Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

FX-6300 vs. 3930K @ 4.5GHz Handbrake Performance

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
July 28, 2013 3:50:13 PM

I just thought I'd share these two screenshots I just took. Both of the Handbrake configurations are the same.

Intel 3930K @ 4.5GHz Click Me!

FX-6300 @ 4.5GHz Click Me!

Not bad for a $110 chip eh?
a b å Intel
a c 114 à CPUs
July 29, 2013 4:49:09 AM

That's the law of diminishing returns for you.
a b à CPUs
July 29, 2013 11:19:17 AM

2 Times faster and 5 Times the cost (this is just the CPU price... of course an X79 with Quad Channels of RAM is more expensive than a 990FX with Dual Channels of RAM but not by 5 times). Power wise the 3930K is using around 170W whereas the 6300 is using around 130W. The cost difference is minuscule in terms of power costs.

3930K Parts Cost $1,280.00: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/StkP
FX-6300 Parts Cost $394.00: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1lZhm
= 3.25x the cost.
Related resources
a c 210 à CPUs
July 29, 2013 2:53:55 PM

hafijur said:

The reason intel can charge the prices is they are a lot faster then anything else on the market and power users want the best performance.


No, actually Intel cannot afford to keep gouging, hence hasfail being now just a lowly $35 more expensive option between MB + CPU over IB. Also, if they could afford to keep gouging, why on earth would they offer the successor to the i7-3820 as a i7-4820k fully unlocked? They wouldn't...because it will eat into the sales of the 4770k. However, they are trying to push people to the extreme series, so that's the bait. Also, they could realize what a spectacular flop hasfail is and could be manning all battle stations to try to ride out the epic fail that 4th Gen Intel is for desktops...(good thing they're just going to refresh next year too huh? No new tech from Intel until summer 2015)

Either way, things are going to be rough for Intel over the next 2 quarters with stagnating desktop sales, and non-competitive mobile products. I guess they could look forward to server sales...except AMD is beginning to marginally gain market share in that segment again.

Wow, I guess it sucks when you don't innovate and then price gouge for your products once the consumer figures out who's really getting the short end of the stick.

Oh well, maybe one day they'll change...or they'll end up in similar shape to how M$ is now...wondering when the room will stop spinning as they ride the backside of the wave down.
a c 210 à CPUs
July 29, 2013 4:44:15 PM

hafijur said:
8350rocks you are describing amd. Intel are the only company for power users who innovate. Haswell will most likely be ahead of anything amd have till 2016. Haswell main objective, improve ipc slightly check, improve igpu and offer more igpu options for higher end check, improve significantly battery life for first time in a decade check. If you look at the amd marketing team they troll intel graphics nearly every video you see, they don't even mention the cpu performance, thats especially true for laptops. You know why its because there cpus are so slow intels slowest core i5 ulv cpus on laptops are as fast as amds fastest mobile cpu and a lot faster overall.

Now haswell stops this integrated graphics performance trolling by amd. I am just amazed how intel have improved so much since 2008-2013. AMD weren't expecting this intel significant surge and were caught by suprise and now are panicking hence why they released bulldozer then patched it up with piledriver.

If anything amd should be grateful intel haven't flexed there muscles and released more core cpus to the mainstream seeing 4 cores as intels mainstream cpu since 2006. Oh another thing is with intels premium it gives amd a decent price bracket they can target and profit from. If intel charged less amd would be finished.

I would be shocked if amd get to haswell levels by 2016, in fact I would go as far as say it would be a miracle for them to improve that much by then efficiency wise. Theres a reason why intels laptop i7 quads outperform desktop i5 quads and are similar to dektop i7 quads since sandy bridge ivy brige haswell etc as they consume so little power you can put them in laptops. The 8 core haswell 130-140w tdp chip will show what intel have in hand and they should oc very well to as they have new heat spreader.

edit: non competitive mobile products, are you describing amd again as thats what haswell does and that is completely dominate the mobile market.


Intel is a legend...in your mind.

EDIT:

ARM > Intel Atom

Opteron > Xeon

3570k = 4670k

That explains the entire counter argument to your text wall.
a b à CPUs
July 29, 2013 5:29:02 PM

a 2600k running at 4.8ghz did all this stuff two and a half years ago
a b à CPUs
July 29, 2013 5:31:10 PM

FX 6300 $110.00 50% performance of the
3930K $570.00 which is 5.18 times as expensive as the 6300 and uses more power.
So theoretically if performance was relative to price and the 6300 costed as much as the 3930K the 6300 would 2.56 times faster than the 3930K... It goes to show that the 6300 is a phenomenal value and that intel gouges on the top end because people like hajifur will buy the latest and greatest intel offering regardless of anything else simply because it's blue team.
a b à CPUs
July 29, 2013 5:40:57 PM

hafijur said:
8350rocks you are describing amd. Intel are the only company for power users who innovate. Haswell will most likely be ahead of anything amd have till 2016. Haswell main objective, improve ipc slightly check, improve igpu and offer more igpu options for higher end check, improve significantly battery life for first time in a decade check. If you look at the amd marketing team they troll intel graphics nearly every video you see, they don't even mention the cpu performance, thats especially true for laptops. You know why its because there cpus are so slow intels slowest core i5 ulv cpus on laptops are as fast as amds fastest mobile cpu and a lot faster overall.

Now haswell stops this integrated graphics performance trolling by amd. I am just amazed how intel have improved so much since 2008-2013. AMD weren't expecting this intel significant surge and were caught by suprise and now are panicking hence why they released bulldozer then patched it up with piledriver.

If anything amd should be grateful intel haven't flexed there muscles and released more core cpus to the mainstream seeing 4 cores as intels mainstream cpu since 2006. Oh another thing is with intels premium it gives amd a decent price bracket they can target and profit from. If intel charged less amd would be finished.

I would be shocked if amd get to haswell levels by 2016, in fact I would go as far as say it would be a miracle for them to improve that much by then efficiency wise. Theres a reason why intels laptop i7 quads outperform desktop i5 quads and are similar to dektop i7 quads since sandy bridge ivy brige haswell etc as they consume so little power you can put them in laptops. The 8 core haswell 130-140w tdp chip will show what intel have in hand and they should oc very well to as they have new heat spreader.

edit: non competitive mobile products, are you describing amd again as thats what haswell does and that is completely dominate the mobile market.


Haswell goes to show nothing more than that the "Core i" architecture is dead. With every revision since SandyBridge (which I can admit were great because I don't have a horrid brand bias like some people...) The IPC return has been lower and lower with hasfail offering basically nothing in terms of IPC. The overclockability has decreased and heat production have increased significantly with every refresh. They are trying to squeeze blood from a rock and it is obvious. On the mobile front haswell offers a little more as the battery life and graphics are a little improved, but c'mon don't kid yourself they are still NOWHERE near APU graphics performance levels.. You are in such a hurry to bash AMD that you often don't think before you speak. Google is your friend.
a c 115 å Intel
a c 471 à CPUs
July 29, 2013 8:07:09 PM

manofchalk said:
That's the law of diminishing returns for you.


As stated, it is the law of diminishing returns. The more performance you want, the more it will cost you. This is pretty evident in the GPU arena as well.

For a home user who's priority is cost over performance, then sure go for the FX-6300.

In a professional production company where time is money... i7-3930k any day of the week.

a b à CPUs
July 29, 2013 8:07:16 PM

hafijur said:
cmi86 said:
FX 6300 $110.00 50% performance of the
3930K $570.00 which is 5.18 times as expensive as the 6300 and uses more power.
So theoretically if performance was relative to price and the 6300 costed as much as the 3930K the 6300 would 2.56 times faster than the 3930K... It goes to show that the 6300 is a phenomenal value and that intel gouges on the top end because people like hajifur will buy the latest and greatest intel offering regardless of anything else simply because it's blue team.


Yeah did you see the old fx series cpu prices or now the current fx9590 lol. Also the i7 3930k takes less electricity to complete tasks then the fx6300. At least intel extreme offerings give you unique performance and special platform for it. I would be suprised if any sane person buys the fx9590 for themselves it ludicrous, its a bit like the pentium 4 extreme edition waste of money for no real gain.

This shows the i7 3960x being intels most efficient 32nm cpu as it takes the least electricity for task:
http://techreport.com/review/21987/intel-core-i7-3960x-...

Anyway the fx6300 competitor is really a sandy bridge i5 2300. You can see the i5 2400 beats the fx6300 here. Efficiency wise intel are clearly in front still and amd are more closer to nehalem:
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processo...
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/363?vs=699


We meet again, how you got a CPU's authority by spitting AMD bashing B$ over and over and over again... Also, speaking of Nehalem, you always seem to be calling the first gen Nehalem Bloomfield processors a bottleneck, when I was roaming the forums for X58 related issues yet the bottleneck can be solved with a simple overclock. And of course you give the exceptions to the 32nm Gulftowns that are identical in performance in most games to Bloomfield and say that they have no bottleneck, are you still a TDP freak?
a b à CPUs
July 29, 2013 8:08:01 PM

jaguarskx said:
manofchalk said:
That's the law of diminishing returns for you.


As stated, it is the law of diminishing returns. The more performance you want, the more it will cost you. This is pretty evident in the GPU arena as well.

For a home user who's priority is cost over performance, then sure go for the FX-6300.

In a professional production company where time is money... i7-3930k any day of the week.



+1
a b à CPUs
July 29, 2013 8:15:12 PM

hafijur said:
cmi86 said:
FX 6300 $110.00 50% performance of the
3930K $570.00 which is 5.18 times as expensive as the 6300 and uses more power.
So theoretically if performance was relative to price and the 6300 costed as much as the 3930K the 6300 would 2.56 times faster than the 3930K... It goes to show that the 6300 is a phenomenal value and that intel gouges on the top end because people like hajifur will buy the latest and greatest intel offering regardless of anything else simply because it's blue team.


Yeah did you see the old fx series cpu prices or now the current fx9590 lol. Also the i7 3930k takes less electricity to complete tasks then the fx6300. At least intel extreme offerings give you unique performance and special platform for it. I would be suprised if any sane person buys the fx9590 for themselves it ludicrous, its a bit like the pentium 4 extreme edition waste of money for no real gain.

This shows the i7 3960x being intels most efficient 32nm cpu as it takes the least electricity for task:
http://techreport.com/review/21987/intel-core-i7-3960x-...

Anyway the fx6300 competitor is really a sandy bridge i5 2300. You can see the i5 2400 beats the fx6300 here. Efficiency wise intel are clearly in front still and amd are more closer to nehalem:
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processo...
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/363?vs=699


Yes they do offer unique performance and a unique platform.. for 5 times the price and not 5 times the performance, that is the point I am making. Is it applicable if you need it yes, is it practical if you really don't, no it's not. Like EvilElmo said 50% percent of the performance of a chip that costs 5X more on a platform that costs 2X more is pretty damn impressive. BTW I would never buy a 9590... ever.

FYI PC Mag shows the 3930K drawing 233w under load, much much more than a 6300
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2400638,00.asp
a b à CPUs
July 29, 2013 8:33:00 PM

hafijur said:
cmi86 look at the fx9590 it makes the i7 3930k look like a a bargain. I don't want to turn this into a flame war but I am stating facts the i7 3930k is on a different level to the fx6300 and more efficient when completing tasks. You pay more for premium performance, intel are the best for that now.


I would buy a 3930K over a 9590 any day of the week you are damn right ! You would have to be insane to buy that over priced overclocked 8350. I'm just saying I am impressed that the 6300 costing 1/5th of the 3930K can even match 50% of the performance. I don't have to be on the bleeding razors edge of performance and the value the 6300 presents is undeniable, overclocked even more so.
a b à CPUs
July 29, 2013 8:33:17 PM

hafijur said:
cmi86 look at the fx9590 it makes the i7 3930k look like a a bargain. I don't want to turn this into a flame war but I am stating facts the i7 3930k is on a different level to the fx6300 and more efficient when completing tasks. You pay more for premium performance, intel are the best for that now.


This is representing diminishing return, that WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE THREAD. The FX9590 is a Phenom II X4 TWKR type scheme using a cherry-picked 8350, that was its entire purpose. While Intel does have the Enthusiast Sector covered for now, AMD does have the best price to performance ratio this generation.
a b à CPUs
July 29, 2013 8:35:02 PM

jaguarskx said:
manofchalk said:
That's the law of diminishing returns for you.


As stated, it is the law of diminishing returns. The more performance you want, the more it will cost you. This is pretty evident in the GPU arena as well.

For a home user who's priority is cost over performance, then sure go for the FX-6300.

In a professional production company where time is money... i7-3930k any day of the week.



+100
a b à CPUs
July 29, 2013 8:35:46 PM

cmi86 said:
jaguarskx said:
manofchalk said:
That's the law of diminishing returns for you.


As stated, it is the law of diminishing returns. The more performance you want, the more it will cost you. This is pretty evident in the GPU arena as well.

For a home user who's priority is cost over performance, then sure go for the FX-6300.

In a professional production company where time is money... i7-3930k any day of the week.



+100


+9001 (Already added a + before :p )
a c 109 à CPUs
July 29, 2013 10:03:24 PM

cmi86 said:
I'm just saying I am impressed that the 6300 costing 1/5th of the 3930K can even match 50% of the performance.


Agreed. The 6300 is a surprising chip to say the least. With such great headroom for overclocking it is really the best bang for the buck in the FX line and why it is arguably the second best enthusiast AMD chip out there (the best being the 8350, but about 80-90 more for 2 more cores). I have really come around after seeing what this chip can do.

On topic:

This is a very clear case of diminishing returns for sure. It is pretty amazing that so little gain is made from generation to generation now. It'll take some drastic changes to get anywhere close to the performance gains we saw 10 years ago.
July 30, 2013 6:26:31 AM

jaguarskx said:
manofchalk said:
That's the law of diminishing returns for you.


As stated, it is the law of diminishing returns. The more performance you want, the more it will cost you. This is pretty evident in the GPU arena as well.

For a home user who's priority is cost over performance, then sure go for the FX-6300.

In a professional production company where time is money... i7-3930k any day of the week.



+1
July 30, 2013 6:46:54 AM

cmi86 said:
FX 6300 $110.00 50% performance of the
3930K $570.00 which is 5.18 times as expensive as the 6300 and uses more power.
So theoretically if performance was relative to price and the 6300 costed as much as the 3930K the 6300 would 2.56 times faster than the 3930K... It goes to show that the 6300 is a phenomenal value and that intel gouges on the top end because people like hajifur will buy the latest and greatest intel offering regardless of anything else simply because it's blue team.


I can handle your argument about price to a point, but when time is money I would take
the 3930k over anything AMD has to offer right now, and please stop talking about gouging
prices from Intel when you have AMD charging over 300.00 more for less performance then
the 3930k, as it stand today the FX 9590 is no more then a overclocked FX 8350 for 700.00
dollars more, now compare the FX 6300 to the FX 9590 then tell us who gouging there customers.
a b à CPUs
July 30, 2013 9:52:56 AM

yes, intel is milking the cash cow. sandy bridge was amazing, the 2500k is by far the best performance for price ratio we have ever seen, and that was 2 and a half years ago. still nothing amd offers can touch a 2500k, 3570/4670 still stuggle to get to 4.8ghz, which i believe 95%+ of every 2500k can get to without struggle. a 4.8ghz 2500k will match performance of a 4.5ghz 4670k. if you needed the extra hyper threads, there was 2600/2700k, but for 20% more performance at 50-70% more price.

since then, intel hasn't even tried to push performance up. at that price and performance level, they knew amd wouldn't catch up for many years and still hasn't. but it IS kinda price gouging. but for me amd is doing great in the apu sector where the future of computing is, look at ps4/xbox one. even the A10 apus are amazing and nothing intel offers comes close.
a c 210 à CPUs
July 30, 2013 11:25:01 AM

jaguarskx said:
manofchalk said:
That's the law of diminishing returns for you.


As stated, it is the law of diminishing returns. The more performance you want, the more it will cost you. This is pretty evident in the GPU arena as well.

For a home user who's priority is cost over performance, then sure go for the FX-6300.

In a professional production company where time is money... i7-3930k any day of the week.



+1
!