Choosing a processor

[na]

Hi
I want to take a processor AMD-Athlon750K. or FX-6300.html
I have read a lot of info
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1702339/amd-athlon-750k-6300-gaming.html

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/88/AMD_Athlon_X4_750K_vs_AMD_FX-Series_FX-6300.html

http://cpu-comparison.whoratesit.co...k-Edition-vs-AMD-Athlon-II-X4-750K/1555vs1548

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-6300-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-750k

http://www.game-debate.com/cpu/index.php?pid=1148&pid2=1146&compare=athlon-ii-x4-750k-vs-fx-6300

,but i don't understand ,how much is better in the games
I know that FX 6300 is better,but how much better - 20..30...50 ...........100 %
1)I am mainly interested in the game performance-how much average FX 6300 is better in the games
2)How are the trends in the games-Will be possible in the near future,the games to be possible to use full six cores of FX 6300 and this to give a big/huge advantage to FX 6300 ?
3)Will FX 6300 enough powerful in the next 2 years for the games ?

Thank you in advance

 

[Fourstaff]

Depends on the type of games you play. If its singlethreaded heavy like World of Tanks, FX6300 will not be faster than 750K. If you play Battlefield 4 instead, the FX6300 will be quite a bit faster.

Will it be powerful enough in 2 years time? Again, depends on the games you play. Rome II struggles even on the best processor money can buy today.

 

[buildzoid]

The athlon is like half the price draws less power isn't that much slower and if you get an A88X chipset board you can upgrade to kaveri next year.

 

[RCoon]

Hi
I want to take a processor AMD-Athlon750K. or FX-6300.html
I have read a lot of info
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1702339/amd-athlon-750k-6300-gaming.html

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/88/AMD_Athlon_X4_750K_vs_AMD_FX-Series_FX-6300.html

http://cpu-comparison.whoratesit.co...k-Edition-vs-AMD-Athlon-II-X4-750K/1555vs1548

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-6300-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-750k

http://www.game-debate.com/cpu/index.php?pid=1148&pid2=1146&compare=athlon-ii-x4-750k-vs-fx-6300

,but i don't understand ,how much is better in the games
I know that FX 6300 is better,but how much better - 20..30...50 ...........100 %
1)I am mainly interested in the game performance-how much average FX 6300 is better in the games
2)How are the trends in the games-Will be possible in the near future,the games to be possible to use full six cores of FX 6300 and this to give a big/huge advantage to FX 6300 ?
3)Will FX 6300 enough powerful in the next 2 years for the games ?

Thank you in advance

Using an OC'd 750K at the moment, it plays manshoot very well, StarCraft II is OK but 4vs4 is a bit crappy when you've got maxed out armies. RTS games, go for 750K and OC to hell, if you're doing manshoot like BF3/4 or Metro games, go for 6300. Besides that, my GPU does all the legwork, including PhysX.

 

[Dent1]

FX-6300 is the only sensible option. There is no competition really. FX-6300 has access to more cache so would outperform the 750k in single threaded applications too.

OP, not sure why you're asking this question. All your links above allude that the FX-6300 is a better choice today. With time that choice will just compound.

 

[Fourstaff]

FX-6300 is the only sensible option. There is no competition really. FX-6300 has access to more cache so would outperform the 750k in single threaded applications too.

760K is an overclocking monster though, easily makes up the difference and its almost half the price.

 

[Dent1]

760K is an overclocking monster though, easily makes up the difference and its almost half the price.

The FX 6300 is an OC'ing monster too, up to 5Ghz where cooling permits.

The FX 6300 has dropped in price drastically, £84 v £60. There isn't much difference.


OP, do you realise these two choices are on different sockets? Be careful to have the right motherboard.

 

[Fourstaff]

The FX 6300 is an OC'ing monster too, up to 5Ghz where cooling permits.

The FX 6300 has dropped in price drastically, £84 v £60. There isn't much difference.

Its easier to cool the 750K given that its one module smaller, and the price difference is much bigger across the pond.

 

[buildzoid]

test show that the FX6300 is like 1% faster than the 750k in single threaded tascks so unless you need the six cores there really is no point also most of the athlons will hit 4.4Ghz on stock cooling which is worse than the stock cooler for the FX6300 but the FX6300 needs aftermarket to get to that speed further inflating the price

 

[RCoon]

The FX 6300 is an OC'ing monster too, up to 5Ghz where cooling permits.

The FX 6300 has dropped in price drastically, £84 v £60. There isn't much difference.


OP, do you realise these two choices are on different sockets? Be careful to have the right motherboard.

My 750K is half the TDP, and overclocks to 4.4Ghz on stock cooling without touching or coming close to 50 degrees(it's around 44-48 degrees fully loaded in Prime95), and at a mere 1.4v.
750/60K's do 5Ghz easy on air cooling solutions. My previous 6350 and 8350 could only reach 4.8+ on AIO solutions(H100) and heat became a problem above that, due to voltages up to 1.5v.

Half the TDP, better overclocking potential, and only a 1% difference in single threaded applications. I know what I would pick(In fact I did pick it).

 

[Dent1]

Where did we get 1% from?


Even in single threaded applications the FX 6300 would still be snappier because the load is balanced across more cores. e.g. games like BF4 Beta can put a quad core @ 100% CPU usage, its very difficult to stress a hexacore like that. When CPUs are reviewed they are done in perfect test conditions fresh OS install, no background apps. But 9/10 gamers will have Skype or TeamSpeak or some other VOIP app running simultaneously which can use up to 20% CPU alone.

Also its an investment. You may not benefit in the single threaded games much, but it will be outweighed in the multi threaded games and non gaming apps whilst having a longer shelf life.


It really comes to how much both CPUs are in your country and how much you're willing to spend. The 750k is still a good value for money, but in my country it makes no financial sense.

 

[Mindweaver]

I just picked up the FX 6300 for my brother over the 750k, because he will be using it to play BF4. I'd go with the FX 6300 over the 750k.

 

[Hayder_Master]

sure FX6300, almost %25 faster

 

[Peter1986C]

Is it smart for the long run to go for a socket that will be EOL sooner? I know that that is not important for everyone, but it may still be relevant for some.

 

[na]

Thanks to all of you for the replies
Both processors are very good for the money-Here(Even with "old"750K,the processor is performing very well-70-80 fps on Bishock and 45-50 fps on Crisis 3-both on ultra settings)
Here750K is even equal with icor 5 ,when we use him up to medium class video cards.
Here(both processors are one of the best options as price/performance.
1)So if i understand correctly,at the current moment-there is no big difference(1-5 %) in the performance in the games in single threaded tasks ?
2)But in the games,which start to use the full potential of FX 6300(like Battlefield 4) ,there is a difference-is there a reviews that compare X4 750 and FX 6300 ?
3)Is Battlefiled 4 a exception or all games are starting to use more cores in the future games ?
4) I read your comments about temperatures-on the first look,fx 6300 is better 95 W against 100 W Here

P.S
And what about future socket-AM2 against AM 3-which will be develop in the future from AMD ?

 

[Peter1986C]

Inorder from old to new, the sockets are: AM2, AM3, FM1, FM2. So the Athlon II X4 750K is actually pretty new. But the FX 6300 is simply tailored to a higher market segment, if you look at the prices and also the fact that the FX 6300 has way more L2 cache makes this clear. A drawback is however the socket (AM3+) not being the latest wich may mean that replacement motherboards will be hard to get within a year or two (unfortunate, if needing "repairs").

So yes the FX 6300 runs a bit cooler mayhaps, and is defenitely faster in certain applications but I do not know how long the AM3+ socket wil be continued.

 

[Fourstaff]

Thanks to all of you for the replies
Both processors are very good for the money-Here(Even with "old"750K,the processor is performing very well-70-80 fps on Bishock and 45-50 fps on Crisis 3-both on ultra settings)
Here750K is even equal with icor 5 ,when we use him up to medium class video cards.
Here(both processors are one of the best options as price/performance.
1)So if i understand correctly,at the current moment-there is no big difference(1-5 %) in the performance in the games in single threaded tasks ?
2)But in the games,which start to use the full potential of FX 6300(like Battlefield 4) ,there is a difference-is there a reviews that compare X4 750 and FX 6300 ?
3)Is Battlefiled 4 a exception or all games are starting to use more cores in the future games ?
4) I read your comments about temperatures-on the first look,fx 6300 is better 95 W against 100 W Here

P.S
And what about future socket-AM2 against AM 3-which will be develop in the future from AMD ?

Games will slowly use more and more cores over the years, so in the extreme long run FX6300 will be the better purchase of the two. However, chances are you will be upgrading before that happens, so my personal opinion is that if you don't play multithreaded games now chances are pretty slim you will need all the cores the FX6300 by the time of your next upgrade. However, if you play multithreaded games now (eg. BF4) then you should get the FX6300. There is massive difference in terms of performance.

As for FM2 against AM3+, FM2's future is confirmed with Kaveri(?), whereas AM3+ future support is still questionable. I personally wouldn't bother too much about upgrading, chances are you will be upgrading your CPU and motherboard (and Ram too, with DDR4) once this setup becomes old.

 

[na]

1)At this moment only Battlefield 4 is using a multithreaded cores-are there games(current) and future that are confirm/expect to use multithreaded cores(using all cores of GPU) ?
2)So if i understand correctly,there is a big chance FX 6300 socket not to be supported in the future,instead of X4 750,who will have a full support ?

P.S
Here http://gearnuke.com/battlefield-4-pc-beta-benchmarks-hint-at-brighter-prospects-amd-cpus-5682/ FX6300 is performing very well.

 

[Dent1]

1)At this moment only Battlefield 4 is using a multithreaded cores-are there games(current) and future that are confirm/expect to use multithreaded cores(using all cores of GPU) ?
2)So if i understand correctly,there is a big chance FX 6300 socket not to be supported in the future,instead of X4 750,who will have a full support ?

P.S
Here http://gearnuke.com/battlefield-4-pc-beta-benchmarks-hint-at-brighter-prospects-amd-cpus-5682/ FX6300 is performing very well.

Who said only BF4 was multi-threaded? There is a huge library of multi-threaded games. Just to name a few. BF3, Crysis series, Civilisation 5, Far Cry 2/3,Skyrim etc

 

[Jetster]

Is there a reason you not goin Intel?

 

[Peter1986C]

Price/performance ratio. The 750K costs like €80 and the FX 6300 like €100. Intel gives you a Gs eries Pentium for that, negating the "Intel-advantage". Financially it makes sense to go AMD.

 

[na]

Chevalr1c is right-price/performance is the most important of me-i am not fan of intel/amd/nvidia/ati...................price/performance is the right formula of me-even i can spend 3000 euro...............but it is stupid-the computer(in the most cases) is a liability,not a asset.
It is wiser to put your money in real asset/investment than to liability
P.S
Are the majority of the games will be multi-threaded?

 

[Dent1]

Chevalr1c is right-price/performance is the most important of me-i am not fan of intel/amd/nvidia/ati...................price/performance is the right formula of me-even i can spend 3000 euro...............but it is stupid-the computer(in the most cases) is a liability,not a asset.
It is wiser to put your money in real asset/investment than to liabilityP.S
Are the majority of the games will be multi-threaded?

This is what I tell people when I see them upgrading from 2012s ultra high end GPU to 2013s newest high end GPU for a 10% boost.

 

[Jetster]

It was just a question. Its not about being a fan.

 

[Aithos]

If you are going for price/performance and your primary purpose is gaming then I would be looking at Intel. There is no question that of the current chips on the market Intel excels at gaming and AMDs architecture falls behind pretty significantly. The price so long as you don't pick the ultra high end is pretty competitive as a total system and you won't be sacrificing gaming performance.

The simple fact is this: extra cores and to a large extent multi-threading is a waste when it comes to gaming. There are almost no games on the market that even attempt to effectively use all 4 (or more) cores because of the difficulty in optimizing a gaming engine in that way when your engine needs to run on a wide array of platforms. That won't ever change because of the nature of gaming on the PC platform, so until AMD changes their entire strategy they will be lackluster in gaming performance and aren't even significantly cheaper.

Pick whatever you want, but you've stated gaming and performance as two things you are concerned with and by only considering AMD you're neglecting both of those things.