This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Is the AMD FX 6300 bad for gaming?

  • Topic Archived
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. Is the AMD FX 6300 bad for gaming?
11 months ago#31
I'm not trying to be rude but benchmarks mean nothing if your personal experience proves otherwise. Your so called benchmarks say that it may dip but that doesn't include personal optimization. I've run games that stay locked on in 60 fps or more without dipping in intense gameplay before and so forth. Your accusation of bias is nothing to me. I could care less of these benchmarks because from personal experience I know my PC best. I would love to get my hands on a 4790k but I would rather just save money to pay off bills. So please Intel fanboys... Stop flaming AMD to the point that your arguments become statements that reflect you as the epitome of stupidity. Some of us actually do get pretty good performance from these CPU's. Let's just game together in peace.
---
AMD FX-8350 4.0Ghz | Asus M5A97 LE R2.0 | 8GB G.Skill Ares DDR3-1600 | EVGA 770 2GB SC ACX | 1TB WD Blue Caviar | CM HAF 912 |
11 months ago#32
Shebeskii posted...
Pengu1n posted...
32x2z posted...
WyzeGye posted...
My 6300 at 4.7ghz hasn't done me wrong yet. Ps2, GameCube and Wii emulation works just fine too.

Don't believe the Intel fanboys.


----

I was told that the AMD 8350 ran mmo's (example: WoW) like crap. I was also told their GPU's ran like crap for WoW. Game never drops below 60 fps at 1080P. Needless to say, anyone who can only recommend one brand (intel vs amd) isn't someone who is worth getting advice from. I'd wager a good sum of money they know little/nothing about computers if opinions are biased.


I ran world of warcraft, guild wars and (more recently) star trek online just fine using AMD CPU's and GPU'S all games ran without a hitch.Every now and a gain i load up napoleon total war and that runs just fine as well. TBH i think that Intel has paid some drones to make accounts on here and post negative comments about AMD and steer people looking to build or upgrade a PC away from AMD by using fake info. Because the people who own AMD hardware don't have any of the issues that many an intel fanboy will say.


We have anecdotes vs. benchmarks. The benchmarks show AMD performing poorly in many PC oriented titles.

In contrast to that evidence, is a bunch of hearsay from people with evidently no standards, as their "experiences" are contrary to the evidence. Most of us have owned an AMD CPU and moved on. I had a 1055T OC'd to 3.4GHz, which is probably very nearly the ballpark of the 6300. It sucked ass compared to my current i5 2500K at stock or OC'd.

Let me reiterate:

Intel recommendations are based on evidence.

AMD recommendations are based on anecdotes/testimony.

Yet AMD owners claim fanboyism. It would be funny if it weren't so ironic and pathetic.

P.S. anecdotes that contain vague, subjective phrases like "just fine", "without a hitch", "don't have any issues" don't carry any weight.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/guild-wars-2-performance-benchmark,3268-7.html

Hard evidence. Apparently the release client runs even more in Intel's favour.

Your subjective statements don't change reality. The reality is your CPU doesn't maintain framerates acceptable for people used to Intel performance.

Stop claiming fanboyism and look in the mirror. You're anything but objective.


The only thing pathetic about any of this is posts like yours.

Nobody is saying that amd is better than Intel. Were saying it's not garbage tier hardware like people such as yourself would have others believe.
---
http://puu.sh/8IK8Q/8e25ebacb7.jpg [My Rig + Specs] - - - - http://youtu.be/cfh4MK6kW3w
Wolves don't lose sleep over the opinions of sheep.
11 months ago#33
You are missing the point entirely though, just like many Intel users do. Amd is cheaper and will still get you 60 fps no problem in the vast majority of games, and in the games it can't get you there they are still very playable.

No one is saying that a 6300 is going to out preform an i5 that costs 100 dollars more, the issue is that both can get you your 60fps in most situations.

Honestly from years of keeping track of PC hardware and their performance I can say that most people grossly over inflate how much of a difference CPUs make in terms of gaming. Like I see people saying they switched out a 2500k for a new i5 or i7, I'm sorry but that is a downright waste of money for gaming and you would almost never see any difference yet people do it because they don't actually look into the facts.

Intel are just price gougers these days, every year a new processor that requires a new mother board, with a prices increasing every time with no decrease in old tech. Not to mention how they've started cheaping out more and more since the 2500k days to the point that people are delidding their cpus to get proper heat dissipation.

Amd is a much more consumer friendly company, using the same socket type for years so you don't have to upgrade you're mother board every time you get a new cpu is pretty convenient.
---
Drugs are never the answer, unless the question is what isn't the answer.
11 months ago#34
iiFroZenHeAveNz posted...
I'm not trying to be rude but benchmarks mean nothing if your personal experience proves otherwise. Your so called benchmarks say that it may dip but that doesn't include personal optimization. I've run games that stay locked on in 60 fps or more without dipping in intense gameplay before and so forth. Your accusation of bias is nothing to me. I could care less of these benchmarks because from personal experience I know my PC best. I would love to get my hands on a 4790k but I would rather just save money to pay off bills. So please Intel fanboys... Stop flaming AMD to the point that your arguments become statements that reflect you as the epitome of stupidity. Some of us actually do get pretty good performance from these CPU's. Let's just game together in peace.


Personal experience means very little. It's one of the basic principles of evidence based methodology.

Personal optimization? What? Benchmarks are run on PCs with literally nothing but games, bench and OC software on them. They also usually run SSDs.

Following the evidence through basic logic is the epitome of stupidity... because we don't listen to random unsubstantiated anecdote from a message board?

What about my anecdote that AMD performs exactly like the benchmarks show?

What's more likely? Every benchmark is wrong and your experience is infallible.

Or

You're suffering confirmation bias.

Seems like a simple answer. The reasonable answer is the latter.

We're not saying you can't enjoy your CPU. Just don't claim things it cannot do. When you make claims contrary to all known evidence you're not impressing or convincing anyone. You're only hurting your credibility.
---
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens
11 months ago#35
The 6300 is still very decent and gets the job done. Very well considering it's socket and architecture has some age to it. It's still a viable choice for the price. You will not get the longevity out of it compared to intel, but you'll be saving money immediately. Really not much else to say. It's fine for its price.

How about this for all new people to this board...don't ask for help here. People here hate AMD and will give you false information. The users with a blatant hard on for intel and Nvidia will take their time to prove over and over again that Intel is better. Like the above poster, they'll then turn the tables and claim others are Fanboys. I'm not exactly sure why, because no one here has said AMD performs better. But these condescending people will defend Intel to the death it seems. I guess they don't have anything better to do.
11 months ago#36
WyzeGye posted...
Shebeskii posted...
Pengu1n posted...
32x2z posted...
WyzeGye posted...
My 6300 at 4.7ghz hasn't done me wrong yet. Ps2, GameCube and Wii emulation works just fine too.

Don't believe the Intel fanboys.


----

I was told that the AMD 8350 ran mmo's (example: WoW) like crap. I was also told their GPU's ran like crap for WoW. Game never drops below 60 fps at 1080P. Needless to say, anyone who can only recommend one brand (intel vs amd) isn't someone who is worth getting advice from. I'd wager a good sum of money they know little/nothing about computers if opinions are biased.


I ran world of warcraft, guild wars and (more recently) star trek online just fine using AMD CPU's and GPU'S all games ran without a hitch.Every now and a gain i load up napoleon total war and that runs just fine as well. TBH i think that Intel has paid some drones to make accounts on here and post negative comments about AMD and steer people looking to build or upgrade a PC away from AMD by using fake info. Because the people who own AMD hardware don't have any of the issues that many an intel fanboy will say.


We have anecdotes vs. benchmarks. The benchmarks show AMD performing poorly in many PC oriented titles.

In contrast to that evidence, is a bunch of hearsay from people with evidently no standards, as their "experiences" are contrary to the evidence. Most of us have owned an AMD CPU and moved on. I had a 1055T OC'd to 3.4GHz, which is probably very nearly the ballpark of the 6300. It sucked ass compared to my current i5 2500K at stock or OC'd.

Let me reiterate:

Intel recommendations are based on evidence.

AMD recommendations are based on anecdotes/testimony.

Yet AMD owners claim fanboyism. It would be funny if it weren't so ironic and pathetic.

P.S. anecdotes that contain vague, subjective phrases like "just fine", "without a hitch", "don't have any issues" don't carry any weight.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/guild-wars-2-performance-benchmark,3268-7.html

Hard evidence. Apparently the release client runs even more in Intel's favour.

Your subjective statements don't change reality. The reality is your CPU doesn't maintain framerates acceptable for people used to Intel performance.

Stop claiming fanboyism and look in the mirror. You're anything but objective.


The only thing pathetic about any of this is posts like yours.

Nobody is saying that amd is better than Intel. Were saying it's not garbage tier hardware like people such as yourself would have others believe.


Never used the term garbage tier once. If your aim is constant 60FPS gameplay, especially for RTS and MMOs, AMD is indeed a god awful choice.

For other titles that support more threads, most console ports and indie games, AMD is fine.

The fact that AMD fall flat in very prominent genres is reason enough for people to slam them, hard.
---
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens
11 months ago#37
YOeastonYO posted...
The 6300 is still very decent and gets the job done. Very well considering it's socket and architecture has some age to it. It's still a viable choice for the price. You will not get the longevity out of it compared to intel, but you'll be saving money immediately. Really not much else to say. It's fine for its price.

How about this for all new people to this board...don't ask for help here. People here hate AMD and will give you false information. The users with a blatant hard on for intel and Nvidia will take their time to prove over and over again that Intel is better. Like the above poster, they'll then turn the tables and claim others are Fanboys. I'm not exactly sure why, because no one here has said AMD performs better. But these condescending people will defend Intel to the death it seems. I guess they don't have anything better to do.


Not defending Intel, I'm making the claim that AMD and 60FPS gameplay aren't two peas in a pod.

Doesn't mean they can't game. But if your aim is a higher end GPU or the aforementioned genres, you're making a mistake, savings or no savings, because for those genres you're actually not getting the price to performance. The price to performance only exists when you consider highly threaded titles, console ports and indie titles, like I mentioned.
---
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens
11 months ago#38
Play Starcraft 2 with the whole screen full of units, and any AMD CPU will choke. A Haswell i3 can double your frames in that game.

The sad thing is that since most games still only benefit of max four cores/threads, even a Haswell i3 is very stiff competition for AMD's best CPUs.
---
Super Mario Kart is the single best Mario Kart ever!
11 months ago#39
KURRUPTOR posted...
You are missing the point entirely though, just like many Intel users do. Amd is cheaper and will still get you 60 fps no problem in the vast majority of games, and in the games it can't get you there they are still very playable.

No one is saying that a 6300 is going to out preform an i5 that costs 100 dollars more, the issue is that both can get you your 60fps in most situations.

Honestly from years of keeping track of PC hardware and their performance I can say that most people grossly over inflate how much of a difference CPUs make in terms of gaming. Like I see people saying they switched out a 2500k for a new i5 or i7, I'm sorry but that is a downright waste of money for gaming and you would almost never see any difference yet people do it because they don't actually look into the facts.

Intel are just price gougers these days, every year a new processor that requires a new mother board, with a prices increasing every time with no decrease in old tech. Not to mention how they've started cheaping out more and more since the 2500k days to the point that people are delidding their cpus to get proper heat dissipation.

Amd is a much more consumer friendly company, using the same socket type for years so you don't have to upgrade you're mother board every time you get a new cpu is pretty convenient.


And the AMD performs like it costs 100 dollars less in RTS, MMOs and any titles that doesn't thread well (Ubisoft titles etc.). What's your point?

Upgrading from a 2500K to an i7 isn't a smart choice, but if you're going 780 Ti SLi or something, it's definitely highly beneficial.

And AMD processors perform like they're on an old socket. It's not like there isn't a compromise to that strategy.
---
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens
11 months ago#40
AMD CPUs perform like their price point. They aren't a deal if you're a PC gamer who enjoys RTS, MMOs and a range of titles which have less threading. That is the position "Intel fanboys" are trying to make to you people, but you just keep painting it as bias, when the numbers in fact back us up.

Pointing to BF4 or some console port doesn't prove a point and just makes you look bad.
---
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. Is the AMD FX 6300 bad for gaming?

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived