Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Amd fx 6300 vs 8320 vs Intel i5 2400

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 1, 2013 2:43:40 AM

Hi guys i need some help to choose over these cpu-s,so please help me!
I can get fx 6300 for 125$,8320 for 158$ and i5 2400 for like 170$+...
I'm oriented on gaming,so please tell me what's the best choice out of this 3 cpu-s,thanks!
November 1, 2013 2:45:51 AM

If I were you, I would stretch for the 8350 :) 
m
0
l
November 1, 2013 2:46:47 AM

But out of those probably your best choice would be the 8320 considering all factors...
m
0
l
Related resources
November 1, 2013 2:47:04 AM

yeah me too,but i don't have enough money for that :(  8350 is like 40,50$ more than 8320...
m
0
l

Best solution

a b À AMD
a c 159 à CPUs
November 1, 2013 2:47:15 AM

Do you stream as well? Then go with the 8320, otherwise 6300 is fine and dandy for all games. Also remember that all FX processors are unlocked, so you can easily overclock as well if you got the board for it.
Share
November 1, 2013 2:49:29 AM

nah m8...i'm oriented on gaming,so i don't stream and do stuff like that...
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 159 à CPUs
November 1, 2013 2:51:11 AM

Me too but I stream when I play my games and I also record gameplay with Fraps - Hence why I picked the 8 core :) 
But if you don't do any of that, FX6300 + a nice graphics card to boot.
m
0
l
November 1, 2013 2:52:42 AM

okey thanks alot man! I got Radeon 6950,so i think it will be enough :) 
m
0
l
November 1, 2013 2:54:55 AM

i5 2400 hands down.
- It's almost +50% faster in games when push comes to shove
- The frames stutter heaps less (which you can Google as 99th percentile frame time, etc.).


m
0
l
November 1, 2013 3:00:51 AM

Yeah i know that Intel chips are better for gaming,but i5 2400 is 60$ more expensive than fx 6300,and i don't care about few fps,so i think that fx is better choce...i consider that u can OC fx 6300 alot,and it should come close in performance with i5 2400,because i5 2400 can't oc much...
m
0
l
November 1, 2013 3:10:19 AM

I just saw i can get Amd fx 6350,so i think i'll stick with that
m
0
l
November 1, 2013 3:10:19 AM

Thank you guys for ur answers,i bought fx 6300 because i saw i can oc it more than 6350,and i like to oc cpu-s :) 
m
0
l
November 1, 2013 3:27:02 AM

The CPU alone costs +36% more and provides +43% more performance.
Once you factor in other components the systems cost difference may only be +5% more expensive (if not the same price) and still provide +43% more performance.

Last time I checked +5% more cost (overall) for +43% more performance was common sense, and why AMD's market share keeps below 30%.

How much extra do these overclocking geared AMD motherboards cost versus their standard variets?

You may end up throwing money away on a 'maybe' (the overclock) instead of a 'definite' (the Core i5-2400's performance is known up front).

m
0
l
a c 122 À AMD
a c 680 à CPUs
November 1, 2013 9:25:46 AM

A 4.5ghz FX 6300/6350 is a little under a stock i5 3570k in gaming. I think think we can all agree that a stock 3570k > i5 2400. I should know as I own both of them. :lol:  i5 3570k in the gaming rig and an i5 2400 in the file server.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 159 à CPUs
November 1, 2013 9:41:58 AM

-
m
0
l
!