FX 8300 vs Intel

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Sep 3, 2001
12,250
0
0
The FX 8300 is such an outdated CPU that I'm surprised that people still think it's a viable choice nowadays. Hell, I don't think most people appreciated the FX 8300 even when it was first released long ago. Even in those small cases where the 8300 has better multi threading capabilities than the i5, the differences aren't great enough to justify the purchase of one.

Also, with Zen coming out sometime later this year, I would rather wait for that plus the new AM4 platform than sticking with AM3. But if you really need your new PC (like right now), then you can't go wrong with a locked, Haswell i5. Just remember that it won't be as powerful as an i7 when it comes to CPU hungry tasks like content creation and such, which I would honestly recommend for your case.
People are still considering because its still the highest end chip series of chip that AMD has available... as sad as that fact might be, its what we have to deal with.

What really sucks is that this chip that is essentially a 2011-worthy product is still seen as remotely viable because desktop hardware in general has stagnated.
 

Zodme569

Junior Member
Apr 18, 2016
5
0
0
Just went through that whole scenario for a replacement side system. Cost was the major factor did not want to spend a bunch a new side system. Ended up gutting an old HP machine. Reusing the case and DVD drive. New 8320E processor and mother board went for $110. Coupled that with new memory, EVGA power supply and a SSD drive. The new Windows 10 licence was the expensive part to me. So pretty much a new system for about $350.

Was only intel till the final pricing hit.

The other system is a store package I7-6700 and building a new I7-6700K system.
 

Zodme569

Junior Member
Apr 18, 2016
5
0
0
That was new from microcenter. Picked up in the last 2 weeks. It was a bundle price.
 

Zodme569

Junior Member
Apr 18, 2016
5
0
0
The MB was an ASUS M5A78L-M/USB 3. It actually appears as $109.98 before tax right now.
 

Ranulf

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2001
1,503
31
106
It is only the "K" models that come without a fan.
OEM for years has meant it is the bare chip, no heatsink/fan. Not retail packaging. And yes, I know the K models of Skylake come as retail without a HSF.
 
Aug 22, 2004
13,114
7
106
That was new from microcenter. Picked up in the last 2 weeks. It was a bundle price.
OK, well, I can't bundle from Microcenter, as they don't sell AMD processors on the website, only in-store, and the closest one is in Houston, and I'm 350 miles west of it.
 

Zodme569

Junior Member
Apr 18, 2016
5
0
0
Shame that MC store is actually pretty cool. Was not aware in store only.
Just have to wonder if an instore over the phone purchase could be made then let the store ship. Technically it is not by web.
 
Aug 22, 2004
13,114
7
106
6400 is just too slow clock speed wise. It should never have been sold.
I went back and built around a 6500. Comes in at 490 I think with everything but OS. Can't tell you for sure because I'm not home.
 

MagickMan

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2008
7,537
0
76
If $$ is that tight, I'd go with a Skylake i3-6320 over either, if this is mostly for gaming.
 

TeknoBug

Platinum Member
Oct 2, 2013
2,078
1
91
Something I noticed about the FX line vs Intel Core line is that the FX doesn't take full advantage of memory bandwidth.

I've been an AMD fan since the mid 90's and once Ivy Bridge came around I basically gave up on AMD. The Phenom II X6 line were some of the best, and some of the later Phenom II X4's too- I still have my X6 1090T laying around.

A/V editing. No gaming at all.
Try going with one of those socket 1150 or 1151 Xeons which are around the same price of an i5 but has 4C/8T.
 
Last edited:
May 25, 2015
152
0
101
Yeah, I think I'll start picking up these parts. It should pair nicely in my old Compaq mATX case with two big 120mm fans.
I'm really glad you managed to squeeze in Skylake in the end. I don't think you'll regret it!
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,457
67
126
OEM for years has meant it is the bare chip, no heatsink/fan. Not retail packaging. And yes, I know the K models of Skylake come as retail without a HSF.
Oh, missed the part about OEM. Just assumedit was regular retail.
 
Aug 22, 2004
13,114
7
106
I'm really glad you managed to squeeze in Skylake in the end. I don't think you'll regret it!
I hope I don't, the Skylake iGPU drivers are seemingly junk. I have tons of problems with it on my tablet PC. I don't want to use a dGPU, but I have one to fall back on if I do need it.
 

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
0
101
What really sucks is that this chip that is essentially a 2011-worthy product is still seen as remotely viable because desktop hardware in general has stagnated.
It also points to the fact that AMD left all of them unlocked. They really need to be overclocked to help to compensate, some, for the lower IPC.

If AMD had locked them all down, except for perhaps the 9000 series, even fewer people would be considering buying them today.

the FX doesn't take full advantage of memory bandwidth.
Nor does Skylake, since it has an EDRAM controller and no EDRAM.
 

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
0
101
You also must then know that I would choose the 8320E if I were going to overclock?

So what are you talking about? :)
For the third time... Your response isn't a rebuttal to my original point regarding your less than optimal advice.

I've said it at least twice: If you buy FX 8 cores (other than the 9000 series which you shouldn't be buying) you overclock. Moreover, the 8320E chip, if you can get it for the Microcenter bundle price, is the only FX 8 core chip to consider buying. If not Microcenter then you pick the cheapest 8 core you can find, such as an 8300.

That's the bottom line. Your suggestion of an 8350 is based on the faulty premise that it's hard to overclock a cheaper 8 core FX to 4 GHz. There is no reason to pay a premium for stock 8 core FX clockspeed, especially with the 8320E existing. There is no reason not to overclock. And, if you're one of the very few people whose workload is just fine with an 8320E at stock then run it at stock, possibly with a touch of undervolting.

The only way an 8350 could possibly compete against the cheaper FX chips today is if it were to come with a Wraith cooler and be of equivalent price to a cheaper FX 8 core plus equivalent-quality cooler.

The 8320E has made all other FX chips irrelevant for those with a Microcenter nearby. The 8300/8310 online has made all other FX chips irrelevant to those without a Microcenter nearby.
 
Last edited:
Mar 10, 2004
28,523
238
126
For the third time... Your response isn't a rebuttal to my original point regarding your less than optimal advice.

I've said it at least twice: If you buy FX 8 cores (other than the 9000 series which you shouldn't be buying) you overclock. Moreover, the 8320E chip, if you can get it for the Microcenter bundle price, is the only FX 8 core chip to consider buying. If not Microcenter then you pick the cheapest 8 core you can find, such as an 8300.

That's the bottom line. Your suggestion of an 8350 is based on the faulty premise that it's hard to overclock a cheaper 8 core FX to 4 GHz. There is no reason to pay a premium for stock 8 core FX clockspeed, especially with the 8320E existing. There is no reason not to overclock. And, if you're one of the very few people whose workload is just fine with an 8320E at stock then run it at stock, possibly with a touch of undervolting.

The only way an 8350 could possibly compete against the cheaper FX chips today is if it were to come with a Wraith cooler and be of equivalent price to a cheaper FX 8 core plus equivalent-quality cooler.

The 8320E has made all other FX chips irrelevant for those with a Microcenter nearby. The 8300/8310 online has made all other FX chips irrelevant to those without a Microcenter nearby.
Just to be clear, my suggestion of the 8350 is because businesses generally will not allow/do not want overclocking, and wisely so. I'm pretty sure I already said that.

For you and me, sure, we are going to overclock our AMD FX chips.
 

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,440
0
81
~$500. Photoshop, Lightroom and Sony Movie Studio Platinum 13. I've got to find some audio editing software too.

It won't be an upgrade - I have an i7-4720HQ and GTX 970M (mobile chips). It'll be a supplemental rig to free up my laptop for other things while a video is rendering.

Skylake is too expensive. Comes in at $150 overbudget.

Edit: I also don't really want to consider used unless I can get it well under budget - I'm wary of buying warrantyless parts for a production machine.
Sounds like there's no real point going with a discrete GPU in this system, which an FX 8300 would require. You'd make up a lot of the price difference going with an Intel CPU with an IGP. That is, unless you want to pick up some really old generation GPU.

The tasks you mentioned are also all amenable to the advantages of more/wider SIMD on the Intel side, be it integer or FP. That is, if the programs support it.

EDIT: Should have read the rest of the thread first, oops.
 

MagickMan

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2008
7,537
0
76
A/V editing. No gaming at all.

Edit: $533, not 490
http://pcpartpicker.com/list/Q6vTwV
Definitely get the i5 then, if not a used i7. Check this out:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Intel-Xeon-...e-with-X99-i7-5820K-5930K-5960X-/151990443313

http://ark.intel.com/products/81705/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2650-v3-25M-Cache-2_30-GHz

10 cores, 20 threads = editing monster

Motherboard:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132516

That's a hell of a lot of processing power for the $$.
 


ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS