Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

AMD FX-6300 vs 8320?

Tags:
  • Gaming
  • Homebuilt
  • PC gaming
  • AMD
  • Build
  • Components
  • Gtx
Last response: in Components
Share
December 22, 2013 3:47:05 PM

I'm looking at buying either an AMD FX 6300 or 8320. The 8320 is $140 at Microcenter and the 6300 is $90. Is it worth the extra $50 to buy the 8320 if I'm going to be using a GTX 770 or R9 280X (opinions on these cards would be nice too)?

More about : amd 6300 8320

a b 4 Gaming
a b B Homebuilt system
a b À AMD
December 22, 2013 3:51:32 PM

get the 8320. some of them over clock good from what I hear. personally I never liked those 6core processors.
m
0
l
December 22, 2013 3:55:58 PM

Both CPU's are old, Oct 2012. And "piledriver" architecture was weak even at launch.
Being it's almost 2014, cheap out and spend $90.
You'll likely be upgrading again soon.

But indeed at the low price point(bang for the buck), Tom's recommends it:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...
m
0
l
Related resources
December 22, 2013 4:01:03 PM

I'm very happy with my 6300. I think I would actually be less happy with the 8320 because of its higher price, power consumption and heat output.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
December 22, 2013 4:08:52 PM

my 6300 overclocked to 4.6 ghz right now hasn't disappointed. I play Bioshock and Batman at high settings with ease so im happy with it.
m
0
l
December 22, 2013 4:13:48 PM

Regarding the gpu, these cards perform roughly the same, and the R9 supply seems to be out of stock in many places, so its prices are inflated as a result.

I'll assume you play at 1920x1080 resolution or less, so if you buy now get the gtx 770 2gb.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b B Homebuilt system
a b À AMD
December 22, 2013 4:20:53 PM

no matter what, you can never add cores.
m
0
l
December 22, 2013 4:28:57 PM

You're right, but most current and future games will be developed around 4 cores, as most people currently have 2-4 cores in their machine and that's not going to change even according to the most optimistic forecast.

So, the added 2 threads will not be used a lot, but will output heat and waste energy for a long time for nothing.

Take Battlefield 4, the champion of multithreading, for example - http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchm...

Zero change between 6 and 8 threads.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
December 22, 2013 4:37:36 PM

doron said:
You're right, but most current and future games will be developed around 4 cores, as most people currently have 2-4 cores in their machine and that's not going to change even according to the most optimistic forecast.

So, the added 2 threads will not be used a lot, but will output heat and waste energy for a long time for nothing.

Take Battlefield 4, the champion of multithreading, for example - http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchm...

Zero change between 6 and 8 threads.


I would say newer games, at least in co-op and multiplayer, do use 4-6 cores, and id say in the future they will utilize 6 cores in single player, and use 4GB+ gddr5 RAM. This is probably 3 or more years away though until its a standard
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b B Homebuilt system
a b À AMD
December 22, 2013 4:45:01 PM

not a good defense. you need to really look into that
m
0
l

Best solution

a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
December 22, 2013 5:15:29 PM

swifty_morgan said:
not a good defense. you need to really look into that


those extra 2 cores might not get pushed to 100% yet, but they do and will continue to allow for better focus on the game while running the OS and background services seamlessly. The software is designed to take advantage of all available hardware in a smart way..so the extra 2 cores certainly make a difference, and the fact they need more power to warrant that change is sufficient evidence of that. Maybe no game right now NEEDS 8 cores, obviously, but when they DO need 8 cores, well all have at least 10 or 12 in our rigs (if you know what im trying to say here).
Share
December 22, 2013 7:03:26 PM

If time was not a factor, would you guys suggest the R9 280X or the GTX 770 and why?
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
December 22, 2013 7:29:09 PM

the GTX 770 because it offers better performance and less power draw. The 280x is like a 7970 rebranded (that is, it has 2 GPUs on a single board (2 x HD7850's I think), like Xfire that is built in), so the GTX 770 will Sli better in the future if you feel the need to upgrade (since they draw less power, you can get more out of the second while keeping temps down and PSU wont be working as hard. overall longevity) and right now I think better price/performance, since a lot of those raedon cards are tough to find right now, artificially driving prices up atm.
m
0
l
December 22, 2013 7:43:27 PM

Either get a 8320 or get a 6300 and buy a good cooler and over clock the shit out of it.
m
0
l
December 22, 2013 9:39:28 PM

The only 8 core CPU's are Intel Xeons and they have 16 threads; which would be severe overkill for a gaming rig.

If you edit video or really want 8 threads get an i7. As for AMD's FX line, it's likely game over:( 
http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/11/21/amd-sadness-steamroll...

And it's too bad, as the "piledriver" FX 8350 is a bottleneck vs. an i7-3770K(let alone a 4770K) with Radeon 7970's(280X) in crossfire.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-377...
m
0
l
December 22, 2013 10:08:23 PM

Are you really comparing the fx 8350 which the OP can say he can get for 140$ or the fx 6300 @ 90$ to the 320$ i7?

As Haswell is roughly the same in terms of performance as Ivy bridge and FX prices are at i3 price bracket right now, this isn't really game over.

There aren't bad products, only bad prices.
m
0
l
December 22, 2013 10:15:16 PM

doron said:
Are you really comparing the fx 8350 which the OP can say he can get for 140$ or the fx 6300 @ 90$ to the 320$ i7?

As Haswell is roughly the same in terms of performance as Ivy bridge and FX prices are at i3 price bracket right now, this isn't really game over.

There aren't bad products, only bad prices.

It will be interesting when the next generation of GPU's are released. Perhaps in as little as 3 months. Nvidia Maxwell and the Radeon R9-3XX series. Any mid to high-end build will have to use an Intel i5/i7 or bottleneck.

AMD should start branding the Radeon cards ATI. As they shouldn't expect anyone to team a $600+ dollar Radeon up with an old $140 FX chip.
____________________
As for prices, I can't believe how inexpensive CPU's are, ~$300 for an i7!!
My old Q6600 was $850(at release). And my i7-950 was... expensive, but I don't recall if it was more or less than the Q6600.
____________________
If something is cheap but no good, it's just not worth it.

It was "game over" because the "streamroller" architecture likely won't be coming to the FX line. So it's wiser to go with an inexpensive i3 and a good Z87 board. You can upgrade the CPU later on, as the LGA 1150 platform has lots of life left in it.

m
0
l
December 23, 2013 2:07:02 AM

@wdmfiber

1. Phenom II x4 / C2Q is 5-6 years old and still runs most games just fine with current mid-range gpus.

According to the Steam Hardware Survey (link - http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/) most people are still using 2 Cores, and many others are using 4. Also according to the frequencies there is only a small percentage of people using i7 or even i5, most seem to use Core 2 Quad / Duo. Developers can't ignore this so they'll have to make their games playable on at least a core 2 quad / core i3 in the forseeable future.

2. Your Q6600 was priced at a completely unrealistic 850$ until AMD offered a competitive alternative for around 200$ and that's when Intel slashed their prices accordingly.

3. I played Arkham City, Tomb Raider, Crysis 3, heck I even play Starcraft II, which only uses 2 threads, at ultra settings 1920x1200. All that and I disabled turbo on my FX 6300 so it's at 3.5ghz max. I paid 130$ and it's worth it, and for 90$ it's practically a steal.

4. Your LGA 1150 and steamroller arguments are the only ones that could make sense in your entire comment, but unfortunately it's off topic and also highly speculative.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
December 23, 2013 2:42:20 AM

Beezy said:
the GTX 770 because it offers better performance and less power draw. The 280x is like a 7970 rebranded (that is, it has 2 GPUs on a single board (2 x HD7850's I think), like Xfire that is built in), so the GTX 770 will Sli better in the future if you feel the need to upgrade (since they draw less power, you can get more out of the second while keeping temps down and PSU wont be working as hard. overall longevity) and right now I think better price/performance, since a lot of those raedon cards are tough to find right now, artificially driving prices up atm.


The 280x does not have 2 GPU's on a single board!!!!!!
Where did you get that false information from?
And as for performance it depends on the game. I've posted a couple of benchmarks for you to look at.



m
0
l
!