FX 8300 vs Intel

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
238
126
#51
I concur. The lack of attention span here combined with irrational bias makes for a futile discussion. @OP, you've got all the information you need so far, thread ought to be closed.
I buy, build, and use AMD systems.

I prefer Intel, but I have no objection to using AMD when it fits the bill.

Last year I built an 8320 system, two 6300 systems, and an A10-6700 system, which I recently upgraded to an A10-7850K.

Just prior to those FX systems, I bought Phenom II X2 and X4 chips.

I currently have an FX-6300 system as a second office computer. It is overclocked.

I have mentioned my AMD systems often here, and posted benches and screenshots of various benches.

I have no anti-AMD bias.
 
Aug 22, 2004
13,114
7
106
#52
Probably Awful, OpenCL acceleration is absolutely terrible right now.

Haven't found benchmarks specifically for HD530 -- but OpenCL is usually slower than Software Only mode even using high end graphics cards. They have a long way to go for OpenCL optimizations. Right now, Cuda Cores is the safest way to go for GPU Acceleration in Content Creation. Nvidia graphics cards provide a dramatically faster experience at least under Adobe Premiere -- and you don't even need a high end card. A lowly GT240 is roughly 5 times faster than CPU only rendering in the Mercury Playback Engine.

https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1894349

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_LQ853yITk
I'm not going to be using Adobe Premiere Pro. I'll be using Sony Movie Studio 13 Platinum. It can use Cuda, but IIRC, I read somewhere that OpenCL is faster in MS13, and that AMD cards are faster than nVidia at OpenCL. I could be wrong on both those points, though.

Well, if you live near a Micro Center -- it certainly does.

From a performance perspective, you are just not going to beat an FX6300 AND a motherboard for $99. They are basically selling the CPU's for about $60 a piece when you factor in the cost of the motherboard. The FX8320E is just a few bucks more.

And for Visual Content Creation -- that is something the FX chips do incredibly well. Gaming at 1080p? Not as much but reasonably competent.
Yeah, if the OP can get to a Microcenter the $89.99 FX-8320E is a pretty decent option for what he wants to do.
Hah, that's a steal. Closest Microcenter is about 600 miles west, though. If I still lived back home, it'd only be about 200 miles - I'd drive that to save $70!
 
Last edited:
Aug 6, 2014
1,123
0
0
#54
I'm not going to be using Adobe Premiere Pro. I'll be using Sony Movie Studio 13 Platinum. It can use Cuda, but IIRC, I read somewhere that OpenCL is faster in MS13, and that AMD cards are faster than nVidia at OpenCL. I could be wrong on both those points, though.
OpenCL is definitely a mixed bag even under Vegas / MS13. It is generally better than CPU only (unlike under Adobe), but often only a modest improvement.

I'd recommend reading this article:
http://www.gpurendering.com/technology/CudaVsOpencl.html

Nvidia cards can also process OpenCL, just not as quickly as Radeons. I seriously doubt a lightweight like HD530 is going to provide a meaningful amount of GPU acceleration. If we were talking about Iris Pro.... Sure, I've personally seen very good results with Iris Pro and GPU accelerated video editing. For content creation, Nvidia cards can do both Cuda and OpenCL acceleration giving them a substantial advantage for being better all around performers (many apps still only support Cuda). If you ever need to do color correction/speed grading -- almost no apps support OpenCL for that task.

To quote the above articles conclusion:
"In our view, Nvidia GPUs (especially newer ones) are usually the best choice for users, built in CUDA support as well as strong OpenCL performance for when CUDA is not supported. The only situation in which we would recommend an AMD GPU to professionals is when they are exclusively using apps that support OpenCL and have no CUDA option."
 
Last edited:

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
0
101
#55
I'm looking to build a new PC solely for visual content creation, and I want to get it as cheap as possible. Is this FX8300 still a viable processor for this? It's about $110, and the closest Intel in price is the i5-4430, which is a 4/4 CPU. It also costs about $90 more.

I know the i5 will be faster, but the 8300 seems to me the better $/perf part. Am I correct in this thinking?
If you have a Microcenter:

8320E $90
UD3P motherboard: $30 AR and bundle discount
Raijintek Ereboss cooler (Newegg): $43

1) Put stock cooler onto the VRM sink.

2) Disable APM and overclock to 4.4 GHz.

Total = $163
 
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
238
126
#56
If you have a Microcenter:

8320E $90
UD3P motherboard: $30 AR and bundle discount
Raijintek Ereboss cooler (Newegg): $43

1) Put stock cooler onto the VRM sink.

2) Disable APM and overclock to 4.4 GHz.

Total = $163
I would put the cost of that cooler to an 8350 and run it at it's stock 4.0 ghz speed, if I were going to go with an FX chip. I wouldn't go less than the 8350 unless I was overclocking.
 

Magic Carpet

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2011
3,107
0
81
#58
Yep, my choice is pretty much AMD for cheap, or spend hundreds more for a Skylake, but not get hundreds more with of performance, the way i see it.
I can recommend you this board to go along with your build.
 
May 25, 2015
152
0
101
#60
If you're going to go with an FX, at the very least grab a better board than that 760 crap. I've seen one such motherboard blow up once. Happened to a friend with an FX-8320 and he learned the hard way not to buy crappy motherboards.
The Asrock board linked above is absolutely top notch.

My issues with FX at this time are:
a) I wouldn't buy a crappy motherboard, 760 is unsuitable IMO, but 970 boards are still a little pricey on the other hand.

b) The FX has a really noisy and inefficient cooler, will probably annoy you unless you replace it

c) You need to overclock it somewhat to really make it shine, but you're not willing to do this

If you consider reasons a) and b), that's at least 30-40$ extra you may not have considered. At this point, a Skylake i5 is not that far off and it is a much more modern platform that'll hold you pretty nicely.
I mean, an H110 motherboard is cheaper than an 970 motherboard and you won't need an aftermarket cooler for the i5 (yes, the AMD cooler really is that bad).

Sorry for being a little anal about this, but I honestly think you should go for Skylake if possible. Haswell is a certain no go, it still costs extra over the FX 8300 and is also a pretty dead platform. If you're going to spend extra, might as well go for the latest and greatest ;).

Disclaimer, I own an FX-8320 turned FX-8350 and I am generally anti-Intel whenever possible. :p
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,457
67
126
#61
Yes, and as someone else already mentioned, unless you want to live with crappy motherboard graphics (do the still have those?), you have to spring for a discrete gpu as well. For a gaming system, this is not really a disadvantage because one will be buying a discrete gpu anyway, but for an encoding system, the Intel Haswell or Skylake igpu would certainly be more than adequate.
 

crashtech

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2013
9,084
375
126
#62
Maybe I didn't read the thread carefully enough, but since an FX was being considered, it seemed a dGPU must be available.
 
Aug 22, 2004
13,114
7
106
#63
I never ruled out overclocking, just said that I wasn't planning on it. Is that 760 board really that terrible? How about a Biostar, specifically the TA970. A little larger than I wanted, but I have a full ATX case, and a GPU to use with it, and it's a 970 board. It's also $50, but it has USB3, sata6, and a heatsink on the VRMs
 
Feb 2, 2009
12,995
282
126
#64
I never ruled out overclocking, just said that I wasn't planning on it. Is that 760 board really that terrible? How about a Biostar, specifically the TA970. A little larger than I wanted, but I have a full ATX case, and a GPU to use with it, and it's a 970 board. It's also $50, but it has USB3, sata6, and a heatsink on the VRMs
ASRock 970M Pro3 Micro-ATX

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157582

$39,99 AR

And FX8320E at $127,96

http://www.amazon.com/AMD-FD832EWMHKBOX-FX-8320E-8-Core-Black/dp/B00MUTWEM6
 
Last edited:

hemedans

Junior Member
Jan 31, 2015
24
0
36
#65
why i5-4430 and not i5-4590

4590 is faster in both single thread and multithread perfomance compare to fx8320e
 

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
0
101
#66
I would put the cost of that cooler to an 8350 and run it at it's stock 4.0 ghz speed, if I were going to go with an FX chip. I wouldn't go less than the 8350 unless I was overclocking.
Bad advice.

4.0 may be a psychologically appealing clock but the E Vishera chips can do better than that with not much voltage/heat. 4.2 and 4.3 are easily achieved without a lot of cooling and 4.4 can be done with even a cheap board like the UD3P — as long as one cools the VRMs aggressively and the northbridge some.

I would not want to run a stock FX cooler unless it's a Wraith. Even putting the stock 8320E cooler on the VRM is a recipe for noise — but the poster is on a tight budget. The 8370E has a better cooler but it's not worth the price increase.

There's no reason to buy an 8 core FX without planning to overclock, since the E chips are the best value at the moment. The only exception is an odd workload that benefits from the roughly 86 watts an 8320E uses at stock.
 
Last edited:
May 25, 2015
152
0
101
#67
Aug 22, 2004
13,114
7
106
#68
I'm genuinely curious, how do you fit a CPU cooler on the motherboard VRMs?

That Asrock board looks good, I'll probably go with it. Didn't see it on the egg first time I looked.

Edit: on pcpartpicker the 8320e. Is $118. Place called superbiz.
 
Last edited:

Geforce man

Golden Member
Oct 12, 2004
1,729
0
81
#69
http://pcpartpicker.com/list/jfYscc

If you go with anything AM3+ at this point, you are just punishing yourself.

thats a sub 500$ intel skylake rig, fully upgradeable to i7's from current, and karby lake generation.

AND if you buy one of those windows 7 pro keys for 20$ on the forums, you can save another 63$, which you can put towards... whatever. discreet video, etc. Either way, ZERO reason to do an AM3 at this point.
 
Last edited:
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
238
126
#70
Bad advice.

4.0 may be a psychologically appealing clock but the E Vishera chips can do better than that with not much voltage/heat. 4.2 and 4.3 are easily achieved without a lot of cooling and 4.4 can be done with even a cheap board like the UD3P — as long as one cools the VRMs aggressively and the northbridge some.

I would not want to run a stock FX cooler unless it's a Wraith. Even putting the stock 8320E cooler on the VRM is a recipe for noise — but the poster is on a tight budget. The 8370E has a better cooler but it's not worth the price increase.

There's no reason to buy an 8 core FX without planning to overclock, since the E chips are the best value at the moment. The only exception is an odd workload that benefits from the roughly 86 watts an 8320E uses at stock.
If you aren't overclocking, then you end up with a pretty low base clock with an E series FX chip. Just 3.2 for an 8320E, for example.

If you want performance without an overclock, you need the 4.0 base clock of the 8350, imo.
 

Zstream

Diamond Member
Oct 24, 2005
3,185
8
116
#72
I'm looking to build a new PC solely for visual content creation, and I want to get it as cheap as possible. Is this FX8300 still a viable processor for this? It's about $110, and the closest Intel in price is the i5-4430, which is a 4/4 CPU. It also costs about $90 more.



I know the i5 will be faster, but the 8300 seems to me the better $/perf part. Am I correct in this thinking?


What was your budget again? Are you getting all new parts or just a processor and motherboard?
 

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
0
101
#73
If you aren't overclocking, then you end up with a pretty low base clock with an E series FX chip. Just 3.2 for an 8320E, for example.

If you want performance without an overclock, you need the 4.0 base clock of the 8350, imo.
There is no reason to not overclock an 8320E unless you have an unusual workload that doesn't need more speed (like unattended flexible timeline rendering and file serving).

4 GHz is not even slightly challenging, if you have at least a moderately capable board like the UD3P and something better than the stock cooler. Things start to become more challenging at 4.4 and beyond.

There is no reason to pay more for an FX chip. Even the 8370E does not appear to be worth the premium over the 8320E. If someone can get a plain 8300 or something for less that's fine. It should have no trouble getting to 4 GHz.

Vishera chips are unlocked and are soldered. The only ones people don't always overclock, pretty much, are the 9000 series — unless someone mistakenly bought a very weak motherboard.
 

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
0
101
#74
I'm genuinely curious, how do you fit a CPU cooler on the motherboard VRMs?
Zip ties or wedge it in if your CPU cooler gives you that option. I've found that having it on an angle (blowing partially through the sink) is better than putting it flat atop the sink. Use Speedfan or something to regulate the speed curve of the fan to keep noise down.

That Asrock board looks good, I'll probably go with it. Didn't see it on the egg first time I looked.
Asrock has a poor reputation for VRM quality for AM3+ boards.


Boards to consider:

UD3P - basic 970 board capable of 4.4 GHz. (Throttles at 4.5 and has a boot issue that forces you to use the BCLK to get to 4.5 — so don't bother with 4.5.)

Asus and Gigabyte USB 3.1 970 boards — if you need things like USB 3.1 and M.2

ASUS M5A99FX PRO R2.0 — better power delivery than UD3P, better overclocking

Sabertooth and Crosshair V — the best AM3+ boards for overclocking


I would not bother with any other AM3+ boards.
 
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
238
126
#75
There is no reason to not overclock an 8320E unless you have an unusual workload that doesn't need more speed (like unattended flexible timeline rendering and file serving).

4 GHz is not even slightly challenging, if you have at least a moderately capable board like the UD3P and something better than the stock cooler. Things start to become more challenging at 4.4 and beyond.

There is no reason to pay more for an FX chip. Even the 8370E does not appear to be worth the premium over the 8320E. If someone can get a plain 8300 or something for less that's fine. It should have no trouble getting to 4 GHz.

Vishera chips are unlocked and are soldered. The only ones people don't always overclock, pretty much, are the 9000 series — unless someone mistakenly bought a very weak motherboard.
If you read the thread, you'd know that I overclock my FX chips. :)
 


ASK THE COMMUNITY