Why intel i5 is better than fx 6300?

PlayerType · Feb 7, 2014

Fx 6300 have 3.5 ghz and 6 cores while i5 have only 4 cores and 3.2 ghz.
Fx 6300 can oc to 4+ ghz.

VincentP · Feb 7, 2014

You can't just compare clock frequency and number of cores.
The Intel architecture is much more efficient.
This basically means each core can be more per cycle in the Intel than the AMD CPU.

Roland Of Gilead · Feb 7, 2014

PlayerType :

it's not all about GHZ and cores!

It's more about IPC (instructions per cycle) which intel chips are much better at.
They have a much better single thread performance too, and right now, that counts for more than the number of cores, and most of the time clock rate. AMD processors generally are clocked higher with more cores, and they still don't beat certain Intel processors.

VenBaja · Feb 7, 2014

More cores does not equal better performance. Just like a 14 megapixel point-and-shoot camera is not better than my 8 megapixel DSLR...it's more or less a marketing tool at this point. There's a lot more to CPU architecture than just the number of cores. Add to that the complexity of multithreading games, the fact that quad cores are still the sweet spot right now, and Intel's better per core performance, and you end up with Intel winning out.

spdragoo · Feb 7, 2014

Yes, anymore you have to look at benchmarks vs. the raw stats.

I'm assuming, based on the 3.2GHz you mentioned, you're talking about the Core i5 4570. From cpuboss.com (http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4570-vs-AMD-FX-6300), the i5 has somewhat better performance, although the performance difference is mainly noticeable in single-core performance:
-- 50% better PassMark single-core performance
-- 35% better Geekbench 32-bit score
-- 15% better PassMark overall and 3D Mark 11 Physics performance
The gains go away, however, if you overclock, as the FX 6300's greater headroom allows it to surpass the i5 in PassMark once they're overclocked.

Of course, the i5-4570 is also newer than the FX 6300, so we'd expect a little bit better performance. Even the newer FX 6350, however, is still technically beat by the i5 (40% better single-core PassMark, 25% better Geekbench 32-bit/3D Mark 11 physics, but only 2% better PassMark overall).

The difference, however, is price. MicroCenter lists the i5 at $160 USD and the FX 6350 at $130 USD; that means that you're paying about 23% more for roughly the same amount of performance increase. Depending on your system building budget, and depending on the cost of the motherboard you pick, the $30 difference may or may not have an effect on the rest of your buy.

gamerk316 · Feb 7, 2014

Simply put: Hz measures how many cycles a CPU operates at. During each cycle, a CPU core can do a certain amount of work. Intel CPU's tend to do more work per cycle then AMD CPU's, so even though AMD CPU's do more cycles, because they do less work on average for each cycle, Intel CPU's are faster.

Likewise, adding cores only helps if you have a task that scales to that many cores. Some tasks, such as rendering and encoding do. Many others do not. For those tasks that do not scale, the CPU with the more powerful CPU cores tends to win, regardless of how many cores are present. That again, favors Intel.

Now, there are some subset of tasks where AMD CPU's are faster, but on average, most tasks favor Intels High IPC over AMD's higher clock speed and core count.

Search

Why intel i5 is better than fx 6300?

PlayerType

Honorable

spdragoo

VincentP

Splendid

Roland Of Gilead

Titan

VenBaja

Distinguished

spdragoo

Splendid

gamerk316

Glorious

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page