Intel G3258 vs. AMD FX-6300?

[McDohl]

Which do you think is better for gaming? Apparently, the G3258 can be overclocked, price looks good. I'm not sure which to go with.

I'll also be pairing one of them with a 750 ti. If you have any better suggestions within the price range, feel free to share.

McDohl

 

[Shubhanshu Mehra]

Don't listen to all these intel fanboys out there . FX 6300 have got 6 cores and 3.5 ghz stock. It was compared with an i7 processer in battlefeild 4 and they both got 60 fps .If you don't belive me you can check it out on you tube .Here is the link be sure to check it out-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66BiQsOM9_M

 

[yanis31]

and stop with the ppower consumption nonsense - everyone knows it's meaningless ... unless you run your cpu @ 100% load 24/7 all year long - do you?
and 94w is total... only overclock will give you more... i dont know if HWINFO64 motherboard's power phases/ VRM readings are to be taken seriously but mine is showing around 170w during stresstesting....

 

[enemy1g]

And that's why your 6300 is barely beating an Ivy Bridge (I have to bold these words because you're not smart enough to make the connection yourself) in Watch Dogs?

And unfortunately, there's no current benchmarks for the new i3 on Watch Dogs. But I'm more than willing to bet it's a handful faster than the i3-3220 shown.

 

[Zircoben]

And that's why your 6300 is barely beating an Ivy Bridge (I have to bold these words because you're not smart enough to make the connection yourself) in Watch Dogs?

And unfortunately, there's no current benchmarks for the new i3 on Watch Dogs. But I'm more than willing to bet it's a handful faster than the i3-3220 shown.

wow you're really that dumb? look at the 8350 score ... the 6300 is 500mhz slower stock... but overclocks to the same speeds more or less

Nobody here is dumb, we just have different opinions.

Once you spend the money to get a cooler to overclock the FX-6300, you could've spent the money on an Haswell i5, which will beat anything from AMD, besides the 9590.

 

[JOOK-D]

so is the i3 in the charts above overclockable? what would the score of the fx 6 core be when overclocked? - please tell me!

And please tell me the additional cost involved in overclocking that FX, when you could have just as easily bought an i5 and run it far better at stock settings.

there is no additional cost... a 970a board is very cheap... where i live a i3 is not cheaper than the 6 core either...
all you guys can ever do is throw old unoptimized game engines at me to show that on a budget build the intel will somehow be better.... as soon as you look at a recent game you pretty much see a situation like the watchdogs chart above ... face it - the future will look like that... i highly doubt anyone will release multi core un-optimized games for the new consoles.

at what point i said anything about the i5? if you can buy it - buy it... but don't buy a i3 instead of the fx6300/6350
i built mine much cheaper than a i5 build would cost me

Oh cheaper where you live? Well that's all that matters isn't it?

You will need a good CPU cooler to overclock the FX safely.

"i highly doubt anyone will release multi core un-optimized games for the new consoles." You mean exactly like watch dogs then? And like Dead Rising 3?

You didn't mention the i5, I did.

 

[JOOK-D]

Even for 4.5GHz you'll want an aftermarket cooler, and possibly a 990FX board. That all adds to the unnecessary cost.

As I said, the FX's being comparable to the i5's is very situation dependent. Sure, in games where the CPU isn't being stressed there'll hardly be any difference. enemy1g has made that point several times.

All your clock speed argument is showing is that AMD's FX series "moar corez" strategy was a failure, since clock speed is more important than numerous cores. Which is why i3's are commonly recommended here over the FX's, as their performance per core is far higher. So you literally opposed your own argument.

Sure, you might gain absolutely miniscule FPS from having background processes dealt with by the extra unused cores.

EDIT: fixed italics.

not true on the 990fx par at all - i run 4.7ghz without a hitch on a gigabyte ga-970a-ud3p,
4.5 was somewhat fine on stock cooler... the only real downside was it's real noisy

you say the core argument is not valid - please explain why FX 4 cores get such a bad performance conpared to 6 ?

Because FX's per-core performance is awful. There are only a few titles on the market that can make use of 6-8 cores - if you base your purchase on that, you're insane. Notice how even in Watch Dogs which uses 8 cores the i3 is almost on par with it's 'lowly' 2 cores and hyperthreading that you're so against.

Watch_Dogs is an awfully optimised title and shouldn't be used as a basis for an argument.

 

[ex_bubblehead]

To those that just had posts deleted from this thread (and you know who you are), I suggest that you reread the terms of use and forum rules that you agreed to abide by when you created your accounts. Stop the name calling and insults immediately or this thread will be closed.

 

[yanis31]

Well im just talking about my experience while you dump charts here... Also why are you hating on a gtx780 and fx6350 combo? - Whats wrong with using all the filters? Or maybe I want to upgrade my monitor? - 1440p is 1.77x more pixels than 1080p and thats about the fps reduction you get... I tried running bf4 @ 150% resolution scale to simulate such a resolution and fps was in the 30's and only sometimes 40's with the 770... It also starts to consume over 2gigs of vram if you push it like that... So a 780 is the minimum card you should get for 1440p or even 2560x1080 which im also considering...
We can keep talking... <mod edit>

 

[acid1drinker]

Not sure if I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I'd always chose Intel over AMD only because of less power consumption. Also the amount of extra costs overclocking adds, it's almost always just better to get a next tier CPU instead. Just my 2 cents.

 

[silverblue]

You could buy whichever CPU you wanted, and just undervolt it for some rather meaningful power savings (especially in AMD's case).

The FX-8350 is on par with the i5-3550 purely down to the number of FPUs; the 3960X has 50% more FPUs hence the 50% performance hike. The FX-4170 has a clock speed of 4.2GHz (4.3GHz turbo, so very consistent) which allows it to close the gap to the 3.5GHz (4.1GHz turbo) FX-6300 but that extra FPU gives it enough legs to keep ahead.

 

[yanis31]

yep.. the undervolting works like a charm on AMD ... i haven't tried to push mine to the limits of low voltage since i just dont care but i just put 1.29 volts on my Fx-6350 down from stock 1.41 and it runs no issues... prime 95 is running on all cores and HWINFO64 shows max 56W Cpu power
- but this is all pretty meaningless because your cpu only has some considerable power consumption when all cores are loaded to the max... the rest of the time power savings/ quiet n' cool / C states take care of the undervolting/underclocking... the cpu runs on 0.9-1.0 volts under those conditions anyway...

 

[yanis31]

Not sure if I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I'd always chose Intel over AMD only because of less power consumption. Also the amount of extra costs overclocking adds, it's almost always just better to get a next tier CPU instead. Just my 2 cents.

speaking of two cents..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBeeGHozSY0

 

[yanis31]

Ok Guys!
I got my GTX780 Today - so i will be posting some Fx-6350 benchmarks in the upcoming days...
let me know which games are you interested in... it'll take a while tho since im on really crappy internet at the moment

 

[yanis31]

Allright some 64player servers in Batlefield 4 on Ultra Settings:

Flood Zone:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDvZPr6jmUc

and Paracel Storm
(this one actually diappointed me a little - there are some fps drops here and there, however after a little research it seems same happens with i7's too)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzMg5Y0Hln4

smaller servers run higher fps and due to my current connection im using 4g to upload so it costs me alot
so i'm not going to bother much with those since 64 player ones are what matter...