Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i5 4430

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 4430

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Front view of AMD FX 6300

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 6300

Report a correction
Is unlocked Yes vs No Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i5 4430 vs FX 6300

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4430
FX 6300

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4430
FX 6300

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4430
4,070,000 MB/s
FX 6300
2,290,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4430
FX 6300

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 4430
FX 6300


Core i5 4430
FX 6300

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Core i5 4430
FX 6300

PassMark (Single Core)

Core i5 4430
FX 6300

Specifications Full list of technical specs


Core i5 4430  vs
FX 6300 
Clock speed 3 GHz 3.5 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.2 GHz 4.1 GHz
Cores Quad core Hexa core
Is unlocked No Yes


Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
AVX 1.1
Supplemental SSE3
AVX 2.0
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 84W 95W
Annual home energy cost 20.24 $/year 22.89 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 73.58 $/year 83.22 $/year
Performance per watt 9.12 pt/W 9.84 pt/W
Typical power consumption 68.25W 77.19W


Core i5 4430  vs
FX 6300 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 6
L2 cache 1 MB 6 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 6 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core 1.33 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 72.72°C Unknown - 62.5°C


Overclock popularity 0 82
Overclocked clock speed 3.14 GHz 4.75 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.27 GHz 4.82 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 3,818.2 7,541
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.14 GHz 4.75 GHz

integrated graphics

Label Intel® HD Graphics 4600 N/A
Number of displays supported 3 N/A
GPU clock speed 350 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 1,100 MHz N/A

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s
Intel Core i5 4430
Report a correction
AMD FX 6300
Report a correction

Read more


Showing 13 comments.
So is the difference between the I5 2500k and the 4690k, its embarassing to see how people spends more money on the same thing. My point is not to prove that the FX is better but to prove that you can get good stuff for less money... Let me go ahead and tell you a funny history, i used to have a pc with an AMD FX 8320 a Sapphire R9 290 with 8gigs of CL9 1600mhz RAM, i could run everything at 60fps at a resolution of 1080p. sadly i had to sell the computer for personal reasons, so i started to build everything once again, once i got a job and i got stability when it comes to economic aspects... so i got an Asus H97 plus motherboard which is paired with an intel core i5 4690 (non k version) right now i've got an MSI r9 390, and something that i can tell you is, that i can barely notice the difference between my old AMD rig and the one that i have now. the reason of why i got the i5 4690 is because i wanted to try something different, i never hated intel but now i see that it was not the best investment.
Yeah i know. Here you got it. Look how an i5 2500K kick 8350 ass by far. The 8350 was giving competition in the first 2 games, but in the rest looks embarrassing against the 2500K.
Raul Alexander this guy is a fck tard, no use on listening to him ;D
LOL dude there are proofs on youtube...
Not even the 9590 compete with and i7, will the 6100 performs like an i7? Wtf? Also, you're so wrong, that you don't even know that the 4690K has similar performance to the FX 9590, both CPU using all cores, and you're saying that the 6100 will perform like an i7, when it doesnt even close to 4690K performance lol. Get rekt!
Ah, well that explains why the quad core processors test better than the 6 or 8 core processors in some cases.
Well lets put it like this. AMD Fx 6100 can perform like a i7 3770k when you overclock it to 4.0ghz (stock Cooler) and for a price of 144$ you could get a hyper 212 Evo cooler and overclock to 4.5ghz. The real potential of an AMD FX processor is huge when you overclock the processor. The i7 3770k Outperforms the FX 6100 i wont discuss that but why would you get such an expensive processor when you can have a near performance by just overclocking the AMD fx 6100. with that price 320$ i would get an AMD Fx 6100 a Hyper 212 evo cooler and a R9 270. And lets not forget that you would need a very good motherboard that isnt gonna be cheap to get the real performance from the i7 3770k. also the AMD Fx 6100 will not bottleneck any of the Radeon HD 7000 series.
4-12 FPS is quite a large margin as it is in gaming, but that's likely without a CPU bottleneck. With, the gap is even larger. Also, I wasn't only referring to gaming. Most software that isn't video editing or photoshop won't fully utilize more than 4 cores. AMD sometimes (don't twist it, only sometimes) isn't the smartest decision BECAUSE many CPUs have more than 4 cores with low IPC rates. I, too have owned many different AMD and Intel CPUs... although I'm not really sure what that has to do with anything. Your comparison of the 3770k and fx 6100 is unfair because the 3770k will annihilate the FX 6100. Its price also speaks to how that's true. Yes, it'll be a lot better for gaming (Although overkill in almost any setup) as well as anything else. I saw the video you linked, and like I said - overkill for gaming. With only a 7970 on levels that are GPU intensive rather than CPU intensive, it'll only go effectively by the GPU. You throw in mutliplayer maps, then it'll be slightly higher on the 3770k (Even though it's still overkill). Once you start comparing games that are actually CPU intensive for the 3770k, that's where you'll find the difference to be extraordinary. Also, I'm fully aware that a 7970 is impressive, but an FX 6100 can handle it, as well as anything better than it, especially on GPU intensive levels like the one you'd shown. If you're doing anything CPU intensive though (Gaming or not) the 3770k is more than clear as a winner. BF4 MP, SC2, GTA IV, FC3, Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Phantoms, physX (Non-advanced) enabled games, Watch Dogs, those are where the 3770k will be clearly better (Assuming you have a GPU that's difficult for the FX to handle). As far as the i5 4430 and FX 6300 is concerned (which is the original subject), the results will be similar. In gaming, assuming the CPU is left to be bottleneck (which is fair, because if it's not, then it'll be solely dependent on other hardware, not giving a good representation of the CPU), the i5 will likely beat the FX due to better single core performance. Even when not gaming though, the results will be close, even if the software does use 6 cores.
You are talking about gaming now... and you are right the Intel Core i5 is Slightly better than the FX 6300 on gaming but we are talking about 4-12 fps of difference between both processors which isn't really high. I have always considered that Intel is a smart decition for home and office tasks because they are not power bill wrecking processors (neither amd is) but AMD is a smart decition for Gaming and Video editing because they are multicore. (I have owned an INTEL and a AMD processor) Here is a example of why. CPUboss says that the intel Core i7 3770k is much better than the AMD FX 6100 in benchmarks and Singlecore performance, and just because of that it is going to be considered a lot better for Gaming (following your logic). And here is a video of the AMD Fx 6100 vs the Intel Core i7 3770k on gaming (battlefield 3) and dont come saying that it is an AMD gaming evolved game, because that is just for AMD GPU's and not for CPU's. Also CPUboss says that the intel Core i7 3770k outperforms the Intel Core i5 4430. And yes it is the AMD Fx 6100 vs the intel Core i7 3770k. And you are comparing the AMD Fx 6300 vs the Intel core i5 4430. Which is the smartest decition? you decide.
Really late response, I know but I hate getting on Disqus usually. single threaded performance doesn't mean it only tests applications that only use one core. It tests how fast each individual core is. So for example, the 4430 WILL beat the FX 6300 in applications that don't take advantage of more than 4 cores, even if that it means it takes advantage of 4 cores exactly... because the 4430 has 4 fast cores, the fx 6300 has somewhat slower cores, but 6 of them. It's actually very rare to find a game (For example) that utilizes more than 4 cores properly, so in gaming the 4430 will beat the fx 6300 the majority of the time. It's like this with very many different types of software too, not just gaming. :)
one could also say that nobody uses just a single core. why does that get such a higher percentage of the score over overclocking?
idk, I get what you're saying, but overclocking is definitely not for everyone, and overclocking is pretty dependent on the motherboard. So sure, maxed out the FX 6300 will do better, but overclocking at all has too many dependencies and other factors that come with it. I think the score is fair considering the i5 didn't just win by the single core test.
Interesting that overlocking the AMD beats Intel but overall recommendation by CPU boss is based on higher single core speed by INtel. Surely this is one of those times you say - too close to call? Or am I being biased here?
comments powered by Disqus