marciokpo :
That was really helpfull it made me understand how the fx 8320 wont possibly keep up with that board , but then i thought it deep and decided to make another buy later if i ever go for a r9 290 ( in fact i doubt it a little ) and when i go for that card i ll take an i7 with full 8 threads available . So my tiny concern now is , how many FPS do you think i would lose between a 8350 and a 8320 ? Here in this pic
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/fx-8350-8320-6300-4300/borderlands2.png it shows an 6300 FPS is similar as the 8320 fps , and in the pic you showed me about Dead Rising 3 the min FPS of a fx 6300 were 46 that's 4 less than the 8350 . Does this mean there's only a 4 FPS gap between the fx 8320 and the fx 8350 or... the gap is more like 10 fps ?
I ask cus i'm scared about overclocking and voiding the warranty stuff and perhaps burning the cpu or mobo , would bumping the multiplier for FX 8320 to 4.0 ghz in this mobo M5A97 R2.0 be a good idea with 2 cheap coolers next to the heatsink or it would get my cpu/mobo killed ?
Thanks for the helpfull advice so far !
There will only be a small difference between the FX-8320 and the FX-8350. The reason is because the FX-8320 is literally the same chip as the FX-8350. The only difference is that the FX-8350 is overclocked a bit from the factory. They have the same cache, the same FPUs, same integer units, all the hardware is the same. The only difference is that the FX-8320 is at 3.5Ghz, and the FX-8350 is at 4Ghz. Literally the only difference.
Because of that, as a general rule, if a motherboard will handle an FX-8350, it can handle an FX-8320 clocked to 4Ghz. You just have to be careful not to set the voltage significantly higher than the FX-8350's for that rule to work as expected.
As for the FX-6300 versus the FX-8320... It depends.
The newer FX CPUs like the FX-8320 or the FX-6300 all use the Piledriver architecture. Piledriver CPUs don't use 'regular' cores, they use modules. Each module has 2 cores in a pair, but each core shares resources and suffers a speed penalty when using more than 1 core per pair.
How it works is, the FX-6300 gets a normal performance increase for every core up to 3 cores. However, as the last 3 cores are activated, the modules start to share resources and develop latency, due to the cost-cutting nature of the Piledriver architecture. The last 3 cores of the FX-6300 only help performance slightly, since they have to share power with the first 3 cores.
FX-6300
Core 1 - +100 performance
Core 2 - +100 performance
Core 3 - +100 performance
Core 4 - +25 performance
Core 5 - +25 performance
Core 6 - +25 performance
The FX-8320 is similar, but it has one more module. This means the FX-8320 gets normal increases up to the first 4 cores, but the last 4 cores suffer a penalty. This allows the FX-8320 to perform better than the FX-6300 even in games that use just 4 cores.
FX-8320
Core 1 - +100 performance
Core 2 - +100 performance
Core 3 - +100 performance
Core 4 - +100 performance
Core 5 - +25 performance
Core 6 - +25 performance
Core 7 - +25 performance
Core 8 - +25 performance
Intel uses a more traditional architecture. Their cores are "real" cores, so they perform as expected without speed penalties on their cores. Additionally, Intel's cores and architecture are more set up to handle real-time tasks like gaming. HT threads are automatically used in any games that supports enough threads, but only provide a moderate performance boost, since they simply reduce latency and clearly do not actually add more resources. Clearly, if a game does not use 6-8 threads, an i7 will not benefit from HT, but Intel's individual cores are much stronger regardless, which is usually a much better method of CPU optimization for gaming.
i3-4330
Core 1 - +200 performance
Core 2 - +200 performance
HT Thread 1 - +25 performance
HT Thread 2 - +25 performance
i5-4690
Core 1 - +200 performance
Core 2 - +200 performance
Core 3 - +200 performance
Core 4 - +200 performance
This is all very vague and whatnot, and the numbers are never perfectly accurate, nor this clean, but it's approximately how it works out. If all 8 cores were used perfectly, an FX-8320 could marginally be ahead of an i3-4330. However, 8 cores are never used 'perfectly', since that's practically impossible in real time applications like games. As a result, the stronger per-core performance of Intel CPUs maintains higher and more consistent real-world framerates.