AMD FX 6300 vs Intel Core i3 4150 in 2015

FX 8320 is an excellent choice.

Yes, but the 8 core will beat the 6 core however if youre on a small budget go for the 6300. Will you be overclocking?

Stock vs stock, the i3 is the better gaming chip. When the FX-6300 is overclocked, it will trade blows depending on the specific game, but is not longer really comparable as overclocking the 6300 to a meaningful level (over 4.5ghz) will cost nearly as much (better PSU, more expensive motherboard, better cooler, etc.) as implementing an i5-4440, which performs about on par with an FX-9370 in gaming overall.

The i3 offers a much better upgrade path since the FX platform is dead.

Coincidentally, electricity does indeed cost an arm and a leg in india, so yeah.... . And I'm sorry, but a 95W TDP? The 4150 has a TDP of only 54W, meaning the 6300 needs almost twice the power to offer slightly worse performance than the 4150. For me, this is a no brainer.

No, it definitely won't. Developers are coding for 4 core processors not 2 core, hyper threading is irrelevant. The FX 6300 will last longer than an i3 would. However, if you plan to upgrade in the future, then there is a reason to consider the i3, to upgrade to an i5 or i7 in the future, but since you said you weren't. The FX 6300 is the best choice for you. By the time you will need a new processor, current Intel (and AMD) will be obsolete and useless, even more so because we've likely moved on the true 8 core games or more, even more so than just a few titles doing this today. Future games will be coded for consoles (8 core), which are then ported to PC.

Wrong. Core i3's are superior to fx 6300's and fx 8350's in gaming, even if you overclock the latter. That's a fact as of now and there is no indication why it would change over time. Cpus are not wine, what's bad now won't magically become better over years.

While the fx 6350 is about 20% faster in perfectly threaded applications (rendering videos, uncompressing files, doing math calculations), in the remaining scenarios including gaming the i3 is faster due to its about twice as high single core performance. Neither are perfectly suited to gaming, but a fx much less than an i3.

And if you're thinking of getting a fx 8350 - or overclocking the fx 6300, for the same money you could get an i5 and get even better gaming performance than a fx 9590. The fx line is great in what it's good at. But for gaming, fx chips are simply horrible choices.

As for "future games will use 8 cores, becuase the are ported from console to pc", that's simply not true (the latter) and completely (highly unlikely) speculation (the former). Consoles work completely different from pcs, developing games for consoles is completely different to developing games for pcs. You can't just compile a console game for pc and it will make efficient use of resources, contrary, it will be absolutely unplayable (if it even works). As for future games being developed for 8 cores, that is unlikely, at least in the next ~10 years or so. Intel doesn't offer 8 core cpu's in their mainstream lineup, only amd does. With four core cpu's getting into the mainstream lineup of both intel and amd, it took a good 8 years before game got even remotely close to making efficient use of four cores - many still don't yet. And even if it would suddenly happen, there is no reason to believe a fx 8350 would do any better than an i3 in those games, unless they are also very resource heavy.

All in all, chances of an i3 outperforming a fx 8350 for the majority games for the next 5 years (which is about the point you should definitely upgrade) are about 95%. Chances they're getting even probably 4,9%. Chances of a fx 8350 suddenly outperforming an i3 - at best 0.1%, I'd say even much less. The scenario for that to happen is just too unlikely - and goes completely against what developers do (and should do). No sane developer team spends effort of getting performance heavy parts of their title to run on 8 threads with equal load, which takes a lot of time, introduces exponentally more scheduling required for... nothing but lost time and money in the end, when they could just work with what's available in even low budget pc's (i3), spend a lot less time developing, having it easier to expand the program as well as eliminating bugs and after all the same performance with the same income.

This should become my new signature. Had a good laugh.

Dubble, and that's your opinion. I suggest reading OP's needs rather than telling me how good the i3 is in games, for the sake of arguing and nothing else.

That the i3 is superior to the fx series in gaming is not my opinion, but a fact, widely backed up by reviews and benchmarks. That porting console titles to pc has nothing to do with "8 cores being used", is a fact too. As well that splitting up performance heavy tasks that need to be scheduled correctly easily introduces bugs. That developers won't start doing so in the next few years, yes, that's my opinion or what I think. It's because what has happened in the past, how technic is progressing and what makes sense to developers the most - assuming they want to make money.

Saying that an i3 is less capable of handling games than a fx 6300 is - simply put - false information. Even more so claiming hyper threading to be irrelevant, it's simply a different approach to SMT than AMD went with their fx lineup.

In benchmarks the i3 is really good, it blows the fx 6300 and is even better than the fx 8350, but in the real world, I can tell you that an i3 in modern games have a hard time with miin fps and stutters a lot, just google for an i3 in the witcher 3 or gta 5, it has higher average than the fx but has a lot of stutter because hyperthreading only helps but don't solve the fact that the cpu is a 2 core. In the witcher 3 entering cities or running with the horse the i3 stutters and have a hard time being smooth, the fx on the other doesn't have this problem. If you want intel i5 4460 is the min I would recommend.

You know whats the best part about gaming benchmarks? They reflect actual performance very well. It's not like gaming benchmarks are highly specific situations that don't say anything about their actual performance.

I don't agree at all, the tombraider benchmark for example doesn't seem to care about the cpu, now in the actual game if your cpu doesn't have a high ipc the game will stutter in a lot of places, same for sleeping dogs. Some benchmarks are indicative of actual gameplay and others don't. The thing is people usually just look at the average fps and conclude that the i3 is better, when you actually play the game you will have a much better experience with the fx as it don't suffer those fps dips. Obviously once you go the i5 route you have solved the problem. My opinion is that the best choice is to save and go for an i5, you will have 4 cores and high ipc, perfect for modern games.

Except, the minimum fps and frame time variance are still better on the i3 - which means the i3 stutters less. Gaming benchmarks are actually done by PLAYING THE GAME, so saying that playing the game doesn't reflect playing the game is just.. stupid.

i can't believe that guy up there said hyper threading is irrelevant, hyper threading is what makes the cpu different from the pentium and is why the i3 is able to stutter less in games due to having it if it didn't we would have the same stutter the pentium has in gaming
and i hate when people say will the i3 has 2 cores and 2 hyper threaded cores and when the fx 6300 is in the same boat having 3 bulldozer modules that make it a six core i guess that is irrelevant on the fx as well right Suzuki?

he didn't even call anyone stupid he said the statement is stupid reread "saying that playing the game doesn't reflect playing the game is just.. stupid" DubbleClick-- 2015

With no plan to upgrade in the next 4-5 years the 6300 hands down - there shouldnt even be an argument about this.

The 6300 is barely relevant as is and will only continue to get worse. People confuse me, they're so worried about future games and need for more threads and heavier processing yet at the same time celebrating the fact that dx12 will decrease the cpu load and place more of the processing on the much more efficient gpu. If dx12 is coming and is the future of gaming, and if it reduces the need for cpu heavy lifting (already shown to greatly benefit the lowly i3), why are cpu's in dire need of being vastly more powerful? If anything it means the i3 will continue to maintain gaming performance in 'the future' thanks to dx12 rather than quickly becoming worse.

An i5 would be an even better choice if looking for 4-5yrs. The only reason fx cpu's are still around is because it's taking amd 4-5yrs to come out with a replacement.

of course an i5 would be the better choice but that wasnt the question asked.
you have a completely skewed idea of what dx12 is all about ( youre pretty much in the wrong ballpark completely)
Its about draw calls to the cpu from the gpu - directx11 is massively limited - dying light shows this limitation massively as even an i7 cant run to its potential in this game,& reduces gpu usage accordingly
its not about reducing cpu usage at all,if anything the opposite - its about allowing multiple cores to maximise gpu potential - something that is missing from dx 11 & the reason that an i7 performs the same as an i5 & an 8320 performs very similarly to a 6300 or even a 4300.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyQcexBoY58

real world dx12 test

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/3DMark-API-Overhead-Feature-Test-Early-DX12-Performance

notice that ht cores make absolutely no difference at all - theyre virtual cores,as soon as the true cores are saturated to 90%+ the ht virtual cores lose 70-80% of their performance.
this is an early beta testing but to me it clearly shows that the i3 is barely going to benefit from dx12 if at all.
the guys said he has no plans to upgrade in the next 5 years - that means he's stuck with an hyperthreaded i3 dual core whereas the 6300 has 6 cores & will benefit greatly from dx12 if the specs are to be believed.
I dont see the 6300 struggling with newer titles in 3 or 4 years,the i3 I do.

No the 6 core FX is not irrelevant because of the 3 FPU CPU, that doesn't make any sense. The i3 is a dual core CPU, it will struggle. The gap between single core performance and multi core is smaller and smaller. It's no longer the FX only shines in workstation applications over the i3. People buy i3's to upgrade in a while to an i5, just a placeholder. Since OP won't- it doesn't make any sense going with a i3.

I recommend the AMD FX 8350 Eight Core Processor the performance is amazing and AMD is great for price as well

I don't claim to know all the ins and outs of dx12, I didn't code it. This however is what I was talking about. "DirectX 12 is going to greatly free up processor utilization, and thus your games can make more draw-calls with your processor." Does the cpu take on more draw calls as you say? Yes. Does dx12 FREE UP the cpu utilization to do so? Yes. Does that not reduce load on the cpu if it FREES the cpu to do more gaming related things?

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/quick-test-directx-12-api-overhead-benchmark,2.html

Funny, on star swarm moving from dx11 to dx12 gains a dual core cpu 34fps, over 100% of the fps it had under dx11. The six core cpu didn't get any better fps than the quad core, and at extreme quality, the quad core got even more fps than the six core.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8962/the-directx-12-performance-preview-amd-nvidia-star-swarm/4

Even if a heavily multithreaded weak cpu can be better utilized to process draw calls, wouldn't it stand to reason that a more powerful cpu would process those draw calls even faster? Same as any other workload. There's no magic fix for a weak cpu and by the time any of this is implemented to any real extent even amd will have come out with new hardware officially putting fx to rest. I don't recall a time when old hardware was so much magically better that people sought out downgrades. It is what it is.

Yes



haha no it's not.


Just curious, which i3 are you referring to? the i3 4330-4370 doesn't stutter, hell the i3 4160 HTPC I have doesn't either.