Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

FX 6300 vs i3 4130

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 23, 2013 1:34:14 AM

Yo. People recommend the fx 6300 a lot here but how come does Tom's latest list "Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: September 2013" say that i3 4130 is the better option? It states that the margin proportional performance to price difference between the 6300 and the 4130 is not enough to recommend the 6300 over the i3. Was hoping for a couple of thoughts and opinions. Thanks! :) 

More about : 6300 4130

a c 202 à CPUs
September 23, 2013 1:38:29 AM

That is because the Article does not take into account the extra core count on the 6300 making an extra difference, nor do they account for the OCing potential on the 6300.
m
0
l
September 23, 2013 1:40:14 AM

Novuake said:
That is because the Article does not take into account the extra core count on the 6300 making an extra difference, nor do they account for the OCing potential on the 6300.


aah kk. so would you still recommend the 6300 if im not interested in overclocking?
m
0
l
Related resources

Best solution

a c 202 à CPUs
September 23, 2013 1:50:01 AM

Tvisz said:
Novuake said:
That is because the Article does not take into account the extra core count on the 6300 making an extra difference, nor do they account for the OCing potential on the 6300.


aah kk. so would you still recommend the 6300 if im not interested in overclocking?


Jip. The 970 chipset + 6300 usually equals the cost out vs a B85 chipset + I3.

Games are using more and more cores and I have encountered many people complaining the I3s lack in performance with games like Battlefield 3 and many MMOs.
Share
October 22, 2013 10:10:13 AM

Novuake said:
Tvisz said:
Novuake said:
That is because the Article does not take into account the extra core count on the 6300 making an extra difference, nor do they account for the OCing potential on the 6300.


aah kk. so would you still recommend the 6300 if im not interested in overclocking?


Jip. The 970 chipset + 6300 usually equals the cost out vs a B85 chipset + I3.

Games are using more and more cores and I have encountered many people complaining the I3s lack in performance with games like Battlefield 3 and many MMOs.

lol. "more and more cores". 6300 requires an evo 212 which makes it more expensive than i3-4130. Basically i3-4130 is the same fx 6300 except it is 125watt while i3 is 54watt. An this is the where i3 is benchmarked : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXPK9doyMLg . It has enough L3 cache to keep up with more cpu intensive games and it is a really good choise as budget cpu. As you see you can put it with up to gtx 760/hd 7950 with no problem while i5 ain't really show nothing better for the extra two real cores. But obviously if you put some gtx 780 then i3 is to slow. The same story with fx 6300.
m
0
l
a c 680 à CPUs
October 22, 2013 10:25:47 AM

I never use a factory heatsink anyway as they all suck, but FX 6300 doesn't require an evo 212. :lol:  If you are going to do any kind of real overclocking, yea I could see the need for one. Of course the i3 cannot do this. FX 6300 is a 95w chip. An FX 6300 bumped to an FX 6350 will beat an i3. BF4 and Crysis 3 are games where more cores do matter. Even Tom's doesn't recommend an i3 for Crysis 3. BF4 can max out all 6 cores of an FX 6300 and make really good use of an FX 8350. The i5's and i7's are similar in this respect to CPU usage. Even the 6 core i7's see decent usage across all 6 cores and at least 1 hyperthread being used.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 22, 2013 10:28:40 AM

Well, let me say it simple - it depends on what you will be playing most:

Skyrim, WoW, Starcraft 2? I3
BF4, Crysis? FX-6300
m
0
l
October 22, 2013 10:52:03 AM

logainofhades said:
I never use a factory heatsink anyway as they all suck, but FX 6300 doesn't require an evo 212. :lol:  If you are going to do any kind of real overclocking, yea I could see the need for one. Of course the i3 cannot do this. FX 6300 is a 95w chip. An FX 6300 bumped to an FX 6350 will beat an i3. BF4 and Crysis 3 are games where more cores do matter. Even Tom's doesn't recommend an i3 for Crysis 3. BF4 can max out all 6 cores of an FX 6300 and make really good use of an FX 8350. The i5's and i7's are similar in this respect to CPU usage. Even the 6 core i7's see decent usage across all 6 cores and at least 1 hyperthread being used.


AMD as always is a big heater in the case unlike INTEL. fx 6300 is a lousy one, i mean a really loud one and basically all i3 are really quiet with stock cooler. So that's where i ment you'd wanna go with evo 212. And as people say "extra power" for fx 6300 (overclocking) and thats where you need evo 212 again anyway. That makes it more expensive as total so why wouldn't you just take i5 then which kicks fx ass lol. And i5 is not a heater for your room unlike fx :D 

And still, i3 4130 with hd 7950 is running bf 3 ultra settings with an average of ~67 fps while i5 4670k could do up to 69fps as an average. Crysis 3 - difference between i3 and i5 was 2fps on average. Metro last light which takes a lot of CPU power and processors with lack of L3 cache (amd athlon x4 750k) couldn't keep up with it on good fps rate on average. Difference between i3 and i5 was like 3 or 4 frames per second. FX6300 is no better than i5 so i don't see no point in buying a lousy room heater. Metro last light looks like future games in 3 years basically, it is the game that really takes a lot of CPU and i3 could simply keep up with it. Then look at the other side that i3 beats fx6300 at single threaded apps so bad. So why the heck wouldn't you just take i3 ?
AND FX 6300 IS NOT A TRUE 6 core!
m
0
l
a c 680 à CPUs
October 22, 2013 11:54:17 AM

Tom's benchmark review of Crysis 3 showed more than 2fps between i3 and i5. There was almost a doubling of the minimum framerate between an ivy i3 and i5 of same clock speed. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performanc...

BF4 =/= BF3. BF4 is more core intensive than BF3.

FX 6350 beat i3 in programs too in another recent article. A speed any FX 6300 can reach with a simple multiplier bump. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/piledriver-k10-cpu-...

Same held true for gaming as well.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/piledriver-k10-cpu-...

I agree i5's are great chips. I own 3 desktop i5's, gen 1 through 3 and even a 2nd gen i5 dual core in my laptop. I would never consider an i3 for a new gaming rig at this point. An FX 6300/8320, i5, or i7/Xeon E3 that has HT, would be the only chips I would ever consider now. Depends on the budget.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 22, 2013 2:42:45 PM

geras1448 said:
logainofhades said:
I never use a factory heatsink anyway as they all suck, but FX 6300 doesn't require an evo 212. :lol:  If you are going to do any kind of real overclocking, yea I could see the need for one. Of course the i3 cannot do this. FX 6300 is a 95w chip. An FX 6300 bumped to an FX 6350 will beat an i3. BF4 and Crysis 3 are games where more cores do matter. Even Tom's doesn't recommend an i3 for Crysis 3. BF4 can max out all 6 cores of an FX 6300 and make really good use of an FX 8350. The i5's and i7's are similar in this respect to CPU usage. Even the 6 core i7's see decent usage across all 6 cores and at least 1 hyperthread being used.


AMD as always is a big heater in the case unlike INTEL. fx 6300 is a lousy one, i mean a really loud one and basically all i3 are really quiet with stock cooler. So that's where i ment you'd wanna go with evo 212. And as people say "extra power" for fx 6300 (overclocking) and thats where you need evo 212 again anyway. That makes it more expensive as total so why wouldn't you just take i5 then which kicks fx ass lol. And i5 is not a heater for your room unlike fx :D 

And still, i3 4130 with hd 7950 is running bf 3 ultra settings with an average of ~67 fps while i5 4670k could do up to 69fps as an average. Crysis 3 - difference between i3 and i5 was 2fps on average. Metro last light which takes a lot of CPU power and processors with lack of L3 cache (amd athlon x4 750k) couldn't keep up with it on good fps rate on average. Difference between i3 and i5 was like 3 or 4 frames per second. FX6300 is no better than i5 so i don't see no point in buying a lousy room heater. Metro last light looks like future games in 3 years basically, it is the game that really takes a lot of CPU and i3 could simply keep up with it. Then look at the other side that i3 beats fx6300 at single threaded apps so bad. So why the heck wouldn't you just take i3 ?
AND FX 6300 IS NOT A TRUE 6 core!


A big heater.. Are you kidding ? FX chips have a max of 62c and that is it. 80-100c is common max for intel chips and browsing through these forums "overheating" on the stock cooler seems to be quite the common topic. Why do people try and act like intel runs cooler when in fact it does not. BTW I have a 6300 and you couldn't pay me to trade it for an i3 lol, unless you paid me enough for an i7 and then I would just sell that lil dual core back to ya since you like em so much :) 
m
0
l
October 23, 2013 6:03:16 AM

I ain't like no i3, no fx 6300. What i like is i5. And why fx 6300 is loud in real world ? Cuz AMD gives you a small stock cooler while intel gives you a lot bigger and even though it runs 70C it is still quiet. And on lower temperatures it is very quiet. Amd is as loud as hell compared to i3. People even ask online why fx 6300 is running so loud. That's where you need evo 212 and instead of this mix you'd rather take i5 which is really better than fx-heater. I don't like neither i3 or fx6300 but i don't like amd even worse since it uses a lot of power and makes a lot of heat.
m
0
l
a c 202 à CPUs
October 23, 2013 6:04:59 AM

geras1448

Fix your language bud, we do not like swearing on here. Use the word posterior if you really have to.

Oh and thank you for your opinion. I do not agree with all of it though.
m
0
l
October 23, 2013 6:12:20 AM

logainofhades said:
Tom's benchmark review of Crysis 3 showed more than 2fps between i3 and i5. There was almost a doubling of the minimum framerate between an ivy i3 and i5 of same clock speed. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performanc...

BF4 =/= BF3. BF4 is more core intensive than BF3.

FX 6350 beat i3 in programs too in another recent article. A speed any FX 6300 can reach with a simple multiplier bump. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/piledriver-k10-cpu-...

Same held true for gaming as well.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/piledriver-k10-cpu-...

I agree i5's are great chips. I own 3 desktop i5's, gen 1 through 3 and even a 2nd gen i5 dual core in my laptop. I would never consider an i3 for a new gaming rig at this point. An FX 6300/8320, i5, or i7/Xeon E3 that has HT, would be the only chips I would ever consider now. Depends on the budget.

Amd often get better benchmark results but when it comes to gaming or any real computer use intel is basically always better. And overclocking feature costs also. Crysis 3 was benchmarked with gtx 680 and i've said i3-haswell is limited about to gtx 760/hd7950. And if you're getting something like gtx 780 or gtx 680 then you are probably not gonna consider getting fx 6300 cuz i5 for a few more bucks might be a lot better. People really underestimate dual core haswell with HT, but i am only trying to see what's real and not what i personally like or other people like.
m
0
l
a c 680 à CPUs
October 23, 2013 6:36:49 AM

geras1448 said:
logainofhades said:
Tom's benchmark review of Crysis 3 showed more than 2fps between i3 and i5. There was almost a doubling of the minimum framerate between an ivy i3 and i5 of same clock speed. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performanc...

BF4 =/= BF3. BF4 is more core intensive than BF3.

FX 6350 beat i3 in programs too in another recent article. A speed any FX 6300 can reach with a simple multiplier bump. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/piledriver-k10-cpu-...

Same held true for gaming as well.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/piledriver-k10-cpu-...

I agree i5's are great chips. I own 3 desktop i5's, gen 1 through 3 and even a 2nd gen i5 dual core in my laptop. I would never consider an i3 for a new gaming rig at this point. An FX 6300/8320, i5, or i7/Xeon E3 that has HT, would be the only chips I would ever consider now. Depends on the budget.

Amd often get better benchmark results but when it comes to gaming or any real computer use intel is basically always better. And overclocking feature costs also. Crysis 3 was benchmarked with gtx 680 and i've said i3-haswell is limited about to gtx 760/hd7950. And if you're getting something like gtx 780 or gtx 680 then you are probably not gonna consider getting fx 6300 cuz i5 for a few more bucks might be a lot better. People really underestimate dual core haswell with HT, but i am only trying to see what's real and not what i personally like or other people like.


Even when settings were turned down. Crysis 3 did not improve with the i3. The i3 chokes on it.

Quote:
Thinking that this might have been an avoidable bottleneck caused by our detail settings, we dropped the preset to Low and re-tested the Phenom II X4 and Core i3-3220. Even then, we didn't see minimums any higher than 25 FPS. The issue wasn't fixed in the recent 1.2 patch, either.
m
0
l
October 23, 2013 8:48:18 AM

The funniest part is that the best pair for fx 6300 as people say on this forum is something like hd 7870. The same was said about i3-4130. I can't wait i can see the results on bf4 on i3 4130 with hd 7870 and fx 6300 with hd 7870.on 1080p i just can't wait lol so finally this endless dialog will be over, cuz you can't prove nothing now basically.
m
0
l
a c 202 à CPUs
October 23, 2013 9:30:44 AM

geras1448 said:
The funniest part is that the best pair for fx 6300 as people say on this forum is something like hd 7870. The same was said about i3-4130. I can't wait i can see the results on bf4 on i3 4130 with hd 7870 and fx 6300 with hd 7870.on 1080p i just can't wait lol so finally this endless dialog will be over, cuz you can't prove nothing now basically.


Double negative = positive? So we can prove something?
Goodness, just go rage elsewhere.
m
0
l
October 23, 2013 9:43:18 AM

Rage ? :D  lol . I don't know what you think, but i just wanna see if fx 6300 might do better with gtx 660 or hd 7870 on bf4 than i3 haswell. If fx 6300 do a lot better then yea, i was wrong and i3 is not worth the price but if 6300 doesn't do no better than i3 haswell on bf4 then i3 might be better choise cuz fx 6300 is 3 real cores and acting like 6 core. i3 has 2 real cores and acting like 4 core. Anyways im starting to think that maybe fx really could do better but that's hard to tell still. And ... Peace son im not angry, i just wanna know the truth.
m
0
l
December 31, 2013 5:36:31 AM

" g3420 pclab.pl " search like this on Google click the first link translate the page in your native language

LOOK HERE there's a bunch of benchmarks with fx 6300 stock plus overcloked ,i3-4130 stock/OC, g3420 stock/OC, g3220 ..., athlon 750k , fx 4300 etc . The only game fx 6300 beats i3-4130 is Max payne 3 by 5 frames surprisingly fx 6300 and i3-4130 are equal in BF3 close quarters multiplayer , the i3 4130 beats fx 6300 in some CPU intensive games like Crysis 3 Skyrim The Witcher 3 not to mention the ones that are using 2 core the fx 6300 gets way behind ; g3420 kills athlon 750k etc etc etc just watch for yourself .

Overcloking fx 6300 to 3,7 gets it only to 58 frames in BF3 and i3-4130 gets like 51 not to bad !! to get 3,7 ghz on a fx 6300 requires extra cash investment in cooler, thermal paste, 6 fans inside your case . As for BF4 check this out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7IzrZFw1hw I know it's a i3-4340 but the're only 2-3 frames that separates a i3-4130 from i3-4340, pretty impressive, and there's a bunch of videos with the i3-4130 on youtube playing BF4 at 60 frames.

m
0
l
a c 680 à CPUs
December 31, 2013 7:39:53 AM

Nice necro and flat out lie about the extra case fans for an FX 6300 to 3.7. Doesn't take much investment for cooler either. A hyper TX3 is enough for an FX 6300 as the cooler is superior to even that of the 3.9ghz FX 6350. BTW, the FX 6350 is just a multiplier overclocked FX 6300. Also that site in Poland has been labeled as a heavily biased site from members on here that live there.
m
0
l
December 31, 2013 7:50:08 AM

logainofhades said:
I never use a factory heatsink anyway as they all suck, but FX 6300 doesn't require an evo 212. :lol:  If you are going to do any kind of real overclocking, yea I could see the need for one. Of course the i3 cannot do this. FX 6300 is a 95w chip. An FX 6300 bumped to an FX 6350 will beat an i3. BF4 and Crysis 3 are games where more cores do matter. Even Tom's doesn't recommend an i3 for Crysis 3. BF4 can max out all 6 cores of an FX 6300 and make really good use of an FX 8350. The i5's and i7's are similar in this respect to CPU usage. Even the 6 core i7's see decent usage across all 6 cores and at least 1 hyperthread being used.


If you are considering getting a rig with i3 then it means you're not going higher than gtx 760. So lets get the facts clear. With fx 6300 you might not get something more than gtx 760 neither. On crysis 3, bf4 there might be very minimal difference and you might see it only if you check the fps you're getting. You can see higher difference on really high-end cards and can say that fx 6300 is better obviously. But nobody put nothing more than gtx 760. So what i mean is if you don't do overclocking ~4.5ghz then i3 is worth a buy more likely. But if you do OC it then getting more expensive m/b and good heatsink might cost as cheap m/b that can only handle normal (not OC) voltages and i5 which beat up fx 6300. And still there comes a lot of games that only use 2 cores , sometimes 4 . Like AC4 . And later you might buy something better once you actually need it.
Let's take other look at AMD. I was like x4 athlon II 645 is better than i3-2100 back in a day. I made a mistake thinking its "more future proof" and hell no it aint and plus amd runs loud on stock cooling. Intel is quiet even on its stock cooling. So is that noissy fx 6300 worth only "theorical performance" over i3-4130 ? I don't think so cuz you ain't gonna use that bit more performance of fx 6300 with a lil over mid-range video cards. And yea, i3-4130 performance is pretty impresive though.
m
0
l
a c 680 à CPUs
December 31, 2013 8:02:11 AM

Any decent 125w capable motherboard can handle the FX 6300 up to at least 4.0ghz. At 3.9 FX 6350 beats i3 3225 on average quite well. Haswell isn't much faster than ivy. I would put a card faster than a 760 with an FX 6300 if I owned one if it met my budget for a new rig. I never build a brand new rig anymore as I just upgrade what I need to when I need to. Haven't done a full build for myself in years. My 3570k is still plenty and have no need of anything else right now. If I had to build a system from scratch, FX 6300 would be a consideration. I would prefer an FX 8320, but it would depend on budget, of course.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2013 10:21:34 AM

I don't think mentioning that the FX 6300 can overclock is right given the situations that most people buy the chip for: value. Most people then get a board that is cheap, but is ill-suited to overclock (like the MSI 970A-G43) to pair it with.

Even with that being said, I would get the FX 6300.
m
0
l
a c 680 à CPUs
December 31, 2013 11:11:16 AM

As long as said board is at least 125w CPU capable, 3.9-4.0ghz with an fx 6300 shouldn't be a problem. FX 8350 is a 4ghz 8 core @ 125w. I highly doubt an FX 6300 @ 4.0 uses more than that. An FX 6350 is rated @ 125w for 3.9ghz which is probably higher rated than it should be as it has 2 less cores.
m
0
l
December 31, 2013 3:10:38 PM

So in this forum there aint even a word about considering an i3 since it's not even a choise over mad fx :D 
m
0
l
a c 680 à CPUs
December 31, 2013 3:16:08 PM

I personally won't own a desktop CPU that can't overclock, so an i3 would never be a consideration for me anyway. :lol:  If Intel were to release a K edition i3, then the tables would definitely turn to Intel's favor. The FX 6300 is close enough in price and can outperform an i3 with a little clocking, so that would be my choice.
m
0
l
!