Can an overclocked FX 6300 match a stock i5-3570 for gaming?

[Vulpes vulpes]

Just as the thread head asks, please don't let this devolve into intel vs amd bashing. I bring the question up b/c I built a new rig and my cpu is bottlenecking one of my games (Planetside 2 [I know this game is far from optimized and there was talk about the game being built on intel architecture so it'll execute faster blah blah blah]).

I also don't want to resell my 970a-ud3 so I'm stuck on AMD.

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

No,they are great for stuff like video editing,but the 3570k crushes it in gaming.

 

[Vulpes vulpes]

So if I fully overclocked 6300 to it's potential and then dialed it back 200mhz, the 6300 would be behind a i5-3570 by how much in gaming? I guess that could be answered with fps scores in a game at high settings or some kind of percentage in contrast to the other.

 

[Vulpes vulpes]

I don't understand why this couldn't be answered, is it a matter of speed or anatomy? Is it about shared float points by two cores using a module? idgi

 

[kiezz]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/699?vs=701

 

[Maksym]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/699?vs=701

Correct me if I am wrong, but that chart shows both on stock speed..

In terms of "crushes", I would not fare it that way.

Given, for instance, you have a 400$ budget for CPU and GPU, a cheaper 6300 with more powerful GPU will "crush" 3570k in gaming.

The CPUs rarely bottleneck in gaming, as it was pointed out in the recent Tom's Hardware article.

 

[kiezz]

Yeah true its at stock but its easy to see the i5 is a lot better, im not arguing with you over it whatever you think yourself fair enough but your statement of pairing the 6300 with a better gpu is an unfair comparison but yes can make sense if you bring a budget into it, i just kind of get annoyed with amd listing the specs of there cpu's falsely claiming they have more cores than they actually do

 

[Maksym]

Yeah true its at stock but its easy to see the i5 is a lot better, im not arguing with you over it whatever you think yourself fair enough but your statement of pairing the 6300 with a better gpu is an unfair comparison but yes can make sense if you bring a budget into it, i just kind of get annoyed with amd listing the specs of there cpu's falsely claiming they have more cores than they actually do

Fair enough, I just wanted to pointed out the invalidity of that chart as the question from OP was "Can OVERCLOCKED FX-6300 match a STOCK i5...".

Just keeping things on track.

An OC FX-6300 would be more than enough and would not bottleneck an of the games currently on the market, just as i5 would not, as CPUs have reached the point where they are above and beyond what any games need at this time, and its your GPU that will largely bottleneck the performance. So, I say buy 6300, overclock it, and invest extra cash into better GPU - overall result in gaming will be better.

 

[kiezz]

the chart was to show him how much of an overclock he would actually need to meet the stock of an i5, which would take the cpu to over 4.5ghz, i didn't go off track as i said a quick glance through that chart and you see what the 6300 has to do to catch up if you disagree fair enough but to me that comparison speaks for itself

 

[marshal11]

From my personal experience, a FX-6300 at 5GHz still underperformed the 3570k in games. Not by much, but it was noticeable and required a 100$ H80i watercooler to keep temps within the safe limits which closes the price gap between the FX-6300 and 3570k. It really depends on what games you're going to be playing. Some games actually do better with the FX series CPUs rather than Intels (very few). And in BF3 for example there is at most a 3FPS difference between the FX-6300 and a 3570k and a 1FPS average between the two (with the 3570k in the lead though). It all depends on optimization. Another example is in skyrim. A 3570k can at most get almost double the performance of a 8120. Even though the 8120 has more CPU horsepower than the 3570k, it still loses by a mile due to poor optimization. And to be fair, it's more difficult to optimize a program (especially a game) to take full advantage of 8 slower cores than 4 faster cores which is why Intel pulls ahead in games 90% of the time. A program that is optimized 100% perfectly for a 3770k and a 8350 will perform much better on a 8350 than a 3770k.

 

[ericjohn004]

I'm gonna have to completely disagree with you there. If a game is perfectly optimized for 8 cores (because no ones gonna optimize a game for a specific CPU) the 3770k would still destroy the 8350. Because each of it's "8" cores are faster than each of the AMD's "8" cores. There are programs like Cinebench that are perfectly optimized for as many cores as you have and the 3770k kicks the crap out of the 8350. Hell, my 3570k beats the 8350 in even a lot of heavily threaded benchmarks. Simply because having 4 really strong cores is a lot better than having 8 really weak ones. And that's a fact.

 

[Vulpes vulpes]

Ok so it looks like it's more about speed than anatomy, so they only thing holding the 6300 back is IPC which could be sped up using an overclock, good to hear. So it sounds like safe max for a 6300 on air cooling would be 4.5~4.6, which I could probably do with my CM 212+. As for cinebench, I don't use it, there was some kind of scandal not to long ago with Intel also there were a battery of tests ran by Cinebench that neglected to use the two hotfixes that windows released for the FX architecture.

So, how would a 4.5~4.6 Ghz overclock perform compared to a stock i5-3570 in gaming and by how much would it lose out to the i5? As stated before I understand some games will be optimized for intel or amd but for this discussion lets assume that isn't a issue. Also, I know very few games are bottlenecked by the processor but my personal preference is MMO and games like starcraft 2.

 

[kiezz]

at 4.5-4.6ghz would bring it close to benchmarking the same as a stock 3570k in multithreaded tests if not the same but still be a bit behind in gaming performance, the thing about it is if you have an fx6300 already its a decent cpu and yes you should overclock it as high as you can get it, if your wondering should you get an i5 3570k in my opinion its not worth it if you already have a decent cpu but if you don't then the i5 would definitely be better to get if you have the budget as even if you do get an i5 you will overclock that too and pull away from the performance of an overclocked fx6300

 

[ericjohn004]

I have an i5 3570k and at it's stock settings, it's not all that powerful. At least in benchmarks. Now when it's overclocked that's a whole different story.

So for a quick answer, I'd say yes. An FX 6300 overclocked to 4.8Ghz will beat out a stock 3570k when it comes to almost any programs that's fairly threaded(uses more than 1 or 2 cores). Except for gaming. Gaming requires each core to be very strong. And at stock, 1 core of a 3570k, is more powerful that an FX 6300 core overclocked to 4.8Ghz. There may not be much of a difference at this point but the 3570k will still be a little stronger in my opinion. And I base my opinions on facts. I know the benchmark results for a vast majority of benchmarks and although the 6300 overclocked to the max will beat out the 3570k by a LITTLE in most programs, the exceptions are for single threaded programs and games in which the 3570k will still win out cause the 6300's single core performance is not up to par. There's your answer.

 

[kiezz]

well said^

 

[nicholas miller]

I find my fx-6300 OC'd to 4.5 with a 560ti 448 gpu is enough to keep planetside in the 30-50 fps range constantly on max settings. Considering the human eye is optimized for mid 30 fps, it is enough. Worth noting that the fps wont drop while running a minecraft server in the background, due to extra cores to toss around. you will notice a major frame drop if you run at stock speed though. I'm using a hyper 212 evo, and it is stable at 4.6, just a bit hot for me at 58*C.

 

[Vulpes vulpes]

I find my fx-6300 OC'd to 4.5 with a 560ti 448 gpu is enough to keep planetside in the 30-50 fps range constantly on max settings. Considering the human eye is optimized for mid 30 fps, it is enough. Worth noting that the fps wont drop while running a minecraft server in the background, due to extra cores to toss around. you will notice a major frame drop if you run at stock speed though. I'm using a hyper 212 evo, and it is stable at 4.6, just a bit hot for me at 58*C.

First hand experience, I like this. It's not that I don't value all responses, it's just nice to hear a response from a 6300 owner especially when they have the same aftermarket cooler ^_^. 58C sounds excessive but that's just me comparing max thermal temps for my 965.

 

[Karlos23]

Ive just overclocked my 6300 for the 1st time using the same aftermarket cooler to 4.5ghz I play bf4 with my 270x and its made an awesome diiference in multiplayer! With tweaked settings im getting a constant 60fps and as everyone knows bf4 Mp is VERY cpu intensive in high player games. My temps never go above 53! my vcore under load is only 1.39 so theres still headroom if needs be for the future
Oh and ive got pretty much the same mobo too

 

[BlackJesus27]

i have a gtx 970 and an fx 6300 with a 4.6 ghz overclock, you can get away with 4.2 and still be golden in most games, it does do well on planetside 2 and for the money it gives you very good performance even in quite intense battles! so there is not a huge of a difference if you do a little overclocking! hope this helped you out!

 

[Owen_27]

I'm gonna have to completely disagree with you there. If a game is perfectly optimized for 8 cores (because no ones gonna optimize a game for a specific CPU) the 3770k would still destroy the 8350. Because each of it's "8" cores are faster than each of the AMD's "8" cores. There are programs like Cinebench that are perfectly optimized for as many cores as you have and the 3770k kicks the crap out of the 8350. Hell, my 3570k beats the 8350 in even a lot of heavily threaded benchmarks. Simply because having 4 really strong cores is a lot better than having 8 really weak ones. And that's a fact.

in many test the fx-8300 which is worse than the 8350 still puls ahead in overall performance terns out more cores can be better
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-3570-vs-AMD-FX-8300