• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

CPU for gaming - state of the union 2014

T

TheRealSintel

Junior Member
Last year anandtech did a feature on "best fit for gaming" cpus
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7189/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-september-2013/10

The conclusion there was that even an AMD A8 is mostly sufficient for single-GPU gaming (CIV V being the notable exception), though it was at -quite GPU limited- 1440p max settings.

Now someone I know is on a budget and even though I recommended the i5, he's wondering if it truly is worth the investment. This is for single-GPU gaming on a 1080p60hz screen with a R9 270X - mostly interested in racing/fifa/fps.

We're 2014 now and even though I remember reading about CPU-hungry games on-and-off, funnily enough I can't find any evidence that the AMD lacks power in games (except those that need huge GPU power as well). He's quoting these passmark scores but we all know they hold little value http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-6300+Six-Core

Is it truly the case that the old AMD is still sufficient for driving most games and an upgrade to i3 or i5 would be negligible? Are there any example games you can name that support your thesis (whatever it is)?

I know the Intel i3 and i5 CPUs will clobber it in all other categories, and that the platform is much more modern, but that's not the question.
 
Last edited:
fx6350 can handle 2X770 SLI.

69728.png


2014 AT holiday guide:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8750/holiday-guides-2014-cpus
 
Thanks, I forgot to check the holidays guide, I thought the article from last year was the most recent.

As for an equal price comparison, found that the i3 4160 is exactly the same cost as the FX-6300 and the following review (the 4340 has more 1MB more L3 cache though)
http://www.hardcoreware.net/intel-core-i3-4340-review/

So at least for that set of games Intel has a direct competitor doing better.
 
ShintaiDK said:
Its so GPU limited that the chart is worthless. Prescripted benchmark makes it even worse.
Click to expand...

Srsly... So we should run dual R9 295X2 with settings to low and resolution reduced to 320x240...

This is SLI benchmark, with FPS around 100.

Does BF4 even have canned benchmark?

It clearly shows that 100$ FX6350 provides 90% of performance you get from much much more expensive CPUs in High end GPU configuration
 
FXs processors really handle well all games you throw on it. My recommendation to FX processors start in FX6300, and up to the cheapest core i5 available.
 
Erenhardt said:
Srsly... So we should run dual R9 295X2 with settings to low and resolution reduced to 320x240...

This is SLI benchmark, with FPS around 100.

Does BF4 even have canned benchmark?

It clearly shows that 100$ FX6350 provides 90% of performance you get from much much more expensive CPUs in High end GPU configuration
Click to expand...

Do you remember the 800Mhz Haswell, prescripted benchmark vs ingame?

Arcording to you, 800Mhz Haswells should be plenty.

Oh in case you forgot, Tomb Raider. 800Mhz Haswell 74FPS in benchmark, 22FPS ingame with 7950CF.
 
Last edited:
Craig234 said:
But it seems strange the CPU has enough role that the numbers change for other CPU's, but not those two.
Click to expand...

Because with the weaker cpus, you are at least partially limited by the cpu. With those two fastest cpu's the limitation shifts totally to the gpu and cpu speed no longer matters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top