Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › FX 6300 vs i5 3300
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FX 6300 vs i5 3300

post #1 of 36
Thread Starter 
Wich one is better for gaming ?? I know that Ivy Bridge is more advanced by per core performance but i5 3330 is stuck at 3.0 ghz ( up to 3.2 with turbo ). On the other hand, FX 6300 can easily hit 4.5Ghz with my cooler, and has two threads more !! I know that i5 3570K is better, but i have choice between i5 3330, and FX 6300. As i seen, Piledriver is noticeable better chip for gaming then Bulldozer. I can maybe strech for FX 8320, so thats option too.I now have FX 8120 and its clocked to 4.0Ghz.
post #2 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by itomic View Post

Wich one is better for gaming ?? I know that Ivy Bridge is more advanced by per core performance but i5 3330 is stuck at 3.0 ghz ( up to 3.2 with turbo ). On the other hand, FX 6300 can easily hit 4.5Ghz with my cooler, and has two threads more !! I know that i5 3570K is better, but i have choice between i5 3330, and FX 6300. As i seen, Piledriver is noticeable better chip for gaming then Bulldozer. I can maybe strech for FX 8320, so thats option too.I now have FX 8120 and its clocked to 4.0Ghz.

With you current rig, your best bet is to get the FX6300 and overclock the bejesus out of it.

You can throw it in your current rig and get it up closer to 5ghz with that Noctua cooler.

I would stay away from the 8300 simply because I am concerned about getting the higher clock speeds out of your motherboard with those extra cores, and there's no point going for an intel rig from your position unless it is at least to an i7 Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge. Anything less wouldn't be worth the costs involved IMO.
MicroPuter
(24 items)
 
PortaPuter
(6 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5-3210m 2gb Radeon HD7670m DDR3 @ 780mhz/1095mhz 6gb DDR3 1600mhz 500gb HDD 
OSMonitor
Windows 8 64bit 14" Brightview LED (1366x768) 
  hide details  
Reply
MicroPuter
(24 items)
 
PortaPuter
(6 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5-3210m 2gb Radeon HD7670m DDR3 @ 780mhz/1095mhz 6gb DDR3 1600mhz 500gb HDD 
OSMonitor
Windows 8 64bit 14" Brightview LED (1366x768) 
  hide details  
Reply
post #3 of 36
First of all, you can't compare Ghz across platforms. CPU speed is actually quite complicated. But in general you can figure it is a result of speed (Ghz) multiplied by instructions per clock (IPC). Currently, Intel chips have a higher IPC than AMD chips. So Intel Ghz are worth more than AMD Ghz.

As for the actual selection you're looking at, it's tough to say. For new systems they cost about the same, with the i5 being a little cheaper (why? if you get a cheap B75m motherboard & no aftermarket cooler, this makes up the price difference).

Then, if you don't overclock, the locked i5 is significantly better than the fx-6300.
If you do overclock, their performance is about the same.

Exception: Shogun: Total War. Ivy Bridge CPUs (the i5) are vastly superior to all other CPU families for Total War games. Why? Something to do with the minor instruction set changes.

Since you have a mobo & cooler that'll work for the fx-6300, & are willing to overclock, it seems a better choice than the i5 (for which, presumably, you'd have to buy a new mobo), because that would be the cheaper option.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
G850 ASRock H61M-GS MSI Twin Frozr 650ti Patriot 2x2GB 
Hard DriveCoolingPowerMouse
Barracuda 500GB HR-02 Macho Rosewill Green 430 Mionix Naos 3200 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
G850 ASRock H61M-GS MSI Twin Frozr 650ti Patriot 2x2GB 
Hard DriveCoolingPowerMouse
Barracuda 500GB HR-02 Macho Rosewill Green 430 Mionix Naos 3200 
  hide details  
Reply
post #4 of 36
Thread Starter 
Yes i know that gigaherz r not the same on Intel and AMD. I can swap my board and CPU for i5 3330 and MSI H77MA-G43. Or i can sell FX 8120 and buy FX 6300 ( or strech to FX 8320 ) becouse i think that Piledriver even six core is better gaming chip then bulldozer. Either way, NH-D14 will cool the chip, i5 or FX ( i will return to overclocking later if i buy locked i5 now ). i5 is significantly better on power too, and i presum in gaming scenarios. I also think that FX 6300 @ 4.5 Ghz is on pair with i5 i n general on games but with much more power draw. So is it worth to swap FX 8120 for i5 3330 ???
post #5 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by itomic View Post

So is it worth to swap FX 8120 for i5 3330 ???

It will come down to personal preferences, logistics and price in the end.

If it were me, I would get the 6300 and clock as high as I could. I would avoid the i5 trade due to the motherboard, since it doesn't really offer an upgrade path to the i5 3570k/3770k and those clock speeds. It seems like a moot point in the end, except that I like overclocking, and power usage is relatively irrelevant to me (since my PC is in idle states like 85% of the time).
Edited by willibj - 12/30/12 at 11:35am
MicroPuter
(24 items)
 
PortaPuter
(6 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5-3210m 2gb Radeon HD7670m DDR3 @ 780mhz/1095mhz 6gb DDR3 1600mhz 500gb HDD 
OSMonitor
Windows 8 64bit 14" Brightview LED (1366x768) 
  hide details  
Reply
MicroPuter
(24 items)
 
PortaPuter
(6 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5-3210m 2gb Radeon HD7670m DDR3 @ 780mhz/1095mhz 6gb DDR3 1600mhz 500gb HDD 
OSMonitor
Windows 8 64bit 14" Brightview LED (1366x768) 
  hide details  
Reply
post #6 of 36
FX-6300 is far superior to a locked i5. Most games nowadays are utilizing more than 4 cores. The only advantage the locked i5 has is better single core performance in single threaded games like SC2, and shogun. But I still play both just fine.

As said already get the 6300 and abude that baby with overclock. I was gonna go intel but cause I mainly game I cant justify going back considering 1155 is dead socket, and AM3+ still has one more upgrade. AMD has already acknowledged current failures and is correcting them in steamroller.
Upgrayedd
(8 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1700 @ 3.95GHz 1.387v Asus Prime B350 Plus  RX480 XFX RS 1350/2200 Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB 2933Mhz cas 14 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
Samsung 950 Pro M.2 Windows 10 pro x64 Viotek curved FHD 144Hz EVGA 750w 80 Bronze 
  hide details  
Reply
Upgrayedd
(8 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1700 @ 3.95GHz 1.387v Asus Prime B350 Plus  RX480 XFX RS 1350/2200 Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB 2933Mhz cas 14 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
Samsung 950 Pro M.2 Windows 10 pro x64 Viotek curved FHD 144Hz EVGA 750w 80 Bronze 
  hide details  
Reply
post #7 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimaggio1103 View Post

FX-6300 is far superior to a locked i5. Most games nowadays are utilizing more than 4 cores. The only advantage the locked i5 has is better single core performance in single threaded games like SC2, and shogun. But I still play both just fine.
As said already get the 6300 and abude that baby with overclock. I was gonna go intel but cause I mainly game I cant justify going back considering 1155 is dead socket, and AM3+ still has one more upgrade. AMD has already acknowledged current failures and is correcting them in steamroller.

The fx-6300 is the way to go, for the reasons I stated above. But please do not spread mis-information:

Most games do not use more than 4 cores, at least not effectively. The fx-6300 is not significantly superior to a locked i5 (benchmarks!). SC2 is dual-threaded, not single-threaded. Shogun can utilize at least four cores - the advantage ivy bridge has in that game is likely due to the improved instruction set of Ivy Bridge, nothing to do with core speed & number. AMD is hardly going to say steamroller is going to be a flop - whether or not it becomes a huge improvement/success AMD will promise that it will, so that evidence is worthless.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
G850 ASRock H61M-GS MSI Twin Frozr 650ti Patriot 2x2GB 
Hard DriveCoolingPowerMouse
Barracuda 500GB HR-02 Macho Rosewill Green 430 Mionix Naos 3200 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
G850 ASRock H61M-GS MSI Twin Frozr 650ti Patriot 2x2GB 
Hard DriveCoolingPowerMouse
Barracuda 500GB HR-02 Macho Rosewill Green 430 Mionix Naos 3200 
  hide details  
Reply
post #8 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterFred View Post

The fx-6300 is the way to go, for the reasons I stated above. But please do not spread mis-information:
Most games do not use more than 4 cores, at least not effectively. The fx-6300 is not significantly superior to a locked i5 (benchmarks!). SC2 is dual-threaded, not single-threaded. Shogun can utilize at least four cores - the advantage ivy bridge has in that game is likely due to the improved instruction set of Ivy Bridge, nothing to do with core speed & number. AMD is hardly going to say steamroller is going to be a flop - whether or not it becomes a huge improvement/success AMD will promise that it will, so that evidence is worthless.

I meant they are single core performance reliant vs favoring more threads.

However, You are wrong a FX-6300 will absolutely destroy any loked i5. Im willing to through up benchmarks if need be. I have owned both so I speak from actual experience.

Also, its a well know fact of bulldozers failures, so how is AMD saying they are fixing those exact issues worthless? Vishera was a great improvment on a problematic architecture, so now with the archetecture being fixed where it failed before, is a good indication of performance. Bury your head in the sand all you want, its fact.

Not saying its going to stomp intel head to head, but AMD is trash talked way to much. a FX-8350 can perform just as good as a 3570K in multi threaded apps and games.

Oh and yes most games are becoming multthreaded.

This years top AAA game titles:

BF3- uses 6 cores

Crysis 2- 6 cores

Black ops 2- 6 cores

Metro 2033 - 4 cores

Crysis 3 alpha- 6 cores



Just what I have seen myself. If a old revamped game like black ops 2 can use 6 cores its a good indication top PC games will at least do the same with upcoming releases.

The best part is the 6300 is generally cheaper by alot than a locked i5 ivy as well. lachen.gif
Upgrayedd
(8 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1700 @ 3.95GHz 1.387v Asus Prime B350 Plus  RX480 XFX RS 1350/2200 Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB 2933Mhz cas 14 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
Samsung 950 Pro M.2 Windows 10 pro x64 Viotek curved FHD 144Hz EVGA 750w 80 Bronze 
  hide details  
Reply
Upgrayedd
(8 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1700 @ 3.95GHz 1.387v Asus Prime B350 Plus  RX480 XFX RS 1350/2200 Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB 2933Mhz cas 14 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
Samsung 950 Pro M.2 Windows 10 pro x64 Viotek curved FHD 144Hz EVGA 750w 80 Bronze 
  hide details  
Reply
post #9 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimaggio1103 View Post

I meant they are single core performance reliant vs favoring more threads.
However, You are wrong a FX-6300 will absolutely destroy any loked i5. Im willing to through up benchmarks if need be. I have owned both so I speak from actual experience.

Gaming benchmarks only please. BTW, did the locked i5 vs overclocked fx-6300 thread you were talking about creating with that other poster go anywhere? I was looking forward to that.
Quote:
Also, its a well know fact of bulldozers failures, so how is AMD saying they are fixing those exact issues worthless? Vishera was a great improvment on a problematic architecture, so now with the archetecture being fixed where it failed before, is a good indication of performance. Bury your head in the sand all you want, its fact.

AMD claimed Bulldozer was going to be the next best thing! New instruction sets! Competing in the high-end gaming processor world. FAIL. AMD claimed Vishera was going to be a huge improvement to Bulldozer. Success! Now what did I say... regardless of whether Steamroller proves to be a big improvement/success, AMD will promise huge gains. My statement is proven by (recent!) history. Personally I hope they get the same gaming gains with Steamroller that they got with Vishera - but who knows? Maybe they already got all the low-hanging fruit & there's not much room for improvement in the architecture. Maybe Haswell will flop, show no gaming benefit over Ivy Bridge & Steamroller will take the gaming performance crown. I'll wait for the reviews & benchmarks and not put my faith in empty marketing promises. It's silly that you choose to do the opposite.
Quote:
A FX-8350 can perform just as good as a 3570K in multi threaded apps and games.

No. An fx-8350 is not the equivalent as an i5-3570k for gaming. The i5-3570k is superior in more games, by a larger margin when compared to the very few games an fx-8350 shows an advantage in. Your statement would be fair if you said "an fx-8350 can perform just as good as an i5-3570k in most games."
Quote:
Oh and yes most games are becoming multthreaded.
This years top AAA game titles:
BF3- uses 6 cores
Crysis 2- 6 cores
Black ops 2- 6 cores
Metro 2033 - 4 cores
Crysis 3 alpha- 6 cores

No. You are wrong in general. And wrong in the specifics.

BF3 - yes, for large multiplayer maps this CPU does benefit from 6 cores.

Crysis 2: Benchmarks show zero performance benefit for 6-core processors. In fact, with any kind of half-demanding graphics settings, processor is irrelevant:

Testing done with a GTX 580. Source.

Even when graphics demand is reduced to the point where differences between CPUs in Crysis 2 can be seen, hexa-core CPUs provide ZERO benefit over quad-cores.

Note the difference (lack thereof) between the Phenom II x4 & Phenom II x6 processors. Source.
So it is just foolish to recommend paying for a six-core processor if you want to play Crysis 2. Why on earth would you call it a game that uses 6 cores? Because the developer said so? Don't be so naive.

Black Ops 2 is another example of a game that benefits not at all from 6 cores. Heck, it barely benefits from more than 2.

Note the minuscule difference between the Athlon II x2 and Athlon II x4 & i3-3220 and i5-3470. Once again, benchmarks show you are just wrong. Black Ops 2 does not benefit from six cores. And dual-core CPUs run the game just fine.
Quote:
Just what I have seen myself. If a old revamped game like black ops 2 can use 6 cores
As we see above, it does not. So the question pops up, why did you think it did? Was the answer that the performance tab in task manager showed it doing so? I'm guessing not. But if so, that tab is not capable of displaying the number of cores a program can effectively utilize.

Metro 2033 - yes quad-core is a benefit over dual-core here.

Crysis 3 alpha - why you'd even bring up a game still in alpha is a little puzzling. But yes, Crysis 3 alpha does show some benefit to six cores - though a quad-core with better per-core (single-threaded) performance will still be far preferable to a six-core CPU with lower per-core performance. So the i5 would be expected to be better than the fx-6300 here. Source. ...at least until the alpha is neutered to comply with the demands of consoles. Then all bets are off.
Quote:
The best part is the 6300 is generally cheaper by alot than a locked i5 ivy as well. lachen.gif

This is true only when one ignores motherboard & cooler costs. As is the case for the OP. Which is why I recommend the fx-6300 for him.
Edited by MisterFred - 12/30/12 at 1:06pm
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
G850 ASRock H61M-GS MSI Twin Frozr 650ti Patriot 2x2GB 
Hard DriveCoolingPowerMouse
Barracuda 500GB HR-02 Macho Rosewill Green 430 Mionix Naos 3200 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
G850 ASRock H61M-GS MSI Twin Frozr 650ti Patriot 2x2GB 
Hard DriveCoolingPowerMouse
Barracuda 500GB HR-02 Macho Rosewill Green 430 Mionix Naos 3200 
  hide details  
Reply
post #10 of 36
Thread Starter 
About the price of FX 6300 and i5. In my country ( beautiful Croatia ) i5 3330 costs abot 40% more then FX 6300 !!!! But that isnt the point hier. Even FX 8320 costs less then i5 3330 and i allready have solid board and good cooler.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › FX 6300 vs i5 3300