Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

AMD FX-6300 vs FX-6350 vs FX-8320

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 23, 2013 2:22:10 PM

I'm wanting to know between these three which is the best for my build.

PSU- Corsair HX850

Mobo- ASRock 990FX Extreme3

Gpu- Asus Radeon R9 280x

Ram- 16 gbs of G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 1600

Just give me your opinions and if you think an Intel would be better feel free to suggest a mobo and a cpu or just a cpu is fine. But if you do please keep it around the same price, thanks guys

More about : amd 6300 6350 8320

Best solution

a b à CPUs
November 23, 2013 2:26:10 PM

with a decent CPU cooler the FX 8320 is the best out of those 3, reason why is it has 8 cores, the FX 6300 is essentially just an FX 8320 with 2 cores/threads missing, and the FX 6350 is just the FX 6300 binned a bit higher and with a factory overclock.
Share
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2013 2:36:12 PM

FX 8320 would be a better choice.
your other compontnts are good that's why FX 8350 will be good for your build otherwise your PSU and RAM will be just a waste of money.
m
0
l
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2013 2:36:31 PM

All 3 will work. I currently use the 6300, great performance per dollar and a awesome overclocker, generally making it the better buy over the 6350 and in some cases the 8320 as most say there is no difference in gaming with the two.
m
0
l
November 23, 2013 2:37:06 PM

lmaonade200 said:
with a decent CPU cooler the FX 8320 is the best out of those 3, reason why is it has 8 cores, the FX 6300 is essentially just an FX 8320 with 2 cores/threads missing, and the FX 6350 is just the FX 6300 binned a bit higher and with a factory overclock.


Well I have the, Cooler master hyper 212 evo already. but with what I have, what it be better to go with the 8320? Would I have bottle neck issues with the 6300/6350?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2013 2:37:39 PM

Agreed. The 8320 (I have one with my 7970) is a great CPU for the price, even excluding the price it is a good CPU. With the Stock cooler it is pretty cool. I get around 55C when under load. But I am sure it can go much cooler with a Hyper 212 Evo, you would even get 8350 performance with a 4GHz OC.
m
0
l
November 23, 2013 2:38:27 PM

Hmm well I just want what's gonna make everything work best together. I don't mind an extra $20 to get the better item
m
0
l
November 23, 2013 2:39:48 PM

So I guess it's been decided haha, the 8320 is gonna be the best for the dollar in my case?
m
0
l
a c 435 à CPUs
November 23, 2013 2:41:17 PM

It was the best price/performance for me. 6300/8320. If you can afford the slight bit more, get the 8320 to be a bit more future-proof.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2013 2:41:21 PM

well it really depends on what you're going to be doing with your system, if you do a lot of multiplayer/online gaming then the stronger the CPU the better, if the 8320 is within your budget then get it, it DOES make a difference in newer games with multiplayer because many of those are able to utilize the 2 extra threads.

If, say, you're playing Guild Wars 2, then the 8320 will perform better when you have hundreds of players on the map like in WvW and such, and the same concept applies when playing something like BF4 multiplayer, there are benchmarks that show a clear correlation between the # of cores and game performance.
m
0
l
November 23, 2013 2:44:19 PM

I think I'm going with the 8320 it seems to suit my needs better. I do like to do multiplayer, I play bf and cod and mmorpgs so it seems that would be best for me. Thanks guys
m
0
l
December 10, 2013 9:02:14 PM

Be careful to check mobo/cpu compatibility.

I recently discovered that the fx 8350 is actually not compatible with the Asrock 990FX E3 even though it supports AM3+
http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/990FX%20Extreme3/?cat=CPU

So if you're set on that mobo the 8320 would be the best pick. otherwise you could pay a little more for the E4 and then it would work with the 8350.
m
0
l
December 16, 2013 10:18:34 AM

lmaonade200 said:

If, say, you're playing Guild Wars 2, then the 8320 will perform better when you have hundreds of players on the map like in WvW and such, and the same concept applies when playing something like BF4 multiplayer, there are benchmarks that show a clear correlation between the # of cores and game performance.


Better yes, idealy, No. Check out all the threads on GW2 - AMD processors are not great for this particular game based on how the game uses single core for performance. While it may outshine in other games, GW2 isn't AMD-friendly.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2014 6:50:49 AM

Martinwuff said:
lmaonade200 said:

If, say, you're playing Guild Wars 2, then the 8320 will perform better when you have hundreds of players on the map like in WvW and such, and the same concept applies when playing something like BF4 multiplayer, there are benchmarks that show a clear correlation between the # of cores and game performance.


Better yes, idealy, No. Check out all the threads on GW2 - AMD processors are not great for this particular game based on how the game uses single core for performance. While it may outshine in other games, GW2 isn't AMD-friendly.


Any AMD processor is not really suitable for a CPU demanding game.
m
0
l
a c 435 à CPUs
January 9, 2014 9:38:39 AM

AnEwG said:
Martinwuff said:
lmaonade200 said:

If, say, you're playing Guild Wars 2, then the 8320 will perform better when you have hundreds of players on the map like in WvW and such, and the same concept applies when playing something like BF4 multiplayer, there are benchmarks that show a clear correlation between the # of cores and game performance.


Better yes, idealy, No. Check out all the threads on GW2 - AMD processors are not great for this particular game based on how the game uses single core for performance. While it may outshine in other games, GW2 isn't AMD-friendly.


Any AMD processor is not really suitable for a CPU demanding game.


Since when?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2014 11:37:42 AM

JOOK-D said:
AnEwG said:
Martinwuff said:
lmaonade200 said:

If, say, you're playing Guild Wars 2, then the 8320 will perform better when you have hundreds of players on the map like in WvW and such, and the same concept applies when playing something like BF4 multiplayer, there are benchmarks that show a clear correlation between the # of cores and game performance.


Better yes, idealy, No. Check out all the threads on GW2 - AMD processors are not great for this particular game based on how the game uses single core for performance. While it may outshine in other games, GW2 isn't AMD-friendly.


Any AMD processor is not really suitable for a CPU demanding game.


Since when?


Since they perform poorly on per core/thread basis. When a duel core i3 3220 has very close bench-marking score to the hexa core fx 6300 then that is an obvious indication on which processor architecture is superior. Did you know that is ranked higher by tom's CPU hierarchy chart? And it is priced lower as well.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2014 11:47:27 AM

AnEwG said:

Since they perform poorly on per core/thread basis. When a duel core i3 3220 has very close bench-marking score to the hexa core fx 6300 then that is an obvious indication on which processor architecture is superior. Did you know that is ranked higher by tom's CPU hierarchy chart? And it is priced lower as well.


AMD will never catch up to Intel in single core performance but they really don't have to, the i3 3220 costs 125 bucks, comes with 2 physical cores and 2 more virtual threads, and is locked. The FX 6300 costs 120 bucks, comes with 6 physical threads, and has unlocked multipliers.

I'm not saying one is better than the other, but they're priced similarly and each have their own advantages. The FX 6300 can make up for its lack of single core IPC power through overclocking, while the i3 makes up for its lack of physical cores through hyperthreading, it's a wash really. In the realm of PCs you always get what you pay for, both are worthy buys for people on a budget.
m
0
l
a c 435 à CPUs
January 9, 2014 11:55:48 AM

AnEwG said:
JOOK-D said:
AnEwG said:
Martinwuff said:
lmaonade200 said:

If, say, you're playing Guild Wars 2, then the 8320 will perform better when you have hundreds of players on the map like in WvW and such, and the same concept applies when playing something like BF4 multiplayer, there are benchmarks that show a clear correlation between the # of cores and game performance.


Better yes, idealy, No. Check out all the threads on GW2 - AMD processors are not great for this particular game based on how the game uses single core for performance. While it may outshine in other games, GW2 isn't AMD-friendly.


Any AMD processor is not really suitable for a CPU demanding game.


Since when?


Since they perform poorly on per core/thread basis. When a duel core i3 3220 has very close bench-marking score to the hexa core fx 6300 then that is an obvious indication on which processor architecture is superior. Did you know that is ranked higher by tom's CPU hierarchy chart? And it is priced lower as well.


Ah synthetic benches. Personally hate them, they tell me nothing. Also I don't doubt for a second that intel's architecture is superior, it has a lower heat output, lower energy usage and less cores which is ideal for most tasks around. However it also costs much more and I'll never get the performance out of an i3 3220 in many tasks than I do out of my 8320, which is lmaonade200 pointed out is also unlocked. For 2/3 the price of an i5 4670k where I live I'm getting way more than that for my money.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2014 12:01:11 PM

lmaonade200 said:
AnEwG said:

Since they perform poorly on per core/thread basis. When a duel core i3 3220 has very close bench-marking score to the hexa core fx 6300 then that is an obvious indication on which processor architecture is superior. Did you know that is ranked higher by tom's CPU hierarchy chart? And it is priced lower as well.


AMD will never catch up to Intel in single core performance but they really don't have to, the i3 3220 costs 125 bucks, comes with 2 physical cores and 2 more virtual threads, and is locked. The FX 6300 costs 120 bucks, comes with 6 physical threads, and has unlocked multipliers.

I'm not saying one is better than the other, but they're priced similarly and each have their own advantages. The FX 6300 can make up for its lack of single core IPC power through overclocking, while the i3 makes up for its lack of physical cores through hyperthreading, it's a wash really. In the realm of PCs you always get what you pay for, both are worthy buys for people on a budget.


I think particularly in gaming, per core performance is more important than the performance of all cores together; since most games don't even utilize more than a single core. Where I live the i3-3220 is priced lower than the fx 6300. I have an AMD mobo btw and I was planning on upgrading to one of these three fx CPUs, but I still think that my current rig which I have only bought recently is a disappointment and I still think that an Intel rig would have costed me less and performed much better.
m
0
l
a c 435 à CPUs
January 9, 2014 12:02:26 PM

AnEwG said:
lmaonade200 said:
AnEwG said:

Since they perform poorly on per core/thread basis. When a duel core i3 3220 has very close bench-marking score to the hexa core fx 6300 then that is an obvious indication on which processor architecture is superior. Did you know that is ranked higher by tom's CPU hierarchy chart? And it is priced lower as well.


AMD will never catch up to Intel in single core performance but they really don't have to, the i3 3220 costs 125 bucks, comes with 2 physical cores and 2 more virtual threads, and is locked. The FX 6300 costs 120 bucks, comes with 6 physical threads, and has unlocked multipliers.

I'm not saying one is better than the other, but they're priced similarly and each have their own advantages. The FX 6300 can make up for its lack of single core IPC power through overclocking, while the i3 makes up for its lack of physical cores through hyperthreading, it's a wash really. In the realm of PCs you always get what you pay for, both are worthy buys for people on a budget.


I think particularly in gaming, per core performance is more important than the performance of all cores together; since most games don't even utilize more than a single core. Where I live the i3-3220 is priced lower than the fx 6300. I have an AMD mobo btw and I was planning on upgrading to one of these three fx CPUs, but I still think that my current rig which I have only bought recently is a disappointment and I still think that an Intel rig would have costed me less and performed much better.


Most games? Lol.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2014 12:03:51 PM

[/quotemsg]

Ah synthetic benches. Personally hate them, they tell me nothing. Also I don't doubt for a second that intel's architecture is superior, it has a lower heat output, lower energy usage and less cores which is ideal for most tasks around. However it also costs much more and I'll never get the performance out of an i3 3220 in many tasks than I do out of my 8320, which is lmaonade200 pointed out is also unlocked. For 2/3 the price of an i5 4670k where I live I'm getting way more than that for my money.[/quotemsg]

maybe so but consider this: How much did the aftermarket cooler cost you?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2014 12:09:53 PM

AnEwG said:

maybe so but consider this: How much did the aftermarket cooler cost you?



Yes, but if you oc a 4670k you will also need an aftermarket cooler aswell. An i3 or 8320? I would go 8320 everytime.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2014 12:10:08 PM

JOOK-D said:
AnEwG said:
lmaonade200 said:
AnEwG said:

Since they perform poorly on per core/thread basis. When a duel core i3 3220 has very close bench-marking score to the hexa core fx 6300 then that is an obvious indication on which processor architecture is superior. Did you know that is ranked higher by tom's CPU hierarchy chart? And it is priced lower as well.


AMD will never catch up to Intel in single core performance but they really don't have to, the i3 3220 costs 125 bucks, comes with 2 physical cores and 2 more virtual threads, and is locked. The FX 6300 costs 120 bucks, comes with 6 physical threads, and has unlocked multipliers.

I'm not saying one is better than the other, but they're priced similarly and each have their own advantages. The FX 6300 can make up for its lack of single core IPC power through overclocking, while the i3 makes up for its lack of physical cores through hyperthreading, it's a wash really. In the realm of PCs you always get what you pay for, both are worthy buys for people on a budget.


I think particularly in gaming, per core performance is more important than the performance of all cores together; since most games don't even utilize more than a single core. Where I live the i3-3220 is priced lower than the fx 6300. I have an AMD mobo btw and I was planning on upgrading to one of these three fx CPUs, but I still think that my current rig which I have only bought recently is a disappointment and I still think that an Intel rig would have costed me less and performed much better.


Most games? Lol.


Yes I think I read that most games utilize only one or two cores. Please Correct me if I am wrong.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2014 12:16:45 PM

AnEwG said:
lmaonade200 said:
AnEwG said:

Since they perform poorly on per core/thread basis. When a duel core i3 3220 has very close bench-marking score to the hexa core fx 6300 then that is an obvious indication on which processor architecture is superior. Did you know that is ranked higher by tom's CPU hierarchy chart? And it is priced lower as well.


AMD will never catch up to Intel in single core performance but they really don't have to, the i3 3220 costs 125 bucks, comes with 2 physical cores and 2 more virtual threads, and is locked. The FX 6300 costs 120 bucks, comes with 6 physical threads, and has unlocked multipliers.

I'm not saying one is better than the other, but they're priced similarly and each have their own advantages. The FX 6300 can make up for its lack of single core IPC power through overclocking, while the i3 makes up for its lack of physical cores through hyperthreading, it's a wash really. In the realm of PCs you always get what you pay for, both are worthy buys for people on a budget.


I think particularly in gaming, per core performance is more important than the performance of all cores together; since most games don't even utilize more than a single core. Where I live the i3-3220 is priced lower than the fx 6300. I have an AMD mobo btw and I was planning on upgrading to one of these three fx CPUs, but I still think that my current rig which I have only bought recently is a disappointment and I still think that an Intel rig would have costed me less and performed much better.


I will concede to that, but honestly there's not much that absolutely cannot be run on a FX 6300, and the way that the market is moving it may be that many major releases will run on AMD processors just as well as they do on any Intel processor, the latest battlefield already shows that sort of trend, as the FX 83xx processors were able to run the game as well as any i5 or i7 could.
m
0
l
a c 435 à CPUs
January 9, 2014 12:16:49 PM

AnEwG said:
JOOK-D said:
AnEwG said:
lmaonade200 said:
AnEwG said:

Since they perform poorly on per core/thread basis. When a duel core i3 3220 has very close bench-marking score to the hexa core fx 6300 then that is an obvious indication on which processor architecture is superior. Did you know that is ranked higher by tom's CPU hierarchy chart? And it is priced lower as well.


AMD will never catch up to Intel in single core performance but they really don't have to, the i3 3220 costs 125 bucks, comes with 2 physical cores and 2 more virtual threads, and is locked. The FX 6300 costs 120 bucks, comes with 6 physical threads, and has unlocked multipliers.

I'm not saying one is better than the other, but they're priced similarly and each have their own advantages. The FX 6300 can make up for its lack of single core IPC power through overclocking, while the i3 makes up for its lack of physical cores through hyperthreading, it's a wash really. In the realm of PCs you always get what you pay for, both are worthy buys for people on a budget.


I think particularly in gaming, per core performance is more important than the performance of all cores together; since most games don't even utilize more than a single core. Where I live the i3-3220 is priced lower than the fx 6300. I have an AMD mobo btw and I was planning on upgrading to one of these three fx CPUs, but I still think that my current rig which I have only bought recently is a disappointment and I still think that an Intel rig would have costed me less and performed much better.


Most games? Lol.


Yes I think I read that most games utilize only one or two cores. Please Correct me if I am wrong.


Older games do, not current ones. Most use 4, a few use more than 4. I guess that would fall under your idea of "most" if legacy games are your thing. It seems multithreading is the way forward too.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2014 12:17:00 PM




Yes, but if you oc a 4670k you will also need an aftermarket cooler aswell. An i3 or 8320? I would go 8320 everytime.[/quotemsg]

That is not the point. If you can afford the CPU + the aftermarket cooler then why not just buy a higher CPU?
m
0
l
a c 435 à CPUs
January 9, 2014 12:19:07 PM

AnEwG said:



Yes, but if you oc a 4670k you will also need an aftermarket cooler aswell. An i3 or 8320? I would go 8320 everytime.


That is not the point. If you can afford the CPU + the aftermarket cooler then why not just buy a higher CPU?
[/quotemsg]

That is exactly the point. CPU + aftermarket cooler = better CPU? But with that better CPU you'll also need an aftermarket cooler which might step you up to a better CPU, and it continues.

Also since you asked my CPU cost me £108 and my cooler cost me £20. And the i5 4670k was selling for £165.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2014 12:20:03 PM

here its £110 for 8320 + say £20 for cooler. 4670k is still £170 + that same cooler if you want to oc.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2014 12:45:27 PM

Anyways, CPU demanding or not, I would most likely always recommend an AMD processor for a budget conscious gaming build, partly because they fill the gap between the i3 and the i5 quite nicely, and partly because imo an i3 is not gonna cut it very soon, even with hyperthreading the physical core limitation is going to hurt a gamer pretty badly (just look at some of those insane upcoming games with a 4 core processor as the MINIMUM requirement)
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2014 12:57:04 PM

lmaonade200 said:

That is exactly the point. CPU + aftermarket cooler = better CPU? But with that better CPU you'll also need an aftermarket cooler which might step you up to a better CPU, and it continues.

Also since you asked my CPU cost me £108 and my cooler cost me £20. And the i5 4670k was selling for £165.


Not everyone is an overclocker, some just want a CPU that performs well at stock.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2014 1:02:15 PM

lmaonade200 said:
Anyways, CPU demanding or not, I would most likely always recommend an AMD processor for a budget conscious gaming build, partly because they fill the gap between the i3 and the i5 quite nicely, and partly because imo an i3 is not gonna cut it very soon, even with hyperthreading the physical core limitation is going to hurt a gamer pretty badly (just look at some of those insane upcoming games with a 4 core processor as the MINIMUM requirement)


Well, when I bought my current PC I was certainly considering budget but it ended up turning into a money pit, maybe if I had more knowledge back then, I would have bought a better AMD rig that didn't turn into a money bit and I wouldn't be here right now bitching about it XD
m
0
l
!