AMD Athlon X4 845 Review: A Perfect Budget CPU For Gaming And Multitasking

[cbn]

Doing some research on desktop DDR3 prices I am noticing 2 x 4GB DDR3 2133 at a $10 premium over 1 x 8GB DDR3 1600 and $7 premium over 2 x 4GB DDR3 1600.

So going by the prices in posts #6 and #23 that would make Athlon 845, 1 x 8GB DDR3 1600 and EVGA GT710 about the same price as A8-7600 and 2 x 4GB DDR3 2133.

(In GPU limited gaming scenarios, the A8-7600 should win, but I do wonder if in CPU limited gaming conditions how much the single channel DDR3 1600 would hold back the Athlon x 4 845. In any event, what I am describing is an extremely niche scenario and 2 x 4GB 1600 is only $3 more than 1 x 8GB DDR3 1600.)

 

[frozentundra123456]

With a GTX 1080 sure, with the GTX 750Ti it will not even have more than 1-2 fps difference in the vast majority of games.

Depends on the game and settings/resolution. Obviously if one maxes out a highly demanding game at 1080p or higher, it will be gpu limited, but also unplayable, on the 750Ti. If he lowers the settings to get a faster framerate, the cpu can become limiting.

 

[AtenRa]

Depends on the game and settings/resolution. Obviously if one maxes out a highly demanding game at 1080p or higher, it will be gpu limited, but also unplayable, on the 750Ti. If he lowers the settings to get a faster framerate, the cpu can become limiting.

Well if you want to play at 480p with Low settings, yes it will.

But nobody will do that, so you will almost always be GPU limited with the GTX750Ti at 1080p even on Low settings in the majority of games.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

The recommendation nowadays should honestly be to get the 40-60 USD celeron that corresponds to the intel mainstream motherboard you plan on upgrading to the corresponding i5k or i7k in the future.

Now that I thoroughly disagree with. Buy the performance you need when you need it.

Otherwise, you end up with a crappy system both now and in the future when prices have dropped enough to allow you to drop-in that i5/7K. Intel CPUs hold their value quite well these days, so it'll be quite a while.

 

[24601]

Now that I thoroughly disagree with. Buy the performance you need when you need it.

Otherwise, you end up with a crappy system both now and in the future when prices have dropped enough to allow you to drop-in that i5/7K. Intel CPUs hold their value quite well these days, so it'll be quite a while.

The point isn't to wait until prices drop on them.
The prices will never change again.

The point is to buy cheapest now to tide you over with a system that functions, and then to upgrade to a system that will stay viable for 10-20 years, as the Intel monopoly pricing is here to stay.

 

[MajinCry]

Surely, if you wanted to test single threaded performance of CPUs, the best benchmark would be a modded Oblivion setup? Draw calls out the yang since it's forward rendering with practically no texture atlases, as well as only having frustum culling.

Hell, assigning Oblivion a second core only nets another +5 fps with me Phenom II.

No need to use these parallelized games to benchmark single threaded performance.

 

[dark zero]

Sure, but mostly only when it comes to gaming.

Not only gaming... hurts very hard on office and everything else... to make it worse, Excavator is figthing against an Octocore VIA who is likely to take them out.

 

[Doom2pro]

You can also get Phenom II B59's that unlock to Athlon X4 559.. (Identical to a Phenom II X4 965 C3 revision).

3.4Ghz in AM3 socket at least, so that means DDR3 and upgrade headroom and you can get Phenom II B59's on ebay that have been tested and have four functional cores for around $27 shipped.

The only downside is these Deneb based Phenom's have a 125W TDP which is a little steep for a quad core these days, but they get the job done.

 

[coffeemonster]

Not only gaming... hurts very hard on office and everything else... to make it worse, Excavator is figthing against an Octocore VIA who is likely to take them out.

that VIA 8c runs at 2Ghz with Jaguar IPC and likely a much higher cost. The only bench I found, geekbench, shows it's multithread performance lagging way behind the slowest bulldozer 8c(FX-8100 at 2.8Ghz). Even the 845 with half the cores beats it soundly in multithread as well.
VIA 8c: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/6779310
Athlon 845: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/search?dir=desc&q=x4+845&sort=multicore_score

For it's wattage and the uarch it advances from the 845 has very respectable performance. But it is just a spot gap CPU in a small price segment, not a major player.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

The point isn't to wait until prices drop on them.
The prices will never change again.

The point is to buy cheapest now to tide you over with a system that functions, and then to upgrade to a system that will stay viable for 10-20 years, as the Intel monopoly pricing is here to stay.

I'd much rather have a system now that's viable for 8-10 years. Not a system that's on the fence for 5 years, then "upgrading" to something which by then is mid-range performance.

And judging by how things are going, my next year Skylake-E purchase will likely last that long, unless something breaks.

 

[ET]

the Intel monopoly pricing is here to stay.

I wonder what you mean by 'Intel monopoly pricing'. Intel's monopoly price has always been around $300, since before Athlon was around. Then came AMD competition and prices rose up to $1000 at the high end and stayed there. So if that's the price you're referring to, it's 'AMD competition price'. If Zen is successful, high end prices will likely rise again.

 

[24601]

I'd much rather have a system now that's viable for 8-10 years. Not a system that's on the fence for 5 years, then "upgrading" to something which by then is mid-range performance.

And judging by how things are going, my next year Skylake-E purchase will likely last that long, unless something breaks.

845/860/4100 etc. are analogous to core 2 quads. If you thought they were "viable" you'd be using one. You probably aren't.

The only people suggesting these things that you are suggesting are AMD fanatics who don't really care about viability.

Seeing as you say you are in the market for Skylake-E, you probably should be a person who would see the non-viability of 845/860/4100.

And if you need 5 years to save up for a 6600k/6700k you have bigger problems.

I wonder what you mean by 'Intel monopoly pricing'. Intel's monopoly price has always been around $300, since before Athlon was around. Then came AMD competition and prices rose up to $1000 at the high end and stayed there. So if that's the price you're referring to, it's 'AMD competition price'. If Zen is successful, high end prices will likely rise again.

Learn capitalism. Competition is one of the only reliable drivers of lower prices in a capitalist system. "Monopoly prices" is not a buzz word, it's what happens when a monopoly prices things in their rational interest.

AMD hasn't had anything truly competitive since Athlon64 days, which is why we are in this mess right now.

 

[jhu]

I'd much rather have a system now that's viable for 8-10 years. Not a system that's on the fence for 5 years, then "upgrading" to something which by then is mid-range performance.

And judging by how things are going, my next year Skylake-E purchase will likely last that long, unless something breaks.

8-10 years? When, in the history of computing, has a 10 year old computer ever been viable? Sure they work if the workload doesn't change.

I have a Compaq Armada laptop from 1997 (Pentium 3 @ 450 MHz). It's essentially a terminal for my server.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

845/860/4100 etc. are analogous to core 2 quads. If you thought they were "viable" you'd be using one. You probably aren't.

The only people suggesting these things that you are suggesting are AMD fanatics who don't really care about viability.

Seeing as you say you are in the market for Skylake-E, you probably should be a person who would see the non-viability of 845/860/4100.

I -do- think you're misunderstanding something here. I actually use an 845 on an almost daily basis. Its actually a quite decent little cheap chip. It'll likely last a few years, then on to whatever is available in the budget sector then.

If you doubt me, there is a thread about Carizzo performance around here somewhere you can dig out.

My main system is a 3770non-K@4.3GHz, that I have zero incentive to upgrade currently. It's 3 years old.

Oh, and there is the Richland 6800K-powered HTPC and Atom tablet. So it's not like I'm favouring either company.

8-10 years? When, in the history of computing, has a 10 year old computer ever been viable? Sure they work if the workload doesn't change.

I have a Compaq Armada laptop from 1997 (Pentium 3 @ 450 MHz). It's essentially a terminal for my server.

LGA-1366. I have a i7 920 in working condition, and I can assure you it's viable for a daily-driver non-gaming system. Drop a used 6 core Xeon, and it could properly do a bit of video encoding in a pinch. It was purchased in late 2008...

 

[Dresdenboy]

Even the cheapest low end video cards make it more expensive than the pentium and basically the same as the A8-7600. And I doubt either the 6450 or 710 are as competent as the A8-7600 igpu. The athlons with no igpu only make sense if pairing them with a decent (R7-250x GT740/750) level dgpu. Otherwise, I still contend you are better off with intel for OK igpu for day to day use plus good cpu, or AMD APU for light gaming.

Addendum:
c't tested Pentium G4400 vs. Athlon X4 845. The sys had a GTX 950, 1TB SSD, 2x4 GB DDR3-1600.
Overall the game benchmark avg. fps were often equal, but in some cases ~10% in favor of the G4400. Apps were roughly 25% faster on the G4400 (CB MT was slower of course), power much better.

In AoS the Pentium stuttered with fps between ~15 and ~45, avg. ~33 in the graph. A tribute to 2 threads. The X4 was between ~25 and ~33, avg. ~30 fps.

So the # of threads should be considered for gaming.

 

[MajinCry]

The i7 920 is a pretty decent chip. At stock, it's about as fast as the 965. But in games, due to AMD CPUs having a really bad draw call deficit, the i7 just slaughters it.

'Eres a wee mention of it by Boris Vorontsov over on the ENB forums. http://enbdev.com/enbseries/forum/v...s&sid=e2486d25245fcfbbf0930490fa4a0cd3#p66262

Of course, if you play games that are heavy on workloads aside from draw calls (e.g, Skyrim with HDT PE physics + loads of NPCs + DynDLOD + loads of intensive scripty mods), the difference is less pronounced, but still night and day.


In other words, Nehalem i7s are still pretty damn good for gaming. Not really for timely content creation, where they're in the same spot as the ol' Phenom IIs, but eh.

 

[myocardia]

...

 

[escrow4]

The minimum desktop PC anyone should go for is an i5. A desktop sits there until it dies or gets filled up with so much rubbish it just grinds. Its 2016 and that box will last and last. Buying anything less than an i5 - and not a gimped 6400 - doesn't make any sense. You can spend $90 on some AMD rubbish or $220 on a CPU that will do everything reasonably fast from gaming to encoding. An extra $130 over at least 3 years is inconsequential. Its like a HiPoint vs something actually worth buying.

 

[myocardia]

...

 

[Phynaz]

8-10 years? When, in the history of computing, has a 10 year old computer ever been viable? Sure they work if the workload doesn't change.

I have a Compaq Armada laptop from 1997 (Pentium 3 @ 450 MHz). It's essentially a terminal for my server.

My desktop is still running Lynnfield.

 

[chrisjames61]

The point isn't to wait until prices drop on them.
The prices will never change again.

The point is to buy cheapest now to tide you over with a system that functions, and then to upgrade to a system that will stay viable for 10-20 years, as the Intel monopoly pricing is here to stay.

10 to 20 years? I hope you are kidding.

 

[24601]

10 to 20 years? I hope you are kidding.

The Prophet Moore has forsaken us.

The lands fall under the eternal pall of Mammon.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Not sure I'd call a CPU that is > i5-6400 a "minimum" but if you're going to be gaming, the 845 may not be the right chip thanks to its small L2 cache. It's definitely not the go-to for x265 encoding (the l2 seems to hurt performance there).

 

[coffeemonster]

Then the 880k is still the only Athlon to buy. It comes with twice the heatsink as the 845, and is already overclocked, as well as having twice the L2 cache, which games love. Well, the vast majority of games do, at least. At $80, it becomes a better deal (in my mind) than the i3, as well as the 845, especially since it's the only one of the three that has an unlocked multiplier.

Agreed :thumbsup:

 

[ET]

Learn capitalism.

Learn reality. At least in the tech field, competition at the low end drives prices down at the low end, but competition at the high end drives innovation and drives prices up at the high end.

So yes, you end up with much better hardware for the price, but you also end up with higher prices as standard. Look up what happened to prices last time AMD became competitive. When there's no competition, it's a good course of action for a company to make gradual changes in its products, and keep prices the same. When there's real competition, there's a jump in performance and the companies try to outdo each other in the high end market.

If Zen is as fast per core as an Intel chip and has more cores, you think AMD will price it under a Core i7? Maybe the slowest one, but it will release CPU's all the way to $1000, and Intel will reciprocate by releasing more high end chips. Instead of rarely released halfheartedly supported enthusiast platform the $500+ CPU's will suddenly become a mainstream battleground. And I won't be surprised if we see the top end go up to $1500, if AMD is able to provide real competition to Intel.