Which one is better for gaming? i3-4130 or FX 6300?
Tags:
-
Gaming
-
CPUs
-
Gigabyte
-
AMD
- Build
-
Asus
Last response: in CPUs
Related resources
- which is better build for gaming fx 6300 or i3-4150 haswell refresh (or i3-4130) for arround $550 ? - Forum
- which one is stronger better for gameing the {750 ti 2gb ddr5 FX-6300 Six Core 4.1GHZ CPU } are {Asus GTX 650 Ti 1GB ddr5 a - Forum
- Which one is better for gaming? Fx 8350 / Fx 6300 - Forum
- which one would be a better upgrade FX 6300 or GTX 750ti? - Forum
- Fx 6300 or i3-4130 For Gaming - Confused Again!! - Forum
I would go with the i3 4130 or similar, but I would pair with with a B85 or H87 motherboard.
The i3 has FAR superior single core performance even over a heavily overclocked FX6300. The i3 would be faster more times than not because a dual core is all that's needed most of the time. Sure, there will be times when the six cores would come in handy, but even in those cases, the i3 would not be too far behind. I would also chose the i3 because it offers a far better upgrade path as you could get an i5, i7, or Xeon later. The FX's AM3+ platform is outdated, and is in need of replacing.
Oh yeah and when you DO overclock the FX, it loses it's value because you had to pay for a more expensive board and you had to buy an after market cooler. By then, you could have gotten an i5.
The i3 has FAR superior single core performance even over a heavily overclocked FX6300. The i3 would be faster more times than not because a dual core is all that's needed most of the time. Sure, there will be times when the six cores would come in handy, but even in those cases, the i3 would not be too far behind. I would also chose the i3 because it offers a far better upgrade path as you could get an i5, i7, or Xeon later. The FX's AM3+ platform is outdated, and is in need of replacing.
Oh yeah and when you DO overclock the FX, it loses it's value because you had to pay for a more expensive board and you had to buy an after market cooler. By then, you could have gotten an i5.
-
Reply to CTurbo
m
0
l
CTurbo said:
I would go with the i3 4130 or similar, but I would pair with with a B85 or H87 motherboard.The i3 has FAR superior single core performance even over a heavily overclocked FX6300. The i3 would be faster more times than not because a dual core is all that's needed most of the time. Sure, there will be times when the six cores would come in handy, but even in those cases, the i3 would not be too far behind. I would also chose the i3 because it offers a far better upgrade path as you could get an i5, i7, or Xeon later. The FX's AM3+ platform is outdated, and is in need of replacing.
Oh yeah and when you DO overclock the FX, it loses it's value because you had to pay for a more expensive board and you had to buy an after market cooler. By then, you could have gotten an i5.
Right now, I'm using a machine with BUILD 1. If I buy new processor and motherboard, will there be any changes in gaming like increased number of frames per second or anything else that matters?
-
Reply to MostWantedSoulRider
m
0
l
bicycle_repair_man said:
Neither is particularly strong, but between the two, the FX-6300 would be my choice. That said, my actual recommendation is that you spend the extra money on an i5. If you can't afford it now, wait until you can.True that but I'm living in a region where everything is expensive. I bought build 1 for about 924 USD (including the monitor, cabin, keyboard and mouse; No speakers)
-
Reply to MostWantedSoulRider
m
0
l
Best solution
That depends on the game. The i3-4130 will be stronger in some, the FX-6300 will be stronger in some. In games that use 4 cores they should be trading blows. 6+ cores, the FX wins. 3- cores, the i3 wins.
Even if you OC the FX-6300, the i3-4130 will still be stronger in games that primarily use 2-3 cores, which is basically every game from before 2010 and half the games now.
I would personally get the i3, but that will depend on a few things.
1. How strong your power supply is (FX-6300 takes much more energy).
2. How good your cooling is (i3-4130 generates much less heat).
3. How many cores your favorite games use (as explained, more cores will favor the FX, fewer cores will favor the i3).
Keep in mind, some older games also have bugs with CPUs that use more than 2 cores. You might have to disable some of the FX-6300's cores temporarily and deal with the handicapped performance if you want to play some of those games without microstutter or periodic crashes (IE, Mass Effect 1).
Even if you OC the FX-6300, the i3-4130 will still be stronger in games that primarily use 2-3 cores, which is basically every game from before 2010 and half the games now.
I would personally get the i3, but that will depend on a few things.
1. How strong your power supply is (FX-6300 takes much more energy).
2. How good your cooling is (i3-4130 generates much less heat).
3. How many cores your favorite games use (as explained, more cores will favor the FX, fewer cores will favor the i3).
Keep in mind, some older games also have bugs with CPUs that use more than 2 cores. You might have to disable some of the FX-6300's cores temporarily and deal with the handicapped performance if you want to play some of those games without microstutter or periodic crashes (IE, Mass Effect 1).
-
Reply to Rationale
Share
Rationale said:
That depends on the game. The i3-4130 will be stronger in some, the FX-6300 will be stronger in some. In games that use 4 cores they should be trading blows. 6+ cores, the FX wins. 3- cores, the i3 wins.Even if you OC the FX-6300, the i3-4130 will still be stronger in games that primarily use 2-3 cores, which is basically every game from before 2010 and half the games now.
I would personally get the i3, but that will depend on a few things.
1. How strong your power supply is (FX-6300 takes much more energy).
2. How good your cooling is (i3-4130 generates much less heat).
3. How many cores your favorite games use (as explained, more cores will favor the FX, fewer cores will favor the i3).
Keep in mind, some older games also have bugs with CPUs that use more than 2 cores. You might have to disable some of the FX-6300's cores temporarily and deal with the handicapped performance if you want to play some of those games without microstutter or periodic crashes (IE, Mass Effect 1).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66BiQsOM9_M
This video shows the difference between FX 6300 and i7 - 3770K while playing BF4. Both are so similar. Also, the power consumption doesn't matter on FX for me.
Edit: I hope BF4 needs 6 cores and how do I disable cores?
-
Reply to MostWantedSoulRider
m
0
l
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV2Voo5h3eU
Look at this. This person has compared fx 6100 with i7 3770K by BattleField 4 gaming. Intel has got just 5-7 frames higher than AMD but the price difference is too high around 200$. This makes me to think why I should purchase Intel Processor? For playing games that uses highest number of cores, FX will work good (Thanks to Rationale for it).
Look at this. This person has compared fx 6100 with i7 3770K by BattleField 4 gaming. Intel has got just 5-7 frames higher than AMD but the price difference is too high around 200$. This makes me to think why I should purchase Intel Processor? For playing games that uses highest number of cores, FX will work good (Thanks to Rationale for it).
-
Reply to MostWantedSoulRider
m
0
l
MostWantedSoulRider said:
Rationale said:
That depends on the game. The i3-4130 will be stronger in some, the FX-6300 will be stronger in some. In games that use 4 cores they should be trading blows. 6+ cores, the FX wins. 3- cores, the i3 wins.Even if you OC the FX-6300, the i3-4130 will still be stronger in games that primarily use 2-3 cores, which is basically every game from before 2010 and half the games now.
I would personally get the i3, but that will depend on a few things.
1. How strong your power supply is (FX-6300 takes much more energy).
2. How good your cooling is (i3-4130 generates much less heat).
3. How many cores your favorite games use (as explained, more cores will favor the FX, fewer cores will favor the i3).
Keep in mind, some older games also have bugs with CPUs that use more than 2 cores. You might have to disable some of the FX-6300's cores temporarily and deal with the handicapped performance if you want to play some of those games without microstutter or periodic crashes (IE, Mass Effect 1).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66BiQsOM9_M
This video shows the difference between FX 6300 and i7 - 3770K while playing BF4. Both are so similar. Also, the power consumption doesn't matter on FX for me.
Edit: I hope BF4 needs 6 cores and how do I disable cores?
BF4 can use up to 8 cores, and will fully use 6 as well. Also, the FX and the 3770K look similar in that video because the GPU is the bottleneck. Either CPU outperforms the R7 260X that was used to test it. The stronger the video card gets, the more differences can be noticed from less expensive to more expensive CPUs.
For example, if you were using a GT 210, a $400 i7 would perform just as badly as a $50 Celeron.
But if you were using a GTX 780, an i7 would absolutely demolish an FX-6300 because the GPU wouldn't be limiting them.
That's how bottlenecks work.
Also, there is very rarely a need to ever disable cores. Like I said, only in certain old games. To do it you can used a program called CAR (core affinity something I forgot). It lets you choose which CPU cores are allowed to run each specific game. So if you do eventually run into an old game that doesn't run properly on too many cores, you could set just that game to use 2 cores or 1 core or whatever it needs, while letting your PC and the rest of your games use the full number of cores.
-
Reply to Rationale
m
0
l
Rationale said:
MostWantedSoulRider said:
Rationale said:
That depends on the game. The i3-4130 will be stronger in some, the FX-6300 will be stronger in some. In games that use 4 cores they should be trading blows. 6+ cores, the FX wins. 3- cores, the i3 wins.Even if you OC the FX-6300, the i3-4130 will still be stronger in games that primarily use 2-3 cores, which is basically every game from before 2010 and half the games now.
I would personally get the i3, but that will depend on a few things.
1. How strong your power supply is (FX-6300 takes much more energy).
2. How good your cooling is (i3-4130 generates much less heat).
3. How many cores your favorite games use (as explained, more cores will favor the FX, fewer cores will favor the i3).
Keep in mind, some older games also have bugs with CPUs that use more than 2 cores. You might have to disable some of the FX-6300's cores temporarily and deal with the handicapped performance if you want to play some of those games without microstutter or periodic crashes (IE, Mass Effect 1).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66BiQsOM9_M
This video shows the difference between FX 6300 and i7 - 3770K while playing BF4. Both are so similar. Also, the power consumption doesn't matter on FX for me.
Edit: I hope BF4 needs 6 cores and how do I disable cores?
BF4 can use up to 8 cores, and will fully use 6 as well. Also, the FX and the 3770K look similar in that video because the GPU is the bottleneck. Either CPU outperforms the R7 260X that was used to test it. The stronger the video card gets, the more differences can be noticed from less expensive to more expensive CPUs.
For example, if you were using an HD 5450, a $400 i7 would perform just as badly as a $50 Celeron.
But if you were using a GTX 780, an i7 would absolutely demolish an FX-6300.
That's how bottlenecks work.
Also, there is very rarely a need to ever disable cores. Like I said, only temporarily in certain old games. To do it you can used a program called CAR (core affinity something I forgot). It lets you choose which CPU cores are allowed to run each specific game. So if you do eventually run into an old game that doesn't run properly on too many cores, you could set just that game to use 2 cores or 1 core or whatever it needs.
http://bitsum.com/about_cpu_core_parking.php ->for temporary core disabling.
And if GPU has become a bottleneck in that video, we have to spend a lot when it comes to HIGH END gaming based on Intel Processor and so people would prefer consoles which would become way more cheaper.
-
Reply to MostWantedSoulRider
m
0
l
MostWantedSoulRider said:
Rationale said:
MostWantedSoulRider said:
Rationale said:
That depends on the game. The i3-4130 will be stronger in some, the FX-6300 will be stronger in some. In games that use 4 cores they should be trading blows. 6+ cores, the FX wins. 3- cores, the i3 wins.Even if you OC the FX-6300, the i3-4130 will still be stronger in games that primarily use 2-3 cores, which is basically every game from before 2010 and half the games now.
I would personally get the i3, but that will depend on a few things.
1. How strong your power supply is (FX-6300 takes much more energy).
2. How good your cooling is (i3-4130 generates much less heat).
3. How many cores your favorite games use (as explained, more cores will favor the FX, fewer cores will favor the i3).
Keep in mind, some older games also have bugs with CPUs that use more than 2 cores. You might have to disable some of the FX-6300's cores temporarily and deal with the handicapped performance if you want to play some of those games without microstutter or periodic crashes (IE, Mass Effect 1).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66BiQsOM9_M
This video shows the difference between FX 6300 and i7 - 3770K while playing BF4. Both are so similar. Also, the power consumption doesn't matter on FX for me.
Edit: I hope BF4 needs 6 cores and how do I disable cores?
BF4 can use up to 8 cores, and will fully use 6 as well. Also, the FX and the 3770K look similar in that video because the GPU is the bottleneck. Either CPU outperforms the R7 260X that was used to test it. The stronger the video card gets, the more differences can be noticed from less expensive to more expensive CPUs.
For example, if you were using an HD 5450, a $400 i7 would perform just as badly as a $50 Celeron.
But if you were using a GTX 780, an i7 would absolutely demolish an FX-6300.
That's how bottlenecks work.
Also, there is very rarely a need to ever disable cores. Like I said, only temporarily in certain old games. To do it you can used a program called CAR (core affinity something I forgot). It lets you choose which CPU cores are allowed to run each specific game. So if you do eventually run into an old game that doesn't run properly on too many cores, you could set just that game to use 2 cores or 1 core or whatever it needs.
http://bitsum.com/about_cpu_core_parking.php ->for temporary core disabling.
And if GPU has become a bottleneck in that video, we have to spend a lot when it comes to HIGH END gaming based on Intel Processor and so people would prefer consoles which would become way more cheaper.
The i7 is only meant for extremely expensive builds. That's why most people don't use them.
In practical use, there will be very little performance difference from an i3-4130 to an FX-6300. As already explained, they will each perform better in certain games. Take it or leave it, it's not my concern.
-
Reply to Rationale
m
0
l
Rationale said:
MostWantedSoulRider said:
Rationale said:
MostWantedSoulRider said:
Rationale said:
That depends on the game. The i3-4130 will be stronger in some, the FX-6300 will be stronger in some. In games that use 4 cores they should be trading blows. 6+ cores, the FX wins. 3- cores, the i3 wins.Even if you OC the FX-6300, the i3-4130 will still be stronger in games that primarily use 2-3 cores, which is basically every game from before 2010 and half the games now.
I would personally get the i3, but that will depend on a few things.
1. How strong your power supply is (FX-6300 takes much more energy).
2. How good your cooling is (i3-4130 generates much less heat).
3. How many cores your favorite games use (as explained, more cores will favor the FX, fewer cores will favor the i3).
Keep in mind, some older games also have bugs with CPUs that use more than 2 cores. You might have to disable some of the FX-6300's cores temporarily and deal with the handicapped performance if you want to play some of those games without microstutter or periodic crashes (IE, Mass Effect 1).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66BiQsOM9_M
This video shows the difference between FX 6300 and i7 - 3770K while playing BF4. Both are so similar. Also, the power consumption doesn't matter on FX for me.
Edit: I hope BF4 needs 6 cores and how do I disable cores?
BF4 can use up to 8 cores, and will fully use 6 as well. Also, the FX and the 3770K look similar in that video because the GPU is the bottleneck. Either CPU outperforms the R7 260X that was used to test it. The stronger the video card gets, the more differences can be noticed from less expensive to more expensive CPUs.
For example, if you were using an HD 5450, a $400 i7 would perform just as badly as a $50 Celeron.
But if you were using a GTX 780, an i7 would absolutely demolish an FX-6300.
That's how bottlenecks work.
Also, there is very rarely a need to ever disable cores. Like I said, only temporarily in certain old games. To do it you can used a program called CAR (core affinity something I forgot). It lets you choose which CPU cores are allowed to run each specific game. So if you do eventually run into an old game that doesn't run properly on too many cores, you could set just that game to use 2 cores or 1 core or whatever it needs.
http://bitsum.com/about_cpu_core_parking.php ->for temporary core disabling.
And if GPU has become a bottleneck in that video, we have to spend a lot when it comes to HIGH END gaming based on Intel Processor and so people would prefer consoles which would become way more cheaper.
The i7 is only meant for extremely expensive builds. That's why most people don't use them.
In practical use, there will be very little performance difference from an i3-4130 to an FX-6300. As already explained, they will each perform better in certain games. Take it or leave it, it's not my concern.
I'm really sorry for questioning a lot in this. Anyway, thanks for your help.
-
Reply to MostWantedSoulRider
m
0
l
When on a budget, I suggest AMD.
You can hardly tell the difference between the two machines you listed in any game except for a couple of specific situations; Skyrim will favour the i3, BF4/Fary cry 3 will give the edge to the FX. You will tell the difference in other desktop applications where the 6300 outperforms the i3.
You cannot go wrong with either, but in this situation I would go for the FX.
You can hardly tell the difference between the two machines you listed in any game except for a couple of specific situations; Skyrim will favour the i3, BF4/Fary cry 3 will give the edge to the FX. You will tell the difference in other desktop applications where the 6300 outperforms the i3.
You cannot go wrong with either, but in this situation I would go for the FX.
-
Reply to sapperastro
m
0
l
sapperastro said:
When on a budget, I suggest AMD.You can hardly tell the difference between the two machines you listed in any game except for a couple of specific situations; Skyrim will favour the i3, BF4/Fary cry 3 will give the edge to the FX. You will tell the difference in other desktop applications where the 6300 outperforms the i3.
You cannot go wrong with either, but in this situation I would go for the FX.
I strongly agree with your point.
-
Reply to MostWantedSoulRider
m
0
l
CooLWoLF said:
You said your already using Build 1 correct? If so, that would not be a worthwhile upgrade (financial wise). If you want to upgrade your performance, either overclock the 6300 or drop in a 8350 if you don't want to overclock.
I'm thinking purchase 8350 but what would be drastic changes in high end gaming that I would see with the new processor?
Edit: Some says the overclocked version of 6300 = 8350. Is it true? And even if it's yes, I'd rather buy 8350 as I am not much into overclocking the components.
-
Reply to MostWantedSoulRider
m
0
l
-
Reply to MostWantedSoulRider
m
0
l
Related resources
- AMD FX6300 and Intel G3258? Which one is better? Forum
- Solvedfor a future proof gaming rig only which is better :- fx-6300 or fx-8320 or fx-8350 Forum
- FX-6300 or i3-4130 for Gaming Forum
- SolvedWhich is better for r9 270x. An AMD Vishera FX-6300 or a10 6800k in terms of gaming. Thx Forum
- SolvedFX6300 vs i5 4570 which one for gaming? Forum
- i3-4130 vs FX-6300 gaming. Forum
- which is better for gaming amd fx 4300 ( 85$) or amd fx 6300(130$) will the diff. in price be worth it? Forum
- i3-4130 or fx-6300 for budget gaming? Forum
- Solvedbetween i5 4570 or amd fx 8350 which one better for gaming and photo editing Forum
- SolvedIntel Core i3-4130 or AMD FX-6300 CPU? Forum
- SolvedIntel Core i3-4130 VS FX 6300 VS Pentium G3258 Forum
- SolvedFX-6300 vs i3-4130? Forum
- SolvedINTEL Core i3-4130 vs AMD FX-6300 Multithread performance and upgrade path Forum
- SolvedIntel i3-4130 v's AMD FX-6300 ? Forum
- SolvedAMD FX 6300 vs. Intel i3-4130 Forum
- More resources
!