AMD FX-8320 + Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO vs AMD FX-8350. Which one(s) should I get?

[Packdemon]

They literally cost the same amount of money ($120 + $30; $150) and and processors with their stock coolers are pretty close to each other in terms of performance, so which one(s) should I get?

[Nena Trinity]

They literally cost the same amount of money ($120+$30; $150) and and processors with their stock coolers are pretty close to each other in terms of performance, so which one(s) should I get?

Most would take the FX-8320 and OC it but you may or may not reach same performance, also what board?

 

Ok if you plan to use that Krait-board then you better give up on a 125W FX CPU!

[Nishizumi]

8320 as the 8350 is pretty much a factory over clocked version of the 8320. There may be some differences but I doubt it's noticeable.

[vorticalbox]

8320 as the 8350 is pretty much a factory over clocked version of the 8320. There may be some differences but I doubt it's noticeable.

this. i would take the 8350 just for that little boost out of the box. I have an 8350 and you really don't want to be running stock cooler.

[DKL]

Personally I would go Intel over AMD every time(at least until Zen comes out in late 2016) since the AMD FX CPU's are quite old now and have horrid single core performance, allowing Intel to out perform AMD since the majority of games and applications are single threaded as opposed to making good use of multiple cores and threads. 

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/401217-amd-fx-vs-intel-for-gaming-2015-edition/

http://www.techspot.com/review/943-best-value-desktop-cpu/

[Prysin]

Personally I would go Intel over AMD every time(at least until Zen comes out in late 2016) since the AMD FX CPU's are quite old now and have horrid single core performance, allowing Intel to out perform AMD since the majority of games and applications are single threaded as opposed to making good use of multiple cores and threads. 

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/401217-amd-fx-vs-intel-for-gaming-2015-edition/

http://www.techspot.com/review/943-best-value-desktop-cpu/

for games, FX is plenty capable of pushing 60FPS. You just fail to recognize it.

 

@Packdemon

get a 8320e version... it may be lower clocked, but it has been selected to use super low voltage. so it should be able to get to 8350 levels whilst using LESS energy overall...

[DKL]

for games, FX is plenty capable of pushing 60FPS. You just fail to recognize it.

 

@Packdemon

get a 8320e version... it may be lower clocked, but it has been selected to use super low voltage. so it should be able to get to 8350 levels whilst using LESS energy overall.

Would you mind expanding on that then, possibly with sources backing up why the FX is a good choice?

The reasons I 'fail to recognize it' is that while it can push 60FPS, so can an i3(priced lower, running cooler, and consuming far less energy while having better single core support.) or an i5(having more well rounded performance, which a large number of users don't actually need, although it is great for gaming). An FX 6300 can get 60FPS too.

 

With just a one line statement like 'X is capable of 60FPS' well.... yeah, a lot of parts are capable of being used to deliver 60FPS. I can grab a 750Ti and get 60FPS on medium and low settings on some games and get 60fps maxed on a few others(at 1080p). I can grab a 980 Ti and get 60FPS on all games pretty easily(at 1080p). I can say that every modern CPU/GPU out right now is CAPABLE of 60FPS at 1440p. No one will know exactly what I mean, as I could mean capable of 60FPS playing flash games at 1440p. For all we know, I could mean capable of running VR 60FPS 1440p, and then that calls into question what I mean by every modern CPU/GPU, as it must be different from what others think it means or I wouldn't say they were capable of running VR 60FPS 1440p. Well, they aren't capable of it if VR stands for Virtual Reality, however, they are capable if it stands for Victoria: Revolutions!

 

With no context to your one line reply nor any sources(I provided two in each post) your reply to my suggestion that he go Intel is not only lacking any sources backing it up, it also fails to make any argument to convince me that AMD may actually be a good choice over Intel at this pricepoint.

 

 edit: I just want to note that I'm fine with someone criticizing me, so long as you back it up somehow and explain further rather than making a one line statement that doesn't really help anyone. If you take the time to teach me the how and why behind your opinion I'm willing to listen and  learn, as all of PC Building is a learning process. It's why I use many different sites to learn from(PCPPicker, LTT, EliteGamingComputers, various YouTube Channels, Overclockers, EliTheComputerGuy, Brand Name Pre-Built Systems' Forums, etc.

 

http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=2479&game=Victoria:%20Revolutions

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/gaming/virtually-there-how-to-build-your-own-oculus-rift-pc-today-1289090/2

 

Oh, and for good measure, here's a quote from the above VR article on this subject:

In the past, when deciding what processor to go for, the choice between an AMD or Intel CPU was pretty close, and often boiled down to budget or personal preference. These days, the choice is a lot easier, though sadly not particularly because of what Intel is doing right, but what AMD is doing wrong.

 

[Prysin]

Would you mind expanding on that then, possibly with sources backing up why the FX is a good choice?

The reasons I 'fail to recognize it' is that while it can push 60FPS, so can an i3(priced lower, running cooler, and consuming far less energy while having better single core support.) or an i5(having more well rounded performance, which a large number of users don't actually need, although it is great for gaming). An FX 6300 can get 60FPS too.

 

With just a one line statement like 'X is capable of 60FPS' well.... yeah, a lot of parts are capable of being used to deliver 60FPS. I can grab a 750Ti and get 60FPS on medium and low settings on some games and get 60fps maxed on a few others(at 1080p). I can grab a 980 Ti and get 60FPS on all games pretty easily(at 1080p). I can say that every modern CPU/GPU out right now is CAPABLE of 60FPS at 1440p. No one will know exactly what I mean, as I could mean capable of 60FPS playing flash games at 1440p. For all we know, I could mean capable of running VR 60FPS 1440p, and then that calls into question what I mean by every modern CPU/GPU, as it must be different from what others think it means or I wouldn't say they were capable of running VR 60FPS 1440p. Well, they aren't capable of it if VR stands for Virtual Reality, however, they are capable if it stands for Victoria: Revolutions!

 

With no context to your one line reply nor any sources(I provided two in each post) your reply to my suggestion that he go Intel is not only lacking any sources backing it up, it also fails to make any argument to convince me that AMD may actually be a good choice over Intel at this pricepoint. 

 

http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=2479&game=Victoria:%20Revolutions

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/gaming/virtually-there-how-to-build-your-own-oculus-rift-pc-today-1289090/2

 

Oh, and for good measure, here's a quote from the above VR article on this subject:

 

you can argue that in games Intel is purely better, and pre 2014, you would be right. as games made prior to 2014 that COULD use more then 1-2 threads/cores were few and far between. Come 2014 and A LOT of games started using 4 or more cores. This is not only a growing trend, it is happening. DX12 will have full support and good scaling for up to 6 cores/threads. Meaning any CPU pushing 6 threads or more will see well optimized games.

 

FX sucks at IPC, and in games strictly using 1-2 cores, IPC is king.

however as tasks become more parrallellized, IPC becomes less important then the ability to actually EXECUTE said tasks in parrallell.

For CPUs with fewer threads/cores, IPC and clock speed is what defines their ability to run these games. This is why intels 1,5 year old CPUs are getting more and more competition from the 4 year old bulldozer based architecture. Mind you, FX was pretty MEH even when it came out. However this displays HOW important core/thread count is if the game can use it.

The Witcher 3 sees a FX 6300 creep close to a locked i5, an 8350 would perform more stable then the i5. And while FXs low IPC forbids them ever getting higher FPS then Intel CPUs, their core count lets them execute parrallellized tasks smoother.

 

In professional software using all 8 cores/threads, an i5 will NEVER catch a 8350. Whilst having a staggering 70% stronger cores it still wont beat the 8350 if all 8 cores/threads are being used.

As we see more and more games move towards the trend of using more cores/threads, picking up a FX 6300 over an i3, or a 8320e (get the low wattage version to get cheaper mobos) over an i5 CAN MAKE SENSE.

However if your budget allows you to get an Intel i5 4460 or better, you should do so. Because not every game WILL use more then 4 cores/threads. Some will only use 4, some will still use 2 cores/threads... and in these programs, Intel would be wastly superior.

[Packdemon]

So, I should get the 8320 then?

 

Most would take the FX-8320 and OC it but you may or may not reach same performance, also what board?

 

Ok if you plan to use that Krait-board then you better give up on a 125W FX CPU!

I think I'll be using the Asus M5A97 LE R2.0 for this one. I probably won't be getting too good of an overclock for it since it is a low energy (LE) board, but the 8320 (and 8350) are still on the supported list: https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/M5A97_LE_R20/HelpDesk_CPU/

 

The AMD 990FX/SB950 is probably also a better chipset than the AMD 970/SB950 for 125w processors, but I'm broke and the Asus M5A97 LE R2.0 is all that I had lying around.

[Nena Trinity]

So, I should get the 8320 then?

 

I think I'll be using the Asus M5A97 LE R2.0 for this one. I probably won't be getting too good of an overclock for it since it is a low energy (LE) board, but the 8320 (and 8350) are still on the supported list: https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/M5A97_LE_R20/HelpDesk_CPU/

 

The AMD 990FX/SB950 is probably also a better chipset than the AMD 970/SB950 for 125w processors, but I'm broke and the Asus M5A97 LE R2.0 is all that I had lying around.

I heard much good about that ASUS board you can probably reach 4.5GHz!