Is the fx-6300 a Good Budget CPU?

[stupendelious]

So I have been looking to make my own computer for about 2 months now. I mostly use my computer that I own now for gaming and schoolwork so thats what I want for this new pc to be good at. I've been doing a ton of research and the fx-6300 looks like a good choice but i'm not to sure. If there is another better cpu than this that you would recommend please tell me. Thanks!

[Enderman]

an i3 would be better, especially for games

[stupendelious]

@Enderman What would you recommend in paticular for a cpu that cost less than $150?

[dukethedj]

an i3 would be better, especially for games

For new AAA games, the FX might be better.

[Kobathor]

For new AAA games, the FX might be better.

^^ THIS!

 

Newer games might not even run with 2 hyperthreaded cores. Just because it has an "i" in front of it does not mean it's better.

 

Go with a 6300.

[Enderman]

@Enderman What would you recommend in paticular for cpu that cost let that $150?

you can find a very good i5 for less than $150 used

you dont need to buy a new one

a used one that works is just as good

look for something between a 4460 and a 4690k, even older generations like a 3570k or 2500k will outperform that AMD CPU

 

For new AAA games, the FX might be better.

no, very few games use more than 4 threads, so the extra performance from 2 more cores only exists in a couple games, and its not a lot

higher core performance affects fps much more

[Enderman]

^^ THIS!

 

Newer games might not even run with 2 hyperthreaded cores. Just because it has an "i" in front of it does not mean it's better.

 

Go with a 6300.

there are no games that need 5+ cores to run

4 threads is enough to run ANY game

we are not at the point yet where you need 8 cores for a game to run, everything runs fine on a quad core

 

the issue with running games was with the pentium g2580 which has two NON HYPERTHREADED cores

an i3 has 4 threads, which is essentially 4 cores to games, they will all run perfectly

 

plus OP has a $150 budget which can get a very powerful i5 used, better than any AMD CPU that exists

[Kobathor]

there are no games that need 5+ cores to run

4 threads is enough to run ANY game

the issue with running games was with the pentium g2580 which has two NON HYPERTHREADED cores

 

plus OP has a $150 budget which can get a very powerful i5 used, better than any AMD CPU that exists

My OC'd 8350 beats some i5's. But, yeah, just spend the money on a better CPU.

 

Also, with DX12's multi-core optimization my CPU will last me a while.

 

Also, OP, is it $150 for just CPU? Not Mobo? If it's just for the CPU, get a half decent i5.

[Enderman]

My OC'd 8350 beats some i5's. But, yeah, just spend the money on a better CPU.

 

Also, with DX12's multi-core optimization my CPU will last me a while.

 

Also, OP, is it $150 for just CPU? Not Mobo? If it's just for the CPU, get a half decent i5.

in multithreaded programs yeah of course, not in games that use 4 cores or less

 

unless youre comparing your 8350 to a low end i5 like a 4430 or something

[Kobathor]

in multithreaded programs yeah of course, not in games that use 4 cores or less

 

unless youre comparing your 8350 to a low end i5 like a 4430 or something

Nah, ones like the 4460/4590 see no performance boost I'm pretty sure. Unless the game really hates cores, it runs pretty well.

 

My friend (who has a better CPU now) had a 4460 in his computer (before getting a 4770k for $150) and a comparable GPU (960 VS my 7970.) In CPU intensive tasks that utilize 5+ cores mine beat his every time (no OC on either chip.) We were having a contest to see whose did better.

 

I made a thread about games like Garry's Mod that only use 2 cores, his smokes mine. But, in AAA titles you're better off saving some bucks. In BF4/Battlefront 3 my CPU never gets above 70% usage and I get really good frames (only being held back by GPU.)

[Enderman]

Nah, ones like the 4460/4590 see no performance boost I'm pretty sure. Unless the game really hates cores, it runs pretty well.

 

My friend (who has a better CPU now) had a 4460 in his computer (before getting a 4770k for $150) and a comparable GPU (960 VS my 7970.) In CPU intensive tasks that utilize 5+ cores mine beat his every time (no OC on either chip.) We were having a contest to see whose did better.

 

I made a thread about games like Garry's Mod that only use 2 cores, his smokes mine. But, in AAA titles you're better off saving some bucks. In BF4/Battlefront 3 my CPU never gets above 70% usage and I get really good frames (only being held back by GPU.)

well the 7970 is noticeably better than a 960...so thats not a really good comparison

[Kobathor]

well the 7970 is noticeably better than a 960...so thats not a really good comparison

In CPU intensive tasks, as I stated in my post. 

 

Again, unless the tasks were single core optimised. Most games these days utilize many cores, and run great on any CPU. 

 

Sorry for the confusion. 

 

I got my CPU in 2012. I didn't buy it. If given the chance today, I would buy a 4460 or 4690k for myself. I like my CPU. I wouldn't recommend it, but for a processor from three or so years ago it has served me well. 

[PCPartPickerPro9171787]

So I have been looking to make my own computer for about 2 months now. I mostly use my computer that I own now for gaming and schoolwork so thats what I want for this new pc to be good at. I've been doing a ton of research and the fx-6300 looks like a good choice but i'm not to sure. If there is another better cpu than this that you would recommend please tell me. Thanks!

I would suggest the would suggest AMD Athlon X4 860K Quad-Core 3.7 GHz.

I will perform better in video games because it has 4 physical cores and it cost $70 instead of $100.

The FX 6300 has 3 physical cores and 3 logical core which makes it good budge CPU for video editing but not so much for video games.

 

Edit:

I would stay away from the I3 because only a sight performance boost  for $120 (almost double). It just is not justified from a price to performance perspective.  

compare

[Prysin]

@Enderman

in games made in 2013 and later, minus DX9 and DX10 games, FX 6300 should be within 5-10 FPS of an i3 in most titles. Even Arma3 the FX is keepin up.

BUT, i agree that if you are talking about 150$ for the CPU alone, a used i5 or i7 is way way way way better.

However if we are talking of 150$ for CPU + mobo, then you get a much nicer feature set out of a AMD mobo in this price range. Sure you have no upgrade path, but aslong as you aint aiming for 80+ FPS in every game, then the FX should manage.

Again though, if it is 150$ for CPU alone, used i5/i7 any day

[Enderman]

@Enderman

in games made in 2013 and later, minus DX9 and DX10 games, FX 6300 should be within 5-10 FPS of an i3 in most titles. Even Arma3 the FX is keepin up.

BUT, i agree that if you are talking about 150$ for the CPU alone, a used i5 or i7 is way way way way better.

However if we are talking of 150$ for CPU + mobo, then you get a much nicer feature set out of a AMD mobo in this price range. Sure you have no upgrade path, but aslong as you aint aiming for 80+ FPS in every game, then the FX should manage.

Again though, if it is 150$ for CPU alone, used i5/i7 any day

 

 

[Prysin]

I would suggest the would suggest AMD Athlon X4 860K Quad-Core 3.7 GHz.

I will perform better in video games because it has 4 physical cores and it cost $70 instead of $100.

The FX 6300 has 3 physical cores and 3 logical core which makes it good budge CPU for video editing but not so much for video games.

 

Edit:

I would stay away from the I3 because only a sight performance boost  for $120 (almost double). It just is not justified from a price to performance perspective.  

the 860k does NOT have 4 proper cores. It is based on Steamroller, which is just an updated version of the Piledriver architecture found in the FX.

Athlon X4 860k is 2 modules, 4 "cores".

The Athlon also has the same weakness as the i3 when comparing it to the FX 6300. In games able to even utilize (dont even need to be optimized for) over 4 cores, the FX has WAY better minimums.

The FX 6300 will also drive bigger GPUs, a FX 6300 can handle a R9 290X at best (so a R9 390 with todays performance). An Athlon 860k will struggle to drive any GPU over a R9 380/R9 280X

[Prysin]

 

 

Nice benchmarks mate, except one ittle note. Which is not in either one of us's benefit.

The FX show little benefit of OC above 4.5GHz over stock... even at 4.5GHz the boost getting there is well, not huge. You would prob not see much less of a bonus going from 3.5GHz (stock) to 4.2GHz then you would going from 3.5GHz (stock) to 4.5GHz.....

An i3 is not easy to OC either as it require tinkering with the base clock, which is much more sensitive to changing stuff then the core clock multiplier is...

So while a i3 can, with some boards atleast, be OCd, the FX can be OCd much easier.

So there is that...

And even with a OC, the i3s only really win by less then 10FPS...

i know you hate FX mate. but listen.

A FX + ASrock 970m PRO3 gives you the ability to OC to around 4-4.4GHz depending on how good your CPU OCs... it offers all SATA3 ports, two card Crossfire and support for more memory then most intel boards at that price range. It costs like 150 bucks for the two.

An i3 4170 starts at 114 USD, the closest board to offer equal features costs 65-73 bucks last time i checked (i checked at monday)... that is 170-180 bucks... so 20-30 bucks more to get teh same features, yet the CPU performance is negligeble at best....

See where im going mate?

Just because it is intel, doesnt mean it is ALWAYS the best choice.

A PC is more then a CPU and GPU. It has many other parts. Nerfing expansion ability and other forms of performance for the sake of 10% performance doesnt really make sense, nor does it make up for the disparity in price of doing so.

[Dabombinable]

Nice benchmarks mate, except one ittle note. Which is not in either one of us's benefit.

The FX show little benefit of OC above 4.5GHz over stock... even at 4.5GHz the boost getting there is well, not huge. You would prob not see much less of a bonus going from 3.5GHz (stock) to 4.2GHz then you would going from 3.5GHz (stock) to 4.5GHz.....

An i3 is not easy to OC either as it require tinkering with the base clock, which is much more sensitive to changing stuff then the core clock multiplier is...

So while a i3 can, with some boards atleast, be OCd, the FX can be OCd much easier.

So there is that...

And even with a OC, the i3s only really win by less then 10FPS...

i know you hate FX mate. but listen.

A FX + ASrock 970m PRO3 gives you the ability to OC to around 4-4.4GHz depending on how good your CPU OCs... it offers all SATA3 ports, two card Crossfire and support for more memory then most intel boards at that price range. It costs like 150 bucks for the two.

An i3 4170 starts at 114 USD, the closest board to offer equal features costs 65-73 bucks last time i checked (i checked at monday)... that is 170-180 bucks... so 20-30 bucks more to get teh same features, yet the CPU performance is negligeble at best....

See where im going mate?

Just because it is intel, doesnt mean it is ALWAYS the best choice.

A PC is more then a CPU and GPU. It has many other parts. Nerfing expansion ability and other forms of performance for the sake of 10% performance doesnt really make sense, nor does it make up for the disparity in price of doing so.

You are forgetting some things however, the TDP of the FX 6300 and the clock speed they need to even come close to matching an i3. Overclocking isn't everything. Also if your talking about overclocking the FX 6300, you need a motherboard with beefy VRM and a good aftermarket cooler.

[Prysin]

You are forgetting some things however, the TDP of the FX 6300 and the clock speed they need to even come close to matching an i3. Overclocking isn't everything. Also if your talking about overclocking the FX 6300, you need a motherboard with beefy VRM and a good aftermarket cooler.

i would take AMDs TDP and Intels TDP with a grain of salt. They do not measure it the same way.

as a sidenote, with AMDs APUs, ive found that their actual power drain, thus relative heat output, is lower then they rate their APUs at...

If i still had my FX i would love to test if that holds true with the 8320 i had too... AMD does the same with their GPUs, but they arent as generous there, or they are perhaps more accurate at rating those...

Dunno how AMD measures their TDP... sometimes it looks like they are using furmark to rate their stuff. Because at stock voltages (locked for default stability testing purposes) i found their TDP to not even closesly match their rating.

Take the Athlon 860k, pure CPU...

my 7870k at stock speeds (that is still higher clocked then stock 860k) is running at around 65-70w... far below the rated 95w that the slower 860k is rated at...

hell, the 7870k with the iGPU running valley and Cinebench at the same time barely gets above 125w system draw when CPU is manually OCd to 4.6GHz and iGPU is manually OCd to 1020MHz...... that power draw includes a AIO, 4 fans and RAM with LEDs and a WD Black2 hybrid drive......

[don_svetlio]

i would take AMDs TDP and Intels TDP with a grain of salt. They do not measure it the same way.

as a sidenote, with AMDs APUs, ive found that their actual power drain, thus relative heat output, is lower then they rate their APUs at...

If i still had my FX i would love to test if that holds true with the 8320 i had too... AMD does the same with their GPUs, but they arent as generous there, or they are perhaps more accurate at rating those...

Dunno how AMD measures their TDP... sometimes it looks like they are using furmark to rate their stuff. Because at stock voltages (locked for default stability testing purposes) i found their TDP to not even closesly match their rating.

Take the Athlon 860k, pure CPU...

my 7870k at stock speeds (that is still higher clocked then stock 860k) is running at around 65-70w... far below the rated 95w that the slower 860k is rated at...

hell, the 7870k with the iGPU running valley and Cinebench at the same time barely gets above 125w system draw when CPU is manually OCd to 4.6GHz and iGPU is manually OCd to 1020MHz...... that power draw includes a AIO, 4 fans and RAM with LEDs and a WD Black2 hybrid drive......

This is how AMD is seen mostly

[awildbrysen]

i would take AMDs TDP and Intels TDP with a grain of salt. They do not measure it the same way.

as a sidenote, with AMDs APUs, ive found that their actual power drain, thus relative heat output, is lower then they rate their APUs at...

If i still had my FX i would love to test if that holds true with the 8320 i had too... AMD does the same with their GPUs, but they arent as generous there, or they are perhaps more accurate at rating those...

Dunno how AMD measures their TDP... sometimes it looks like they are using furmark to rate their stuff. Because at stock voltages (locked for default stability testing purposes) i found their TDP to not even closesly match their rating.

Take the Athlon 860k, pure CPU...

my 7870k at stock speeds (that is still higher clocked then stock 860k) is running at around 65-70w... far below the rated 95w that the slower 860k is rated at...

hell, the 7870k with the iGPU running valley and Cinebench at the same time barely gets above 125w system draw when CPU is manually OCd to 4.6GHz and iGPU is manually OCd to 1020MHz...... that power draw includes a AIO, 4 fans and RAM with LEDs and a WD Black2 hybrid drive......

How do you test the TDP? I'm running a fx-6300 I would like to see the difference in it.

I am happy with my fx, i have to come by a single that i cant run I gt a solid minimum of 30 fps on every game

[Dabombinable]

i would take AMDs TDP and Intels TDP with a grain of salt. They do not measure it the same way.

as a sidenote, with AMDs APUs, ive found that their actual power drain, thus relative heat output, is lower then they rate their APUs at...

If i still had my FX i would love to test if that holds true with the 8320 i had too... AMD does the same with their GPUs, but they arent as generous there, or they are perhaps more accurate at rating those...

Dunno how AMD measures their TDP... sometimes it looks like they are using furmark to rate their stuff. Because at stock voltages (locked for default stability testing purposes) i found their TDP to not even closesly match their rating.

Take the Athlon 860k, pure CPU...

my 7870k at stock speeds (that is still higher clocked then stock 860k) is running at around 65-70w... far below the rated 95w that the slower 860k is rated at...

hell, the 7870k with the iGPU running valley and Cinebench at the same time barely gets above 125w system draw when CPU is manually OCd to 4.6GHz and iGPU is manually OCd to 1020MHz...... that power draw includes a AIO, 4 fans and RAM with LEDs and a WD Black2 hybrid drive......

The rated TDP is extremely close to the power consumption with AMD's CPU-I have dealt with an FX 8350, Phenom II P920 and N970 after all. With my i7 4790K and Xeon X5450 however, despite the rated TDP the i7 consumes only 85W at 4.6GHz, and the Xeon was consuming 73W at its stock speed. I needed to overclock it to 4.4GHz to get close to the rated TDP. Also, think for a second how many modules the 7870K has, then look at the clock speed and performance delivered when compared to a locked i3 running at stock speeds.

 

How do you test the TDP? I'm running a fx-6300 I would like to see the difference in it.

I am happy with my fx, i have to come by a single that i cant run I gt a solid minimum of 30 fps on every game

Well you are using a 270X, which is below the threshold where the FX 6300 starts to bottleneck a graphics card.

[Guest trucker2]

Eurogamer did a review of gpu's for starwars battlefront:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-the-best-pc-hardware-for-star-wars-battlefront

And one key phrase is it is " DICE appears to have strongly optimised Battlefront for console,".

 

What does that mean​? Consoles like the xbox use 8 weak jaguar cores at 1.7 mhz. Eurogamer also did an article interviewing game developers in this article.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

Yes the article is 2 years old, game development takes 4 years. So it is still relevant.

 

When you take into account cpu/mb combos allot depends on what is available TO YOU. If all you can get with the 6300 is 100 dollar MB and the i3 cost the same and comes with a free MB go with the i3. On OC'ing, if someone give you a free MB don't jam it with twice the wattage it is rated for IMHO.

 

A 6300 with a USD 0.0 compliant MB (ie FREE) for 90 bucks is not just a good budget cpu, it is a GREAT budget cpu.

 

From a great channel on youtube​

[Dabombinable]

Eurogamer did a review of gpu's for starwars battlefront:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-the-best-pc-hardware-for-star-wars-battlefront

And one key phrase is it is " DICE appears to have strongly optimised Battlefront for console,".

 

What does that mean​? Consoles like the xbox use 8 weak jaguar cores at 1.7 mhz. Eurogamer also did an article interviewing game developers in this article.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

Yes the article is 2 years old, game development takes 4 years. So it is still relevant.

 

When you take into account cpu/mb combos allot depends on what is available TO YOU. If all you can get with the 6300 is 100 dollar MB and the i3 cost the same and comes with a free MB go with the i3. On OC'ing, if someone give you a free MB don't jam it with twice the wattage it is rated for IMHO.

 

A 6300 with a USD 0.0 compliant MB (ie FREE) for 90 bucks is not just a good budget cpu, it is a GREAT budget cpu.

 

From a great channel on youtube​

^Just ignore that wandering troll. Every AMD thread he spouts the same crap no matter what evidence is presented.^

[Rylie59]

I personally have an FX 6300, and I'm happy with it. However, there's not a good upgrade path.