FX 6300 vs FX 8350

[n00bmlg]

Which should I get?

Is the performance on the 8350 that much better than the 6300?

I would use them for gaming at 720p

[Orboe]

Both of them will work wonders at 720p gaming. Neither have graphics on board so remember you need a gpu which will matter more in most games anyway. Most games do not use more than 4 cores (6300 has 6 and 8350 has 8) but some do (like GTA V). But as I said, at 720p, you will not max out your cpu. 

[n00bmlg]

1 minute ago, Orboe said:

Both of them will work wonders at 720p gaming. Neither have graphics on board so remember you need a gpu which will matter more in most games anyway. Most games do not use more than 4 cores (6300 has 6 and 8350 has 8) but some do (like GTA V). But as I said, at 720p, you will not max out your cpu. 

I currently only have a GTX 650, but I plan to upgrade it soon, I was thinking GTX 970

[Orboe]

The RX 480 is coming out at the end of this month and should be a decent amount better than a 970 at about the same price.

[n00bmlg]

1 minute ago, Orboe said:

The RX 480 is coming out at the end of this month and should be a decent amount better than a 970 at about the same price.

That is true, I forgot about that

 

So which CPU would you reccomend?

[Orboe]

Are you going to be doing anything other than just gaming? Like editing, streaming (Twitch) or things of that sort? If you are only doing gaming, the 6300 will be good enough. The 8350 gives more future proofing though. 

[incarnate]

Resolution doesn't make a difference for cpus. Not one bit. They will bottleneck at the same frame rate regardless of the resolution.

 

If at all possible I'd recommend going intel or waiting for Zen to come out. Vishera was pretty disappointing when it came out, years ago. Now, it's pretty crappy and it is about on the same level as an i3.

 

Even if you want to go AMD because you don't want Intel, you'll regret getting an fx.

[n00bmlg]

1 minute ago, Orboe said:

Are you going to be doing anything other than just gaming? Like editing, streaming (Twitch) or things of that sort? If you are only doing gaming, the 6300 will be good enough. The 8350 gives more future proofing though. 

Maybe I should just go with the 6300, especially since I play at 720p

 

Besides, I can always upgrade to the 8350 at some point

[i_build_nanosuits]

16 minutes ago, n00bmlg said:

Which should I get?

Is the performance on the 8350 that much better than the 6300?

I would use them for gaming at 720p

i5-6400/6500

[incarnate]

2 minutes ago, n00bmlg said:

Maybe I should just go with the 6300, especially since I play at 720p

 

Besides, I can always upgrade to the 8350 at some point

I'm telling you resolution make exactly zero difference for cpu performance. And going with fx is like buying a vcr right before they stopped releasing vhs movies. It is 4 years old. Yes 4. It is a dead platform and vishera was disapointing when it came out. If you don't want to go with Intel, then I'd wait until Zen comes out.

[n00bmlg]

1 hour ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

i5-6400/6500

I don't exactly have the money for an i5

[Jonathan Lemmens]

5 hours ago, n00bmlg said:

I don't exactly have the money for an i5

What's your budget and what parts do you already have?

[Flavortown2k16]

If you decide to go with 8350 remember that you need to have atleast 970 chipset or 990 if you want most of out if and i would highly hiiiighly recommend decent aftermarket cooler with it since it runs hot enough to throttle with my hyper 103 that im about to return

[n00bmlg]

4 hours ago, Jonathan Lemmens said:

What's your budget and what parts do you already have?

My budget is about $150, and I just need to buy a MB, RAM, and CPU

[Jonathan Lemmens]

5 minutes ago, n00bmlg said:

My budget is about $150, and I just need to buy a MB, RAM, and CPU

[PCPartPicker part list](http://pcpartpicker.com/list/fNPjTW) / [Price breakdown by merchant](http://pcpartpicker.com/list/fNPjTW/by_merchant/)

Type|Item|Price
:----|:----|:----
**CPU** | [Intel Core i3-6100 3.7GHz Dual-Core Processor](http://pcpartpicker.com/product/hV7CmG/intel-cpu-bx80662i36100) | $110.99 @ SuperBiiz 
**Motherboard** | [Gigabyte GA-H110M-A Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard](http://pcpartpicker.com/product/hMvZxr/gigabyte-motherboard-gah110ma) | $45.99 @ Amazon 
**Memory** | [Kingston 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR4-2133 Memory](http://pcpartpicker.com/product/gKZ2FT/kingston-memory-kvr21n15d88) | $28.99 @ SuperBiiz 
 | *Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts* |
 | **Total** | **$185.97**
 | Generated by [PCPartPicker](http://pcpartpicker.com) 2016-06-22 09:08 EDT-0400 |

 

This is $35 more, but a decent pc for light gaming.

 

You could also use a Pentium G4400 CPU instead of the i3 that would total at $133 and still gives you the option to buy an i5/i7 later, if you'd want to.

[Nena Trinity]

FX-6350 is the better value if gaming is your only goal! (do not get a crappy 4+1 VRM board get 6+2 minimum)

Tough future games the FX-8350/70 will be better but only get FX-83X0 if you are gonna keep it a while...

Note: Some DX12 and DX11 games are using 6 to 8 cores now so it wont be that long of a wait I feel...

 

Edit:

http://gamegpu.com/

Check the games you have now here to see what FX will give ya!

[Morgan MLGman]

11 hours ago, incarnate said:

Resolution doesn't make a difference for cpus. Not one bit. They will bottleneck at the same frame rate regardless of the resolution.

 

If at all possible I'd recommend going intel or waiting for Zen to come out. Vishera was pretty disappointing when it came out, years ago. Now, it's pretty crappy and it is about on the same level as an i3.

 

Even if you want to go AMD because you don't want Intel, you'll regret getting an fx.

Wrong. The smaller the resolution, the more likely it is for your CPU to bottleneck. At 4K you could most likely have an i3-6100 paired with a GTX 980Ti and not feel a bottleneck, but not at 1080p. Tis how it is.

[Morgan MLGman]

16 minutes ago, Jonathan Lemmens said:

[PCPartPicker part list](http://pcpartpicker.com/list/fNPjTW) / [Price breakdown by merchant](http://pcpartpicker.com/list/fNPjTW/by_merchant/)

Type|Item|Price
:----|:----|:----
**CPU** | [Intel Core i3-6100 3.7GHz Dual-Core Processor](http://pcpartpicker.com/product/hV7CmG/intel-cpu-bx80662i36100) | $110.99 @ SuperBiiz 
**Motherboard** | [Gigabyte GA-H110M-A Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard](http://pcpartpicker.com/product/hMvZxr/gigabyte-motherboard-gah110ma) | $45.99 @ Amazon 
**Memory** | [Kingston 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR4-2133 Memory](http://pcpartpicker.com/product/gKZ2FT/kingston-memory-kvr21n15d88) | $28.99 @ SuperBiiz 
 | *Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts* |
 | **Total** | **$185.97**
 | Generated by [PCPartPicker](http://pcpartpicker.com) 2016-06-22 09:08 EDT-0400 |

 

This is $35 more, but a decent pc for light gaming.

 

You could also use a Pentium G4400 CPU instead of the i3 that would total at $133 and still gives you the option to buy an i5/i7 later, if you'd want to.

Maybe, but it won't outperform an 8350 system.

[Nena Trinity]

2 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Maybe, but it won't outperform an 8350 system.

True a 4.4 to 4.5GHz OC and the FX will crush it! :3 (maybe not in Arma 3 and other poorly optimized games tough)

[Guest]

If you're gonna get a RX 480. I'd get the FX-83xx.

 

Not sure how that fits in the budget though. 

 

I'd probably just get a 860k in your situation an upgrade in a year or so. 

[Jonathan Lemmens]

9 minutes ago, Nena360 said:

True a 4.4 to 4.5GHz OC and the FX will crush it! :3 (maybe not in Arma 3 and other poorly optimized games tough)

I'm not saying it would, but neither can you get a FX8350 and a 990FX mobo and RAM for under $150.

Going with a 1151 platform is good enough to game now and gives you at least the option of buying an i5 6600, which will smoke the FX8350 in games.

 

Also considering the OP's budget, I'm guessing he doesn't have a CPU cooler nor the PSU to OC a FX8350 CPU.

[Sintezza]

Well one thing i dont understand, if you say you have the budget for a FX8350 but not the budget for a i5-6500.

Thats something i dont realy understand, unless you can buy a used FX8350.

Because to make proper use of a FX8350 you gonne need a decent motherboard and cooling solution aswell, which will add up in costs.

If you take the i5-6500 with a cheap H170 / B150 or H110 motherboard, and a cheap cooler like the Hyper 212 evo, then you are pretty much good to go, and might endup to be cheaper, or maybe similar in price to a FX83xx setup.

 

Now back to your main question about the FX8350 vs FX6300

The FX8 core cpu´s have 4 modules with each 2 integer cores sharing cache and a fpu.

Each integer core has its own fpp, which means that it could handle 8 threads at the same time.

 

The FX6300 is basicly the same thing, but it has one module disabled.

Which means that you also loose one fpu.

So you have 3 modules left which means 6 integer cores and 3 fpu´s.

In games that like to use 4 cores or more, that extra fpu on a FX8 core could be a benefit to have, technically, depending on how the game uses the threads.

 

The CMT design, was exaly realy brilliant back in the day for the server market.

And that is what the design of the FX chips was exaly ment for.

Because the ability to utilize upto 8 paralel threads.

But for the desktop market they are just a bit less efficient.

Because of the lack on per core performance and ipc

And thats one of the reasons why intel doesnt gives us more then Quadcores on a mainstream platform yet.

 

 

[Nena Trinity]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Lemmens said:

I'm not saying it would, but neither can you get a FX8350 and a 990FX mobo and RAM for under $150.

Going with a 1151 platform is good enough to game now and gives you at least the option of buying an i5 6600, which will smoke the FX8350 in games.

 

Also considering the OP's budget, I'm guessing he doesn't have a CPU cooler nor the PSU to OC a FX8350 CPU.

The new stock coolers are plenty, and you do not need a 990FX board unless you aim for 4.7GHz+... (Have you seen the new AMD 125w coolers? They are huge! :Q) 

[incarnate]

1 hour ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Wrong. The smaller the resolution, the more likely it is for your CPU to bottleneck. At 4K you could most likely have an i3-6100 paired with a GTX 980Ti and not feel a bottleneck, but not at 1080p. Tis how it is.

While you are right that cpus are more likely to bottleneck gpus at lower resolutions, that isn't because lower resolutions are harder on cpus.

 

I am right, resolution makes exactly 0 difference to the cpu. The reason cpus bottleneck gpus at lower resolutions is because... wait for it... it is WAY easier on the gpu

 

A cpu can support only so many draw calls, how many it gets hit with is entirely dependent on the GPU, not the CPU.

[Morgan MLGman]

1 minute ago, incarnate said:

While you are right that cpus are more likely to bottleneck gpus at lower resolutions, that isn't because lower resolutions are harder on cpus.

 

I am right, resolution makes exactly 0 difference to the cpu. The reason cpus bottleneck gpus at lower resolutions is because... wait for it... it is WAY easier on the gpu

 

A cpu can support only so many draw calls, how many it gets hit with is entirely dependent on the GPU, not the CPU.

Yeah. That is the reason, though the outcome is the same. CPUs bottleneck more in lower resolutions.