Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

AMD FX 6300 vs I5 4440

Tags:
  • PC gaming
  • CPUs
  • Intel i5
  • AMD
Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 12, 2013 6:29:14 AM

whitch cpu is better for a daily use pc gaming with a gtx 660. i know the fx is cheaper but i need an aftermarket cooler for it , so they are aprox. the same price ( fx+cooler vs i5). and if i choose one of them, what mobo should i buy( 100$ max)

More about : amd 6300 4440

a c 913 à CPUs
a c 373 À AMD
November 12, 2013 6:35:50 AM

The I5 is faster but you do only need the aftermarket cooler for the FX6300 if you overclock.
m
0
l
a c 393 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 12, 2013 6:37:47 AM

I suggest a 6300 with a nice cooler and an m5a97, that'll get you a nice overclock.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 506 à CPUs
a c 145 À AMD
November 12, 2013 6:48:03 AM

FX 6300 + Cooler Master 212 evo is still considerably cheaper than the 4440. The i5 will still be better most of the time.

Any i7 > k-model i5 > 8350 > non-k model i5 > 6300 > any i3 > Phenom II > 4300 > Athlon 750k/760k > A10 > A8 llano > Pentium > Celeron > Core duo > My wife's 8w laptop cpu 1ghz x2 > Bulldozer
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 473 à CPUs
a c 117 À AMD
November 12, 2013 6:51:41 AM

The difference between AMD and intel for gaming.
Firstly, you need to decide what your priorities are, and what you will use the PC for.
Things such as: light gaming, heavy gaming, basic work (e.g. MS Office), heavy work (e.g. video editing, 3d modeling).
For the most part in current games the biggest difference will be made by the selection of the GPU. Get a great GPU + worse CPU rather than worse GPU + great CPU.

The AMD FX CPU's have many cores, which are weaker.
intel i5's have less cores, which are stronger.

The intel's consequently have better performance per core. In older games, the intels perform better as those games are optimised for good performance with only a few cores (single-threading).
In newer games, the AMD FX's really shine due to the introduction of games using more cores (multi-threading).

The difference comes in depending on what you want to use the PC for. If you're on a tight budget, save some money and go with the AMD and spend the extra money on a better GPU that will give you better performance than any CPU could.

i5: Good for older games (single-threaded), Good for newer games (multi-threaded), Good for general work, great all-round CPU and probably the best around for current games (may change in future).
AMD: Slightly worse for older games (single-threaded), Great for newer games (multi-threaded e.g. BF4, Crysis 3), Good for light/heavy work, extra cores are great for 3d modeling and video editing or rendering, great CPU whilst costing much less than the intel. Even though it's worse in older games it will run them perfectly well and smoothly.

Regardless, both will perform well.
For an i5, I would recommend an i5 3570k or a 4670k. Why? They are king for gaming performance at the moment and since they are the k version they are unlocked and can be overclocked in future for a performance boost.

For an AMD, I would recommend a FX 6300/8320/8350 (might as well get the 8320, it's an 8350 clocked lower at stock which you can change) [Do NOT go with a bulldozer CPU, only piledriver. List here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piledriver_(microarchitecture) <-- That should all be one link, not sure why it splits.]. Why? Great multi-threaded performance for newer games and heavy work, are just fine in older games (not overkill, can deliver smooth frame rates maxed with a good GPU), and are great for productivity with a tame pricetag.

In conclusion, budget gaming/work: AMD. Not on a budget gaming/work: i5. The i5 currently delivers better performance but don't get the impression that the AMD is lagging behind. They are great for gaming and work with a really great pricetag, just not currently up there with intel. In newer games though such as BF4 the AMD's have caught up in performance and in some cases deliver better performance than the intel's for much less money. You will get great, smooth FPS with either.
Either solution will game just fine with a nice GPU, focus mainly on that.

Some non-synthetic benchmarks between the FX 83xx series and the i5/i7's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have to disagree with one thing though CTUrbo, the FX 8xxx are on par or better than the i5 k (even some i7, see links above :)  ) series in some games, but the i5's are definitely better in single-threaded/older ones. But yes, the bulldozer sucks so hard.

For OP, I'd say it depends on what you're planning to play. Could you list some games you're looking at? I'd recommend the FX over a locked i5 anyway.
Share
November 12, 2013 7:12:05 AM

if i choose fx 6300, there will be a difference in power consumption?( can this cpu reach full load in games) and the asrock 970 pro 3 + cooler master hyper tx3 evo will be enough ?
m
0
l
a c 99 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 12, 2013 7:40:36 AM

The point most replies keep missing is this depends entirely on the software/games you will be running.

Most modern games capable of using all 6 cores on the FX6300 will easily match the i5 specc'd above, and come very close to a 3570k and even 3770k.

Example: The difference in something like MW4 and Crysis is only 3-5 FPS between a 3770k and FX6300 at stock speeds. Between an FX6300 and an i5 we're talking 2-3 FPS.

Correct CPU Hierarchy for modern games is:

i7 > FX 8350 > i5 > FX 6300 all within 2-3% or so overall performance.
m
0
l
a c 473 à CPUs
a c 117 À AMD
November 12, 2013 7:42:06 AM

AlexSerbanoiu said:
if i choose fx 6300, there will be a difference in power consumption?( can this cpu reach full load in games) and the asrock 970 pro 3 + cooler master hyper tx3 evo will be enough ?


Most CPU's don't reach full load when gaming unless they're very old. I think it does have higher power consumption compared to the intel (in one of the videos I linked earlier it shows how much more, it's not going to cost you much lol). For a motherboard and if you're planning to overclock I'd go with a 990FX board rather than a 970 board, they're better designed for it (however the 970 should be alright). The cooler is fine.
m
0
l
a c 506 à CPUs
a c 145 À AMD
November 12, 2013 7:42:15 AM

The FX 6300, asrock 970 pro 3, and CM TX3 will be plenty good enough
m
0
l
a c 167 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 12, 2013 7:43:57 AM

maddogfargo said:
The point most replies keep missing is this depends entirely on the software/games you will be running.

Most modern games capable of using all 6 cores on the FX6300 will easily match the i5 specc'd above, and come very close to a 3570k and even 3770k.

Example: The difference in something like MW4 and Crysis is only 3-5 FPS between a 3770k and FX6300 at stock speeds. Between an FX6300 and an i5 we're talking 2-3 FPS.

Correct CPU Hierarchy for modern games is:

i7 > FX 8350 > i5 > FX 6300 all within 2-3% or so overall performance.



Really? I havent seen the FX6300 match a Sandy/Ivy/Haswell i5 yet?
m
0
l
a c 473 à CPUs
a c 117 À AMD
November 12, 2013 7:45:34 AM

RobCrezz said:
maddogfargo said:
The point most replies keep missing is this depends entirely on the software/games you will be running.

Most modern games capable of using all 6 cores on the FX6300 will easily match the i5 specc'd above, and come very close to a 3570k and even 3770k.

Example: The difference in something like MW4 and Crysis is only 3-5 FPS between a 3770k and FX6300 at stock speeds. Between an FX6300 and an i5 we're talking 2-3 FPS.

Correct CPU Hierarchy for modern games is:

i7 > FX 8350 > i5 > FX 6300 all within 2-3% or so overall performance.



Really? I havent seen the FX6300 match a Sandy/Ivy/Haswell i5 yet?


Seen any BF4 / Crysis benches? :) 
m
0
l
a c 167 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 12, 2013 7:49:30 AM

JOOK-D said:
RobCrezz said:
maddogfargo said:
The point most replies keep missing is this depends entirely on the software/games you will be running.

Most modern games capable of using all 6 cores on the FX6300 will easily match the i5 specc'd above, and come very close to a 3570k and even 3770k.

Example: The difference in something like MW4 and Crysis is only 3-5 FPS between a 3770k and FX6300 at stock speeds. Between an FX6300 and an i5 we're talking 2-3 FPS.

Correct CPU Hierarchy for modern games is:

i7 > FX 8350 > i5 > FX 6300 all within 2-3% or so overall performance.



Really? I havent seen the FX6300 match a Sandy/Ivy/Haswell i5 yet?


Seen any BF4 / Crysis benches? :) 


What like this one? :) 



http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/battlefield-4-graphics-ca...
m
0
l
a c 473 à CPUs
a c 117 À AMD
November 12, 2013 7:55:18 AM

RobCrezz said:
JOOK-D said:
RobCrezz said:
maddogfargo said:
The point most replies keep missing is this depends entirely on the software/games you will be running.

Most modern games capable of using all 6 cores on the FX6300 will easily match the i5 specc'd above, and come very close to a 3570k and even 3770k.

Example: The difference in something like MW4 and Crysis is only 3-5 FPS between a 3770k and FX6300 at stock speeds. Between an FX6300 and an i5 we're talking 2-3 FPS.

Correct CPU Hierarchy for modern games is:

i7 > FX 8350 > i5 > FX 6300 all within 2-3% or so overall performance.



Really? I havent seen the FX6300 match a Sandy/Ivy/Haswell i5 yet?


Seen any BF4 / Crysis benches? :) 


What like this one? :) 



http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/battlefield-4-graphics-ca...


Those are beta benches FYI. But still, look at how close they are to much more expensive CPU's :) 

More like this http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-c...

And I realise that the they are essentially on par (especially at those settings, difference is larger on different settings), I find it amazing that a cheaper chip can keep up, not trying to start a flame war here haha. Since the launch there has been more optimisation which has put the 6300 and 4300 ahead of quite a few CPU's (forget which) gimme a sec. :) 
m
0
l
a c 167 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 12, 2013 7:58:39 AM

JOOK-D said:
RobCrezz said:
JOOK-D said:
RobCrezz said:
maddogfargo said:
The point most replies keep missing is this depends entirely on the software/games you will be running.

Most modern games capable of using all 6 cores on the FX6300 will easily match the i5 specc'd above, and come very close to a 3570k and even 3770k.

Example: The difference in something like MW4 and Crysis is only 3-5 FPS between a 3770k and FX6300 at stock speeds. Between an FX6300 and an i5 we're talking 2-3 FPS.

Correct CPU Hierarchy for modern games is:

i7 > FX 8350 > i5 > FX 6300 all within 2-3% or so overall performance.



Really? I havent seen the FX6300 match a Sandy/Ivy/Haswell i5 yet?


Seen any BF4 / Crysis benches? :) 


What like this one? :) 



http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/battlefield-4-graphics-ca...


Those are beta benches FYI. But still, look at how close they are to much more expensive CPU's :) 

More like this http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-c...

And I realise that the they are essentially on par (especially at those settings, difference is larger on different settings), I find it amazing that a cheaper chip can keep up, not trying to start a flame war here haha. Since the launch there has been more optimisation which has put the 6300 and 4300 ahead of quite a few CPU's (forget which) gimme a sec. :) 


Im not denying the performance for the cost, but when it was stated that it was matching an i5, when in that bench its not even matching a Sandy i5 from 2011...

Going from that link it looks like its matching a Haswell i3?

Dont get me wrong, im not knocking the 6300, its great for the price, but I dont like it when people make false statements as fact.
m
0
l
a c 473 à CPUs
a c 117 À AMD
November 12, 2013 8:02:01 AM

Look at the GTX 660 ones below it. JS.

It does match up. I'd really like to find these benches I saw the other day haha. w/e.
m
0
l
a c 473 à CPUs
a c 117 À AMD
November 12, 2013 8:20:45 AM

And you get 7 FPS less than a 4670k. 7 FPS. For half the price (where I live). For me it's a no brainer, but others might want absolutely max performance. Whatever, over 60 FPS for me is useless. I'd really like to find those benches I saw but I really cba to trawl through all of my tracked threads just to prove a pretty meaningless point.

This conversation got kind of sidetracked since the intention was to compare it with the i5 he listed. So I'll keep tracking the thread, but not this particular conversation. Cheers though. If you'd like to compare things in a similar price bracket here ya go ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc ).
m
0
l
a c 167 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 12, 2013 8:24:31 AM

JOOK-D said:
And you get 7 FPS less than a 4670k. 7 FPS. For half the price (where I live). For me it's a no brainer, but others might want absolutely max performance. Whatever, over 60 FPS for me is useless. I'd really like to find those benches I saw but I really cba to trawl through all of my tracked threads just to prove a pretty meaningless point.

This conversation got kind of sidetracked since the intention was to compare it with the i5 he listed. So I'll keep tracking the thread, but not this particular conversation. Cheers though. If you'd like to compare things in a similar price bracket here ya go ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc ).


1) my first reply wasnt even to you...
2) you dont buy a "k" cpu to keep it at stock clocks
3) Im not bothered which is quicker, I just think facts are important.
m
0
l
a c 473 à CPUs
a c 117 À AMD
November 12, 2013 8:26:44 AM

RobCrezz said:
JOOK-D said:
And you get 7 FPS less than a 4670k. 7 FPS. For half the price (where I live). For me it's a no brainer, but others might want absolutely max performance. Whatever, over 60 FPS for me is useless. I'd really like to find those benches I saw but I really cba to trawl through all of my tracked threads just to prove a pretty meaningless point.

This conversation got kind of sidetracked since the intention was to compare it with the i5 he listed. So I'll keep tracking the thread, but not this particular conversation. Cheers though. If you'd like to compare things in a similar price bracket here ya go ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE & http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc ).


1) my first reply wasnt even to you...
2) you dont buy a "k" cpu to keep it at stock clocks
3) Im not bothered which is quicker, I just think facts are important.


1) my bad then, sorry.
2) You don't buy an unlocked one to keep it at stock either haha. ;) 
3) Ok sure, no problems with that. Cheers.
m
0
l
!