Looking to change my current one. Just confused between these two.... your suggestions for CPU Boss???
Intel Pentium G3258 vs AMD FX 6300
- Thread starter jamzmaxwell
- Start date
TheELF
Diamond Member
- Dec 22, 2012
- 4,027
- 753
- 126
Look to the left of your screen and select
· CPUs and Overclocking
for gaming g3258 for rendering fx6300
fourdegrees11
Senior member
- Mar 9, 2009
- 441
- 1
- 81
For $12 more then the 6300
http://www.ncixus.com/products/?usa...=BX80646I34170&manufacture=Intel&promoid=1210
The 6300 is a smidgen faster in purely multi threaded tasks, while the 4170 is much faster in single threaded. Making the 4170 overall a faster processor.
http://www.ncixus.com/products/?usa...=BX80646I34170&manufacture=Intel&promoid=1210
The 6300 is a smidgen faster in purely multi threaded tasks, while the 4170 is much faster in single threaded. Making the 4170 overall a faster processor.
Yuriman
Diamond Member
- Jun 25, 2004
- 5,530
- 141
- 106
What do you have right now?
Both are older, very low-end CPUs which will have some pretty severe limitations. I think an argument can be made for either, but spending a little more might be advisable if possible.
Pentium:
Significantly faster single threaded performance (50-75% faster), which is more important in *most* games. Only 2 cores though, so significantly less multithreaded performance, which will show up in a few games and a lot in other workloads, such as encoding, rendering, and compression. Having only 2 threads has been known to cause annoying stuttering during some games. Has a better upgrade path, much lower power consumption, and motherboards will probably be better featured. You can use a smaller power supply and have far more options for going small-form-factor.
FX:
Significantly better multithreaded performance, and single-threaded performance is *usually adequate* but can be crippling in a few cases. Higher power consumption and greater heat output, few options for small for small-form-factor. There's still an upgrade path, but not much of one.
Both are older, very low-end CPUs which will have some pretty severe limitations. I think an argument can be made for either, but spending a little more might be advisable if possible.
Pentium:
Significantly faster single threaded performance (50-75% faster), which is more important in *most* games. Only 2 cores though, so significantly less multithreaded performance, which will show up in a few games and a lot in other workloads, such as encoding, rendering, and compression. Having only 2 threads has been known to cause annoying stuttering during some games. Has a better upgrade path, much lower power consumption, and motherboards will probably be better featured. You can use a smaller power supply and have far more options for going small-form-factor.
FX:
Significantly better multithreaded performance, and single-threaded performance is *usually adequate* but can be crippling in a few cases. Higher power consumption and greater heat output, few options for small for small-form-factor. There's still an upgrade path, but not much of one.
That's a little misleading. The FX-6300 is an unlocked chip -- and overclocking closes the gap in single threaded performance significantly.
If he's gaming, an unlocked chip is probably the better buy (which is why he started talking about the G3258). I own a G3258 and I'd steer clear of it unless you are only playing older games. It is a wonderful chip for pre-2013 games, but a dual core is just not a good option for 2015 games. If he is going to buy a Haswell, bite the bullet and lay out the cash for a 4690K at the minimum.
TheELF
Diamond Member
- Dec 22, 2012
- 4,027
- 753
- 126
Prove it,or explain what you mean with significantly. Every benchmark says that even at 5Ghz it will be close to a low end pentium(at best) in single.
frozentundra123456
Lifer
- Aug 11, 2008
- 10,451
- 642
- 126
OP, what is you use for the computer? For normal light use, i would go with the pentium. It is fast enough, uses less power, and has an igp. For gaming with a discrete card, I probably would go with the FX.
But as someone said, both have serious weaknesses. If possible, I would move uo to an i3. It will have multithreaded performance close to the FX, and much better single threaded. It will also use a lot less power.
But as someone said, both have serious weaknesses. If possible, I would move uo to an i3. It will have multithreaded performance close to the FX, and much better single threaded. It will also use a lot less power.
You guys are a broken record -- the benchmarks are kicking around and a search engine is your friend. It's just the same tired debate for like 2 years now.
But since you're lazy:
An overclocked FX 6300 @ 5Ghz posts a single threaded score between 1775 - 1900 (depending on what DDR3 you are running) under passmark. The i3 4170 scores 2143. That is such an insignificant gap, the i3 is a waste of time. If the guy is building a Haswell game machine, spend the money on the unlocked 4690K or better yet 4790K. At stock clock, the i5 and i7 are around 2200 to 2300 single threaded.... Then when you are overclocked, you are pushing 2600 to 2800 on single threaded..... That is a big jump over an FX-6300, the i3 is not. The 4170 is basically a sidegrade to an FX-6300. Minor single threaded improvement but then you lose 2 threads.
There are no free lunches from Intel. The cheap stuff hits a performance brick wall.
Last edited:
TeknoBug
Platinum Member
- Oct 2, 2013
- 2,084
- 31
- 91
Try reading the whole thread -- the 4170 is basically a sidegrade to an FX-6300. If anything, a step backwards. Overclocking the FX-6300 closes the single threaded gap enough
to make the difference nearly pointless.
Passmark tells the tale:
i3 4170 = 5172
FX 6300 = 6347
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i3-4170+%40+3.70GHz
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-6300+Six-Core
When I upgraded from my 2 year old FX-8320, I moved to the 4790K because there was a measurable improvement.
These sidegrade upgrades are a waste of time and money. At least be honest with the OP.
Last edited:
fourdegrees11
Senior member
- Mar 9, 2009
- 441
- 1
- 81
But then the OP has to pay for a cooling solution, and power requirements of a 1.5ghz OC on an FX chip (if he can even achieve that). Might as well just buy a locked i5 for that cost difference...
When budget stays the same the i3 is a better buy.
When budget stays the same the i3 is a better buy.
LTC8K6
Lifer
- Mar 10, 2004
- 28,520
- 1,575
- 126
I don't think Passmark tells the whole tale, though.
I own an FX-6300 and an I3-4360, and I think the 4360 is overall faster, except in a few situations.
Even overclocked out the wazoo, the FX-6300 cannot catch the i3 in single thread, imo.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/699?vs=1197
LOL... The FX-6300 at 5GHz? Is that all? The value proposition of the FX-6300 kind of tanks when you need to buy a more expensive MB to power it and a $80 cooler to keep it cool.
frozentundra123456
Lifer
- Aug 11, 2008
- 10,451
- 642
- 126
Yea, the i3 is 50% faster in single thread, which MOTOR neglected to mention. And despite some software becoming more highly threaded, single thread performance is still very important.
Not to mention that the FX uses more power already, will use even more if overclocked, and has no integrated graphics. But as I said also, the choice depends on the use case. For heavy multithreaded work, a case can be made for the FX. Otherwise, for light use the pentium is fine, or for gaming i3 is probably faster overall.
Not to mention that the FX uses more power already, will use even more if overclocked, and has no integrated graphics. But as I said also, the choice depends on the use case. For heavy multithreaded work, a case can be made for the FX. Otherwise, for light use the pentium is fine, or for gaming i3 is probably faster overall.
The OP is banned anyway, but why do you think it would be a sidegrade? Replacing a 6300 with a 4170 wouldn't be worth the cost, but he's asking about the difference between them. He doesn't currently have a 6300.
TheELF
Diamond Member
- Dec 22, 2012
- 4,027
- 753
- 126
So the CPUs are close to each other as long as you are only benchmarking the ram???
Are you trying to make us crazy?
Run something like dolphin bench and tell us the fx-5Ghz score there.
Actually run anything you like,normal software or game nothing"benchmarkie" ,use affinity to limit it to a single core and lets compare.
Dolphin -- LOL. That's a really accurate benchmark -- no bias at all towards a specific CPU manufacturer that likes to use the color Blue.
/sarcasm off....
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2397246
Negative. The single threaded score/performance is dependant on what speed you are running the memory on an FX. An FX 6300 with DDR3 1333 will perform significantly different from one running DDR3 2133.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/bulldozer-ddr3-overclocking,3209.html
The unlocked FX can always get overclocked to improve single threaded performance -- but you can't physically add 2 more threads to the i3 to fix its disadvantage versus the FX-6300. I suspect a lot of negative reviews for the FX were based on gimped memory -- because the chip scales really well the farther you push it. Clearly even I've moved up to an i7 now, but the FX was a great little IMO underrated chip.
LTC8K6
Lifer
- Mar 10, 2004
- 28,520
- 1,575
- 126
TheELF
Diamond Member
- Dec 22, 2012
- 4,027
- 753
- 126
The thread you link to says nothing substantiated.
Yes it has very strong bias towards single core speeds,that's what we where talking about here wasn't it?
But it's not like I didn't tell you to
TheELF
Diamond Member
- Dec 22, 2012
- 4,027
- 753
- 126
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter