Battle of the Hexa-Cores! FX6350 vs. 5930K

Communities Blog
1

I've finally ascended to the glory that is the Intel Hexa-Core socket-2011 CPU lineup and it's time to ditch my old AMD based system.

gfdshbhdfj.jpg3008x1064 412 KB

My old system was built when I didn't have a lot of cash and when I was still in high-school. It served me well as not only my first customer computer but my first true gaming machine. I used the AMD FX 6350 cpu and Gigabyte 990FX-ud3 motherboard. I was was able to get a little bit more performance out of it by running it at 4.6Ghz rather than the standard 3.9

My new system Is built in thanks to the IntelRetailEdge Program which allowed me to get a 5930K for $200. I'm now running it with a X99 Saber-tooth board.

The system is over kill for gaming and normal forum use. But I did it as I won't NEED an upgrade for quite some time and because I'm an enthusiast.

And because I'm an enthusiast I wanted to benchmark these two systems against each other. And this thread is what follows from that.

Specs for testing

AMD system:
~ FX 6350 @4.6Ghz
~ Gigabyte 990FX-ud3
~ 16GB Patriot 1660Mhz
~ Xigmatek Dark Knight Cooler

Intel System:
~ i7-5930K (run at stock) [HT-ON]
~ x99 Sabertooth
~ 16GB Crucial 2400Mhz
~ Noctual NHD15

Same on both systems
~ 850evo 250GB (benches)
~ Windows 10pro 64bit
~ RM750 PSU
~ 2TB WD green (games)
~ AMD r9-290 @1000Mhz

Disclaimer:
FX6350 was run at 4.6Ghz for all tests, and windows 10 Despite what some tests may claim.
5930K was run at STOCK for all tests EXCEPT CineBench & Power Consumption, It ran at 4.4Ghz 1.29V
Game benchmarks were done at the same part of the game, and action were mirrored. Recorded using 2minutes FRAPS benchmark. if the game had a built in benchmark it was used.

I Wanted to run a variety of tests, Some synthetic, some games I had on hand, what follows are benchmarks I was able to complete while I had all the parts on hand.

ON TO THE TESTS!

Unigine Heaven

----- =settings = -----

=-= FX6350 =-=

=-= 5930K =-=

Capture4.PNG703x610 255 KB

Here we don't see much difference between the systems a little over 1%, They both have the same minimum FPS and nearly identiacal scores. This would makes sense as unigine is a benchmark not designed to stress specifically CPUs

UNIGINE Valley

----- = Settings = -----

Valley settings.PNG348x562 337 KB

=-= FX6350 =-=

=-= 5930K =-=
Capture3.PNG722x664 336 KB

Notes: A similar story is told with valley although the performance gap widens a little bit, closer to 7% but again this test is mostly for GPUs

=-=-= GAME BENCHMARKS =-=-=

Witcher 3

Settings: MAX - 1080p

.....min / avg / max
FX..33 / 44.3 / 55
I7...33 / 44.7 / 53

Metro 2033 (non-redux)

Settings: MAX 1440p

.....min / avg / max
FX..23 / 50.1 / 106
I7...24 / 51.6 / 100

Star Citizen

Settings: "high" 1080p

=-=-= Hangar =-=-= (VFG | Vanguard, Avenger, Mustang)

.....min / avg / max
FX..17 / 29.1 / 32
I7...24 / 30.9 / 59

=-=-= Combat =-=-= (Dying Star | Solo Swarm)

.....min / avg / max
FX..22 / 41.7 / 61
I7...19 / 45.1 / 59

NOTE: I often talk about how this game had slight input lag on my old system even though I had decent frames, on the I7 I felt non.

Tomb Raider

Settings: [benchmark] 1440p MAX

.....min / avg / max
FX..62 / 83 / 102
I7...62 / 83 / 100

Theif

Settings: Very High 1440p

DX11
.....min / avg / max
FX..30 / 46 / 66
I7...42 / 50 / 75

Mantle
.....min / avg / max
FX.. 40 / 47 / 66
I7... 43 / 52 / 73

=-=-= Synthectics =-=-=

7-zip

[133 pictures 3-10MB each 555MB total (.jpg & .png)]



[1GB movie]

....................................(archive).........(Extract)


Handbrake

File: Movie: Se7en 1GB
Settings: Default


Notes: Holy Cow! The 5930K Finally Stretch it's legs! It's 240% the speed of the FX

CineBench R15

Note: 5930K ran this test@ 4.4Ghz.

=-= FX6350 =-=

C15 6350 1.PNG524x764 76 KB

=-= 5930K =-=
C15 5930K 1.PNG805x758 130 KB

In chart form

Notes: REKT

SUPER PI

=-= FX6350 =-=

SP 6350 4.6.PNG812x718 129 KB

=-= 5930K =-=
SP 5930k 4.4.PNG529x619 45.8 KB

=-=-= Power Consumption. =-=-=

  • Measured using a kill-a-watt with the PSU plugged directly into it.
  • CPU + Mobo + 1x SSD + 1x HDD
  • idle: From boot, no programs, sitting at desktop
  • CPU: Prime95
  • GPU: Unigine Heaven
  • Both: BOTH

Idle (Watts)

FX..@4.6...72
I7...Stock...71
I7...@4.4...71

CPU Load (Watts)

FX..@4.6...248
I7...Stock...202
I7...@4.4...308

GPU Load (Watts)

FX..@4.6...330-350
I7...Stock...310-330
I7...@4.4...350-390

BOTH (Watts)

FX..@4.6...470-480
I7...Stock...420-430
I7...@4.4....520-530

Big thanks to @Fouquin for getting bored and making the charts!

.

13 Likes
2

tl:dr WOOOHOOOOO.

3 Likes
3

In other words, for gaming it doesn't really matter which one you use since the differences are fairly negligible overall.

In everything else though, the FX6350 gets absolutely fucking destroyed.

Sounds about right.

2 Likes
4

What a 6350?

5

What what?

6

its a saying that when you burn something too much of it, its not there anymore.

7

Interesting ! good work. those power consumption numbers :) of course it should be that way ?

8

interesting.

in productivity the 5930K destroys it.
But thats not strange ofc.
In those particular games tested, the FX put up a good showing still.

Did you also tested those games with an overclocked 5930K?
It probably wont make that much of a difrence, since the 290 was probably allmost running at its max in those games.
Witcher 3 and Tombraider are very gpu demending.
Still not a bad showing for the overclocked FX63xx

1 Like
9

Very nice wrote up but not at all surprising. Mirroing my own experience going from an OCed 8350 to the 5930k. For a majority of games a highly OCed FX is totally fine.

10

Yup also in keeping with my findings. An FX 6100 at 4GHz with a 290 will keep up just fine in games, a few people here cough @SoulFallen cough called bullshit but nope this just backs it up more.

Outside of games though, yes the Intel part is far better, which is fine I only game really.

Edit: neckbeard voice Oh well AMD draws so much power it will add stuffs face with fat burger like... uh... wipes mayo and cheese off chin like 400 dollars to you power bill.

Yeah well suck it. Intel is drawing more power almost all the time, even with the die shrink.

11

depends on the gpu and testing methodology for all we know he stared at the sky for these tests.

personally i've found that a 7970/280x is the highest you can get without a substantial bottleneck.

1 Like
12

Other than one of the star citizen tests this shows otherwise.

13

the average is 4 fps lower which equates to random huge fps dips not a smooth 4 fps lower.
additionally if it was local combat its not cpu intensive online combat is.

14

i love have the amd pc uses less power then the intel pc :D and people say amd use more power :D

15

plainly put the amd cpu is probably bottlenecking the gpu

cam you run it at higher than 1920x1080 though for the benchmark

16

If we were comparing the 6350 to ANY non-enthusiast Intel CPU from the last five years, it would be true. Sandy Bridge through Skylake, not one of them have broken 100W.

1 Like
17

As noted both power tests were done overclocked

18

Not going to test the 6350 any more. I'm selling it here very soon.

19

So an FX6350 is good for a gaming only PC, awesome findings!

1 Like
20

Except games that are heavily CPU bound. I did not test Lot of CPU games but the notion stands.