i3-6100 or FX-8320E for budget gaming PC?

[Hitman928]

The shadow of mordor comparison is additionally flawed because you are comparing the 285 with only 2GB of VRAM. SOM requires at least 3 GB of VRAM for ultra settings which is why the minimums are so low compared to the 290. A 4GB 380 that the op would purchase should show much better min, proportional to the difference in averages. Plus, according to the builds outlined by the op, going with the amd build wouldn't save near enough to upgrade to a 290/390 anyway.

http://www.hardwarepal.com/shadow-mordor-benchmark/

 

[AtenRa]

Then why are you attempting to use GPU benchmarks, and pretending as if they were CPU benchmarks?

Im not pretending anything, the benchmarks were chosen to showcase that latest AAA titles are better with a faster GPU even if used with a slower CPU. Simple as that.

 

[AtenRa]

Plus, according to the builds outlined by the op, going with the amd build wouldn't save near enough to upgrade to a 290/390 anyway.

FX8320E + 970 Mobo = $105
Cheapest R9 390 8GB = $280 AR

Total = $385

Core i5 4650 + Mobo = $200
Cheapest R9 380 4GB = $170 AR

Total = $370

Dont anyone say you need more expensive PSU because those 550W PSUs recommended earlier are more than enough for the 95W FX + R9 390.

 

[Hitman928]

Why are you ignoring the op build specs? He had every part for a reason that's already been outlined.

 

[TheELF]

You do understand that im not recommending the A10-7870K (or Athlon) but the FX 8320E which is faster than both the Core i3 4130T and the APU(Athlon).

And the I7-5960x is even faster...still has lower minimums at 11.20FPS.

 

[AtenRa]

Why are you ignoring the op build specs? He had every part for a reason.

Ignoring what specs ??

 

[Hitman928]

Ignoring what specs ??

Namely nicer hs/f, motherboard, and psu. Included because he would want to overclock the 8320e significantly to try and match the intel equivalent. So, the 95W cpu becomes a 140W+ cpu and still can't match the i5 in most games.

If this were even a year ago, I might lean a little more toward the AMD build and trying to fit in a better card. However, given the latest dx12 results and the fact that next gen cards are coming soon, it makes no sense to me to sacrifice platform/cpu and spend extra on a gpu. If you're going to go budget and go AMD, don't do it to stretch to a nicer gpu, do it to pocket the money today. Really build a budget rig, don't overclock, and by happy with saving the money.

 

[AtenRa]

Namely nicer hs/f, motherboard, and psu. Included because he would want to overclock the 8320e significantly to try and match the intel equivalent. So, the 95W cpu becomes a 140W+ cpu and still can't match the i5 in most games.

The FX 8320E + Mobo Compo is with a 970 chipset motherboard.

You dont need to OC the FX8320E + R9 390 to be faster than Core i5 4560 + R9 380.

If this were even a year ago, I might lean a little more toward the AMD build and trying to fit in a better card. However, given the latest dx12 results and the fact that next gen cards are coming soon, it makes no sense to me to sacrifice platform/cpu and spend extra on a gpu. If you're going to go budget and go AMD, don't do it to stretch to a nicer gpu, do it to pocket the money today. Really build a budget rig, don't overclock, and by happy with saving the money.

R9 390 and FX8320E will be more than fine for 1080p for 2016 and 2017 Games. R9 380 will need to be replaced far faster than the R9 390.

 

[Leyawiin]

FX8320E + 970 Mobo = $105
Cheapest R9 390 8GB = $280 AR

Total = $385

Core i5 4650 + Mobo = $200
Cheapest R9 380 4GB = $170 AR

Total = $370

Dont anyone say you need more expensive PSU because those 550W PSUs recommended earlier are more than enough for the 95W FX + R9 390.

I don't think an FX-8320E... especially at the stock speed the OP would play at... could adequately support an R9 390. Mine @ 4.2 Ghz is peddling as fast as it can with the GTX 780 I have it paired with (and I checked last night - its not throttling on the 78LMT-USB3). I'm not saying there won't be plenty of instances in new games where the R9 390 won't be faster than the R9 380, it just seems that overall it ruins the budget aspect of an FX to hobble a high end GPU with it. The only reason I'm even using a GTX 780 is because I already had it laying around unused. If I were building an FX-8320E rig from scratch I'd pair it with something more in line with its capabilities like the R9 380 or GTX 960.

 

[AtenRa]

Ahh hell, this is a nice topic to make a new review


ps, after ill finish the current project ill do this one.

 

[Hitman928]

The FX 8320E + Mobo Compo is with a 970 chipset motherboard.

You dont need to OC the FX8320E + R9 390 to be faster than Core i5 4560 + R9 380.



R9 390 and FX8320E will be more than fine for 1080p for 2016 and 2017 Games. R9 380 will need to be replaced far faster than the R9 390.

There are plenty of cases, unfortunately, where a 8350, let alone a much lower clocked 8320e will struggle. Looking more long term, with the impending release of next gen cards, it does not make sense to me what you are proposing. Again, if it were my money, I'd build the intel rig with the 380 knowing that I can easily upgrade the video card in a year or two. With the AMD machine I'd have to upgrade the whole computer in two years.

Compare that to a 380 with a fast cpu:

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/asus-radeon-r9-380-strix-review,19.html

So:
decent intel cpu + 380 = 62 fps
slower clock 8320e + 290 = 42-45 fps

more examples:

intel 4590 + 380 = 52 fps
amd 8320e + 290 = ~40 fps

 

[SlowSpyder]

I don't think an FX-8320E... especially at the stock speed the OP would play at... could adequately support an R9 390. Mine @ 4.2 Ghz is peddling as fast as it can with the GTX 780 I have it paired with (and I checked last night - its not throttling on the 78LMT-USB3). I'm not saying there won't be plenty of instances in new games where the R9 390 won't be faster than the R9 380, it just seems that overall it ruins the budget aspect of an FX to hobble a high end GPU with it. The only reason I'm even using a GTX 780 is because I already had it laying around unused. If I were building an FX-8320E rig from scratch I'd pair it with something more in line with its capabilities like the R9 380 or GTX 960.

For whatever it's worth, I'm playing a smaller developer game called Grim Dawn a lot right now. As far as I can tell it only uses a single core. My 7970 was maxed at 2XAA, almost always showing 99% GPU use. I just put my R9 390 in, I did notice a difference and can use 4xAA now. A faster CPU may let an R9 290 / 390 stretch it's legs more, but I think there definitely is a benefit to having that level of GPU horsepower with a four module FX CPU at a decent clockspeed.

 

[MrTeal]

There are plenty of cases, unfortunately, where a 8350, let alone a much lower clocked 8320e will struggle. Looking more long term, with the impending release of next gen cards, it does not make sense to me what you are proposing. Again, if it were my money, I'd build the intel rig with the 380 knowing that I can easily upgrade the video card in a year or two. With the AMD machine I'd have to upgrade the whole computer in two years.

Compare that to a 380 with a fast cpu:

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/asus-radeon-r9-380-strix-review,19.html

So:
decent intel cpu + 380 = 62 fps
slower clock 8320e + 290 = 42-45 fps

I don't even know what you're trying to show here. For Hitman Absolution you linked to the CPU scaling for a 7970, High Quality, 2xAA/8xAF and somehow came to the conclusion that since 42-45FPS that's what a 290 or 390 would get?

 

[Hitman928]

I don't even know what you're trying to show here. For Hitman Absolution you linked to the CPU scaling for a 7970, High Quality, 2xAA/8xAF and somehow came to the conclusion that since 42-45FPS that's what a 290 or 390 would get?

It's showing a clear cpu bottleneck as this game hits the cpu hard, especially for AI which mostly runs on one core. A 290 would probably get a little better, but not much, hence the range.

 

[MrTeal]

Too bad you can't pair the Core i5 with R9 390 - better performance for not much more $. Oh wait, you can.

True of course, but the OP came in with a pretty specific budget. Saying he can spend just another $100+ dollars and have it all is fine, but on a system he's building to gift to someone it might not be an option.

Namely nicer hs/f, motherboard, and psu. Included because he would want to overclock the 8320e significantly to try and match the intel equivalent. So, the 95W cpu becomes a 140W+ cpu and still can't match the i5 in most games.

If this were even a year ago, I might lean a little more toward the AMD build and trying to fit in a better card. However, given the latest dx12 results and the fact that next gen cards are coming soon, it makes no sense to me to sacrifice platform/cpu and spend extra on a gpu. If you're going to go budget and go AMD, don't do it to stretch to a nicer gpu, do it to pocket the money today. Really build a budget rig, don't overclock, and by happy with saving the money.

Yeah, if you are choosing between a 380 4GB + AMD system and a 2GB 960 + i5 system, it becomes a lot less clear cut. The 2GB 960 is a big of a dog, but I'd probably still lean Intel in that fight. Outside of straight performance though, it's tough to make some of these judgement calls. Case in point (haha) the OP chose to go with a relatively expensive case, when something like the $20 Raidmax case I linked still have front USB3 and would have saved $45. Same deal with the motherboard. It's entirely possible that the friend in this case would actually appreciate having the nicer case more than the large upgrade from a 380 to a 390 though.

@WestX64, in the Intel system I'd definitely scrap the 2GB 960 for $180, and pick up this 4GB one instead. It's $10 more, but that still only brings you to $630. Either that or go with a 4GB 380.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Yea, that is the problem with these budget constrained scenarios. One is forced to make some unpleasant compromises no matter what. Personally, I prefer to go better cpu, even if it sacrifices a bit in the short term. If you are gpu limited, you can always turn down a few settings to increase FPS, while if you are cpu limited, there is not a lot you can do.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

The 8320E, much as I love it (it is my favorite chip of ALL of them right now), does not have the single-threaded oomph for this. Games like multiple threads, but they also like high ST performance and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Luckily you can overclock, but if you built a bare-minimum budget system the motherboard's VRMs might not be able to handle that. And I recall seeing that RoI on overclocking in terms of perf/watt falls off a cliff around 4.2GHz or so on this one...

 

[superstition]

I think it was in this topic that someone said their overclocked 8320E had bad performance in gaming, not much better than stock. That sounds like someone did not overclock properly and left APM on. That throttles the chip to the 95 watt TDP. If you "overclock" with APM on then you're going to get the bad performance you deserve for not doing basic research.

And I recall seeing that RoI on overclocking in terms of perf/watt falls off a cliff around 4.2GHz or so on this one...

FX chips generally need quite a bit of voltage past 4.5 GHz. You can see this from Anandtech's review if you want verification.

E chips usually use around 1.35V at 4.4 GHz and 1.385 – 1.4 (depending on your cooling) at 4.5. That is with medium LLC (the most effective level) on a UD3P 2.0 board.

 

[superstition]

I think TechReport left APM on when they overclocked an E chip and used it in a review to compare AMD FX performance with Intel performance, too. Oops.

 

[Leyawiin]

I think it was in this topic that someone said their overclocked 8320E had bad performance in gaming, not much better than stock. That sounds like someone did not overclock properly and left APM on

Wasn't me.

 

[Madpacket]

So OP, did you decide on which route to go?