In short yes, will it result in a substantial decrease in CPU performance in highly threaded tasks. For most games, I don't think you would miss a few disabled cores on your 8320e. However, I'm not sure if AMD CPU's do this, but my i5 CPU switches tasks between cores to help distribute the thermal energy better.
For example, I'm running a single thread, high use program, it can start at core 1, then move to core 2, then to 3, then to 4, potentially keeping a lower socket temperature than if it were to just be ran on a single core for the duration of the process (which would create a hotspot in the CPU die).
So this could go either direction, if you are using all cores a lot, disabling some will decrease performance, and decrease overall temperature generated. If you are only running a few high usage threads, the disabled cores won't be able to distribute that load increasing the average temperature of the active cores.
Long story short:
If you are gaming, I would recommend leaving all cores enabled and let the task switcher distribute the load accordingly.
If you are using all cores a lot (encoding etc...) disable some to decrease performance and temperature.
If the second case is you, the performance you would gain from an additional overclock would be much less than the lost performance from disabling cores.
So in short, I would probably not disable cores in an attempt to get a higher overclock. But you could always test and see, as all this is speculation. I would personally like more cores at a slightly lower frequency, than less cores at a slightly higher frequency.
If I were you, I would instead look into better CPU/case cooling if you need to overclock more.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram