FX-6300 vs 8350

[kennethk]

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 September 26, 2013 by kennethk

[SpikeSoprano]

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.
 

[kennethk]

 

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.

 

 

 

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 September 26, 2013 by kennethk

[DanTheGamer11]

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

[Kiro]

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/bench/product/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.

[SpikeSoprano]

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

[kennethk]

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/bench/product/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.

 

 

 

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

[Bosco]

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.

[kennethk]

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

[Kiro]

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.

[kennethk]

 

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.

[Bosco]

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.