AMD CPU for gaming

[2is]

An AMD 4 core (FX 4xxx) is a joke. An i3 would kill it in everything. If that's all you can afford, keep saving. That money didn't just materialize out of nowhere, you did something to get it, so keep doing something for a little while longer.

 

[Enigmoid]

From the benchmarks I've seen, Vishera still doesn't match Phenom, clock for clock, although it is a lot closer. I believe Kaveri ought to do it. Vishera will beat my Phenom due to its clock speed advantage though.

In any case, I'm not upgrading yet because the price to benefit ratio is not high enough for me. My CPU isn't even overclocked, I'm happy with its performance. I can play the games I want to play. I did overclock it to 3.2 last year, but I had stability issues. It just wasn't worth it to me, having stability issues in exchange for a slightly higher clockspeed.

The problem with upgrading is that I can't just drop in a new processor, I'd need a new motherboard. I have an Asus M4A77TD, which only supports Phenom CPUs (officially). I'd rather not take my luck on anything newer.

And I don't feel that buying a new motherboard and CPU is worth it at this stage for me. I'm going to wait until the middle of next year, so that new games, CPUs and GPUs will be out. Then I'll make a decision about what to do.

Vishera matches PII clock for clock. However, because of the module penalty, it falls behind when comparing MT performance.

 

[Headfoot]

Single post OP, insufficient information, troll/flamebait thread

 

[Erenhardt]

You guys trolling Cinebench results in gaming thread? LOL

 

[Enigmoid]

You guys trolling Cinebench results in gaming thread? LOL

And where is cinebench mentioned anywhere?

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

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

Yeah, stuttering and hanging all the way for those extra 3 frames or so that it manages. He emphasized modern and future games -- even the suggestion of a dual core anything is the absolute worst possible advice ever.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

As much as I would love to say the AMD chips are good value because they are so much cheaper, they are so much worse at single threaded performance, its just staggering.

Keeping my Phenom II X6 1055T for a bit longer then.

Even that is misleading -- AMD's Kaveri chips post similar single threaded performance to Haswell Celerons and Pentiums. So the dual core Pentiums that some have suggested need a major overclock just to pull ahead in single threaded performance. Back to the OP, avoid all the dual cores -- its just a waste of money for someone planning to play future games.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Yeah, stuttering and hanging all the way for those extra 3 frames or so that it manages. He emphasized modern and future games -- even the suggestion of a dual core anything is the absolute worst possible advice ever.

I am sure all those buying FX8150 said the same in 2011. Moar Cores!

Fast forward to 2015 and the i3 from 2011 more or less runs in circles around the FX8150.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Even that is misleading -- AMD's Kaveri chips post similar single threaded performance to Haswell Celerons and Pentiums. So the dual core Pentiums that some have suggested need a major overclock just to pull ahead in single threaded performance. Again, avoid all the dual cores -- its a waste of money for someone planning to play future games.

Similar singlethreaded performance? Really?

 

[Enigmoid]

Similar singlethreaded performance? Really?

Yep, considering big core celerons top out at 2.9 ghz and kaveri overclocks.

And similar meaning within ~10%.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Yep, considering big core celerons top out at 2.9 ghz and kaveri overclocks.

And similar meaning within ~10%.

 

[john925]

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.

I came across an AMD Athlon X4 860K Black Edition and AMD AMD A8 7600. I really don't know too much about AMD CPU's. I have an i7 in my laptop right now and any benchmark i look at, it's always way over the top in performance, even today and it's almost 4 years old.

 

[john925]

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

I want to run games as high as i can. I've found graphics cards supporting higher than 1080p and a few that even supported 4k. I just need to make sure i don't burn anything out by cheaping out on one thing and overloading it because something else was too powerful

 

[john925]

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.

Hell i'd love to get an i7 like the one in my laptop, just clocked a little higher. But from what i'm seeing is that the FX series with AMD is the most popular one for gaming? Because i've been seeing A-series, FX-series, Athlon, stuff like that, all varying in prices. So would an i5 clocked higher than 3 GHz be better? Like i said, i have an i7 but it's only 2.4 GHz.

 

[john925]

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.

Yeah i've been reading up on processors and people have been saying that they're virtually indestructible unless you purposely try to destroy it. So i supposed it'd be possible to find a cheap, powerful, used AMD processor as well? That could possibly be another route to take.

 

[john925]

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).

Yeah i came across an Athlon X4 860k Black Edition for like $72. I'm not too sure what difference it makes being a Black Edition though.

 

[john925]

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.

I'm aiming for higher than 1080p for the moment. I've come across GPU's supporting 4k for dirt cheap. Some new, some refurbed. Pretty much all of them supported resolutions higher than 1080p

 

[john925]

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.

Alright well that's good to know. I suppose i'm not on a super tight budget, but i'm just kind of mixing and matching, gathering parts as i move along until it's ready to be built. I'm not buying everything at once.

 

[john925]

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.

Yeah i'm not buying a console lol. They'll just be outdated in a few years. So if i can get a 2600K for around $150, that'll top anything else in that price range?

 

[john925]

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

I'm not sure on how much RAM i want just yet. 8gb is better of course, but i really don't want less than 6gb since most games today require at least that much to run smoothly. I have 4gb now and have trouble running current gen games. But also my GPU is way outdated now too.

 

[john925]

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

No, i posted, didn't expect so many replies so quickly, and have been working since then. This is my first day off since i originally posted.

 

[john925]

I don't think I mentioned anything about being more future proof or comparing to Intel's more expensive products. I will stand by my statement that AMD's FX 8C Cpus will continue to be taken advantage of as games and programs continue to become more multi-threaded friendly.

The graph you pasted has nothing to do with my statement, and it definitely does not explain the full experience of the product as a whole. I've ran this system for years and my experience has been GREAT!

I also have an i5 build and feel no difference for most normal use cases. Also have a Surface Pro 3 with an i5.

Like I said, your graph means squat bro compared to what these CPUs can do and will do for future multi threaded games and programs. CPU's have a life cycle greater than 5 years now. Most modern CPUs can last 10 years for 90% of the population, including a majority of gamers. The OP wants the best bang for his buck since he is on a limited budget. For most general use cases, he will benefit from an FX CPU over an i3 any day of the week.




Please leave the thread if you have nothing constructive to add...

Yeah i've been reading mixed reviews on here about the i3. Some say it's good for budget/bottom line, others say avoid at all costs since dual core gaming is becoming unsupported and obsolete. If i can find an AMD CPU that'll give me good performance for less than an Intel, I'll go with that, if i can find a decent Intel for a good price that'll still be relevant in gaming in a few years, then i'll go with that. I'm not biased like some of the people i've seen on here.

 

[2is]

Hell i'd love to get an i7 like the one in my laptop, just clocked a little higher. But from what i'm seeing is that the FX series with AMD is the most popular one for gaming? Because i've been seeing A-series, FX-series, Athlon, stuff like that, all varying in prices. So would an i5 clocked higher than 3 GHz be better? Like i said, i have an i7 but it's only 2.4 GHz.

Where exactly are you seeing this? i5 is by far the most recommended option for gaming among tech forums like this one. And yes, it would be a lot better.

 

[john925]

^ there is a lot wrong with supporting AMD, you trick others into buying a useless dead setup. When they could have intel for just a little more.

Stop believing the lie that if you don't support AMD, they will go bankrupt and intel will charge $1000 for a celeron.

Please stop selling this lie to the ones who don't know better. If AMD died it would be better for everyone as no one will be able to fall into their traps of the garbage they sell


Trolling and threadcrapping is not allowed here,
Markfw900

AMD won't die even if their CPU line went down which i don't think will even if they are inferior to Intel. Their gaming line is still strong with their GPU's. Plus they are involved in all kinds of different aspects of technology outside of gaming.

 

[2is]

Not that strong really. AMD's GPU market is 20% and their flagship card is less popular, slower and costs just as much as the competition, so that number isn't likely to get any higher anytime soon. Their APU market had potential with it's relatively powerful IGP and price compared to Intel, but the IGP advantage is gone with Broadwell so now they can only compete on price, which isn't going to help them.