Is The AMD FX 6300 Really That Bad of a CPU?

[glitchmaster0001]

Hi so recently ive built a budget gaming PC for my friend because he wanted something that was sub $400. so of course with that kind of a budget i had no choice but to use AMD for their cheap CPUs in this case i chose the FX 6300 CPU. but would that CPU paired with a GTX 950 be able to run games at 1080p in high settings? here, ill leave a link of the build on PCPartPicker here. http://pcpartpicker.com/p/kngfNG

 

NOTE: in the link the build has no PSU and Case because i bought those on Craigslist. 

 

For the case i saw a brand new CoolerMaster Case from the early 2000's for $30 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119035

 

For the PSU i went with a used Antec EarthWatts 650w for $20 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817371015 (Probably gonna blow out on him lol)

 

Also based on this build what are your thoughts on what i couldve done better on it. i need some feedback so i can improve my skills. 

[DavidTheWin]

No it wouldn't be able to run games at 1080p high settings unless they were older games. You can't do that with a sub $400 budget.

[ZetZet]

i3 6100 is faster in games.

 

but with a 950 it will be hard to notice. Just enjoy your build. And I recommend your next upgrade be an SSD.

[QueenDemetria]

Its terrible, so bad it it gets a negative FPS, which means its stealing FPS from the souls of Athlons and Phenoms.

 

 

jk, they are't terrible as they certainly get the job done, but if your primary use is gaming then a i3/i5 will give you better performance for a similar price. 

[CommanderAlex]

A friend of mine is building a PC with a FX 6300, he is using 16GB RAM and a 750 but I dont think he plans on playing at high with any game of some sort. More of just medium settings with a FX 6300 unless your OC it heavily. 

[Glenwing]

It's not "bad", it's still decent for gaming. It's just not as good as Intel offerings in most cases. Depends on regional pricing.

[byalexandr]

It's better to get an i3 for now, I actually sold my old platform with the 6300 for the one I have currently.

 

-Better upgrade path. The 8350 and even the 9590 is not much of an upgrade if at all (for gaming).

-Even an i3 doesn't bottleneck GPUs like the FX processors do. I run a 290 with my 4170 and only in very CPU intensive games does it bottleneck.

-Cooler chip, and my i3 is probably the most stable piece of hardware in my system to be honest.

[glitchmaster0001]

No it wouldn't be able to run games at 1080p high settings unless they were older games. You can't do that with a sub $400 budget.

all i know from my client is that he likes to play only minecraft and he wants to be able to do that with shaders. and all the setting on high 

[Lotus]

If you already have one, it's not bad. It's still usable.

 

If you don't own one and are in the market, it makes no sense to buy right now because there are better options out there for the same price, especially when you factor in the platform cost of the mobo. You can't use a $40 mobo with an FX-6350. In fact, the one you linked to is not something I'd recommend pairing with it. It's not an FX-8 core, but you still need beefier than normal VRMs for it.

 

If you want something instead of the FX-6350, on the cheaper side there's the X4 860k which is better for gaming with it's slightly higher IPC and ability to hit higher clocks, and if you have $205, then an i5-4460 for $165 and a cheap h81 motherboard for $40 is the way to go. In most cases even a Skylake i3 + h110 would be better and cheaper, but you'll lose out a bit on multi-threaded performance.

[RuLeZ]

FX 6300 @ 4,4Ghz (which most people can do with air cooling) is still a good CPU .

[Lotus]

Oh, for minecraft, if you can stretch the budget just a tad you can get this:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i3-6100 3.7GHz Dual-Core Processor  ($114.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H110M-A Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  ($45.99 @ Amazon)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory  ($35.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: A-Data Premier SP550 120GB 2.5" Solid State Drive  ($39.99 @ NCIX US)
Video Card: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950 2GB Dual WindForce Video Card  ($139.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Xion XON-310_BK MicroATX Mid Tower Case  ($21.98 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: EVGA 430W 80+ Certified ATX Power Supply  ($19.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $418.92
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-01-19 18:24 EST-0500

 

 

If not, see if you can scavenge either a case or an HDD, because for minecraft that system is likely your best bet. Hell, if it's JUST for minecraft, you may consider going with a Pentium G3258, but that's ONLY suited for minecraft.

[Bananasplit_00]

used to have a FX6300 and its really not that bad. really good if you can get it for cheaps or just to stuff into a budget rig with something like a lower end NVIDIA card. i used to have a shitty GTX750TI with mine and there was no bottlenecking but you would have bottlenecking if you went with something like a R9 390 or GTX970. 

[crystal6tak]

all i know from my client is that he likes to play only minecraft and he wants to be able to do that with shaders. and all the setting on high 

Minecraft and FX cpu don't mix. I know this first hand. Best to try to go the intel route. See if you can get a i3 6100 based build instead.

[FruitBasketSilex]

Inb4 @Prysin defending it.

[Commander_Z]

i had a system that had an FX-6300 paired with an EVGA 660 SC, which was decent for medium to high 1080p.

[Marinatall_Ironside]

It's not "bad", it's still decent for gaming. It's just not as good as Intel offerings in most cases. Depends on regional pricing.

I agree. In the United States, you can find an Intel processor that's better than the FX-6300 for a similar price with better single-threaded performance and power consumption. But again, depends on the region you're in.

[Fire Yoshi]

It's perfectly fine for gaming as long as you don't have a 980Ti or the likes. My brother has a rig with an FX-6300 and an R7 370 in it, and it runs BF4 on medium-high at 1080p 60FPS.

[runit3]

all i know from my client is that he likes to play only minecraft and he wants to be able to do that with shaders. and all the setting on high 

http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/partlist/

An i3 would have handled minecraft better unless you got a magical OC out of the FX, which I doubt would be possible on the board in that config. Also, a GTX 950 is a complete waste when R9-280's are only $40 more and well worth it. Can even pickup used 280X's for less than that (~$150usd).

[PlayStation 2]

Inb4 @Prysin defending it.

Prysin defends it for a reason, and that's because there's a ton of circlejerking centering the i3. Is it better than the i3? Not in gaming, but it's typically not worse than it, either. Clock for clock, the FX-6300 and i3 are close enough where it won't make a difference with a mid range card like the 950.

Now when it comes to video editing and other productivity suites, more cores trumps better cores unless said cores are total fucking shit (say, compare an AMD Athlon 5150 vs. the Pentium G3258, or even like hyperthreaded i3s vs. underclocked (and I mean around 2.4GHz) FX-4300s.)

[Rylie59]

Having one myself, I can say that it does everything I want it too. It's not bad especially when overclocked. Not to mention that it's going in a sub $400 build with a low-mid end GPU. Also, as a heads up, I've used that motherboard before, and it only lasted me two months before it died. 

[FruitBasketSilex]

Prysin defends it for a reason, and that's because there's a ton of circlejerking centering the i3. Is it better than the i3? Not in gaming, but it's typically not worse than it, either. Clock for clock, the FX-6300 and i3 are close enough where it won't make a difference with a mid range card like the 950.

Now when it comes to video editing and other productivity suites, more cores trumps better cores unless said cores are total fucking shit (say, compare an AMD Athlon 5150 vs. the Pentium G3258, or even like hyperthreaded i3s vs. underclocked (and I mean around 2.4GHz) FX-4300s.)

Please point out where I said anything to the contrary. All I did was pre-empt Prysins defense of it.

Now that you have noticed that I didn't say anything you can get out.

[PlayStation 2]

Please point out where I said anything to the contrary. All I did was pre-empt Prysins defense of it.

Now that you have noticed that I didn't say anything you can get out.

What I was saying that Prysin defends the FX series for a reason. He knows damn well that it's not gonna outperform Haswell, but it doesn't have to for its price.

[Nena Trinity]

It is as good as the i3(not skylake i3) no reason to worry also you can OC it!

[Demonking]

Prysin defends it for a reason, and that's because there's a ton of circlejerking centering the i3. Is it better than the i3? Not in gaming, but it's typically not worse than it, either. Clock for clock, the FX-6300 and i3 are close enough where it won't make a difference with a mid range card like the 950.

Now when it comes to video editing and other productivity suites, more cores trumps better cores unless said cores are total fucking shit (say, compare an AMD Athlon 5150 vs. the Pentium G3258, or even like hyperthreaded i3s vs. underclocked (and I mean around 2.4GHz) FX-4300s.)

it's not beating the skylake i3.

[KuJoe]

The only game I can't run at max settings in 1080p while (recording at 720p) that I've tried so far is Metro: Last Light. Fallout 4 runs smoothly though which is probably the newest game I own and play regularly.

 

My FX-6300 is OC'ed to 4.1GHz (if that matters at all) and I'm running an old Radeon HD 7970 my brother had laying around.