AMD cpu question

[RomanEdgez81]

Is the FX 8320 just a underclocked 8370? Could I overclock the 8320 to 8370 clock speeds.

 

[Goodeggray]

Yes, the 8370s are the best 8320 cpus that AMD OC, but the 8320 you buy may not be able to get to the 8370's speed.

 

[kneebender]

You should have a pretty good chance at reaching the 8370 speed, I had am 8350 that I got up to 4.4 Ghz without even changing voltages.

 

[kneebender]

Amazon seems to have the 8000 series chips marked down as of now also.

 

[FreshRestart]

May I ask why do you want to get an AMD chip?

 

[PCBuilderProbs]

the fx-8320 is essentially an underclocked 8350, and the 8370 is just ever-so slightly better than the 8350. Yes, you could easily overclock the fx-8320 to the 8350, 8370, and even beyond those stock speeds. It's all the same Vishera architecture.

 

[PCBuilderProbs]

May I ask why do you want to get an AMD chip?

they're cheaper than intel, better bang for your buck, free overclocking, etc. AMD chips are great for budget builds.

 

[dudeman509]

I have an 8320 that will run up to 4.7 on a 212 Evo (Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P MB).

It's a great chip for the price. It won't keep up with Intel in poorly threaded games, but it will slog its way through very heavy multitasking without a hiccup, even at stock speeds.

Get a decent motherboard with 8+2 phase and beefy VRM heatsinks if you want to overclock well. An aftermarket cooler is a must to keep your sanity - the stock cooler SCREAMS. There are some decent 970 boards out there, although most will tell you to go for the 990 chipset if you want to get the most out of it (or run Crossfire/SLI).

 

[FreshRestart]

May I ask why do you want to get an AMD chip?

they're cheaper than intel, better bang for your buck, free overclocking, etc. AMD chips are great for budget builds.

They are not such a better bang for your buck as you may think they are. Their floating point performance is far inferior to the Intel chips to the point that an i3 beats the top of the line 8350 in many gaming benchmarks. They draw an enormous amount of power at stock and thus requiring a very good quality motherboard with a robust VRM to allow for achieving high clock rates without damaging the hardware. And they generate a lot of heat also because of their inefficiency requiring more expensive cooling solutions. If the OP is an OCing enthusiast then I understand his decision but for gaming and raw performance an Intel chip is superior.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

with a decent board and cooling the 8320 will certainly hit 8370 speeds and more. But keep in mind the cost of cooling, motherboard, and increased power consumption the cpu can hit well over 200w under load increases your psu requirements....the cost adds up. You can get a base model intel haswell i5 not overclocked, with a cheap $40 motherboard, and no aftermarket cooling and a lower end psu and have better overall gaming fps than an 8370.....something to think about

 

[Outlander_04]

May I ask why do you want to get an AMD chip?

they're cheaper than intel, better bang for your buck, free overclocking, etc. AMD chips are great for budget builds.

They are not such a better bang for your buck as you may think they are. Their floating point performance is far inferior to the Intel chips to the point that an i3 beats the top of the line 8350 in many gaming benchmarks. They draw an enormous amount of power at stock and thus requiring a very good quality motherboard with a robust VRM to allow for achieving high clock rates without damaging the hardware. And they generate a lot of heat also because of their inefficiency requiring more expensive cooling solutions. If the OP is an OCing enthusiast then I understand his decision but for gaming and raw performance an Intel chip is superior.

The FX will destroy any i3 build when you are gaming online .
The power difference is about the same as a dim light bulb .
Even with a stock cooler the 8320 will hit 8350 speeds
OCing is spectacularly easy using AMD's software

Now what was your point?

 

[FreshRestart]

May I ask why do you want to get an AMD chip?

they're cheaper than intel, better bang for your buck, free overclocking, etc. AMD chips are great for budget builds.

They are not such a better bang for your buck as you may think they are. Their floating point performance is far inferior to the Intel chips to the point that an i3 beats the top of the line 8350 in many gaming benchmarks. They draw an enormous amount of power at stock and thus requiring a very good quality motherboard with a robust VRM to allow for achieving high clock rates without damaging the hardware. And they generate a lot of heat also because of their inefficiency requiring more expensive cooling solutions. If the OP is an OCing enthusiast then I understand his decision but for gaming and raw performance an Intel chip is superior.

The FX will destroy any i3 build when you are gaming online .
The power difference is about the same as a dim light bulb .
Even with a stock cooler the 8320 will hit 8350 speeds
OCing is spectacularly easy using AMD's software

Now what was your point?

This is simply not true. Gaming benchmarks prove otherwise. And as it has already been stated twice by me and another poster the enormous power draw of the chips require expensive motherboards for safe overclocking and an expensive cooling solution because of the heat generated. Software overclocking is not even something that any experienced overclocker will consider. My point is that the original poster will be better off getting an Intel build if he needs the raw performance for gaming or otherwise.

 

[Outlander_04]

May I ask why do you want to get an AMD chip?

they're cheaper than intel, better bang for your buck, free overclocking, etc. AMD chips are great for budget builds.

They are not such a better bang for your buck as you may think they are. Their floating point performance is far inferior to the Intel chips to the point that an i3 beats the top of the line 8350 in many gaming benchmarks. They draw an enormous amount of power at stock and thus requiring a very good quality motherboard with a robust VRM to allow for achieving high clock rates without damaging the hardware. And they generate a lot of heat also because of their inefficiency requiring more expensive cooling solutions. If the OP is an OCing enthusiast then I understand his decision but for gaming and raw performance an Intel chip is superior.

The FX will destroy any i3 build when you are gaming online .
The power difference is about the same as a dim light bulb .
Even with a stock cooler the 8320 will hit 8350 speeds
OCing is spectacularly easy using AMD's software

Now what was your point?

This is simply not true. Gaming benchmarks prove otherwise. And as it has already been stated twice by me and another poster the enormous power draw of the chips require expensive motherboards for safe overclocking and an expensive cooling solution because of the heat generated. Software overclocking is not even something that any experienced overclocker will consider. My point is that the original poster will be better off getting an Intel build if he needs the raw performance for gaming or otherwise.

There are $80 motherboards capable of supporting the the highest clocked FX 8 core processors
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/asrock-motherboard-970performance
SLI support , M.2 socket , and will run an FX at close to 5 Ghz

"software" overclocking alters BIOS settings from within Windows so it does exactly the same thing as tweaking a BIOS . Its not an inferior way to overclock in any way . With Catalyst the OC is simple . Using AMD overdrive you have fine control of BIOS from the desktop .

So next time before you tell someone that what they say is not true I suggest you try and know something about the subject first .

And NO an i3 will not be competitive with an FX 8 core in online gaming . Its not even going to be close .

As for "raw power" an FX 8 core can still encode faster than any i5 . A sure sign its capable of more of that raw power than the i5

 

[FreshRestart]

From my personal experience being an owner of an FX chip myself and from the MANY online posts I've read about people with FX chips trying to overclock them and ending up with a fried VRM or a fried chip or less severely with an underperforming chip because of choking features in motherboards like the one you mentioned, I can tell you that OC the 8320 to 5 GHz on this motherboard is most certainly impossible. In fact I have seen a post on tom's before with someone suffering from terrible stuttering in Battlefield 4 because he had an 8 core FX chip overclocked on this particular motherboard. Not to mention that achieving such a high oc on such a power hungry chip without costly water cooling is also not feasible. The FX chips DO indeed underperform when compared to even a modern i3 because of their inferior architecture, that is easily proved by the many gaming benchmarks out there where the meager dual core hyper threaded i3 achieves higher average fps than the 8 core FX chips. Even in synthetic and productivity benchmarks the FX chips performance is disappointing. That is what raw performance means, what you are talking about is the multithreading capability of the processor which only shows its worth in heavily multithreaded applications. The matter of fact, FX processors even when OCed have erratic and inconsistent gaming performance because of their high power draw issues. Most overclockers use the bios to overclock to avoid the issues caused by overclocking from inside the OS like over volting the cpu. An unlocked i5 is easier to overclock and achieves better performance per MHz than the FX chips.

 

[PCBuilderProbs]

I'm ending this. Intel fanboy, shutup. Any person knows 8 cores running at 4ghz will destroy a dual core running at 3.5ghz. Seriously man, just shutup, you're not fooling anyone.

 

[FreshRestart]

Speed and core numbers are meaningless when the architecture has so many issues like with the FX series. The i3 utilizes the hyperthreading technology making it a 4 thread processor not simply a dual core. I am not an Intel fanboy, I am already running a FX-6300 processor, which I regret buying, I am merely stating the facts. A fanboy is someone who senselessly defends a brand when it is evident that its not as good as the competition.

See how easily Intel's dual core chip beats the "8 cores running at 4ghz'?

Again another occurrence of an i3 beating the 8350 chip.

Another example.

In short raw performance still matters in running modern games, and that is why a more efficient stronger per core, dual core processor with a better architecture like the i3 was able to beat the FX-8350 in these benchmarks.

 

[Outlander_04]

Speed and core numbers are meaningless when the architecture has so many issues like with the FX series. The i3 utilizes the hyperthreading technology making it a 4 thread processor not simply a dual core. I am not an Intel fanboy, I am already running a FX-6300 processor, which I regret buying, I am merely stating the facts. A fanboy is someone who senselessly defends a brand when it is evident that its not as good as the competition.

See how easily Intel's dual core chip beats the "8 cores running at 4ghz'?

Again another occurrence of an i3 beating the 8350 chip.

Another example.

In short raw performance still matters in running modern games, and that is why a more efficient stronger per core, dual core processor with a better architecture like the i3 was able to beat the FX-8350 in these benchmarks.

Theyre all single player , and on clean machines that run no other software .
In the real world the intel dual core is a dog because computers have to run much more than a game engine .


Its also obvious the benches are not accurate . The FX 4320 is ahead of the 8320? Cores are identical , and so is clock speed identical . Results are not .
Tell me why that is

 

[RomanEdgez81]

May I ask why do you want to get an AMD chip?

they're cheaper than intel, better bang for your buck, free overclocking, etc. AMD chips are great for budget builds.

They are not such a better bang for your buck as you may think they are. Their floating point performance is far inferior to the Intel chips to the point that an i3 beats the top of the line 8350 in many gaming benchmarks. They draw an enormous amount of power at stock and thus requiring a very good quality motherboard with a robust VRM to allow for achieving high clock rates without damaging the hardware. And they generate a lot of heat also because of their inefficiency requiring more expensive cooling solutions. If the OP is an OCing enthusiast then I understand his decision but for gaming and raw performance an Intel chip is superior.

LOL don't know if youre here to troll but I have a i3 3220 and the amd 8320 will out beat it.

 

[RomanEdgez81]

May I ask why do you want to get an AMD chip?

they're cheaper than intel, better bang for your buck, free overclocking, etc. AMD chips are great for budget builds.

They are not such a better bang for your buck as you may think they are. Their floating point performance is far inferior to the Intel chips to the point that an i3 beats the top of the line 8350 in many gaming benchmarks. They draw an enormous amount of power at stock and thus requiring a very good quality motherboard with a robust VRM to allow for achieving high clock rates without damaging the hardware. And they generate a lot of heat also because of their inefficiency requiring more expensive cooling solutions. If the OP is an OCing enthusiast then I understand his decision but for gaming and raw performance an Intel chip is superior.

The FX will destroy any i3 build when you are gaming online .
The power difference is about the same as a dim light bulb .
Even with a stock cooler the 8320 will hit 8350 speeds
OCing is spectacularly easy using AMD's software

Now what was your point?

This is simply not true. Gaming benchmarks prove otherwise. And as it has already been stated twice by me and another poster the enormous power draw of the chips require expensive motherboards for safe overclocking and an expensive cooling solution because of the heat generated. Software overclocking is not even something that any experienced overclocker will consider. My point is that the original poster will be better off getting an Intel build if he needs the raw performance for gaming or otherwise.

There are $80 motherboards capable of supporting the the highest clocked FX 8 core processors
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/asrock-motherboard-970performance
SLI support , M.2 socket , and will run an FX at close to 5 Ghz

"software" overclocking alters BIOS settings from within Windows so it does exactly the same thing as tweaking a BIOS . Its not an inferior way to overclock in any way . With Catalyst the OC is simple . Using AMD overdrive you have fine control of BIOS from the desktop .

So next time before you tell someone that what they say is not true I suggest you try and know something about the subject first .

And NO an i3 will not be competitive with an FX 8 core in online gaming . Its not even going to be close .

As for "raw power" an FX 8 core can still encode faster than any i5 . A sure sign its capable of more of that raw power than the i5

Since you seem like you know about amd cpus, are they a good buy over a i5 and I do some rendering and editing plus photoshop so is it a work/gaming cpu?

 

[FreshRestart]

May I ask why do you want to get an AMD chip?

they're cheaper than intel, better bang for your buck, free overclocking, etc. AMD chips are great for budget builds.

They are not such a better bang for your buck as you may think they are. Their floating point performance is far inferior to the Intel chips to the point that an i3 beats the top of the line 8350 in many gaming benchmarks. They draw an enormous amount of power at stock and thus requiring a very good quality motherboard with a robust VRM to allow for achieving high clock rates without damaging the hardware. And they generate a lot of heat also because of their inefficiency requiring more expensive cooling solutions. If the OP is an OCing enthusiast then I understand his decision but for gaming and raw performance an Intel chip is superior.

LOL don't know if youre here to troll but I have a i3 3220 and the amd 8320 will out beat it.

No. I was here trying to give you an advice. But feel free to waste your money.

 

[RomanEdgez81]

May I ask why do you want to get an AMD chip?

they're cheaper than intel, better bang for your buck, free overclocking, etc. AMD chips are great for budget builds.

They are not such a better bang for your buck as you may think they are. Their floating point performance is far inferior to the Intel chips to the point that an i3 beats the top of the line 8350 in many gaming benchmarks. They draw an enormous amount of power at stock and thus requiring a very good quality motherboard with a robust VRM to allow for achieving high clock rates without damaging the hardware. And they generate a lot of heat also because of their inefficiency requiring more expensive cooling solutions. If the OP is an OCing enthusiast then I understand his decision but for gaming and raw performance an Intel chip is superior.

LOL don't know if youre here to troll but I have a i3 3220 and the amd 8320 will out beat it.

No. I was here trying to give you an advice. But feel free to waste your money.

I've made my mind im buying a 6350 fuck it and intel boys fuck off.

 

[FreshRestart]

"Its also obvious the benches are not accurate . The FX 4320 is ahead of the 8320? Cores are identical , and so is clock speed identical . Results are not .
Tell me why that is?"
Because the AMD 8 core processors draws more power, so maybe it is chocked to protect the mobo? I don't know, but that is another thing I mentioned, that sometimes the chips suffer from an erratic and inconsistent performance.

http://www.hardwarepal.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Battlefield-4-Benchmark-2560-x-1440-High-Settings-NVidia-770-GTX-4GB-vs-7970.jpg
This is a Battlefield 4 Multiplayer benchmark. I think it speaks for its self.

 

[Bossyfins]

Well I mean I am no fanboy, I just go with what benchmarks say and an i3 will beat a 6350... But okay lol. YOur choice. Only time the i3 is beaten is when its an 8xxx chip. Otherwise i3. But sometimes AMD is better.

 

[dudeman509]

Since you seem like you know about amd cpus, are they a good buy over a i5 and I do some rendering and editing plus photoshop so is it a work/gaming cpu?

Compared to an i3, they are a beast at doing anything else at the same time. You can play games, stream, convert videos, etc. I usually run several background tasks for work while going off to play a game, and, combined with 16 GB RAM (8 GB is enough for most people just gaming), this computer never chokes up. I have an i5 laptop - 2 cores, hyperthreaded, similar to a desktop i3. Meh. Chokes up a lot.

I can't remember the last time 7 FPS made a huge difference in a game. Woo. Yes, the Intel will play badly threaded games (like Starcraft 2) much better than the FX. The FX coupled with a good graphics card is still very much playable on almost anything you throw at it, and will continue to do well as games utilize more and more cores as Intel's 6-threaded processors become more common.

I have an Ivy Bridge i5 system built in a pretty similar way that I use often as well. Honestly, I can't tell a difference in games, but the i5 will stutter if there's demanding stuff running in the background. For a single task, say, Handbrake video conversion, the i5 is usually neck-and-neck with both at stock speeds. Comparing OC's would be unfair in this scenario, as this particular i5 is a locked chip and the FX isn't.

Personally, I would go for the 8320 over the 6350. You can get em for $120.

 

[Bossyfins]

"Its also obvious the benches are not accurate . The FX 4320 is ahead of the 8320? Cores are identical , and so is clock speed identical . Results are not .
Tell me why that is?"
And the answer to this is something I already mentioned in the post before that: "In short raw performance still matters in running modern games, and that is why a more efficient stronger per core, dual core processor with a better architecture like the i3 was able to beat the FX-8350 in these benchmarks."..And that is why a higher clocked FX chip with less cores is performing better than the FX 8 core chip because its per core performance is higher.

This is a Battlefield 4 Multiplayer benchmark. I think it speaks for its self.

i3 vs 8350

Spoiler

I really don't see how an i3 would cream an 8350 with whipping cream. I am going to agree with outlander here.