Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Amd Fx 4300 or intel i5 2500k best price/performance ratio

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 23, 2012 9:33:59 PM

What should i get the amd fx 4300 or 6300 or the intel i5 2500k for a new gaming build?
October 23, 2012 10:02:52 PM

2500k without a shadow of a doubt is worth the extra cash performance wise.
You would never regret a good 2500/3570k, as they can be overclocked well and keep big hungry gfx cards bottleneck free for some time to come.
m
0
l
October 25, 2012 3:49:45 AM

Depends on what sort of graphics card(s) you're planning to pair up with it.

If you're planning any single card up to HD7870 or GTX660ti level and you're not planning to go higher than that, then FX-4300 or FX-6300 would be fine and you can save some cash. I'd say FX-6300 is the better bet of the two.

If you're looking at high-end cards, such as HD7950/GTX670 or higher, or any dual/triple card configurations, then 2500K/3570K all the way.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2012 9:21:06 AM

I'd definitely second the i5. The 3rd gen (Ivy Bridge) i5s are excellent too - barely any difference at all in price or performance so either Sandy or Ivy is a solid choice.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2012 9:34:17 AM

Well, sctrictly speaking the FX 4300 does offer more performance / dollar because it's $100 cheaper.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2012 9:37:19 AM

Depends entirely on your budget if you get the i5 and a high end GPU then go for it. If the i5 means getting a cr@p GPU then it's a bad idea for gaming and the AMD makes sense.
m
0
l
October 25, 2012 2:44:26 PM

raj00 said:
What should i get the amd fx 4300 or 6300 or the intel i5 2500k for a new gaming build?


The just released Piledriver CPU core is more efficient that Bulldozer, I was looking into one for myself as an upgrade from an AMD 955 3.2 Ghz quad core. However you are starting fresh and have not invested to a platform yet, go Intel. Avoid the egg if you can they charge more go to Microcenter if it is available in your area. They have select cpu's from both camps for 20-50 bucks less than the egg and will often bundle the motherboard another instant discount.

-Jason
m
0
l
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 25, 2012 2:57:25 PM

If the main purpose is for gaming than there is no question the I5 is the better CPU.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2012 3:02:04 PM

When there is a price gap of £70 and there isn't a performance gap of 35% then it isn't worth it
m
0
l
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 25, 2012 3:06:24 PM

BuddiLuva said:
When there is a price gap of £70 and there isn't a performance gap of 35% then it isn't worth it


What are you talking about, where are you pulling 35% from? While the Piledriver is better than Bulldozer it's still far behind the I5 and I7 in single threaded programs like games. The I5 is still by far the better CPU if the main purpose of the computer is for gaming.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2012 3:15:02 PM

rds1220 said:
What are you talking about, where are you pulling 35% from? While the Piledriver is better than Bulldozer it's still far behind the I5 and I7 in single threaded programs like games. The I5 is still by far the better CPU if the main purpose of the computer is for gaming.


What he has to look at is the performance difference between the I5 and the FX6300, if it is not more than 35% I don't consider it worthy of being £70 especially since games are much more GPU intensive, which he could use the extra £70- to put into gettin a better gfx card

I consider the FX much more bang for the buck than the I5. Especially when you are considering price that is why my answer is FX. If money is not an issue then get the I5 hell if you have money to blow buy the I7
m
0
l
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 25, 2012 3:28:17 PM

So pretty you pulled 35% out of nowhere and randomly decided on 35% as the magic number that would make it not worth getting an I5. Or maybe 35% is the magic number because it allows you to recommend the Piledriver. You are recommending a CPU's based on percent that you decided is a certain limit instead of basing it of of something legimate like benchmarks.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2012 3:32:35 PM

rds1220 said:
So pretty you pulled 35% out of nowhere and randomly decided on 35% as the magic number that would make it not worth getting an I5. Or maybe 35% is the magic number because it allows you to recommend the Piledriver. You are recommending a CPU's based on percent that you decided is a certain limit instead of basing it of of something legimate like benchmarks.


Fair point, if you can, please show us some benchmarks.
m
0
l
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 25, 2012 4:05:02 PM

BuddiLuva said:
Fair point, if you can, please show us some benchmarks.



















m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2012 4:13:37 PM

I'd agree with applying a price constant to a percentage performance gain, but the number you come up with is going to be arbitrary by necessity. The fairest way to do that is to examine the market as it stands and look at what you'd typically pay for x% more performance. Certainly in the graphics card market, you'll pay much larger quantities of money at the high end for much smaller gains, so it's a tricky thing to do. To be fair, 35% would be a pretty colossal difference by CPU standards.

Is the OP aware that the K model is only necessary when overclocking though (assuming he won't be using onboard graphics)? If not overclocking, just get an i5 3450 for ~£140 and then the price difference is much less for the same performance gain.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2012 4:15:18 PM



The 2550k is better in most of the benchmarks, whether the OP considers it a big enough performance difference to spend an extra £70+ falls down to them.
Not to mention the price difference would be more if the OP was interested in a 3470.

I only viewed the scenario in the way I would view it, as a consumer I try to gain the most performance while still trying to save the most money. Which is what I thought all consumers wanted. IMO Bang for the buck I still consider the FX still being better value for money.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2012 4:24:37 PM

BuddiLuva said:
The 2550k is better in most of the benchmarks, whether the OP considers it a big enough performance difference to spend an extra £70+ falls down to them.
Not to mention the price difference would be more if the OP was interested in a 3470.

I only viewed the scenario in the way I would view it, as a consumer I try to gain the most performance while still trying to save the most money. Which is what I thought all consumers wanted. IMO Bang for the buck I still consider the FX still being better value for money.


I think you mean the price difference would be less? :-) ~£100 for the quad FX, ~£110 for the hex FX, ~£140 for the 3450/3470 and ~£165 for the 2500K.

Getting the most performance for money is definitely the smart way of doing things, but some might place 20% performance gain at a value of £70 while others like yourself might expect 35% for that money. I think that's all rds1220 was getting at.
m
0
l
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 25, 2012 4:27:27 PM

sam_p_lay said:
I think you mean the price difference would be less? :-) ~£100 for the quad FX, ~£110 for the hex FX, ~£140 for the 3450/3470 and ~£165 for the 2500K.

Getting the most performance for money is definitely the smart way of doing things, but some might place 20% performance gain at a value of £70 while others like yourself might expect 35% for that money. I think that's all rds1220 was getting at.


Yes you explained it better than I did and yes that's what I was trying to get at.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2012 4:30:31 PM

sam_p_lay said:
I think you mean the price difference would be less? :-) ~£100 for the quad FX, ~£110 for the hex FX, ~£140 for the 3450/3470 and ~£165 for the 2500K.

Getting the most performance for money is definitely the smart way of doing things, but some might place 20% performance gain at a value of £70 while others like yourself might expect 35% for that money. I think that's all rds1220 was getting at.


If the difference between the hex fx and the 3470 is just £40.

Then *** that *** just jump on the 3470!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2012 4:37:01 PM

BuddiLuva said:
If the difference between the hex fx and the 3470 is just £40.

Then *** that *** just jump on the 3470!


I'd be inclined to agree :-) And the 3450 and 3470 are pretty much identical in price and performance anyway. It's always the tricky thing with i5s - each increment adds a negligible performance gain but also barely any price increase. So where do you draw the line? But then the fact they're so close in price and performance means that no decision is really a big mistake.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2012 4:38:32 PM

BuddiLuva said:
If the difference between the hex fx and the 3470 is just £40.

Then *** that *** just jump on the 3470!


Is the forum censoring you by the way or are you putting those *s in yourself?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 25, 2012 5:50:16 PM

sam_p_lay said:
Is the forum censoring you by the way or are you putting those *s in yourself?

They censored me lol
m
0
l
!