An off-topic question about CPUs

[travisdead1]

I'm trying to understand which CPU is better for a game.

An AMD Ryzen 5 3600 (6 core) vs. AMD FX 8350 (8 core)

I googled it and there were several things that made each sound better than the other, so I can't tell what's right. I don't really know that much about hardware.

The one that had 6 cores is newer and more expensive than the one that has 8 cores.
The 6 core has a base clock speed of 4.45 GHz. The 8 core has base clock speed of 4.75 GHz.

I don't know which one s better for a new game.

They would both have 32 gigs RAM, because that's what I have and would use.

[Foxrun]

Usually newer architecture brings improvements to single and multi core performance.

[tkwoods]

Look at the list of the technology they support. What memory speeds etc...

I'm an Intel guy so other than that...

The cpu also would need a compatible mother board.

[g0rml3ss]

To answer directly having access to both currently in my house hold the 3600 (x in my sons case) completely destroys the old FX 8320 that it replaced.

Glad to of helped.

[Bunker]

all parts need to work well together
balance

[g0rml3ss]

Originally posted by g0rml3ss:

To answer directly having access to both currently in my house hold the 3600 (x in my sons case) completely destroys the old FX 8320 that it replaced.

Glad to of helped.

Edit **

To elaborate as to not sound like an entitled deek (sorry had a beer or two couldn't be bothered to get into it but then I read this back).

The FX processors were built on the much older Bulldozer architecture and while in some ways ahead of their time absolutely sucked at single core performance which was and for the most part still is key to gaming and games in general on PC (very few utilise multi core threading and even less do so well).

While it is true when compared today vs their counterparts of the era such as chips like the i5 4690K which was released roughly the same time and considered one of the best bang for buck gaming chips of its time the FX processors look more handsome today than their previous counters as multi threading / core was utilised more but as said prior not always well.

In short looking today old Bulldozer chips on paper look and perform like an appetising budget option. How ever your are restricted to a chipset that is no longer supported (socket am+ if I remember correct?} and DDR 3 memory.

The Ryzen 5 3600x is a 2nd gen Ryzen processor with 6 cores 12 threads and can run on the older original ryzen socket set boards ( providing the correct bios update is applied) through to most upto date socket am4 mother boards meaning it is compatiblae with a wide variety of options. It also works on the infinity fabric architecture which the older bulldozer does not, so pairing the the ryzen 3600 with some decent ddr 4 3600mhz memory will improve its performance greatly. it also has acess (mobo permitted) to the S.A.M technology again offering a boost in performance (see bios options).

Despite all the above it benefits from being on a much more recent and far better optimised architecture that truely gave the cpu world a wobble to wake up at the time. the 3600 overclocks easily to the same speeds and in some cases above its 3600X counterpart. it is a very capable cpu and can be paired with a decent number of gpu's before worrying about a bottleneck.

The only reason my son has the one one he has is because I strolled upon an opportunity to get a Ryzen 7 5800X otherwise I'd probably still be using the 3600X myself.

[Umakurokoto]

I built at least four PCs off the AMD 8350, it was a sweet build for its day.

But, that was a decade ago.

CPU tech in terms of architecture is light years ahead of where it was then.

You'll want a newer CPU for modern games.

[g0rml3ss]

Originally posted by Umakurokoto:

I built at least four PCs off the AMD 8350, it was a sweet build for its day.

But, that was a decade ago.

CPU tech in terms of architecture is light years ahead of where it was then.

You'll want a newer CPU for modern games.

Still got the 8320 + Ram + Mobo gathering dust next to me just can't bring myself to throw it away, keep saying I'll turn it into a lan server for the kids for games such as ark etc but never get round to it .

[Call Sign: Raven]

Look no further than:

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-5-3600-vs-AMD-FX-8350/4040vs1489

When in doubt, google AMD Ryzen 5 3600 vs AMD FX 8350 and replace whatever CPU you are checking on. Works for GPUs, as well! Keep it in your bookmarks, friend!

[Umakurokoto]

Originally posted by g0rml3ss:

Originally posted by Umakurokoto:

I built at least four PCs off the AMD 8350, it was a sweet build for its day.

But, that was a decade ago.

CPU tech in terms of architecture is light years ahead of where it was then.

You'll want a newer CPU for modern games.

Still got the 8320 + Ram + Mobo gathering dust next to me just can't bring myself to throw it away, keep saying I'll turn it into a lan server for the kids for games such as ark etc but never get round to it .

I still have at least one 8350 build somewhere around here, lol. I gave others away, but they might still be in use out there.

I started using them less when I transitioned to my first coffee lake era i9, around six years ago.

[g0rml3ss]

Originally posted by Umakurokoto:

Originally posted by g0rml3ss:

Still got the 8320 + Ram + Mobo gathering dust next to me just can't bring myself to throw it away, keep saying I'll turn it into a lan server for the kids for games such as ark etc but never get round to it .

I still have at least one 8350 build somewhere around here, lol. I gave others away, but they might still be in use out there.

I started using them less when I transitioned to my first coffee lake era i9, around six years ago.

The 8320 was a budget minecraft build for my at the time 8 year old :D (he's 14 now ..) prior to that I had the afore mentioned 4690k with a R9 390, loved that build but gave it away to someone who was struggling (was time for an upgrade anyway) Decided at that point to try a Ryzen build (had been threatening to do so since the 1600x release) I bought the afore mentioned 3600X and coming from a 4690K was blown away and have been using Ryzen cpu's since although happy to admit budget at the time of purchase dictates what i end up with I can happily use either team green red or blue.

[ozzyoscy]

Generally the more cores and threads, the better.

Speed not so much, though naturally if you're comparing two CPUs with the same amount of cores/threads, the higher speed is better.

Doesn't matter how fast, a CPU with 2 cores you may as well be trying to play with a SNES. A slower CPU with 8 cores will be very much playable.

[Umakurokoto]

Originally posted by g0rml3ss:

Originally posted by Umakurokoto:

I still have at least one 8350 build somewhere around here, lol. I gave others away, but they might still be in use out there.

I started using them less when I transitioned to my first coffee lake era i9, around six years ago.

The 8320 was a budget minecraft build for my at the time 8 year old :D (he's 14 now ..) prior to that I had the afore mentioned 4690k with a R9 390, loved that build but gave it away to someone who was struggling (was time for an upgrade anyway) Decided at that point to try a Ryzen build (had been threatening to do so since the 1600x release) I bought the afore mentioned 3600X and coming from a 4690K was blown away and have been using Ryzen cpu's since although happy to admit budget at the time of purchase dictates what i end up with I can happily use either team green red or blue.

Agreed on using either. I was using AMD back in the 90s when a lot of people thought they were just straight up less reliable. I never had a problem in those days and am team red, green, blue, purple or anything else they come up with, as long as the hardware's good.

[nomadpad]

Originally posted by travisdead1:

I'm trying to understand which CPU is better for a game.

An AMD Ryzen 5 3600 (6 core) vs. AMD FX 8350 (8 core)

I googled it and there were several things that made each sound better than the other, so I can't tell what's right. I don't really know that much about hardware.

The one that had 6 cores is newer and more expensive than the one that has 8 cores.
The 6 core has a base clock speed of 4.45 GHz. The 8 core has base clock speed of 4.75 GHz.

I don't know which one s better for a new game.

They would both have 32 gigs RAM, because that's what I have and would use.

nah this is ba better topic, way more important the the hater posts.

processing power and output.
8 cores can do a lot more processes but take more power. Meanwhile 6 core might be less , but they might be more optimized towards gaming, by compacting better the data. Best be, is to see video on people that actually have tried them and might be able to tell you which one is more efficient

thought starfield is more optimized towards AMD so you should be fine with either choice.

[g0rml3ss]

Originally posted by Umakurokoto:

Originally posted by g0rml3ss:

The 8320 was a budget minecraft build for my at the time 8 year old :D (he's 14 now ..) prior to that I had the afore mentioned 4690k with a R9 390, loved that build but gave it away to someone who was struggling (was time for an upgrade anyway) Decided at that point to try a Ryzen build (had been threatening to do so since the 1600x release) I bought the afore mentioned 3600X and coming from a 4690K was blown away and have been using Ryzen cpu's since although happy to admit budget at the time of purchase dictates what i end up with I can happily use either team green red or blue.

Agreed on using either. I was using AMD back in the 90s when a lot of people thought they were just straight up less reliable. I never had a problem in those days and am team red, green, blue, purple or anything else they come up with, as long as the hardware's good.

Absolutely although frying a Quail egg on an overclocked socket 939 Athlon Thunderbird while it booted into windows was probably why I decided to give AMD more leway than most during the 90's :D

[Xhaiden]

The 3600 definitely. The 8350 is far too old.