I'm going to be putting together a budget ATX gaming RIG soon. I have the option to go with either CPU, both come with a motherboard that'll handle whatever each chip is capable of.
Coupled with something along the lines of a used R9 270 all the way up to a 280X
The CPU cooler will be a prolimatech megahalems.
Both systems will cost about the same overall. My question is, which CPU both overclocked to their max, will perform best in overall gaming? Anything from BF4, CS:GO, COD, ect...
i7-860 hands down, amd's single core performance is no where near as high as intel's. The 6300, has more "pseudo-cores" than anything because of their modules sharing resources. You really need to examine the various architectures to really understand the better value.
So we're 1 vs 1 on which way to go. Anyone else? I have till next weekend to sort this out, but it's nice to get prepared in the mean time. I think I can get the i7 build cheaper too.
From there you should be able to come to your own conclusions.
(For instance, in both single and multithreaded Cinebench, the 860 is better, while in certain rendering benchmarks/programs it seems the FX6300 is better. I'd venture a guess towards the clockspeeds being the difference here. But I know personally I'd go with the 860)
I figured these to be pretty close in performance. I must consider the difference between the two if the 6300 was at 4.5-4.6 and the 860 was at 4.0. Assuming I can get either one there with the CPU cooler being used. Shouldn't be an issue I suspect.
You need to consider how long the i7 860 was used and what speeds and more importantly what temps. If it was pulled from a dell it could've ran most it life at max temps or over, which would lessen its lifespan
You need to consider how long the i7 860 was used and what speeds and more importantly what temps. If it was pulled from a dell it could've ran most it life at max temps or over, which would lessen its lifespan
It's my friends. He built it. Very high end Asus motherboard. Running a cooler master 212 and was 100% stock its whole life. It's been sitting shut down for months. It's a virgin as far as I'm concerned.
The fx 6300 would be brand new with a GA 970a ud3p board.
I could get the Intel build with an antec 300, antec PSU, CPU, cpu cooler and board for $150 tops.
My fx 6300 is at my mom's so my son can play when he visits. If your friend wants to run some cinebench or something with the i7 860 I can run it on the fx 6300 this weekend.
one must not forget here that the i7 is clocked at 2.8ghz while the amd is at 3.5ghz, this is not quite an even comparison if you clock the i7 at the same speeds the benchmarks changes to favor the i7. We all know it can go way above that too.
one must not forget here that the i7 is clocked at 2.8ghz while the amd is at 3.5ghz, this is not quite an even comparison if you clock the i7 at the same speeds the benchmarks changes to favor the i7. We all know it can go way above that too.
That's what I mean. Would the i7 at 4.0 GHz offer better results than a 6300 at 4.5? Considering I should theoretically be able to achieve both of those quite easily.
fx6300 is already close to its max clock, scaling wise the overclocking will give you performance increase but look at the big jump the intel is going to make compared to the fx- 6300
the intel i7 860 should run from 4.1-4.4 in that range depending on chip @ the 1.4v range. clock per clock the intel will do more work on = frequencies
most benchmarks have the 860 winning by a little bit at its frequency disadvantage what happens when you add another 1.3ghz + to it.
Edit: looking back through all these old processor benchmarks, really gets to me, that old stuff doesn't come anywhere close to what we have now. Most of the stuff now is literally 3x the performance before massive overclocking headroom. It was not to long ago that i had my first i7 in my laptop, and i thought it would king forever and now its nothing.
Clocked 700MHz lower and it is still faster in single threaded applications and competes very closely in multithreaded ones. I admit, it's a small amount of benchmarks but still.
Just because the FX-6300 is newer is no reason to choose it.
fx6300 is already close to its max clock, scaling wise the overclocking will give you performance increase but look at the big jump the intel is going to make compared to the fx- 6300
the intel i7 860 should run from 4.1-4.4 in that range depending on chip @ the 1.4v range. clock per clock the intel will do more work on = frequencies
most benchmarks have the 860 winning by a little bit at its frequency disadvantage what happens when you add another 1.3ghz + to it.
Edit: looking back through all these old processor benchmarks, really gets to me, that old stuff doesn't come anywhere close to what we have now. Most of the stuff now is literally 3x the performance before massive overclocking headroom. It was not to long ago that i had my first i7 in my laptop, and i thought it would king forever and now its nothing.
that doesn't mean the i5 is worse than the FX-6300, that means the R280x is better than a 7950.
The FX-6300 is a dog, and so is the FX-8320. Nothing wrong with liking AMD, but don't glorify a sinking ship.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Ask a question
Ask a question
Overclock.net
27.8M posts
541.2K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to overclocking enthusiasts and testing the limits of computing. Come join the discussion about computing, builds, collections, displays, models, styles, scales, specifications, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!