Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

gaming: fx6300 vs fx8320 vs fx8350

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 17, 2013 5:06:59 AM

is there any difference in gaming?
not asking about rendering, that is for sure. thx
a b à CPUs
April 17, 2013 5:28:34 AM

FX 6300 is only a 3 core processor featuring 6 threads, while FX 8320/8350 is a 4 core processor featuring 8 threads. More cores are better in gaming, as the latest games support more cores, even threads.

The boost clock of the 3 are much alike.

FX 6300 FX 8320 FX 8350

3.5 GHz (4.1 GHz boost) 3.5 GHz (4.0 GHz boost) 4.0 GHz (4.2 GHz boost)

So, the best choice in my opinion is FX 8320, because it's cheaper than the FX 8350 while offering similar performance and with the money you save, then you can buy a better cooler, that will allow you to overclock it better.
m
0
l
April 17, 2013 6:02:29 AM

lostgamer_03 said:
FX 6300 is only a 3 core processor featuring 6 threads, while FX 8320/8350 is a 4 core processor featuring 8 threads. More cores are better in gaming, as the latest games support more cores, even threads.

The boost clock of the 3 are much alike.

FX 6300 FX 8320 FX 8350

3.5 GHz (4.1 GHz boost) 3.5 GHz (4.0 GHz boost) 4.0 GHz (4.2 GHz boost)

So, the best choice in my opinion is FX 8320, because it's cheaper than the FX 8350 while offering similar performance and with the money you save, then you can buy a better cooler, that will allow you to overclock it better.


actually they are 6 cores/8/8 it isn't threads.
Thats a lie for starting. And games won't use more than 4 at the moment... so... anyone could help me here?
m
0
l
Related resources
April 17, 2013 6:15:42 AM

If you're using high end cards for gaming, expect the fx6300 to bottleneck. I use an 8350 @ 4.6 GHz and on performance tests it's on par with the i7-3770k. If you're interested in looking at CPU performance use http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html as a reference, or check this site. I'm sure tom's hardware has plenty of benchmarks. I'd spend the extra $25 to go from 3.5 GHz to 4 GHz ( 8320 to 8350 ) and then OC the 8350. Before I overclocked, I was experiencing minor frame rate problems with very CPU intensive games with the 8350.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 17, 2013 6:25:21 AM

Enderegg said:
lostgamer_03 said:
FX 6300 is only a 3 core processor featuring 6 threads, while FX 8320/8350 is a 4 core processor featuring 8 threads. More cores are better in gaming, as the latest games support more cores, even threads.

The boost clock of the 3 are much alike.

FX 6300 FX 8320 FX 8350

3.5 GHz (4.1 GHz boost) 3.5 GHz (4.0 GHz boost) 4.0 GHz (4.2 GHz boost)

So, the best choice in my opinion is FX 8320, because it's cheaper than the FX 8350 while offering similar performance and with the money you save, then you can buy a better cooler, that will allow you to overclock it better.


actually they are 6 cores/8/8 it isn't threads.
Thats a lie for starting. And games won't use more than 4 at the moment... so... anyone could help me here?


Crysis 3 supports 8 cores and Battlefield 3 supports 6 cores.

It's threads - not true cores. If you're just going to yell liar at people who actually have researched it and are trying to help you, then you can just go look it up yourself.

m
0
l
April 17, 2013 6:28:34 AM



It's threads - not true cores. If you're just going to yell liar at people who actually have researched it and are trying to help you, then you can just go look it up yourself.

[/quotemsg]

They are really cores. Im not lying. Ive done my homework.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 17, 2013 6:28:46 AM

janitorjeebes said:
If you're using high end cards for gaming, expect the fx6300 to bottleneck. I use an 8350 @ 4.6 GHz and on performance tests it's on par with the i7-3770k. If you're interested in looking at CPU performance use http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html as a reference, or check this site. I'm sure tom's hardware has plenty of benchmarks. I'd spend the extra $25 to go from 3.5 GHz to 4 GHz ( 8320 to 8350 ) and then OC the 8350. Before I overclocked, I was experiencing minor frame rate problems with very CPU intensive games with the 8350.


Synthethic benchmarks doesn't reflect real world gaming.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350...

As you can see FX 8350 at 4.8 GHz doesn't even nip at i7-3770k at stock speeds.
m
0
l
a c 680 à CPUs
April 17, 2013 6:30:25 AM

In most games, the FX6300 and the 8350 perform very close to each other. An FX 6300 is a nice choice if you plan on buying a GPU as well. You can buy a better one than the 8350 would allow for. The 8320 is kinda in the middle. Don't listen to the not true cores argument either. The FX 6300 well clocked isn't going to bottleneck any current single GPU solution and neither would the FX83xx chips.
m
0
l
April 17, 2013 6:36:47 AM

logainofhades said:
In most games, the FX6300 and the 8350 perform very close to each other. An FX 6300 is a nice choice if you plan on buying a GPU as well. You can buy a better one than the 8350 would allow for. The 8320 is kinda in the middle. Don't listen to the not true cores argument either. The FX 6300 well clocked isn't going to bottleneck any current single GPU solution and neither would the FX83xx chips.


smart person at last!
I know it won't bottleneck, and the 3770k is almost the same, if not worst than the 8350 (REAL TESTS, and then it's the PRICE/PERFORMANCE)
But gaming wise are all those three almost the same?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 17, 2013 6:38:54 AM

logainofhades said:
In most games, the FX6300 and the 8350 perform very close to each other. An FX 6300 is a nice choice if you plan on buying a GPU as well. You can buy a better one than the 8350 would allow for. The 8320 is kinda in the middle. Don't listen to the not true cores argument either. The FX 6300 well clocked isn't going to bottleneck any current single GPU solution and neither would the FX83xx chips.

+1^

m
0
l

Best solution

a c 680 à CPUs
April 17, 2013 6:39:19 AM

In a recent review on multicore gaming, they were within like 3% of each other at their stock clocks.

Share
a b à CPUs
April 17, 2013 6:40:15 AM

Enderegg said:


It's threads - not true cores. If you're just going to yell liar at people who actually have researched it and are trying to help you, then you can just go look it up yourself.



They are really cores. Im not lying. Ive done my homework. [/quotemsg]

The CPU has 4 modules, each module is consisting of 2 cores with a shared L2 cache. So, what you got is not a true 8-core CPU. The cores are in a state between true cores and virtual cores.
m
0
l
April 17, 2013 6:42:58 AM

lostgamer_03 said:
Enderegg said:


It's threads - not true cores. If you're just going to yell liar at people who actually have researched it and are trying to help you, then you can just go look it up yourself.



They are really cores. Im not lying. Ive done my homework.


The CPU has 4 modules, each module is consisting of 2 cores with a shared L2 cache. So, what you got is not a true 8-core CPU. The cores are in a state between true cores and virtual cores. [/quotemsg]

the modules have 2 cores. they are real cores. REAL. i searched a lot. some say they aren't, others say they are. i say they are, and believe. if not, still one of the best cpus, so, not that important
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 17, 2013 6:43:15 AM

Enderegg said:
logainofhades said:
In most games, the FX6300 and the 8350 perform very close to each other. An FX 6300 is a nice choice if you plan on buying a GPU as well. You can buy a better one than the 8350 would allow for. The 8320 is kinda in the middle. Don't listen to the not true cores argument either. The FX 6300 well clocked isn't going to bottleneck any current single GPU solution and neither would the FX83xx chips.


smart person at last!
I know it won't bottleneck, and the 3770k is almost the same, if not worst than the 8350 (REAL TESTS, and then it's the PRICE/PERFORMANCE)
But gaming wise are all those three almost the same?


Because he has the same opinion as you, then he is smart? Why do you even ask the question then? Any AMD CPU right now will bottlneck you GPU, there is no way defending that.

Look at the link I posted before and look at this graph:



That is bottlenecking and there is no way around the fact of it.
m
0
l
April 17, 2013 6:43:45 AM

logainofhades said:
In a recent review on multicore gaming, they were within like 3% of each other at their stock clocks.



thanks =}
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 17, 2013 6:45:19 AM

Enderegg said:
lostgamer_03 said:
Enderegg said:


It's threads - not true cores. If you're just going to yell liar at people who actually have researched it and are trying to help you, then you can just go look it up yourself.



They are really cores. Im not lying. Ive done my homework.


The CPU has 4 modules, each module is consisting of 2 cores with a shared L2 cache. So, what you got is not a true 8-core CPU. The cores are in a state between true cores and virtual cores.


the modules have 2 cores. they are real cores. REAL. i searched a lot. some say they aren't, others say they are. i say they are, and believe. if not, still one of the best cpus, so, not that important
[/quotemsg]

You're hopeless. I won't waste my time on this debate anymore, you simply just don't get the fact that they got a shared L2 cache and it doesn't matter what you believe.
m
0
l
April 17, 2013 6:48:32 AM

lostgamer_03 said:
Enderegg said:
lostgamer_03 said:
Enderegg said:


It's threads - not true cores. If you're just going to yell liar at people who actually have researched it and are trying to help you, then you can just go look it up yourself.



ok
They are really cores. Im not lying. Ive done my homework.


The CPU has 4 modules, each module is consisting of 2 cores with a shared L2 cache. So, what you got is not a true 8-core CPU. The cores are in a state between true cores and virtual cores.


the modules have 2 cores. they are real cores. REAL. i searched a lot. some say they aren't, others say they are. i say they are, and believe. if not, still one of the best cpus, so, not that important


You're hopeless. I won't waste my time on this debate anymore, you simply just don't get the fact that they got a shared L2 cache and it doesn't matter what you believe.
[/quotemsg]

ok
m
0
l
April 17, 2013 7:13:35 AM

my 6300 has worked pretty good since i bought it a while ago, so i'm a bit biased
m
0
l
April 21, 2013 1:51:05 PM

This conversation has gotten nobody anywhere. I am with lostgamer_03 on this one. But if they are real cores or virtual cores their still qualified as cores. The best thing to do is to get the most you can with the money you have and if you have enough for intel, go ahead and get it. If not go with amd 8350. Qhat matters is that you are not on a dead socket and or don't get what you pay for.
m
0
l
June 4, 2013 3:34:03 PM

lostgamer_03 said:
FX 6300 is only a 3 core processor featuring 6 threads, while FX 8320/8350 is a 4 core processor featuring 8 threads. More cores are better in gaming, as the latest games support more cores, even threads.

The boost clock of the 3 are much alike.

FX 6300 FX 8320 FX 8350

3.5 GHz (4.1 GHz boost) 3.5 GHz (4.0 GHz boost) 4.0 GHz (4.2 GHz boost)

So, the best choice in my opinion is FX 8320, because it's cheaper than the FX 8350 while offering similar performance and with the money you save, then you can buy a better cooler, that will allow you to overclock it better.


WTF? 4 cores 8 threads are you drunk? 8350 have 4 cores blocks and 2 cores in every block so 8 cores.
m
0
l
July 3, 2013 1:49:04 PM

LOL are you joking? a 6300 or 6350 absolutely dosent bottleneck a THING....any card at all.

intel trolls everywhere. im ps2 a 6350 runs at 60% max in major battles sir, please take your misinformation elsewhere.
m
0
l
October 7, 2013 7:47:21 AM

lostgamer_03 said:
janitorjeebes said:
If you're using high end cards for gaming, expect the fx6300 to bottleneck. I use an 8350 @ 4.6 GHz and on performance tests it's on par with the i7-3770k. If you're interested in looking at CPU performance use http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html as a reference, or check this site. I'm sure tom's hardware has plenty of benchmarks. I'd spend the extra $25 to go from 3.5 GHz to 4 GHz ( 8320 to 8350 ) and then OC the 8350. Before I overclocked, I was experiencing minor frame rate problems with very CPU intensive games with the 8350.


Synthethic benchmarks doesn't reflect real world gaming.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350...

As you can see FX 8350 at 4.8 GHz doesn't even nip at i7-3770k at stock speeds.



The intel performance is a little better no contesting that but not counting the more expensive motherboard and tri-channel memory the intel on a decent sale is $130-$150 more than the FX8350 performance per dollar AMD money isn't a option then sure intel hands down. In my opinion the performance gain isn't worth that much more money.
m
0
l
a c 680 à CPUs
October 7, 2013 7:49:05 AM

Nice thread neco there......
m
0
l
October 7, 2013 7:51:34 AM

Filosofo Cinzas said:
lostgamer_03 said:
FX 6300 is only a 3 core processor featuring 6 threads, while FX 8320/8350 is a 4 core processor featuring 8 threads. More cores are better in gaming, as the latest games support more cores, even threads.

The boost clock of the 3 are much alike.

FX 6300 FX 8320 FX 8350

3.5 GHz (4.1 GHz boost) 3.5 GHz (4.0 GHz boost) 4.0 GHz (4.2 GHz boost)

So, the best choice in my opinion is FX 8320, because it's cheaper than the FX 8350 while offering similar performance and with the money you save, then you can buy a better cooler, that will allow you to overclock it better.


WTF? 4 cores 8 threads are you drunk? 8350 have 4 cores blocks and 2 cores in every block so 8 cores.





Yup. The fx8320 and 8350 both have 8 cores. Real cores not virtuals like the intel.

More cores real or not doesn't mean auto win though the numbers show that intel with its 4 cores out performs it again its also a lot more expensive chip.
m
0
l
!