F5F Stay Refreshed Power Users Overclocking Can an overclocked FX 6300 compete with a stock i5-3570 in games?

Can an overclocked FX 6300 compete with a stock i5-3570 in games?

Can an overclocked FX 6300 compete with a stock i5-3570 in games?

Pages (2): 1 2 Next
M
MineArqueiro
Member
237
02-21-2025, 11:32 AM
#1
Just like the thread head asks, kindly avoid turning this into an intel vs amd argument. I raised the issue because I've set up a new system and my CPU is limiting one of my games (Planetside 2 [I'm aware this title isn't fully optimized and there were discussions about it being built for intel architecture so it should run better]).
I also don't want to sell my 970a-ud3, which means I'm still focused on AMD.
M
MineArqueiro
02-21-2025, 11:32 AM #1

Just like the thread head asks, kindly avoid turning this into an intel vs amd argument. I raised the issue because I've set up a new system and my CPU is limiting one of my games (Planetside 2 [I'm aware this title isn't fully optimized and there were discussions about it being built for intel architecture so it should run better]).
I also don't want to sell my 970a-ud3, which means I'm still focused on AMD.

_
_Grim__
Junior Member
40
02-22-2025, 01:59 AM
#2
They work well for tasks such as video editing, but the 3570k really excels in gaming.
_
_Grim__
02-22-2025, 01:59 AM #2

They work well for tasks such as video editing, but the 3570k really excels in gaming.

P
Panda98875
Junior Member
8
02-22-2025, 09:29 AM
#3
If you fully overclocked the 6300 and then reduced its frequency by 200mhz, it would lag behind an i5-3570 by a noticeable amount in gaming performance. The exact difference would likely be reflected in FPS scores at high settings or as a percentage comparison to the other processor.
P
Panda98875
02-22-2025, 09:29 AM #3

If you fully overclocked the 6300 and then reduced its frequency by 200mhz, it would lag behind an i5-3570 by a noticeable amount in gaming performance. The exact difference would likely be reflected in FPS scores at high settings or as a percentage comparison to the other processor.

_
_ErikThePanda_
Posting Freak
807
02-22-2025, 03:35 PM
#4
I don't grasp the reason behind this inability to be addressed, whether it relates to speed or structure. It seems to involve matching floating points across two cores through a module. idgi
_
_ErikThePanda_
02-22-2025, 03:35 PM #4

I don't grasp the reason behind this inability to be addressed, whether it relates to speed or structure. It seems to involve matching floating points across two cores through a module. idgi

K
Killerman1834
Posting Freak
885
02-22-2025, 10:27 PM
#5
This link leads to a product page on AnandTech.
K
Killerman1834
02-22-2025, 10:27 PM #5

This link leads to a product page on AnandTech.

C
conquest1
Member
78
02-23-2025, 11:53 PM
#6
Yeah it's true it's on the stock list, but it's clear the i5 is significantly better. I'm not disputing your opinion about pairing the 6300 with a better GPU, whatever you think is fair, but comparing it to a higher-end GPU in a budget context can be misleading. Still, it makes sense if you consider a specific budget. I just feel frustrated when AMD claims their CPUs have more cores than they actually do.
C
conquest1
02-23-2025, 11:53 PM #6

Yeah it's true it's on the stock list, but it's clear the i5 is significantly better. I'm not disputing your opinion about pairing the 6300 with a better GPU, whatever you think is fair, but comparing it to a higher-end GPU in a budget context can be misleading. Still, it makes sense if you consider a specific budget. I just feel frustrated when AMD claims their CPUs have more cores than they actually do.

E
eldoradod
Junior Member
2
02-28-2025, 01:41 PM
#7
Yeah it's true it's at stock but you can easily notice the i5 is much better. I'm not disputing your opinion about pairing the 6300 with a better GPU, whatever you think is fair, but your comparison of matching the 6300 with a better GPU isn't really valid. It only makes sense if you consider a budget. I just feel a bit frustrated when AMD lists CPU specs as having more cores than they actually do.

Fair enough, I was just trying to highlight the issue with that chart. The question from OP was about whether an OVERCOCKED FX-6300 could match a STOCK i5... So, I'm just keeping things on track. 😉

An OC FX-6300 would be sufficient and wouldn't cause bottlenecks in current games. The i5 wouldn't either, since CPUs have surpassed the needs of most titles. It's the GPU that mainly limits performance. So, I recommend buying the 6300, overclocking it, and spending more on a better GPU. Overall, gaming will improve.
E
eldoradod
02-28-2025, 01:41 PM #7

Yeah it's true it's at stock but you can easily notice the i5 is much better. I'm not disputing your opinion about pairing the 6300 with a better GPU, whatever you think is fair, but your comparison of matching the 6300 with a better GPU isn't really valid. It only makes sense if you consider a budget. I just feel a bit frustrated when AMD lists CPU specs as having more cores than they actually do.

Fair enough, I was just trying to highlight the issue with that chart. The question from OP was about whether an OVERCOCKED FX-6300 could match a STOCK i5... So, I'm just keeping things on track. 😉

An OC FX-6300 would be sufficient and wouldn't cause bottlenecks in current games. The i5 wouldn't either, since CPUs have surpassed the needs of most titles. It's the GPU that mainly limits performance. So, I recommend buying the 6300, overclocking it, and spending more on a better GPU. Overall, gaming will improve.

K
Kamikaze_007
Senior Member
625
02-28-2025, 05:47 PM
#8
the chart was meant to illustrate how much overclocking he would need to reach the stock performance of an i5, which would push the cpu beyond 4.5ghz. I didn't stray from what I mentioned; just a brief review of that chart shows what the 6300 can achieve to close the gap if you're in agreement. For me, the comparison stands on its own.
K
Kamikaze_007
02-28-2025, 05:47 PM #8

the chart was meant to illustrate how much overclocking he would need to reach the stock performance of an i5, which would push the cpu beyond 4.5ghz. I didn't stray from what I mentioned; just a brief review of that chart shows what the 6300 can achieve to close the gap if you're in agreement. For me, the comparison stands on its own.

K
kaaskotskikker
Posting Freak
795
02-28-2025, 07:13 PM
#9
Based on my own observations, the FX-6300 still lagged behind the 3570k in gaming scenarios. The difference wasn’t huge, but it was clear and needed a $100 H80i watercooler to maintain safe temperatures, narrowing the price gap between the two models. Performance really varies depending on the games you choose. Some titles actually run better on FX series CPUs instead of Intel processors (very rare). For instance, in Battlefield 3, the FX-6300 and 3570k differ by no more than 3 frames per second, with the 3570k leading by about 1 frame per second, while the 8120 averages around 1 frame per second better. It all comes down to how well the system is optimized. Another case is The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, where a 3570k can be nearly twice as fast as an 8120, even though the latter has more CPU power. Still, optimization remains tougher for games with eight slower cores compared to four faster ones, which explains why Intel often wins about 90% of the time. A program tuned perfectly for one processor model will still underperform on another, especially when dealing with 8 cores versus 4.
K
kaaskotskikker
02-28-2025, 07:13 PM #9

Based on my own observations, the FX-6300 still lagged behind the 3570k in gaming scenarios. The difference wasn’t huge, but it was clear and needed a $100 H80i watercooler to maintain safe temperatures, narrowing the price gap between the two models. Performance really varies depending on the games you choose. Some titles actually run better on FX series CPUs instead of Intel processors (very rare). For instance, in Battlefield 3, the FX-6300 and 3570k differ by no more than 3 frames per second, with the 3570k leading by about 1 frame per second, while the 8120 averages around 1 frame per second better. It all comes down to how well the system is optimized. Another case is The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, where a 3570k can be nearly twice as fast as an 8120, even though the latter has more CPU power. Still, optimization remains tougher for games with eight slower cores compared to four faster ones, which explains why Intel often wins about 90% of the time. A program tuned perfectly for one processor model will still underperform on another, especially when dealing with 8 cores versus 4.

Q
Qesterchen
Member
149
02-28-2025, 08:44 PM
#10
I'm going to strongly disagree with you on this. If a game runs perfectly on 8 cores—since no one will tailor a game for a specific CPU—the 3770k will still outperform the 8350. Each of its "8" cores is faster than each of the AMD's "8" cores. There are benchmarks like Cinebench that are tuned for all available cores, and the 3770k easily beats the 8350 in many multi-threaded tests. Clearly, having four powerful cores is much better than eight weak ones. That’s a fact.
Q
Qesterchen
02-28-2025, 08:44 PM #10

I'm going to strongly disagree with you on this. If a game runs perfectly on 8 cores—since no one will tailor a game for a specific CPU—the 3770k will still outperform the 8350. Each of its "8" cores is faster than each of the AMD's "8" cores. There are benchmarks like Cinebench that are tuned for all available cores, and the 3770k easily beats the 8350 in many multi-threaded tests. Clearly, having four powerful cores is much better than eight weak ones. That’s a fact.

Pages (2): 1 2 Next