Just looking for a recommendation

[Osnaps]

Sorry for the bother with a post such as this, but I was looking to get ya'lls input for a cpu upgrade. I'll be sticking with AMD since I already have an am3+ mobo.


Would you guys recommend going with the 6300 or 8320 for gaming? The most I do while playing is stream a movie or basketball game and sometimes Pandora ( which seems to destroy my 4170 if im playing an online game), along with all the fun tweaking that comes from overclocking.

I am playing at 5040 x 1050 res for now til i can come up with 2 more 1080p monitors. GW2, SWTOR, Planetside 2, Deus Ex HR are a few.

I really just want something that wont bottleneck my 7950 and from what I can gather it seems like the 6300 is right in that price/performance sweet spot. I am just not sure how much, if any noticeable difference it would make going from a 4170 to 6300 and would it bottleneck the gpu.

So for what little bit I do with my comp, would you guys recommend the 6300, or should i just make the jump to an 8320/50?

**just as a side note, I do plan on getting a new mobo sometime next year with a 990fx chipset instead of the 970 I have now.

Thanks for taking the time to look and answer

 

[tungureanu]

I whould say... go for the 6300, mainly because of the oc potential and price + only very few apps/games can utilize 8 cores.

EDIT: If you go 8 core, go with the 8320 same oc potencial al 8350 but less $$$ END EDIT

 

[Osnaps]

That was kind of my train of thought as well, I think I'm just searching for validation lol. Thanks for the quick response!

I don't think Ive seen many posts at all for the 6300 around here, anyone got one they can share their thoughts on it?

 

[tungureanu]

the 6300 is a rare beast. Most people go b*lls to the wall with 8350 or 8150 (as did i) or go with the 4XXX thinking/knowing it will be enough

 

[RGone]

The testing in that link is done without overclocking 'any' of the cpus. It really shows how far behind the FX-8350 that the FX-6300 can fall. If the FX-4170 is running at 4.7Ghz stable and you feel like you are slowed down, then I don't think I would throw 3/5's the cost of an FX-8350 at an FX-6300. I would go big or stay at home.


The Vishera Review: AMD FX-8350, FX-8320, FX-6300 and FX-4300 Tested

 

[Osnaps]

^^ I like the way you think lol. I may just go middle ground with the 8320 and just oc it. Unless I can talk the wife into letting me pay that little extra for the 8350

 

[ssjwizard]

According to the review you just posted the 6300 crushes the 8150 at gaming.

Honestly if your not a big multi tasker, running a media server, do alot of video encoding, or some other multitude of multi tasking stuff I would go for the 6300. On a standard air cooler you will be able to OC further than with an 8320.

 

[RGone]

According to the review you just posted the 6300 crushes the 8150 at gaming.

Honestly if your not a big multi tasker, running a media server, do alot of video encoding, or some other multitude of multi tasking stuff I would go for the 6300. On a standard air cooler you will be able to OC further than with an 8320.

LINK >>
Gaming Performance
You see the FX-6300 ahead of the FX-8350 in any gaming test? I did not and certainly NOT any crushing by FX-6300. Or perhaps your definition of 'crushing' is completely different from my understanding of a 'crushing'.

Personally I don't really care what "Osnaps" buys. He has to live with his choices. I gave a recommendation based on how I have come to understand the FX series be they BD or PD. The choice in the end is still his to make and live with.

 

[trents]

My concern with the FX-8350 in OP's situation is that his motherboard probably won't be adequate for it if he's intending to overclock. MSI and a 970 chipset and no heavy duty power phase.

 

[ssjwizard]

According to the review you just posted the 6300 crushes the 8150 at gaming.

You see the FX-6300 ahead of the FX-8350 in any gaming test? I did not and certainly NOT any crushing by FX-6300.

Do not take this as me trying to start an argument with you. The entire point was simply to display that more cores does not necessarily improve gaming performance. If it did by all rights the 8150 should still beat a 6300 even outside of the architecture differences. Obviously it is the OPs choice what he will purchase, but for an admitted non-multitasker spending the extra on an 83xx doesn't necessarily make sense.

 

[caddi daddi]

trents nailed it right on the head again, his board is just not up to an 8 core.
if the board upgrade is in the near term, 8 core.
If the board upgrade is in the long term 6 core.

I, for one would upgrade the board first and live with whatever issues i was having with the processor and deal with them further down the road.

 

[RGone]

View attachment 119526


Do not take this as me trying to start an argument with you. The entire point was simply to display that more cores does not necessarily improve gaming performance. If it did by all rights the 8150 should still beat a 6300 even outside of the architecture differences. Obviously it is the OPs choice what he will purchase, but for an admitted non-multitasker spending the extra on an 83xx doesn't necessarily make sense.

Would you guys recommend going with the 6300 or 8320 for gaming?

Originally Posted by RGone View Post
You see the FX-6300 ahead of the FX-8350 in any gaming test? I did not and certainly NOT any crushing by FX-6300.

Somehow I could not believe you had moved the FX-8150 into the conversation when the "Osnaps" was asking about the PileDriver series. But you did and I missed it. Oh well that is life.

I think the point is now mute anyway with the finger pointing accurately at the board being not up to 8 cores.

By the way guys good call about the boards suitability before the money went down for a cpu.

RGone...ster

 

[WhitehawkEQ]

Good Lord man, I think you need a few more than 2 What size is your monitor? 60"? 70"? 120"?
I don't think I could handle 1 that big, too much room on screen

I am playing at 5040 x 1050 res for now til i can come up with 2 more 1080p monitors. GW2, SWTOR, Planetside 2, Deus Ex HR are a few.

 

[Osnaps]

Good Lord man, I think you need a few more than 2 What size is your monitor? 60"? 70"? 120"?
I don't think I could handle 1 that big, too much room on screen

hahahaha! I believe my head would explode with a 120" tv Its my eyefinity setup 2 20" cinema displays and a 23" acer hd. I just got that going earlier this week and still not used to it.

Thanks for the suggestions fellas. I figured that mobo of mine was holding me back, vdroop is killing me, have to run 1.46 to be stable while under load its between 1.44 and 1.448 on hwmonitor and cpuz. However that's not the discussion here

Im going to have to do some budgeting and see what's going to feasible. If i can swing cpu and mobo( either with or a couple months after) ill end up going 8320 and either an asrock 990 or maybe a gigabyte one.

 

[Osnaps]

Ok, ive got another question for you guys. Is the mobo an issue because of the manufacturer/ lack of features or is it the chipset? The reason I ask, is because I just saw a thread in the mobo section asking for recommendations and I saw a 970 chipset but different manufacturer. So for instance, if I went with a GIGABYTE GA-970A-DS3, would the 83x0 be too much?

 

[trents]

It really isn't the chipset that's the big problem but it's the lighter duty power phase components associated with the chipset. The 970 chipset limits the bandwidth of the second PCI-e lane to 8 bits when used by itself and to 4 bits I believe when used in tandem with another card placed in the first PCI-e slot. The power phase components are down-scaled accordingly and since the power phase components also support the processor it poses some limitations on the CPU power draw. The higher end chipset boards will do two or three PCI-e cards at the full 16-bit lane width and have sturdier power phase to support that which also benefits overclocking the CPU when it is a high TDP processor.

 

[ssjwizard]

As treants pointed out the biggest drawback to your current motherboard has less to do with the chipset and alot more to do with the particular board. If you look up the specs on your board you will find its 4+1 analog power phases. For the FX 8XXX chips we definitely recommend 6+2 digital, or 8+2 analog power phases. On the plus side your board does have a heatsink on the VRM which most 4+1 phase boards dont have. Its not that it cant run the 8XXX but if you really try to push the clockspeed these guys like to chew up ~200W(133Amps @1.5v) for the 81xx or ~170W(113Amps @1.5v) for the 83xx which puts alot of strain on the voltage regulator.

The gigabyte 970-UD3 sports an 8+2 analog VRM, and the asus M5A97 rocks a 6+2 digital VRM, so in the 970s those are what we generally recommend. If you go up to a 990X chipset board the entire field has either 8+2 analog or 6+2 digital VRM.

 

[Osnaps]

Makes sense, damn I love learning this stuff lol. Seems I've got some thinking to do, saw something about an ASUS board in that other thread that sounded pretty nice to help with the overclock. Gonna do some lookin around and see what I can come up with. Will be back later once I figure it all out and see what you guys think.

 

[RGone]

The Asus 990FX Sabertooth and the Crosshair 5 both have 8+2 Digital VRMs. I have my waterblock insulated from the outside air on my CHV and when being pushed from 4.3Ghz to 4.8Ghz, the heat from the VRMs will warm the room. You can feel the heat from the VRMs while supplying so much power to my FX-8120.

 

[visiblegorilla]

While we're on the subject, TsunamiJuan and I were discussing how damn hot our 8+2 VRMs get (like 70+C even with a ton of case airflow). It makes me wonder, is there any benefit to getting these things much cooler? A spot fan works well enough, but has anyone tried bigger heatsinks or (don't laugh) liquid cooling?