Fx 6300 with r9 285 Vs fx 8350 with r9 280

[tential]

Using DX 12 as an argument as to why FX processors may catch up is ridiculous. DX 12 games aren't going to be the norm and will be a niche for awhile.

 

[Leyawiin]

The nice thing about building a PC is being able to choose the better components for gaming. If you want a weaker AMD CPU you might as well get a console and be done with it.

 

[karanarya98]

Guys Thank you for such fast reply but the pc i am going to build will be mostly for Gaming and basic day to day use like surfing and videos . I want to play games like Gta 5 and watch dogs at least at high or very high in 1920*1080 so guys recommend me shall i buy i5 4460 or fx 8350 and is r9 285 the best graphic card to buy in that range or something else for better performance

 

[lehtv]

R9 285 only has 2GB VRAM, making it obsolete. R9 280 costs less (at least in the US), has 3GB VRAM and performs practically the same. If you want something better than R9 280 then you should be looking at R9 290 4GB.

For gaming, Intel is definitely the better choice.

 

[Headfoot]

R9 285 only has 2GB VRAM, making it obsolete. R9 280 costs less (at least in the US), has 3GB VRAM and performs practically the same. If you want something better than R9 280 then you should be looking at R9 290 4GB.

For gaming, Intel is definitely the better choice.

+1 to all of this.

Don't waste your time with the R9 285, it's just not a good card.

 

[SlowSpyder]

The R9 280 is the way to go for 1080P. They are close in performance, the extra vram (3GB vs. 2GB) will come in handy. I'm happy with my FX. I'm sure an i5 would be ok too. But, I'm not convinced the tangible differences are that great. At any rate, regardless of the CPU, get the R9 280.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

If you keep your system for more than several years, just don't go i3 or anything dual core/module. I7>i5>FX 83xx>FX 63xx. Anything else just won't cut it in games that really push the cpu and is threaded. As I've shown before, in games like NBA 2K15 you need 4 full threads like the list I recommended above or else the game just stutters and lags at the most inopportune times. I3/Dual core or module and some slower quad cores need the game to be played on low for decent performance. Any higher end i5/i7/FX is butter smooth maxed out.

You might not like NBA 2K15 but GTA 5 is developed by under the same umbrella and very well be well threaded just like NBA 2K15.

 

[AtenRa]

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.

1: The Core i5 recommended was not OC-able
2: People buy PCs to use them TODAY. And for Todays Games 2014-2015 FX83xx @ 4.4GHz + 290 is better than Core i5 + 280.
3: If the user will keep the system for 4-5 years (2015 to 2020) then DX-12 will make the FX83xx @ 4.4GHz more than enough for R300/GM200
4: New games always increase Image Quality making them even more GPU limited than todays games.

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.

1: People recommend the H81(only PCIe Gen 2) + entry level non OC Core i5 that has less features (no M.2, no SLI/CF, less SATA-6 etc etc) than AMD 970 motherboards.
2: PCIe Gen-2 has more than enough bandwidth even for next gen GPUs.
3: Asrock Fatal1ty 970 Performance motherboard has M.2 x4. Non of the H81/B85 has M2.0
4: You can OC the FX8320 @ 4.4GHz with default Cooler if you turn off Turbo and under-volt.

So, how a H81 + non OC entry level up to 3.4GHz turbo(single Thread) Core i5 will be more future proof than FX83xx @ 4.4GHz + 970 (M2.0, SLI/CF, 6x SATA-6, OC) when DX-12 games will use more than 4 threads with less cpu overhead and will make the FX 8-core eve more powerful in future games than what it is today ??

Have a look at Mantle and newer game-engines like Cry-Engine 3/Frostbite 3 and Unreal Engine 4 and you will realize that the FX-83xx @ 4.4GHz + 970 + 290 is way better today and in the future than H81+core i5 + 280.

 

[lehtv]

2: People buy PCs to use them TODAY. And for Todays Games 2014-2015 FX83xx @ 4.4GHz + 290 is better than Core i5 + 280.

This is a silly comparison. FX-83xx @ 4.4GHz with a suitable motherboard costs the same as a locked i5 with a suitable motherboard, yet you pair the i5 with a $70 cheaper graphics card.

3: If the user will keep the system for 4-5 years (2015 to 2020) then DX-12 will make the FX83xx @ 4.4GHz more than enough for R300/GM200
4: New games always increase Image Quality making them even more GPU limited than todays games.

Another silly argument. FX-83xx is already showing its lack of performance in current games, as per RussianSensation's lengthy charts. In your words, people buy PC's to use them today, so what does it matter if in a few years time games will be DX12 based or be more GPU limited?

Also, you can't count on DX12 making every game easy to run with any old CPU. It can open up doors to developers to do stuff with the newly available CPU potential that they couldn't do before.

1: People recommend the H81(only PCIe Gen 2) + entry level non OC Core i5 that has less features (no M.2, no SLI/CF, less SATA-6 etc etc) than AMD 970 motherboards.

FX-83xx is more entry level than a locked i5. Be honest with your terminology.

M.2, SLI/CF, SATA-6 etc. are secondary features that don't impact games the same way CPU performance per thread does. Not only that, but SLI/CF with an AMD CPU is a bit pointless - if you're prepared to pay for two high end graphics cards, then you should be prepared to pay for an Intel SLI/CF platform as well, otherwise you're just creating imbalance.

2: PCIe Gen-2 has more than enough bandwidth even for next gen GPUs.

Only for single GPUs. With dual GPUs, you can get considerably more framerate dips. Sure, it'll still be playable with PCIe 2.0, but nowhere near "more than enough bandwidth".

4: You can OC the FX8320 @ 4.4GHz with default Cooler if you turn off Turbo and under-volt.

Or you can get an i5 with performance per thread better than FX-8320 @ 5GHz. Any marginal difference in initial cost will be countered by the difference in power consumption.

 

[Headfoot]

Or you can get an i5 with performance per thread better than FX-8320 @ 5GHz. Any marginal difference in initial cost will be countered by the difference in power consumption.

Exactly.

Instead of buying an 8320* (many conditions may apply) just buy an i5 for maybe ~$20 more and get good and consistent performance in all situations, multi-threaded or not.

8320 is a little slower to a lot slower, with 200w more power consumption (@ 4.7ghz) for almost the same money.

If we're going to just start waving our hands because sometimes the GPU bottlenecks first, then why doesn't OP just buy a used Q6600 for $15 and call it good?

 

[mnewsham]

another vote for intel i5 and r9-280x

AMD single threaded performance blows and the power consumption is way too high. No reason to go with AMD unless you have a specific usage scenario which would benefit from the extra cores, or you got a super good sale ($150 cheaper than the intel option)