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

[waltchan]

How do you figure? The 8230E is $90 and the motherboard is $15 AR. An i5-4590 is $160 and a H81M MB is $40 ($50 for a B85 with 4 ram slots). Microcenter really doesn't have anything for motherboard bundles on i5 Haswells right now. Even with spending $25 on an aftermarket cooler, that leaves the AMD bundle $70-$80 cheaper than the Haswell i5 system.

It's been like that for a long time, since 2012 I'll say. AMD always get more deals. Intel combos used to be $40 off up until November 2015.

 

[waltchan]

Dude, 8320e is $90 today and the GA-78LMT-USB3 is $10; you won't find a better value per buck. I use it in my living room pc w/ windows 7 and haven't had any issues. Spend the rest of the money on a GPU, get a $40 1TB HDD, 8gb of ram, and you got a great value system.

Great deal as always with this board. But some enthusiasts here despise all the old chipsets and boards, and don't understand what's good deal here.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I think its an easy choice ......go with a AMD system that's a dead end or with a Intel system that you can upgrade in the future.

simple as that.

why do you guys make it so complicated.?

Because the question wasn't, "which socket has a longer upgrade path?" An 8320E + capable motherboard @ ~$100 would be pretty enticing to some.

 

[WestX64]

Okay, hello again everyone and thank you for all of the suggestions and feedback. You all are very helpful! I have been reading through the many posts which have been made here since I was last able to post. I have to say, the pro 8320E people are making a very compelling argument when it comes to price! They've convinced me to take another look at what I may be able to do with the AMD build. So I have been messing around with a bunch of configurations and taking things in and out of my carts on various sites and I think I came up with something pretty good considering my budget. I also played around a bit with the Intel configurations. Here is what I have now (let me know what you think):

===AMD===
Processor: AMD FX-8320E [$90]
Motherboard: ASRock 970A-G/3.1 [$42]
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper T4 [$25]
RAM: Kingston HyperX Fury 8Gb (2x4) 1866MHz [$39]
Graphics: Sapphire Radeon Nitro R9 380 4GB [$200]
Power Supply: EVGA 100-B1-0600-KR 600W B1 [$45]
Storage: Crucial BX100 250GB SSD [$67]
Case: NZXT S340 [$65]

Total = About $615 (after taxes and shipping)

===Intel===
Processor: Intel Core i5-4590 [$160]
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H81M-HD2 [$40]
CPU Cooler: Stock [$0]
RAM: Kingston HyperX Fury 8GB (2x4) 1600MHz [$38]
Graphics: EVGA GeForce GTX 960 Superclocked Gaming 2GB [$180]
Power Supply: EVGA 500 W1 500W [$35]
Storage: Crucial BX100 250GB SSD [$67]
Case: NZXT S340 [$65]

Total = About $620 (after taxes and shipping)

For the AMD build, I was able to add in a motherboard with an 8 + 2 power phase because the 4 + 1 worried me for overclocking (several people on this thread also expressed concern). I changed the case to an S340 as I have built in that before and I quite like it. I picked the Hyper T4 over the 212 because it's basically like a shorter 212 and I know it fits in the S340. I was also able to add in an SSD to each build. I figure if they want more storage later then adding in a $40 1TB hard drive is a fairly easy upgrade. For the Intel build I had to switch to the $20 cheaper GTX 960 to be able to get an SSD and keep it around the same price as the other. From all the reviews and benchmarks I have seen, the GTX 960 is 5 or less FPS slower than the R9 380. However, if I was to drop the SSD then I would be able to add back in the R9 380 and the 1TB HDD. Doing that would change the cost of the Intel system to about $215.

The way I see it now, there are pros and cons to each system...
AMD Pro = Slightly faster memory + Slightly faster graphics card (if Intel build has GTX 960) + 2GB more video memory (if Intel build has GTX 960) + slightly better power supply + higher quality motherboard?

AMD Con = Worse performing processor - runs hotter - consumes more energy - no PhysX support

 

[MrTeal]

Are you wanting to buy everything at Microcenter, or are you willing to go elsewhere?

Couple things. I know it's counter intuitive, but the BX100 I listed is actually faster than the BX200.
For an extra $2 it's probably worth it to switch to the AsRock 970A/3.1 mentioned before. You move up to a newer audio codec, M.2 slot, USB3.1, etc.

 

[WestX64]

Are you wanting to buy everything at Microcenter, or are you willing to go elsewhere?

Couple things. I know it's counter intuitive, but the BX100 I listed is actually faster than the BX200.
For an extra $2 it's probably worth it to switch to the AsRock 970A/3.1 mentioned before. You move up to a newer audio codec, M.2 slot, USB3.1, etc.

I'm more than willing to shop at any reputable retailer. I also have Amazon Prime which gets me free shipping. Of the items I listed in my AMD build, 3 are from Microcenter, 3 are from Amazon, and 1 is from NewEgg. I will go wherever the lower price is.

Also, thank you very much for pointing that out about the BX200 vs BX100, I didn't notice that. I saw the BX200 and didn't even look at the specs of the BX100 as I figured "200" would be better than "100". I should really stop assuming and be extra sure though. Oh and thanks for pointing out the ASRock 970A/3.1 I will move to that one for sure and update my post above (to avoid posting another long thing of specs).

 

[escrow4]

FX still can't crack close to 60FPS minimums:

It will be worse during the inevitable dips. I wouldn't go any lower than a Skylake i5 for maximum IPC. You don't build a PC every day. An extra $100 or $200 will yield maximum FPS. FX was marginal in 2014 and 2015. FX is a dud in 2016.

 

[EliteRetard]

http://www.ncixus.com/products/?sku=75044

Just ran into this sale on a Fractal Define R4 for $63 shipped.
If you can nab one before the deal ends, it should be a nice case.

Around $50-60 you could also include Corsair (100R/200R, Spec-02, 230T etc)

If you choose to stick with the NZXT S340, it will fit a 212 EVO (according to online specs) Another cooler option sometimes at $30 is the Cryorig H7, it's 1/2" shorter than the 212 EVO but performs better (more modern design/fan).

Here's a Powercolor 380 for $170 after $20 rebate:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131673

And a Sapphire factory OC model for $185 after $15 rebate:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202166

Sale on RAM, $30 after code: EMCEGGJ58
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231314&Tpk=N82E16820231314
2x4GB GSkill Ripjaws DDR3 1600 CAS 9 1.5v

There's a variety of options under $35 for 1600 CAS 9 1.5v with Crucial Ballistix Sport

If you do decide on the AMD system, it's more tolerant of higher RAM voltage and thus this Kingston 8GB kit of 1866 CAS 9 1.65v for $35 might be worth a look:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008YAI7E4/?tag=pcpapi-20

That's all for now...

 

[Hitman928]

West, if it were me, I'd go with the intel build and one of the 380 cards on sale (I've heard good things about the Sapphire Nitro models). IMO, the intel build is just more of a sure performance result across a wider spectrum of games and is basically the same price.

Good luck

 

[EliteRetard]

Arg...stupid forum erased my post.

Anyway, I thought more about it and I think saving a bit on the case is worthwhile.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811353085

I don't feel like writing up on this again but it's $50 shipped and has plenty of cooling.
Says it can support 160mm CPU coolers like the 212 EVO.

This along with the $8 you can save on RAM may be enough to get you a better MOBO for the i5 system.

 

[Yuriman]

Ideally you'd want to go with the i5 and be able to budget in $10 more and get 2 more RAM slots for some upgradability options. I understand what it's like to work with a strict budget though.

Food for thought: I snagged my 400w platinum-rated PSU for $25 shipped, and it would be more than enough power and then some for a 960 + i5. AMD's GPUs also use quite a bit more power than their NV equivalents, though you usually get better performance per dollar.

Given that current GPUs are probably going to depreciate a lot in a few months due to the release of the next generation, I wouldn't worry much about the difference between a 960 or 380.

 

[SlowSpyder]

FX still can't crack close to 60FPS minimums:


It will be worse during the inevitable dips. I wouldn't go any lower than a Skylake i5 for maximum IPC. You don't build a PC every day. An extra $100 or $200 will yield maximum FPS. FX was marginal in 2014 and 2015. FX is a dud in 2016.

The i3's or i5's in his price range don't crack 60FPS minimum either. And it'll be worse during the inevitable dips. Also, keep in mind that in the OP's case the FX allows him a different video card.

 

[AtenRa]

The i3's or i5's in his price range don't crack 60FPS minimum either. And it'll be worse during the inevitable dips. Also, keep in mind that in the OP's case the FX allows him a different video card.

Yea people dont understand that an FX8320E + R9 390 is faster in the vast majority of latest AAA Games vs Core i5 + R9 380.

Edit: Even the APU (Athlon as well) + R9 290X is faster than Core i5 + 285

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9320/intel-broadwell-review-i7-5775c-i5-5675c/8

Alien Isolation, 1080p Ultra

Core i5 4690 + R9 285 = 83,84
A10-7870K + R9 290X = 113,51

Total War : Attila, 1080p Ultra

Core i5 4690 + R9 285 = 17,1
A10-7870K + R9 290X = 22,8

GTA V , 1080p Very High

Core i5 4690 + R9 285 = 37,78
A10-7870K + R9 290X = 42,20

GRID : Autosport , 1080p Ultra

Core i5 4690 + R9 285 = 92,62
A10-7870K + R9 290X =45,70

Shadow of Mordor , 1080p Ultra

Core i5 4690 + R9 285 = 46,47
A10-7870K + R9 290X = 85,56

And with DX-12 games coming soon, the FX8320E + R9 390 will be way better than Core i5 + R9 380

 

[TeknoBug]

Yea people dont understand that an FX8320E + R9 390 is faster in the vast majority of latest AAA Games vs Core i5 + R9 380.

Ugh dear lord, of course the 290 will be better than the 285 in max and overall framerates, however how the AMD system will handle minimum framerates being a big deal. For example Planetside 2 still plays like ass on AMD even after last year's optimization updates, in a fight of 50+ vs 50+ or bigger (can be up to ~200 in a biolab fight) and AMD systems no matter what stalls to single digit or sub 20 framerates while Intel (even a Haswell i3) drops to around ~40fps in large fights which is very playable. It frustrated me so much that I just quit playing it on my AMD systems altogether (Phenom II X6 1090T, FX 8320E, A8 7600 and of course FX 4350) at the time.

 

[TheELF]

Yeah, GPU benchmarks tend to measure the performance of the GPU...what a shocker.

 

[AtenRa]

Ugh dear lord, of course the 290 will be better than the 285 in max and overall framerates, however how the AMD system will handle minimum framerates being a big deal. For example Planetside 2 still plays like ass on AMD even after last year's optimization updates, in a fight of 50+ vs 50+ or bigger (can be up to ~200 in a biolab fight) and AMD systems no matter what stalls to single digit or sub 20 framerates while Intel (even a Haswell i3) drops to around ~40fps in large fights which is very playable. It frustrated me so much that I just quit playing it on my AMD systems altogether (Phenom II X6 1090T, FX 8320E, A8 7600 and of course FX 4350) at the time.

If you play Planetside 2, go Intel.

For the vast majority of 2014/15 and 2016 AAA games, the combination of the FX8320E + R9 390 is way better than Core i5 4560 + R9 380.

And since you asked about minimum fps, from the same link i posted above.

Shadow of Mordor , 1080p Ultra (Minimum fps)

Core i5 4690 + R9 285 = 15,86
A10-7870K + R9 290X = 54,05

 

[AtenRa]

Yeah, GPU benchmarks tend to measure the performance of the GPU...what a shocker.

Yea playing games on a R9 390 at 1080p low settings its how Gamers play AAA 2015/16 PC games.

 

[Yuriman]

If you play Planetside 2, go Intel.

For the vast majority of 2014/15 and 2016 AAA games, the combination of the FX8320E + R9 390 is way better than Core i5 4560 + R9 380.

And since you asked about minimum fps, from the same link i posted above.

Shadow of Mordor , 1080p Ultra (Minimum fps)

Core i5 4690 + R9 285 = 15,86
A10-7870K + R9 290X = 54,05

Hold a sec - the 290x is 3.5x faster than the 285 paired with a faster CPU?

 

[Sweepr]

Yeah, GPU benchmarks tend to measure the performance of the GPU...what a shocker.

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

 

[AtenRa]

Hold a sec - the 290x is 3.5x faster than the 285 paired with a faster CPU?

Those are minimums. The Core i7 5775C with the R9 285 gets 19,63fps.

 

[TheELF]

If you play Planetside 2, go Intel.

For the vast majority of 2014/15 and 2016 AAA games, the combination of the FX8320E + R9 390 is way better than Core i5 4560 + R9 380.

And since you asked about minimum fps, from the same link i posted above.

Shadow of Mordor , 1080p Ultra (Minimum fps)

Core i5 4690 + R9 285 = 15,86
A10-7870K + R9 290X = 54,05

The i3-4130t gets 15,69 in that bench while the 7870k gets 12,89
The i3-4330 get's 17,40...
If he want's to go cheap on the CPU to fit in a better GPU the i3 is a far better option.

 

[AtenRa]

The i3-4130t gets 15,69 in that bench while the 7870k gets 12,89
The i3-4330 get's 17,40...
If he want's to go cheap on the CPU to fit in a better GPU the i3 is a far better option.

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).

 

[myocardia]

Those are minimums. The Core i7 5775C with the R9 285 gets 19,63fps.

Which proves only how horrendous the R9 285 happens to be.

 

[AtenRa]

Which proves only how horrendous the R9 285 happens to be.

The GTX 770 gets almost the same minimum fps. The cards are fine, but those cards are not for Ultra settings when the R9 290X is. Simple as that.

 

[myocardia]

The GTX 770 gets almost the same minimum fps. The cards are fine, but those cards are not for Ultra settings when the R9 290X is. Simple as that.

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