Get and OC FX-6350 or keep x4 980?

I would think AMD would just make all 8xxx chips and then just see which ones can get up to speed on all modules.

If one specific module can't get up to speed, they just disable it and sell it as a 6xxx chip.

So if you your FX-8350 has one module that keeps failing at say 4.5 GHz, if you were to disable that weak core, you could hit 4.8 GHz as a 3 module chip.

So I would think that's sort of what AMD does already.

Are there any de-lidded pics of these chips?

 

Actually, it appears to be true. The 8xxx and 6xxx are the same die.

https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/2j0b2x/what_happened_when_my_brother_tried_delidding_his/

 

Welp, trigger pulled.

I ordered a FX-8320E for $140

I was going to get the normal 8320, but newegg just stopped their sale; so the cheapest version is the E. Plus I think it will have a better chance of OC'ing compared to the normal one.

I was tempted to get the 6300 from my local Walmart for $107 (including tax), but the little voice in my head said not to leave the extra FPU on the table for only $33.

The way games are scaling now, a game using 4 cores on the 6300 will get 4 integer units, but only 3 floating point units...

Looks like 2016 will determine if this is the last AMD CPU I buy for a while...

 

as long as you do not go multi gpu that chip once oc will be alright.

 

I mean Phenom II X4 980 @ 4200 / CPUNB 2800 more powerfull than FX-6300 @ 4700 / CPUNB 2500 in 99% games.

 

Yeah, but most Phenom II can't get that high. My 1090t only got there when I disabled 2 cores. My C2 955 can only go to 3.7 GHz with mad LLC. Also, games like Crysis 3 and BF4 will be better with the 6300 since they actually use more than 4 cores.

That said, I got the 8320e. I'm at 4.2 GHz right now. For some reason I'm hitting a thermal wall on it with my Corsair H80 I think I might re-seat the block.

Overclocking the FX is a bit different than thulban and deneb (thermally, on my mobo). High LLC on the earlier chips don't raise thermals that much. With FX chips, it shoots it through the roof. So it actually better to run higher voltage with less LLC than lower voltage with higher LLC... just me observation so far. And I'm not talking about socket or VRM temps. It's core temps.

 

Back when I had AMD, I had a 960T that didn't unlock that I ran @ 4.1GHz 1.4v with a 3000Nb speed. I later tried an FX 6300. I needed to run the FX 6300 @ 4.6GHz in order to match the single thread or lightly threaded performance of the 960T @ the mentioned speed. The 960T was capable of brief periods @ 4.3GHz and the 6300 could be benched @ 4.9.

If I were experimenting with AMD now I'd probably try something like an FX 8310 and OC it. Yes, an FX 6350 @ 4.5GHz would be faster than something like a 970 @ 3.7GHz in lightly threaded apps. I'd guess the 970 would match it @ 4.0GHz. Things like BF4 multiplayer would likely be faster on the OCed FX 6350 while titles like Skyrim would be near identical when comparing them at the OC speeds I'm noting.(4.5 vs 4.0)

 

Yeah,

I went ahead and got a 8320e because future games will use more cores better.

I have it at 4.5 GHz right now, thermals still great on my H80i and my V droop is like 1.36v at 100% load.

I might keep going to for craps and laughs.

Also, my 960T was really an OC'd 955 (so same specs), but it wouldn't go over 3.7 GHz no matter what since it was a C2, not C3 stepping.

 

With both CPU's at stock speeds, an FX 6300 beats an i7 920 every time.

 

That processor is from 2008

 

And the 8320 is cheap as hell so you should pick that over either.

 

Not quite: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/699?vs=47

 

Almost 1Ghz difference and AMD still cant beat it, it's sad.

 

That's just not true.