to even a skylake i5 without the system bogging down completely , they're just not good current gen gaming CPU's because compared to Intel they're 3 generations old.

I have at the moment sat here a bnib i5 6500 which I bought on a whim for £100.
Didn't really see a need for any upgrade because my 6300,8320 & 3 ivy bridge i5's all do what's required of them well enough.
But £100 for a £200 CPU was too good to turn down & I'll now probably end up with another system because even with my distaste for Intel as a company I'm just really looking forwards to having a play around with a current gen build.

Never been an amd,Intel,nvidia in the slightest.
Just a tech fan with a penchant for new toys ;-)

 

[Multipack]

There are instances where I'd still use an fx 6300/8320 over a skylake i3 still now , just not primarily for gaming.
Been called an amd fanboy in derogatory terms so many times (owning 2 amd rigs & 3 Intel ones at that) .
I think primarily back in 2012 amd made a predictive decision regarding the way things would go multi threading wise & it was quite simply the wrong one.
I don't think at the time anyone could have predicted the explosion we've seen in PC gaming & also the advances in open world games , the CPU grunt needed & how much GPU processing power has progressed.
In 2012 the piledrivers were honestly good CPU's IMO , there wasn't really any kind of IPC limitations gaming wise back then & the multithreading worked incredibly well for heavy workloads.
Even now you can run more simultaneous heavy workloads on an 8 core fx as opposed to even a skylake i5 without the system bogging down completely , they're just not good current gen gaming CPU's because compared to Intel they're 3 generations old.

I have at the moment sat here a bnib i5 6500 which I bought on a whim for £100.
Didn't really see a need for any upgrade because my 6300,8320 & 3 ivy bridge i5's all do what's required of them well enough.
But £100 for a £200 CPU was too good to turn down & I'll now probably end up with another system because even with my distaste for Intel as a company I'm just really looking forwards to having a play around with a current gen build.

Never been an amd,Intel,nvidia in the slightest.
Just a tech fan with a penchant for new toys ;-)

Some great posts in this thread and two very good points in this post.

You said it, as long as they do what's required of them there's no complaint.Not everyone needs a nuclear destroyer of a PC!

And secondly, that's exactly what they are, toys! Let's not lose our cools over something like that.

I do disagree that the "supposedly" eight cores of an FX (see my post above lol) can outperform an i5 in multi-thread tasks however. The I/O, architecture and IPC advancements are just as if not more relevant here.

 

[madmatt30]

^ I never said outperform , I said more simultaneous workloads without the system bogging down .
Not theoretical , I've forced workloads to prove it , with both a fx 6300 vs an i3 6100 , & an 8320 vs an i5 4460.
4 simultaneous 4k video encodes bought the i3 6100 to it's knees completely , unusable while encoding , think 5-10 seconds to open a web page even , like going back to 52kbps dialup back in 2002!
Same scenario with the 8 core vs i5 with 6 simultaneous threads (never had a skylake i5 in my possession but I doubt the result would vary significantly)

They're not general workloads admittedly , it was just testing unnecessarily to prove a point because plainly if those workloads were an everyday occurrence youd be using an 8 threaded Xeon/i7 or a genuine 6 core Intel.
In fairness (from memory) the i3 process completed in a virtually identical time to the 6300, the i5 completed 25% or so faster than the 8320.
So yes plain processing power they're as good or better than the fx's irregardless of multithreading , the much stronger ipc counteracts the extra tbreads,but those extra threads do make a difference when it comes to actual reserve processing power.
Its a fact though plain & simple , if rendering/encoding is your one & only bag a 6 or 8 core fx is plain better than a skylake i3 100% .
I still wouldn't recommend them though simply because they're too old & zen (I refuse to call it ryzen) is due.

Nice to have a discussion without rants & name calling though

 

[Multipack]

I guess so, but most benchmarks are also based on practical rather than theoretical conclusions, and you wont find many saying an i5 is outdone in multi-tasking. I guess it's dependent on the task at hand, and Skylake i7 whoop the pants off them lol. That's partly because, like I keep saying, FX 8 cores are really double moduled four cores with half the FPU of Intel microarchitectures..

https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/1e8226/discussion_amds_module_architecture_the_fx_8350/

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2433871/amd-misled-consumers-by-exaggerating-bulldozer-core-count-claims-lawsuit

 

[LeKeiser]

This discussion is really nice, I hope the OP doesn't mind if we discuss a bit about the actual value of the FX processors.
As I said, I wouldn't buy one if I were to start a new rig. Even if the price is not that high, I would wait a bit and save some money and get either a (Ry)Zen if it is as good as I hope it will be, or of course an Intel, something like an I7 so I'd be fine for at least 3 or 4 yrs.
But right now, I have that 8370 at stock and I'm really happy with it. MadMatt30 and I already had lots of posts about it, he'll say I drool again and he'll be right 😀 But hey, that's a fact: there is nothing I cannot do with it. I play nice, OverWatch, Witcher3, X-Com2, Verdun, I have a 1060 6GB so it's perfect with this CPU. I can play and encode at the same time, something that I wouldn't be able to do with an i3. At the time I bought the FX, the i3 was even more expensive than the FX, not to talk about the i5. I was able to get more RAM with the price difference.
I have to disagree again about one thing: MadMatt said I think primarily back in 2012 amd made a predictive decision regarding the way things would go multi threading wise & it was quite simply the wrong one. I think it was a good decision but it wasn't followed by Microsoft and the gaming companies. Multithreading then wasn't considered as the best option, maybe too much work to use it, but... They all thought that the brute power of a single core would be enough, and they were half right. Proof: 5 yrs after the launch of the FX, we see that games are now starting to use more than 1 core, 2 cores, sometimes up to 4. DX12 is giving a new life to the FX, but it's too late. I mean, they are still competitive even now, even next to the new generation of Intel CPUs. That's not bad of such an old architecture, right?
Ah, I'm not particularly an AMD fanboy. I owned a Q6600@3.2Ghz for 8 yrs almost, and was very happy with it. I still have it in my closet, I can't sell it, too much love between us 😀

Thanx a lot to all of you for such a pleasant discussion again