overclocked fx6300 vs intel core i5 4440 general and gaming

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
F

fishbowl38

Reputable
Aug 7, 2014
37
0
4,530
title says it all, what's better: fx6300 overclocked to 4.3 GHz or intel core i5 4440.

Price difference: £75 + £25 after market cooler (hyper 212 evo) = £100 for fx 6300
or: £125 for intel core i5 4440. ( no need for after amrket cooler)

Let's presume the motherboard cost is the same and the power costs are negligible.

which one performs better in general pc usage such as opening folders, boot times, apps like office suites, web browsing etc. Which processor performs better in older games such as age of empires. which cpu is better for newer titles like BF4. and is the price difference justified for the extra £25 for the intel.

I did try to search for the answer but most benchmarks seem to incorporate the stock clock speed and not overclocked. And as for the GPU I'm using an r9 270x.

Thanks in advance

 
Solution
haider95
I would get the Intel simply because it offers higher performance per clock and trust me AMD and Intels clock performance is worlds apart.

Another thing about AMD cpu's and this is something I've observed in various benchmarks is that they tend to have a much lower minimum frame rate compared to CPU's made by intel. Where as AMD CPU has more cores, they need to be overclocked to hell to reach the same speed as an Intel CPU which is troublesome.

The i5 4440 is locked and I myself was in the same boat as you until I decided to save up a bit more money and go for a Xeon 1230v3 (188 pounds) and a cheap h81 motherboard
Sort by date Sort by votes
Y

yoyodolo

Reputable
May 29, 2014
103
0
4,710
intel is a clear winner in single core performance but with r9 270x gpu you dont need to buy i5 processor, fx 6300 is enough for your rig with the benefit of hex core processor with higher oc compatiblity
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
haider95

haider95

Honorable
Dec 31, 2012
1,097
0
11,460
I would get the Intel simply because it offers higher performance per clock and trust me AMD and Intels clock performance is worlds apart.

Another thing about AMD cpu's and this is something I've observed in various benchmarks is that they tend to have a much lower minimum frame rate compared to CPU's made by intel. Where as AMD CPU has more cores, they need to be overclocked to hell to reach the same speed as an Intel CPU which is troublesome.

The i5 4440 is locked and I myself was in the same boat as you until I decided to save up a bit more money and go for a Xeon 1230v3 (188 pounds) and a cheap h81 motherboard
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
F

fishbowl38

Reputable
Aug 7, 2014
37
0
4,530
In real world scenarios, would the slower clock rate of the amd, per core, affect everyday use to the extent that it justifies the price difference? Say if i'm occasionally using photoshop and heavy multitasking and web browsing etc, would the intel's extra umph make a serious noticable difference to amd fx6300 oc. As for heavy gaming, I'm sure the fx 6300 can stand the test against the i5 with at most 5-10 fps difference.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
maxalge

maxalge

Champion
Ambassador
May 31, 2012
13,373
4
56,960



The 6300 is closer to an i3 3220, and it takes over 4ghz overclock to beat that convincingly.

In some games even with the 6300's 6 cores the i5 would be roughly 40% better.

The i5 wins handily.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
yanis31

yanis31

Distinguished
Jul 4, 2010
602
0
19,060
wait a day or so for me to upload some vids to youtube of what the FX-6350 can do when paired with a gtx780... (meaning no gpu bottleneck)
just made a few BF4 64player map videos and fps is way over 60... often more than 100 in empty maps... in 64 player paracel storm it sometimes dips below 60 but that happens pretty rare and also on i7's to be honest.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom