New System - FX 6300 BE?

Discussion in 'AMD x86 CPUs and chipsets' started by moseymoose, Apr 6, 2015.

  1. moseymoose

    moseymoose New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2015
    Messages:
    18
    Hi guys, I couldn't find anything relevant to my question so here goes the new thread.

    Many many moons ago I decided I wanted an i5 4690k to get into overclocking and some serious gaming potential.

    I've never really got round to it because I can never warrant that much money on a system build, which brought me to pricing up a G3258 Anniversary Edition on a Z97 board, which gives me the option for that i5 later, if I want it.

    Then comes Dragon Age inquisition, I found that I'd pretty much need a CPU thats atleast quad core to even run it which stuffs up my G3258 build right away, so I've been looking up AMD stuff for the last day or so. Microsoft use AMD in the Xbox One so, they cant be that bad right?

    The kind of games I'll be playing are mostly RPG Skyrim, Dragon Age etc. and some online stuff like WoW and EVE Online. Haven't chosen a GPU yet, but in that sector, definately an AMD fan all the way.

    Hence the FX6300 on an MSI 970 Gaming or the new 970A Krait, I can't think why I'd need more than 6 cores for anything I do. Basically want to be able to game on high-ultra settings, do some light photo editing in the future with adobe, nothing too heavy like video editing or rendering.

    Love AMD for GPU and I chose them because they perform well and are good value (IMO) is this the same story with their CPUs? I'm also coming from using two Intel Core 2 Duo machines and a Pentium H/T before that so I've never been able to much in the way of gaming.
     
  2. 2_stroke

    2_stroke Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,252
    Location:
    cranbourne 3977
    Best to weigh it up against an i3 if going for a new mb and cpu. A FX 6300 is fine for a gamer that doesn't need insanely the best and who wants every fps. Though the i3 matches in alot of cases, best to weigh it up anyhow.

    Intel Core i3 4160 vs the fx 6300, then mb prices, through in benchmarks and intel wins. Though fun wise i love amd, i have being through them all and for real life difference for a normal gamer theirs non.
     
  3. OP
    OP
    moseymoose

    moseymoose New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2015
    Messages:
    18
    I'm just wondering if 2 cores is enough to game, and listen to music or download etc in the background. With my core 2 duo I know not much of a comparison, but that struggles with multiple programs especially if audio is involved.

    All I really care about is to be able to play any game I like in HD slightly better than an Xbox one while still having enough reserve left for minor background things.

    I will be water cooling, regardless of cpu :)

    So whatever gives me the most flexibility, and longevity at the lowest cost with a focus not just on being able to play games well in HD, but any game not just GPU intensive games. Mostly dragon age inquisition and the like.

    Having no experience with AMD, how does the 970/970A chipset compare to say a Z97. I won't be using m.2 or esata so rule that out of the equation.

    Also is the fx6300 a vashera chip?
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2015
  4. 2_stroke

    2_stroke Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,252
    Location:
    cranbourne 3977
  5. OP
    OP
    moseymoose

    moseymoose New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2015
    Messages:
    18
    Thanks for the feedback mate, yeah I won't be running more than 1 card nothing too fancy maybe up to $270 on a GPU, mod of the time, I'll be playing my PC through a 3DTV and less so a monitor with a very high refresh rate.

    Bang for buck is what I'm after, while I could save a couple of weeks longer for an i5k. I doubt I'd ever need or use it, and it's twice the price and still $80 more than an 8 core 8350 which I doubt I'd use either lol.

    Plus it seems like AMDs are very flexible overclockers I've hear the term headroom mentioned. I'm totally new to overclocking.

    If I ran a 970 board with a fx6300 overclocked o say 4.5ghz with an r9 GPU and 8gb of 1866 ram would I see better graphics performance than an Xbox one or ps4?
     
  6. TaroT

    TaroT Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2002
    Messages:
    8,708
    Location:
    Hazelbrook nsw 2779
    running a a8 7650 and 8 gig of ram you would see better performance than an Xbox :) so yeah in my opinion definitely.
     
  7. newlife

    newlife Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2012
    Messages:
    2,153
    Location:
    Adelaide, SA
    AMD are pretty good OCers and you shouldn't have a problem getting to 5ghz with minimal volts although it does very greatly between cpus but a good clocker can clock 5.5ghz+ 24/7.

    A 4ghz AMD quad is about equal to the cpu in the ps4 but does so with half the cores and gpu performance is around the r9 270 (non x)

    Some games may see performance problems because AMD has less than half the single threaded performance but shouldn't be a huge problem as long as you aren't running multiple high end gpus
     
  8. OP
    OP
    moseymoose

    moseymoose New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2015
    Messages:
    18
    One of my main reasons for looking at AMD is to get more into overclocking, I like the idea of getting the eat potential and efficiency out of a chip that might go otherwise wasted as stock. Hardware in general interests me.

    What do you mean by problems? In terms of stability (crashes) or just not top dog in some games, cause as long as I'm 1080p on high with a single GPU im not all that fussed :)

    I will be playing more games that use multi cores than anything else.

    What is the best AMD R9 GPU I can pair with an fx6300 and at what clock speed max if overclocked without a bottleneck?
     
  9. OP
    OP
    moseymoose

    moseymoose New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2015
    Messages:
    18
    Stability

    I rang MSI directly today because im trying to source the Krait edition board for a black and white case build, they seemed convinced I'd be better off with an Intel CPU as AMD is unstable and will bottleneck a CPU, and that they have had lots of complaints from customers with decent graphics cards about their AMD CPU bottle necking their graphics.

    Can anyone comment on this, how stable are their CPUs in real world application.
     
  10. HobartTas

    HobartTas Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Messages:
    787
    Greetings

    Some games run almost identically whereas a few others have a framerate only two thirds the Intel CPU, watch this youtube clip with a GTX970 video card and you'll probably end up buying the Intel chip. If you go with an AMD cpu then you might buy a game in the future that's in the latter category and if you don't have the speed and you absolutely need it then the only alternative you will have is to upgrade your CPU+mobo again of go for a much higher end video card to compensate for your slower AMD cpu and this will cost you a lot more.

    Overclocking CPU's doesn't make much difference for games as much as it used to as I have a I7 4930K hexacore and I was running it with a pair of GTX660Ti's in SLI and after overclocking it 800 Mhz from its stock 3.4? Ghz the frame rate in BF4 in high settings went from average 70 FPS to 80 FPS so not exactly a worthwhile increase. Watch the video and make up your own mind.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20QPpIqo-YY

    Cheers
     
  11. OP
    OP
    moseymoose

    moseymoose New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2015
    Messages:
    18
    To be honest on watching the video I can't really see a great deal of difference. A few FPS here and there, I can't really see any difference in the video but I am watching on a HD5450/Intel Core2Duo system.

    I won't be getting the K verison of the i5 series, at most my budget will push to the 4460 locked CPU, which as far as I can tell, apart from very marginal difference the 4460 seems mostly on par:

    http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4460-vs-AMD-FX-6300

    $105 difference in price (pccasegear) for the CPU and Z97 is more expensive than a 970 chipset, while the H97 on par price wise but only support up to 1600Mhz RAM.

    I mean if it really makes a huge difference I'd pay the $105 premium plus the $30 extra to get the z97 MSI board but that's still $135 I can spend on either a better GPU, or an AIO CPU Cooler.

    I've never actually used a system with an AMD CPU, or an i5 to be honest. Or more than 2 cores full stop. The FX is still looking pretty attractive to me because of the price point and the fact that I can overclock it.

    I'm looking at an r9 280 3GB, how would the FX run with that, and vs the i5 4460.
     
  12. AusTerror

    AusTerror Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Messages:
    805
    Location:
    Canberra
    That sounds like rubbish. The AMD experience I have had is more stable that the Intel gear.

    However, it is easy to say that ANY modern PC should not BSOD often...or ever, unless it is an external problem (power blackout or something).

    My AMD APU system at home has only had a BSOD when I used the incorrect RAM settings in the BIOS/UEFI.
     
  13. HobartTas

    HobartTas Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Messages:
    787
    Greetings

    It's not the quality as that should be almost identical, it's the FPS (frames per second) if you look at FRAPS which displays the FPS as the yellow numbers you will see the games start with almost identical numbers however, when you get to the medieval game its 61 FPS vs 38 FPS and the next one after that is in the helicopter which is 39 FPS vs 23 FPS and so on. When you have such large drops for the AMD cpu you may have to degrade your video quality settings to bump up a low FPS if the game is playing jerky and even then it may not increase that number by much at all, this is why Intel is typically chosen for gaming even though it may cost more.

    These benchmarks show they are similar for everything other than gaming and when you look at that it doesn't look so good.

    Sure you can overclock the AMD cpu to 4.5 Ghz but then since its about one third slower its only going to be as fast as an Intel one at 3.0 Ghz plus it will be chewing the juice and have a look at that system consumption for the overclocked AMD cpu's. Its a good thing you will be water cooling either way as you will need it. Here's a comparison of much higher end CPU's also being overclocked, but generally nobody really needs to heavily overclock intel cpu's for gaming as they just need to get better video cards.

    Don't know, I suggest you check the 3dmark online database for those cpu's with that card and compare the scores.

    Kindly remember that you need speed primarily for games and that for everything else then either cpu will probably be fast enough for whatever you do. Intel seems the only way to go unless your only into casual gaming.

    Cheers
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: