Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD 6300 vs Intel 3470 for gaming rig upgrade

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 27, 2013 4:57:50 PM

Hello all,

I've been reading the forum for quite some time but this is the first time
I'm writing.

The time has come for me to upgrade my CPU. Below is my current setup:

Q6600 OC to 3Ghz
Asus P5KC
2x2GBs DDR3 Kingston HyperX Genesis Grey at 1066Mhz
Saphire ATI 5850 1GB
Corsair 620HX PSU
Samsung Syncmaster 22inch (gaming at 1680x1050)

I want to clarify I'm only interested in gaming performance and nothing
else. I'm not interested in which one is the best CPU.

I've been looking for the first time in a few years at AMD CPUs and namely at:
AMD 8350
AMD 8320
AMD 6300

and of course at the Intel i5-3470 and i5-3570k

I've been impressed so far with the 6300 how it performs in games where in
some cases it outpeforms or performs closely to i5 and i7 CPUs.I've
read lots of reviews where it's on the same performance level as an 8320 or
very close to an 8350. My initial thoughts were buying an Intel CPU as I've
been doing for quite some time but it seems that for gaming along the AMD
processors are as good or in some cases even better and most of all
cheaper.

I have some credit (£136) on an online shop and I'm getting the following
prices roughly:
AMD 8350 (£160)
AMD 8320 (£120)
AMD 6300 (£105)
i5 3470 (£145)
i5 3570k (£180)

I'm gravitating towards a 6300 as it can perform as well an 8350 which is pretty
much at the same game performance levels for 1680x1050 or 1920x1080 resolutions in
case I get a bigger monitor (max 24 inches) in the future.

What I don't know is if the 8350 might be better for a long term investment given it
has 8 cores and they might be utilised better in games? Also I'm very keen on the 16x/16x
crossfire allowance of the 990FX chipset.

In conclusion is the 6300 worth buying or should I invest in a 8320/8350 instead? or ditch
them altogether and go for an Intel? Once again I'm only interested in a gaming CPU, everything
else comes second or not even close.

Many thanks all! :D 
February 27, 2013 5:07:49 PM

I suppose you have seen this:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gaming-processor-frame-ra...

The situation has changed quite a bit for the AMD processors over the past year, in a good way. Games are becoming more heavily threaded, and with the new 8-core consoles coming out the trend is set to continue. So I think the 8350 is a better buy.
a b à CPUs
February 27, 2013 5:54:22 PM

Well the Intel Core i5's tend to lead the AMD CPU's in pretty much every game by a bit, but the difference is small enough that you'll never notice it.
I did however stumble upon a benchmark in which the AMD 6 core actually manages to outperform the i5.
Crysis 3 really must like lots of cores.
http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/crysis-3-test-gpu/...
Related resources
February 27, 2013 6:34:36 PM

Thanks for both the replies.

I also watched some reviews by Tek Syndicate in Youtube which peaked my curiosity where they put the 8350 against an array of Intel processors. I've read reviews where the 6300 outperforms the 8320, in some cases the i5-2500k and I've even seen a review in Youtube where someone pitted the 6300 against an i7 and of course the i7 wins but the difference is by 5-6 fps which in my mind is nothing if you take into consideration the price difference between the 6300 and any i7.

In most reviews a superior graphics card(to mine) is used so I don't know how that would affect my situation where I can't compete with a 7870 for example.

One of my thoughts for a future upgrade also was to crossfire another 5850 with mine (perhaps a more powerful PSU might be required as well) so then I had the dilemma of getting an Intel CPU as they have lower power consumption.. too many choices!
February 28, 2013 6:09:01 AM

Stricly speaking what is the difference between AMD FX-8350 and AMD FX-8320? I'm catching up on AMD CPU developments but I haven't figured that out yet. Is it a lower multiplier? In effect wouldn't you be getting then the same performance to an 8350 by increasing the unlocked multiplier?
a b à CPUs
February 28, 2013 8:08:30 AM

FX 6300 and Gigabyte 990FX UD5 will be a really nice combination if you can afford it. If you don't like the legacy BIOS consider the MSI 990FXA GD80 with UEFI BIOS and very easy to troubleshoot through.

February 28, 2013 8:51:19 AM

Isn't the motherboard's price a bit overkill as in most online shops I find it to be way more expensive than the CPU?

I mean if there is an actual again from a more expensive mobo I'm all for it.

I was interested in the Gigabyte GA-990FXA-D3 or the ASRock 990FX Extreme3 something along those lines.
a b à CPUs
February 28, 2013 12:21:06 PM

Nothing wrong with those boards. The premium you pay on boards comes down to build quality, the more expensive the better the quality and features.
March 6, 2013 10:54:15 AM

So if we're talking performance wise for games only do I get anything extra in performance for choosing lets say:
ASUS Sabertooth 990FX R2.0

instead of any of:
MSI 990FXA-GD65
or
Gigabyte GA-990FXA-D3
or
Asrock 990FX Extreme3

Build quality is good but there is also a budget :D 
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2013 11:55:21 AM

A couple frames at best, not a lot .
March 11, 2013 2:38:58 PM

In the past recent weeks I have been answering a very similar question for myself. Whereas there are more opinions in this world than facts, it is fact that helps most in making tech-based decisions. The Anandtech website has a great tool for comparing cpus, gpus, ssds etc. Just select the bench tests for 2 different cpus and see for yourself. Far Cry is not the only game out there for comparing CPUs to but it would be if that is what you play. There is a FPS benchmark for WoW and Starcraft and a few other games. Based on what I know from personal experience and from recent research, I personally am very much wanting the i5 3470 for my next gaming rig. In reality, I don't predict mainstream PC games benefiting from more than 2 core CPUs in near future. If you use other programs while playing, I can see the value in a quad core for use in quick web searches, using Ventrilo etc. The i5 3470 can be had very cheap in some places - like $149 at MicroCenter if you live near one. The 3470 is the same CPU as the 3570 minus 200 mhz. 200 mhz is nothing to OC up to. The bench tests between stock 3470 vs 3570 are negligible differences. The 3470 scores lots better than the AMD FX 8350 in most games and in some very important basic tests. Please also note the difference in wattage as this will show you the efficiency of the CPU vs heat. Heat is the OCers nemesis. I used to be an AMD fanboy but since I bought my i7860 a few years ago, I have not seen AMD beating Intel CPUs on any front. I hope they do once again but it hasn't been looking promising. Also, dollar for dollar AMD is no longer giving us the best bang/buck. Check out prices on Newegg then compare the same priced CPUs on Anandtech's benches. This will tell the whole story. I bought my i7860 for $180 3 years ago. I haven't had to upgrade. Compare the current FX6300 to my 3 year old i7 860. They are near identical in their benchmark scores. So, I have had the equivalent of the FX6300's performance for 3 years. This is something to consider when comparing AMD with Intel. The 3470 is my definite choice. Good luck to you.
March 11, 2013 7:33:31 PM

RoadWarrior57 said:
In the past recent weeks I have been answering a very similar question for myself. Whereas there are more opinions in this world than facts, it is fact that helps most in making tech-based decisions. The Anandtech website has a great tool for comparing cpus, gpus, ssds etc. Just select the bench tests for 2 different cpus and see for yourself. Far Cry is not the only game out there for comparing CPUs to but it would be if that is what you play. There is a FPS benchmark for WoW and Starcraft and a few other games. Based on what I know from personal experience and from recent research, I personally am very much wanting the i5 3470 for my next gaming rig. In reality, I don't predict mainstream PC games benefiting from more than 2 core CPUs in near future. If you use other programs while playing, I can see the value in a quad core for use in quick web searches, using Ventrilo etc. The i5 3470 can be had very cheap in some places - like $149 at MicroCenter if you live near one. The 3470 is the same CPU as the 3570 minus 200 mhz. 200 mhz is nothing to OC up to. The bench tests between stock 3470 vs 3570 are negligible differences. The 3470 scores lots better than the AMD FX 8350 in most games and in some very important basic tests. Please also note the difference in wattage as this will show you the efficiency of the CPU vs heat. Heat is the OCers nemesis. I used to be an AMD fanboy but since I bought my i7860 a few years ago, I have not seen AMD beating Intel CPUs on any front. I hope they do once again but it hasn't been looking promising. Also, dollar for dollar AMD is no longer giving us the best bang/buck. Check out prices on Newegg then compare the same priced CPUs on Anandtech's benches. This will tell the whole story. I bought my i7860 for $180 3 years ago. I haven't had to upgrade. Compare the current FX6300 to my 3 year old i7 860. They are near identical in their benchmark scores. So, I have had the equivalent of the FX6300's performance for 3 years. This is something to consider when comparing AMD with Intel. The 3470 is my definite choice. Good luck to you.


Actually, you will notice that in few MONTHS there will be games where 4 cores CPU's gonna be a lot less efficient thant 6-8 cores CPU's and there AMD gonna maybe not destroy Intel but gonna be back in the game hardly for Intel. You could for sure spend the 150$ more on an i7, but it don't worth it at all since the clock speed is about the half when in hyper-threading mode. So personally I would but an 8320 if a litle bit too much tight in your budget, but definetely buy an 8350 if you have the budget. I'm sure that Intel where good 3 years ago, but things change because Intel had turned into power saving CPU's and AMD had continues the run to performance. BUT you have absolutely to take something in consideration. DO NOT buy another 5850: or wait to the 8000/700 series video card or buy a 7000/600 series because buy another 5850 would sincerely be a waste of money, since some games won't even support dual card configuration.

Sincerely hope this help and buy the best for your bucks :D 
March 12, 2013 2:50:13 AM

Guys thanks very much for the replies. Both are much appreciated. Let me just say that I am a value-for-money-gaming-rig fanboy. Not AMD or Intel fanboy.

All I'm interested is a gaming rig. I like the power saving feature on Intel CPUs but in all the reviews I've seen there isn't much difference in idle between AMD and Intel is something like 10watts which is nothing as far as I'm concerned. Yes there is a more sizeable difference in load use but I won't be gaming 3-4 hours a day so again the power saving feature is nice but not really an issue.

I live in the UK and I'll be buying the CPU from ebuyer as I have some credit with them from an item return and their 8350 is at £166(was 151 last week) and their 8320 is at £127. If I can OC the 8320 to 8350 speeds then maybe I'll go for that. The £38 difference (around 56$) is too steep. Perhaps if it drops again around £150 i'd be more inclined to get it. The 3470 is also at £150 roughly. I'd rather go with more cores which is what I was told in other forums as well.

As far as I understand it the 8320s are lower binned 8350s. I guess it depends whether it's worth spending the extra money. I think I've gone past the 6300s anymore. I've had a Q6600 for more than 2 years now, close to 3 and it has served me well but I believe it's showing its age now.

As for the 5850 I think you're right about not getting another one for crossfire.I've had similar thoughts about it. I'm not planning to bet another PSU, this one's (Corsair 620HX) doing quite well so far so I'll go with it and perhaps a better GPU in the future one that can give a quantifiable advantage.

I guess what I'm only after is to get a decent gaming performance at 1680x1050 and everything else comes second. A little bit of VMware here and there a little bit of video converting things like that which I'm not really bothered if an Intel is a better than an AMD at it.

Thanks again for the comments
March 12, 2013 5:12:59 AM

mossi said:
Guys thanks very much for the replies. Both are much appreciated. Let me just say that I am a value-for-money-gaming-rig fanboy. Not AMD or Intel fanboy.

All I'm interested is a gaming rig. I like the power saving feature on Intel CPUs but in all the reviews I've seen there isn't much difference in idle between AMD and Intel is something like 10watts which is nothing as far as I'm concerned. Yes there is a more sizeable difference in load use but I won't be gaming 3-4 hours a day so again the power saving feature is nice but not really an issue.

I live in the UK and I'll be buying the CPU from ebuyer as I have some credit with them from an item return and their 8350 is at £166(was 151 last week) and their 8320 is at £127. If I can OC the 8320 to 8350 speeds then maybe I'll go for that. The £38 difference (around 56$) is too steep. Perhaps if it drops again around £150 i'd be more inclined to get it. The 3470 is also at £150 roughly. I'd rather go with more cores which is what I was told in other forums as well.

As far as I understand it the 8320s are lower binned 8350s. I guess it depends whether it's worth spending the extra money. I think I've gone past the 6300s anymore. I've had a Q6600 for more than 2 years now, close to 3 and it has served me well but I believe it's showing its age now.

As for the 5850 I think you're right about not getting another one for crossfire.I've had similar thoughts about it. I'm not planning to bet another PSU, this one's (Corsair 620HX) doing quite well so far so I'll go with it and perhaps a better GPU in the future one that can give a quantifiable advantage.

I guess what I'm only after is to get a decent gaming performance at 1680x1050 and everything else comes second. A little bit of VMware here and there a little bit of video converting things like that which I'm not really bothered if an Intel is a better than an AMD at it.

Thanks again for the comments


Mossi, did you compare the CPUs on anandtech.com? Here is a link for the original 2 CPUs you wrote about. You can use this for most CPU's comparison. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/699?vs=702
March 12, 2013 5:53:42 AM

RoadWarrior57 said:


Mossi, did you compare the CPUs on anandtech.com? Here is a link for the original 2 CPUs you wrote about. You can use this for most CPU's comparison. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/699?vs=702


There is 2 problems in that benchmark: first the cost, second the ''real world comparison'' seriously at those speed you really don't care about web browsing speed.
March 12, 2013 7:17:34 AM

Money is, of course, a key part of the decision making. There is an article here on Tom's regarding cores needed for gaming. The charts show Crysis3 really only benefitting from 3 cores - with a 4th core going unused. The benchmark charts are a guide and far better than listening to opinions which are based upon who-knows-what. Any other new games coming out "needing" or "using" more cores is an unknown since they aren't out at this time. Also, mainstream gaming companies - especially MMOs create games for the masses to make the most profit; so their games are made to run well on an "average" consumer grade PC. The bottom line: once you have a firm idea of what range of CPU you need or want (based upon benchmarks) then determine the cost and pricing available to you. It's easy to get the most capable CPU per money spent.
March 12, 2013 7:21:38 AM

BTW, did you scroll down and see that there are about 30 benchmarks there? I am asking because you you referred to "that" benchmark and referred to web browsing. Really, there are 30 benches there from 3D scores to FPS on WoW.
March 12, 2013 8:12:16 AM

Well there are a few problems with that. First of all I know that the Intel CPUs overall are superior technologically. I don't need benchmarks for that. All I need to know is that works best with my budget in gaming 1680x1050. I can find reviews where the 8350 beats easily the 3470 in some games. I also don't care about reviews of low resolutions.. 1024x768? who uses that? I've read and watched dozens of reviews of the 2 types of CPUs and some of them were even direct comparisons.I appreciate the offer but I'd need an extensive games review with hardware close to what I would get.

At the moment the likeliest candidate is the 8320 given the budget but that could change in the future. I'm also waiting to see what happened to the fabled 8300 which was meant to be 95W TDP.
March 12, 2013 8:27:22 AM

If you had just gone and used this link http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/699?vs=702 and then actually looked at the various scores, you could see that there are different resolutions for various games and the same test bench - just varying CPUs. This would have told the story for you. I really don't know what problems I have presented you here. I just referred you to a very useful tool for comparing various CPUs.
March 12, 2013 12:14:42 PM

believe it or not the 3470 may give more fps than one 8350 in some games!so i would pick the 3470!if your budget afford that you should go and get one 3570 or in case you want to overclock it go get one 3570k!
March 12, 2013 2:14:11 PM

RoadWarrior57 said:
Money is, of course, a key part of the decision making. There is an article here on Tom's regarding cores needed for gaming. The charts show Crysis3 really only benefitting from 3 cores - with a 4th core going unused. The benchmark charts are a guide and far better than listening to opinions which are based upon who-knows-what. Any other new games coming out "needing" or "using" more cores is an unknown since they aren't out at this time. Also, mainstream gaming companies - especially MMOs create games for the masses to make the most profit; so their games are made to run well on an "average" consumer grade PC. The bottom line: once you have a firm idea of what range of CPU you need or want (based upon benchmarks) then determine the cost and pricing available to you. It's easy to get the most capable CPU per money spent.


Dude, consoles are made to last 6 years, why do you think they have 8 cores? Well he want something that will last him for a long time (the Q6600 is there since more than 6 years) so please, he want to play future games too :) . And I want to point out that more the resolution is big, more AMD CPU's take the lead so if he want to upgrade to a 1080p monitor, the AMD will probably be even more futureproof :) 
March 12, 2013 4:48:04 PM

RoadWarrior57 said:
If you had just gone and used this link http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/699?vs=702 and then actually looked at the various scores, you could see that there are different resolutions for various games and the same test bench - just varying CPUs. This would have told the story for you. I really don't know what problems I have presented you here. I just referred you to a very useful tool for comparing various CPUs.


I did go to that link and I did see other games and other resolutions but I'm not going to follow anandtech religiously. Its one group of synthetic benchmarks. There are dozens and dozens of reviews with different scores and framerates. Who's right? all of them maybe. The 8350 is not value for money at £166, the 3470 seems a better deal at £150 or so but the 8320 seems an even better deal at £127. 3570k at £185 is not acceptable.
March 12, 2013 7:24:47 PM

Actually the FX-8320 can be OC to FX-8350 with the stock cooler (or just below) and even if you don't OC it, it can go up to 4.0GHz, so 200mhz less than the 8350, so definetely a better choice
a b à CPUs
March 12, 2013 7:52:57 PM

Well both the i5-3470 and an OC'd FX-8320@4GHz are both good chips :) 

The main question is what GPU will you be using? If its a HD 7870 class GPU or lower, like your HD 5850, then i'd get the FX, for its lower cost, unlocked multiplier, and possible upgrade path to steamroller. (if the increased power consumption of the FX doesn't bother you)
On the other hand, if you were to xfire two 7970's, i'd get the i5.

When it comes to gaming, for a majority of the current games, the i5 is slightly superior, and I think it will hold this advantage against the FX-8320 for at least 3 years or so, as per my guess.

At the same time,however,, the FX also allows you to do some heavy rendering/encoding/heavy multitasking too, and an FX rig is certainly more future proof, especially if your planning to keep this rig for 5yrs or more.
March 12, 2013 7:55:34 PM

Synthetic benchmarks are merely a guide - this is one among many. The lower priced CPUs like the lower priced versions of both AMD and Intel CPUs can very easily be OCed to the more expensive version's speed. 100 - 200 mhz on the FSB and you have your more expensive CPU. There are ongoing deals for CPUs and when you have one that suits you, just go for it and know what your options are. It really seems that you are not focused on any particular game or at least have not mentioned it. Both CPUs and GPUs have their strengths on various games. Due to sales on the 3470 where I live, I would go for that one. The i5 2500K is a really good CPU but it is older tech even though it is a great performer and can often be had on sale. There is an article here on Tom's talking about Crysis 3 and maxing out on 3 cores. Very good article. I thought the FRAPS bench for WOW was enlightening as that rather shows MMO's needs for CPUs and the FPS differences from use of different CPUs. At either 80 FPS or 120 FPS you won't see a difference in the game but the higher one will show better possibly in a big raid. One major component often overlooked when building a MMO machine is the hard drive. A SSD is really an asset in a MMO machine as it is much quicker to get you into instances than a standard HDD. Lots of lag in highly populated places is cured by having a SSD as your game drive.
March 12, 2013 8:00:19 PM

People: Crysis 3 use up to 6 cores
March 13, 2013 11:00:31 AM

I'm not an MMO person. Used to play MUD's (text MMORPGs) and I had my fair share of addiction to online RPGs. Nowadays I'm more chilled usually 1st person shooters(Borderlands 2), DOTA 2, SC II, Dawn of War, stuff like that and with the exception of DOTA 2 I mostly want to play offline.

I had a quick look at prices at the I5 2500k and its at £175 :( 

I dont think I'll be using crossfire but then again I'm not sure what the future holds. Was thinking about getting the 8320 with a 990X or 970 chipset? I guess 990FX is good if you want to crossfire 16x/16x but other than that I don't really see what features I'd get that justify the cost.I'll keep an eye on motherboards anyway to see if there is anything on offer.
March 13, 2013 2:11:34 PM

mossi said:
I'm not an MMO person. Used to play MUD's (text MMORPGs) and I had my fair share of addiction to online RPGs. Nowadays I'm more chilled usually 1st person shooters(Borderlands 2), DOTA 2, SC II, Dawn of War, stuff like that and with the exception of DOTA 2 I mostly want to play offline.

I had a quick look at prices at the I5 2500k and its at £175 :( 

I dont think I'll be using crossfire but then again I'm not sure what the future holds. Was thinking about getting the 8320 with a 990X or 970 chipset? I guess 990FX is good if you want to crossfire 16x/16x but other than that I don't really see what features I'd get that justify the cost.I'll keep an eye on motherboards anyway to see if there is anything on offer.


You could even go with a 760 chipset if you are in a single card configuration I think. And for games like Borderlands 2 with physics, you should go with an nVidia card just for this feature wich is awesome
a b à CPUs
March 13, 2013 2:40:19 PM

ben123a9 said:
mossi said:
I'm not an MMO person. Used to play MUD's (text MMORPGs) and I had my fair share of addiction to online RPGs. Nowadays I'm more chilled usually 1st person shooters(Borderlands 2), DOTA 2, SC II, Dawn of War, stuff like that and with the exception of DOTA 2 I mostly want to play offline.

I had a quick look at prices at the I5 2500k and its at £175 :( 

I dont think I'll be using crossfire but then again I'm not sure what the future holds. Was thinking about getting the 8320 with a 990X or 970 chipset? I guess 990FX is good if you want to crossfire 16x/16x but other than that I don't really see what features I'd get that justify the cost.I'll keep an eye on motherboards anyway to see if there is anything on offer.


You could even go with a 760 chipset if you are in a single card configuration I think. And for games like Borderlands 2 with physics, you should go with an nVidia card just for this feature wich is awesome


I personaly think nvidia cards are way to overpriced, a hd 7870 xt performs 210,- (almost) as good as a gtx 660ti 285,-
March 13, 2013 6:36:03 PM

L Helps said:
I personaly think nvidia cards are way to overpriced, a hd 7870 xt performs 210,- (almost) as good as a gtx 660ti 285,-


Of course but they have awesome features, like physics for exemple. But it's of course true...

Anyway take the best for your money dude!
March 13, 2013 7:32:28 PM

tereroche4 said:
I really don't know what problems I have presented you here.


hein?
March 15, 2013 10:37:56 AM

As a final note I was thinking whether I would see a quantifiable advantage in performance if I were to get the FX-8320(the likeliest candidate at the moment) against the FX-6300.

Obviously we're talking about gaming performance alone at 1680x1050. One thing I should mention here is that my monitor is actually 20 inches in size. My work monitor is 22 guess thats why I confused it :D 

The cooler I'd be using would be the Corsair H40 and I have the Fractal Design R4 case and a few fans for airflow although I'm trying to keep things as cool and quiet as possible.

I wouldn't be overclocking at first but it would be a concern in about a year's time or so.

In which case Steamroller might be out then and perhaps in lets say 2 years from now I could upgrade to Steamroller if it stays with AM3+

I'd be probably be getting this motherboard and stick to 1 GPU setup (5850 HD or better in the future)
http://www.dabs.com/products/asus-m5a97-r2-0-am3--amd-9...

So the question now is 6300 or 8320? their price difference is £25 roughly
a b à CPUs
March 15, 2013 8:16:00 PM

Well for purely gaming purposes, the fx-6300 will perform as good as the 8320 as they both have the same stock/turbo clocks, and 6 cores are more than enough for gaming atm.
Get the 8 core chip if you also do some heavy stuff on a regular basis.
March 16, 2013 5:47:57 AM

$hawn said:
Well for purely gaming purposes, the fx-6300 will perform as good as the 8320 as they both have the same stock/turbo clocks, and 6 cores are more than enough for gaming atm.
Get the 8 core chip if you also do some heavy stuff on a regular basis.


I would say get the 8320, since consoles have 8 cores. Plus it will allow you to use music, skype, and all the application that a gamer need when he play with people.
a b à CPUs
March 16, 2013 7:00:45 AM

ben123a9 said:
I would say get the 8320, since consoles have 8 cores. Plus it will allow you to use music, skype, and all the application that a gamer need when he play with people.


Well skype and music isn't all that heavy, you could do both with a single cored Sempron!!

March 16, 2013 11:17:43 AM

I think I might just get the 8320 for peace of mind.I'm only worried about temps as I have an OCed Q6600 G0 to 3Ghz and that was 95W TDP so going to 125W TDP is a bit of a concern.

I don't know what temps to expect with the 8320 and the Corsair H40 cooler. Obviously for overclocking I might need something more powerful but I'd like to keep things cool and quiet. One might say why don't you get an Intel then.. thats a good question.. the price is the problem I guess and the future overclockability.
a b à CPUs
March 21, 2013 5:35:17 PM

mossi said:
I think I might just get the 8320 for peace of mind.I'm only worried about temps as I have an OCed Q6600 G0 to 3Ghz and that was 95W TDP so going to 125W TDP is a bit of a concern.

I don't know what temps to expect with the 8320 and the Corsair H40 cooler. Obviously for overclocking I might need something more powerful but I'd like to keep things cool and quiet. One might say why don't you get an Intel then.. thats a good question.. the price is the problem I guess and the future overclockability.


The 8350 is only $189 on Amazon, compared to the 8320 at 174, almost only a $20 price difference. The 8350's IMC is stronger and it will have more potential for overclocking, I really suggest you save $20 more bucks and get the top AMD cpu instead of a bump down, itll be worth it I'm telling you. I think with your H40 if you are running push/pull with 2 fans you should be good to around 4.5-4.6ghz, depending on your chip. My cooler is similar and I've managed 4.7ghz with really low temps in Prime and gaming.

a b à CPUs
March 25, 2013 8:10:57 AM

ben123a9 said:
tereroche4 said:
I really don't know what problems I have presented you here.


hein?


Spammer. Banned.
March 28, 2013 5:47:46 AM

Went for

AMD FX-8320
Asus M5A97 R2.0

in the end. thanks to all for helping out!
a b à CPUs
March 28, 2013 6:31:02 AM

mossi said:
Went for

AMD FX-8320
Asus M5A97 R2.0

in the end. thanks to all for helping out!


Well goodluck with your build :)  8320 is a good cpu.
!