The 6300 benches ON GAMES the same as an i5 2500k. The 8350 benches the same as the i5 3570k. The 4300 and the older bulldozers bench the same as high end i3s.
Also with the fx chips they can pool 2 cores into 1 faster core. Most modern games want a quad core. All games use 2 threads one for the main process loop, one for handling graphics. With the 6 core it can turbo 4 cores into 2 faster cores to handle these, leaving 2 original cores to handle windows back ground tasks or any additional threads the game spawns. With the quad core, 2 cores get paired to handle the main loop and your just left with 1 un turboed core to handle the graphics, and another to handle windows / additional threads.
In effect your fx4300 ends up running 1 fast core and 2 slow ones. The fx6300 ends up running two fast cores / two slow ones or 3 fast ones depending on the game. The 83xx ends up running pretty much like a good quad core.
Originally posted by ShakyMo Also with the fx chips they can pool 2 cores into 1 faster core. Most modern games want a quad core. All games use 2 threads one for the main process loop, one for handling graphics. With the 6 core it can turbo 4 cores into 2 faster cores to handle these, leaving 2 original cores to handle windows back ground tasks or any additional threads the game spawns. With the quad core, 2 cores get paired to handle the main loop and your just left with 1 un turboed core to handle the graphics, and another to handle windows / additional threads.
In effect your fx4300 ends up running 1 fast core and 2 slow ones. The fx6300 ends up running two fast cores / two slow ones or 3 fast ones depending on the game. The 83xx ends up running pretty much like a good quad core.
I just checked tomshardware the only comparison for the 4300 to 6300 said pretty much the exact same thing I said lol. May want to post your link.
The 83XX jumps the price up by enough to count out a 7870 or higher GPU like the OP wanted to get eventually which I managed to squeeze in now by freeing up 300+
FX 4300 + Nice GPU is simply the better way to go for gaming purposes considering the 83xx will leave him without a GPU until later, at least without a decent GPU.
Originally posted by ShakyMo Also you want the 6300 as a mid range chip or the 8320 as a approaching high chip all else are not worth it.
Nah, if gaming and web browsing are the only tasks for the computer these are a waste. I mean off the rip you'd have to overclock the 6300 to match the stock speed of the 4300. Then to get similar gaming performance you'd have to disable modules. It's a waste really. By the time those 2 extra core will make a difference that gen of CPU will be obsolete.
It's entirely plausible that four or five years from now, an FX-6300 will still be viable albeit dated due to having six cores, while an FX-4300 will choke on some games. Today, a 3 GHz Core 2 Quad is still viable, while a 3 GHz Core 2 Duo really can't handle some games.
There's also the issue that if you're going to use three cores, an FX-6300 can put them on three separate modules, while an FX-4300 has to use two cores from the same module, and the shared scheduling resources are a meaningful bottleneck there.
Again, not for gaming purposes. If he were doing video editing or something more CPU intensive you would have a point. But there would be no bottlenecking with the 4300 for gaming.
In 4 or 5 years the FX 6300 may eventually out shine the 4300 for purely gaming purposes, you could be right about that... But in 4 to 5 years I hope an individual with either of these will be looking to upgrade as both will both be low end for gaming if much use at all.
And what exactly will that upgrade be? To something with more cores--and not necessarily faster cores. And what does the FX-6300 have as compared to the FX-4300? More cores.
If it were a $100 price difference, then sure, get the FX-4300. Even for a $50 price difference. But if paying an extra $10 up front lets you get another year of good life out of your machine before you have to replace the CPU, motherboard, and memory, I say that's money well spent.
Originally posted by ShakyMo Also you want the 6300 as a mid range chip or the 8320 as a approaching high chip all else are not worth it.
Nah, if gaming and web browsing are the only tasks for the computer these are a waste. I mean off the rip you'd have to overclock the 6300 to match the stock speed of the 4300. Then to get similar gaming performance you'd have to disable modules. It's a waste really. By the time those 2 extra core will make a difference that gen of CPU will be obsolete.
It's entirely plausible that four or five years from now, an FX-6300 will still be viable albeit dated due to having six cores, while an FX-4300 will choke on some games. Today, a 3 GHz Core 2 Quad is still viable, while a 3 GHz Core 2 Duo really can't handle some games.
There's also the issue that if you're going to use three cores, an FX-6300 can put them on three separate modules, while an FX-4300 has to use two cores from the same module, and the shared scheduling resources are a meaningful bottleneck there.
Again, not for gaming purposes. If he were doing video editing or something more CPU intensive you would have a point. But there would be no bottlenecking with the 4300 for gaming.
In 4 or 5 years the FX 6300 may eventually out shine the 4300 for purely gaming purposes, you could be right about that... But in 4 to 5 years I hope an individual with either of these will be looking to upgrade as both will both be low end for gaming if much use at all.
And what exactly will that upgrade be? To something with more cores--and not necessarily faster cores. And what does the FX-6300 have as compared to the FX-4300? More cores.
If it were a $100 price difference, then sure, get the FX-4300. Even for a $50 price difference. But if paying an extra $10 up front lets you get another year of good life out of your machine before you have to replace the CPU, motherboard, and memory, I say that's money well spent.
It's not just paying an extra $10, it requires overclocking to be on par with the 4300 first off and thats not an overly good idea with a stock cooler. Secondly its going to require disabling a module on top of the over clocking to be on par game performance wise with the 4300.
These things tend to be better left with seasoned builders.
And again with a $50 price difference you downgrade the possible GPU choices, which isn't in the same as what I was attempting to do. My choices leave room in the budget to get the GPU the OP wants now instead of waiting a couple of months on top of giving him a PC that will do high end gaming for years to come all for the same $900.
(My bad, for some reason misread the part about $50, you seem to say if there was a $50 difference then grab the 4300 and I misread it.)
Originally posted by GrayGhost79 It's not just paying an extra $10, it requires overclocking to be on par with the 4300 first off and thats not an overly good idea with a stock cooler. Secondly its going to require disabling a module on top of the over clocking to be on par game performance wise with the 4300. These things tend to be better left with seasoned builders. And again with a $50 price difference you downgrade the possible GPU choices, which isn't in the same as what I was attempting to do. My choices leave room in the budget to get the GPU the OP wants now instead of waiting a couple of months on top of giving him a PC that will do high end gaming for years to come all for the same $900.(My bad, for some reason misread the part about $50, you seem to say if there was a $50 difference then grab the 4300 and I misread it.)
This doesn't seem to be the case:
True, the FX4300 is stock 3.8/4.0, while the FX6300 is only 3.5/4.1.
But that TurboCore frequency is higher, stock, and it has more cache.
If we ignore many of the "benchmark" benchmarks, and focus on the gaming numbers (D3, SC2, Skyrim, DAO, WoW, DoWII): we don't see much difference, but at stock clocks, even though the FX6300 has a slightly lower base clock, it consistantly performs slightly better. Out of the 6 or so games that are on the benchmark suite, there is only one example where the higher base clock of the FX4300 lets it turn in slightly better performance than the FX6300.
If the chip required an overclock to be competitive, we'd see the reverse: the FX4300 consistently (slightly) on top. It does prove that we don't really need 6 cores, but for $10, and a consistent (if slight) performance advantage, you Do Not Need To Overclock this chip to equal the slightly faster, lower core count FX-4300, and the "has less power to deliver to the cores" argument may hold up while overclocking, but certainly does not appear true at stock clocks.
Now these samples are all probably within the margin of error, but the fact that it consistantly leans to the 6300, even if slightly, makes me think that higher base clock of the 4300 doesn't beat the higher TurboCore clock and bigger cache of the 6300.
Originally posted by ShakyMo Also you want the 6300 as a mid range chip or the 8320 as a approaching high chip all else are not worth it.
Nah, if gaming and web browsing are the only tasks for the computer these are a waste. I mean off the rip you'd have to overclock the 6300 to match the stock speed of the 4300. Then to get similar gaming performance you'd have to disable modules. It's a waste really. By the time those 2 extra core will make a difference that gen of CPU will be obsolete.
It's entirely plausible that four or five years from now, an FX-6300 will still be viable albeit dated due to having six cores, while an FX-4300 will choke on some games. Today, a 3 GHz Core 2 Quad is still viable, while a 3 GHz Core 2 Duo really can't handle some games.
There's also the issue that if you're going to use three cores, an FX-6300 can put them on three separate modules, while an FX-4300 has to use two cores from the same module, and the shared scheduling resources are a meaningful bottleneck there.
Again, not for gaming purposes. If he were doing video editing or something more CPU intensive you would have a point. But there would be no bottlenecking with the 4300 for gaming.
In 4 or 5 years the FX 6300 may eventually out shine the 4300 for purely gaming purposes, you could be right about that... But in 4 to 5 years I hope an individual with either of these will be looking to upgrade as both will both be low end for gaming if much use at all.
And what exactly will that upgrade be? To something with more cores--and not necessarily faster cores. And what does the FX-6300 have as compared to the FX-4300? More cores.
If it were a $100 price difference, then sure, get the FX-4300. Even for a $50 price difference. But if paying an extra $10 up front lets you get another year of good life out of your machine before you have to replace the CPU, motherboard, and memory, I say that's money well spent.
It's not just paying an extra $10, it requires overclocking to be on par with the 4300 first off and thats not an overly good idea with a stock cooler. Secondly its going to require disabling a module on top of the over clocking to be on par game performance wise with the 4300.
These things tend to be better left with seasoned builders.
And again with a $50 price difference you downgrade the possible GPU choices, which isn't in the same as what I was attempting to do. My choices leave room in the budget to get the GPU the OP wants now instead of waiting a couple of months on top of giving him a PC that will do high end gaming for years to come all for the same $900.
(My bad, for some reason misread the part about $50, you seem to say if there was a $50 difference then grab the 4300 and I misread it.)
Why would you want to make an FX-6300 merely be on par with an FX-4300 when normally it's faster? You can make a Core i7-3770K perform on par with a Core i3-3220 by disabling stuff, too, but why would you?
Also your right re the tests, playing mid range games with a low end gpu on low settings, possibly the old 4 core is faster.
But I recently updated my gpu to a 7950. And playing ps2 with my old 4 core was disappointed with frame rate because my old 4100 was trotting me. Stick a 6300 in, I'm impressed can play every game I own at a solid 60+, even ps2 in really big battles I only trough to like 45.
Originally posted by ShakyMo Quiz When I mentioned the 6300 had more cache, its not just l3 cache, 8 vs 4 its also l2 cache 6 vs 4.
The L2 cache is 2 MB per module. If you're only using one core, then you effectively only get 2 MB of L2 cache. More total L2 cache is because the processor has more modules, which is because it has more cores. That's not really a separate advantage from having more cores.
Comments
The 6300 benches ON GAMES the same as an i5 2500k. The 8350 benches the same as the i5 3570k. The 4300 and the older bulldozers bench the same as high end i3s.
In effect your fx4300 ends up running 1 fast core and 2 slow ones. The fx6300 ends up running two fast cores / two slow ones or 3 fast ones depending on the game. The 83xx ends up running pretty much like a good quad core.
I just checked tomshardware the only comparison for the 4300 to 6300 said pretty much the exact same thing I said lol. May want to post your link.
The 83XX jumps the price up by enough to count out a 7870 or higher GPU like the OP wanted to get eventually which I managed to squeeze in now by freeing up 300+
FX 4300 + Nice GPU is simply the better way to go for gaming purposes considering the 83xx will leave him without a GPU until later, at least without a decent GPU.
And what exactly will that upgrade be? To something with more cores--and not necessarily faster cores. And what does the FX-6300 have as compared to the FX-4300? More cores.
If it were a $100 price difference, then sure, get the FX-4300. Even for a $50 price difference. But if paying an extra $10 up front lets you get another year of good life out of your machine before you have to replace the CPU, motherboard, and memory, I say that's money well spent.
It's not just paying an extra $10, it requires overclocking to be on par with the 4300 first off and thats not an overly good idea with a stock cooler. Secondly its going to require disabling a module on top of the over clocking to be on par game performance wise with the 4300.
These things tend to be better left with seasoned builders.
And again with a $50 price difference you downgrade the possible GPU choices, which isn't in the same as what I was attempting to do. My choices leave room in the budget to get the GPU the OP wants now instead of waiting a couple of months on top of giving him a PC that will do high end gaming for years to come all for the same $900.
(My bad, for some reason misread the part about $50, you seem to say if there was a $50 difference then grab the 4300 and I misread it.)
This doesn't seem to be the case:
True, the FX4300 is stock 3.8/4.0, while the FX6300 is only 3.5/4.1.
But that TurboCore frequency is higher, stock, and it has more cache.
Here are some real-world benchmark comparisons, at stock clocks:
AnandTech FX4300 vs FX6300
If we ignore many of the "benchmark" benchmarks, and focus on the gaming numbers (D3, SC2, Skyrim, DAO, WoW, DoWII): we don't see much difference, but at stock clocks, even though the FX6300 has a slightly lower base clock, it consistantly performs slightly better. Out of the 6 or so games that are on the benchmark suite, there is only one example where the higher base clock of the FX4300 lets it turn in slightly better performance than the FX6300.
If the chip required an overclock to be competitive, we'd see the reverse: the FX4300 consistently (slightly) on top. It does prove that we don't really need 6 cores, but for $10, and a consistent (if slight) performance advantage, you Do Not Need To Overclock this chip to equal the slightly faster, lower core count FX-4300, and the "has less power to deliver to the cores" argument may hold up while overclocking, but certainly does not appear true at stock clocks.
Now these samples are all probably within the margin of error, but the fact that it consistantly leans to the 6300, even if slightly, makes me think that higher base clock of the 4300 doesn't beat the higher TurboCore clock and bigger cache of the 6300.
Why would you want to make an FX-6300 merely be on par with an FX-4300 when normally it's faster? You can make a Core i7-3770K perform on par with a Core i3-3220 by disabling stuff, too, but why would you?
When I mentioned the 6300 had more cache, its not just l3 cache, 8 vs 4 its also l2 cache 6 vs 4.
But I recently updated my gpu to a 7950. And playing ps2 with my old 4 core was disappointed with frame rate because my old 4100 was trotting me. Stick a 6300 in, I'm impressed can play every game I own at a solid 60+, even ps2 in really big battles I only trough to like 45.
The L2 cache is 2 MB per module. If you're only using one core, then you effectively only get 2 MB of L2 cache. More total L2 cache is because the processor has more modules, which is because it has more cores. That's not really a separate advantage from having more cores.
Thank you everyone for the input and advice.
I have went with the i5-3570k with the msi z77a gd65 MB along with the storm enforcer case and lastly I decided to stick with the seasonic psu .
I will get the 212 evo cooler as well as an extra top exhaust megaflow fan for the case.
The amd build was interesting but I rather have a intel build
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.