6 core vs 8 core AMD FX ?

[Cvrk]

So i am getting a new CPU for my other computer.
I have boiled it to these two CPU There pretty much the same.I wanna use the PC for gaming.
Yeah i know it's not GeForce Titan i7 cpu water cooling type of gaming with everything on ultra settings.It's whatever works gaming.
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-8300-vs-AMD-FX-6300

Question is : 6 core VS 8 core? Witch one of these would be better for gaming.

Also i'm changing the the PSU
This one: Sirtec High Power Element BRONZE 600W
http://www.pcgarage.ro/surse/sirtec-high-power/element-bronze-600w-1/
or this one : Segotep Raynor Power 650W
http://www.emag.ro/sursa-segotep-ra...tx-2-31-pfc-activ-rp650-segotep/pd/DZ38JBBBM/

 

[natr0n]

I would choose an 8 core.

 

[Cvrk]

Can you give me some details why ? As you can see the 6 core is 3,5 GHz. Any advice is much appreciated

 

[qubit]

I'd say go Intel and forget about AMD since the performance just isn't there, but am I right that you already have an AMD mobo and just wanna upgrade it?

So, 6 or 8 cores, which to get? I don't think you'll see a lot of difference in performance except for certain highly multithreaded tasks such as video encoding done using particular programs. However, it's always good to have more in reserve, so I'd go for the 8 core. Also, AMD's top processor doesn't cost very much nowadays, so that's another reason to get the better model.

Hope this helps.

 

[natr0n]

Can you give me some details why ? As you can see the 6 core is 3,5 GHz. Any advice is much appreciated

More games are using more cores lately, so that future proofs you.
Also, these cpu overclock pretty easily so you can make up the lower clocks difference.

Its just sold at lower clock to stay within a watt/power usage.

 

[Cvrk]

No.I don't have the mobo yet. I have the GPU AMD Sapphire R9 270 Dualx OC 256 bit 2GB VRAM. Sure intel sounds good,but the prices are high. Some equivalent of this would be a i5,but there expensive.

 

[peche]

Question is : 6 core VS 8 core? Witch one of these would be better for gaming.

8Core will be more "future Proof", 6 Core will do the job and also save a little bit on your Electricity bill,

Also i'm changing the the PSU
This one: Sirtec High Power Element BRONZE 600W
http://www.pcgarage.ro/surse/sirtec-high-power/element-bronze-600w-1/

Correct... 80+ Certified at least... the other options is not even 80+ certified...


Regards,

 

[RCoon]

Well I wouldn't touch the Segotep PSU with a barge pole! I don't believe I've seen them in the 80PLUS database before, although the OEM CWT rings a bell with that name. The Sirtec unit isn't great, it's one of those High Power rebadged units that I see sold on the cheap quite often.

I think I'd rather go for the 6300 (I owned one of those 6350's about 3-4 years ago), and a better quality PSU for a more well rounded system. While it's nice to have the 2 extra modules, I think if clocked higher the 6300 would serve its purpose, particularly for standard man-shoot 1080p gaming.

If you've any intention on playing Source games, RTS games as a whole, or a lot of terrible console ports, I'd be looking at intel instead, even if it's just an i3 or the G3258 and clocking the bejeesus out of it. The IPC and single core power is what you're going to need for those, and even an 8350 overclocked isn't going to provide the performance you need on some very particular titles. Discounting that, the 6350 would be a good option, provided you spent the leftover cash on an XFX, Sea Sonic, EVGA or similar PSU (550W is fine).

 

[TRWOV]

I would go for the 6300 too, costs just $10 more than the 4300 and has the full 8MB of L3 that the FX 83xx ship with (4300 has 4MB L3 only). Also you'll have a far greater thermal headroom for overclocking. "Losing" 2 threads isn't a deal breaker since few games scale beyond 4 threads.

If you absolutely need all the threads you can get (maybe you want to capture and transcode gameplay videos or something) then go for the 8320/8350/8370.

 

[Cvrk]

provided you spent the leftover cash on an XFX, Sea Sonic, EVGA or similar PSU (550W is fine).

No left over. The place were i buy stuff in my country the FX 6350 is more expensive then the 8300 Funny ,right ? But i get your point.

 

[st2000]

i dont know about AMD CPU, know that APU is smthg useful for medium grafics,so cant advice
just searched for PSUs and i'm in total
even here, in Russia with ~2x costs to for example summer, we have 25-40% less prices
dunno, if it's ok, but if i would be on your place, i'll search for abroad shops...

 

[qubit]

No.I don't have the mobo yet. I have the GPU AMD Sapphire R9 270 Dualx OC 256 bit 2GB VRAM. Sure intel sounds good,but the prices are high. Some equivalent of this would be a i5,but there expensive.

I reckon you'd do better with an i3 + HyperThreading than going AMD, personally. That will bring the price down significantly. Yes, that's how big the difference between Intel and AMD is nowdays.

Those PSUs, RCoon is right. Just get one of those really decent brands that he has listed and you'll be fine. The top two to get imo are Seasonic and Corsair, but there are other decent brands out there too. When you find a model that you like, I recommend you post on here and get feedback before handing over cash for your next PSU.

 

[newtekie1]

Since the 6350 and 8300 both turbo to the same 4.2GHz, I say go with the 8300, especially if it is cheaper.

 

[Cvrk]

A lot has changed since last night. I just noticed something VERY important! I already bought the graphics card. And it;s a PCI Express 3.0 With that in mind i need a mobo that will have that slot. There is no motherboard with AM3+ socket that has PCI Express 3.0
I am locking at FM2+ sockets. Goodbye amd 6-8 core. Cuz all they have is quad-core. Something in my price range would be this AMD Kaveri A10-7700K Black Edition 3.4GHz
http://www.pcgarage.ro/procesoare/amd/kaveri-a10-x4-7700k-black-edition-35ghz-box/
Quad core amd sounds so old,damn it! I am kinda forced to go with intel. And the most cheapest quad core is still 100$ more that what i was thinking on spending Intel Core i5 4460 3.2GHz
http://www.pcgarage.ro/procesoare/intel/core-i5-4460-32ghz-box/ with socket 1150,there alot of mobos that have PCI Express 3.0

What choice do i have considering that i need PCI Express 3.0 otherwise i lose 8% performance if i put my 3.0 in a 2.0 mobo slot (i did some research on the difference)

 

[qubit]

I'm not sure if you've seen my post, but you can get away with an i3+HyperThreading to save money. This gives you two physical cores and two virtual cores which is good enough for most scenarios.

There are a couple of articles on TPU about the performance difference between PCI-E 2.0 and 3.0 which shows that the performance difference is a lot less than 8% so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GTX_980_PCI-Express_Scaling

Older article: www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Ivy_Bridge_PCI-Express_Scaling

 

[st2000]

There are a couple of articles on TPU about the performance difference between PCI-E 2.0 and 3.0 which shows that the performance difference is a lot less than 8% so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

there will be less difference on 270x card(or even no difference)
http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Impact-of-PCI-E-Speed-on-Gaming-Performance-518/

 

[Mathragh]

I'm not sure if you've seen my post, but you can get away with an i3+HyperThreading to save money. This gives you two physical cores and two virtual cores which is good enough for most scenarios.

There are a couple of articles on TPU about the performance difference between PCI-E 2.0 and 3.0 which shows that the performance difference is a lot less than 8% so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GTX_980_PCI-Express_Scaling

Older article: www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Ivy_Bridge_PCI-Express_Scaling[/QUOTE]

In the light of recent developments both in the gaming industry (newest assasins creed) and API's (Vulkan and DX12) I honestly don't think it's a good idea to recommend hyperthreaded dual cores for gaming anymore.

In the light of recent developments both in the gaming industry (newest assasins creed, Battlefield3/4, Crysis 3 to mention a few) and API's (Vulkan and DX12) I honestly don't think it's a good idea to recommend hyperthreaded dual cores for gaming anymore.
Sure you can say that at this moment they'll let you run at 90fps instead of a 60fps with an AMD 6/8 core, but once those new gen games come out you'll be out of luck since they'll all be way better optimized for multicore CPU's.
At this moment I really don't think that getting a dual core can be justified when there are so many cheap CPU's with more cores, even from intel.
PS: for gaming for the foreseeable future PCIE-3.0 doesn't seem to be needed (yet). Even the newest games will only slow down by about 2-5% in the absolute worst case scenario when going from PCIE-3.0 to 2.0.

 

[Frick]

, although the OEM CWT rings a bell with that name.

They make both great units and bad units.

 

[st2000]

also, for PSUs i'll advice this(a bit more price, but it got 24 months guarantee - my fault, both got same guarantee)
http://www.pcgarage.ro/surse/sirtec-high-power/element-bronze-ii-600w/ vs yours choice
http://www.pcgarage.ro/surse/segotep/rp650/
just compare them in "Voltaje/Amperaje"

 

[qubit]

@Mathragh You're right about HT v real cores, but I think Cvrk wants to keep costs as low as possible, which means inevitable compromise and is why I made this suggestion. I also wouldn't go less than 4 full cores nowadays either. In my opinion, I suspect that even games better optimised for multicore will still run faster and with less hitches on Intel's 2 cores + HT due to the piss-poor IPC of AMD's processors with their funny siamesed cores instead of proper discrete ones.

Also, stuff just seems to run more reliably on Intel generally (I bet I get flamed, lol) than AMD with less annoying, inexplicable glitches which shouldn't be discounted.

 

[st2000]

I suspect that even games better optimised for multicore will still run faster and with less hitches on Intel's 2 cores + HT due to the piss-poor IPC of AMD's processors with their funny siamesed cores instead of proper discrete ones

dont think it would matter if you play on 270x(yeap, if you'll got 290x - sure, your CPU will be a bottleneck, but if you got mid-ranged gpu + AMD CPU, new drivers , i think all wil be ok)
or do you think you can play smthg like AC:Unity on full ultra on 270x and only CPU will not handle this?
the only game that has serious problems with AMD CPU as i know is Dying light, but creators're resolving these issues(as they claim)

 

[marmiteonpizza]

I have an FX8360 (8 core) running at 4GHz. I can play most games on ultra settings with 60fps, so when people say AMD processors fail to perform at a high level, what they say is rubbish!
So you can still build a top-of-the-range PC with an AMD processor. And I really recommend the 8350 - the extra 0.5GHz will make a difference =)

 

[st2000]

if i'd be an owner of amd CPU, i'd cant stop until i get a big tower cooler and OC close/over 5Ghz
cause what's the point to own AMD and not to superOC?

 

[qubit]

dont think it would matter if you play on 270x(yeap, if you'll got 290x - sure, your CPU will be a bottleneck, but if you got mid-ranged gpu + AMD CPU, new drivers , i think all wil be ok)
or do you think you can play smthg like AC:Unity on full ultra on 270x and only CPU will not handle this?
the only game that has serious problems with AMD CPU as i know is Dying light, but creators're resolving these issues(as they claim)

I'm talking more about pairing an AMD CPU with a high end graphics card, where the CPU bottleneck will be much more obvious.

I have an FX8360 (8 core) running at 4GHz. I can play most games on ultra settings with 60fps, so when people say AMD processors fail to perform at a high level, what they say is rubbish!
So you can still build a top-of-the-range PC with an AMD processor. And I really recommend the 8350 - the extra 0.5GHz will make a difference =)

If you compare benchmark reviews of AMD compared to Intel (just have a quick google) you'll see that they're a lot slower and that really matters - we're talking 30% differences in some tests.

The fact you can get 60fps in a particular scenario doesn't really mean very much. Also, I'd like to see it hit a consistent 120fps on a modern monitor with modern games, which is the new standard for framerate.

Also, framerate varies enormously with workload, so a higher end Intel CPU won't dip as low as an AMD one, which is what matters to keep framerate smooth.

The only thing going for AMD processors nowadays is that they're cheap, helping someone on a budget to build a useable gaming rig at a lower price, but at the expense of the all-important framerate performance.

 

[st2000]

The only thing going for AMD processors nowadays is that they're cheap, helping someone on a budget to build a useable gaming rig at a lower price, but at the expense of the all-important framerate performance.

i think that amd is prefered in mid-ranged and low-end systems
they got low price, naked performance per dollar(but not everyone thinks that you should build a good cooling case, get at least a tower for cpu-stock cooler cant produce enough cooling at low rpm)
modern PCs are aimed not only for naked performnce, but for comfortable use too - intel and nvidia tries to go low TDP and performance is on 2nd place
just give me silent PC and it will be ok if it loses 20-30% of performance
also, PCs are going to HTPCs connected to TVs, so more than 60 fps are not needed(srsly, this is for 95%, not for enthusiasts)
also, you can check monitor resolution in steam users statistics - 40% gamers got less than 1080p(and it's ok for them)