Should you replace Intel C2D E8600 with AMD FX-6350 or AMD FX-6300?
Is there a significant difference in performance between the three probes? 550W power supply.somewhere in 1.5-1.7 times at the same frequency and multiplying by 2 pairs of cores,
plus the fact that the games are completely not sharpened for stones without cash 3 and 2 nuclear stones.
Grandshot
budget is strictly limited to no more than 6.5 thousand for a stone and 4.5 for a mother
Sha-R
considering that you have a GeForce GTX 670 card, the increase in games will be significant and noticeable.
fx-6350 is an ideal variant, especially since it can be overclocked (the main thing is to choose the right cooler).
The difference between AMD FX-6350 or AMD FX-6300 is only in price. Both can be overclocked to 5 Mhz. Of course, if there is good cooling.
From the FX-6300, you can easily make the FX-6350 .. Well, why overpay then, even 1k, you can add to the mother or to the cooler;)
The 6300 differs in that it is a junior line, so it may turn out to be inferior in quality, which may affect the ultimate overclocking. however, this "may" implies either a forced frequency cut or a marketing cut which has nothing to do with the quality of the stone. buying a higher processor automatically increases the chance of buying a more stable processor.
but about the revelation fx after the e8600 will not be here, I probably disagree. after the transition from 6600 to 9650, taking into account the overclocking of both, I felt a colossal inflow of pitch force from which he quickly buried himself in a 2-chip video card. the 8600 is only half of such a processor. In turn, when switching from 9650 4GHz to stock fx6100, there are few places where the gain was in plus, rather in minus. however, when overclocked to 4 GHz and on the bus, the increase was all the same. only in some games (for example, in Feyball 3) this lul gave drawdowns up to 20 fps without overclocking. unheard of amd ignorance. however, most of the games are still sharpened for multithreading, and fx got better.
W3aMisterWinner AMD's
problem is that it is extremely slow on a thread and extremely slow on massive calculations that require frequent calls to the cache. For example, I compared the performance in the cpu physics in the startales benchmark - fx 6100 4 GHz 15fps intel 4 GHz during cruzis 1 30 fps. lul. and moreover, overclocking by a multiplier gives a penny because neither the cache nor the memory controller is chasing. only a chilso-beater is chasing.
with permissions, I do not understand anything you have there. I crammed 1600x900 in 1600x1200 and once launched a full cd everywhere everything worked with active sleep.
to create a purely custom one I need 1000x1000.