Consider OCing the 8320E or 6300? Gigabyte-GA-78LMT
Consider OCing the 8320E or 6300? Gigabyte-GA-78LMT
I own a Gigabyte-GA-78LMT motherboard and haven't purchased either yet, but I'm considering getting either an AMD XFX 8320e or a 6300. I found a list on PCPartPicker that includes everything I need. I'm curious if OC would be stable and if it would reduce the lifespan of my PC. Also, will I need an aftermarket cooler? Which one should I buy and should I choose OC? Need some advice.
retrieve the 'e' since the lower 95w dp will usually be simpler to manage compared to the 6300's 125w.
Racerx1036 :
Should I purchase a 212 Evo and overclock it, or will stock speed suffice?
You’ll always require a superior heatsink since the stock fan can’t handle the heat from overclocking. Temperatures above 75 degrees are problematic—my FX 8320 (Original) already reaches 4.00ghz from stock 3.5ghz, and going higher pushes it to 80 degrees or more. Right now I’m at my peak overclock, which I’m happy with as it’s an FX 8350.
Keep in mind that E versions run slower—around 3.2ghz—and AMD likely reduced clock speed to manage power consumption.
The FX 6300 is a solid CPU; my brother uses it and plays games fine. If you’re flexible, the FX 8320 could be worth considering. Those extra two cores might prove useful in the long run.
Check out the comparison here and decide what suits you best—I think the two-core upgrade offers good value for the future.
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-8320-vs-AMD-FX-6300
So should I purchase a 212 Evo and overclock it, or will stock speed suffice? You’ll always need a superior heatsink since the stock fan won’t handle the heat from overclocking. Anything above 75 degrees is too hot—my FX 8320 (Original) can reach 4.00ghz from stock 3.5ghz, and anything higher can easily hit 80 degrees or more. At the moment, I’m at my maximum overclock on an FX 8350, which I’m happy with.
Keep in mind that E versions run at a lower clock speed—around 3.2ghz—and AMD likely reduced clock speeds to save power. The FX 6300 is a solid CPU; my brother uses it for games and it works fine if you can afford the FX 8320. Those extra two cores could be useful in a few years.
Check out comparisons here: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-8320-vs-AMD-FX-6300
Also, note these points:
1. The metalink link you shared was incorrect.
2. Both options will offer similar performance; it’s important to know what phases are involved—this board has a 4+1 phase and isn’t great at power delivery. Running a chip at 4.3 GHz will consume 125W, and going higher could damage the board or cause instability. Comparisons from third-party sites are often unreliable.
3. A Hyper 212 Evo is decent, but a Cryo H7 would be better, and an H5 would be even more suitable for overclocking.
4. The voltage you apply during overclocking affects the CPU’s lifespan.
5. Maintain core temperatures below 62°C and socket temperatures under 72°C to prolong CPU life.
6. Most games perform better with a single core than multiple cores; if you had chosen Intel, you’d likely get better results. The i3 6100 is a solid alternative.
7. No solution is completely future-proof. Both AMD have a reputation for reliability issues and aren’t strong in gaming. Why didn’t you consider Intel? At the very least, wait until Zen 2 or later to seriously consider AMD.
Get the 'e' since the lower 95w dpi will usually be simpler to manage compared to the 6300's 125w.
These individuals achieved a speed of 4.8ghz.
They utilized watercoolers and other unique parts like the FX990 chipset.
While some argue the chipset doesn't improve much, others claim components such as the sabertooth can handle any challenge.
You need to consider various system settings; they're also using high-performance GPUs to reach maximum 1080p ultra.
For overclocking, a £100 cooler is recommended, and you should opt for a better overclocking motherboard.
It seems like you're suggesting a more practical approach. You could look at a 970 UD3P for around 65£ and pair it with a decent cooler like the noctua ones. Cryorig h5 or r1 would work too. You don't necessarily need water cooling for all OC setups. With the board you mentioned, you should be able to reach up to 4.2 GHz using a good air cooler. I wouldn't recommend overclocking at all. It looks like everyone is reacting a bit too much. As for chipsets versus phases, it's why I advised against going with 4+1. You'd need an 8+2 phase board. The 990fx boards typically include 16+4, but you really just need 8+2. Just let me know what you're looking for on the OP—no need to jump to expensive water cooling or anything unrelated. I usually prefer air cooling unless you're pushing extreme OC.