Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

fx-6300 or 8320

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 19, 2013 9:35:26 AM

hi everbody, Im just wondering if i should get a aftermarket cooler and overclock 6300 so it can catch the xfx 7850 2gb or just buy the 8320 with its stock cooler.
P.S i am not aan overclocking fan and i didn't bought any of them yet.
so fx 6300 with good cooler vs fx 8320

More about : 6300 8320

a b K Overclocking
a c 96 à CPUs
November 19, 2013 9:36:41 AM

I say the 8320 with stock fan, and if you so chose later you can always drop another $30 and get a good cooler for it and OC it.
m
0
l
a c 161 K Overclocking
a c 889 à CPUs
November 19, 2013 9:37:33 AM

They have similar gaming performance because of the clock speed so if it is just gaming the OC 6300 is a better choice.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2013 9:37:36 AM

get 8350 its better than both also support future upgrades for your system :D 
m
0
l
November 19, 2013 9:46:09 AM

rolli59 said:
They have similar gaming performance because of the clock speed so if it is just gaming the OC 6300 is a better choice.


but the 8320 has 2 more cores don't it matter?
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
a c 759 à CPUs
November 19, 2013 9:49:53 AM

Neverrazor said:
get 8350 its better than both also support future upgrades for your system :D 


FX 8350 is just an overclocked FX 8320.

abokoj said:
rolli59 said:
They have similar gaming performance because of the clock speed so if it is just gaming the OC 6300 is a better choice.


but the 8320 has 2 more cores don't it matter?


In games like BF4 and Crysis 3 the 2 cores will matter.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
a c 96 à CPUs
November 19, 2013 9:51:43 AM

Yeah the 8350 is the worst choice if you're on a budget, you can get better perfomance for your $ by adding a cooler later and OCing a bit.
m
0
l
November 19, 2013 9:54:27 AM

logainofhades said:
Neverrazor said:
get 8350 its better than both also support future upgrades for your system :D 


FX 8350 is just an overclocked FX 8350.

abokoj said:
rolli59 said:
They have similar gaming performance because of the clock speed so if it is just gaming the OC 6300 is a better choice.


but the 8320 has 2 more cores don't it matter?


In games like BF4 and Crysis 3 the 2 cores will matter.


Supahos said:
Yeah the 8350 is the worst choice if you're on a budget, you can get better perfomance for your $ by adding a cooler later and OCing a bit.


but they are at the same price here in sweden.
6300 with cooler costs 1150 kron while the 8320 costs 1200 so its only a 20 kron diffrence which is 7 dollars
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
a c 109 à CPUs
November 19, 2013 9:56:28 AM

8320 is the best bang for the buck right now in the AMD processors. Not a big difference between the 4 or 6 cores price wise, but the extra cores help and the 8350 is priced too far apart to justify the extra 500mhz, which can be achieved on almost any 8320 with an overclock, or just leave turbo boost on and the 8320 can ramp up from 3.5 to 3.7 to 4.0 when it needs anyways. My 8320 runs at 4.6ghz, and if I had an 8350, I could probably get about the same speeds. No big difference in overclocking.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2013 10:00:27 AM

abokoj said:
rolli59 said:
They have similar gaming performance because of the clock speed so if it is just gaming the OC 6300 is a better choice.


but the 8320 has 2 more cores don't it matter?


No. There is only one game out now that can use 8 threads; crysis 3. for the other 99.999% the 6300 will perform better because of it's higher OC ceiling.

While more games in the future may make use of 8 threads, investing in a 8 core CPU now is nothing more than a guess. With the 6300, you're not much worse off if games are able to use 8 threads.

Besides, by the time 8 cores are significantly relevant in games, there will be newer platforms better able to handle them. Not much point in blowing a lot of money on an 8 core CPU for gaming now.
m
0
l

Best solution

a b K Overclocking
a c 759 à CPUs
November 19, 2013 10:02:35 AM

BF4 does better with the FX 83xx as well. Going forwards more games, console ports from PS4 and Xbox One especially, will have better multicore support.
Share
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2013 10:17:10 AM

logainofhades said:
BF4 does better with the FX 83xx as well. Going forwards more games, console ports from PS4 and Xbox One especially, will have better multicore support.


No, it doesn't. BF4 only uses 4 threads. It doesn't do any better with 8 cores than it does with 6 or 4.
http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchm...

Also, core use on consoles is no indication of core use on PC's. The xbox 360 had 3 cores, and the PS3 had 7. The x86 CPU's in the new generation will make PC porting easier, but is no indication of the number of threads that will be used in PC's.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
a c 109 à CPUs
November 19, 2013 10:26:52 AM

quilciri said:
logainofhades said:
BF4 does better with the FX 83xx as well. Going forwards more games, console ports from PS4 and Xbox One especially, will have better multicore support.


Sorry to correct you, but BF4 only uses 4 threads. It doesn't do any better with 8 cores than it does with 6 or 4.
http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchm...

Also, core use on consoles is no indication of core use on PC's. The xbox 360 had 3 cores, and the PS3 had 7. The x86 CPU's in the new generation will simply make porting easier, but is no indication of the number of threads that will be used in PC's.


Seems 4 faster cores do worse than 8 slower ones here.



Somethings going on with all 8 of those core.



I rather have 8 core distrubuting the load and running with less power and heat than 4 cores maxed.


8150 gets a more than 10fps boost over the 6 core and that's not due to the 100mhz speed





--- and 360 nor PS3 were x86 based chips, so there is no comparing them or bring them up. For PS4/XBone that are x86, AMD designed 8 core chips, you can't say that that won't trickle down to gaming. That, you can compare but don't drag the 360 or PS3 into this when no one mentioned them to try to prove a point.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2013 10:29:46 AM

You're comparing a bulldozer chip to a piledriver. That's not an 8150, it's an 8350 and a 4170.

ALL the bulldozer chips are slower than piledriver, regardless of cores. Nothing is going on in those extra cores.

41xx is bulldozer, 43xx is piledriver. You oughta know better than that. c'mon man, get your chips straight.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
a c 109 à CPUs
November 19, 2013 10:35:16 AM

keep calling me dude, shows your getting mad, bro.

so the 19 fps difference in 6300 vs the 8350 in the above graph is all due to the extra 500mhz?

the 7 fps difference between the 4300 and 6300 is due to what?

if 4 cores is enough, then why is 4300 which is a PILEDRIVER, and the 8350 which is a PILEDRIVER, have a 26 fps difference with only a 200mhz difference in speed?
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2013 10:38:59 AM

1. the chart you posted lists: 2500k, 3960x, 8350, 3220, and a 4170. the only piledriver there is the 8 core.

2. You posted from the beta, I posted from the actual release.

and I already mentioned that the new consoles were x86 as opposed to the older generation. That has absolutely no influence on conceptual parrallelism, it just makes console ports easier because of matching instruction sets.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
a c 109 à CPUs
November 19, 2013 10:40:13 AM

quilciri said:
the chart you posted lists: 2500k, 3960x, 8350, 3220, and a 4170.


first one, yes. second one had lots more. don't be selective.

m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2013 10:51:33 AM

I see no second one.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
a c 759 à CPUs
November 19, 2013 10:57:02 AM

Work is blocking it, so nope, don't see that.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2013 10:58:07 AM

I can see the link in your last post. there is nothing like that in your previous post on my screen. No link, no image save for the tomshardware one. Is that gamegpu review from the beta as well?(ditto on work blocking it, which may be the issue)

Assuming what you say is true, it looks like a similar performance issue to BF3; multiplayer using more cores than single player.

So that would make a whopping 3 games that use more than four cores (more like 2.75). OC'ing the 6300 to 8350 levels would reduce the difference to less than 7 fps, as there is less of a jump from 6-8 than there is from 4 to 6.

It still remains that you'd be spending an additional $70 for a small difference in 3 games and a guess at the future.
m
0
l
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
November 19, 2013 11:27:48 AM

Thanks for the images. Ok, that's single player. Your charts are obsolete, then (they are from the beta). The release single player benchmark I posted showed very little difference in fps between 4 , 6, and 8 cores at graphics settings that people with those cpu's will more likely be playing at. (nobody with a 6300 or 8350 is gonna be playing at 1680x1050 with everything off, even if those charts were accurate).

While it is obviously graphics-limited, that's kinda the point.
m
0
l
!