Haswell at 3.6 is 45% faster than steamroller at 4.2. If that's a 'small percentage' to you then fine. To me that's a massive difference, one I'm willing to pay the extra money for since in the games I play even Ivy Bridge can struggle at times.
On extremely low budgets, yeah, an i5 isn't worth the money when you would have to get a
crappy/no GPU to fit one in, but $700 isn't a budget where getting a 6300 makes sense. At $5-600 by all means grab one.
Later FX CPU's like the 6300 and 8350 use piledriver technology it was only the 41xx CPU's that used steamroller. And where is your proof that it's 45% better the non biased videos from youtubers like tek syndicate showed that the percentage is hardly worth it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE --- AMD FX 6300, 16GB DDR3, 7870 GHZ OC 2GB, 2x 1TB HDD's, 64 GB SATA III SSD, 12X SAMSUNG BLU RAY, 750W PSU, X-FI FATAL1TY,WINDOWS 7
Teksyndicate's comparison is universally regarded as trash. Find some comprehensive benchmarks, not averages, not peaks, not whatever else you're looking at that says anything AMD has offered in the last half decade is better than Intel's latest and greatest and take a good hard look at the unplayable lows. I played WoW on a Phenom II and had crashes/freezes when it couldn't keep up with what was going on in raids and AMD hasn't been able to make significant progress over that architecture on the single threaded front while intel has been consistently improving by 5-15% with lower power draws to boot.
I know this comes off as fanboyish but it's to the point where I'm sick of dealing with people who think a $120 bargain bin processor competes with top of the line parts because of a video that been debunked a dozen times over. The FX6300 is great if it's all you can afford but even just the midrange i5s run all over it in every scenario. There's no point in linking numbers because every source that says intel is better is trash in anyone who owns an AMD processor's eyes. --- Every time I try to go where I really wanna be it's already where I am, 'cuz I'm already there XBL, PSN, Steam, Origin, BSN, GFAQs, MC: PhilOnDez
The 4670k is 200mhz faster at stock, has an unlocked multiplier, and a few instruction sets are disabled. It's $40 more expensive and requires a Z87 board to actually get any overclocking out of it (there's actually one B85 board that you can OC with if you can find the right BIOs for it, ASRock Fatalityleetspeak B85) which is another $40 to $80 over a B85/H87 board.
On the flip side, while the 6300 is unlocked you aren't going to get much in the way of overclocking headroom on a $50 mobo. The mobo you choose is just as important as lucking out and getting a good CPU and to match the 4570 I recommended you'd have to OC it to close to 7.0 ghz which just isn't happening outside of LN2. --- Every time I try to go where I really wanna be it's already where I am, 'cuz I'm already there XBL, PSN, Steam, Origin, BSN, GFAQs, MC: PhilOnDez
Because it has a 192bit memory interface (vs 128bit which is a severe bottleneck at 1080p) and more CUDA cores. --- Every time I try to go where I really wanna be it's already where I am, 'cuz I'm already there XBL, PSN, Steam, Origin, BSN, GFAQs, MC: PhilOnDez