FX-6300 vs FX-8320

[KevinG4]

Hey everyone , i am torn between these two processors and i am not quite sure which one to pick . I was going to get the 8320 but i found out that in gaming there is absolutely no difference so i would really like to know if the extra 40 euros that the 8320 costs are worth it and if they will give me substancial benefits . I am not going to do any streaming or video editing whatsoever. Thanks in advance !

[Dravic]

Hey everyone , i am torn between these two processors and i am not quite sure which one to pick . I was going to get the 8320 but i found out that in gaming there is absolutely no difference so i would really like to know if the extra 40 euros that the 8320 costs are worth it and if they will give me substancial benefits . I am not going to do any streaming or video editing whatsoever. Thanks in advance !

 

Where do you want to stick that processor in? (motherboard model you intend to buy)? Also what Power supply?

[Cacao]

The 8320 will definitely perform better in certain games, though it also depends on your GPU, as that might be your bottleneck.

[MzCatieB]

8320

the 6000 series arnt as good as you think

 

 

 

 

 

(Has a fx-6000 series)

[KevinG4]

As a motherboard i will be using the Asus M5A97 EVO R2.0 which is a pretty good one i think , as a power supply i will be using the Seasonic SSR-550 RM and as a GPU i will be using an EVGA GeForce GTX650 Ti Boost SC 1GB .

[Dravic]

As a motherboard i will be using the Asus M5A97 EVO R2.0 which is a pretty good one i think , as a power supply i will be using the Seasonic SSR-550 RM and as a GPU i will be using an EVGA GeForce GTX650 Ti Boost SC 1GB .

 

Gigabyte 970A-UD3 has better power section (8 phases) and I would stick to it for AMD.

 

By the way why do you want AMD processor in your build in the first place for gaming? Intel's faster for gaming. I'd build this:

 

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/h4UM

 

on the other hand if you want to stick to processors barely faster than 2009's Phenom II architecture when talking about gaming:

 

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/lsNZ

[KevinG4]

Gigabyte 970A-UD3 has better power section (8 phases) and I would stick to it for AMD.

 

By the way why do you want AMD processor in your build in the first place for gaming? Intel's faster for gaming. I'd build this:

 

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/h4UM

Thats partly because i want an all around pc rather than a gaming one , but mostly because i dont have a lot of money to spend . The parts you mentioned are out of my budget.

[Dravic]

Thats partly because i want an all around pc rather than a gaming one , but mostly because i dont have a lot of money to spend . The parts you mentioned are out of my budget.

 

Check again.

[MzCatieB]

Thats partly because i want an all around pc rather than a gaming one , but mostly because i dont have a lot of money to spend . The parts you mentioned are out of my budget.

id get a 8350, GTX660/650 with 8gb of ram

[KevinG4]

Check again.

Yeah i should have probably mentioned earlier but from where i am from those prices dont apply . For example the i5-3470+MSI Z77MA-G45 cost a total sum of 267 euros while the FX-8320+Asus M5A97 EVO R2.0 cost a total of 242 euros and the FX-6300+Asus M5A97 EVO R2.0 cost a total of 206 euros. If i add the gigabyte board you mentioned in the account then the total sum of the two FX based system is 15 euros lower. Is the Intel based system that much better to excuse that extra money ?

[Dravic]

Yeah i should have probably mentioned earlier but from where i am from those prices dont apply . For example the i5-3470+MSI Z77MA-G45 cost a total sum of 267 euros while the FX-8320+Asus M5A97 EVO R2.0 cost a total of 242 euros and the FX-6300+Asus M5A97 EVO R2.0 cost a total of 206 euros. If i add the gigabyte board you mentioned in the account then the total sum of the two FX based system is 15 euros lower. Is the Intel based system that much better to excuse that extra money ?

 

Gaming? Yes. Overall usage? Yes. There's only few specific tasks you can do to make AMD look a bit better (But at that point you are buying whole processor so it is faster with only one task while all tasks are slower): Rendering. And perhaps unzipping stuff and using decoding/encoding data.

 

Pretty much everything else is better with Intel. Especially performance per watt (badum tss), which probably would return you the difference in 1-2 years of constant running the PC.

 

i5 takes maybe 80watts. FX at stock takes around 130 watts and overclocked (still slower for gaming than i5) would take 200+ watts.

[ALXAndy]

You don't need a 8320 for a 650ti Boost. The 6300 will be more than adequate.

 

In gaming you need to think 6300 = 2500k and 8320 = 3570k. I run GTX 670s in SLI and I use an 8320, mainly for games such as Crysis 3, FC3 and so on. Crysis 3 sees and uses 8 cores but that won't help you if all you're going to run is a 650ti Boost.

 

You're better off getting the 6300 and putting the cash you save into a better GPU IMO.

 

Edit. And any 4+1 board is fine fora 6300. Even with my board (4+1) I get 4.2ghz out of an 8 core that's a crap clocker.

[DefinitelyNotAPedophile]

They are verry similar but i would go with fx 6300 and then get a h100i or something to you could get the performance out of it. As of right now most pc games dont utilize all cores. You should get some sort of cpu cooler to better performance and reduce noise. Those stock amd cpu coolers arent verry good. I would get a powerful psu also so you are ready for future upgrades

If you want to save some money tru an amd's apu. They preform pretty decent and dont cost an arm and a leg

[Sky Daddy]

Get the 8350, it's not that much more.

[KevinG4]

I am getting the CM Hyper 212 EVO  as a cooler for the AMD cpu because i know that the stock cooler isnt any good for OC.If i had more money i probably would have gone for something like a 3570k but right now that's out of the question . Thats why i am going to AMD which has really good cpu's for the money . What would you choose between an Asus M5A97 EVO R2.0 and the Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3?

[KevinG4]

Gaming? Yes. Overall usage? Yes. There's only few specific tasks you can do to make AMD look a bit better (But at that point you are buying whole processor so it is faster with only one task while all tasks are slower): Rendering. And perhaps unzipping stuff and using decoding/encoding data.

 

Pretty much everything else is better with Intel. Especially performance per watt (badum tss), which probably would return you the difference in 1-2 years of constant running the PC.

 

i5 takes maybe 80watts. FX at stock takes around 130 watts and overclocked (still slower for gaming than i5) would take 200+ watts.

FX-6300 at stock speeds draws 95 watts from the wall and if you overclock it at something like 4.2 with a core voltage of 1.4 it generates 130 watts , it doesnt even come close to the 200+ watts you mentioned ?

[maxtuckerpc]

yes at the moment intel is faster but remember the next gen consoles have 8core amd cpu's so games will get optimized for 8 cores or more. i have a fx-8350 and trust me it is fine for everything i do.very happy with the system.