Better CPU than the AMD FX-8320?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
secretumpiratica

secretumpiratica

Distinguished
May 5, 2014
145
0
18,680
Hello. I am building my first PC and I was first going to get the AMD FX-8350. Then I realized that the 8320 was the same CPU just not factory overclocked so I am going to go with that. Sometime a about 2 weeks ago I saw it on Amazon for $99 and free shipping. I should have f***ing bought it then because now it is around $140.

I am just wondering if there is a similar CPU but is cheaper. I don't really want an Intel but would buy Intel if I saw it a better buy.

I am using the CPU in a Gaming PC with other parts such as a GTX-770, CoolerMaster 212 Evo, and gigabyte ga970-ud3p.

Thank you for your input!
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
if it's for gaming you're fine off with FX-6300, also if you wanna save more and wont mind some CPU bottleneck Athlon 860K and Pentium G3258 always are at the table.The serious gaming CPUs are the i5 family.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Depends on the game. It's at an awkward price bracket. An i5 is much better than an FX-8320, but higher price bracket. An i3 can be a lot better in some games, but then an i3 will be slower in some games (however most of the time will be on par or better; i3s are very underestimated) and is also much, much slower in stuff like rendering, encoding, etc.

You're looking at either an FX-8320 or an i3-4360/4370. Depends on whether you play many games that benefit from high single-core performance, doing a lot of productivity, etc.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Upvote 0 Downvote
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4590 3.3GHz Quad-Core Processor ($187.88 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock H97M PRO4 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($69.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: Crucial Ballistix Sport XT 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($67.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($49.88 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: Zotac GeForce GTX 970 4GB Video Card ($325.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Case: Enermax OSTROG ATX Mid Tower Case ($39.99 @ Directron)
Power Supply: EVGA 600B 600W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($34.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $776.71
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-28 22:16 EST-0500
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
from AMD there arent any better options bro + that 3.1GHz quad core intel beats the shit out of FX in likely every game hands down, it's not the clock speed or core count that makes the difference in games.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
In spite of the 8320 having a 3.5GHz clock speed and 8 cores, it only has about 10% better multi-threaded performance (in programs that will push all 8 cores to their fullest, such as video encoding), but has ~30% slower single-threaded performance, which is more important for games (even if they use many cores) and most daily activities like web browsing.

It's not common for applications to do push all available CPU cores to 100%.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Agree with the above. You won't find anything better than the 8320 in the same price bracket. But if the jump to the i5-4460 won't break the bank, I think it's worth the difference. And honestly, by the time you figure in a decent motherboard and an aftermarket cooler for the FX-8320, the price gap closes quite a bit.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I listed my MOBO I have and the aftermarket cooler. Is Intel really much better than the FX AMD cpus? If it isn't the cores and it isn't the core clock... What is it then that makes a CPU good for gaming? I will also be doing other things like some Photoshop, Youtube, Linux and Burning if these matter.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Here are the comparisons:

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4690-vs-AMD-FX-8350

Why would I pay $50 more for a CPU that barley beats it except single core performance?

I just don't really understand what is single core performance. Why would your computer not use all 8 or all 4?

And wouldn't the one with 8 be better than the 4?

And are these Intel CPU's compatible with my MOBO with a AMD 3+ Socket?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
FX processors are a marketing trick . AMD increase the clock cus it s marked on the boxes but in order to achieve that they increase cache latency of the processors . That s why , FX are weak .

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-7.html
sandra-cache-latency.png
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


If you want to stick with AMD and you want to shave off a few $$ then consider the FX-6300 or FX-6350.

Intel CPUs are designed differently than AMD CPUs. GHz comparisons between AMD CPUs and Intel CPUs are not really valid since Intel CPUs can process more instructions per Hz than AMD CPUs can. Also don't bother blindly comparing 6 or 8 AMD core to Intel's 2 or 4 core because there can be a world of difference.

The following CPU benchmarks in games can be found on TechSpot's site; the link is as follows. The benchmark includes the FX-6350 and it basically provides the same or very close performance as the FX-8350.

http://www.techspot.com/reviews/graphics-cards/


CPU1.png


CPU_1.png


CPU_01.png


CPU_01.png


CPU_01.png


CPU_01.png


CPU_01.png


CPU_01.png


CPU_03.png


CPU_001.png


 
Upvote 1 Downvote
Thank you for the responces. I am willing to go over $200 if it will truly be "MUCH" better than AMD. Does something like this work for me? And is it compactible with AMD 3+ Socket on a Gigabyte ga-970-ud3p and Cooler Master 212? Thank you
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Despite the fact that in hard-cold benchmarks what all these guys are saying is correct (Intel producing more efficient CPUs than AMD right now, although much more expensive), the truth is that NO, you will not find them MUCH better than AMD in real-life gaming. Actually, you won't even feel a difference. If you already have an AMD MoBo, stick with AMD. It won't be worth the switch to Intel. If you were building a gaming PC from scratch, the story might be different (although depending on your budget AMD is not out of the question still).

Going back to your original question, yeah, the 8320 is an underclocked 8350. As someone else said above, for gaming you might go for a 6300 and you'll be alright. Or wait until the 8320 goes on sale.

Cheers!

 
Upvote 0 Downvote


First, many tasks can not be speed up by splitting them between 8 cores. Imagine splitting common daily tasks between 8 people, in many cases it won't be faster then with like 2 ppl. Especially if that 8 ppl are elderly.

Second, following my analogy, its important how many things a man can complete per hour and this translates to "instructions per clock cycle" a CPU can execute. This creates the practical performance difference between Intel and AMD. It is not only the raw frequency that matters which you can imagine as amount of hours you can assing for a task.

Consequently, if one can do more work in less time, then you are going to save on the respective resources in the longer run, be it food, fuel, wages or in the case of Intel CPUs - electric power. This also often means less heat and less noise.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


AMD and Intel components are not compatible. You cannot use an Intel chip with AMD boards or vice versa. Matter of fact you can't mismatch different Intel chips, Ivybridge can't be used with Haswell. Intel always changes there socket.
To try to answer another question of yours, from what I have read the 8350 is not 8 cores. It's 4 cores with 4 logical cores. It's like Intel's Hyper-threading, just not as good. The speed of the processor is not the only factor. The amount and combination of L1,L2 and L3 cache(very fast memory on the CPU) plus the speed the CPU can transfer information called QPI (Quick Path Interlink is Intel and Hyper-transport is AMD). They used to call this FSB or Front Side Bus. Hope this helped, unless you know quite a bit about computers it's kind of hard to explain, did my best :).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom