Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Like a 60% performance increase.go for the top retail speed one as logic suggests, AMD has chosen the best chips to clock to the top speed so they'll overclock the best!
No 6300/6350 will be stuck at stock clocks. I've never heard of a 6300 that couldn't reach 4.5GHz on a good board like you've got. I'd go with the 6300 myself, but if you don't mind the £15 extra who am I to argue
Ordered the 6350. Will be here Friday so I'll post my findings over the improvement in both gaming and lots of programs running. Will be interesting. Thanks again dude. Really useful community member.
Take a look at this BF4 video to see where we already are with games
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9yVV6g3q7g
We certainly need to to see history repeat itself again, as Intel NEED a huge "down boy!" wack from AMD, as their price is starting to get out of control. I honestly hope AMD's Steamroller is the answer to our prayers.
Just want to point out while upgrading from Bulldozer to Piledriver (i.e. your 8150 to 6300/6350/8320) is not a bad option if you want performance increase without breaking the bank, the performance however increase is not gonna be that huge teppic seem to imply. As both me and Martini1991 pointed out, the Piledriver is only 10% faster than Bulldozer when both are on the same clock.
Let's pretend the instruction sets would help and bring the overall increase up by another 5% and bringing it up to 15% faster than Bulldozer (it won't be that much, but I will give it an overestimation just for illustration purpose anyway)- so how does that translate to in terms of real-world gain in games? Let's suppose your Bulldozer does minimum 22fps and average 40fps in a game that use 4 cores or less, Piledriver on the same clock with 15% increase in performance would mean the frame rate would goes from that to minimum 25fps and average to 46fps. It's "decent" increase in frame rate, but the overall performance still left much to desire. "Why?" You might ask? This is because an overclock i5 in the same game would have the minimum frame rate hitting 50fps+, and average frame rate would be quite over 60fps at most time (more like 70-90fps range). Take another CPU demanding game for example...say Guild Wars 2. This game known for how CPU demanding it is, and it is one of the few mmorpg that would actually use "up to" 4 cores (despite the CPU usage would only hit 75-80% max on all 4 cores at the same time). There are some extremely CPU demanding scenes such as field boss battle with 30-40 players fighting the boss and its army of minions, scenes like this the overclocked AMD 8 core's frame rate would be hitting as low as 15fps and under, where as an overclocked i5 would still be able to hold 28-30fps. The difference is between 14-15fps vs 28-30fps is "unplayable" and "playable".
It is simply this- an overclocked Piledriver FX8 CPU "could" come close to matching the performance of overclocked i5 in games that use up to 8 cores such as BF, Crysis 3, Far Cry 3 etc; but the lesser the cores that a game uses, the further the overclocked Piledriver FX8 slips away from the overclocked i5's gaming performance. The fundamental different between Intel's approach and AMD is simply that Intel's higher IPC approach will not only increase performance for new games, but older games as well (or games using dated engines that use less than 4 cores); whereas AMD's "more core" approach would benefit games only if games would make use of the extra cores.
AMD's IPC side of things has been at a standstill since the Phenom II (Bulldozer even saw it fell lower than that of the Phenom II). AMD's more cores approach is definitely sounded, but their problem is that they failed to increase the IPC from Phenom II at the same time while pushing for more cores. This is why almost everyone is really looking forward to what the Steamroller can bring. As I have said before, AMD don't need to beat Intel on IPC- they just need to bring out something in the same price bracket that offer per core performance close to i5, and offer more cores at the same time, and they would already be a winner- kinda like how the FX6300 vs i3 is. But I think it would be more difficult to achieve on the higher up range CPU, as unlike the i3, the i5 K's overclocking ability was not crippled.
But who knows? Back in the days nobody saw the "AMD Athlon 64 hanged the Pentium 4 out to dry" train coming
To clarify something- AMD's approach was higher number cores, IPC remain more or less the same but with the per core performance was pretty much relying on high clock to push it. But what they didn't expect was that Intel's i5 K CPU can hit the same clock frequency (and even higher) on max overclocking, which neglected the advantage of "high clock frequency" which AMD thought it would have over Intel.
Just clarify something, the max overclock on the Bulldozer FX8 and Piledriver FX8 are pretty much the same. Piledriver is NOT guaranteed to hit 5.00GHz. Whether a Bulldozer or Piledriver can hit 5.00GHz is completely down to the chip lottery, meaning whether or not your the particular CPU that you received is a good chip. There's also the motherboard parts come into play as well, as max overclock can be limited by the performance of the motherboard. Take the latest Intel Z87 chipset socket 1150 board for example, using the same i5 CPU, good board can hit 4.70GHz max, while less capable board will hit the roof at 4.50-4.60GHz.
