Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
AMD FX6300 vs FX8350? (PC Building Help)
LootHorder
Member Posts: 20
Hey guys, Last year I had built a budget PC for around $450. Needless to say it died. lol. So I'm in the market for building a new PC and would love your guys help! Cause right from the start I'm at a stand still.
Is the FX6300 (Priced at $99) a better Budget build CPU over the slightly more expensive FX8350 (Priced currently at $139). Now the only reason I'm not looking at an i5 is my budget, at $600. I would really love a powerful CPU & GPU for steaming/recording games such as League of Legends & Diablo, I believe an i5 would simply leave me without enough for a capable GPU.
Talking about GPUs. The one I was looking at was the newish R9 380 2GB. Its priced at $234 currently which is a bit much I believe but I've been told its the best mid-level graphics card I could buy, simply put.. is this true???
I'm not worried about RAM. I can simply pick up 2 x4GB ripjaws & or Ballistics costing around $50.
Having said all this; This is the build I was looking at possibly ordering (Keeping in mind I will not be ordering untill possibly the 20th of course things change, but my core parts will not).
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/xYX6bv
If you have any, ANy at all feed back or something I should change plz let me know. While this isnt set in stone it is a build I will be looking at getting. Thank you
Comments
AMD Vishera CPU's are ancient and heavily outperfromed by Intel especiallly for gaming, while AM3 platform is dead (AMD's new CPU lineup will be on different platform, likely AM4). Also, it's much easier to upgrade GPU, than to buy new CPU and MBO. And, you'll need CPU cooler for AMD, unless you don't mind AMD stock cooler which is hairdryer loud.
But, if you decide to ignore my recommendation above, I'd say go for 6300, you won't notice much difference compared to 8350.
Also, R9 380 is not that great. You'll get better performance with R9 280x for same or less money.
Power supply might not be sufficient either.
Well A few years ago I built a PC with a 7870 and an AMD 6350 and it still runs everything I throw at it. 6350 is just an OC 6300. I went with the 6 series to save $50 and it's been great so far. I have always built my own PCs starting with a 486 DX and moving on up. I will tell you this -- even in a budget build the ONE place you DO NOT skimp is the power supply. Do some research and try to get stuff with a decent warranty. There's a list out there somewhere, I'll share if I can find, that tells you who actually manufactures the PS. There's only a handful of manufacturers out there and they make them for everyone, some are definitely better than others.
also like the reply above me, what exactly "died" on it. very rarely did everything inside die and you can cannibalize your old PC.
sum up : 6300 will be just fine for budget. Don't forget good PS.
Do yourself a favour and get an i3. AMD desktops are dead platform.
Let's see the exact specs. If there's $100 worth of reusable hardware in it, that frees up room in your budget for better things.
I would actually avoid the current AMD GPUs unless its the Fury. For your case in particular, they probably won't fit. I have an R9 290x in my case and it barely fits. An HP branded case for an IGP system will definitely be too small. Go with the NVidia midrange.
Also don't get an i3. They are a joke and competitive with the current AMD AM1 CPUs. They are not made for gaming, they are made for multi-media systems or office computers.
I always wondered were I3 CPUs good for a budget gaming build. What would be good from Intel for a budget build?
You know what else is a dead platform? Intel desktops. Sky Lake is close enough that motherboard manufacturers are showing off the motherboards that are just waiting for a Sky Lake CPU.
But it doesn't even matter if a CPU has a "dead platform", because it's not like you're going to upgrade it without also replacing the motherboard, anyway.
Rather than going for maximal performance on unreliable parts and seeing if you can fry the new rig, too, have you considered trying to build something more reliable? For example, replace the relevant components you're looking at by these:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130679
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817151136
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811147237
Yeah, that adds to the price tag. But you can make room by going with a cheaper video card:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131625
Yes, that's slower up front. But it's sure faster than a dead computer.
Intel really doesn't have anything appropriate to a budget gaming build. I'd really be leery of going with a dual core today in a system you want to last a while. Their quad cores price themselves out of consideration in a budget rig, apart from Atom, which has performance that is just dismal.
i3 is awesome CPU.
http://www.hardwarepal.com/best-cpu-gaming-9-processors-8-games-tested/
Unfortunately you won't get any decent advice on this site, like comments about AM1 and Skylake above...
Many of the games in that test aren't optimized to take advantage of more cores. Starcraft 2 was shown to not take advantage of more than 3 cores.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/08/18/how-many-cpu-cores-does-starcraft-2-use/2
I couldn't find more tests performed on the other games, but quick searches on google show less-than-stellar performance from the FX-series CPUs due to poor scaling on multiple cores, which is caused by bad programming. Also, the benchmarks you linked are a very narrow variety of games.
An alternative interpretation of those benchmarks is the FX-series CPUs are able to keep up and produce more than playable framerates in all of the games tested. For the money, the FX-series is still a solid choice on a low-budget system.
I do have to admit - the Intel dual cores play most of today's games acceptably.
But your down in the budget CPUs - none of them are "great" - there's just different trade-offs that have to be made in order to accommodate a budget.
Intel your still paying a premium for what you get - a i3 can easily cost as much as a 83xx. You can get the G3258 for pretty cheap, but you need to be willing to overclock to get it to perform as well as other options (which is totally doable, just some people don't like to do that).
And your paying a premium for an Intel motherboard as well - anywhere from about $15-50 more than a similarly equipped FM2+/AM3+ board.
So yeah, an i3 may perform better in todays games, but it won't necessarily be as cheap or cheaper, and you aren't looking at great performance any which way you slice it - if saving $25-75 on the budget bumps you to the next graphics card tier while keeping an otherwise acceptable CPU, I'd say that's a better use of the money.
And there's talk of futureproofing/tomorrow's games/DX12/whatever. I've softened on that some. I still couldn't in good conscious recommend a dual core to anyone, but when your on a budget, your choices are between "tolerable" and "good enough" - either way is cutting some corner realistically, it's just a matter of what you are willing to cut.
-------------
To answer the OP directly: the gaming performance difference between a 6300 and 8350 is measurable, but most of that difference can be attributed to a difference in stock clocks (3.5G 6300 vs 4.0G 8350) and not core counts - it can almost entirely be erased with a mild overclock. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=699
(You could also say that a G3528's performance difference could be erased with an overclock, but it takes an overclock of almost 1.5G+ to get there, you may or may not get that lucky)
That being said, comparing the 8350 to a Core i3 4330 - pretty much a draw there gaming-wise. They go back and forth a bit on titles, but pretty darn close down the gaming benchmark line.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=1192
I'm showing the i3 4330 at around $140US, I've not seen a new 8350 for under $150 in a long while, but the 8320 is right around $130 US (difference is just in stock clock - 3.5G vs 4.0G)
So for all of that, the 6300 looks pretty attractive - you save about $30-40 on the CPU right there, it still performs adequately, it has some headroom to OC if you wish, and on the off chance that all those people (including me) that keep saying "Core Count Matters!" end up being right, you have 6 of em ready to go.
Look for the combo deals - you can usually find decent ones somewhere that'll save you $10-20 here and there. CPU/MB and MB/RAM are very commonly bundled together.
If your old HD worked, and your just looking to replace it with a WD Blue - why not just reuse the old one? That, or reuse the old one, and get an SSD (my SSD pitch for the day). That would be the single best upgrade you could make for any computer. I can understand wanting to replace an HP case and PSU. You may be able to reuse the RAM as well, although if the motherboard died, good chance the RAM died with it.
The GPU is where I would throw the big dollars. The best buy for that very much depends on whatever the deal of the day is when your right around the $200+/- mark. An R9 280 would be a bit cheaper than a 380, and is essentially the same thing, the 380 just gets a bit more RAM and a mild overclock. The nVidia 960 will also be right around that budget area, and is worthy of consideration as well. Whatever deal you can find the day you place the order would be what I would consider - I don't have any benchmarks to prove one way or another, but I'm not exactly trying to advocate one way or the other, just that I would go with whichever was on sale that day.
I would recommend going with a 970 chipset motherboard for an FX, the older 760's were mostly for the Phenom/Athlon lines, and may or may not play well with the newer FX depending on their BIOS updates and such. They are around $10-15 more than a 760G would be, but still a bit cheaper than an Intel H97 (which would be their Intel equivalent).
No, 300w PSU wont get you far, it might in fact ne what killed your first PC. A underpowered PSU is bad news, particularly if it is a crappy one.
But are you sure it's not just the PSU who died? It might have fried the motherboard as well but usually at least the CPU survives. Not always though, but it is not unlikely at all that the PSU is the only thing that gave up. And since you need to buy a new one anyways you could get one first and just try replacing it, unless of course you already tried another. A nice Corsair or OZC 600 or 650W is recommended (preferably one of Corsairs mid or high range).
Anyways, keep the case and the drives, maybe you could get a small SSD for windows and prioritied games instead for the money you saves for it.
The windows CD key is kinda in the grey. You might be able to re-use if you call microsoft and tell them what happened, they are usually pretty cool if you replace a motherboard that died that fast. The key is locked to the motherboard in the license. It would save you some money as well,you really should get something with an acceptable graphics card instead for the built in crap.
I wouldn't call Intel a dead platform but I3 is crap anyways. A nice Haswell-E or something is good but Intel never been a good choice for the low budget users (with the exception of a few early Celeron CPUs that could be clocked insanely).
Sure, they will change their socket soon again but how many people actually change their CPUs anyways but keep their motherboard? Rarely worth the work in most cases, motherboards are not that expansive anyways.
For budget users: Go AMD.
Agreed, a good graphics card is usually a far better investment for gamers than a good CPU. Both is of course to prefer but then things are getting pricy.
Take a look at this article from PCPer, it was published a few days ago so the information is fresh. This should give you more insight to your decision.
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Systems/Quad-Core-Gaming-Roundup-How-Much-CPU-Do-You-Really-Need
6300. Not even a brainer.
First remotely worth Intel to buy is i5-xxxxk, and only if you buy beast GPU(s) alongside it AND dont play in big resolutions AND intend to OC the shit out of it.
Everything else is just waste of money, as this (and every CPU (gaming) test) shows.
http://www.hardwarepal.com/best-cpu-gaming-9-processors-8-games-tested/
Take a long hard look at modern games performance.
Yeah, some ancient games might perform better on expencive Intel, so instead 150 FPS youll get 200. For 200+$ difference in price. Youre better off investing that difference in GPU or SSD.
Most people dont care for facts.
CPU doesnt matter in 99,9999 cases. So just get cheapest available/acceptable one (which is 6300 atm)
Stay in your lane...