low budget cpu: i3-4150 vs fx-6300 vs fx-4350

[ashrosene]

Hello,
As the title says, I am trying to upgrade my CPU (and mobo, obviously).
I am stuck between I3-4150, FX-6300 and FX-4350.
I know that i3-4150 has much better, albeit fewer cores, but I was wondering if that is matched by the FX's more cores.
This PC's most CPU intensive games will be Total war games, the occasional Skyrim and Fallout, and Paradox Interactive games.
Post note:
How Important is mobo chipset? I am thinking of an msi-h81 for the I3.

 

[mdocod]

Motherboard thermal sensors and CPU temp readings (junction/case temps if available). IIRC ~70C TCASE and ~100C TJunction is where you'd start to run into problems on that generation of Intel products, but it wouldn't hurt to do some of your own digging around on the subject.

 

[Calebe Zacai]

Motherboard thermal sensors and CPU temp readings (junction/case temps if available). IIRC ~70C TCASE and ~100C TJunction is where you'd start to run into problems on that generation of Intel products, but it wouldn't hurt to do some of your own digging around on the subject.

Well i runned the MSI Afterburn during the game and to me the results were unconclusive.

First of all. The CPU was constantly 98°C-99°C
CPU Usage (8 CPU) All was working the lowest CPU usage was 7% and the maximum was 61%.
The GPU was very weird. I set the game on LOW and the FPS increased, but the usage was around 35%-60% NEVER ABOVE 70%
Game SET on ULTRA FPS about 7-15. The GPU Usage was around 45-55%. WHAT!?! As i can see my GPU can handle the Graphics, but not my CPU.

But first measures, i'll try to buy the Neptua 140XL, and cool-up the CPU. After that my MoBo have OC Tweak that allow me to OC up to 4.2Ghz.
I'll must try the game with the Water Cooler. I really believe that the game needs more CPU.

 

[nVidea]

So if I buy, FX 6300, I should also buy decent CPU cooler too? If I'm to play 8 hrs straight.

 

[slyu9213]

low budget CPU = FX 8310 @$89.99 after mir from TigrrDirect.

 

[Calebe Zacai]

When changing settings doesn't help, that's a CPU BOTTLENECK. Switch to haswell and your FPS in those congested conditions will nearly double. Buy a new GPU, and your FPS in those raids won't change a bit.

Like most progressions of CPU/GPU technology in the last 5 years, the GTX960 is an incremental step forward vs the GTX760. Slightly more render performance in most workloads, slightly less power dissipation. The largest gains are in low-power applications. Maxwell is at heart a low-power targeted technology, that is being ran at high power on the desktop. From what I can tell the GTX960 will probably the best thing ~$200 you're going to get. Closest competitor would be an R9 285, though from what I've seen you'll get better minium FPS in compute bound DX11 workloads on the nvidia driver stack so the GTX960 is the way to go.

Hello

I followed your advice. I just bought the following itens and propably coming on tuesday or wednesday.

Placa-mãe ASUS Micro ATX p/ Intel LGA 1150 B85M-E/BR, c/ HDMI, DisplayPort, Conector Serial e Paralela
Processador Intel Core i3-4160 3.6GHz 3MB LGA 1150 BX80646I34160

After all system set i'll give the feedback.

And the last item (if i manage to go Orlando,FL on October) GTX 960.

Thanks!

Hello,
I installed the new cpu and MoBo, and the first impressions were the OS and loading times nearly doubled on speed (almost take half of time).
The WoW performance increased, but i need more time to test and make a conclusion.

 

[Black Flash]

I would take the i3. It will perform better than the FX6300 90% of the time. With the FX6300 you are going to want to overclock and that costs extra money making the i3 an even better deal. A lot of a time, a properly overclocked FX6300 ends up costing as much as an i5 would have cost.

The i3 also offers a far better upgrade path while the FX cpus are 2 years old already and are on a dead socket.

I really see NO advantage to getting any FX at this point.

I was taking my dog out for a walk this morning looking at details about my new I3 4150 processor when I accidentally found this forum. I am a noob when it comes to understanding how cpus work but from my personal experience of using a fourth generation i3 it can do allmost anything, been playing games like crazy and using my pc for 12 hours straight (little bit of gaming, little bit of web browsing etc.) and the cpu doesn't break a sweat and the temperature never goes beyond 50 degrees. If your going for a low (or even mid budget) build do not make the mistake of ignoring the I3 processor. So glad I got this instead of an AMD 6300.

 

[Black Flash]

I am not saying that intel is bad or rather amd is better than intel but on gaming performance, specially lets take assassin's creed unity the fx 6300 perform slightly better than I3 4150.
it also perform better in watch dog it is not a big difference, actually the compatibility and performance is 15-20 percent and it doesn't matter to be honest. ....
Intel is 4th generation but this modal is not a high end on the other hand fx 6300 is a high end processor but an old one which is still working at least so go for amd as per my opinion and if you think it is wrong try comparing on game-debate.com

 

[logainofhades]

 

[didovlado]

I have 2 computers:

First (N1):
- CPU i3-4150 (2 cores / 4 threads / 3.5 MHz) + stock cooler
- RAM Kingston HyperX 2x4gb CL-10 1600 MHz DDR3
- Motherboard H81-C
- SSD Kingston 120 gb SATA 3
- GPU PowerColor AMD R7 260x (1 x 6 pin power connector) 2 gb DDR5
- PSU 450 W

Second (N2):
- CPU AMD FX-6300 (6 cores / 6 threads / TurboCore OFF / clocked at 4 GHz by multiplier only, all other settings as voltages and etc. are on auto) + some big but not expensive cooler master (air)
- RAM Kingston HyperX 2x4gb CL-10 1600 MHz DDR3
- Motherboard (can't tell you now, I am not at home now, but cheap, SATA 2)
- SSD Samsung EVO 120 gb SATA 3 (but the Motherboard is SATA 2 only)
- GPU Asus AMD R9 270 OC 2gb (1 x 6 pin power connector) DDR5
- PSU 550-650 W (can't tell you now, I am not at home now)

My brother and I play only 2 games: Diablo 3 and StarCraft 2. Originally the first build I described (i3-4150) was with the R9 270. When we bought the second build (FX-6300) it was with the R7 260x. Playing D3 and SC2 on build N1 was visibly better then build N2 (in very big battles in multiplayer, when the FPS drops). Then we swithed the GPUs and now they are installed as described in the builds above. No visible difference in build N1 (only in SC2 when wathcing replays at 8x speed), build N2 now runs almost as good as N1 if not the same - only 5-10 less dps in huge drops).
Medium graphics settings (SC2 shader at medium level, SC2 and D3 texture level at max, shadows on, CPU hungry settings like physics and special effects to low), Full HD 1080p, Vsyn is ON so 60 fps almost stalbe. Only in very very very big batles fps drops to arround 40 for a few seconds.
Also you should know that before overclocking I tried to monitor FX-6300 clockspeed of cores with CoreTemp, but did not see any TurboCore sign (I did not see clockspeed increase or more then 85% usage of a core) so I turned it off and overclocked from 3.5 to 4 GHz).
I know that D3 and SC2 use 2 cores and rely more on CPU and less on GPU, so if you are going to play D3 and SC2, I would recommend i3-4150, although FX-6300 is almost the same in performance in this two games (it's more expensive and need an aftermarket cooler for overclocking).

 

[didovlado]

I have 2 computers:

First (N1):
- CPU i3-4150 (2 cores / 4 threads / 3.5 MHz) + stock cooler
- RAM Kingston HyperX 2x4gb CL-10 1600 MHz DDR3
- Motherboard H81-C
- SSD Kingston 120 gb SATA 3
- GPU PowerColor AMD R7 260x (1 x 6 pin power connector) 2 gb DDR5
- PSU 450 W

Second (N2):
- CPU AMD FX-6300 (6 cores / 6 threads / TurboCore OFF / clocked at 4 GHz by multiplier only, all other settings as voltages and etc. are on auto) + some big but not expensive cooler master (air)
- RAM Kingston HyperX 2x4gb CL-10 1600 MHz DDR3
- Motherboard (can't tell you now, I am not at home now, but cheap, SATA 2)
- SSD Samsung EVO 120 gb SATA 3 (but the Motherboard is SATA 2 only)
- GPU Asus AMD R9 270 OC 2gb (1 x 6 pin power connector) DDR5
- PSU 550-650 W (can't tell you now, I am not at home now)

My brother and I play only 2 games: Diablo 3 and StarCraft 2. Originally the first build I described (i3-4150) was with the R9 270. When we bought the second build (FX-6300) it was with the R7 260x. Playing D3 and SC2 on build N1 was visibly better then build N2 (in very big battles in multiplayer, when the FPS drops). Then we swithed the GPUs and now they are installed as described in the builds above. No visible difference in build N1 (only in SC2 when wathcing replays at 8x speed), build N2 now runs almost as good as N1 if not the same - only 5-10 less dps in huge drops).
Medium graphics settings (SC2 shader at medium level, SC2 and D3 texture level at max, shadows on, CPU hungry settings like physics and special effects to low), Full HD 1080p, Vsyn is ON so 60 fps almost stalbe. Only in very very very big batles fps drops to arround 40 for a few seconds.
Also you should know that before overclocking I tried to monitor FX-6300 clockspeed of cores with CoreTemp, but did not see any TurboCore sign (I did not see clockspeed increase or more then 85% usage of a core) so I turned it off and overclocked from 3.5 to 4 GHz).
I know that D3 and SC2 use 2 cores and rely more on CPU and less on GPU, so if you are going to play D3 and SC2, I would recommend i3-4150, although FX-6300 is almost the same in performance in this two games (it's more expensive and need an aftermarket cooler for overclocking).

 

[logainofhades]