fx 8320/6300 on an ssd vs 3570k on an hdd

[AtenRa]

Nope. He will be GPU limited in some games and CPU limited in some others. The others beeing not only Skyrim, but Starcraft 2, World of Warcraft, Shogun 2, Borderlands 2, bla bla http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8350_6.html#sect0

Some people just don't stop spreading their bias.

Are you trolling or what ???

Your link has a GTX680 and benchmarks at 1680x1050, he will game at 1920x1080 with HD7870.

Stop being a smart ass.

 

[blckgrffn]

For people talking about space issues, I survive with a 64GB SSD without any problems.

My secret? Symlinks.

All my music, games, virtual machines, those are on spinning platters. The page file, hibernation file, OS, those are on the SSD, which seriously boost performance.

Another big thing I do make sure to do is have the HDs only sleep after an hour of inactivity, that way they don't spin down, which will be incredibly annoying if you don't (since the OS isn't on the drives).


I am sure it would be BETTER if I could just get a huge SSD, but this works cheaper and better. Most data is on the spinning platter, while the productivity apps (OS, Office, Browsers, Minecraft) are on the SSD.

Yup, I do this even with a 180GB SSD. No reason for all of my Steam Games to be on my SSD when I have a spinner handy.

I mean, its pretty likely OP has a SATA drive he can put in there or network storage for media stuff. If he is posting on here, I feel like that is a safe assumption.

 

[Mallibu]

Are you trolling or what ???

Your link has a GTX680 and benchmarks at 1680x1050, he will game at 1920x1080 with HD7870.

Stop being a smart ass.

1920x1080 is ~8% more taxing than 1680x1050, it's not THAT much heavier.
Even with a 7870, he will be CPU limited in a lot of games (like the ones mentioned), not just Skyrim.
AMD would like every game to be GPU-limited so their mediocre CPUs don't get trashed, but we live in a console port world, sorry.

 

[Arkaign]

Are you trolling or what ???

Your link has a GTX680 and benchmarks at 1680x1050, he will game at 1920x1080 with HD7870.

Stop being a smart ass.

Even so, if the OP is going to keep this build through at least one GPU upgrade, the 3570k could pay off. As is well documented, an 8320 runs into CPU bottleneck for games well before a 3570k will. This means that maybe a year down the line if OP wants to put an 8950 3GB card in and perhaps run a cheap 2560x1440 display, he will get better performance with the 3570k build. Run that 3570 at ~4.2Ghz or so and bam low power and massive performance.

I do agree that functionally speaking, 1920x1080 w/7870 he will be hard pressed to see a difference. I also think that the bottlenecks of the 8320/etc will show up much quicker than they will on a 3570k (or 2500k for that matter).

AMD has great great GPUs, AMD CPU, hmmm I just don't think the value is quite there with current pricing, outside of some very specific usage scenarios. Gaming is one of the worst matchups for AMD CPUs, period.

 

[The Alias]

the only real problem I see cpu wise is starcraft but I don't even play that lol

 

[AtenRa]

This means that maybe a year down the line if OP wants to put an 8950 3GB card in and perhaps run a cheap 2560x1440 display, he will get better performance with the 3570k build. Run that 3570 at ~4.2Ghz or so and bam low power and massive performance.

Raising resolution will only make him more GPU limited, 3570K will have no effect at 2560x1440 over FX8350. :whiste:

 

[The Alias]

Even so, if the OP is going to keep this build through at least one GPU upgrade, the 3570k could pay off. As is well documented, an 8320 runs into CPU bottleneck for games well before a 3570k will. This means that maybe a year down the line if OP wants to put an 8950 3GB card in and perhaps run a cheap 2560x1440 display, he will get better performance with the 3570k build. Run that 3570 at ~4.2Ghz or so and bam low power and massive performance.

I do agree that functionally speaking, 1920x1080 w/7870 he will be hard pressed to see a difference. I also think that the bottlenecks of the 8320/etc will show up much quicker than they will on a 3570k (or 2500k for that matter).

AMD has great great GPUs, AMD CPU, hmmm I just don't think the value is quite there with current pricing, outside of some very specific usage scenarios. Gaming is one of the worst matchups for AMD CPUs, period.

actually no the 4300 and 6300 outperform competing intel solutions at the same price point even in gaming

even still the cpu load for pc games have remained the same somewhat over the years I don't think future games will be much of a problem

 

[Arkaign]

Raising resolution will only make him more GPU limited, 3570K will have no effect at 2560x1440 over FX8350. :whiste:

Of course, but I was clearly talking about future GPUs. As GPU power raises, you expose CPU limitations more quickly. If 8950 is ~10-15% faster than 7970, then already at 1080p one would see some CPU bottlenecking on the 8320 vs. 3570k. If OP kept the 3570k for another round of GPUs, then even at 2560x1440 you would see the 8320 fall behind.

Nice cherry-picking in the response by the way.

 

[Arkaign]

actually no the 4300 and 6300 outperform competing intel solutions at the same price point even in gaming

even still the cpu load for pc games have remained the same somewhat over the years I don't think future games will be much of a problem

You're looking at stock performance with locked Intel CPUs. I wouldn't recommend any locked Intel CPUs. 2500k is $159 at MC, 3570K is $169. Once you overclock into the 4.2Ghz range, any AMD CPU, even overclocked, falls behind in gaming.

 

[Termie]

You're looking at stock performance with locked Intel CPUs. I wouldn't recommend any locked Intel CPUs. 2500k is $159 at MC, 3570K is $169. Once you overclock into the 4.2Ghz range, any AMD CPU, even overclocked, falls behind in gaming.

Those prices are not relevant to the OP. He's already stated that he doesn't live near an MC.

The 3570k is currently $215 at Newegg - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819116504

If the OP's budget is truly limited to ~$215, I'd say 6300 plus SSD over 3570k, given his usage pattern and preferences. He doesn't seem like the kind of user who would be buying an HD8950 next year. He's building a budget rig.

Obviously, if he has more money to spend, he should feel free to spend it, but if he's alloted ~$200 to his GPU and ~$200 to his CPU and/or SSD, he should spend some of this on an SSD. He hasn't mentioned a motherboard, but AMD boards tend to be more fully-featured for the same amount as Intel boards.

 

[Mallibu]

And since we're talking about SSD's let's also don't forget that they perform better in Intel Chipsets than AMD's.Seems to go under the radar in a lot of discussions :whiste:

 

[AtenRa]

Of course, but I was clearly talking about future GPUs. As GPU power raises, you expose CPU limitations more quickly. If 8950 is ~10-15% faster than 7970, then already at 1080p one would see some CPU bottlenecking on the 8320 vs. 3570k. If OP kept the 3570k for another round of GPUs, then even at 2560x1440 you would see the 8320 fall behind.

Nice cherry-picking in the response by the way.

Let me ask you this,

Do you actually believe that you will be CPU limited with a Phenom X6 1090T or Core i7 950 paired with a GTX680 or HD7970 at 2560x1440 ???

Unless you playing minecraft, you will be GPU limited in 99% of games. And because future games will only be heavier in graphics you will still be GPU limited at 2560x1440 even with older CPUs(up to a point).

 

[Arkaign]

Those prices are not relevant to the OP. He's already stated that he doesn't live near an MC.

The 3570k is currently $215 at Newegg - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819116504

If the OP's budget is truly limited to ~$215, I'd say 6300 plus SSD over 3570k, given his usage pattern and preferences. He doesn't seem like the kind of user who would be buying an HD8950 next year. He's building a budget rig.

Obviously, if he has more money to spend, he should feel free to spend it, but if he's alloted ~$200 to his GPU and ~$200 to his CPU and/or SSD, he should spend some of this on an SSD. He hasn't mentioned a motherboard, but AMD boards tend to be more fully-featured for the same amount as Intel boards.

Hmm, actually for gaming on a limited budget, an SSD is a terrible idea to begin with. Skipping the SSD and bumping the GPU to a 7950 w/good cooler would make a major impact in gaming, with either a 6300 or even a used 2500K (I've seen those pass by for $150 and less in the FS/FT section).

7950 oc edition 3GB + 6300 + HDD = waaaay better gaming than 7870 + 6300 + SSD. I have a very fast 256GB SSD, but to be honest, my old WD Black 1TB wasn't that slow, waiting 15 seconds for a game to load instead of 4 seconds doesn't really matter to me. Perhaps for those that have 4GB of ram or less it makes a bigger difference. Even when I only had 8GB of ram, load times seemed pretty tame with the HDD. I do have a friend with 4GB DDR2 and a Phenom II 955BE w/7770 1GB, and his system takes a pretty decent amount of time to load a BF3 game.

Intel SATA and USB performance is better than that of the AMD boards, though I do agree that in the low-end area, I'd rather have a 6300 w/AMD mobo than say a locked i5 w/H61 mobo.

 

[Arkaign]

Let me ask you this,

Do you actually believe that you will be CPU limited with a Phenom X6 1090T or Core i7 950 paired with a GTX680 or HD7970 at 2560x1440 ???

Unless you playing minecraft, you will be GPU limited in 99% of games. And because future games will only be heavier in graphics you will still be GPU limited at 2560x1440 even with older CPUs(up to a point).

StarCraft and Skyrim already tank on AMD CPUs (and weaker Intel CPUs as well). All I'm saying is that I like to move the potential bottlenecks as far out as possible. This is why I recommended C2Q and PhII X4 quads when some recommended duals. And that worked out pretty well.

 

[inf64]

Future games will be shader heavy and will probably rely on 4+ threads. You will be first and foremost GPU limited before you will hit a CPU limiting factor(yes yes,Skyrim and SC2 excluded since they are obviously not programmed properly).

 

[RaistlinZ]

Hmm, actually for gaming on a limited budget, an SSD is a terrible idea to begin with. Skipping the SSD and bumping the GPU to a 7950 w/good cooler would make a major impact in gaming, with either a 6300 or even a used 2500K (I've seen those pass by for $150 and less in the FS/FT section).

7950 oc edition 3GB + 6300 + HDD = waaaay better gaming than 7870 + 6300 + SSD. I have a very fast 256GB SSD, but to be honest, my old WD Black 1TB wasn't that slow, waiting 15 seconds for a game to load instead of 4 seconds doesn't really matter to me. Perhaps for those that have 4GB of ram or less it makes a bigger difference. Even when I only had 8GB of ram, load times seemed pretty tame with the HDD. I do have a friend with 4GB DDR2 and a Phenom II 955BE w/7770 1GB, and his system takes a pretty decent amount of time to load a BF3 game.

Intel SATA and USB performance is better than that of the AMD boards, though I do agree that in the low-end area, I'd rather have a 6300 w/AMD mobo than say a locked i5 w/H61 mobo.

I would rather shoot myself in the sack than go back to running games off a spindle HDD.

3570k + SSD + used 7950

Overclock CPU and GPU. Live happily.

 

[AtenRa]

StarCraft and Skyrim already tank on AMD CPUs (and weaker Intel CPUs as well). All I'm saying is that I like to move the potential bottlenecks as far out as possible. This is why I recommended C2Q and PhII X4 quads when some recommended duals. And that worked out pretty well.

Every time we have the CPU/GPU bottleneck debate, people will bring SC2 and Skyrim. Well ok, they are two(2) games out of what ?? 100 ??? 1000??

ps: By the time your C2Q made any difference in gaming it was obsolete and people were replacing there Dual cores with Core i5 and Core i7. Now days a Core i3 or any quad core is enough for 90% of games and your bottleneck is the GPU most of the time and not your CPU.(yes yes except SC2 and Skyrim)

 

[hokies83]

Raising resolution will only make him more GPU limited, 3570K will have no effect at 2560x1440 over FX8350. :whiste:

Sorry Bro..

Never suggest a Slow gaming Cpu to a gamer.... And Yeah Amds are horrid for gaming There on par with a 3 generations old i5 quad core which i have.

I really do not care what you say the Amds will BottleNeck any real gaming build ..

You do not know what this guy will be doing 2 years from now... He could 1 be bottlenecked by a crappy choice AMD cpu for gaming that a Fan boI keeps trying to push into his head..

Or 2 he can be bottleneck free and clear with a 3570k

My 3770k Almost bottlenecks me in Games I had to Overclock the snot out of it to avoid it 5.1ghz... So i do not want to hear the crap the Amd is no where near on Par in the gaming level.

I would rather suggest an i5 760 1156 Quad core to a gamer then any Amd cpu.. With a Nice OC the 3 Generation old i5 Quad core beats them in gaming it is really sad .

He would need a Surround Monitor Set up to use powerful Gpus to get the usage out of them.. Just not Enough cpu power in Any Amd Cpu to Push a high end gaming build..

And yeah he is playing the one token Game that uses cores now.. You think hes gonna play that forever? i do not think so.

Let me ask you this,

Do you actually believe that you will be CPU limited with a Phenom X6 1090T or Core i7 950 paired with a GTX680 or HD7970 at 2560x1440 ???

Unless you playing minecraft, you will be GPU limited in 99% of games. And because future games will only be heavier in graphics you will still be GPU limited at 2560x1440 even with older CPUs(up to a point).

All i have to say to this comment... you are no Gamer.. you have no clue.

 

[frozentundra123456]

actually no the 4300 and 6300 outperform competing intel solutions at the same price point even in gaming

even still the cpu load for pc games have remained the same somewhat over the years I don't think future games will be much of a problem

Sounds like you have already made up your mind and just started the thread to posit a scenario which would be an excuse for AMD fans to propose amd, back to the old arguments:
"CPU is good enough", "you will be GPU limited", "get AMD and spend the money on something else".

 

[Greenlepricon]

Sorry Bro..

Never suggest a Slow gaming Cpu to a gamer.... And Yeah Amds are horrid for gaming There on par with a 3 generations old i5 quad core which i have.

I really do not care what you say the Amds will BottleNeck any real gaming build ..

You do not know what this guy will be doing 2 years from now... He could 1 be bottlenecked by a crappy choice AMD cpu for gaming that a Fan boI keeps trying to push into his head..

Or 2 he can be bottleneck free and clear with a 3570k

My 3770k Almost bottlenecks me in Games I had to Overclock the snot out of it to avoid it 5.1ghz... So i do not want to hear the crap the Amd is no where near on Par in the gaming level.

I would rather suggest an i5 760 1156 Quad core to a gamer then any Amd cpu.. With a Nice OC the 3 Generation old i5 Quad core beats them in gaming it is really sad .

He would need a Surround Monitor Set up to use powerful Gpus to get the usage out of them.. Just not Enough cpu power in Any Amd Cpu to Push a high end gaming build..

And yeah he is playing the one token Game that uses cores now.. You think hes gonna play that forever? i do not think so.


All i have to say to this comment... you are no Gamer.. you have no clue.

I have a 7950 paired with a FX 8120 at 3.9Ghz, so according to you my frames should be in the toilet. Well I can tell you at 1080p I get pretty much 60fps on everything except really demanding games like Metro, where I'm in the high 30's at the lowest.

Now I would never claim these are as good as Intel for gaming. That would be a blatant lie. However, gpus are more important for gaming and I would argue are becoming more so. Yeah sure the cpu still matters, but there is no reason to say that something that can push 80+ frames in most cases is bad. Yeah if he's going for three cards in crossfire/sli then he needs something beefy but other than forums like this I don't know anyone that actually does that.

Anyway, my advice is that you should have the ssd in there no matter what. If you can get it with an intel cpu then that's awesome, but otherwise you'll be just as happy with the 8320. Besides, AMD processors are really fun to play with even if they perform worse.

 

[hokies83]

I have a 7950 paired with a FX 8120 at 3.9Ghz, so according to you my frames should be in the toilet. Well I can tell you at 1080p I get pretty much 60fps on everything except really demanding games like Metro, where I'm in the high 30's at the lowest.

Now I would never claim these are as good as Intel for gaming. That would be a blatant lie. However, gpus are more important for gaming and I would argue are becoming more so. Yeah sure the cpu still matters, but there is no reason to say that something that can push 80+ frames in most cases is bad. Yeah if he's going for three cards in crossfire/sli then he needs something beefy but other than forums like this I don't know anyone that actually does that.

Anyway, my advice is that you should have the ssd in there no matter what. If you can get it with an intel cpu then that's awesome, but otherwise you'll be just as happy with the 8320. Besides, AMD processors are really fun to play with even if they perform worse.

60 Frames with Dips .. 60 frames is holding 60 frames and never Dropping
If i went like that i could say i get 200fps in Bf3.. But no i can not hold that.

I can Also get 60Fps in most games with an i5 750+Gtx 560ti
Then you turn the eye candy up and the frames hit the toilet.

The Above Poster is claiming there is almost no difference in Gaming between 8350 and a 3570k and that is Absurd.

The 3570k is atleast 30% faster in Gaming and that is being Nice.
Anything but Heavy Multi threaded tasks a 3570k clock for clock destorys a 8350...

Clock for clock a 3570k with only it's 4 cores is on Avg with in 10% in Heavy multi threaded Tasks as the 8350.

You tell me which the better buy is?

 

[Greenlepricon]

60 Frames with Dips .. 60 frames is holding 60 frames and never Dropping
If i went like that i could say i get 200fps in Bf3.. But no i can not hold that.

I can Also get 60Fps in most games with an i5 750+Gtx 560ti
Then you turn the eye candy up and the frames hit the toilet.

The Above Poster is claiming there is almost no difference in Gaming between 8350 and a 3570k and that is Absurd.

The 3570k is atleast 30% faster in Gaming and that is being Nice.
Anything but Heavy Multi threaded tasks a 3570k clock for clock destorys a 8350...

Clock for clock a 3570k with only it's 4 cores is on Avg with in 10% in Heavy multi threaded Tasks as the 8350.

You tell me which the better buy is?

When I said 60fps, I mean it's holding 60fps, which is why I mentioned the LOWEST fps I get in metro 2033 and didn't say I get 60 about half the time. Also I game with everything at max settings, and that is especially where games become gpu limited, which is why many cpu benchmarks for gaming are done on low end gpu's.

Besides me saying that it is good enough, I agree completely that Intel is way better for gaming. The best Intel CPU blows away AMD in performance, but the difference is the price. For $50 less you get a very good cpu where the biggest drawback is that it draws more power. Personally, I think a system without an ssd really reflects an old/inefficient computer more than anything else.

 

[hokies83]

When I said 60fps, I mean it's holding 60fps, which is why I mentioned the LOWEST fps I get in metro 2033 and didn't say I get 60 about half the time. Also I game with everything at max settings, and that is especially where games become gpu limited, which is why many cpu benchmarks for gaming are done on low end gpu's.

Besides me saying that it is good enough, I agree completely that Intel is way better for gaming. The best Intel CPU blows away AMD in performance, but the difference is the price. For $50 less you get a very good cpu where the biggest drawback is that it draws more power. Personally, I think a system without an ssd really reflects an old/inefficient computer more than anything else.

I agree about SSDs i have 7 of them. But he can wait on that..
He has the chance to get a 3570k now he should take it..
He is future proofed for the next 3 years..

I can Also name 2 other Games that you could not hold 60fps in..
Borderlands 2 turned all the way up... I have my Max frames set to 120fps the only time i can hold 120fps is when im standing still...
As soon as i run or jump shoot a gun it drops down to 100.. In a gun battle in the 80s.. 70% Gpu use Max..

Another is Max Payne 3 Maxxed out now the is a Gpu/Cpu Destoryer Far worse then Any metro2033 or Crysis..

Im talking 40fps cpu maxxed out and Gpus both at 99%

 

[Arkaign]

Every time we have the CPU/GPU bottleneck debate, people will bring SC2 and Skyrim. Well ok, they are two(2) games out of what ?? 100 ??? 1000??

ps: By the time your C2Q made any difference in gaming it was obsolete and people were replacing there Dual cores with Core i5 and Core i7. Now days a Core i3 or any quad core is enough for 90% of games and your bottleneck is the GPU most of the time and not your CPU.(yes yes except SC2 and Skyrim)

What? This is as flat wrong as I've seen in any post here. Nobody sane is going to agree with you that Core2Quad was obsolete by the time games took advantage of quads. C2Q waaaay outlasted Core2Duo as a viable gaming CPU. Hell I still know people with C2Q's in the mid 3ghz range that play BF3 and Skyrim. Similarly, Athlon II X2, Phenom II X2, and other duals dropped off in usefulness a lot sooner than X4 and X6 AMD chips. Games that do well with Quads didn't just appear in the last year or so after all. About the only way you could make that comment is if you were talking about the slowest quads (Phenom I, and stock clocked Q8200/etc) with no overclock at all. The shared cache design was pretty nice as well, with Q6xxx 8MB and Q9xxx 12MB chips showing good gains.

Speaking of Skyrim and SC2, those games were/are hugely popular. It's not unreasonable to note the performance there. Nobody really can reasonably say that the 2500K, 3570K, 2600K, 2700K, and 3770K are not the best gaming CPUs out at this time.

 

[AtenRa]

What? This is as flat wrong as I've seen in any post here. Nobody sane is going to agree with you that Core2Quad was obsolete by the time games took advantage of quads. C2Q waaaay outlasted Core2Duo as a viable gaming CPU. Hell I still know people with C2Q's in the mid 3ghz range that play BF3 and Skyrim. Similarly, Athlon II X2, Phenom II X2, and other duals dropped off in usefulness a lot sooner than X4 and X6 AMD chips. Games that do well with Quads didn't just appear in the last year or so after all. About the only way you could make that comment is if you were talking about the slowest quads (Phenom I, and stock clocked Q8200/etc) with no overclock at all. The shared cache design was pretty nice as well, with Q6xxx 8MB and Q9xxx 12MB chips showing good gains.

Speaking of Skyrim and SC2, those games were/are hugely popular. It's not unreasonable to note the performance there. Nobody really can reasonably say that the 2500K, 3570K, 2600K, 2700K, and 3770K are not the best gaming CPUs out at this time.

Im not debating if C2Q outlasted the dual cores, im only saying that when the quad core made any significant difference in gaming the socket 775 platform was outdated. As today people recommend the Quad core 3570K over the 8 threaded 3770K that was the case back then with Dual vs Quad.

As for SC2 and Skyrim, i have never said that those two games are not popular, but they are only two games out of 100 or more that people play. If you buy a cheaper CPU that will not be a bottleneck for the rest of the 98 games with the GPU that you have that's fine by me, unless you specifically play those two games. But the OP never mentioned he will play any of those two games.