Overclocked fx 8300 vs overclocked fx 6300

[SashaT]

This is maybe stupid question, but some ppl are saying that overclocking 8300 will overclock only 2 cores. And as fact theyre saying that at the same Mhz frequency fx 6300 will be better than fx 8300. PS: I dont want to buy i3 or i5. And Im thinking about 6300 and 8300 just for gaming (not for rendering or something like that, fx 8300 will be proof for the future for me).

 

[Ecky]

I dunno where you heard that the 8-core FX CPUs will only overclock 2 cores, or that at the same frequency it will be slower than a 6-core FX.

If you overclock all 8 cores to a certain frequency, all of them will run at that frequency.

If you run a program that only uses, say, 2-3 cores, an FX-6 will perform the same as an FX-8 of the same frequency.

If you run a program that can fully utilize 8 cores, an FX-8 will have an advantage over an FX-6 of the same frequency.

Most games only use 2-3 cores, and Intel's cores are 50-75% faster than even overclocked AMD cores. Realistically, an FX-8 does not perform any better in games than an FX-6 because most of the cores sit idle.

 

[photonboy]

An AMD CPU rarely makes sense for gaming except maybe in some low budget builds.

If you want good advice maybe give your REASON for not going with Intel.

*Also, not sure why you say the FX-8300 (i.e. FX-8350) is future proofed for you, because it's already behind Intel CPU's from several years ago.

 

[SashaT]

I dont have budget for i5 and by tests that i found on the internet is fx 6300 or 8300 better than i3. So thats the reason why fx. But why is 8350 so much proof than 8300, ofc theres an 0.7 Mhz diference, but I can overclock it. The main question for me is if all cores will be overclocked or only 2, like i heard from some ppl.

 

[Ecky]

Unfortunately, your sources are mistaken - the i3 is definitely superior to the FX-6300, and arguably superior than an FX-8300. Also, an FX-8350 is around as expensive as an i5, after you factor in motherboard and cooler, and an i5 is definitely far, far faster.

If you overclock, all cores will be overclocked. I'm not sure who said only 2 cores will be overclocked, but they're mistaken.

 

[cat1092]

I've had an AMD FX-6300 (self-built) & two i3 retail systems, and can say that the FX-6300 is a nice CPU for the money, boots & loads both Windows 7 & Linux Mint 17 (& later 18) faster than either of my I3 equipped computers, the letter of which I sold both.

While I'm planning for a 3.8GHz i3 for my XPS 8700 (used the i7-4770 in a custom build), the reason why I purchased the FX-6300 was to have more performance over the Athlon II x4 630, which was among the first of AMD's true quad core lineup, and features no virtual cores. While an amazing CPU for $109 when released, the FX 6300 was much better in both personal performance & on the PassMark benchmark list. When a CPU is over 6,000, has to be taken somewhat seriously, and was considering the FX-8300, though no one at Newegg couldn't answer my simple question, so went with the proven FX-6300 & haven't looked back.

While the rest of my systems are Intel, this is an AMD build that I'm proud of, and by chance was my first one, now the last thing I have to do is move everything into a new case, the components are packed as though sardines, no more room left for anything. Surprisingly, using the thermal solution that came pre-applied on the heatsink, the CPU idles in the upper teens, a stark contrast about what I've heard for years about AMD CPU's.

Once I get it into my Rosewill Stryker M case, there'll be lots more room, and three huge fans compared to a single 92mm exhaust, and the 92mm intake that was the exhaust running in front of the drives, don't know how much (if any) good it does.

Then I'll be purchase a Hyper 212 EVO & overclock to see for myself how well it can run, I'd be satisfied at the FX-6300 (3 physical, 3 logical cores) running at 4.0GHz on my MB (ASRock 970M Pro3), which isn't the best, though better than what came with the computer, that would be fantastic, and would blow most any i3 build out of the water, since most aren't really overclockable (locked models, like my i7-4770). If one wants an unlocked Intel, must step down to a Pentium or preferably up with an i5. Though the latter will cost over $100 more than I gave for the FX-6300, I'll still be happy.

None of these can hold a candle to my i7-4790K, which by chance, edges out the 6700K on PassMark. Anyone can feel free to verify this.

As to the question asked, I was never able to try the FX-8300 due to conflicting specs, some sites stated that it had no L3 cache, while others stated 8MB, and there was more than one that stated 0MB, no one at Newegg could give a definitive answer to a simple question. Maybe with my MB, was best to go with the FX-6300, has more of a single core GHz level out of the box.

Will report back when able to OC the CPU.;-)

Cat

 

[Ecky]

The FX-8 CPUs definitely have L3 cache.

 

[cat1092]

Ecky, yes, that 8MB L3 means a lot, and was the answer I was looking for on Newegg when considering both the FX-6300 & 8300. Some sites (incorrectly) reported that the 8300 had no L3 cache, and at the time, only one out of 5 Newegg reviewers could give a straight answer to a simple question (Speccy or CPU-Z, anyone?), the rest said it has 8MB L2 for sure, some stated no L3, so I went with the FX-6300. There was only 6 hours left on the 25% promo, and I snagged the FX-6300 for $79, plus paid for rush processing & 3 day shipping, which still was under $89.

I'm satisfied with the FX-6300, and it doesn't bottleneck the reference style MSI GTX 960 2GB GDDR5 that was reused from an upgrade (for the 4th & hopefully final time) to another PC when I purchased a EVGA GTX 1060 FTW + ACX 3.0 a few months back. It was originally purchased for my XPS 8700, which I need to get another CPU for, used the i7-4770 in another build, the single 4 pin CPU power port was holding back performance.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127842

BTW, while it's probably only good for video, the GTX 960 is also 4K capable, probably performs best with the DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-960/specifications

As soon as my Hyper 212 EVO comes in, then I'll be able to play with some mild overclocking, though not too hard on a ASRock 970M Pro3 MB. It was purchased not to be a main build, just something to reuse some components I had, and the FX-6300 runs a lot better than the Athlon II x4 630.;-)

Cat