AMD vs Intel

A

alex2345

n00b
Joined
Aug 2, 2016
Messages
4
Hello,
For assembling my new gaming console, please help me with the CPU. Which among AMD FX8300 and Intel Core i5 6600k offers better performance for gaming?
 
Honestly, it depends on the games. However, I am an AMD fanboy and have an FX 8300 overclocked. :D If you do not have a personal preference, just pick up an i5 6500 and with a cheap motherboard and 16 Gigabytes of ram and would be better served that way. (If you do not plan on overclocking, the k series might not be worth getting.) Also, you did not tell us what video card you are getting or already have. If you need help with the motherboard, let us know.

Edit: Actually surprised we have not had a war start over this. Maybe things have finally calmed down around these parts? ;)
 
6600K without question. They are not even remotely in the same league.

Not to mention ancient outdated power hungry platform for the FX. Not even PCIe 3.0 support unless you fool people to think it have with a PLX chip.
 
Shintai said:
6600K without question. They are not even remotely in the same league.

Not to mention ancient outdated power hungry platform for the FX. Not even PCIe 3.0 support unless you fool people to think it have with a PLX chip.
Click to expand...

The FX platform is hardly power hungry. :rolleyes: But, it is older tech and the 6600k is newer so, just based on that alone, it would be a better choice. (Does not mean the FX 8300 is not a good choice, just not the better of the two.) That said, why bother with a k series at all unless you are going to overclock or the price difference is minimal?
 
Personally, going with this board: MSI H110M Gaming LGA 1151 Intel H110 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.1 Micro ATX Intel Motherboard - Newegg.com and this processor: Intel Core i5-6500 6M Skylake Quad-Core 3.2 GHz LGA 1151 65W BX80662I56500 Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics 530 - Newegg.com would be a good deal. (Newegg wants $261 for a 6600k right now, ouch.) If you are going to overclock, than what I have mentioned above would not do it but, otherwise, the cost for what I mentioned would definitely be worth it.
 
Shintai said:
6600K without question. They are not even remotely in the same league.

Not to mention ancient outdated power hungry platform for the FX. Not even PCIe 3.0 support unless you fool people to think it have with a PLX chip.
Click to expand...
Not nearly as power hungry as many would have you believe. Also for a great deal of gaming in midrange pci-e 2.0 is more than enough.

OT the Intel i5 (non k) would be hassle free and a bit cooler if this is a small footprint setup. AMD is a good choice as well however will require some added components to get the max from them. Like Manofgod mentioned, a little more info would help, like games played, location, user experience with building and so on.
 
The FX8300 needs a solid OC to even have any kind of relevance in gaming. And then it will most likely still lose in many cases to an i3...

There is no reason to gimp yourself unless its due to price.
 
Shintai said:
The FX8300 needs a solid OC to even have any kind of relevance in gaming. And then it will most likely still lose in many cases to an i3...

There is no reason to gimp yourself unless its due to price.
Click to expand...

Yet, you may notice, neither one of us are saying to run right out and buy an FX 8300 unless that is simply what he prefers. He would not be gimped but, in the long term, eventually, he would loss out if he is not overclocking. Also, in my opinion, price would not be as big a motivator since I have already linked something that is good for the price.
 
Shintai said:
The FX8300 needs a solid OC to even have any kind of relevance in gaming. And then it will most likely still lose in many cases to an i3...

There is no reason to gimp yourself unless its due to price.
Click to expand...
An i3 is gimping yourself. My favorite part of posters like you is the lack of experience with the FX platform. You see a few benches then make asinine comments that never reflects real world usage. Just a barrage of unfounded disdain based on nothing more than ignorance. There have been plenty of double blind tests done where the results show the majority of consumers can't tell which platform is which under gaming conditions. Now there is no doubt Intel is stronger but given criteria it may not matter. At 60hz game play it really doesn't 90% of the time. Over that then yes it does. And with certain games it does as well, hence the rational posters here, Sans the one I am responding to, are inquiring if there are more specifics with which to make a better more concise recommendation. Also if you notice we both recommended Intel in general and it didn't require negativity at all.
 
For a console PC, I'd want that thing to be quiet and efficient, then powerful. I'd rock out a 6400 or 6500 (depending on price) spend your extra cash on a quality cooler.

Alternatively, an i3 6100 would probably suite you just fine.
 
More info please. Types of games, resolution, and video card?

If all you want to play is DOTA and Overwatch and maybe some DOOM / BF1 at 1080p then a rx480 and a 8350 will serve you well as an example.

Truth be told the Intel will give you best single thread performance.
 
Oh, and I just noticed that the 6500 is $10 off with the Newegg emailer coupon code that I received today.
 
Shintai said:
The FX8300 needs a solid OC to even have any kind of relevance in gaming. And then it will most likely still lose in many cases to an i3...

There is no reason to gimp yourself unless its due to price.
Click to expand...

Shintai, if you can't contribute something useful, then zip your mouth and go elsewhere. First of all the AMD FX line is plenty powerful for games, I'm playing games on an x3 435 (OC'ed to 3.48Ghz) for crying out loud and it is plenty for the games that I play. At 1080P your are more likely to be GPU limited, however, if you game at 720P or lower then frame rates will vary depending on how powerful your CPU is, but once you get the resolution to 1080P, it down't matter what CPU you have outside of the weakest CPU, frame rates are GPU bound. Read a review instead of spewing biased fanboyisms....
 
Shintai said:
The FX8300 needs a solid OC to even have any kind of relevance in gaming. And then it will most likely still lose in many cases to an i3...

There is no reason to gimp yourself unless its due to price.
Click to expand...

That statement is not even close to correct. Numbers don't tell the whole;e story there. Games that are heavily threaded will stutter like crazy on my wifes i3 with a r9 290X. Average frame rate is worthless when crap like that happens. That's just one example.
 
i5 for sure. The FX is still quite capable for most uses/games, but the only advantage it has is a lower price tag. It's an aging platform that's starting to get long in the tooth.

If you were asking about equivalent platform price-points between the FX and whatever Intel products fall into that price bucket, then I'd say go for the FX in a heartbeat, since you'll likely only be able to select an i3.

But, since you are asking for feedback specifically between the 8300 and 6600K, go with the superior option, price tag be damned.
 
ITSTHINKING said:
That statement is not even close to correct. Numbers don't tell the whole;e story there. Games that are heavily threaded will stutter like crazy on my wifes i3 with a r9 290X. Average frame rate is worthless when crap like that happens. That's just one example.
Click to expand...
Aww man you beat me to it. That is what I have brought up before. Do you know how hard it is to find a frame time graph for CPUs today? Used to be common. It was great when talking about iGPUs, Intels were terribad. But seems like no one wants to post any in reviews anymore. Those graphs were horrendous on i3s. The high maximums brought up their avgs but were so erratic as to be terrible over all.
 
i5 is the way to go here, no questions need to be asked.
i3 if you are going to step down to budget. Your minimums/averages going to be much lower with a 8300 vs an intel i3/i5 except for some really well optimized games like DOOM.
Almost every single DX12 game released till date runs faster on an i3 6100 than a 8300 8 core in every benchmark.
 
Alex hasn't been on since he/she posted the thread. Good discussion, regardless...
 
a3venom said:
i5 is the way to go here, no questions need to be asked.
i3 if you are going to step down to budget. Your minimums/averages going to be much lower with a 8300 vs an intel i3/i5 except for some really well optimized games like DOOM.
Almost every single DX12 game released till date runs faster on an i3 6100 than a 8300 8 core in every benchmark.
Click to expand...
You really need to get off that i3 horse-manure bandwagon. You still haven't posted frametime graphs as I asked of you before. Look a few posts up for verification of the crap i3 experience.

It should be a rule that any poster that recommends an i3 in a tech enthusiast forum should be perma-banned.
 
It should be a rule that any poster that recommends an i3 in a tech enthusiast forum should be perma-banned.
Click to expand...

I am up for that if we throw in all of the FM2+ processors as well since none of them are as good CPU wise as an i3.
 
Had I7 6400 = Junk and would not recommend that cpu even though it is a Skylake (still have the 6400 in the paper box, a good place for it). A few applications that the 8350 runs great together will bog down on the 6400. OCing is a waste since you end up with a permanently OC condition for the cpu. Now a power miser it was. Ripped it out and installed an I7 6700K, nice cpu. I can't recommend any non-K Intel if you want to OC any. A 6600K should work great in games but don't expect it to beat out a 8350/70/9590 in multi-threading applications such as rendering.
 
drescherjm said:
I am up for that if we throw in all of the FM2+ processors as well since none of them are as good CPU wise as an i3.
Click to expand...
I am not against the APUs as they have a use in limited space scenarios or cheap total solutions. Obviously not a recommendation as a gaming machine even in this case. I have one but it was shear interest and curiosity that I bought it for.
 
Ok, thanks for all your inputs. So, I think core i5 6600k will be the best option. I am assembly a PC. I will need your help.
 
alex2345 said:
Ok, thanks for all your inputs. So, I think core i5 6600k will be the best option. I am assembly a PC. I will need your help.
Click to expand...
If you are going with Intel the help you need would be better served in the Intel forum sub section. i5 is a good choice but make sure you ask in the Intel sub forum for exact experience advice. Getting the best components be it by price or performance and get info on what manufacturers to avoid. Trust me it is better than finding out after you buy it that you bought crap.
 
JustReason said:
You really need to get off that i3 horse-manure bandwagon. You still haven't posted frametime graphs as I asked of you before. Look a few posts up for verification of the crap i3 experience.

It should be a rule that any poster that recommends an i3 in a tech enthusiast forum should be perma-banned.
Click to expand...

A Fx 5 Ghz isn't a "powerful" or "enthusiast" chip by any means, it falls into the same category as an i3 - entry level cheap cpu.

There are a lot of people on the "MOAR CORES" bandwagon , but humanity has yet to discover a game that runs faster on Intels 10 core $1700 CPU than an i7-6700k. That explains a lot.

And those 8 cores of a FX arent faster in video rendering or multitasking or anything else when compared to an i5
 
a3venom said:
A Fx 5 Ghz isn't a "powerful" or "enthusiast" chip by any means, it falls into the same category as an i3 - entry level cheap cpu.

There are a lot of people on the "MOAR CORES" bandwagon , but humanity has yet to discover a game that runs faster on Intels 10 core $1700 CPU than an i7-6700k. That explains a lot.

And those 8 cores of a FX arent faster in video rendering or multitasking or anything else when compared to an i5
Click to expand...
And you continue to prove your ignorance and bias. Where are these frametime graphs that support your asinine pov? We even have a poster here that proves you are wrong.
 
I like MOAR CORES cores because I can be lazy. sure a core i3 and a 8350 might get the same fps in some games, but that is on a desktop in console mode ie(fresh windows install for testing and nothing else running). That is not real world. Real world is having 40+ tabs open in chrome that you dont want to close to play a game. This means its eating memory and potentially 30% cpu depending on what each web page is doing.

This is why more cores and more than 8gb ram is good. Good chance you have discord/skype/chrome/steam/rdp/outlook ans whatever else running in the background. If you have to close all that shit down to play a game then we might as well get tablets.
 
JustReason said:
And you continue to prove your ignorance and bias. Where are these frametime graphs that support your asinine pov? We even have a poster here that proves you are wrong.
Click to expand...
Why should i provide proof on the general consensus that i3 rapes 8 core fx in gaming?

If you are going against the normal conclusion - you need to provide graphs for latest AAA games.



How do you think 8 cores fare vs an i5 when the pure purpose would be rendering and multitasking?
 
a3venom said:
Why should i provide proof on the general consensus that i3 rapes 8 core fx in gaming?

If you are going against the normal conclusion - you need to provide graphs for latest AAA games.



How do you think 8 cores fare vs an i5 when the pure purpose would be rendering and multitasking?
Click to expand...

Provide the proof man, Im also interested to see the proof..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top