A8 5600k & e8500

Nov 26, 2012
92
0
0
#1
Hey guys I would need some suggestions.
So curently I'm using E8500 processor.
Till now it was fine for me. But now when I try to record my gameplay is tart lagging. It's because CPU I guess.
So I'm playing Crossfire game on 1920x1080 and I try to record on 1280x720 with 30fps ... my game start lagging and also the video isn't rly nice.

So I'm wondering if it's worth to upgrade my PC from E8500 to A8 5600K from AMD.

Other PC stats:
Graphic: GTS 450
8GB DDR 1333MHZ ram
80GB SSD
500GB Caviar Green

I would need some CPU that can handle playing game + recording it with no lagging. And Crossfire is some old game that support 2 cores only. So by my logic, if I would have 5600K with 4 cores, 2 cores would run for game and 2 cores for recording. So it would be perfect by my opninion.
Also game is on SSD disk and I'm recording on other disc, so I guess that if I would have CPU for 4 cores, I would even feel the difference at my FPS ingame, and also video quality would be good.

Now I would like to get some your opinions about that, and if you maybe suggest me some other CPU for price around 120€.
 

inf64

Platinum Member
Mar 11, 2011
2,809
29
136
crazyworldofchips.blogspot.com
#2
Here you go,comparison of 5600K and e8500. 5600K is much faster chip(even though it has the same number of fp units-2) ,in every workload in AT bench. It also clocks to the same level as higher end model, the 5800K,so you can reach 4.3-4.5Ghz on air cooling.

For your particular usage I guess it would be much better since you get ~2x more (integer) resources AND you have SSD drive. Your multitasking experience would also notably improve.
 
Last edited:
Nov 26, 2012
92
0
0
#3
Here you go,comparison of 5600K and e8500. 5600K is much faster chip(even though it has the same number of fp units-2) ,in every workload in AT bench. It also clocks to the same level as higher end model, the 5800K,so you can reach 4.3-4.5Ghz on air cooling.

For you particular usage I guess it would be much better since you get ~2x more (integer) resources AND you have SSD drive. You multitasking experience would also notably improve.
Yeah I found that site with comparison ... but too bad there are no resaults for games. If you check compare betwen E8500 and E8400 you get comparison for games aswell.
 

Rvenger

Elite Member <br> Super Moderator <br> Video Cards
Super Moderator
Apr 6, 2004
6,284
0
76
#5
A8-5600k is no slouch and it crushes the G530 I have sitting on my desk right now. It seems that the dual cores really choke under load. I have steam running, 5 browser windows and AVG scanning in the background and the desktop stops responding. I have all 4 cores at 4ghz and its outperforming an A10 right now and I cannot notice any performance difference between my i7 on the desktop. They both boot around the same speed on windows 8.

I would say that a Celeron G530 or Pentium G620 would be comparable to your C2D and its definitely a worthwhile upgrade.
 
Last edited:
Nov 26, 2012
92
0
0
#6
A8-5600k is no slouch and it crushes the G530 I have sitting on my desk right now. It seems that the dual cores really choke under load. I have steam running, 5 browser windows and AVG scanning in the background and the desktop stops responding. I have all 4 cores at 4ghz and its outperforming an A10 right now and I cannot notice any performance difference between my i7 on the desktop. They both boot around the same speed on windows 8.

I would say that a Celeron G530 would be comparable to your C2D and its definitely a worthwhile upgrade.
So your point would be, that it's not worth to upgrade from my E8500 to A8 5600K ?

And I have another question here ...
If I'm using 2 programs that each of them support 2 cores ... how will 4 core procesor react on that?
let's say I'm playing game with support 2 cores, and I'm recording it with program that also support 2 cores (Bandicam ... I guess it support 2 cores hehe).
So how it will go? Will the system recognise that, and set game on 1st and 2nd core ... recording program on 3rd and 4th core ?
Or the system won't get that and it will just try to put both aplications on 1st and 2nd cores ?
 

inf64

Platinum Member
Mar 11, 2011
2,809
29
136
crazyworldofchips.blogspot.com
#7
System will distribute the tasks on as many cores as possible (so if you have 4 tasks running they would run across all 4 cores). Windows 7 scheduler is quite good in that regard.
 
Nov 26, 2012
92
0
0
#8
System will distribute the tasks on as many cores as possible (so if you have 4 tasks running they would run across all 4 cores). Windows 7 scheduler is quite good in that regard.
Okay, so then it would be much better for me.
Till now game and recoreding program used same 2 cores.
Now Game will use 2 and recording program other 2 cores so it will be just fine I guess :)

But peoples are saying that cores of AMD can't compare with intel cores... idk if that's true and why ...
 

inf64

Platinum Member
Mar 11, 2011
2,809
29
136
crazyworldofchips.blogspot.com
#9
Okay, so then it would be much better for me.
Till now game and recoreding program used same 2 cores.
Now Game will use 2 and recording program other 2 cores so it will be just fine I guess :)

But peoples are saying that cores of AMD can't compare with intel cores... idk if that's true and why ...
Well it's true and false at the same time. If you were to compare your C2D with 5600K than the later would be much faster in probably 95% of the cases. It does have 2 fp "cores" though (along 4 real integer cores- the 2 integer cores share one fp "core") . But each of the fp "cores" can do 2 threads so in the end you end up with a 4 thread machine. If you were to compare 5600K with intel core iX generation of chips, then i3 3220 would be roughly equal to it- it would be 2 cores+SMT(hyperthreading) on intel CPU(so 4 threads in total) versus 4 integer cores+2 fp cores(so 4 threads in total ,again). This sharing of fp units in new AMD Bulldozer/Piledriver is the reason why they compete with i3 and i5/7 with the same number of threads.

So to recap: versus your C2D and even C2Q- 5600K is faster ; versus newer intel core i3( 4 threaded dual core)- 5600K is roughly equal. Note that there are a few games such as Skyrim and WoW which perform higher on intel CPUs than on AMD CPUs(even if you count in Phenom II X4/X6 along with new FX) .These are outliers so if you play ONLY those games intel would be better choice even if it costs more. In other cases 5xxxK/FX6xxx is usually cheaper and performs the same or better. AMD chips are also unlocked so OCing is just a multiplier change away. Feature wise they support complete ISA (all SSEx,new FMA/XOP,AES for encryption and AVX).
 
Last edited:
Nov 26, 2012
92
0
0
#10
Well I think I will buy that new AMD A8 5600K and test it out.
Games that I'm playing are mostly MMORPG at least 2 years old
And some FPS also more then 2 years old.

But I hope this time I will get less lagging when I record video :)
 

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
4,748
19
106
#11
Well it's true and false at the same time. If you were to compare your C2D with 5600K than the later would be much faster in probably 95% of the cases. It does have 2 fp "cores" though (along 4 real integer cores- the 2 integer cores share one fp "core") . But each of the fp "cores" can do 2 threads so in the end you end up with a 4 thread machine. If you were to compare 5600K with intel core iX generation of chips, then i3 3220 would be roughly equal to it- it would be 2 cores+SMT(hyperthreading) on intel CPU(so 4 threads in total) versus 4 integer cores+2 fp cores(so 4 threads in total ,again). This sharing of fp units in new AMD Bulldozer/Piledriver is the reason why they compete with i3 and i5/7 with the same number of threads.

So to recap: versus your C2D and even C2Q- 5600K is faster ; versus newer intel core i3( 4 threaded dual core)- 5600K is roughly equal. Note that there are a few games such as Skyrim and WoW which perform higher on intel CPUs than on AMD CPUs(even if you count in Phenom II X4/X6 along with new FX) .These are outliers so if you play ONLY those games intel would be better choice even if it costs more. In other cases 5xxxK/FX6xxx is usually cheaper and performs the same or better. AMD chips are also unlocked so OCing is just a multiplier change away. Feature wise they support complete ISA (all SSEx,new FMA/XOP,AES for encryption and AVX).

in what games the 5600K performs better than the i3? (I'm specifically looking for non GPU bound scenarios, which is where a fast CPU is important).

5600k has no l3 cache, and it's significantly (10-20% http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/675?vs=700) slower than a FX 4300 at the same clock for gaming,

FX 6100 is only $10 more expensive, it might be a better choice for gaming+streaming.

I'm not sure but even the old Phenom II X4 (cheaper than both) might be better for streaming,

anyway, it may well be a good choice to buy a cheaper MB (since power usage is lower and there is not OC involved) and go with the cheapest sandy/ivy bridge I5 you can get, I heard Intel CPUs are better for streaming...
 
Jan 12, 2005
14,817
2,293
126
#12
So your point would be, that it's not worth to upgrade from my E8500 to A8 5600K ?

And I have another question here ...
If I'm using 2 programs that each of them support 2 cores ... how will 4 core procesor react on that?
let's say I'm playing game with support 2 cores, and I'm recording it with program that also support 2 cores (Bandicam ... I guess it support 2 cores hehe).
So how it will go? Will the system recognise that, and set game on 1st and 2nd core ... recording program on 3rd and 4th core ?
Or the system won't get that and it will just try to put both aplications on 1st and 2nd cores ?

No, he's saying the opposite... his A8 at 4GHz feels like his i7 in Windows, and is much faster than the Pentium dual core.

I think it'd be a good upgrade for the money. But then again, I hear you can find 2500K's for a nice price if you look around.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,450
61
126
#13
Here you go,comparison of 5600K and e8500. 5600K is much faster chip(even though it has the same number of fp units-2) ,in every workload in AT bench. It also clocks to the same level as higher end model, the 5800K,so you can reach 4.3-4.5Ghz on air cooling.

For your particular usage I guess it would be much better since you get ~2x more (integer) resources AND you have SSD drive. Your multitasking experience would also notably improve.
That is far from the complete bench that is available for most processors. I think the E8500 would fare much better in games and single threaded benchmarks than in the benchmarks shown. In any case, are you sure you are not GPU limited? That GTS 450 is a pretty weak card after all.

If you do upgrade the CPU why are you limiting yourself to an APU when you are using a discrete card anyway? Any i5 would blow away that 5600k in CPU performance, and I would even probably consider an FX4350 or 6350 more suitable for your use than an APU.
 
Nov 26, 2012
92
0
0
#14
That is far from the complete bench that is available for most processors. I think the E8500 would fare much better in games and single threaded benchmarks than in the benchmarks shown. In any case, are you sure you are not GPU limited? That GTS 450 is a pretty weak card after all.

If you do upgrade the CPU why are you limiting yourself to an APU when you are using a discrete card anyway? Any i5 would blow away that 5600k in CPU performance, and I would even probably consider an FX4350 or 6350 more suitable for your use than an APU.
I know that any of i5 would be better. But any kind of i5 cost 2x more then this 5600K from AMD. At least that's the prices in my country atm.
And I think I'm not GPU limited ... Also don't rly know how I could check that hehe
 
Nov 26, 2012
92
0
0
#15
No, he's saying the opposite... his A8 at 4GHz feels like his i7 in Windows, and is much faster than the Pentium dual core.

I think it'd be a good upgrade for the money. But then again, I hear you can find 2500K's for a nice price if you look around.
I don't think we can compare that A8 5600K with i7 ... can't even compare it with i5 if you ask me.
But it rly seems that it can go with the i3 if we check some benchmarks.
But I rly wanna have Quad core cpu :\
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,450
61
126
#16
I know that any of i5 would be better. But any kind of i5 cost 2x more then this 5600K from AMD. At least that's the prices in my country atm.
And I think I'm not GPU limited ... Also don't rly know how I could check that hehe
Just open task manager while doing gaming and recording and see if CPU usage is 100 percent. You can also do the same thing for GPU usage by downloading something like MSI afterburner, which will work with any nVidia card. You may find that you are CPU limited but that the GPU is also being used nearly 100 percent. If the GPU usage is near max, upgrading the CPU may not help much.
 

Rvenger

Elite Member <br> Super Moderator <br> Video Cards
Super Moderator
Apr 6, 2004
6,284
0
76
#17
So your point would be, that it's not worth to upgrade from my E8500 to A8 5600K ?

I recommend the upgrade to the A8.
 
Nov 26, 2012
92
0
0
#18
Just open task manager while doing gaming and recording and see if CPU usage is 100 percent. You can also do the same thing for GPU usage by downloading something like MSI afterburner, which will work with any nVidia card. You may find that you are CPU limited but that the GPU is also being used nearly 100 percent. If the GPU usage is near max, upgrading the CPU may not help much.
Okay so I tested that with some gadget for my Nvidia card.
Graphic card is during gaming on like 40% usage, and when I turn on recording it goes to 50% . Was playing for 2 hours and never went to 60%
CPU is on 95% when I'm playing ... when I turn on recorder it's constantly 100% while playing + recording.
So I guess I'm pretty much CPU limited.
As I already said ... the game is kinda old and also the graphic isn't that briliant as new games, so it don't use so much graphic card ...

I recommend the upgrade to the A8.
Okay, thanks alot for your advice :)
 
Feb 2, 2009
12,827
119
126
#19
+1 for the A8-5600K

I would also consider the FX4300 with ASUS M5A97 R2.0 AM3+
 
Nov 26, 2012
92
0
0
#20
+1 for the A8-5600K

I would also consider the FX4300 with ASUS M5A97 R2.0 AM3+
I was looking for that FX 4300 on benchmarks aswell, but can't buy this one in my country ... they simply don't have that one -.-

And thanks for your opinion about A8 5600K :)
 

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,176
1
106
#21
Here you go,comparison of 5600K and e8500. 5600K is much faster chip(even though it has the same number of fp units-2) ,in every workload in AT bench. It also clocks to the same level as higher end model, the 5800K,so you can reach 4.3-4.5Ghz on air cooling.

For your particular usage I guess it would be much better since you get ~2x more (integer) resources AND you have SSD drive. Your multitasking experience would also notably improve.
OP, before you decide to buy the AMD chip, you should try one thing. In the link provided above, go and change the E8500 to an E8600. Now you will see gaming benchmarks. They are not pretty. The E8600 actually outscores the AMD chip in some games. Why not get an i3-3220? WoW FPS jumps to around 100 for 3rd gen i3, whereas on the AMD it actually drops to 60. It's an outlier, but its still a huge disparity I would not want to deal with on new hardware.
 
Nov 26, 2012
92
0
0
#22
OP, before you decide to buy the AMD chip, you should try one thing. In the link provided above, go and change the E8500 to an E8600. Now you will see gaming benchmarks. They are not pretty. The E8600 actually outscores the AMD chip in some games. Why not get an i3-3220? WoW FPS jumps to around 100 for 3rd gen i3, whereas on the AMD it actually drops to 60. It's an outlier, but its still a huge disparity I would not want to deal with on new hardware.
i3 are all 2 cores only ... and I would rly like to have 4 cores hehe
And also I know that everyone is saying how bad AMD processors are ... that might be my first chanche to test it myself and see if that's what peoples are talking is true.
It can't be that bad ...
 
Feb 2, 2009
12,827
119
126
#23
A8-5600K is unlocked, that means you can OC

Core i3 is LOCKED, no OC.

Not to mention 5600K is cheaper and with your GTS450 you will be GPU limited in games most of the time.
 
Nov 26, 2012
92
0
0
#24
Hmmm ... i just found some strange think:
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/226/cpuusagep.png

That's my acctuall CPU usage.
With red one I marked the field when I was playing Crossfire all max + recording on 1280x720.

Is it possible that I'm acctually not CPU limited?
Maybe I'm GPU limited with my graphic card? But I can't rly understand that, because that GTS 450 seems rly nice to me.
7,2 score with windows index and also cost like 100&#8364; ...

Well however pls advice me now ... what other graphic card I should get? Price ~150&#8364;
 
Nov 26, 2012
92
0
0
#25
http://imageshack.us/scaled/landing/132/gpu.png
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/7540/cpuhi.png

Nah ... it must be CPU after all.
I runned HWiNFOx64 program or something.

Those two pictures are from usage when I record on 1280x720 23fps
And we can clearly see, that Max CPU ussage was 100%
And max GPU usage was 58% and 33%

Now to make sure that's rly it, I tried to record in 1920x1080 at 30fps
Resault:
CPU 100%
GPU 84% & 34%

So I guess the CPU is the one who make me lagging.
And if I understand it right, with just better CPU I would record on 1920x1080 at 25fps with no problem, because GPU won't go over 85% usage so I think it shouldn't lagg because of my graphic card after all :)

Anyone think I'm wong ?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS