AMD CPU for gaming

[john925]

Ok so i've been looking into building my own gaming PC on a fairly low budget. I've come across a few pretty decent refurbed graphics cards on the low but when i started looking for CPU's, i saw that AMD CPU's are like half the price of Intel. While Intel averages around the $300-$400 range, AMD is like $100-$150 range give or take and they're clocked pretty high. I understand that Intel is more superior than AMD with CPU's, but i'm just trying to figure out if buying an AMD CPU for running modern day and future games is a good idea. If so, which ones should i be looking for? I'd like the most bang for my buck. I'm trying to build the cheapest powerhouse i can.

 

[ultimatebob]

Which AMD CPU's are you looking at in particular? Once we know that, we can tell you what kind of performance to expect and what the Intel equivalent would be if you're interested.

 

[sm625]

While Intel averages around the $300-$400 range

I'm not sure where you're seeing "average" prices that high. You can get an i5 for under $200.

 

[Yuriman]

Buying a low-end CPU is going to give low-end performance. An Intel 4-core CPU is often 50-100% faster than an AMD 4-core, which is why it's priced twice as high. However, you may find that performance is still adequate for your expectations. What's more important is what CPUs are a better value in each price bracket.

Most will probably agree that under $100, AMD's 4-core chips are the way to go. There's an argument to be made for Intel's Pentium G3258, which can be overclocked, but often games just don't run well on dual cores these days, despite those cores being very significantly faster than AMD's. You might consider an Athlon 860K for around $75.

Moving up to ~$100-200, you have the Core i3 ($120ish), FX-83xx ($150ish) and Core i5 ($190ish). The FX has 8 cores while the i3 is only a dual core with hyperthreading, but in a vast majority of cases, games run better on an i3 than an FX because games rarely make effective use of more than 3-4 cores and the i3's cores are so much faster. An i5 (4 cores, no hyperthreading) is often considered the lowest-end CPU for a "no-compromises" experience in games; that is, you will rarely, if ever, be bottlenecked by your CPU.

Above $200 you can pick up an unlocked i5, which will give another maybe 20% performance from overclocking. AMD has some FX chips in this price range but they're very rarely recommended, because they deliver similar or worse performance to Intel's offerings while drawing significantly more power, producing significantly more heat, and running on very antiquated motherboards/chipsets with older featuresets.


Here is an example of a game which makes good use of AMD's many cores:

Here's an example of a game which does not make use of more than a few cores:

EDIT: Personally, I value efficiency and acoustics, so I built my wife's gaming machine with an i3.

 

[AtenRa]

Ok so i've been looking into building my own gaming PC on a fairly low budget. I've come across a few pretty decent refurbed graphics cards on the low but when i started looking for CPU's, i saw that AMD CPU's are like half the price of Intel. While Intel averages around the $300-$400 range, AMD is like $100-$150 range give or take and they're clocked pretty high. I understand that Intel is more superior than AMD with CPU's, but i'm just trying to figure out if buying an AMD CPU for running modern day and future games is a good idea. If so, which ones should i be looking for? I'd like the most bang for my buck. I'm trying to build the cheapest powerhouse i can.

What GPU ?? Are you going to game at 1080p ???

 

[stockwiz]

I see two options here.... both are viable for budget builds...

Buy a used 2500K that has not been overclocked on ebay and a cheap socket 1155 motherboard and overclock the 2500K to 4.4 GHZ.. processor is $150ish on ebay. Unlike video cards and hard drives, processors are not prone to fail easily and are safe to buy used if they were not overvolted, they are pretty much no different than buying new.

Not been overclocked...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Intel-Core-...581?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3aacffb5f5

Motherboard...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128555

OR

Buy the AMD FX-8320... I have to admit that's a pretty damn cheap price for the specs the processor has. $130 on amazon.

In the end I'd probably lean towards the 2500K myself but it's a toss up. Since IPC matters more than core count, the 2500K will 'seem' faster especially running at 4.4 GHZ.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Ok so i've been looking into building my own gaming PC on a fairly low budget. I've come across a few pretty decent refurbed graphics cards on the low but when i started looking for CPU's, i saw that AMD CPU's are like half the price of Intel. While Intel averages around the $300-$400 range, AMD is like $100-$150 range give or take and they're clocked pretty high. I understand that Intel is more superior than AMD with CPU's, but i'm just trying to figure out if buying an AMD CPU for running modern day and future games is a good idea. If so, which ones should i be looking for? I'd like the most bang for my buck. I'm trying to build the cheapest powerhouse i can.

Well, the bottom line -- "Modern day and future games" = Quad core or more.

An FX-8300 sells for $115 and can be overclocked like mad -- and is arguably the ultimate AMD bang-for-the-buck champ right now. For FM2+, my pick would be the Athlon 860K. If you do choose to go Intel -- I'd recommend not settling for anything less than a Haswell i5. Whatever you do, stay away from dual cores if you want to play future games (well).

 

[Yuriman]

An i3 is technically a dual core, but hyperthreading allows it to process 4 threads (4 virtual cores), so it doesn't experience the same performance limitations seen in Intel's cheaper duals without hyperthreading. It's my choice in CPU for less than $150.

 

[gorion]

the first thing to do is to understand at what resolution you are going to game.
1080p is one thing, 4k another.

For 1080p any cheap modern GPU will do, from 750ti and above.
It makes no sense to couple a too powerful CPU with a cheap GPU as you'll always be GPU-limited.

For 1080p I'd say an i3 or the 860k are both good, with the i3 being better but a bit more costly.

 

[Madpacket]

I second the 95W FX-8300 for value. I managed to get mine for just under $100.00 CAD and it games exceptionally well at stock settings and really isn't that power hungry under load. The dual core hyper-threaded Intel CPU's are a more money and perform better in some of today's poorly threaded games but given the multi-core nature of the current consoles I suspect this will likely favor the FX series in the long run. Plus you get the benefit of 8 cores which generally helps with other tasks such as faster encoding, file compression, video editing, virtual machines, Twitch live streams etc.

You can still get mATX cases and motherboards that fit FX series processors so sizing shouldn't be a problem however if you want to go ITX you'll need to look at FM2+ or Intel socket LGA 1150.

One potential benefit with going with Intel is you can start small with a G3258 or hyperthreaded i3 and later on move up to a better processor but I think this is waste of money as you'll just end up spending more money in the long run. If you're on a tight budget now it's an option though.

 

[stockwiz]

I'll reiterate the above point as well.. Intel should not really be making dual cores anymore.. we should be up to 4, 6, and 8 cores by now so don't buy any dual core. They put those dual cores in those black friday throwaway laptops that they know people will buy new every year.

There's really no reason to choose in my opinion any other processor than a used 2500K or AMD FX 8300/8320 though.. if you can't afford $125-150 for a processor you shouldn't really be building a gaming rig, but buying a PS4 or Xbox One... so I'd say those are your two choices. I tried googling and digging and could not find any other better bangs for the buck. If you can snag a 2600K for around $150, that would beat both of these, but the cheapest on ebay right now is around $168 though it does have a "best offer" option.

 

[TeknoBug]

The i5 4460 is at a real good price atm, add $5-15 more (depending on location) for an i5 4590 which I would recommend.

But the 8320E should be sufficient.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I'll reiterate the above point as well.. Intel should not really be making dual cores anymore.. we should be up to 4, 6, and 8 cores by now so don't buy any dual core. They put those dual cores in those black friday throwaway laptops that they know people will buy new every year.

There's really no reason to choose in my opinion any other processor than a used 2500K or AMD FX 8300/8320 though.. if you can't afford $125-150 for a processor you shouldn't really be building a gaming rig, but buying a PS4 or Xbox One... so I'd say those are your two choices. I tried googling and digging and could not find any other better bangs for the buck. If you can snag a 2600K for around $150, that would beat both of these, but the cheapest on ebay right now is around $168 though it does have a "best offer" option.[/QUOT

Actually, what they put in those cheap throw away laptops is quad core Atom and Kabini tablet chips. I would take the slowest dual core ULV Haswell Celeron in preference to any of those.

There is far more to a cpu than the number of cores. In fact nearly all of intel's non-atom mobile lineup is dual core in one form or another.

It is simply amazing how posters continue to ignore all data to proclaim dual core chips dead. A Haswell i3 is still a very competent gaming chip, and in fact matches or surpasses an FX8350 in most older games, and even in a lot of current AAA games.

 

[sandorski]

You need at least 4 Cores(not 2 + HT), 8gb of RAM, and a decent $150-200 video card. Preferably Intel. for cpu If you must go AMD for some pricing reason, you will still get a good gaming experience, it just won't be as good as you would with Intel.

 

[svenge]

i5-4590 + H97 motherboard + 2x4GB DDR3-1600 or better RAM is the bare minimum suggestion I'd give for gaming.

 

[Phynaz]

You need at least 4 Cores(not 2 + HT), 8gb of RAM, and a decent $150-200 video card. Preferably Intel. for cpu If you must go AMD for some pricing reason, you will still get a good gaming experience, it just won't be as good as you would with Intel.

Except the Intel dual core is often faster in gaming than the top of the line AMD CPU.

And why 8gb of RAM if he's on a budget?

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1402?vs=1192

 

[john5220]

Yuriman while its true games like Arma 3 and DayZ outright SUCK on AMD

With DX 12 promising lots of multi core support what do you think about FX 6300 AMD for gaming now?

 

[Phynaz]

New reg, hasn't been back since posting. Another troll?

 

[john5220]

I think you would find the Original Author of this thread has a IP address from another country of mine since I am in a tiny 1.3 million population country on a tiny island.

So no its not me.

 

[sandorski]

Except the Intel dual core is often faster in gaming than the top of the line AMD CPU.

And why 8gb of RAM if he's on a budget?

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1402?vs=1192

At times yes, at times not even close. 4 Cores is the better choice simply because it will perform well in all cases.

 

[VirtualLarry]

And why 8gb of RAM if he's on a budget?

4GB just isn't enough, these days, especially for a "gaming rig". Unless you like "hitching", when the system pages out to the storage drive.

 

[Jeff007245]

Go for a nice AMD 83xx build for decent performance at a good price. Nothing wrong with supporting the underdog as well. As games and programs continue to become more multi threaded friendly, the more your investment in a budget AMD build will pay its dividends.

Nothing wrong with going Intel either, but i would personally feel more future proof with an 8 core FX CPU, than go with a bottom of the barrel Core i3.

 

[TeknoBug]

Except the Intel dual core is often faster in gaming than the top of the line AMD CPU.

And why 8gb of RAM if he's on a budget?

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1402?vs=1192

You pretty much need 8GB for games, 4GB will make a lot of games stutter.

 

[Phynaz]

Ok, I'll stand corrected on the memory.

 

[nenforcer]

Go for a nice AMD 83xx build for decent performance at a good price. Nothing wrong with supporting the underdog as well. As games and programs continue to become more multi threaded friendly, the more your investment in a budget AMD build will pay its dividends.

Nothing wrong with going Intel either, but i would personally feel more future proof with an 8 core FX CPU, than go with a bottom of the barrel Core i3.

Once DirectX 12 games are optimized for multi-core I think these AMD FX chips are really going to shine. It's only going to be even more pronounced once the new Zen 8 core chips release next year.