# 6 core vs 8 core AMD FX ?



## Cvrk (Mar 5, 2015)

So i am getting a new CPU for my other computer. 
I have boiled it to these two CPU There pretty much the same.I wanna use the PC for gaming.
Yeah i know it's not GeForce Titan i7 cpu water cooling type of gaming with everything on ultra settings.It's whatever works gaming.
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-8300-vs-AMD-FX-6300

Question is : 6 core VS 8 core? Witch one of these would be better for gaming.

Also i'm changing the the PSU 
This one:  Sirtec High Power Element BRONZE 600W
http://www.pcgarage.ro/surse/sirtec-high-power/element-bronze-600w-1/
or this one : Segotep Raynor Power 650W
http://www.emag.ro/sursa-segotep-ra...tx-2-31-pfc-activ-rp650-segotep/pd/DZ38JBBBM/


----------



## natr0n (Mar 5, 2015)

I would choose an 8 core.


----------



## Cvrk (Mar 5, 2015)

Can you give me some details why ? As you can see the 6 core is 3,5 GHz. Any advice is much appreciated


----------



## qubit (Mar 5, 2015)

I'd say go Intel and forget about AMD since the performance just isn't there, but am I right that you already have an AMD mobo and just wanna upgrade it?

So, 6 or 8 cores, which to get? I don't think you'll see a lot of difference in performance except for certain highly multithreaded tasks such as video encoding done using particular programs. However, it's always good to have more in reserve, so I'd go for the 8 core. Also, AMD's top processor doesn't cost very much nowadays, so that's another reason to get the better model.

Hope this helps.


----------



## natr0n (Mar 5, 2015)

Cvrk said:


> Can you give me some details why ? As you can see the 6 core is 3,5 GHz. Any advice is much appreciated



More games are using more cores lately, so that future proofs you. 
Also, these cpu overclock pretty easily so you can make up the lower clocks difference.

Its just sold at lower clock to stay within a watt/power usage.


----------



## Cvrk (Mar 5, 2015)

No.I don't have the mobo yet. I have the GPU AMD Sapphire R9 270 Dualx OC 256 bit 2GB VRAM. Sure intel sounds good,but the prices are high. Some equivalent of this would be a i5,but there expensive.


----------



## peche (Mar 5, 2015)

Cvrk said:


> Question is : 6 core VS 8 core? Witch one of these would be better for gaming.


8Core will be more "future Proof", 6 Core will do the job and also save a little bit on your Electricity bill, 



Cvrk said:


> Also i'm changing the the PSU
> This one: Sirtec High Power Element BRONZE 600W
> http://www.pcgarage.ro/surse/sirtec-high-power/element-bronze-600w-1/


Correct... 80+ Certified at least... the other options is not even 80+ certified... 


Regards,


----------



## RCoon (Mar 5, 2015)

Well I wouldn't touch the Segotep PSU with a barge pole! I don't believe I've seen them in the 80PLUS database before, although the OEM CWT rings a bell with that name. The Sirtec unit isn't great, it's one of those High Power rebadged units that I see sold on the cheap quite often.

I think I'd rather go for the 6300 (I owned one of those 6350's about 3-4 years ago), and a better quality PSU for a more well rounded system. While it's nice to have the 2 extra modules, I think if clocked higher the 6300 would serve its purpose, particularly for standard man-shoot 1080p gaming.

If you've any intention on playing Source games, RTS games as a whole, or a lot of terrible console ports, I'd be looking at intel instead, even if it's just an i3 or the G3258 and clocking the bejeesus out of it. The IPC and single core power is what you're going to need for those, and even an 8350 overclocked isn't going to provide the performance you need on some very particular titles. Discounting that, the 6350 would be a good option, provided you spent the leftover cash on an XFX, Sea Sonic, EVGA or similar PSU (550W is fine).


----------



## TRWOV (Mar 5, 2015)

I would go for the 6300 too, costs just $10 more than the 4300 and has the full 8MB of L3 that the FX 83xx ship with (4300 has 4MB L3 only). Also you'll have a far greater thermal headroom for overclocking. "Losing" 2 threads isn't a deal breaker since few games scale beyond 4 threads.

If you absolutely need all the threads you can get (maybe you want to capture and transcode gameplay videos or something) then go for the 8320/8350/8370.


----------



## Cvrk (Mar 5, 2015)

RCoon said:


> provided you spent the leftover cash on an XFX, Sea Sonic, EVGA or similar PSU (550W is fine).


No left over. The place were i buy stuff in my country the FX 6350 is more expensive then the 8300  Funny ,right ? But i get your point.


----------



## st2000 (Mar 5, 2015)

i dont know about AMD CPU, know that APU is smthg useful for medium grafics,so cant advice
just searched for PSUs and i'm in total 
even here, in Russia with ~2x costs to for example summer, we have 25-40% less prices
dunno, if it's ok, but if i would be on your place, i'll search for abroad shops...


----------



## qubit (Mar 5, 2015)

Cvrk said:


> No.I don't have the mobo yet. I have the GPU AMD Sapphire R9 270 Dualx OC 256 bit 2GB VRAM. Sure intel sounds good,but the prices are high. Some equivalent of this would be a i5,but there expensive.


I reckon you'd do better with an i3 + HyperThreading than going AMD, personally. That will bring the price down significantly. Yes, that's how big the difference between Intel and AMD is nowdays. 

Those PSUs, RCoon is right. Just get one of those really decent brands that he has listed and you'll be fine. The top two to get imo are Seasonic and Corsair, but there are other decent brands out there too. When you find a model that you like, I recommend you post on here and get feedback before handing over cash for your next PSU.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 5, 2015)

Since the 6350 and 8300 both turbo to the same 4.2GHz, I say go with the 8300, especially if it is cheaper.


----------



## Cvrk (Mar 6, 2015)

A lot has changed since last night. I just noticed something VERY important! I already bought the graphics card. And it;s a PCI Express 3.0 With that in mind i need a mobo that will have that slot.  There is no motherboard with AM3+ socket that has PCI Express 3.0
I am locking at FM2+ sockets. Goodbye amd 6-8 core. Cuz all they have is quad-core. Something in my price range would be this AMD Kaveri A10-7700K Black Edition 3.4GHz 
http://www.pcgarage.ro/procesoare/amd/kaveri-a10-x4-7700k-black-edition-35ghz-box/
Quad core amd sounds so old,damn it! I am kinda forced to go with intel. And the most cheapest quad core is still 100$ more that what i was thinking on spending _Intel Core i5 4460 3.2GHz_
http://www.pcgarage.ro/procesoare/intel/core-i5-4460-32ghz-box/ with socket 1150,there alot of mobos that have PCI Express 3.0

What choice do i have considering that i need PCI Express 3.0 otherwise i lose 8% performance if i put my 3.0  in a 2.0 mobo slot (i did some research on the difference)


----------



## qubit (Mar 6, 2015)

I'm not sure if you've seen my post, but you can get away with an i3+HyperThreading to save money. This gives you two physical cores and two virtual cores which is good enough for most scenarios.

There are a couple of articles on TPU about the performance difference between PCI-E 2.0 and 3.0 which shows that the performance difference is a lot less than 8% so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GTX_980_PCI-Express_Scaling

Older article: www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Ivy_Bridge_PCI-Express_Scaling


----------



## st2000 (Mar 6, 2015)

qubit said:


> There are a couple of articles on TPU about the performance difference between PCI-E 2.0 and 3.0 which shows that the performance difference is a lot less than 8% so I wouldn't worry about it too much.


there will be less difference on 270x card(or even no difference)
http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Impact-of-PCI-E-Speed-on-Gaming-Performance-518/


----------



## Mathragh (Mar 6, 2015)

qubit said:


> I'm not sure if you've seen my post, but you can get away with an i3+HyperThreading to save money. This gives you two physical cores and two virtual cores which is good enough for most scenarios.
> 
> There are a couple of articles on TPU about the performance difference between PCI-E 2.0 and 3.0 which shows that the performance difference is a lot less than 8% so I wouldn't worry about it too much.
> 
> ...


In the light of recent developments both in the gaming industry (newest assasins creed, Battlefield3/4, Crysis 3 to mention a few) and API's (Vulkan and DX12) I honestly don't think it's a good idea to recommend hyperthreaded dual cores for gaming anymore.
Sure you can say that at this moment they'll let you run at 90fps instead of a 60fps with an AMD 6/8 core, but once those new gen games come out you'll be out of luck since they'll all be way better optimized for multicore CPU's.
At this moment I really don't think that getting a dual core can be justified when there are so many cheap CPU's with more cores, even from intel.
PS: for gaming for the foreseeable future PCIE-3.0 doesn't seem to be needed (yet). Even the newest games will only slow down by about 2-5% in the absolute worst case scenario when going from PCIE-3.0 to 2.0.


----------



## Frick (Mar 6, 2015)

RCoon said:


> , although the OEM CWT rings a bell with that name.



They make both great units and bad units.


----------



## st2000 (Mar 6, 2015)

also, for PSUs i'll advice this(a bit more price, but it got 24 months guarantee - my fault, both got same guarantee)
http://www.pcgarage.ro/surse/sirtec-high-power/element-bronze-ii-600w/ vs yours choice
http://www.pcgarage.ro/surse/segotep/rp650/
just compare them in "Voltaje/Amperaje"


----------



## qubit (Mar 6, 2015)

@Mathragh You're right about HT v real cores, but I think Cvrk wants to keep costs as low as possible, which means inevitable compromise and is why I made this suggestion. I also wouldn't go less than 4 full cores nowadays either. In my opinion, I suspect that even games better optimised for multicore will still run faster and with less hitches on Intel's 2 cores + HT due to the piss-poor IPC of AMD's processors with their funny siamesed cores instead of proper discrete ones.

Also, stuff just seems to run more reliably on Intel generally (I bet I get flamed, lol) than AMD with less annoying, inexplicable glitches which shouldn't be discounted.


----------



## st2000 (Mar 6, 2015)

qubit said:


> I suspect that even games better optimised for multicore will still run faster and with less hitches on Intel's 2 cores + HT due to the piss-poor IPC of AMD's processors with their funny siamesed cores instead of proper discrete ones


dont think it would matter if you play on 270x(yeap, if you'll got 290x - sure, your CPU will be a bottleneck, but if you got mid-ranged gpu + AMD CPU, new drivers , i think all wil be ok)
or do you think you can play smthg like AC:Unity on full ultra on 270x and only CPU will not handle this?
the only game that has serious problems with AMD CPU as i know is Dying light, but creators're resolving these issues(as they claim)


----------



## marmiteonpizza (Mar 6, 2015)

I have an FX8360 (8 core) running at 4GHz. I can play most games on ultra settings with 60fps, so when people say AMD processors fail to perform at a high level, what they say is rubbish!
So you can still build a top-of-the-range PC with an AMD processor. And I really recommend the 8350 - the extra 0.5GHz will make a difference =)


----------



## st2000 (Mar 6, 2015)

if i'd be an owner of amd CPU, i'd cant stop until i get a big tower cooler and OC close/over 5Ghz
cause what's the point to own AMD and not to superOC?


----------



## qubit (Mar 6, 2015)

st2000 said:


> dont think it would matter if you play on 270x(yeap, if you'll got 290x - sure, your CPU will be a bottleneck, but if you got mid-ranged gpu + AMD CPU, new drivers , i think all wil be ok)
> or do you think you can play smthg like AC:Unity on full ultra on 270x and only CPU will not handle this?
> the only game that has serious problems with AMD CPU as i know is Dying light, but creators're resolving these issues(as they claim)


I'm talking more about pairing an AMD CPU with a high end graphics card, where the CPU bottleneck will be much more obvious.



Joel Charig said:


> I have an FX8360 (8 core) running at 4GHz. I can play most games on ultra settings with 60fps, so when people say AMD processors fail to perform at a high level, what they say is rubbish!
> So you can still build a top-of-the-range PC with an AMD processor. And I really recommend the 8350 - the extra 0.5GHz will make a difference =)


If you compare benchmark reviews of AMD compared to Intel (just have a quick google) you'll see that they're a lot slower and that really matters - we're talking 30% differences in some tests.

The fact you can get 60fps in a particular scenario doesn't really mean very much. Also, I'd like to see it hit a consistent 120fps on a modern monitor with modern games, which is the new standard for framerate.

Also, framerate varies enormously with workload, so a higher end Intel CPU won't dip as low as an AMD one, which is what matters to keep framerate smooth.

The only thing going for AMD processors nowadays is that they're cheap, helping someone on a budget to build a useable gaming rig at a lower price, but at the expense of the all-important framerate performance.


----------



## st2000 (Mar 6, 2015)

qubit said:


> The only thing going for AMD processors nowadays is that they're cheap, helping someone on a budget to build a useable gaming rig at a lower price, but at the expense of the all-important framerate performance.


i think that amd is prefered in mid-ranged and low-end systems
they got low price, naked performance per dollar(but not everyone thinks that you should build a good cooling case, get at least a tower for cpu-stock cooler cant produce enough cooling at low rpm)
modern PCs are aimed not only for naked performnce, but for comfortable use too - intel and nvidia tries to go low TDP and performance is on 2nd place
just give me silent PC and it will be ok if it loses 20-30% of performance
also, PCs are going to HTPCs connected to TVs, so more than 60 fps are not needed(srsly, this is for 95%, not for enthusiasts)
also, you can check monitor resolution in steam users statistics - 40% gamers got less than 1080p(and it's ok for them)


----------



## Cvrk (Mar 6, 2015)

st2000 said:


> if i'd be an owner of amd CPU, i'd cant stop until i get a big tower cooler and OC close/over 5Ghz
> cause what's the point to own AMD and not to superOC?


) That was so funny! And it worries me at the same time.



Mathragh said:


> At this moment I really don't think that getting a dual core can be justified when there are so many cheap CPU's with more cores, even from intel.
> PS: for gaming for the foreseeable future PCIE-3.0 doesn't seem to be needed (yet). Even the newest games will only slow down by about 2-5% in the absolute worst case scenario when going from PCIE-3.0 to 2.0.



i am deeply pondering on your statement. As i don't wanna give up on a FX 6300 maybe even the 6350. I just don't have the money to go after intel. So i wont play on ultra but on high and with bad console ports it will be "high settings" with 50fps. I can gladly live with that. Other then gaming it will still be a fast PC for everyday usage.


----------



## st2000 (Mar 6, 2015)

also, when budget is low the best advice is to go for aftermarket deals - you can find some realy balanced options if you're not nub


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 6, 2015)

I've used the 8320 in gaming, it was my secondary gaming rig(my main rig at work) for the longest time, it had a Phenom X6 in it before the 8320.  I can tell you, in almost all scenarios there was really no noticeable difference in real world gaming experience with the 8320 compared to my 4790K.  Reason being? Simple, the graphics card was always the limiting factor.  Sure, you can say an i3 will give you 100FPS and the 8320 will only give 90FPS, but if you graphics card is limiting you to 60 what does it matter?  And that is the problem with most CPU benchmarks when comparing games, they lower the settings as much as possible to over exaggerate the difference, but that isn't what we do in the real world.  So with the exception of a very select few games that are extremely single threaded and extremely CPU intensive(Starcraft II comes to mind) there really is no difference between an 8320 and an i3.

That being said, I've worked with i3 machines, I'm posting this now from an i3-4160.  And I'll tell you what, for doing pretty much anything other than gaming the 8320 machine wins hands down.  Even for just doing basic functions in the OS, browsing the internet and things like that, the i3 is sluggish compared to the 8320.  And both have SSDs so it isn't an issue of the HDD slowing the machine down.  To give an example, if I have a youtube video playing in one tab and browse the internet in another, the video stutters on the i3 system and it remains smooth on the 8320.  If I'm opening or creating a zip file, the video stutters on the i3(and the zip file takes a lot longer to open/create too).

That being said, if you aren't opposed to upgrading the CPU in a short while, I'd go with an i3 Intel system until you have the cash for an i5.  But if you just want to stick something in it, and leave it for a few years, go AMD 8300.


----------



## Frick (Mar 6, 2015)

qubit said:


> Also, stuff just seems to run more reliably on Intel generally (I bet I get flamed, lol) than AMD with less annoying, inexplicable glitches which shouldn't be discounted.



Not flamed, just blamed for being incorrect.  de.das.dude says (at least said) exactly the same thing about AMD stuff, and neither of it makes sense.[/user]


----------



## VulkanBros (Mar 6, 2015)

Joel Charig said:


> I have an FX8360 (8 core) running at 4GHz. I can play most games on ultra settings with 60fps, so when people say AMD processors fail to perform at a high level, what they say is rubbish!
> So you can still build a top-of-the-range PC with an AMD processor. And I really recommend the 8350 - the extra 0.5GHz will make a difference =)



Same here !!




qubit said:


> If you compare benchmark reviews of AMD compared to Intel (just have a quick google) you'll see that they're a lot slower and that really matters - we're talking 30% differences in some tests.



Exactly - "tests and benchmarks" -  I love real world use instead - my experience is that the AMD cores outperform Intel's - (same priced CPU's) my video converters (Handbrake and FreeVideoConverter) both are faster on AMD than on Intel (AND i am not using CUDA cores for converting)


----------



## ThE_MaD_ShOt (Mar 6, 2015)

@Cvrk I am running a 290x in a Gigabyte 990FXa-Ud3 Am3+ board with a Fx 8350 clocked at 4.4. Gaming is just beautiful. I also own a 3930k i7 rig and have yet seen a need to want me make it my main rig. It just crunches. My main rig does all I need it to and then some. So yes you can run that 270x in a am3+ board with no issues. And you can game just fine. I also run all my games in Ultra and they are smooth as butter.


----------



## st2000 (Mar 6, 2015)

ThE_MaD_ShOt said:


> And you can game just fine


thats we all want to say
but comrade @qubit is right from his sight of view


----------



## micropage7 (Mar 6, 2015)

one that i cant stand from AMD is the power consumption


----------



## ThE_MaD_ShOt (Mar 6, 2015)

Well Myself and a few others here have real world experience and I recommend the op keep to his original plan of an Fx and he will be happy and just fine. Hell I ran mine with 7850's and it ran all games on ultra smooth as butter. And like I said I have not yet be convinced to make my 3930k my main rig over the Fx8350. Don't see where it would be worth the time and hassle. And we are talking a 6c/12t i7.



micropage7 said:


> one that i cant stand from AMD is the power consumption



Umm under normal use you will never see the difference in power consumption. You may use 5 to $10 more a year using a Amd over intel. The power consumption thing is way blown out of proportion. I run 13 rigs and my electric bill for the whole house is less then $250 a month. SO running a Amd proc. is not going to put you in the poor house over a Intel. In a nutshell you will never recoupe the difference in price due to the power savings unless you run the rig for many many years, which we don't.


----------



## st2000 (Mar 6, 2015)

dont got proofs, but what i saw in calculating was about 10-20$(depends on models and OC) over year in using 100% fullload CPU AMD(OCed) vs Intel

PS:Annual home energy cost for i5-3450: 18.55 $/year
Annual home energy cost for FX-6300: 22.89 $/year
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-1729936/amd-6300-power-consumption.html
thats nonOC(OCed is practicaly .7-.85 more, so you can pay not 22.89 $/year but 40$/year)
afterall, it's not a big difference(as i think) and the more important point here is cooling(TDP much higher->it should be cooled properly)


----------



## qubit (Mar 6, 2015)

st2000 said:


> i think that amd is prefered in mid-ranged and low-end systems
> they got low price, naked performance per dollar(but not everyone thinks that you should build a good cooling case, get at least a tower for cpu-stock cooler cant produce enough cooling at low rpm)
> modern PCs are aimed not only for naked performnce, but for comfortable use too - intel and nvidia tries to go low TDP and performance is on 2nd place
> just give me silent PC and it will be ok if it loses 20-30% of performance
> ...



Indeed, the tradeoff between performance and noise is often made and is a fair one, too.

Yeah, any modern AMD CPU will be able to play videos smoothly, even a mobile phone can now. It's in games where you really notice the difference and that's what I'm basing my comments on here.




VulkanBros said:


> Same here !!
> 
> Exactly - "tests and benchmarks" -  I love real world use instead - my experience is that the AMD cores outperform Intel's - (same priced CPU's) my video converters (Handbrake and FreeVideoConverter) both are faster on AMD than on Intel (AND i am not using CUDA cores for converting)


The benchmarks I'm talking about are based on real world games, not synthetics like 3DMark, so they're perfectly valid as a comparison.

Personally, when I look at reviews I don't pay much attention to 3DMark scores for either CPU or GPU.

@newtekie1 Did your i3 system have HT? The difference between 2 cores and 4 cores or 2 cores and HT is noticeable, even in general desktop usage.

@Frick My comment is based on my general experience and that of other people's that I know. PCs with Intel CPUs just seem to work that bit more reliably in that way. It's not something I can prove either way with formal tests and hard evidence, but is worth sharing.


----------



## st2000 (Mar 6, 2015)

@qubit dont be angry but


Cvrk said:


> I just don't have the money to go after intel. So i wont play on ultra but on high and with bad console ports it will be "high settings" with 50fps. I can gladly leave with that.





qubit said:


> The fact you can get 60fps in a particular scenario doesn't really mean very much. Also, I'd like to see it hit a consistent 120fps on a modern monitor with modern games, which is the new standard for framerate.


yea, we all want 2k(now it's not the best solution cause of input lag/colors) or 1440p 144Hz monitors but in real life we all need to eat, sleep somewhere and not all of us can afford 





Cvrk said:


> GeForce Titan i7 cpu water cooling type of gaming


so you're absolutely right that when we compare last gen intel i7(i5 or i3) to AMD 8350(6300) we see the difference even if AMD is OCed(i know, AMD owners can give me their user expirience that says benches are wrong - i got AMD card and in 95% benches comparing to benches from wellknown resources my card shows about 20% more performance - dont know why)
but not everyone needs that ULTRA grafics at 144fps
so in situation of OP we recommend to save some money for more useful things
all that i wanted to say is when you got 270x and use your computer only for gaming there's not a huge abyss(expt Dying Light) between 6300(8300) and 5960x


----------



## OzRhamn (Mar 6, 2015)

My thoughts on the subject of AMD compared to Intel.  I started off with Intel Celeron.  I moved to a AMD Athelon 64X2 then moved to a FX6100 and now I have an Core i7-5820K. Intel SPANKS AMDs cpus in every way. But the APUs are a different story. If they work it right and Mantel takes off it might replace Physix.  Bang for buck though AMD all the way.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Mar 6, 2015)

ThE_MaD_ShOt said:


> And like I said I have not yet be convinced to make my 3930k my main rig over the Fx8350. Don't see where it would be worth the time and hassle. And we are talking a 6c/12t i7..



But it was worth the time and hassle to remove it from the case it was in and install it in a different case. 



Just picking on you Shot, I'm happy to have my case back


----------



## ThE_MaD_ShOt (Mar 6, 2015)

BarbaricSoul said:


> But it was worth the time and hassle to remove it from the case it was in and install it in a different case.
> 
> 
> 
> Just picking on you Shot, I'm happy to have my case back


LOL bitch.  I was meaning swapping the drives and all over from my main rig to that one and vise versa. I also wanted that 3930k in a case that had more fans for bling factor.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Mar 6, 2015)

Bling factor? 

oh, ygpm btw


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 6, 2015)

qubit said:


> Yeah, any modern AMD CPU will be able to play videos smoothly, even a mobile phone can now. It's in games where you really notice the difference and that's what I'm basing my comments on here.



Except, like I already said, you won't notice the difference except in extremely rare games that are very single threaded and very CPU intensive(again Starcraft II is really the only one I can think of).  This becomes even more true with the OP's 270X, which will almost always be the limiting factor.



qubit said:


> The benchmarks I'm talking about are based on real world games, not synthetics like 3DMark, so they're perfectly valid as a comparison.



As I pointed out, based on real world games still doesn't mean it gives an idea of how things are in the real world.  Again, most of those reviews turn the graphics settings way down, or use beefy dual GPU graphics solutions, to exaggerate the difference the CPU makes as much as possible.

The real benchmarks to look at for this situation are the ones that use real world settings with reasonable systems.  For example, look at BF4 run at 1080p, max settings, on a single GTX770.  The FPS difference is within 1 FPS between the i3-4330 and the FX-6350.  Why?  Because even the GTX770 is limiting the CPU.  You can look at Bioshock Infinite, again 3 FPS difference. Tomb Raider and Sleeping Dogs, less than 1 FPS difference.  All of these numbers are within the margin of error for benchmarking, so you can say performance is the same.

You can set up benchmarks based on real world games, that still aren't real world tests, that make the i3 look way better than the AMD FX parts, and make it look like it would be seemingly impossible to even play games on an AMD FX.  You can do stupid shit like HardOCP does and run the benchmarks at 640x480 and then say "ZOMG the Intel CPUs are getting 100FPS more!"  But that is just plain stupid.  The fact of the matter is when you run almost all modern games at reasonable settings, the CPU makes essentially no difference.



qubit said:


> @newtekie1 Did your i3 system have HT? The difference between 2 cores and 4 cores or 2 cores and HT is noticeable, even in general desktop usage.



There are i3's without HT?  Anyway, yes the i3-4160 has HT.  And before we say it, the i3 system actually had a more powerful graphics card in it(GTX650Ti vs. GTX640 in the AMD).


----------



## OneMoar (Mar 6, 2015)

AM3+ IS A DEAD SOCKET
save your self some greif, spend the extra money and get a intel based platform you will have enough cpu grunt for years to come. AMD has zero upgrade path,and compounding that is there sub-standard ed cpu architecture which is only gonna make it age faster


----------



## Bow (Mar 6, 2015)

I am keeping my 1100t another year the see whats on the market.  It has been a great chip.


----------



## Cvrk (Mar 6, 2015)

OneMoar said:


> AM3+ IS A DEAD SOCKET
> save your self some greif spend the extra money and get a intel based platform you will have enough cpu grunt for years to come which is not the case with AMD.



Been reading all of these comments over and over. You people know much more about computers then i do.Fact.
It's scary when people say a i3 cpu is better then a FX 6xxx hexa core.
I don't really have the money (not without a financial effort) but still in 2015 can i consider buying a i5 quad core instead of a 8 or 6 core cpu. Isn't it worth ignoring those benchmark numbers,when you think in the real world a 8 core cpu  makes more sense ?

They got phones with 8 cores now. Your sending me to the stone ages with a i3 dual core . And who cares if it's hyperthread, that thing came out 10 years ago.

I'm 70% convinced i need the FX 6xxx. 30% i'm pondering if the 8 core will make a more stronger impact on 2016.
I'm not building this computer to last forever. A max 3 years before i will change it. 2017 would be dead line.


----------



## OneMoar (Mar 6, 2015)

Cvrk said:


> Been reading all of these comments over and over. You people know much more about computers then i do.Fact.
> It's scary when people say a i3 cpu is better then a FX 6xxx hexa core.
> I don't really have the money (not without a financial effort) but still in 2015 can i consider buying a i5 quad core instead of a 8 or 6 core cpu. Isn't it worth ignoring those benchmark numbers,when you think in the real world a 8 core cpu  makes more sense ?
> 
> ...


more threads (notice I didn't say cores) is not automatically better
AMD is not a 8 core its a 8 thread there is a huge difference
AMD's have 4 of what you could call 'cores' each Module has two threads for a total of 8 (think hyper threading here)
a intel i5 will walk all over a 2 or 8 thread AMD FX in any gaming test,about the only time AMD manages to match the intel chips is in encoding and compression 
asking for 3 years out of a already weak platform such as the AMD FX is taking a fair gamble


----------



## Cvrk (Mar 6, 2015)

OneMoar said:


> AMD is not a 8 core its a 8 thread there is a huge difference
> AMD's have 4 of what you could call 'cores' each Module has two threads for a total of 8 (think hyper threading here)



True.My bad


----------



## Batou1986 (Mar 6, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> Except, like I already said, you won't notice the difference except in extremely rare games that are very single threaded and very CPU intensiv


Its not as rare as you might think, speaking from personal experience DCS, MWO, Star Citizen, ARMA3 MGS:GS and Assetto Corsa all perform much worse IRL for me on the Fx 8320 OC'd than they do on the i3/i5

I wouldn't recommend throwing more money at the 8 core vs 6 core for gaming its going to be the same only time you will notice a difference is recording/encoding HD video.


----------



## 64K (Mar 6, 2015)

Have a look at Tom's Hardware CPU for gaming hierarchy list to get an idea

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html


----------



## OneMoar (Mar 6, 2015)

ill make it easy
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128715
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117372&cm_re=4690k-_-19-117-372-_-Product.
AMD doesn't have the price advantage they once enjoyed not when z97 boards are 100.00 bucks and not when intel cpu's use haf the power
pretty scary when you think about it Intel Could price AMD out of existence if they felt like it  
./thread


----------



## Cvrk (Mar 6, 2015)

Depends on the country there selling. Generally here there one time  more expensive.They go up to two times.I'm talking about intel. And a mobo that has intel cipset is a half or maybe more expensive.


----------



## erocker (Mar 6, 2015)

Yeah, Intel might be a bit more expensive, but worth it. Better performance, lower power usage (by quite a lot), and overclocking headroom. It is overall a way better product.


----------



## Batou1986 (Mar 6, 2015)

erocker said:


> Yeah, Intel might be a bit more expensive, but worth it. Better performance, lower power usage (by quite a lot), and overclocking headroom. It is overall a way better product.


Not to mention all the new features on the motherboard since AMD hasn't released a new AM3+ chipset ever and the 9xx chipsets are basicly the 8xx chips with some tweaks so thats 5 years with no improvement.


----------



## st2000 (Mar 6, 2015)

Batou1986 said:


> Not to mention all the new features on the motherboard since AMD hasn't released a new AM3+ chipset ever and the 9xx chipsets are basicly the 8xx chips with some tweaks so thats 5 years with no improvement.


and so?
my CPU is from 2011 and is still ok for gaming(it doesnt bottleneck anything in my system)
people stop think when technical numbers are shown
OP wants to play 50fps at high settings(not ultra) at console ports with 270x
i think, even core 2 quad is ok for this aim


----------



## Batou1986 (Mar 6, 2015)

st2000 said:


> and so?
> my CPU is from 2011 and is still ok for gaming(it doesnt bottleneck anything in my system)
> people stop think when technical numbers are shown
> OP wants to play 50fps at high settings(not ultra) at console ports with 270x
> i think, even core 2 quad is ok for this aim



Right so people should buy 5+ year old hardware to play modern games...
You do realize that console ports don't magically run 10x better on PC because they are ports



st2000 said:


> i think, even core 2 quad is ok for this aim


----------



## ThE_MaD_ShOt (Mar 6, 2015)

Not sure about the upgrade ability aspect. Hell when the op decides he needs to upgrade Intel would probably been through 3 or more sockets lol. If he buys a lower end intel setup will he have any upgrade path in the future for it, say 3 years from now? This is actually a legit question seriously.  I am being curious as I have been under the Amd flag for so long. I don't have a real in depth knowledge on the Intel platform.


----------



## st2000 (Mar 6, 2015)

Batou1986 said:


> console ports don't magically run 10x better on PC because they are ports


they run shitty anyway, although we discuss ps3 and xbox360 ports - no need of very strong pc hardware


Batou1986 said:


> Right so people should buy 5+ year old hardware to play modern games...


hmm...if we can run modern games on 5 year CPU, when we should buy a 2015 line of CPU
why?just because!


----------



## Batou1986 (Mar 6, 2015)

st2000 said:


> they run shitty anyway, although we discuss ps3 and xbox360 ports - no need of very strong pc hardware
> 
> hmm...if we can run modern games on 5 year CPU, when we should buy a 2015 line of CPU
> why?just because!



You need to do some more research what you are saying is not true.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 6, 2015)

ThE_MaD_ShOt said:


> Not sure about the upgrade ability aspect. Hell when the op decides he needs to upgrade Intel would probably been through 3 or more sockets lol. If he buys a lower end intel setup will he have any upgrade path in the future for it, say 3 years from now? This is actually a legit question seriously.  I am being curious as I have been under the Amd flag for so long. I don't have a real in depth knowledge on the Intel platform.



I would say yes.  Intel released LGA 1150 over a year and a half ago, and there are still retailers selling 1155 processors.  And ebay is filled with 1155 processors.  Even if you wanted to go as far back as 1156, which was replaced over 4 years ago, you can still find processors on ebay for some really good prices actually.

And with LGA 1150, we still have a round of CPUs to be released towards the 3Q of this year.  So it will still be around for at least another year before Intel phases it out.

This is why I said if the OP isn't opposed to dropping a new CPU in the computer in a year or so he should go with the Intel system.  But if he just plans on dropping everything in and leaving it, then go with the AMD.


----------



## OneMoar (Mar 6, 2015)

if you where to buy a z97 today your upgrade path would be as follows
ANY Z97 BOARD
i5;4670 }
i5 4690 }
i7 4760 }
i7 4790 }
broadwell }[Still possible intel will release a microcode update to make broad-well work on z87]
i5 52xx }
i5 53xx }
i7 55xx }
i7 56xx }
Skylake}[Unknown if there will be z97 versions of this chip but its possible unless intel goes with a new socket for there next gen ddr4 controller]
for AMD the path is as follows
ANY AM3+ 125W TDP Board
phenom II
FX 4100
FX 6300
FX 8320
FX8370e
---
NOTHING AM3+ is dead there will be no more cpus for it you will need to buy a new board and possibly ram when zen comes around


----------



## Batou1986 (Mar 6, 2015)

OneMoar said:


> if you where to buy a z97 today your upgrade path would be as follows
> i5;4670 }
> i5 4690 }
> i7 4760 }
> ...



Another reason I say to skip AMD now if you get any of the Fx 8 cores there is no upgrade.
I mean sure the 9590 is faster than the 8350 but just barely and not enough to justify the cost if you already own a 8350
whereas going from i3-i5-i7 is a pretty big jump and you have new CPU series being released that are major steps forward


----------



## st2000 (Mar 6, 2015)

@Batou1986 have you read all 3 pages of topic?
OP wants some CHEAP CPU(cause where he lives prices are odd)
i adviced him to search for abroad stores (OP havent replied about this idea - mb he cant)
the 1st answer was "i'm buying a CPU for 270x what should i take 6300 or 8300?"
also, the situation is "PC parts are expensive, AMD is expensive too, but cheaper than Intel(i5 3450) 2x"
so, in this situation(just imagine when intel starts from 350$ and AMD starts from 150$)what should you do?
will you buy "future proofed" intel platform or just buy AMD cause it's ok for now and next 2 years for high settings(which depends mostly on videocard - 270x(IT'S NOT FUCKING TITAN WHEN AMD CPU CAN BOTTLENECK)?
sorry, but i know what you're talking about - future economy, better support of possible upgrade and so on, but OP dont have money right now for Intel
the question is only 6 or 8 threads AMD CPU

PS also, just i5(3330) cpu alone costs more than a half medium salary OP country


----------



## iamapimp (Mar 6, 2015)

I would advise to take the CPU , where the higher the frequency per core for better performance


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 6, 2015)

OneMoar said:


> Unknown if there will be z97 versions of this chip but its possible unless intel goes with a new socket for there next gen ddr4 controller


Skylake will use socket 1151, Intel has already confirmed this.


----------



## Mathragh (Mar 6, 2015)

OneMoar said:


> ill make it easy
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128715
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117372&cm_re=4690k-_-19-117-372-_-Product.
> AMD doesn't have the price advantage they once enjoyed not when z97 boards are 100.00 bucks and not when intel cpu's use haf the power
> ...



Why the ./thread?
Those two parts costs as much as 3 quarters of you whole PC could cost with an AMD 6core.
Not sure what use it is when OP tries to get something cheap.

I agree on it being faster, but that wasn't the issue here.

Also i agree on that Intel could from a financial and technical standpoint price them out of the market, but monopoly wise they cannot unless they want to ruin their current dominant position.


----------



## Batou1986 (Mar 7, 2015)

Mathragh said:


> Why the ./thread?
> Those two parts costs as much as 3 quarters of you whole PC could cost with an AMD 6core.
> Not sure what use it is when OP tries to get something cheap.
> 
> ...


I agree completely, my point was that buying a new AM3+ system now is a poor investment of any amount of money because the platform is so dated.
I would honestly recommend getting one of those pentium anniversary editions over any AM3+ based platform down the line you can always upgrade, with AM3+ there is no upgrade.


----------



## ASOT (Jul 10, 2015)

Lol! Obvious Fx 8300 is better ..no sense why! 

Cheaper,2 extra core,more performance ..


----------



## Toothless (Jul 10, 2015)

Nice thread necro.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 11, 2015)

I agree with the i3 suggestion, unless you can wait and see what Zen will be like.

The FX chips have problems in many games, but it's not all AMD's fault. A lot of games release with horrible AMD CPU support, and sometimes it never gets fixed properly or can take months to patch.


----------



## chuck216 (Jul 12, 2015)

Your best bet is an FX-8320 it runs a stock clock of 3.5 Ghz with a turbocore of 4.0 ghz, and can easily handle 4.5 ghz on a manual OC on air without any voltage change


----------



## Ebo (Jul 12, 2015)

I have a AMD FX-8320 system also, and its quite a solid platform still eventhough its a bit powerhungry than what Intel has to offer.

I use my platforms to other things than just gaming, and in programmes that take advantage of more than 4 cores the old FX platform is still a solid preformer for the homeuser.
The only reason I went with Intels X99 platform and DDR4 is because that platform cut my working time in Autocad 3D by half which is important to me. 

In games theres almost no noticeable differencies just execpt in complex games like Shogun 2, there my X99 system blows FX-8320 out of the water.


----------



## Cvrk (Jul 12, 2015)

Toothless said:


> Nice thread necro.


?


----------



## P4-630 (Jul 12, 2015)

Cvrk said:


> ?



Necro posting, refers to the act of posting in a thread, or replying to a topic, that has been inactive for a long period of time.


----------



## Cvrk (Jul 12, 2015)

Thank you for clearing that up @P4-630


----------

