fx6200 to fx8320/50?

mx0range · 15 Sep 2013 at 11:39

would i see much benefit upgrading to an fx83xx from my fx6200?

i had been thinking of a move to i5 but this would obviously be much more expensive whereas the fx83xx is much more cost effective.. but im not sure its worth it or not :confused:

would like to keep this build ticking over for another year ideally

Finners · 15 Sep 2013 at 11:57

What do you use the system for mainly? if its gaming what resolution do you play at?

Something Else · 15 Sep 2013 at 12:07

I would just stick with your amd setup, and go for the 8320 or 8350 if you find it second hand at a decent price.

That should keep you going for more than a year

mx0range · 15 Sep 2013 at 12:12

mostly for gaming, bit of photoshop. res is 1680 x 1050

~Dockie · 15 Sep 2013 at 13:42

i just went from a 6200 to an 8320 and it was a nice upgrade, gained 1000 points in 3dmark11.

haven't really done much benching yet but i'd think they would all be better.

if you can pick one up for a decent price then i say why not. itll definately make better use of your 670.

Rangerjr1 · 15 Sep 2013 at 15:25

8350s and 3570ks are about the same. Differences show only when you play certain games and certain benchmarks. But yea 6200 to 83xx is a nice upgrade. 2 more cores and IPC improvement over bulldozer!

Martini1991 · 15 Sep 2013 at 15:34

Just get the FX8320, cost effective upgrade.

mx0range · 15 Sep 2013 at 16:08

i was under the impression that the 8350 were higher binned and so more likely to overclock to higher speeds. id want to at least match the 4.4ghz i have now although id really like to be hitting 4.6

Orcvader · 15 Sep 2013 at 16:35

Higher binned doesn't mean better overclocks

. Get the 8320, it should overclock to the same levels as the 8350 anyway.

teppic · 15 Sep 2013 at 18:28

Even the 6300 would be a good upgrade over the 6200, Piledriver performs a lot better than Bulldozer and tends to overclock higher. New games take advantage of the extra cores too.

Rangerjr1 · 15 Sep 2013 at 22:55

mx0range said:
i was under the impression that the 8350 were higher binned and so more likely to overclock to higher speeds. id want to at least match the 4.4ghz i have now although id really like to be hitting 4.6

99% of chips will do 4.5. And most ive seen will do 4.8. I had mine at 4.8 on air for ages.

farmerboy-86 · 17 Sep 2013 at 22:04

Get the 8320 as getting a 8350 over 4.6 is tricky has all the best were kept for the 9370 and 9590 mine hates anytging over 4.6 the voltage I had to put in was crazy and lots of extra heat. Im not saying they wont clock well before anyone says im wrong just saying 4.6/4.7 seems to be sweet spot 8320 is cheaper option and as stated above will clock just as well

Phixsator · 19 Sep 2013 at 10:23

farmerboy-86 said:
Get the 8320 as getting a 8350 over 4.6 is tricky has all the best were kept for the 9370 and 9590 mine hates anytging over 4.6 the voltage I had to put in was crazy and lots of extra heat. Im not saying they wont clock well before anyone says im wrong just saying 4.6/4.7 seems to be sweet spot 8320 is cheaper option and as stated above will clock just as well

I thought the same way until i actually put some proper cooling on the thing and read up on the cpu. It was bloody easy and the temps are really good to pushing [email protected]@51 degrees during load(Bios says 1.42 using offset but cpuz reports 1.45). So i do not think that AMD has kept all the good ones for the fx 9xxx lineup.

Only settings i changed was to disable all the power saving features and AMD Boost. Then set multiplier to x24 and volt to 1.42 using offset. In most cases i would recommend starting at 1.47 and work your way down if it takes it. For cooling something like high end noctua or a Corsair H100i is almost a most. Stay away from the Cooler Master 212 Evo unless 4.4-4.5 is good enough.

dfour · 19 Sep 2013 at 20:09

yeah my 8350 does 4.5 all day on stock voltages but to go higher requires a lot of voltage.

Avenged7Fold · 19 Sep 2013 at 20:57

Ive clocked a number of 8 core fx chips and found that you are incredibly likely to reach the speeds of the 9xxx chips at the same voltage they use (may not be just by multiplier like the stock clock of the 9xxx's). I dont think the 9xxx are any more stable or different to the 8320/8350's. Why would they keep the best CPUs for the 9xxx, if they were going to just pump 1.5V in to make them stable anyway?

I find that unless you got really unlucky with the chip, you probably dont have enough cooling if you cant get a 8320/8350 to 4.8 on 1.5Volts.

mx0range · 19 Sep 2013 at 22:07

cooling wise iv got a thermaltake big water 2.0 went with this over the h100i as i prefer aseteks method of mounting the pump to amd sockets over coolit systems.

so, i'll just go for the 8320. anything over 4.3ghz i can live with

teppic · 19 Sep 2013 at 22:11

Clocks higher than 4.2-4.3GHz rely more on the board a lot. If your board is rev 1 or rev 4 you'll have no problems, at rev 3 you may get throttling because of the VRMs. This affects the 8320/50s more than the 6300s though.

Generally anyone with any 990 Asus board will have no problems at all.

mx0range · 19 Sep 2013 at 22:18

my board is a rev 1.2

teppic · 19 Sep 2013 at 22:21

Not sure about that one. Rev 3 is the one that has given the worst issues. But a 6300 should manage at least 4.3GHz on it anyway, and an 8320 maybe 4.3GHz. If you have any problems get hold of a spot fan and point it over the VRM heatsink and that should remove the issues.

Avenged7Fold · 19 Sep 2013 at 22:29

I suppose if you have a 6200 and the board already, pump up the voltage and see. That way, you can find out if your board will have any issues running a higher power CPU with a higher clock.

If i remember correctly, the 1.2 is fine.

Competitor rules

fx6200 to fx8320/50?

Mobster

Mobster