Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

AMD A10-5800k vs. AMD FX 6350 both with independant video cards

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 6, 2014 12:51:47 PM

I have a 5800k built PC using the APU. I am building a computer for the lady and was thinking of upgrading mine and putting my mobo and cpu in her build.

My question is 6350 rated with a 3.9 GHZ cpu speed and 6 cores that much better than the 5800k running barely below at 3.8 GHZ with 4 cores?

The 6350 is more expensive, needs more power to run, and doesn't come with an APU, is the extra 2 core that much important or does the 6350 run games and other apps better even though the speeds are not rated much higher?
a b à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
April 6, 2014 12:57:54 PM

The FX series has much more powerful CPU cores than the APU's
m
0
l
a c 390 à CPUs
a c 307 U Graphics card
a c 168 À AMD
April 6, 2014 12:59:52 PM

The FX-6350 is a better gaming CPU than the APU. But you will need a gfx card. Be sure your PSU is up to the task of adding a discrete card that requires an aux 6 pin cable.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 130 à CPUs
a c 157 U Graphics card
a b À AMD
April 6, 2014 1:00:21 PM

For games the 6350 is far superior as it offers better per core performance. You can't really compare clocks speeds when the cpu's use different architectures.
disregard this I had my facts wrong
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 192 à CPUs
a c 100 U Graphics card
a b À AMD
April 6, 2014 1:25:43 PM

Spectre694 said:
The FX series has much more powerful CPU cores than the APU's


bignastyid said:
For games the 6350 is far superior as it offers better per core performance. You can't really compare clocks speeds when the cpu's use different architectures.


Stop it. Both of you should step away from this thread now; as you're both giving poor advice based on faulty info.

That fx 6350 and a10-5800k BOTH are piledriver cored cpus. per core and clock they're identical with one exception. The a10 lacks a l3 cache which does give it some small hit to performance. That fx6350 at 3.9ghz with one core working on one process will be essentially identical to the a10 at 3.9ghz working on the same process.

Now then, setting that aside in multi-threaded tasks that fx6350 will be almost 50% faster do to having 50% more cores. Games are not particularly multithreaded, and generally speaking that a10 is "enough" cpu to get you 60fps in any game... you just need to overclock it a bit to get there (4.4ghz should get you 60fps in almost any game).

The biggest improvement in games you could make is getting a graphics card. As the onboard graphics of that a10 rather suck.
Share
a c 130 à CPUs
a c 157 U Graphics card
a b À AMD
April 6, 2014 1:35:05 PM

ingtar33 said:
Spectre694 said:
The FX series has much more powerful CPU cores than the APU's


bignastyid said:
For games the 6350 is far superior as it offers better per core performance. You can't really compare clocks speeds when the cpu's use different architectures.


Stop it. Both of you should step away from this thread now; as you're both giving poor advice based on faulty info.

That fx 6350 and a10-5800k BOTH are piledriver cored cpus. per core and clock they're identical with one exception. The a10 lacks a l3 cache which does give it some small hit to performance. That fx6350 at 3.9ghz with one core working on one process will be essentially identical to the a10 at 3.9ghz working on the same process.

Now then, setting that aside in multi-threaded tasks that fx6350 will be almost 50% faster do to having 50% more cores. Games are not particularly multithreaded, and generally speaking that a10 is "enough" cpu to get you 60fps in any game... you just need to overclock it a bit to get there (4.4ghz should get you 60fps in almost any game).

The biggest improvement in games you could make is getting a graphics card. As the onboard graphics of that a10 rather suck.


Sorry i was thinking the 5800k was bulldozer based for some reason.
m
0
l
a c 192 à CPUs
a c 100 U Graphics card
a b À AMD
April 6, 2014 1:42:26 PM

bignastyid said:
Sorry i was thinking the 5800k was bulldozer based for some reason.


np... just don't want to steer the OP into a discussion with incorrect facts. That 5800 is an original trinity apu, so it won't overclock well, but its still a piledriver core (the only real difference from trinity to richland was how well the chips overclocked)
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
April 6, 2014 2:47:25 PM

ingtar33 said:
Spectre694 said:
The FX series has much more powerful CPU cores than the APU's


bignastyid said:
For games the 6350 is far superior as it offers better per core performance. You can't really compare clocks speeds when the cpu's use different architectures.


Stop it. Both of you should step away from this thread now; as you're both giving poor advice based on faulty info.

That fx 6350 and a10-5800k BOTH are piledriver cored cpus. per core and clock they're identical with one exception. The a10 lacks a l3 cache which does give it some small hit to performance. That fx6350 at 3.9ghz with one core working on one process will be essentially identical to the a10 at 3.9ghz working on the same process.

Now then, setting that aside in multi-threaded tasks that fx6350 will be almost 50% faster do to having 50% more cores. Games are not particularly multithreaded, and generally speaking that a10 is "enough" cpu to get you 60fps in any game... you just need to overclock it a bit to get there (4.4ghz should get you 60fps in almost any game).

The biggest improvement in games you could make is getting a graphics card. As the onboard graphics of that a10 rather suck.


That was my mistake I must have confused it with a different CPU I was thinking the APU was a bulldozer for some reason. I think I confused trinity with bulldozer somehow.
m
0
l
April 6, 2014 4:43:57 PM

ingtar33 said:
Spectre694 said:
The FX series has much more powerful CPU cores than the APU's


bignastyid said:
For games the 6350 is far superior as it offers better per core performance. You can't really compare clocks speeds when the cpu's use different architectures.


Stop it. Both of you should step away from this thread now; as you're both giving poor advice based on faulty info.

That fx 6350 and a10-5800k BOTH are piledriver cored cpus. per core and clock they're identical with one exception. The a10 lacks a l3 cache which does give it some small hit to performance. That fx6350 at 3.9ghz with one core working on one process will be essentially identical to the a10 at 3.9ghz working on the same process.

Now then, setting that aside in multi-threaded tasks that fx6350 will be almost 50% faster do to having 50% more cores. Games are not particularly multithreaded, and generally speaking that a10 is "enough" cpu to get you 60fps in any game... you just need to overclock it a bit to get there (4.4ghz should get you 60fps in almost any game).

The biggest improvement in games you could make is getting a graphics card. As the onboard graphics of that a10 rather suck.


Thanks for your advice. So I may just stick with my cpu and upgrade by getting a video caard for myself. May just get girlfirend the same cpu.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
a b À AMD
July 31, 2014 2:42:30 PM

If you are buying a new rig, I would get the AMD FX-6300, as it is actually cost slightly less than the 5800K. You would have to have a discrete GPU as the 6300 has no on board graphics, but that sounds like what you are planning on anyways. And if you think your girlfriend would be happy with the performance you currently get with your 5800K the way it is, then take the new 6300 and GPU for yourself and you will have a nicer upgrade.

It only makes sense to get the better CPU for less money if you are already going to be getting a discrete GPU. Granted, you will only see a difference in gaming because of the discrete GPU, but when games do start using more threads, you will still be able to hang with the 6300.

Just my opinion.
m
0
l
!