SHould i go with the AMD FX 6350 or 8320?

[ButtcrackMcGee]

Shoul i go for the amd fx 6350 or 8320?
i do gaming and recording
and i will have an aftermarket cooler

 

[IAMEXTREME]

fx 6350 will be sufficient as neither gaming, nor recording needs the extra threads offered by the 8320.

 

[Deus Gladiorum]

8320

+1

The FX-6350 is a waste of money compared to the FX-6300. The only difference between the two is that the 6350 is factory overclocked, but the FX series is so fantastic for overclocking that paying the extra money for something you can do yourself is a waste.

The FX-8300 is no longer made, so your only options for a reasonably priced 8 core are the FX-8320 and the FX-8350. The only difference between those two is the FX-8320 and the FX-8350 is, again, the base clock speed, which is something you can do on your own easily. The extra 2 cores of an FX-83xx will make a huge difference actually as compared to the FX-63xx, and don't listen to naysayers.

The FX-8xxx doesn't actually have 8 cores, nor does the FX-6xxx actually have 6 cores. They borrow resources from one another, and act more like threads then cores, so the extra 2 "cores" offered by an FX-83xx will make a pretty big difference. Go with the FX-8320, it's probably the best bang for your buck CPU offered by AMD.

 

[Deus Gladiorum]

fx 6350 will be sufficient as neither gaming, nor recording needs the extra threads offered by the 8320.

Not true at all.

 

[IAMEXTREME]

Getting a 8320 is a waste as the OP tends to perform tasks which do not require much of threads. Since 6350 offers sufficient 6 threads (if needed), there is no sense getting a 8320 over the 6350!

 

[Deus Gladiorum]

Getting a 8320 is a waste as the OP tends to perform tasks which do not require much of threads. Since 6350 offers sufficient 6 threads (if needed), there is no sense getting a 8320 over the 6350!

Take it from a guy with an FX-6300 overclocked to 4.2 GHz (beyond the stock clock of the FX-6350): the OP will want the extra 2 cores, because they're not truly independent cores.

 

[IAMEXTREME]

The extra cores is just a silly idea. Most games these days require a maximum of 2cores (4 rarely). So the extra 2 cores does not make much difference. Ever wonder why the intel's 4 core processors totaly flattens these AMD mega 8 core bulldozers? Point to ponder! Cores DO NOT matter.

 

[IAMEXTREME]

Getting a 8320 is a waste as the OP tends to perform tasks which do not require much of threads. Since 6350 offers sufficient 6 threads (if needed), there is no sense getting a 8320 over the 6350!

Why wouldnt if he has money?

The point is to get a bang for the buck. Not if you have money, set it on fire.

 

[Deus Gladiorum]

The extra cores is just a silly idea. Most games these days require a maximum of 2cores (4 rarely). So the extra 2 cores does not make much difference. Ever wonder why the intel's 4 core processors totaly flattens these AMD mega 8 core bulldozers? Point to ponder! Cores DO NOT matter.

What's it like living in 2006?

Seriously, go look at the previous benchmark I posted. The things you're saying right now are completely false.

 

[IAMEXTREME]

Getting a 8320 is a waste as the OP tends to perform tasks which do not require much of threads. Since 6350 offers sufficient 6 threads (if needed), there is no sense getting a 8320 over the 6350!

Why wouldnt if he has money?

The extra cores is just a silly idea. Most games these days require a maximum of 2cores (4 rarely). So the extra 2 cores does not make much difference. Ever wonder why the intel's 4 core processors totaly flattens these AMD mega 8 core bulldozers? Point to ponder! Cores DO NOT matter.

What's it like living in 2006?

Seriously, go look at the previous benchmark I posted. The things you're saying right now are completely false.

Time to wake up son.

The previous benchmarks show the 6300 and the 8350. The 6350 is a factory OC'ed cpu and comes at par with the 8350 with slight further OC'ing by the OP himself. However if you notice i7 4770k, which apparently is a 4 core processor, smokes AMD's 9590, hence shows CORES DO NOT MATTER!!

 

[Deus Gladiorum]

The extra cores is just a silly idea. Most games these days require a maximum of 2cores (4 rarely). So the extra 2 cores does not make much difference. Ever wonder why the intel's 4 core processors totaly flattens these AMD mega 8 core bulldozers? Point to ponder! Cores DO NOT matter.

So from you advice we could be fine with 2 cores proccesors. crysis 3 and battlefield use only 2 cores? even bad comany 2 would benefit from 4 cores rather tha 2

Yea exactly. What in the world is this guy saying? Maybe that'd fly with a 4-core intel processor on an older game, but AMD is a whole different story. AMD does not have the same physical core setup as Intel. AMD uses logical cores, unlike Intel which uses physical cores. That's why an 8 core AMD is the only thing that can be compared to a 4 core Intel.

I'll repost the benchmarks again for both the OP's and IAMEXTREME's benefit:

Now, let's just look at the FX-4300 and the FX-6300. They're of the exact same per-core architecture, and in fact the FX-4300 has a higher clock speed (3.8 GHz) than the FX-6300 (3.5 GHz), so if there was any impact due to clock speed, logically then the advantage should go to the FX-4300 according to what he's saying, right--Since games apparently don't use more than 2 cores and so a 4 core should be more than sufficient?

Well clearly that's just wrong. The FX-6300 which has 2 extra cores, the exact same architecture, and a lower clock speed beats the FX-4300 outright. It's pretty obvious that IAMEXTREME's logic does not hold true in the slightest.

 

[IAMEXTREME]

The extra cores is just a silly idea. Most games these days require a maximum of 2cores (4 rarely). So the extra 2 cores does not make much difference. Ever wonder why the intel's 4 core processors totaly flattens these AMD mega 8 core bulldozers? Point to ponder! Cores DO NOT matter.

So from you advice we could be fine with 2 cores proccesors. crysis 3 and battlefield use only 2 cores? even bad comany 2 would benefit from 4 cores rather tha 2

I never suggested to use a Core-2-duo. The point was that cpu performance does not depends on the number of cores it has, (which is generally a wrong conception).

 

[JOOK-D]

8320 and a nice cooler (Hyper 212 EVO).

 

[Deus Gladiorum]

Getting a 8320 is a waste as the OP tends to perform tasks which do not require much of threads. Since 6350 offers sufficient 6 threads (if needed), there is no sense getting a 8320 over the 6350!

Why wouldnt if he has money?

The extra cores is just a silly idea. Most games these days require a maximum of 2cores (4 rarely). So the extra 2 cores does not make much difference. Ever wonder why the intel's 4 core processors totaly flattens these AMD mega 8 core bulldozers? Point to ponder! Cores DO NOT matter.

What's it like living in 2006?

Seriously, go look at the previous benchmark I posted. The things you're saying right now are completely false.

Time to wake up son.

The previous benchmarks show the 6300 and the 8350. The 6350 is a factory OC'ed cpu and comes at par with the 8350 with slight further OC'ing by the OP himself. However if you notice i7 4770k, which apparently is a 4 core processor, smokes AMD's 9590, hence shows CORES DO NOT MATTER!!

You're comparing two radically different architectures across two different companies. Cores are complex, and the way they work for AMD as I stated previously has nothing to do with the way they work for Intel. You're comparing planes with helicopters right now. Both will get you off the ground, but their methods of doing so are completely different. Clearly you know absolutely nothing about AMD or how they differ from Intel. In fact, you're just using contradictory logic. Pay attention to some of the other things we've said.

As I stated previously, if you compare the FX-4300 with the FX-6300 (the FX-4300 being of a higher clock speed and the same architecutre) then the FX-6300 is the clear performance champion. So what the hell are you saying trying to compare an Intel and AMD CPU given the context of this argument? The difference between those two varies massively beyond just the number of cores!

 

[IAMEXTREME]

Getting a 8320 is a waste as the OP tends to perform tasks which do not require much of threads. Since 6350 offers sufficient 6 threads (if needed), there is no sense getting a 8320 over the 6350!

Why wouldnt if he has money?

The extra cores is just a silly idea. Most games these days require a maximum of 2cores (4 rarely). So the extra 2 cores does not make much difference. Ever wonder why the intel's 4 core processors totaly flattens these AMD mega 8 core bulldozers? Point to ponder! Cores DO NOT matter.

What's it like living in 2006?

Seriously, go look at the previous benchmark I posted. The things you're saying right now are completely false.

Time to wake up son.

The previous benchmarks show the 6300 and the 8350. The 6350 is a factory OC'ed cpu and comes at par with the 8350 with slight further OC'ing by the OP himself. However if you notice i7 4770k, which apparently is a 4 core processor, smokes AMD's 9590, hence shows CORES DO NOT MATTER!!

You're comparing two radically different architectures across two different companies. Cores are complex, and the way they work for AMD as I stated previously has nothing to do with the way they work for Intel. You're comparing planes with helicopters right now. Both will get you off the ground, but their methods of doing so are completely different. Clearly you know absolutely nothing about AMD or how they differ from Intel. In fact, you're just using contradictory logic. Pay attention to some of the other things we've said.

As I stated previously, if you compare the FX-4300 with the FX-6300 (the FX-4300 being of a higher clock speed and the same architecutre) then the FX-6300 is the clear performance champion. So what the hell are you saying trying to compare an Intel and AMD CPU given the context of this argument? The difference between those two varies massively beyond just the number of cores!

Read this:
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-8320-vs-AMD-FX-6350
Extra $20 isn't worth spending for a minimal performance difference!

 

[IAMEXTREME]

Getting a 8320 is a waste as the OP tends to perform tasks which do not require much of threads. Since 6350 offers sufficient 6 threads (if needed), there is no sense getting a 8320 over the 6350!

Why wouldnt if he has money?

The extra cores is just a silly idea. Most games these days require a maximum of 2cores (4 rarely). So the extra 2 cores does not make much difference. Ever wonder why the intel's 4 core processors totaly flattens these AMD mega 8 core bulldozers? Point to ponder! Cores DO NOT matter.

What's it like living in 2006?

Seriously, go look at the previous benchmark I posted. The things you're saying right now are completely false.

Time to wake up son.

The previous benchmarks show the 6300 and the 8350. The 6350 is a factory OC'ed cpu and comes at par with the 8350 with slight further OC'ing by the OP himself. However if you notice i7 4770k, which apparently is a 4 core processor, smokes AMD's 9590, hence shows CORES DO NOT MATTER!!

You're comparing two radically different architectures across two different companies. Cores are complex, and the way they work for AMD as I stated previously has nothing to do with the way they work for Intel. You're comparing planes with helicopters right now. Both will get you off the ground, but their methods of doing so are completely different. Clearly you know absolutely nothing about AMD or how they differ from Intel. In fact, you're just using contradictory logic. Pay attention to some of the other things we've said.

As I stated previously, if you compare the FX-4300 with the FX-6300 (the FX-4300 being of a higher clock speed and the same architecutre) then the FX-6300 is the clear performance champion. So what the hell are you saying trying to compare an Intel and AMD CPU given the context of this argument? The difference between those two varies massively beyond just the number of cores!

This is lame.
If cores "did" had an impact on the performance, AMD's 8150 should perform better than the 6350 as now, it's 8cores vs 6cores, yet the 6 cores take the lead!
It's not all about cores!

 

[Deus Gladiorum]

Read this:
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-8320-vs-AMD-FX-6350
Extra $20 isn't worth spending for a minimal performance difference!

You're just cherry picking. CPUBoss uses an aggregate score based on a number of factors related to the CPU, including price : performance ratio and single core performance. If you took the time to actually read thoroughly you'd see that the verdict comes down to what we already know:

1. Since the two are of the exact same architecture, the one with the higher clock speed will have the best single core performance.
2. In a benchmark that uses multiple cores, regardless of single core performance the one with the extra cores results in the best performance.

This tells us literally nothing about how it'll perform in games. Don't try and throw such meaningless numbers at us to prove your point. Sophistry is meaningless.

This is lame.
If cores "did" had an impact on the performance, AMD's 8150 should perform better than the 6350 as now, it's 8cores vs 6cores, yet the 6 cores take the lead!
It's not all about cores!

Again, stop cherry picking. Do a little research on AMD first before you start making such brash claims. The FX-x1xx is of a completely different architecture than the FX-x3xx. The FX-x1xx (4100, 4150, 4170, 6100, 8150, etc) is of the Bulldozer/Zambezi architecture and many people noted how poor the architecture was. Oftentimes it was criticized for being less powerful than the Phenom II CPUs it was meant to replace. However, the FX-x3xx (4300, 4350, 6300, 6350, 8320, 8350) is of the vastly superior Piledriver/Vishera architecture. You can't just compare those 2 based on the cores they have. If you're going to compare two CPUs and try to argue that their varying numbers of cores mean nothing, than the architecture can't be so vastly different.

Obviously it's not all about cores, but they do have a major impact on performance especially because of how different cores across different CPUs can work. As I've tried to stress multiple times now and which you seem to be completely ignoring, AMD cores are not at all the same as the physical cores used by Intel. An "8" core AMD CPU actually consists of 4 modules, each module consisting of 2 logical cores for an effective 4 cores in total. Similarly, a "6" core AMD CPU actually consist of 3 modules, each module consisting of 2 logical cores for an effective 3 cores in total. So essentially, when you're comparing an 8 core AMD CPU with a 6 core AMD CPU, it'd be more accurate to say you're comparing a 4 core against a 3 core, and most modern games today use the full 4 cores!

 

[jay2577]

For upcoming games will will use more cores an 8 core would be nice but if moneys tight i would get a 6 core as that will be good enough for quite a while. The graphics card is more important for games these days and most cpu's are good enough.I personally have an AMD 8320 and am happy with it.
The arguing can get a bit out of hand sometimes on these threads and slightly off topic from the original question.
if you get a 6 core will you spend the savings on a better graphics card?