Intel G3258 vs. AMD FX-6300?

McDohl · Jun 19, 2014

Which do you think is better for gaming? Apparently, the G3258 can be overclocked, price looks good. I'm not sure which to go with.

I'll also be pairing one of them with a 750 ti. If you have any better suggestions within the price range, feel free to share.

McDohl

logainofhades · Jun 19, 2014

I would probably stick with an i3. It is the direct competition to an FX 6300. FX has to be overclocked to beat it.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i3-4150 3.5GHz Dual-Core Processor ($118.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ASRock H81M-DGS R2.0 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($48.38 @ Newegg)
Total: $167.36
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-06-19 12:28 EDT-0400

enemy1g · Jun 19, 2014

I'm going to have to say the G3258. Looking at recent benchmarks, it's pretty much a steal for $70.

oxiide · Jun 19, 2014

The G3258 is a great processor if your budget is < $100, but if you can afford to get an i3 (or preferably one of the cheaper i5's) its the better choice. A stock Haswell i3 is still faster than an overclocked G3258, but the i3 will hold up better in threaded tasks on top of that. It'll be cooler and quieter as well since you won't need to (and in fact, can't) overclock it.

If its truly between the G3258 or FX-6300, I'd say take the FX-6300 and overclock that instead.

yanis31 · Jun 24, 2014

all of them will be about the same with a 750ti...
i already wrote in another thread - a gtx580 ran slower than a gtx770 with my fx-6350 - which means the 580 is botlenecking this cpu,
what do you think will happen here?

i still think amd 6 core is the way to go... but only with a overclockable motherboard ... if you go intel - go i5.

oxiide · Jun 26, 2014

yanis31 :

The GTX 580 is slower than a GTX 770. Considerably so. The GTX 580 is only about as fast as an R9 270X.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html

Whether there's a bottleneck from the FX-6350 or not depends entirely on the game, the resolution, and the settings used. If performance is CPU-limited, that's free reign to crank up the detail settings.

yanis31 · Jun 27, 2014

oxiide :

yes - and you are just proving my point. - if the 580 is slower than 770 means the cpu can keep up with the 770 while the 580 stays behind - so the 580 is the bottleneck - main point - 750ti will be as well because its weaker than the 580 (probably similar in some situations but you can't ignore the 384bit mem bus on the 580)

also the 580 is actually faster than the 270x... but not by far... its somwhere between it and 760... they made a pretty monsterous card for it's day... it still chews through modern games like it ain't no thing... and overclocks a 100+ mhz

of course a lot of people get cought up in the memory bus width too much... the 500 series with it's 4gbps GDDR5 on 384 bus is still some 30Gb/s slower than 7gbps GDDR5 on a 256bit bus when you look a the total mem bandwidth.
- however the 750ti has less than half the bandwidth of the 580.

enemy1g · Jun 27, 2014

You're pretty much confusing the hell out of people. A GPU "bottlenecking" (100% usage) is less of a problem to worry about than a CPU bottlenecking.

This is easy. Skyrim. WoW 10/25 man raids. BF3 is old. You should have no problem with that. BF4 has mantle, there's no point in going that route as I already know lesser CPUs are crutched in that game with Mantle enabled.

yanis31 · Jun 27, 2014

damn... well i guess ill try it at some point but wow to me is just...
wouldnt touch it with a stick, only for research purposes... and how would i even get to such a point in the game if i never played it? -
question - is it more cpu intensive than maxed out gta 4? (where i seem to get about the same performance as a 4770k according to some forum posts) - keep in mind i havent done proper research on the gta part but ive read about people having framerates drop to 30 or less at some times, especially at night - and i seem to be doing no worse than that.... while most of the time being in the 40's and 50's ...

oh - skyrim? are you talking about a 100 mods on it? since i got very bored of it's slow gameplay mechanics and uninstalled after 3 days - haven't tried modding it,
but vanilla maxed out skyrocketed on my pc when i tried it... Vsync on - never went below my monitor's 75hz/fps

CTurbo · Jun 27, 2014

All I have to say is, why would anyone consider a 2 year old cpu on a 5 year old dead platform when there are much newer and much better options in the same price range?

yanis31 · Jun 27, 2014

CTurbo :

because they aren't that great and you know it... anyway to each his own

But for people like me who, not so long ago, removed a wolfdale 2 core from their motherboard and inserted an older generation 500mhz slower and less overclockable quad core in there without changing any other components and experienced a big fps boost and much more smoother gameplay on any modern game you threw at it -
you will not feed a 2 core cpu even if it was made from gold.
seriously why are the "single core performance" people still trying?
i realise times have changed and the modern 2 cores are much more capable and there's hyperthreading but still
- anything less than 4 cores is a no go area for me.

-freaking mobile - upvoted u by accident

enemy1g · Jun 27, 2014

Well seeing that you got rid of your 770, there's nothing to prove, as you cannot provide it. Going by bit-tech's benchmarks at 1,920 x 1,080 8x AA 16x AF w/ high res texture pack, DirectX 9, you should be seeing an average of 120 FPS with a 770. And you were saying you were getting around 75? Again, you can't even prove your system can reach that point as you happened to sell your GPU.

And single core performance actually matters, to the people that actually care about performance. AMD CPUs will bottleneck, but they will be able to play games. Not at the best settings, but AMD CPUs aren't for people that care to push their system to the limits while achieving great FPS. And again, you don't really play games that require a whole lot of computing power. So having an i3, i5, or 6300, 6350, none of it really matters because the games you play don't require your CPU to actually be strong. It's like all of your arguments have been, "I play solitaire, and my 6300 doesn't bottleneck, hurrrr." Maybe stick to your single player games, and remove your internet access. You obviously aren't able to comprehend anything, or are you able to interact with other human beings. Not to mention your whole quoting someone, but adding your own words type deal in another thread.

Zircoben · Jun 28, 2014

McDohl :

Go with an i3 like in logainofhades' build.

Going with an Intel CPU not only gives you better overall performance in everything besides heavily threaded games and editing, but going Intel also gives you an upgrade path along with a more efficient and modern system.

Neither will have any issues with a 750 Ti for years to come, but at least with Intel you will be able to upgrade to an i5 if you have money in the future. While AMD is a dead socket, and the technology is 5 years behind Intel.

Benchmarks have proven that each CPU performs nearly the same, even in heavily threaded games like Watch Dogs that prefer more cores.

Nitesdeath · Jun 28, 2014

Fx 6300 is comparible to i5's.. lmfao. And it overclocks up to 5GHz from 3.5. The chip is a beast as a personal user of it.

yanis31 · Jun 28, 2014

Nitesdeath :

absolutely -
if we are talking about an i5 it's a different story
but even the graph above shows the amd's at stock - let's not forget they overclock with ease and beat the i3's that way... but you can't overclock the i3 ... and if you do more than gaming with the pc you will find other scenarios where the 6 core will crush the i3.
mine goes to 4.5 ghz 24h stable if you just increase multiplier and bump up voltage by one tyniest notch - that's it ... if you mix FSB and multiplier i can get 4.7 ... further its really unstable but lucky chips go over 5ghz...

JOOK-D · Jun 28, 2014

Nitesdeath :

Depends on the scenario. If you're going to clock to 5GHz you'll need a very stable and expensive motherboard, and a strong CPU cooler. All of that cost could get you an i7 and H97 motherboard which will outperform it instead.

Generally a FX 6300 is more comparable to an i3 rather than an i5.

By the way, it seems funny that you think saying "as a personal user of it" somehow validates it being a "beast".

yanis31 · Jun 28, 2014

JOOK-D :

yes - 5ghz is not an economy solution - 4.5 tho is attainable even with 6350's stock cooler - i wouldn't advise it tho,
while games won't overheat it .. stresstests will. (it will run but temps will be around 70c or more and you need to stick to 62 with these)

and 6350 (or 6300 for that matter) is comparable to i5 because 8350 is.

if you look at the charts and benchmarks you will notice they perform almost the same in games when set to the same clockspeeds - the difference is usually quite small

(how's that for "more cores are not necessary" ?)

problem is most charts show the 6 core on lower clockspeed than the 8 core...
and in the chart above you can also see how the fx 4 core lags behind while the gap between 6 and 8 is tiny

could it mean that even if a game uses 4 threads the 2 extra ones still provide better performance so windows and background services don't reduce the game's performance? - i would think so.

Zircoben · Jun 28, 2014

Okay, here's my spin:

None of these CPUs will bottleneck a 750 Ti, so whatever you do, it will work well.

Intel will perform better on older games and for day to day tasks.

AMD will perform better once you load up Battlefield 4 or Watch Dogs or other multi-threaded games. They will also perform better in multitasking, and will do just fine in the older games and day to day tasks.

At this price point, getting an FX-6300 is a better option.

It hurts whenever I recommend anything AMD though, because there are some serious trade-offs. You are buying into a dead CPU technology that is 5 years out of date. There is no upgrade path, and power consumption will be through the roof compared to Intel, especially after an overclock.

But dollar per dollar, an FX-6300 is a much better option than a Pentium or i3 if you plan on playing newer games, especially if you plan on doing heavy work in your daily tasks and leave programs open.

JOOK-D · Jun 28, 2014

McDohl,

What's your budget for the CPU and motherboard? I'd be surprised if you couldn't afford an i3 and motherboard.

JOOK-D · Jun 28, 2014

yanis31 :

Even for 4.5GHz you'll want an aftermarket cooler, and possibly a 990FX board. That all adds to the unnecessary cost.

As I said, the FX's being comparable to the i5's is very situation dependent. Sure, in games where the CPU isn't being stressed there'll hardly be any difference. enemy1g has made that point several times.

All your clock speed argument is showing is that AMD's FX series "moar corez" strategy was a failure, since clock speed is more important than numerous cores. Which is why i3's are commonly recommended here over the FX's, as their performance per core is far higher. So you literally opposed your own argument.

Sure, you might gain absolutely miniscule FPS from having background processes dealt with by the extra unused cores.

EDIT: fixed italics.

yanis31 · Jun 28, 2014

so is the i3 in the charts above overclockable? what would the score of the fx 6 core be when overclocked? - please tell me!

JOOK-D · Jun 28, 2014

yanis31 :

And please tell me the additional cost involved in overclocking that FX, when you could have just as easily bought an i5 and run it far better at stock settings. Fact is, for gaming the FX's have lost even their price/performance edge.

yanis31 · Jun 28, 2014

JOOK-D :

there is no additional cost... a 970a board is very cheap... where i live a i3 is not cheaper than the 6 core either...
all you guys can ever do is throw old unoptimized game engines at me to show that on a budget build the intel will somehow be better.... as soon as you look at a recent game you pretty much see a situation like the watchdogs chart above ... face it - the future will look like that... i highly doubt anyone will release multi core un-optimized games for the new consoles.

at what point i said anything about the i5? if you can buy it - buy it... but don't buy a i3 instead of the fx6300/6350
i built mine much cheaper than a i5 build would cost me

enemy1g · Jun 28, 2014

And there aren't even proper benchmarks comparing the two CPU series. The latest thing that AMD has come out with is an A10 APU. You see comparisons of the A10 alongside the newest generation of Intel's CPUs, and it's not even close. But you should know that, everyone should. An A10 isn't meant for enthusiast level gaming. So there's pretty much no recent benches to compare the two.

Just in case you miss it notice how your beloved 6300 is compared to generations old SB and IB CPUs?

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor ($112.98 @ OutletPC)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($29.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-D3P ATX AM3+/AM3 Motherboard ($79.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $222.95
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

CPU: Intel Core i3-4360 3.7GHz Dual-Core Processor ($154.99 @ NCIX US)
Motherboard: ASRock H97 PRO4 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($76.66 @ Newegg)
Total: $231.65
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

If you're going to gripe about the $8.70 difference, you probably shouldn't be anywhere near a PC.
The i3 doesn't need to overclock like AMD CPUs do.

Furthermore, the 6300 is what, rated at 94W? Full load would approach somewhere around 227?

And that's not even including your 4.5, 5 GHz overclock. You may as well be using a 9590. A 94W TDP rated 6 core can't even compete with a 54W TDP dual core. Have fun with your extra large electricity bill, not to mention having to buy a larger PSU.

And the i3 build I posted could have been even cheaper, but going with a H97 board allows for future upgradability; a i5, i7 or Xeon that would absolutely obliterate your FX CPUs.

yanis31 · Jun 28, 2014

JOOK-D :

not true on the 990fx par at all - i run 4.7ghz without a hitch on a gigabyte ga-970a-ud3p,
4.5 was somewhat fine on stock cooler... the only real downside was it's real noisy

you say the core argument is not valid - please explain why FX 4 cores get such a bad performance conpared to 6 ?

Intel G3258 vs. AMD FX-6300?

Honorable

Titan

Honorable

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Honorable

Distinguished

Pizza Monster

Distinguished

Honorable

Distinguished

Honorable

Distinguished

Dignified

Distinguished

Distinguished

Dignified

Dignified

Distinguished

Dignified

Distinguished

Honorable

Distinguished

Share this page