FX-8000 series vs. Intel Core i5: Which is better?

My take is that the best gaming CPU right now is the Intel Core i5-4460 with its 4 strong cores. Honestly, with an FX-8300, there isn't much else you need for most modern games. To save us all from a pointless debate, I actually built both machines, and when people jump into multiplayer, the i5 absolutely eats the FX alive.

Alexander Moore67 said:My take is that the best gaming CPU right now is the Intel Core i5-4460 with its 4 strong cores. Honestly, with an FX-8300, there isn't much else you need for most modern games. To save us all from a pointless debate, I actually built both machines, and when people jump into multiplayer, the i5 absolutely eats the FX alive.

Sure, but that same i5 costs 50% more than the FX. That means you end up settling for a weaker GPU or cutting corners elsewhere just to make the budget work.

The graphics card is the heart of any gaming rig. The FX isn't actually as bad as everyone makes it out to be, but hey, at the end of the day, you get what you pay for.😁

Robert Rodriguez2 said:Sure, but that same i5 costs 50% more than the FX. That means you end up settling for a weaker GPU or cutting corners elsewhere just to make the budget work.

The graphics card is the heart of any gaming rig. The FX isn't actually as bad as everyone makes it out to be, but hey, at the end of the day, you get what you pay for.😁

I was thinking along those same lines—you end up paying for a pricier motherboard and a beefy cooler, and then that thing is pulling 125W even before you start overclocking. You'll fry a cheap board instantly unless you jump to a high-end chipset, which is even more expensive. It’s just not a great value for the money.😵

You're talking nonsense. How exactly are you supposed to wear out a motherboard if the overclocking voltages end up being lower than the factory defaults? For instance, if you have a 3.5GHz clock at 1.35V stock, but when you're tweaking it, you hit 4 GHz at maybe 1.28V—depending on the specific silicon lottery outcome. And this whole idea about AMD overvolting? That applies to basically every AMD processor from the last decade.

Kimberly Gomez34 said:You're talking nonsense. How exactly are you supposed to wear out a motherboard if the overclocking voltages end up being lower than the factory defaults? For instance, if you have a 3.5GHz clock at 1.35V stock, but when you're tweaking it, you hit 4 GHz at maybe 1.28V—depending on the specific silicon lottery outcome. And this whole idea about AMD overvolting? That applies to basically every AMD processor from the last decade.

Just go ahead and confirm that the FX series is better then...

Alexander Moore67 - which setup is going to deliver better gaming performance (in at least 99% of scenarios): an FX 8300 paired with an R9 280X, or an Intel Core i5-4460 with an R9 380? Also, does the heavy lifting happen on the CPU or the GPU? To be clear, both builds are assembled correctly, so there won't be any errors with either one.

fx8300 $333
cooler 100-$67
motherboard $190
total around $567

i5 $500
motherboard $117 difference $50 and for $50 difference you could buy a much better graphics card😵

When you look at the price gap between these cards $33 who's actually crazy here 👍

That doesn't actually answer my question.

Looking at the proposed builds:

an R9 380 2GB - $563, a 280X - $649, $83 specifically regarding the GPU difference here.

1 x AMD FX-Series X8 8300 Processor 3.3GHz, 16MB, 125W, AM3+, FD8300WMHK
1 x Gigabyte 970A-DS3P v2.0, AM3+, AMD 970 SB950, 4x DDR3 2000(O.C.)
1 x LC Power Cosmo Cool, 92 mm, Hydraulic bearing, 800-2200 rpm,
$553

1 x Intel Core i5-4460 (3.20GHz, 1MB, 6MB, 84 W, 1150) Box
1 x Asrock H81M-HDS, s1150, Intel H81, M-ATX, dual Channel 2 xDDR3
$639

$86 there is the matter of the platform difference. For this price point, you're moving up one tier in graphics within the mainstream category. The CPU itself is 50% cheaper, yet you get a motherboard with 4 RAM slots, an ATX format, a VRM cooler, plus a budget aftermarket cooler (which can serve you for years through future upgrades).

Look, I know we're nitpicking between two solid setups now, but if we're going to play devil's advocate, let's at least be precise about it.

Alexander Moore67 said:I was thinking along those same lines—you end up paying for a pricier motherboard and a beefy cooler, and then that thing is pulling 125W even before you start overclocking. You'll fry a cheap board instantly unless you jump to a high-end chipset, which is even more expensive. It’s just not a great value for the money.😵

If you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know the FX 8300 has a 95W TDP. Besides, even with Intel, you wouldn't dream of pairing a chip like that with a bottom-tier motherboard. $167If you ask me... a solid motherboard is the backbone of any decent build. You can't build something reliable on cheap junk. $100Look, even if you go with an old i5... those are bottom-tier boards. I wouldn't put anything on them above a Celeron or a Pentium, let alone a decent GPU.
Besides, the FX series undervolts like a dream and still hits high clock speeds even when you drop the voltage. So yeah, your theory still doesn't hold water.

Edit: Kimberly Gomez34 beat me to it. I was just about to suggest the exact same thing. 👍So, I guess we're looking at spending another $150 just to get a decent cooler? Great.$67 It’s cheaper than Intel.
Here we go again with the fanboying. Look, I’m not hating on Intel, but if you're building a rig strictly for gaming, pairing an FX 8300 with a beefier GPU is the way to go. Sure, Intel wins on single-core performance, but when you're working with a tight budget... $1667Paying a 50% markup just because it says Intel on the box? I don't know about that... sounds like a bad deal to me.

To make matters even worse, there was someone else who used to aggressively argue that the 280X was superior to the GTX 960 (specifically the 4GB version)—claiming it was basically on par with an R9 380 but with more VRAM since it's more powerful. Now, apparently, that's considered the "wrong" choice just because it doesn't have an Intel chip inside. He used to preach about getting the best performance at any cost, even if it meant building a slightly bulkier rig.

Kimberly Gomez34 said:To make matters even worse, there was someone else who used to aggressively argue that the 280X was superior to the GTX 960 (specifically the 4GB version)—claiming it was basically on par with an R9 380 but with more VRAM since it's more powerful. Now, apparently, that's considered the "wrong" choice just because it doesn't have an Intel chip inside. He used to preach about getting the best performance at any cost, even if it meant building a slightly bulkier rig.

🤣 🤣

He's just a leaf in the wind. His opinions shift whenever the mood strikes, like someone riding a hormonal rollercoaster. One minute he's saying one thing, the next he's totally flipped. 🤣

Kimberly Gomez34 said:To make matters even worse, there was someone else who used to aggressively argue that the 280X was superior to the GTX 960 (specifically the 4GB version)—claiming it was basically on par with an R9 380 but with more VRAM since it's more powerful. Now, apparently, that's considered the "wrong" choice just because it doesn't have an Intel chip inside. He used to preach about getting the best performance at any cost, even if it meant building a slightly bulkier rig.

Just tell me which processor is better...

The Intel Core i5-4460 is generally the superior choice for gaming (almost without exception). Are you sure you can live with that decision? 🙂

Looking at the big picture—not just gaming performance—I honestly think the FX 8300 is the better buy (it offers more headroom, better multi-threaded performance under full load, and it's about 50% cheaper). But hey, that's just my two cents.

Alexander Moore67 said:My take is that the best gaming CPU right now is the Intel Core i5-4460 with its 4 strong cores. Honestly, with an FX-8300, there isn't much else you need for most modern games. To save us all from a pointless debate, I actually built both machines, and when people jump into multiplayer, the i5 absolutely eats the FX alive.

I guess we have to start a thread so we don't just spam someone, so here you go—vent away so we can settle this stupid topic once and for all.

Kimberly Gomez34 said:To make matters even worse, there was someone else who used to aggressively argue that the 280X was superior to the GTX 960 (specifically the 4GB version)—claiming it was basically on par with an R9 380 but with more VRAM since it's more powerful. Now, apparently, that's considered the "wrong" choice just because it doesn't have an Intel chip inside. He used to preach about getting the best performance at any cost, even if it meant building a slightly bulkier rig.

Yeah, who cares about an extra dollar on the bill every month? If that's a dealbreaker, they probably shouldn't be buying a PC anyway.☕

To prevent a pointless debate, I just put both builds together. When people are playing multiplayer, the i5 definitely eats the FX for breakfast.

Hmm, maybe if you're just running everything at stock settings. I have an FX 8300, and from what I've noticed, that CPU basically fights against itself when the BIOS is left on the default settings. For me, Grand Theft Auto V would stutter even on medium settings because of unnecessary CPU throttling. The load was only at 50%, and the gap to Tmax was only about 35°C. And don't even get me started on the voltage—it was hitting 1.4V per core.

After messing around with the BIOS, I managed to bump it up nicely from 3.3GHz to 4.0GHz. I set the voltage to 1.32V, and under load, it even dips down to 1.296V. I ran Prime for an hour, and it stayed perfectly stable. The gameplay improved significantly, giving me about 15 extra FPS, which actually let me turn the graphics settings up a bit. Not to mention the boost in performance during multi-threaded tasks like After Effects.

And speaking of heavy lifting, I can play a multiplayer game and record in 720p simultaneously with the FX without any noticeable FPS drops. I think the FX still holds an advantage with those 8 cores, since roughly 4 are handling the game while the other 4 stay free.

So, it isn't enough to just cram a good processor into a build; you have to know how to squeeze out the best performance possible.

As for the 95W TDP, honestly, at 4GHz and 1.32V, my LC-CC-120 handles it easily, provided the room temperature is around 68°F and the case has decent airflow—which is way more important.

Now, as for whether the actual power draw of the processor hits 125W? I haven't a clue. 🤷

The power draw on the CPU itself is pretty rough... I think it's hitting 125W, but honestly, who knows for sure? 🤷

That image comes from a PC Expert review, but the issue is they were using a disastrous motherboard (and they probably didn't even bother hunting for the lowest stable voltage). They claim they pumped a brutal 1.5 V into the BIOS; at that voltage, that CPU basically becomes a power plant. Once you cross 1.400V, power consumption skyrockets—some people are hitting 4.7 GHz at those levels already.

As we mentioned, the overclocking platform used was an ASRock 990FX Extreme6 motherboard. Despite carrying the Extreme6 suffix, this board isn't really built for serious overclocking expeditions. It offers relatively low available CPU voltages, a total lack of Load-Line Calibration (LLC) options, weak voltage regulation, and mediocre cooling. Our first goal was finding the maximum stable frequency for our testing. Since we’re dealing with an unlocked processor, things are simplified enough that even a novice could jump into gaming with a setup like this. We settled on 4.7 GHz at 1.45 V (measured via multimeter on the underside of the board). While CPU-Z shows 1.488 V, the BIOS is set to 1.5 V—making it painfully obvious that there is significant voltage drop.

What a disaster of a board. It costs an arm and a leg, yet lacks even the most basic overclocking features found on a $187 (ds3p) motherboard. Unfortunately, if you're looking to overclock on the AM3+ socket, you really have to stick with ASUS or Gigabyte. Aside from them, even the "high-end" boards from other brands can't touch the mid-range offerings from the big players when it comes to OC.

A buddy of mine was running an MSI 990FXA-GD65 paired with an FX 8120 on an H90. The VRMs were hitting 92°C at 1.35V and 4.3GHz, which caused everything to freeze up just three minutes into a Prime95 test because of some massive vDroop. I guess ASRock and MSI really struggled with their AM3+ boards.

We eventually managed to get it somewhat stable at 4.1GHz, though even that felt like pushing it. He was using an Antec case.

How many people asking for buying advice are actually going to drop serious cash? And how much do they even know? In my opinion, less than 5% of those seeking help have any clue what they're talking about. That’s why it’s an Intel Core i5-4460 right now, but once the price on the upcoming Intel Core i5-6500 settles down, it'll be a great move.