Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

FX-6350 or FX-8320 or FX-8350

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 15, 2014 4:31:52 PM

Just wanting some extra opinions on my CPU choice:

Do I go for the 6350 @ 3.9GHz with 14MB cache or the 8320 @ 3.5G Hz with 16MB cache?

What is CPU cache and is it as important as the no. of cores and speed of the CPU?
*Both these are around the same price

OR

Do I save up the extra £30 or equivalent $50 and go for the 8350 @ 4GHz with 8MB of cache?

Additional information:

-This is for my first PC build but do not intend to change my CPU for a looong time.
- Will start off with CPU heat sinks, may later upgrade to water cooler when I'm more experienced and better knowledgeable of them.
- I will be using the Sapphire R9 270X Toxic Edition GPU.

PLEASE help me out here guys- just want to make sure I'm not paying more for something that isn't going to make a huge difference with in-game and multi-tasking performance.

More about : 6350 8320 8350

a b à CPUs
April 15, 2014 4:35:44 PM

I'd personally vouch for the 8320, as it's the most rounded of all the 3, and nets just about the same performance as an 8320 when they're both OC'd.
Best price/performance of the 3 IMO as well.
m
1
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
April 15, 2014 4:42:28 PM

FX-8320 by far. It performs a little slower than a fx 8350 but that's only because of the lower clock speed. Which means that you can just clock it at 4ghz and it will perform the same.

But yeah, fx 8320 is the best. Will last you long, hopefully with better multicore support in the future it will last even longer.
Share
Related resources
a c 992 à CPUs
April 15, 2014 4:53:42 PM

AMD FX-8320 = Advantages

Priced about 20 + % lower than the FX-8350

The CPU has about a 20 % better price to performance ratio.


m
1
l
a b à CPUs
April 15, 2014 4:59:27 PM

Make it unanimous, the fx-8320 is the best value.
m
1
l
a c 179 à CPUs
April 15, 2014 5:41:04 PM

Okay, I get to be the bad guy here...

The best performance in gaming overall below $200 for the CPU is going to be an i5-4570:
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80646i54570

*In most games the i5-4570 is similar to an i5-4670K, i5-3570K or similar. Within 1%.

Skyrim example:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

Other games (lower resolution, but even at 1920x1080 the AMD's are all lower I just don't have the links handy):
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-a...

It's common knowledge to most gamers that the AMD CPU's have poor single-core performance and tend to bottleneck many games. It's only the more RECENT games that are starting to use more cores better that help make their CPU's run better.

*It just seems a big shame to buy such a nice graphics card then bottleneck it with an AMD CPU in most games. I get that will upset people, but those are the facts.
m
1
l
April 15, 2014 5:51:13 PM

photonboy said:
Okay, I get to be the bad guy here...

The best performance in gaming overall below $200 for the CPU is going to be an i5-4570:
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80646i54570

*In most games the i5-4570 is similar to an i5-4670K, i5-3570K or similar. Within 1%.

Skyrim example:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

Other games (lower resolution, but even at 1920x1080 the AMD's are all lower I just don't have the links handy):
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-a...

It's common knowledge to most gamers that the AMD CPU's have poor single-core performance and tend to bottleneck many games. It's only the more RECENT games that are starting to use more cores better that help make their CPU's run better.



You're not the bad guy at all!
I deeply appreciate the reply and the intel viewpoint from things. I especially like the skyrim comparisons as this is a game I greatly look forward to playing on my new system.
However, my GPU recommended me to get a CPU from the FX-8000 Series and I have chosen an AMD motherboard too.
I don't mind that my CPU won't be the best out there because this is my first build, but ultimately, i believe the 8320 is a great processor (especially to start off with) and will offer me the high performance that i need.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 15, 2014 6:01:13 PM

hi, the 8320 will serve you well, although personally I prefer Intel. Just to make you aware, GPUs don't need to be matched with the same brand of CPU, it makes no difference to performance.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 15, 2014 7:13:25 PM

i vote 8320 too! best performance for the price on the high end market atm...will last for a very long time with 8 strong cores and overclocks like a champ...will stomp any game you throw at it at highest possible settings providing you match it with a good high end gpu...
m
0
l
April 16, 2014 3:37:24 AM

paitjsu sadff said:
i vote 8320 too! best performance for the price on the high end market atm...will last for a very long time with 8 strong cores and overclocks like a champ...will stomp any game you throw at it at highest possible settings providing you match it with a good high end gpu...


My gpu is the Sapphire R9 270X Toxic edition (factory overclocked)

How do you think it will handle the demands of Crysis 3 on high/ultra settings :D 
Won't be playing it all the time but I'd like to see how my rig handles it!
Recommended Builds by Price
Builds by $$$ Last Update: CHRISTMAS 2013 PCPartPicker is used for component selection. All prices in USD (GBP for UK builds) OS, drive, and monitor not included. Always run 64-bit Windows for best performance All builds are fully compatible out... See full content
m
0
l
April 16, 2014 3:42:07 AM

leeb2013 said:
hi, the 8320 will serve you well, although personally I prefer Intel. Just to make you aware, GPUs don't need to be matched with the same brand of CPU, it makes no difference to performance.


I know I don't have to match them, but now I'm going to see the other side of things! In order to settle my mind I thoroughly researched AMD and Nvidia GPUs so I guess I should do the same with the processors...

Just out of interest, what Intel CPU would you recommend for my builld?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2014 4:44:25 AM

tamethegamer said:

My gpu is the Sapphire R9 270X Toxic edition (factory overclocked)

How do you think it will handle the demands of Crysis 3 on high/ultra settings :D 
Won't be playing it all the time but I'd like to see how my rig handles it!


Don't get your hopes to high about crysis 3, this game is very demanding and somewhat badly optimised even a highly overclocked GTX780ti (wich is about twice as fast as the 270x toxic BTW) can't get over 50fps steady at maximum settings...the 270x has simply no chance, you are looking at medium settings and low AA at the very best for 45-50 fps...sorry

But many other games that are much better looking and much more fun (IMHO) like battlefield 4 for example will run on nearly maximum settings and will get you speachless...
m
0
l
April 16, 2014 5:04:42 AM

Do you believe that the FX-8320 will bottleneck my Sapphire R9 270X Toxic Edition GPU?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2014 5:11:42 AM

tamethegamer said:
Do you believe that the FX-8320 will bottleneck my Sapphire R9 270X Toxic Edition GPU?



HAHAHA absolutely not, it will not bottleneck even a GTX780ti in any game unless you play at low resolution and no anti-aliasing and look for 144FPS (for a 144 hz monitor for example)...in everyday use at normal detail settings (medium high ultra or whatever) this CPU will run the most demanding modern games well above 60FPS with an high-end GPU...i know for a fact i have a highly overclocked GTX780 that i run with this CPU and my gpu is getting fed to 99% in every single games i tested and i have a bunch...name it, i have it. They all run on maximum details except for crysis 3 but there it's the GPU that is the limiting factor as i would need to have 2 of the all mighty GTX780 to max out that game and it is due to poor optimisation and bad coding.

m
0
l
April 16, 2014 5:32:45 AM

I waay underestimated Crysis wow! Thanks or bringing me back to earth!
The 780Ti is also 3x more expensive than the Sapphire. When i was researching on the Nvidia side of GPUs I was only looking at 760/low end 770's which were just over my budget.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2014 5:40:55 AM

tamethegamer said:
I waay underestimated Crysis wow! Thanks or bringing me back to earth!
The 780Ti is also 3x more expensive than the Sapphire. When i was researching on the Nvidia side of GPUs I was only looking at 760/low end 770's which were just over my budget.

Now don't get me wrong here, crysis 3 looks just as good on medium settings, even on low settings in this game you can hardly see the difference...the graphics are amazing even on low...and the 270x should allow for medium/high settings and low AA wich will give you great performance and nice picture quality and fidelity...

And yes i know nvidia graphics card are pricier in many countries ATM, not the case in USA and CANADA due to bitcoin minin it's the AMD card that are overpriced, but pretty much anywhere else the nvidia are pricier...but if you can get your hands on a GTX760 for about the same price as the 270x do it it's better as it performs about the same as the new r9 280 (wich is a rebrand of the HD7950 wich i owned in the past BTW) its a solid offering at this price point, but if you're on a budget i'm confident that you'll be very happy with the 270x...
m
0
l
April 16, 2014 6:53:48 AM

I shall have another look at the 760 and its benchmarks- thank you for all the help! Hope to see you around again :D 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2014 6:55:39 AM

no problem if you need any help feel free to ask anytihing via PM directly...see ya!
m
1
l
a b à CPUs
April 16, 2014 7:01:34 AM

photonboy said:
Okay, I get to be the bad guy here...

The best performance in gaming overall below $200 for the CPU is going to be an i5-4570:
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80646i54570

*In most games the i5-4570 is similar to an i5-4670K, i5-3570K or similar. Within 1%.

Skyrim example:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

Other games (lower resolution, but even at 1920x1080 the AMD's are all lower I just don't have the links handy):
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-a...

It's common knowledge to most gamers that the AMD CPU's have poor single-core performance and tend to bottleneck many games. It's only the more RECENT games that are starting to use more cores better that help make their CPU's run better.

*It just seems a big shame to buy such a nice graphics card then bottleneck it with an AMD CPU in most games. I get that will upset people, but those are the facts.


see...always the same, ignorant people trowing single-threaded games benchmarks ran at low resolution and no anti-alisasing to highlight the single core performance of intel the best then can, and then saying AMD cpu bottleneck high end graphics card...the truth is noboday play at such low resolution with no Anti-aliasing and at 1080p and normal graphics settings no high end gpu's are bottlenecked by those CPU's even in the worst single-thread games...you have to turn down the resolution to 800x600 and go above 150fps to see the difference of both CPU's and even then the difference is there with games that uses 2 core or less...any other game they perform the same.
m
0
l
!