Why are AMD FX [6300, 8320 / 8350] series CPUs considered "entry level" when it comes to gaming?

[Dude13450]

I have seen it time and time again, where an Intel fan boy calls an AMD FX 8350 build "entry level". I'm curious as to why when a gaming PC is built with an AMD FX series processor, it is called an entry level rig? (this is for the "higher end" of the FX series, AKA 6300, 8320, 8350, etc; obviously, the 4350 would be entry level)

I'm sorry, but when an AMD FX 6300 with 8GB 1600MHz RAM and a R9 280x (3GB version) will get 58 to 74 FPS while playing Battlefield 4 on ultra in 1920x1080 resolution, compared to an i7 4790K with the same set up (RAM + GPU; BF4 - ULTRA - 1920x1080) that will get around 64-82 FPS, there's really not a notable difference (at least not a deal breaking one). Were talking about [marginally] 11% faster for almost 52% more cost ($910 without rebates / discounts for the 4790k build as compared to $600 for AMD FX 6300)...something seems a little off to me.

I mean, sure, compared to a $3500+ PC with an I7 4960X Extreme Edition (not going into Xeons for this argument) with 32GB 1866MHz and a Titan Z GPU [that plays BF4 on 1920x1080 at 110+ FPS], both the 4790K and FX 6300 are going to seem like entry level PCs. Obviously, you can get much much much more performance as evident as "4k gaming" rigs, but those cost tens of thousands of dollars, which is just absurd, IMO, to spend that much just to game.

What I'd consider entry level would be trying to play on a AMD A10-7850K or lesser APU (the A10-7850k plays BF4 at roughly 41 FPS on medium at 1920x1080, with a ton of staggering); which, itself, is not a bad build for a budget gamer, who doesn't care about quality or resolution (~$400 build). Are you with me or against me (and why if against)?

PS: prices are assuming you already own a copy of windows, and frame rates are averaged on what I saw on Youtube and not guaranteed in your own personal builds.

**PLEASE DO NOT TURN THIS THREAD INTO AN AMD / INTEL WAR, I AM SIMPLY JUST CURIOUS**

 

[leeb2013]

The fx 4300 is entry level in the fx range of cpus. But for cpus as a whole, the whole fx range is becoming more entry level due to being several generations old and better more modern cpus now being available. They are also entry level with regards to budget. If you want a cheap cpu, go for the fx range.

 

[pjgmaster]

I have seen it time and time again, where an Intel fan boy calls an AMD FX 8350 build "entry level". I'm curious as to why when a gaming PC is built with an AMD FX series processor, it is called an entry level rig? (this is for the "higher end" of the FX series, AKA 6300, 8320, 8350, etc; obviously, the 4350 would be entry level)

I'm sorry, but when an AMD FX 6300 with 8GB 1600MHz RAM and a R9 280x (3GB version) will get 58 to 74 FPS while playing Battlefield 4 on ultra in 1920x1080 resolution, compared to an i7 4790K with the same set up (RAM + GPU; BF4 - ULTRA - 1920x1080) that will get around 64-82 FPS, there's really not a notable difference (at least not a deal breaking one). Were talking about [marginally] 11% faster for almost 52% more cost ($910 without rebates / discounts for the 4790k build as compared to $600 for AMD FX 6300)...something seems a little off to me.

I mean, sure, compared to a $3500+ PC with an I7 4960X Extreme Edition (not going into Xeons for this argument) with 32GB 1866MHz and a Titan Z GPU [that plays BF4 on 1920x1080 at 110+ FPS], both the 4790K and FX 6300 are going to seem like entry level PCs. Obviously, you can get much much much more performance as evident as "4k gaming" rigs, but those cost tens of thousands of dollars, which is just absurd, IMO, to spend that much just to game.

What I'd consider entry level would be trying to play on a AMD A10-7850K or lesser APU (the A10-7850k plays BF4 at roughly 41 FPS on medium at 1920x1080, with a ton of staggering); which, itself, is not a bad build for a budget gamer, who doesn't care about quality or resolution (~$400 build). Are you with me or against me (and why if against)?

PS: prices are assuming you already own a copy of windows, and frame rates are averaged on what I saw on Youtube and not guaranteed in your own personal builds.

**PLEASE DO NOT TURN THIS THREAD INTO AN AMD / INTEL WAR, I AM SIMPLY JUST CURIOUS**

The reason AMD CPU's like the ones you mentioned are considered entry level is because.. Well they are
I am not here to start an AMD vs Intel war and I respect your wish to keep it that way.
I was a huuuuuuge AMD fan until the last year or so. I've switched to Intel simply because, until AMD come up with something really good, I'm going to stick with Intel

So Let's break down how Intel are high end and AMD are entry level in an objective, unbiased manner and hopefully it'll help shed some light on this


1. You mentioned BF4. WHich is true there isn't much of a frame gain. There is, however a reason for this. BF4 is not really that much of a CPU intensive game.
Games like Crysis 3, Watchdogs (which isn't the most demanding but does require a bit more than BF4) Assassin's Creed Unity, ARMA 3, Planetary annihilation and many many more will yield a much larger difference in Frame gains than BF4 did.

2. Intel are more power efficient and not only use less power, but their performance to power ratio is far greater than AMD.

3. Intel's cores are not only great for gaming but pretty much everything else too, whether it be every day applications, editing and general computer tasks. They have far greater single core AND Multithreaded performance than AMD
that they are versitile and better performing than AMD in almost all aspects of use.

4. THey are less prone to make mistakes. They are less likely to crash due to their ability to perform a task more effectively and even calculate ahead of time for many potentional errors, crashes/glitches.

5. When Intel CPU's are overclocked, they gain a far greater performance boost for the amount they have increased their clock speed by than if AMD were also to Overclock. an intel CPU at 4.2 ghz or even 4 ghz overclocked will outperform an AMD cpu overclocked to 5ghz

6. Not all programs or games use every single core on an AMD, so they can't put their number of cores to work (even if they did, intel still wins out despite having less cores) but Since intel's core are stronger, They can do the task well. AMD's only attribute is the sheer number of cores and that isn't used as often as needed to showcase this strength

At the end of the day. Intel are way further ahead than Intel as CPU's AMD may have higher typical clock speeds or a larger number of cores (take the fx 8350 and higher models) but it's like having 8 people that can lift 75 kilograms each to Intel having 4 people that can lift 260 kilos each. Which team has lifted the most weight at the end of the day?
And AMD's clock speed may be higher but Intel can do more tasks in less time, meaning they can get more done in less time. They don't need to be as fast.

This is why Intel are high end and AMD are Entry.

 

[Dude13450]

At the end of the day. Intel are way further ahead than Intel as CPU's

I understand that Intel will always turn AMD into metaphorical pulp, I just don't understand why everybody bashes on AMD. Yes, Intel may be better, but you have to admit AMDs will certainly get the job done (in most cases).

I actually would get an i7, it just ultimately depends on what my budget for a build is. I first am going to get a laptop for mobility reasons (with i7 and NVIDIA 840M or greater for gaming purposes as well ). I'm fully switching over from console, there's no more room for consoles in my life (aside from maybe Halo and No Man's Sky, but that doesn't constitute buying a whole now system for a game or two); I'd rather just get all my games on one system that has cheap / free games.

 

[pjgmaster]

At the end of the day. Intel are way further ahead than Intel as CPU's

I understand that Intel will always turn AMD into metaphorical pulp, I just don't understand why everybody bashes on AMD. Yes, Intel may be better, but you have to admit AMDs will certainly get the job done (in most cases).

I actually would get an i7, it just ultimately depends on what my budget for a build is. I first am going to get a laptop for mobility reasons (with i7 and NVIDIA 840M or greater for gaming purposes as well ). I'm fully switching over from console, there's no more room for consoles in my life (aside from maybe Halo and No Man's Sky, but that doesn't constitute buying a whole now system for a game or two); I'd rather just get all my games on one system that has cheap / free games.

Not always.. AMD have been better than Intel before, Intel has merely had the last handful of years. With the new AMD "Zen" cpu coming out next year, it might shift back to AMD dominating for a while in which Intel looses the lead for a few years before intel finds a way to get ahead of AMD. It's been this way for years. One company is dominating for a while before the other one creates a new design or concept to regain control of this technology race.

 

[Dude13450]

Not always.. AMD have been better than Intel before, Intel has merely had the last handful of years. With the new AMD "Zen" cpu coming out next year, it might shift back to AMD dominating for a while in which Intel looses the lead for a few years before intel finds a way to get ahead of AMD. It's been this way for years. One company is dominating for a while before the other one creates a new design or concept to regain control of this technology race.

I just looked that up, the AMD Zen that is rumored is going to be server based and will likely cost close to a grand or more (probably more). While it would be awesome for AMD to create a CPU that could create a turf war, I doubt we'll see an extensive consumer market ..... that being said, Zen is still a year or two away from its rumored release, so we won't know for sure for quite a while, and we may even be surprised!