Fx 6300 with r9 285 Vs fx 8350 with r9 280

[karanarya98]

Hey Guys
i am thinking to build a new pc so i am confused shall i buy fx 6300 with r9 285 or fx 8350 with r9 280 :|
or shall i go with a nvidia gpu
Thank you everyone in advance

 

[Hitman928]

What's your budget and what country are you in? From the above choices, easily 8350 w/ an r9 280 unless you really want trueaudio or something.

 

[SlowSpyder]

The R9 280 and 285 are close enough that I don't think it matters much, but the R9 280 has 3GB of vram vs. 2GB on the 285. The FX 8350 also can stretch it's legs beyond the FX 6300 with the extra cores and higher clocks. I say get the FX 8350 + R9 280.

 

[MeldarthX]

I'd modify it.......go with 8320e.....*cheaper than the 8350 usually by about 50 pounds* and OC the snot out of it; usually get same if not higher clocks for less power and put the money you saved towards 290

 

[garagisti]

I'd modify it.......go with 8320e.....*cheaper than the 8350 usually by about 50 pounds* and OC the snot out of it; usually get same if not higher clocks for less power and put the money you saved towards 290

This! 8320e are reported to OC well too, and reach speeds closer to 9xxx CPUs

 

[Gikaseixas]

The R9 280 and 285 are close enough that I don't think it matters much, but the R9 280 has 3GB of vram vs. 2GB on the 285. The FX 8350 also can stretch it's legs beyond the FX 6300 with the extra cores and higher clocks. I say get the FX 8350 + R9 280.

This makes a lot of sense

 

[lehtv]

Intel i5-4460 or i5-4590
Cheapo board
R9 280 3GB

 

[Phynaz]

Intel i5-4460 or i5-4590
Cheapo board
R9 280 3GB

Ditto

 

[monstercameron]

Ditto

ofcourse.

 

[nurturedhate]

Intel i5-4460 or i5-4590
Cheapo board
R9 280 3GB

This.

 

[Calyptus]

Intel i5-4460 or i5-4590
Cheapo board
R9 280 3GB

This really.

Unless you want to OC, which includes the hassle of buying a sufficient mb/cpu-cooler, paying for the extra power consumption, and playing the silicon lottery, I wouldn't touch a piledriver-cpu.

 

[Erenhardt]

So I will try to fit the trend here:
i7-4790k and don't look back

 

[Headfoot]

Intel i5-4460 or i5-4590
Cheapo board
R9 280 3GB

This

 

[AtenRa]

FX8320 OC to 4,2-4,4GHz with default cooler (Turbo off) and R9 290. Much better than Core i5 + 280.

 

[RussianSensation]

FX8320 OC to 4,2-4,4GHz with default cooler (Turbo off) and R9 290. Much better than Core i5 + 280.

I would have suggested this when I first started building PCs. In today's PC gaming environment where with a modern SB/Haswell Intel i5/i7 CPU the bottleneck becomes largely the GPU, a solid Core i5 OC will last 4-5 years. In that span of time, the R9 280/285 and 290 will become obsolete. That CPU will survive another 2-3 GPU upgrades. However, that FX8320 @ 4.2Ghz is already bottlenecking today and it will get worse with R9 300/GM200 series, even worse with 14nm cards and basically worthless with high-end 10nm cards.

The $100 you save today will cost you more over time since soon enough you have to buy a brand new CPU platform. To exacerbate the matters, AMD's platform has inferior I/O. AMD's SATA 3 performance is inferior, PCIe is outdated, and M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 is basically MIA. To overclock that FX8320 to 4.4Ghz you will need another $30-40 for a good after-market cooler. Yet a stock i5 is faster in games and will use less power at idle and load. It's hard to make a case for the FX8000 series in this case unless you will absolutely not upgrade the GPU or consider a faster SSD/M.2 drive in the next 3-5 years. Normally I don't really care for power usage that much but in this case the difference will become rather large in overclocked states, but the FX8320 won't be close to an overclocked i5.

 

[Gikaseixas]

I would have suggested this when I first started building PCs. In today's PC gaming environment where with a modern SB/Haswell Intel i5/i7 CPU the bottleneck becomes largely the GPU, a solid Core i5 OC will last 4-5 years. In that span of time, the R9 280/285 and 290 will become obsolete. That CPU will survive another 2-3 GPU upgrades. However, that FX8320 @ 4.2Ghz is already bottlenecking today and it will get worse with R9 300/GM200 series, even worse with 14nm cards and basically worthless with high-end 10nm cards.

The $100 you save today will cost you more over time since soon enough you have to buy a brand new CPU platform. To exacerbate the matters, AMD's platform has inferior I/O. AMD's SATA 3 performance is inferior, PCIe is outdated, and M.2 PCIe 3.0 x4 is basically MIA. To overclock that FX8320 to 4.4Ghz you will need another $30-40 for a good after-market cooler. Yet a stock i5 is faster in games and will use less power at idle and load. It's hard to make a case for the FX8000 series in this case unless you will absolutely not upgrade the GPU or consider a faster SSD/M.2 drive in the next 3-5 years. Normally I don't really care for power usage that much but in this case the difference will become rather large in overclocked states, but the FX8320 won't be close to an overclocked i5.

Great post
As much as i like AMD, it is hard to make a case for FX against i5 for gaming. In other areas the FX might beat i5's but gaming is not one of them... who knows if the scenario will change with Windows 10

 

[3DVagabond]

Great post
As much as i like AMD, it is hard to make a case for FX against i5 for gaming. In other areas the FX might beat i5's but gaming is not one of them... who knows if the scenario will change with Windows 10

DX12 should alleviate it.

 

[MeldarthX]

Intel systems will add more to the cost; a lot more actually.

That's why I said 8320e; its got better binning that 8350; OC better; and will use less power.

They are fun systems; combined with the 290; He'll have a machine that will last him gaming wise for a couple of years; and can sell it on after a couple years for still semi decent price and upgrade to either Zen or skylake when that comes out.

that's one of the beauty's of going with that one now; you're not spending as much; mantle and DX 12 will show a difference with these cpus; and it will run everything he wants. Most haven't touched these systems; so they don't know what they can do and just how min difference there actually is between these systems and Intel in real world applications compaired to benchmarks

 

[Flapdrol1337]

Intel systems will add more to the cost; a lot more actually.

It will not, in fact intel is cheaper for gaming, as a haswell i3 will outperform a 8320 on average, which is pretty sad.

 

[lehtv]

Intel systems will add more to the cost; a lot more actually.

That's why I said 8320e; its got better binning that 8350; OC better; and will use less power.

No, it won't add to the cost. Most games still use four or fewer threads, so assuming a quad core Intel vs FX-8320, the comparison in single thread performance is relevant:

So clock for clock, i5 is 80% faster. How much does an i5 setup cost at the very least? $220:

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor ($174.99 @ NCIX US)
Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($44.89 @ SuperBiiz)

What about FX-8320? $190:

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor ($137.95 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: MSI 760GMA-P34(FX) Micro ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($51.99 @ SuperBiiz)

i5-4440 is over 60% faster than FX-8320 in single thread performance, which translates to the same difference in potential gaming performance in the vast majority of games. But it only costs 15% more.

There is no clock speed where FX-8320 will catch up with i5 in single thread performance, except if using LN2 cooling. The best you can do in practice is try to approach the i5, but even at 4.5GHz you'll need an expensive enough motherboard and cooler that it'll end up costing much more than the i5 setup, and the i5 will still be 25% faster. To top it off, the FX will be consuming double the amount of power (which adds to running costs) and the i5 will have an IGP for backup graphics (which adds to utility).

 

[MeldarthX]

wait did you really just link cinebench r10? to attempt to saying 80% in single thread; when show 11.5r much better results; or say 15r? and 760? when 970 chipset for AMD is roughly same price or 5 dollars more

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Proces...and-FX-8370e-Review/Results-Cinebench-R15-and

Single thread yes; the FX is behind; but not as much as you attempt to paint it; and mutlithread........its as fast; and sometimes faster

970 board will get 8320e to 4.5 without any major issues; you don't need expensive cooling to get there. you can easily get 4.2-4.4 with stand heatsink you get from amd; *its not the pile of crap you'd get from Intel*.....

Three you've linked H81 board which has less features than 970....doesn't do OC all that well if at all......same with the cpu; can't be OC; and with new consoles; are are seeing games far more multi threaded than ever before.

Stop trying to use a 8 year old benchmark to show something in a bad light; specially when most places stopped using it while go...

I can post a few reviews of the 8320e;

It wins some and loses; but still a solid chip for the price; which he can put more into video card which is much more important .....

http://benchmarkreviews.com/24051/amd-fx-8320e-am3-processor-performance-review/14/
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8320e_processor_review,20.html

Conclusions; won't tell the difference between this and i5 solid and fun processor.

Again; weakness lightly threaded programs but we are seeing more and more things threaded.

For the price; similar capable Intel processor and board costs more....

 

[Headfoot]

or you can just spend the extra 15% and get a significantly better chip instead of relying on your GPU to bottleneck first...

 

[Flapdrol1337]

ah yes, all these superbly multithreaded new games.

 

[RussianSensation]

970 board will get 8320e to 4.5 without any major issues; you don't need expensive cooling to get there. you can easily get 4.2-4.4 with stand heatsink you get from amd; *its not the pile of crap you'd get from Intel*.....

Even if true, take a look at a stock Sandy Bridge i5 2500K vs. FX9590 @ 4.7Ghz.

...

 

[RussianSensation]

... Continued.

On a good day, FX9590 @ 4.7Ghz matches a stock i5 2500K 3.3Ghz but in CPU demanding titles, it can't even match that. Haswell has another 14-15% greater IPC compared to SB, which suggests a 3.1-3.2Ghz i5 should easily keep up with a max overclocked FX9590 @ 4.7Ghz.

But then you get to this.....

The $50-60 premium over a stock i5 today should the electricity costs take that into account because over the useful life of the system, it makes their price differences less. This is not like a small 70-90W difference between a 970/980 and a 290X, it's basically 200W-250W more once you overclocked the FX8320 to 4.7Ghz. Also, should the OP decide to sell his system, the i5 will have a higher resale value.