Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD FX 83x0 vs FX6300 for gaming

Tags:
  • CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
January 30, 2013 5:07:40 PM

Looking at benchmarks, I am wondering if it makes any sense going with an 8300 series over the 6300 series.

Looking at only the game benchmarks, it is apparent the 8320 and 6300 are performing the same. So that means clock speed is the deciding factor vs cores. 8350 does a little better just because stock clock is 500mhz higher.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-a...

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/699?vs=698

So with that in mind, does it make any sense going 8300 series? Especially considering in most cases, the extra $50 saved would get you to the next video card up? And overclocking the 6300 to 4Ghz should get you 8350 performance in just about every game.

Thoughts?

(And this is just for discussion, I already have an i5)

More about : amd 83x0 fx6300 gaming

a b à CPUs
January 30, 2013 5:33:17 PM

unless your going dual graphics or higher, the 6300 will be fine when clocked to 4.0+ ghz.

the main difference your seeing in the anandtech tests is the one module having some shared resources when 4 cores are being used, the 8 series will have that extra unshared module, wich is why the 8320 can overtake the 6300, but its a small gain.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 30, 2013 7:12:11 PM

The only reason I can see for considering the 8 core chips over the 6300 would be if you were doing something with your PC that could make good use of the extra cores such as video editing or graphics work for example. For gaming or general usage it would be too close to justify the extra money in my opinion.

Mactronix :) 

m
0
l
Related resources
January 30, 2013 9:01:30 PM

If you want to talk about pure gaming, according to Anand even the 4300 holds its own against the 8350.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/700?vs=697

I can't find what GPU they used but if you were to build a cheap, AMD based gaming box I think an FX-4300 would be a good performance/$ buy.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 30, 2013 9:24:42 PM

Okay, so maybe the gaming CPU battles should really be i5-3570K vs fx4300/6300 + $100 nicer video card. I keep seeing these 8350 vs 3570 wars, and that's easy for gaming because the processors cost the same. But if dropping to a slightly lower performing CPU gives you a jump to a higher GPU, then it's an actual debate.

So now it's something like 3570K and 7850 or FX4300 and 7950.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 30, 2013 9:42:31 PM

twelve25 said:
So now it's something like 3570K and 7850 or FX4300 and 7950.


I actually reckon there are about four "obvious" builds that depending on what you are running and where you live could all win the kinda mainstream value crown, 2 Intel and 2 AMD. What people often forget is that while you don't pay for the privilege of having an unlocked CPU on AMD, you do need to consider the extra cost of a suitable motherboard and cooler (in the same way you do for the 3570K). While I think the FX4300 is great value, I'm not sure it's worth buying one on the logic you can buy a more expensive graphics card, simply because when games really start to hammer quad cores (it's not exactly far off), the FX might struggle due to it's shared resources when the FX6300 will not.
It's definitely an interesting topic though, there's a good reason why on the budget builds they do on Tomshardware they usually end up with a cheap Pentium and as much of the budget as possible forced into graphics.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2013 9:24:44 AM

A lot of it depends on what games you play and how you play them. Do you have a single 1920 x 1080 Monitor ? If you do then I cant see why you would need more than a 6300 and a good cooler.
There was a comparison recently, I cant remember who did it but it was very Intel biased. It came to a conclusion that there is about $100 difference between going Intel or AMD.
As was said using an FX8xxx CPU is not needed to get the same performance.You need a decent third party cooler but then you would do that anyway wouldn't you ?

Maxtronix :) 

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2013 11:34:55 AM

I have a amd 6300 and a 7970ghz. I overclocked my 6300 to 4.5ghz it can even go to about 5.0-5.2ghz but i just dont need that much horse power. Its a amazing cpu for the price. i payed $134 for it. Playing skyrim fully maxed. Playing farcry 3 fully maxed With great fps 60fps+ You just cant get a better cpu for The price point.
I have a core i3 2100. The 6300 is so much better for gaming In my opinion. I just couldnt be happier with it. That being said. Everyone knows intel is faster and usues less power. I still my mates to get intel. However ill support the under dog :D 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2013 12:29:48 PM

Before the 6300 came out I could see zero reason not to get Intel. For me the 6300 changes the field. Its competitive enough for the majority of people who are not out and out hardcore must have every FPS gamer's.

I realize that Intel chips can OC as well but that's really nothing to do with the fact that a 6300 can OC to perform as well as a 2500 or 3470.
People need to get back to the whole idea of overclocking for value. Sure a 3470K can be overclocked and will wipe the floor with anything AMD can throw at it pretty much.
Personally I like the idea of getting a 6300 and overclocking it to match a 3470 stock performance.

Mactronix :) 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2013 12:46:33 PM

Haha I did exactly that. At 4.5ghz it should be around the level of a stock i5 3470 and it's great and I paid $130 for it amd bang for buck is awesome
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2013 3:22:40 PM

a 6 core is more than enough for gaming! use that extra cash to buy a better GPU...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 31, 2013 4:14:19 PM

Id get the 6300 over the 4300 any day, its usually only $10-20 difference.
m
0
l
!