AMD CPU For Newbie

[Pilum]

I am only planning on playing BF3/BF4 and maybe WOW but there is low chances of that. Would the FX-6300 be sufficient? I don't want something slow and I can afford to pay extra BUT it has to offer noticeable performance for me to justify the money spent.

For BF3, both options are fine. For WoW, the i5 would be better. For BF4, we don't know. But I'd guess both will be good for that.

You may want to consider the additional factors of the current platforms. Intel has lower power use and better memory controllers, SATA and USB interfaces. But the mainboards may be a bit more expensive compared to AMDs offerings. But that's as with everything you buy: quality isn't free.

Also I am getting a 120GB SSD, If I go with the FX-6300 I can use the money saved for a 180/250GB or if I go with the 3470 I will stick with the 120GB. What would offer the better performance?

This depends on how many/what programs you want to install. If it's just Windows, browser, office and a few games, the 120GB will be enough. SSD prices will continue to drop, and if you find that you need more storage a few years down the road, you'll be able to get a much higher capacity SSD at lower prices and just add that to the system. You can install games (which usually take the most room) on such an additional drive.

In your place, I'd make this decision independently of the CPU choice. If a 120GB SSD will be enough for the next 1-2 years, buy that and just save the money.

 

[Sleepingforest]

To be honest, it's pretty difficult to make a "bad" CPU decision. Most are priced in a way that makes sense--you pay more for more power (with a degree of diminishing returns). The bottlenecks at 1080p are pretty much all from the GPU, and the CPU actually has little impact on frames.

Is Intel typically superior right now in single-threaded applications and weakly threaded games, while having lower power consumption? Yes. Is it better enough that you'll notice, outside of intensive applications like photo editing? Doubtful. The SSD will make a bigger difference for general usage.

I'd rather have a large SSD and an FX-6300 than a smaller SSD and an i5-3470 (assuming, of course, that you can use the extra space.) A 120GB SSD is enough for the OS, a couple of applications like an antivirus, a music player, and a web browser and 3-5 AAA games (depending on the size). Take into account that most SSD drives perform best with 25% of the space unused.

 

[Incorruptible]

For BF3, both options are fine. For WoW, the i5 would be better. For BF4, we don't know. But I'd guess both will be good for that.

You may want to consider the additional factors of the current platforms. Intel has lower power use and better memory controllers, SATA and USB interfaces. But the mainboards may be a bit more expensive compared to AMDs offerings. But that's as with everything you buy: quality isn't free.


This depends on how many/what programs you want to install. If it's just Windows, browser, office and a few games, the 120GB will be enough. SSD prices will continue to drop, and if you find that you need more storage a few years down the road, you'll be able to get a much higher capacity SSD at lower prices and just add that to the system. You can install games (which usually take the most room) on such an additional drive.

In your place, I'd make this decision independently of the CPU choice. If a 120GB SSD will be enough for the next 1-2 years, buy that and just save the money.

For intel how much would the lower power use add up to? If it more efficient then would the lower power use offset the extra cost over AMD?

Aren't the games required to be on the same drive as the OS? I remember reading somewhere that the games must be on the same drive as the OS

 

[Pilum]

For intel how much would the lower power use add up to? If it more efficient then would the lower power use offset the extra cost over AMD?

Depends on where you live. If you're in the US, electricity generally is cheap enough to not matter in this context (unless you build a box which runs 24/7 for distributed computing or rendering). For people in some European countries it can make a difference (e.g. Germany, Denmark).

Aren't the games required to be on the same drive as the OS? I remember reading somewhere that the games must be on the same drive as the OS

No. I've kept my games on separate partitions for years on XP and Win7, so that I can do image-backups of my system partition, and never ran into problems. This also works with Steam (just install Steam to your games partition) and UPlay, the Ubisoft online service/shop system (UPlay installs to the system, but you can choose the game install location). I don't know if Origin allows it, but it should.

Keeping Steam separate has the additional benefit that you don't have to reinstall/redownload your games if you should do a new OS install; just install Steam to the old location on your game drive and *poof* it will recognize all previously downloaded games.

 

[Sleepingforest]

You can actually use this cool (and geeky) trick to make the computer think games are on a certain drive while they are physically on another one. So Steam (the program) and frequently played games can be on the SSD for fast load times, while infrequently played games can be put on an HDD.

 

[Incorruptible]

To be honest, it's pretty difficult to make a "bad" CPU decision. Most are priced in a way that makes sense--you pay more for more power (with a degree of diminishing returns). The bottlenecks at 1080p are pretty much all from the GPU, and the CPU actually has little impact on frames.

Is Intel typically superior right now in single-threaded applications and weakly threaded games, while having lower power consumption? Yes. Is it better enough that you'll notice, outside of intensive applications like photo editing? Doubtful. The SSD will make a bigger difference for general usage.

I'd rather have a large SSD and an FX-6300 than a smaller SSD and an i5-3470 (assuming, of course, that you can use the extra space.) A 120GB SSD is enough for the OS, a couple of applications like an antivirus, a music player, and a web browser and 3-5 AAA games (depending on the size). Take into account that most SSD drives perform best with 25% of the space unused.

Thank you very much. I will go with the Fx-6300.

 

[Sleepingforest]

No problem. People (including me!) get into fights over this, but the truth is, it's hard to make a bad purchase at the $100-150 CPU range. The FX series offers more multi-threaded power, while the i3 offers more single threaded power. However, in most games and casual use applications (web browsing, for example), the difference between more cores and more speed is basically zero. An SSD will be much more noticeable. The boot speed and application loading times, in particular, are really great. I still smile when I boot my PC and marvel at the speed.