q6600 or fx 8350 for gaming

[FinestRyeBread]

Which one's better?

[QueenDemetria]

Which one's better?

If you overclock, the 8350 is.

 

Actually the 8350 is just overall better.

[pcman365]

fx 8350

[dragoon20005]

the FX will be better in this case

[Paytend01]

Fx 8350, but if you are buying a Cpu I would upgrade to a I5

[Jacktastic-Mofo]

The FX-8350 will most likely be better. If I had a overclock-able motherboard I'd OC my Q6600 and give you some results.

[Morgan MLGman]

FX-8350 is good enough for gaming, doesn't really bottleneck GPUs up to R9 390X (included). I'm using mine @4,5gHz with an R9 290X (1150mhz core/1450mhz mem) and I don't experience any noticeable bottlenecks in games, if any at all.

[Enderman]

8350

[FruitBasketSilex]

FX-8350 is good enough for gaming, doesn't really bottleneck GPUs up to R9 390X (included). I'm using mine @4,5gHz with an R9 290X (1150mhz core/1450mhz mem) and I don't experience any noticeable bottlenecks in games, if any at all.

I'm not going to say anything, but lots of others will.

[Morgan MLGman]

I'm not going to say anything, but lots of others will.

What do you mean exactly?

[FruitBasketSilex]

What do you mean exactly?

I'm not going to start the AMD bottlenecking fight.

@op

8350. Definitely. Don't know why you're comparing the two though.

[Morgan MLGman]

I'm not going to start the AMD bottlenecking fight.

There's no fight to be had in the first place. It's well-known that with a higher-IPC Intel CPU you might get more FPS in GPU demanding areas, which doesn't really matter if your GPU is good enough, the overclocked FX series CPUs are not gaming CPUs, but the 8350 can handle any AAA title you throw at it, I guarantee it and I can prove it to you if you still do not believe me. I have a youtube video with 7 AAA games gameplay (the witcher 3, AC:Unity etc) proving that there's no significant bottleneck with my old GTX 970 @1410mhz + 8350 @4,5ghz, I can link it if you're curious. I upgraded to the 290X, still the same situation, no GPU usage all-over the place etc, 100% basically all the time in the games that demand it

[FruitBasketSilex]

There's no fight to be had in the first place. It's well-known that with a higher-IPC Intel CPU you might get more FPS in GPU demanding areas, which doesn't really matter if your GPU is good enough, the overclocked FX series CPUs are not gaming CPUs, but the 8350 can handle any AAA title you throw at it, I guarantee it and I can prove it to you if you still do not believe me. I have a youtube video with 7 AAA games gameplay (the witcher 3, AC:Unity etc) proving that there's no significant bottleneck with my old GTX 970 @1410mhz + 8350 @4,5ghz, I can link it if you're curious. I upgraded to the 290X, still the same situation, no GPU usage all-over the place etc, 100% basically all the time in the games that demand it

*backs away*

Tired of the salt.

[Morgan MLGman]

*backs away*

Tired of the salt.

That's kinda sad...

[FruitBasketSilex]

That's kinda sad...

K

[Prysin]

FX8350 will be wastly superior, even at stock.

@

Try argue if the FX is worse in any way

[don_svetlio]

*backs away*

Tired of the salt.

funnily enough when all 8 cores are used an FX 8350 gives an i5 4690 a run for it's money beating it by 10% or so

[Dabombinable]

FX8350 will be wastly superior, even at stock.

@

Try argue if the FX is worse in any way

Why would I argue against the FX 8350? Of course it does better than a Q6600. Still doesn't change the fact however that the FX 8350 has a lower IPC.

 

 

funnily enough when all 8 cores are used an FX 8350 gives an i5 4690 a run for it's money beating it by 10% or so

8 threads and its only beating something that consumes a lot less power by 10%......

[don_svetlio]

Why would I argue against the FX 8350? Of course it does better than a Q6600. Still doesn't change the fact however that the FX 8350 has a lower IPC.

 

 

8 threads and its only beating something that consumes a lot less power by 10%......

if you consider 40W to be a LOT then fine. In 10 years you'll be able to buy yourself a new mouse with that cash

[Dabombinable]

if you consider 40W to be a LOT then fine. In 10 years you'll be able to buy yourself a new mouse with that cash

i5 4690 vs the FX 8350. And TDP doesn't mean the power consumption with Hasewll and Conroe......

[don_svetlio]

i5 4690 vs the FX 8350. And TDP doesn't mean the power consumption with Hasewll and Conroe......

you need a BIG OC to push the FX so much. Mot of the time a system without a GPU will pull 100-150W

[Dabombinable]

you need a BIG OC to push the FX so much. Mot of the time a system without a GPU will pull 100-150W

At around 5GHz an FX 8350 will consume 220W, while I'm sitting here for example with my 4790K at stock, and it only consumes up to 74W. My i5 4440 (killed by undervolting-FIVR=epic fail) was lucky to hit 36W.

[don_svetlio]

At around 5GHz an FX 8350 will consume 220W, while I'm sitting here for example with my 4790K at stock, and it only consumes up to 74W. My i5 4440 (killed by undervolting-FIVR=epic fail) was lucky to hit 36W.

5GHz is a severe case of diminishing returns. Once you get to around 4.2 to 4.5 on FX OCing further is rather pointless. 4.2 at lower voltage will keep you around 120W

[i_build_nanosuits]

You are compairing a 9 years old CPU with a 4 years old one...the FX-8350 will totaly wreck the Q6600 (fun fact, i owned both...i know )

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core2-Quad-Q6600-vs-AMD-FX-8350/1980vs1489

Also the Q6600 is worth like 15$...the FX-8350 is a 120$ processor...so nearly ten times the price as well.

[Dabombinable]

5GHz is a severe case of diminishing returns. Once you get to around 4.2 to 4.5 on FX OCing further is rather pointless. 4.2 at lower voltage will keep you around 120W

Considering how poor the single threaded performance is, every 100MHz counts.