i5 2400 vs FX 6300 for $80

[Kevin L]

Both of these are the same prices used. I think cpus are one of the more safer used part options, due to them usually lasting the longest unlike hard drives that mechanically fatigue overtime. Which one would perform better? Upon further research I found that both of them are quite close to performance in games. I guess I could expand the question to, whats the cheaper/better platform? Are lga 1155 board or am3 boards cheaper? Both of them are pretty outdated now, especially with am4 and lga1151 becoming the mainstream.

 

[Ecky]

You may be able to find a decent AM3+ board for cheaper, considering they're still in production, but the i5 is undoubtedly the better CPU. It will match the FX in multithreading, beat it handily in single-threaded performance, and do so drawing less power.

EDIT: The i3 6100 at $120 is $40 more expensive, but is definitely superior to either just about every metric, if you can stretch your budget for it.

 

[madmatt30]

The 6300 is a better chip than an old locked sandybridge hands down
You'd also have a damn hard time finding a decent motherboard for the intel at a reasonable price.

Plainly you're not USA ??
The 6300 retails at $90 new.

 

[Ecky]

The 6300 is a better chip than an old locked sandybridge hands down
You'd also have a damn hard time finding a decent motherboard for the intel at a reasonable price.

Plainly you're not USA ??
The 6300 retails at $90 new.

The i5 2400 is Sandy Bridge, not Ivy Bridge, and it still has a solid 30-40% IPC advantage over the FX. It's also not fully locked; you can overclock it by 400mhz (to 3.8ghz) with a "P" or "Z" chipset motherboard.

 

[Kevin L]

I am not planning on overclocking, but the budget is strict since this pc isnt for me, it is for a client of mine. I am in the USA, just noticed a $90 new msrp, but like I said, I could save 10 bucks getting it used and totally be fine since its not from a sketchy dealer. The board can be of any quality as long as its some sort of ATX size, not those weird dell sizes. Overclocking won't be done on either chip.

 

[madmatt30]

I known it's a sandy , I edited it straight after I posted.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this onebthough mate , I own an old 2400 & a 3470.
While I've never benched against the 2400 I have benched a 4.2ghz 6300 against the 3470 & it matches or beats it consumately across the board.
A sandy never had 30-40% IPC increase over the visheras, more like 20%.

Irregardless you won't find a p or z board under $100 nowadays second hand (they are like rocking horse ****).

Out of those 2 exact CPU's I've got to give the win to the 6300 because of the above.
You can do 4.2ghz on a $50 board with a $15 cooler easily.

Like you said though, once again the 6100 makes more sense than both.

 

[madmatt30]

Kevin L - any micro centres near you ?? They have some insane prices bundle deals available.

You are adding a GPU??
Intel's have integrated graphics, fx chips do not.

 

[Ecky]

I'd grab something slightly newer than either. How about something like an i3 4160 and 1150 board?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Intel-i3-4160-3-60-GHz-Dual-Core-Processor-3MB-Cache-Socket-LGA-1150-SR1PK-/112134992932?hash=item1a1bc43424:g:dXoAAOSwAuZX2AvB

The i5 2400 may be slightly faster in mutlithreading but the i3 won't be far behind, and will be a lot faster in single-threaded tasks. You may also be able to find a motherboard for it that wasn't manufactured 3-4 years ago.

 

[Ecky]

I known it's a sandy , I edited it straight after I posted.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this onebthough mate , I own an old 2400 & a 3470.
While I've never benched against the 2400 I have benched a 4.2ghz 6300 against the 3470 & it matches or beats it consumately across the board.
A sandy never had 30-40% IPC increase over the visheras, more like 20%.

Irregardless you won't find a p or z board under $100 nowadays second hand (they are like rocking horse ****).

Out of those 2 exact CPU's I've got to give the win to the 6300 because of the above.
You can do 4.2ghz on a $50 board with a $15 cooler easily.

Like you said though, once again the 6100 makes more sense than both.

For what it's worth, AMD uses Cinebench to compare their CPUs to Intel CPUs, so it's probably a fair comparison:

 

[Kevin L]

Kevin L - any micro centres near you ?? They have some insane prices bundle deals available.

You are adding a GPU??
Intel's have integrated graphics, fx chips do not.

I don't have any actually, only Frys Electronics. Yes, I am adding a 750ti most likely since this is mean't to be a very budget build. It doesn't have to be super fast.

 

[madmatt30]

To be fair though I did real world gaming tests , both systems running 8gb ram & a 970 & the outcome was that you would honestly not be able to tell which system was which in real life .
Drops to mid 50 s on some titles on both, very similar 3dmark benches, didn't test tw or arma titles where the intel would likely have won but theyre not games I have any interest in.
Price wise the cost was pretty equal simply because intel board cost as much as the amd one & I put aftermarket coolers on both because I wouldn't trust a 4 year old stock cooler .

The 3470 build was thrown together just to disprove the comments regarding GPU pairing, fine to pair a 970 with a 3470 but a 6300 will bottleneck it badly .

Those misconceptions were entirely disproved with my experience, one day I may get round to posting the actual results on the forums.

 

[Ecky]

Right, great info.

 

[elbert]

The i5 2400 is the better performance. Buyer beware tho on used parts. All things take damage over time. For CPU's we call it electrical migration that usally takes a decade at stock. Used CPU's tho could have been overclocked and die at any time.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/363?vs=699