I5 4460 vs FX 6300

i5, easily

The i5 4460 is better than the fx 6300, but is a $70 bucks difference between them, if you're in a budget get the Fx6300, is still a great cpu.

I5 4460 vs FX 6300 http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4460-vs-AMD-FX-6300
I'd go for the Fx, it has more clock speed plus it's unlocked. Good value

Clock to clock compare?

FX 6300 is a tri-core CPU. i5 is a quad core.
FX 6300 has 3 physical modules and each contain 2 cores, but both cores use the same resources to compute and there's therefore less performance than a true quad core, because 2 cores uses 1 resource. Its actually worse than the i5, which has 4 separate cores.
AMD doesn't have good single core performance, which is required in almost all latest games over multi cores.
Yes it can be OCed, but then the i5 has some good turbo boost to tackle that.

i5 I'd go.

Even with 6 actual cores, the IPC of AMD chips, need I say more

Yeah absolutely, that ends it in a way!

I5 is worth the extra.

If you are not going to OC and get really good cooling solution for the FX 6300 then the i5 4460 for sure anyday. I made the move from using an Athlon II processor to an i5 2500 and the speed in browsing was very noticeable. Similar in these two CPUs. The AMD FX 6300( Pliledriver Architecture) is not to new and quite slow in single-threaded tasks compared to the Haswell i5. Even in more heavily multi-threaded work loads the i5 4460 will still be faster in most cases. Also if you get h97 or Z97 Chipset motherboard you can upgrade to an i7 4790k later if you feel like it and have some bragging rights.

^Even the Broadwell with a H/Z 97!

An FX 6300 is not a value when you factor in overclocking. By the time you spend that kind of money, you can get a locked i5, an H81 board and still enjoy better overall performance. Even at 4.5ghz, the FX 6300/6350 cannot beat my i5 3570k, at stock.

LOL, so the OP should have been; "I'm not paying for the I5, so no matter how good you say it is, I'm buying the FX"!! Done ;-p

Literally everyone said the i5-4460 is much better, and listed many reasons why, and the FX-6300 still got picked. AMD's lying marketing tactics (labelling a CMT tri-core as a hexa-core, futilely OC'ing weaker gimped CMT cores up to higher Ghz) are certainly effective.

Tell us how it all goes

Correction: FX6300 is a hexa core

6 logical cores in 3 modules, performance wise no better than tri core.

Indeed. Educate them a little bit.

I like to compare AMD 8 cores with Intel HT 4 cores, still doesn't work. The IPC difference is very large.

Oh... another intel fanboy having a spit....
I'm so sick of this argument. It's horses for courses.
Read the thread again, he said he was on a budget and at 1/3 of the cost less the fx6300 is a good choice as you will not in a month of Sundays see a performance difference of 33% in games... Hell you'd would lucky to see 1%.
I think you'll find that testing the single core performance of an fx CPU will use one of the 6 or 8 cores... The fact that they are bunched into pairs on each module is irrelevant. When you test the "single" core performance of an intel CPU this is not always the case either if it supports hyper threading. (yes the 4460 doesn't support it, I know, I know).
What I'm starting to notice is that the fx6300 is beginning to use a lot more of it's potential in tittles like SW Battlefront 3 (beta), particularly with unpacked cores and a healthy overclock. I run one in one of my rigs and it never reaches 90% under load in any game @ 4.4ghz ... "what??? No bottle necking" ???? AND runs at 50°C with an 212 EVO. "OMG"
Swapping for a 4460 will give you very little performance difference in games. Infact, the margin of error is so small that it could be the chipset of the motherboard that makes the difference in 1-2 FPS in games... or your choice of RAM... who knows.

A friend of mine got a passmark score on his fx6300 at 4.8ghz of 7,300 odd ... That smokes the stock 4460.
Not all chips will do that (mine doesn't it crashes at that clock) but hey....smokes the intel fanboy talk

I've owned lots of different machines from intel and AMD and build and repair them for a living.... It's what you can afford at the time, what is reliable and performs well for the price in that generation. And most importantly, what you want to play at what resolution and on what settings.

Sure we all want a Skylake 6700 with 32G of DDR4 an intel 1TB PCI SSD and two GTX98ti 's... but hey.... I'd prefer a decent car.

As always, if you want more grunt in games.... get a better graphics card and stop worrying about your processor. I'd sooner spend the extra $70-100 or whatever on a GTX 970 than a 4460 if gaming performance is what you're worried about.

Don't necro old threads. This one is over a year old, and hasn't been posted in, for almost a year. /closed