i3-6100 vs Fx-6300
- Thread starter Ishan_3
- Start date
Solution
Woohoopy
Honorable
- Jun 8, 2013
- 258
- 2
- 10,960
Hey there,
The disadvantages of the 6300 are as follows:
1). Most games don't take advantage of the AMD multi-core hardware, and use only a % of the CPU, leaving the gamer with less fps.
2). Once you get an 6300, there's very little to go from there. There are existing CPU bottlenecks for an 6300, and there would be very little you can do about it other than overclocking.
Fortunately the i3 6100 has the following advantages:
1). A very similar price point, with the 4 threads (due to hyperthreading) being well optimized for games.
2). Upgradable CPU line, in case you need better 2-3 years down the line without having to replace motherboard and RAM.
3). Games are almost always optimized for Intel CPUs.
4). DDR4 memory, which is a nice touch.
I wish the reality were different, but the i3 6100 is the way to go. You'll still have CPU bottlenecks, but fewer and not as noticeable as on the 6300.
Source: Have owned AMD FX 6350 and FX 8350.
Cheers mate, hope this helped.
The disadvantages of the 6300 are as follows:
1). Most games don't take advantage of the AMD multi-core hardware, and use only a % of the CPU, leaving the gamer with less fps.
2). Once you get an 6300, there's very little to go from there. There are existing CPU bottlenecks for an 6300, and there would be very little you can do about it other than overclocking.
Fortunately the i3 6100 has the following advantages:
1). A very similar price point, with the 4 threads (due to hyperthreading) being well optimized for games.
2). Upgradable CPU line, in case you need better 2-3 years down the line without having to replace motherboard and RAM.
3). Games are almost always optimized for Intel CPUs.
4). DDR4 memory, which is a nice touch.
I wish the reality were different, but the i3 6100 is the way to go. You'll still have CPU bottlenecks, but fewer and not as noticeable as on the 6300.
Source: Have owned AMD FX 6350 and FX 8350.
Cheers mate, hope this helped.
synphul
Champion
- Mar 11, 2011
- 9,477
- 7
- 54,965
Here's a quick comparison of the lower power i3 6100te oc'd to 3.6ghz, just a little slower than the 3.7ghz i3 6100 vs the fx 6300.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1645?vs=699
About the only real advantage the fx has is in zipping files in 7zip. The other advantage for the i3, when you find you need more performance from your cpu you can keep your system intact and simply replace it with an i5 or i7. With the fx 6300, provided you start with a good enough motherboard that has heatsinked vrm's and proper power delivery to handle an fx 8xxx, that's your only upgrade option. Adding two more cores to the six you already have.
As you can see the fx 8350 is only slightly better than the fx 6300.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=699
And here is the performance gains you'd get going just one step up in cpu's from the i3 on the intel platform to an i5 vs the step up to the fx 8350.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=1544
Intel does cost a bit more but the need to upgrade more often is reduced when you start out with stronger hardware. It also performs better. In those h264 hd bench's, the skylake i5 performed around 36% more fps 1st and 2nd pass combined than the fx 8350. The i5 6600 (same performance as a 6600k at stock) costs $216 usd, the fx 8350 costs $160 usd - 35% price difference.
The cost to performance ratio in this case is almost dead even without considering the other aspects. The i3 6100 and fx 6300 are $10 apart and pretty well matched with a slight edge to the i3. The two companies have done a really good job at pricing their parts in respect to how they perform against one another. Probably a better indicator of performance than going by something like clock speed and trying to compare ghz.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1645?vs=699
About the only real advantage the fx has is in zipping files in 7zip. The other advantage for the i3, when you find you need more performance from your cpu you can keep your system intact and simply replace it with an i5 or i7. With the fx 6300, provided you start with a good enough motherboard that has heatsinked vrm's and proper power delivery to handle an fx 8xxx, that's your only upgrade option. Adding two more cores to the six you already have.
As you can see the fx 8350 is only slightly better than the fx 6300.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=699
And here is the performance gains you'd get going just one step up in cpu's from the i3 on the intel platform to an i5 vs the step up to the fx 8350.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=1544
Intel does cost a bit more but the need to upgrade more often is reduced when you start out with stronger hardware. It also performs better. In those h264 hd bench's, the skylake i5 performed around 36% more fps 1st and 2nd pass combined than the fx 8350. The i5 6600 (same performance as a 6600k at stock) costs $216 usd, the fx 8350 costs $160 usd - 35% price difference.
The cost to performance ratio in this case is almost dead even without considering the other aspects. The i3 6100 and fx 6300 are $10 apart and pretty well matched with a slight edge to the i3. The two companies have done a really good job at pricing their parts in respect to how they perform against one another. Probably a better indicator of performance than going by something like clock speed and trying to compare ghz.
Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163
Dignified
- Mar 8, 2015
- 5,283
- 1
- 15,960
The FX beats the i5 if all threads are maxed. I advise you to ignore all benchmarks when the gap is big between the i5 and the FX 8000 in rendering, because it's more than likely QuickSync which reduces the quality output.
Here's one of the ridiculously fake scores: https://youtu.be/V4dUCeF2jnU?t=7m28s
So, there's a lot of misinformation out there obviously.
However, here's an important part to remember:
An i3 6100 has got a much faster single core performance, and majority of tasks leading up to the final render in NLE's are single threaded, and those that are multi threaded are rarely pushed to even notice the difference between the two. And so as a result, you would have a smoother workflow going with the i3 6100, because of that.
My vote goes to the i3 6100, because it's a all around better chip for you, since you mentioned gaming.
All the best!
Here's one of the ridiculously fake scores: https://youtu.be/V4dUCeF2jnU?t=7m28s
So, there's a lot of misinformation out there obviously.
However, here's an important part to remember:
An i3 6100 has got a much faster single core performance, and majority of tasks leading up to the final render in NLE's are single threaded, and those that are multi threaded are rarely pushed to even notice the difference between the two. And so as a result, you would have a smoother workflow going with the i3 6100, because of that.
My vote goes to the i3 6100, because it's a all around better chip for you, since you mentioned gaming.
All the best!
TerryLaze
Polypheme
- May 9, 2016
- 9,482
- 2,428
- 60,940
QuickSync does not reduce the quality of the output it has less efficiency which only means that you need a bit higher bitrate so a bit higher filesize to get the same quality.
Taking for granted that anybody even knows the best (most efficient) bitrate for h264 and doesn't just use any preset.
Being able to convert a FHD/60FPS movie with more then 200FPS (even on a celeron) with a minimal impact on your CPU,so that you can keep using it,is much more important to the end user.
[video="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsTI-625Na0"][/video]
bicycle_repair_man
Splendid
- Jan 10, 2014
- 5,752
- 2
- 28,960
The fact that the FX-6300 is four years old and on a dead socket is enough of a reason not to buy it.
burgessanthony
Dignified
- Jun 27, 2012
- 3,016
- 4
- 13,960
scuzzycard
Honorable
- Feb 26, 2016
- 1,583
- 0
- 12,960
Another vote for the i3 here. You'll be much happier and have far better upgrade options in the future.
LeKeiser
Reputable
- Mar 1, 2015
- 333
- 0
- 4,810
Of course it's best to buy a recent CPU vs one that's 4 yrs old. Sometimes I wonder if people read the posts on this forum before posting their questions...
Yet the FX6300 is still a very good CPU that performs as well if not better as the i3 in multithreaded applications.
But oh well. Why bother writing that. This is TH...
Yet the FX6300 is still a very good CPU that performs as well if not better as the i3 in multithreaded applications.
But oh well. Why bother writing that. This is TH...
burgessanthony
Dignified
- Jun 27, 2012
- 3,016
- 4
- 13,960
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-6100-vs-AMD-FX-6300/3511vs1555
50% faster single core and basically the same on average when all cores loaded. It's a no-brainer
50% faster single core and basically the same on average when all cores loaded. It's a no-brainer
Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163
Dignified
- Mar 8, 2015
- 5,283
- 1
- 15,960
LeKeiser
It reminds me of when people post the SysMark benchmarks showing Intel pulls ahead of AMD, wonder why? :O
It reminds me of when people post the SysMark benchmarks showing Intel pulls ahead of AMD, wonder why? :O
burgessanthony
Dignified
- Jun 27, 2012
- 3,016
- 4
- 13,960
I'm just not sure of the argument for a dead socket and 3 yr old CPU tech with slower cores vs newer architecture and a socket that could have a 6600k dropped in the future.
As you can see, I'm no anti-AMD individual. Just they dont really compete in the gaming cpu market too well right now. That's fact
As you can see, I'm no anti-AMD individual. Just they dont really compete in the gaming cpu market too well right now. That's fact
burgessanthony
Dignified
- Jun 27, 2012
- 3,016
- 4
- 13,960
LeKeiser
Reputable
- Mar 1, 2015
- 333
- 0
- 4,810
and you all post the same things and don't care if it's crap or not, you just go with the flow...
I don't disagree that an i3 would be the better choice because it's newer. But it gets boring to read those same links over and over again, bashing all the FX all the time like if they were the worst things you could have on a motherboard. When no one is actually using a FX in "real" use.
Oh well... TH, what do you expect?
Mod Edit for Language
burgessanthony
Dignified
- Jun 27, 2012
- 3,016
- 4
- 13,960
Show me numbers that are in favour of a 6300 over a i3 6100 then.
What do we go on if not numbers?
What do we go on if not numbers?
burgessanthony
Dignified
- Jun 27, 2012
- 3,016
- 4
- 13,960
It's not TH, it's that AMD have inferior CPUs to intel right now. I really hope they change all that soon as much as anyone.
LeKeiser
Reputable
- Mar 1, 2015
- 333
- 0
- 4,810
how about real use?
all the threads similar to this one always post the same numbers and ends with the same finding: i3 is better in every aspect and FX is crap.
like I said, I have a FX and it's far from being as crappy as people here are saying. I don't spend my days benching it, I use it. And since I use it, I can say that it has a lot more horse power that people think. Lot more.
But here, you rely on benchmarks and those site to spread your views, so...
I'm not AMD fanboy but I own one.
TH, what do you expect anyway...
burgessanthony
Dignified
- Jun 27, 2012
- 3,016
- 4
- 13,960
Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163
Dignified
- Mar 8, 2015
- 5,283
- 1
- 15,960
Not the point he or she was making.
The point is that FX CPU's are common and that there's a lot of hate on AMD CPU's when for instance someone already owns them, essentually being bullied by people on the internet.
An i3 does absolutely win when it comes to gaming, but an FX CPU can still offer plenty of performance. There's a lot more to it than just pure CPU horsepower. Did people forget about resolution, settings, monitor refresh rate, EXPECTATIONS from the user?
I mean c'mon, it's getting ridiculous. AMD sure deserve the hate, but their users/consumers don't, EVER.
burgessanthony
Dignified
- Jun 27, 2012
- 3,016
- 4
- 13,960
Hang on this guy is buying new. He doesn't own one. And really, this comes down to fact not emotion. Hr needs the best advice and I'm.not about to advise he buys old dead end tech when there are bettrr alternatives.
Now, if someone had a fx6300 and asked to upgrade to i3, I'd say no, probably don't bother.
Take the emotion out of it
Now, if someone had a fx6300 and asked to upgrade to i3, I'd say no, probably don't bother.
Take the emotion out of it
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question New installed W11 on sdd, D drive (HDD) goes to the 100% in seconds
- Started by Emily_Vin
- Replies: 8
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram