Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

FX-6300 vs 8350


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 kennethk

kennethk

    Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 616 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 September 2013 - 08:11 PM

Having a hard time deciding on the two, in a real world performance would the average user be able to notice a difference? I'm stocking this card with a gigabyte 7950 card.

What I'll mainly be using it for is word processing/file transferring.

 

Sorry if I asked before I can't remember. I'm thinking of just taking the $80 and using it on a better board or water cooler. So thoughts and ideas? 

GIGABYTE GA-970A-D3P AM3+/AM3 AMD 970 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard

 

AMD FX-6300 Vishera 3.5GHz (4.1GHz Turbo) Socket AM3+ 95W Six-Core Desktop Processor FD6300WMHKBOX

 

Build will be $430 if I go 8350

$350 if I go 6300


Edited by kennethk, 25 September 2013 - 08:15 PM.

Really wish I could experience an SSD but of course my bank tells me that I can not.

 

  • Graphics: CardAMD Radeon HD 7950
    Processor: AMD FX-6300
    Motherboard: ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. M5A99FX PRO R2.0
    RAM: Crucial Ballstix 8GB Sport Edition
    PSU: Rosewill 630W;Non-modual
    Operating: system64-bit Windows 7
     

#2 SpikeSoprano

SpikeSoprano

    Certified Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1541 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cape Breton,Canada

Posted 25 September 2013 - 08:23 PM

Stock clocks on the 8350 are higher than the 6300. So even if you only use 2-4 cores for gaming, out of 8 or 6, the 8350 will be a little faster. However, the 6300 can easily overclock to 4Ghz like the 8350 and then you'll be talking equal performance. If you look at most benchmarks, there's not too much advantage in going 8350 anyway. And really, this is only for CPU bound titles, which are not terribly common.
 

:rolleyes:


CPU>I7 2600K  -MB>GIGABYTE  Z68X-UD3H-B3-MEM>KINGSTON 1600 MHZ-HYPER 212 EVO

VIDEO>ZOTAC GTX 660 2 GB-SSD>VERTEX 3 120 GB-HD>WD 500+WD 250 GB-G500 MOUSE

CASE>ROSEWILL CHALLENGER W/4 120MM FANS-PSU> 650 WATT-MONITOR>24 INCH BENQ


#3 kennethk

kennethk

    Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 616 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 September 2013 - 08:41 PM

 

Stock clocks on the 8350 are higher than the 6300. So even if you only use 2-4 cores for gaming, out of 8 or 6, the 8350 will be a little faster. However, the 6300 can easily overclock to 4Ghz like the 8350 and then you'll be talking equal performance. If you look at most benchmarks, there's not too much advantage in going 8350 anyway. And really, this is only for CPU bound titles, which are not terribly common.
 

:rolleyes:

 

 

Guessing It'd need to be water cooled if I wanted to OC to 4ghz or would a cheaper H55 work just fine?

Care to elaborate on what you mean by bound titles? 

I was looking at benches and saw it's just about above the performance of a i3, guessing if OC it could almost match an i5s performance.

 

 

Also, good job on stealing content from a user on Toms hardware.


Edited by kennethk, 25 September 2013 - 10:16 PM.

Really wish I could experience an SSD but of course my bank tells me that I can not.

 

  • Graphics: CardAMD Radeon HD 7950
    Processor: AMD FX-6300
    Motherboard: ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. M5A99FX PRO R2.0
    RAM: Crucial Ballstix 8GB Sport Edition
    PSU: Rosewill 630W;Non-modual
    Operating: system64-bit Windows 7
     

#4 DanTheGamer11

DanTheGamer11

    When life gives you lemons, eat them.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3920 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 September 2013 - 11:45 PM

Crysis 3 is an example of a cpu bound game(then again could just be poop optimization)


Processor AMD Phenom II X6 1055T @3.2Ghz
Cooler Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo
Memory 8GB 1.48V 1600Mhz DDR3 Crucial Ballistix Tactical
Motherboard Asrock N68C-GS FX
Graphics XFX HD 7950
Storage 1TB WD Caviar Blue HDD, 240GB Kingston Hyper X SSD, Thanks OCC & Kingston, makes a big difference  :)
Optical Disk Drive Sony Optiarc DVD/CD ReWriter
Power Supply Cooler Master GX 650W Bronze
Case Cooler Master CM690


#5 Kiro

Kiro

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 89 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 26 September 2013 - 05:52 AM

For mainly word processing and file transferring, I'm doubtful you'll notice much real-use difference between the two.  Even for gaming, like the others have said, there'd be little difference: a few more FPS for most titles.

 

http://anandtech.com...duct/699?vs=697

 

I'd personally go for the 6300 and save the money for something else.  The specs for the motherboard look decent enough with a good bios.  These processors do run a bit hot, so if you're looking into overclocking, water cooling would definitely help.  Got my 4170 safely up to 4.9 GHz on air (Hyper 212+), though, and Piledriver is said to run cooler than Bulldozer so you might be fine going the air cooling route.  Of course, this depends on how much you'd like to overclock.



#6 SpikeSoprano

SpikeSoprano

    Certified Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1541 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cape Breton,Canada

Posted 26 September 2013 - 07:07 AM

 

 

Stock clocks on the 8350 are higher than the 6300. So even if you only use 2-4 cores for gaming, out of 8 or 6, the 8350 will be a little faster. However, the 6300 can easily overclock to 4Ghz like the 8350 and then you'll be talking equal performance. If you look at most benchmarks, there's not too much advantage in going 8350 anyway. And really, this is only for CPU bound titles, which are not terribly common.
 

:rolleyes:

 

 

Guessing It'd need to be water cooled if I wanted to OC to 4ghz or would a cheaper H55 work just fine?

Care to elaborate on what you mean by bound titles? 

I was looking at benches and saw it's just about above the performance of a i3, guessing if OC it could almost match an i5s performance.

 

 

Also, good job on stealing content from a user on Toms hardware.

 

But I totally agree with him, ha, ha,, if you do a lot of video encoding the 8350 is your best bet, if not don't worry about it.


CPU>I7 2600K  -MB>GIGABYTE  Z68X-UD3H-B3-MEM>KINGSTON 1600 MHZ-HYPER 212 EVO

VIDEO>ZOTAC GTX 660 2 GB-SSD>VERTEX 3 120 GB-HD>WD 500+WD 250 GB-G500 MOUSE

CASE>ROSEWILL CHALLENGER W/4 120MM FANS-PSU> 650 WATT-MONITOR>24 INCH BENQ


#7 kennethk

kennethk

    Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 616 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 September 2013 - 01:09 PM

For mainly word processing and file transferring, I'm doubtful you'll notice much real-use difference between the two.  Even for gaming, like the others have said, there'd be little difference: a few more FPS for most titles.

 

http://anandtech.com...duct/699?vs=697

 

I'd personally go for the 6300 and save the money for something else.  The specs for the motherboard look decent enough with a good bios.  These processors do run a bit hot, so if you're looking into overclocking, water cooling would definitely help.  Got my 4170 safely up to 4.9 GHz on air (Hyper 212+), though, and Piledriver is said to run cooler than Bulldozer so you might be fine going the air cooling route.  Of course, this depends on how much you'd like to overclock.

 

Thanks, so should the H55 help make is stable enough to OC to 4.5ghz with a 6300?

 

 

 

 

Stock clocks on the 8350 are higher than the 6300. So even if you only use 2-4 cores for gaming, out of 8 or 6, the 8350 will be a little faster. However, the 6300 can easily overclock to 4Ghz like the 8350 and then you'll be talking equal performance. If you look at most benchmarks, there's not too much advantage in going 8350 anyway. And really, this is only for CPU bound titles, which are not terribly common.
 

:rolleyes:

 

 

Guessing It'd need to be water cooled if I wanted to OC to 4ghz or would a cheaper H55 work just fine?

Care to elaborate on what you mean by bound titles? 

I was looking at benches and saw it's just about above the performance of a i3, guessing if OC it could almost match an i5s performance.

 

 

Also, good job on stealing content from a user on Toms hardware.

 

But I totally agree with him, ha, ha,, if you do a lot of video encoding the 8350 is your best bet, if not don't worry about it.

 

Don't agree with him because he swiped it from Toms hardware and didn't write any of it himself, except for the smartalic rolling eye smiley :D


Really wish I could experience an SSD but of course my bank tells me that I can not.

 

  • Graphics: CardAMD Radeon HD 7950
    Processor: AMD FX-6300
    Motherboard: ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. M5A99FX PRO R2.0
    RAM: Crucial Ballstix 8GB Sport Edition
    PSU: Rosewill 630W;Non-modual
    Operating: system64-bit Windows 7
     

#8 Bosco

Bosco

    OCC Boss

  • Senior Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32282 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 26 September 2013 - 10:18 PM

I own both chips and I have the say the 8350 does make FX6300 look weak in some things.

 

The biggest change between the two I saw is adding SSD's, the 8350 performs very well for basic use and you can feel the difference for sure.

 

Gaming, I notice nothing at all, but I am video card bound anyways, but overall use, and heavy tasking I like the 8350.

 

The FX6300 steps up as well with an SSD and performs well, but imo the 8350 the change is more in your face.


Main Gaming Rig
Intel 3960X
MSI X79A-GD65 8D
16GB of Corsair Vengeance
NVIDIA 780TI's in SLI
Corsair Force 3 GT 240GB SSD
Coolermaster 932 Case
Noctua D14 CPU Cooler
Thermaltake Toughpower XT Platinum 1275 Watts
3 X 24" LCD's
Donating to OCC :::: OCC Site Rules :::: OCC Reviews
RIP Verran and Nemo gone but never will be forgotten.


#9 kennethk

kennethk

    Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 616 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 September 2013 - 07:44 AM

Hi Bosco, have you taken the 6300 to any OC extremes?
I'd like to get the FX630 and maybe a H55 for liquid cooling so I can OC it over 4GHz.
I'm running a Gigabyte 7950 so I should see 60fps ultra settings via gaming?

I might pick up a 120GB SanDisk SSD for under $100s in the future right now I can spare a minute or two of my life on load times. The sabortooth board however I'm not so sure on, sure it'll look good in my Corsair Carbide Series Air 540 but the blue pcb on the gpu meh, ignore me I'm just rambling :P


Really wish I could experience an SSD but of course my bank tells me that I can not.

 

  • Graphics: CardAMD Radeon HD 7950
    Processor: AMD FX-6300
    Motherboard: ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. M5A99FX PRO R2.0
    RAM: Crucial Ballstix 8GB Sport Edition
    PSU: Rosewill 630W;Non-modual
    Operating: system64-bit Windows 7
     

#10 Kiro

Kiro

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 89 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 27 September 2013 - 11:25 AM

I'd like to get the FX6300 and maybe a H55 for liquid cooling so I can OC it over 4GHz.
I'm running a Gigabyte 7950 so I should see 60fps ultra settings via gaming?

 

I don't have any personal experience with the FX-6300 or water cooling in general, so I did a quick search.

 

People have gotten the FX-6300 to 4.5+ GHz with air cooling and I believe the H55 water cooler is better than most air coolers, so you should have no problems.  Many people seem to hit a wall above 4.6 GHz that isn't related to temperature, but some have gotten around it and get the FX-6300 to 4.8+ GHz.

 

Like with most things, results will vary.  Something as small as the type and amount of thermal paste used will make a difference.

 

FPS depends on a lot of factors and, again, will vary.  People would be able to give you a better idea if you had a particular game in mind.



#11 kennethk

kennethk

    Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 616 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 September 2013 - 12:13 PM

 

I'd like to get the FX6300 and maybe a H55 for liquid cooling so I can OC it over 4GHz.
I'm running a Gigabyte 7950 so I should see 60fps ultra settings via gaming?

 

I don't have any personal experience with the FX-6300 or water cooling in general, so I did a quick search.

 

People have gotten the FX-6300 to 4.5+ GHz with air cooling and I believe the H55 water cooler is better than most air coolers, so you should have no problems.  Many people seem to hit a wall above 4.6 GHz that isn't related to temperature, but some have gotten around it and get the FX-6300 to 4.8+ GHz.

 

Like with most things, results will vary.  Something as small as the type and amount of thermal paste used will make a difference.

 

FPS depends on a lot of factors and, again, will vary.  People would be able to give you a better idea if you had a particular game in mind.

 

Even when we get stock 5ghz cpus I doubt you'd see a normal difference between a 4.5ghz vs a 5ghz processor.


Really wish I could experience an SSD but of course my bank tells me that I can not.

 

  • Graphics: CardAMD Radeon HD 7950
    Processor: AMD FX-6300
    Motherboard: ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. M5A99FX PRO R2.0
    RAM: Crucial Ballstix 8GB Sport Edition
    PSU: Rosewill 630W;Non-modual
    Operating: system64-bit Windows 7
     

#12 Bosco

Bosco

    OCC Boss

  • Senior Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32282 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 29 September 2013 - 03:42 PM

I have had the 6300 at 4.5 a few times but I can still beat it will the 8350 without to much trouble lol.


Main Gaming Rig
Intel 3960X
MSI X79A-GD65 8D
16GB of Corsair Vengeance
NVIDIA 780TI's in SLI
Corsair Force 3 GT 240GB SSD
Coolermaster 932 Case
Noctua D14 CPU Cooler
Thermaltake Toughpower XT Platinum 1275 Watts
3 X 24" LCD's
Donating to OCC :::: OCC Site Rules :::: OCC Reviews
RIP Verran and Nemo gone but never will be forgotten.