AM3+ for new Gaming PC?

Hardware Hub CPU
1

Dear all,

 

I'm in the research phase for my new build. I'm looking to put together a rig that is geared for gaming (with some light spreadsheet/word processing/web browsing) and I don't want to get stuck with a dead socket that I can't upgrade in a few years.

 

My plan was to go with AMD CPU to get more "bang for the buck". If I go AM3+, I would choose an FX-8320 or FX-8350. I'm now concerned that I will be limiting myself in terms of future upgrade paths with this socket.

 

Question: Am I off base for being concerned that AMD is focusing on APUs and might not be making more (if any) CPUs for the AM3+ socket? It seems like plenty of people are using AM3+ for new PC builds in 2014 so I guess that is comforting. Is this a non-issue, as the FX-8xxx with a M5A99X EVO R2.0 (and fancy GPU) should satisfy my needs (with perhaps a second GPU at some point down the line) for the next five years?

 

Background (if interested)

I'm moving from this setup (built in 2010 to use ProTools 8, not for gaming):

CPU: Q9400

MOBO: Asus P5Q Deluxe

Mem: 4GB of DDR2 800Mhz (don't remember manufacturer)

GPU: GTX 470

OS: Win 7 Ultimate (running 32 bit)

 

The current rig plays games fine, just not at settings or with frame rates that I want. My initial idea was just to slap in a new GPU but I worry about bottleneck at the CPU or old, slow memory. 

 

I want to play games at 1080P with High or Very High settings in games, 60FPS if possible. I play a variety of games: Civ V, F1 2012, Next Car Game, Metro 2033, Diablo 3, StarCraft 2, Bridge Builder, EuroTrucker, RayMan. Whatever, I like it all. 

 

This is my first time posting on any forum so please let me know if I have left out any pertinent information.

Thanks for your input,

Brendan

2

I would get a new GPU like a gtx770 or something like that and give it a whirl if your cpu can take it then there ya go if/when you need more get CPU  you will have a good GPU card for the next build. I have a FX6300 with 2 HD7950s and it can take most of what the crossfire delivers. I bet your CPU would take quite a dose of GPU.

The AM3+ socket is dead and no new CPUs are going to be made for it however the 8350 is a great CPU and should keep up for a while yet. I was hoping for a Steamroller CPU for AM3+ but its not to be. 

3

AM3+ is dying that is no question, that being said, nobody knows What AMD has planned. perhaps an AM4 platform to continue the FX series. Maybe FM2+ will have them learning how to do with 100Watts what they currently do with 125Watts. point it, FM2+, while having limited power, has a future that seems bright. AM3+ will have raw power. however, if you do not like APU's you can go with a X4-760K (basically an A10-6800K with no GPU) and however much ram you deem worthy and roll with that AND still be a bit past proof AND be able to spend less on a PSU.        

With the setup you have I would gut it and salvage what you can. and then look at this build

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3gvih

4

Excavator will most likely not come to the AM3+ socket , FM2+ seems to be where its at. If you want to upgrade to the final derivative of the bulldozer architecture theres no doubt ur gonna have to invest in the FM2+ socket. I plan on doing so however I intend to just get the A8-7600 and stick with 1600x900 gaming. 

I think the reason why so many people are migrating to that relatively old FX is simply because the PS4 (in some sense) is based around that chips design. The PS4 has 8 WEAKER jaguar cores as well as a GPU that doesnt exceed something like an HD 7870/7950 at the most. These 8 weaker cores are gonna HAVE to be used to unleash the full potential of the game and if the 8 core jaguar is gonna be used to develop it, no doubt in my mind that the FX  8350 8 core will be a part of most games development processes. 

The FX (as nutty as it sounds) may be FUTURE proofing ur rig.  

5

Get FX-8320 or FX-8350 on am3 now. fm2+ will probbly be lower power cpus over the next few years, But will be slower then the fx 8 cores.

6

I would pay $20-$30 to get a 8350 and run at stock.

Pretty sure 8320's are all binned.

Dont even think of a 6300 its a budget CPU.

7

Either the 6350 or the 8350 would be an excellent choice and if you get an 8350 you dont have to run at stock if you use their turbo function then you can have 8 cores at 4.2GHz. Also I typically buy things from newegg but the 8350 is 179.99 at tiger direct.

8

FX 8320/8350 are are great budget CPU's but the AM3+ socket is old. I highly doubt they'll be releasing their next CPUs on that socket. They haven't announced any new CPUs other than their APUs but they haven't said that they're giving up on the FX series either. The 900 series chipset is also pretty old now so they definitely won't be using that anymore either.

9

The chances of releasing new CPUs on the AM3+ socket are negligible. And it's not because the socket is old, it's because releasing a new socket with a new CPU generation has become the norm (it forces people to buy a new motherboard, so the motherboard manufacturers also make a profit from a new CPU launch). Every CPU generation released in the past 5 years (please correct me if I am wrong), either by Intel or AMD, also required a different socket.

EDIT: Lunarus kindly corrected me, my above post is wrong and should be ignored.

10

Sandy to Ivy didn't need a new socket, Bulldozer to piledriver didn't and I could go back further on that. You also have the situation on AMD where sockets were backwards compatible such as being able to use AM2+ chips on certain AM2 boards.

11

Do you even know what binned means?

8350 are higher binned.

I believe I read somewhere the OC difference between the 8320 and 8350 is around 50 000 000 hertz with is around 0.05GHz.

12

Thank you for the examples! I stand corrected.

13

No body can tell what AMD is going to do. so stating that AM3+ is dead is something i totaly disagree, because nobody knows what AMD is going to do with theire new FX line of cpu´s.

Also 990FX chipset is not old, just look at the feutures it has to offer, they are equal to intels Z87 motherboard feutures, mainaly.  Wenn the first AMD 990FX chipset boards came on the market, they where basicly far ahead on intel´s 1156 boards. In therms of Feutures, so can somebody please explain me what is so OLD about the 990FX chipset?

14

AM3+ won't have much of an upgrade route. That being said the 8350 will not need an upgrade for a good amount of time. The 8350 has comparable performance to that of a 3770k. Which is by no standards a slouch. People still use first gen I7's without problem. Most people upgrading from the 8350 in the next couple of years are either professionals where a 5% performance improvement will mean a lot in productivity, or they just have the itch to upgrade. A mid range processor like an 8350 or an I5 can keep up with any graphics card. No matter how powerful. By the time the 8350 becomes to slow, every other part in your system will also probably not be worth keeping either. My point is that, when everything on socket AM3+ is to outdated to use, it probably means the rest of your system is also not worth keeping around either.      

15

+1 lol ☺

Till the time the FX8320 and FX8350 will starting the get old or slow, the whole system will be old lol. ive got a FX8350 for a year now. and i don´t see any upgrade reasons the upcomming 4 years. ☺

Till that time, nobody knows where we are then...

16

Another thing.

Make sure you upgrade to a 64 bit OS (Windows Specifically)

17

AM3+ does not have any sort of upgrades available past the 8350, putting it on par with any Intel socket. I mean, what can I upgrade my 2600k to that would be worth my time? Same for Haswell.

18

I meant, since 8320/8350/9370/9590 are the same chip, there is very little chace a 8320 would be able to OC much as those that are able to OC pass a certain standard would be"higher binned" silicon, better quality wafers by luck of fabrication results. Therefore 8320 would be inferior. 

What you read are old news, i read a 8350 could OC to 5ghz. I bought a 8350 after 9370 was introduced and it cant even pass 4.4ghz @ 1.45.

Where as now my 9370 does 4.7 @ 1.4

dont get me started on my 8320 it does 4.0 on 1.38

19

Thank you very much for the comments, folks.

I'm starting to think along the lines of thecaveman; once I'm ready to upgrade the CPU, I'll probably be ready to replace the other components too.

20

Simple answer; no.

Longer answer; Since the higher binned products reached the marked, AMD are testing their chips to see which criteria it holds. There are still the same odds of reaching the same with a 8350 as with a 8320.

BUT; They odds of getting a bad overclocking chip is slightly higher, not by much - talking about at a max of 5%

 

Out of the 17 people I have recommended the 8320, they have all been able to reach atleast a stable 4.4GHz. Some wouldn't go further because they aren't experienced with overclocking.

 

TL;DR : 8320 should still be a fine overclocker,either you got the worst luck or you might need to reconsider your overclocking skills. Just saying