• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

X6 1055t @ 3.85ghz vs fx 8320 for gaming

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

octopusx

Registered
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Hello everyone. I was thinking on replacing my x6 1055t which has been running nicely at 3850mhz, with the new piledriver line.
I am interested in the fx 8320 chip, which I would overclock to I hope 4ghz or more since my cooling is decent.
I play BF3, Guild wars 2 and also Planetside 2.

Would getting the new chip increase my performance in games by a lot? Or would the change be hardly noticeable? Thanks in advance.
 
For strictly gaming it probably makes no difference. If you like to run alot of programs at once, or keep a game launched and tab out and do other things, then the 8320 would provide a bit more performance. I suppose at high clockspeeds the single thread performance would be somewhat better but I doubt you would see it.
 
Antec H2O 620 Cooler
ASrock 970 Extreme 3

Those two are an awesome combination for a 6 core thuban. However they will prove not the ultimate when really pushing an 8 core FX, even the new vishera series. Once pushed the FX'ers get hot.
 
Agreed

I have to agree, not worth an upgrade right now. AMD pulled a Pentium 4 and increased clock speeds at the expense of IPCs and latency. Guess they were sick of consumers being fooled by higher GHz and played the game. I have a new A10, and I love it, but honestly the benchmarks indicate this new core just revs higher with less displacement. Run what ya brung.
 
Would you be replacing your motherboard as well? I'm not 100% here but I'm pretty sure that's a board where the VRM won't be able to deal with the FX lineup if you go for a decent overclock. I know you tossed out 4Ghz here that shouldn't be an issue but you also mention "or more".

I can give you an answer for BF3 and PS2 and I'll assume 4ghz for the answer.

I would not expect a large or noticeable performance increase with BF3. Assuming you are playing BF3 at Ultra and a resolution greater than 1680x1050 your 7850 is your bottleneck and probably not one affecting the visual experience unless you aim for 1920x1080 or above.

PS2 is an interesting case at the moment. I had a chance to chat with a PS2 dev who was doing a bit of damage control(or maybe being nice, or both). I had pointed out that I get the same CPU bottlenecked frame-rate with my 3.8ghz 1045T if I used my X6 as an X3 or even an X2 on the official forums. At the moment that game is DX9 and that means the game can only use 1 processor core to feed the graphics card and it's proving to be a huge limitation in medium/large battles and at the large bases. The 8320 doesn't look to be much if any of a step forward in single core performance and as the game is single-core performance limited you won't see much if anything here. The fact that the games work half-acceptably with just 2 cores means that the 8320 isn't likely to offer you much here even if they move to multi-core rendering.
 
thanks to everyone for the input! I agree with you all. I might go back to the blue side again looking at 3570k.. will see :)
 
thanks to everyone for the input! I agree with you all. I might go back to the blue side again looking at 3570k.. will see :)

Mm, the blue side does have some amazing parts right now :D

Too bad you're not upgrading from Deneb, now THAT's a substantial jump. Thubans are slightly outperformed at some resolutions by Vishera chips, but really the higher IPC of a Thuban will make general gaming simply "feel" better. (I've always wanted a Thuban in my Deneb rig :()

I'm not sure what AMD's up to, but Steamroller cores sound like they're going to be quite nice (If you feel a Thuban will last you till Q2 of next year). That's where I'm putting my bets on my oldest rig :(
 
Back