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

965 BE or FX-6300 or FX-8320

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

JackNSally

Member
Joined
May 19, 2005
I'm putting together a new system for me and am having a hard time choosing.
Can't decide if I should go cheapest route of 965 BE or go for the FX-8320 or choose in between.
I will be using this for some gaming (Guild Wars 2, Torchlight, Skyrim, Day Z...) with a 7850 (most likely unless I find a better deal when I pull the trigger)

Which one should I go for? Trying to keep it as cheap as possible yet performing good and last a year or 2+
 
The 965BE is a gem, if you can still find those. The 6300 has me very interested and seems to play games very well and costs the same as the new APU does. I've been reading that the 6300 can be OC'd to 4.7GHz on air.

Probelm with Guild Wars 2 is that it puts a toll on CPU even those high end ones, I've been reading i7 3770K and 3930K users having bad FPS with the game.
 
What motherboard will you be using with the CPU?

ASrock 990FX Extreme3, unless you got a better recommendation close to that price.

And am wondering if the extra money spent on going from 965 BE -> FX-8320 would be worth it or not
 
Is a 6+2 digital power phase like the one on the M5A99X Evo better then a 8+2 "analog" power phase of the GA-990FXA-UD3? Because the are the same price on newegg.
 
Last edited:
Is a 6+2 digital power phase like the one on the M5A99X Evo better then a 8+2 "analog" power phase of the GA-990FXA-UD3? Because the are the same price on newegg.

Design and implementation of the two systems is for the average user the better design criteria. There are design features of digital regulation that could easily allow the general term 6+2 VRM power phases to be the equal and better than 8+2 analog VRMs.

The situation was for a great while that most boards used analog VRMs and almost without fail, the entry level and not really for overclocking boards might have 3+1 and 4+1 Power Regulation. It was fairly easy to just say the better board for overclocking would have 8+1 or 8+2 VRM circuits because everyone was using analog circuit VRMs. That has changed now with the move toward Digital Power Regulation circuitry in many applications.

I think the key is that digital regulation is the direction of movement. I can remember that DFI was using a form of digital VRMs years before it was seen on other motherboards. I still believe that was a factor in DFI's overclockability before other manufacturers caught up.

With the faster processors there is certainly a need for a fast, clean and efficient regulation circuit that the newer digital voltage processing can fit quite well.

There are motherboard makers that lived in the past without UEFI bioses until forced to go with UEFI by Intel. There will be motherboard makers that tend to remain with 'analog' VRMs because there is an engineering learning curve for digital voltage regulation.

I have tried to respond in terms not so deep or more deep than the average user might need. The question of which is better 8+2 Analog vs 6+2 Digital VRMs is just about apples to oranges from an engineering perspective. The old way in which we told users to go for the MOST phases they could get, no longer holds naturally true, because the digital VRM can be more effecient, can be more precise and can respond quicker to demands put on the VRM circuit.

In the long run it seems with the design of cpus where they have many power states today and the cpu itself is responding to loads and temps to determine how much speed the cpu puts out, well that seems a perfect place to see digital VRM circuits come on the scene.

You are now returned to your regularly scheculed programming.

RGone...ster. :chair:
 
The FX-8320 would be worth it over the 965BE, its a faster chip.

They elaborated on the phases quite well-- I have been told the 8+2 analog phasing has netted a slightly worse OC on the new piledriver chips than the 6+2 digital-- This hasn't really been shown to me in application or practice, however.

I highly reccomend the 8320-- I got one for an upgrade to my wife's gaming computer, and have had no trouble getting it to 4.8 GHz (You can get a higher performing 4.65Ghz overclock though through FSB adjustments.. Something like a .25 diff in cinebench). I was able to suicide run cinebench all the way up to 5.22GHz, but I couldn't keep it from crashing beyond 5.03 (Even then, it couldn't pass more than 2 hours of Prime, ever)

OC's well, isn't expensive, and you get a monster number cruncher (Or awesome gaming CPU if you disable one core per module). Highly reccomended, from a die-hard Deneb / Thuban fanboy!
 
Last edited:
I can only speak for the board in my Asus M5A99X EVO. I had my 955be OC'ed to 4.3 2 hours prime stable on it and so far I've been able to get my FX 8350 to 4.9 stable on it. So far no problems with it, unlike the snap,crackle pop of my previous Msi board.
 
I can only speak for the board in my Asus M5A99X EVO. I had my 955be OC'ed to 4.3 2 hours prime stable on it and so far I've been able to get my FX 8350 to 4.9 stable on it. So far no problems with it, unlike the snap,crackle pop of my previous Msi board.

I've been told that is a massivly sexy OC board-- I bet on the wrong pony with my Gigabyte 990xa-UD3. Vdroop problems are really hard to get by on the Vishera cores.

Have been able to get all the way up to 4.8 stable on an 8320, which is the highest I've seen anybody do on my board so far, but 4.65 with a FSB increase netted a better RAM / cinebench performance than my 4.8 OC did.

Have you heard how big of a diff. increasing CPU-PLL voltage has on stability with the Vishera chips?
 
I've been told that is a massivly sexy OC board-- I bet on the wrong pony with my Gigabyte 990xa-UD3. Vdroop problems are really hard to get by on the Vishera cores.

Have been able to get all the way up to 4.8 stable on an 8320, which is the highest I've seen anybody do on my board so far, but 4.65 with a FSB increase netted a better RAM / cinebench performance than my 4.8 OC did.

Have you heard how big of a diff. increasing CPU-PLL voltage has on stability with the Vishera chips?

I don't think I "bet'd on the wrong pony" with my UD3, besides it's way prettier xD
Many people complain bout that without realising they have the 1.0 rev that does not have LLC.
 
I don't think I "bet'd on the wrong pony" with my UD3, besides it's way prettier xD
Many people complain bout that without realising they have the 1.0 rev that does not have LLC.

I have 1.1, with LLC. Vdroop is still an understood and recognized issue with this board. You simply cannot OC the new visheras as high as you can with board not suffering from this issue. Even on Extreme, the board has a larger vdroop than even some far cheaper boards :(

(Run a test on your core voltage at higher OC, you'll see what I'm talking about.)
 
I've been told that is a massivly sexy OC board-- I bet on the wrong pony with my Gigabyte 990xa-UD3. Vdroop problems are really hard to get by on the Vishera cores.

Have been able to get all the way up to 4.8 stable on an 8320, which is the highest I've seen anybody do on my board so far, but 4.65 with a FSB increase netted a better RAM / cinebench performance than my 4.8 OC did.

Have you heard how big of a diff. increasing CPU-PLL voltage has on stability with the Vishera chips?

I believe BeepBeep pointed that out to me, I haven't been able to work on pushing it higher since monday. I lost power because of hurricane Sandy hopefully I'll get it back soon. I feel like I'm living in the stone age.
 
Back