Please recommend an AMD Processor for me

[Anarchist420]

I want a an r290 double d jank; I know all the other components I want but I don't know which amd CPU performs the best and runs relatively cool in terms of temps. I will be getting a 990 fx saber tooth if I can find one.

Intel CPUs are really fool proof. That is always going to be good for my 2500k and the sabertooth p67 I have for that, but Israel really made the last good line of intel CPUs that were inexpensive.

I wish I had bought a 2600k but I didn't so I am satisfied with what I have.

I am going to be getting a job or two in the 2015 (probably with the city government of newport news or riverside or both where my dad has been looking for a job except only in richmond) and i may get more cash this Christmas so I have a lot to buy and I believe I can do it. I can get stuff on credit I guess. I have been offered a lot of credit cards. I will pay them off swiftly because I believe my old home will sooner be ready for me. I may have to work it off for the wonderful realtor and the city of NN; I don't know.

 

[john5220]

I bought a Athlon X4 760K for a friend of mine who had me ordered it for him

and I have a i3 4150 haswell for myself. Both Chips perform absolutely beautiful in multi threaded gaming like Battlefield 3 64 player maps.

My i3 is faster in DayZ I get 10 FPS more than his Athlon.

I will assume the FX 4300 and 6300 are also great choices. THe FX 6300 is $84 on Amazon

http://www.amazon.com/AMD-FD6300WMHK...ywords=FX+6300

absolute steal!!! if the Athlon X4 performs so well you can imagine an over clocked FX 6300? for that price you can get a excellent cooler to go with it and still be much cheaper than a i5 yet get same performance of an i5.

Battlefield 3 uses 6 cores that and BF4 so does Marvel Heroes the MMO ARPG

An over clocked FX 6300 is guaranteed to have a noticeable increase in FPS performance in Battlefield 3 on 64 player servers than a locked i5

 

[tential]

I bought a Athlon X4 760K for a friend of mine who had me ordered it for him

and I have a i3 4150 haswell for myself. Both Chips perform absolutely beautiful in multi threaded gaming like Battlefield 3 64 player maps.

My i3 is faster in DayZ I get 10 FPS more than his Athlon.

I will assume the FX 4300 and 6300 are also great choices. THe FX 6300 is $84 on Amazon

http://www.amazon.com/AMD-FD6300WMHK...ywords=FX+6300

absolute steal!!! if the Athlon X4 performs so well you can imagine an over clocked FX 6300? for that price you can get a excellent cooler to go with it and still be much cheaper than a i5 yet get same performance of an i5.

Battlefield 3 uses 6 cores that and BF4 so does Marvel Heroes the MMO ARPG

An over clocked FX 6300 is guaranteed to have a noticeable increase in FPS performance in Battlefield 3 on 64 player servers than a locked i5

Do you just not have access to google?
Or do you just enjoy being wrong?
This is probably the 10th time someone has had to correct you on this misinformation you keep spreading about Battlefield 3.
If you can't find proof of your claim, DON'T POST IT.

You would need an FX-6300 clocked at 5ghz MINIMUM to come close to the i5-3470 and you still wouldn't be ahead of it.

I can't understand the OP's English enough to really understand why he wants AMD processors. Won't comment on which one he should purchase since I wouldn't purchase any with an R9 290.

 

[Yuriman]

The correct answer is FX8320e, heavily overclocked. It'll be slower than your 2500K on average for gaming and also produce considerably more heat when fully loaded, but it's the chip to get if you're going to pair a high end video card with it. Most games won't utilize all 8 threads so it probably won't produce much more heat in real world use.

FM2 CPUs are not appropriate for pairing with high end video cards given that most of their die space is dedicated to the integrated GPU, which you wouldn't be using, and they are only 2 module chips. Though IPC is be better on Kaveri compared with Piledriver, because you'll be fully loading the modules you'll have to deal with module performance penalty, and Kaveri doesn't overclock as high.

FM2 has newer chipsets and modern onboard components though, so that might be worth something.

EDIT: I don't recommend buying these parts with money you don't have yet.

 

[WittyRemark]

Grab a fx8350 and overclock it.
although I would recommend you the i5 4690k.
If you can't find it,then an i5 4440/4460 with a H85/h97 would probably cost you less and perform better in games .
It would be better if you just mentioned the costs of the parts you can find in Israel especially the processors I mentioned ofcourse with their respective motherboards.

 

[john5220]

Do you just not have access to google?
Or do you just enjoy being wrong?
This is probably the 10th time someone has had to correct you on this misinformation you keep spreading about Battlefield 3.
If you can't find proof of your claim, DON'T POST IT.

You would need an FX-6300 clocked at 5ghz MINIMUM to come close to the i5-3470 and you still wouldn't be ahead of it.

I can't understand the OP's English enough to really understand why he wants AMD processors. Won't comment on which one he should purchase since I wouldn't purchase any with an R9 290.

And for the 10th time please be quiet with your garbage

besides this graph I can tell from personal experience that a dual core pentium haswell stinks in BF3 64 player

FYI an old 6 core Phenom II X6 gets higher minimum FPS in BF3 on 64 player maps than even a 2500K i5 sandy bridge
But then again you are about misinformation via rigged benchmarks on useless benchmark apps that gives intel an unfair advantage that never translates in the real world.

But don't worry I am accustomed to the uneducated who brags nonsense and tosses single player benchmarks that runs on a single core CPU and then claim ow look intel is faster.

 

[tential]

And for the 10th time please be quiet with your garbage

besides this graph I can tell from personal experience that a dual core pentium haswell stinks in BF3 64 player

FYI an old 6 core Phenom II X6 gets higher minimum FPS in BF3 on 64 player maps than even a 2500K i5 sandy bridge
But then again you are about misinformation via rigged benchmarks on useless benchmark apps that gives intel an unfair advantage that never translates in the real world.

But don't worry I am accustomed to the uneducated who brags nonsense and tosses single player benchmarks that runs on a single core CPU and then claim ow look intel is faster.

You can't be serious... it says MULTIPLAYER BENCHMARK right on the graph... from a 64 player benchmark.
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Battl...ld-3-Multiplayer-Tipps-CPU-Benchmark-1039293/
"Battlefield 3 Multiplayer in review: 25 CPUs in the benchmark [The Week]"

Why don't you ever read anything people post? You claim to want to learn about CPUs then never read anything we actually post to attempt to help you.

NO mentions of dualcores in this thread, why are you even bringing that up? Haswell isn't even in the graphs... can you please please I beg of you, PAY ATTENTION.

Get off of your high horse already, we can see from numerous posts of yours throughout this forum that you are still a newbie trying to learn, so why don't you actually do that?

 

[john5220]

Whats even funner is the failed bulldozer beats the 2500K super duper core i5 (minimum fps is all anyone cares about btw)

yet we have dishonest people jumping up and claiming intel superiority. Makes me feel kinda ashamed to own a intel with fanbois like this spreading nonsense.

obviously 6 and 8 threaded apps are going to be equal or FASTER than core i5 on those "crappy" fx 6300 and 8350 but then why bother with scientific data?

Lets just toss up the intel balloons and down play anything AMD does good or beats intel in. lets all live a life of denial, my religious grand parents did it and they turned out just fine right?

 

[john5220]

Thats the point GENIUS!!!!

dual cores stink In battlefield 3. 4 and 6 cores is what shines, the game supports atleast 6 threads!!!!

this has been known to the majority of educated gamers on the planet. Seriously you are not a hardcore BF3 player so please move along go back to skyrim.

 

[Enigmoid]

And for the 10th time please be quiet with your garbage

besides this graph I can tell from personal experience that a dual core pentium haswell stinks in BF3 64 player

FYI an old 6 core Phenom II X6 gets higher minimum FPS in BF3 on 64 player maps than even a 2500K i5 sandy bridge
But then again you are about misinformation via rigged benchmarks on useless benchmark apps that gives intel an unfair advantage that never translates in the real world.

But don't worry I am accustomed to the uneducated who brags nonsense and tosses single player benchmarks that runs on a single core CPU and then claim ow look intel is faster.

Someone never studied statistics.

The min framerates on these charts are pretty much useless, especially when considering MP. There is no statistical significance between a 59/61/62 min fps. A one time snapshot means nothing when all the playthroughs are a little different. You would need at least a 10% difference to become statistically accurate.

 

[tential]

Thats the point GENIUS!!!!

dual cores stink In battlefield 3. 4 and 6 cores is what shines, the game supports atleast 6 threads!!!!

this has been known to the majority of educated gamers on the planet. Seriously you are not a hardcore BF3 player so please move along go back to skyrim.

Your reading comprehension is astoundingly bad. Why are you talking about dual cores... we're talking about an i5 here. That's a quad core. You do know that right? Please tell me you know that.

 

[john5220]

And BTW I am done with you as far as this is concerned, I am tired of you stalking me both on this forum and other forums when I post proof of why a 6 and 8 core AMD is a better choice in 6 and 8 threaded apps.

You reek of trolling!!!

You sound like those people who look at starcraft 2 benchmarks with the celeron winning and saying ow that must mean a celeron is faster and a 8 core AMD

Never mind that starcraft 2 is single threaded.

 

[tential]

Someone never studied statistics.

The min framerates on these charts are pretty much useless, especially when considering MP. There is no statistical significance between a 59/61/62 min fps. A one time snapshot means nothing when all the playthroughs are a little different. You would need at least a 10% difference to become statistically accurate.

The worst part is, sweclockers article is from 2011. The one I posted is from 2012, thus it includes more patches and is more indicative of performance you'd ACTUALLY GET TODAY.

You try to teach him things, and he just never seems to get it.

 

[john5220]

Your reading comprehension is astoundingly bad. Why are you talking about dual cores... we're talking about an i5 here. That's a quad core. You do know that right? Please tell me you know that.

I already noted my i3 is faster than my Pentium G 3220 in BF3

My friend's Athlon X4 760k a vastly inferior CPU is faster in BF3 than the Pentium G haswell 3220

so with that said I don't have conversations with people who deny evidence. This forum absolutely stinks of people who attack others and are allowed to break the rules because they have been here longer.

As Richard Dawkins said you are the enemy of reason.

Goodby I think i am done with this forum

Must be the only site that allows this level of nasty behavior and attacks on others without consequence.

 

[tential]

But don't worry I am accustomed to the uneducated who brags nonsense and tosses single player benchmarks that runs on a single core CPU and then claim ow look intel is faster.

Read what it says in the red box.

Does it say single player?

And single player Battlefield 3 doesn't run on a single core fyi. Why would you think that?

 

[john5220]

^ that graph is most likely 32 player benchmark

So the i5 has the small advantage of stronger cores. An i5 does not beat a 6 core fx 6300 in 64 player maps like caspain border.

 

[Abwx]

Read what it says in the red box.

Does it say single player?

And single player Battlefield 3 doesn't run on a single core fyi. Why would you think that?

720p..???..

Why not 640.?

 

[john5220]

Here is a much better graph

showing the FX 6300 and 8350 beating the 4770k core i7 in battlefield 4 64 player maps, some situations differ but more or less shows the power of AMD in heavily multi threaded situations but then you are a man of religious superstition and faith rather than evidence.

 

[tential]

^ that graph is most likely 32 player benchmark

So the i5 has the small advantage of stronger cores. An i5 does not beat a 6 core fx 6300 in 64 player maps like caspain border.

It's 64 player.... Read the article please.
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Battl...ld-3-Multiplayer-Tipps-CPU-Benchmark-1039293/

Don't guess.

 

[john5220]

^ so with that I am really done here. if people are going to outright deny PROOF of anything AMD is doing good then I really don't need to be here at all.


The ENTIRE Battlefield community knows very well the 8 Core AMD is better than the i5 in BF3 and 4.

 

[Sweepr]

Here is a much better graph

showing the FX 6300 and 8350 beating the 4770k core i7 in battlefield 4 64 player maps, some situations differ but more or less shows the power of AMD in heavily multi threaded situations but then you are a man of religious superstition and faith rather than evidence.

Lol, where exactly did they beat a Core i5/i7? Almost the same FPS for all processors, is that really a CPU intensive BF3 MP round with 64-players? Based on this crappy graph he might as well pick the dog slow FX4300 and call it a day.

 

[john5220]

^ WRONG

hardwarepal website is by far the most extensive test on BF4 you are ever going to find they have countless charts to pick from and shows how bias and wrong other sources are.
these numbers are the most realistic you are ever going to find when gaming in a multi player environment. And from my own personal testing they are about spot on
its not going to give the same numbers everytime but damn sure its going to be just about that. I would say intel and AMD are about equal here especially with Mantle.

But like I said anything AMD does good people on this website will downplay, it does not happen in other forums its sort of a nasty community going on here if you ask me.

Just imagine i recommended this lad an AMD because he specifically wants an AMD but not sure which one as he already has an AMD board. And suddenly a wave of intel fan boys start getting their panties knotted like a fish net and start attacking me on a personal level. Disgraceful if you ask me!!!

 

[tential]

He doesn't even understand how benchmarking works. You don't benchmark to show the difference between processors using 2 lowend GPUs?
Why would you do that with a GTX 660 or a HD7870?
Sweclockers.com
http://www.sweclockers.com/artikel/17810-prestandaanalys-battlefield-4/4#pagehead

Do you know why it's easy for me to find these graphs John5220? Because I've been here for 6 years and I've seen every major release of every single game talked about, over analyzed, and picked apart. And I didn't sit there and run my mouth during that time period. I shut it, and I simply followed the discussion. Something you could try and do.
pclab.pl's review

OC'd FX-8350 can't even keep up with a stock i5-4670k in multiplayer.

We saw these benchmarks LAST YEAR because we talked about this game LAST YEAR.
You can catch up on this discussion here:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2350810&page=2

But I doubt you will since you never bother to actually read anything people post.

 

[tential]

Lol, where exactly did they beat a Core i5/i7? Almost the same FPS for all processors, is that really a CPU intensive BF3 MP round with 64-players? Based on this crappy graph he might as well pick the dog slow FX4300 and call it a day.

FX-4300 is a quad core. FX-8350 is an 8 core.
John5220 claims the game scales with cores, yet EACH Processor gets 60 max, 43 minimum, 52 average.
Hmm... that's odd, lets check the GPU.
GTX 660...

Who does a CPU test with a mid range GPU? Again, I really wish he would start learning to understand how benchmarks work so he could contribute to the conversation.

Edit: To really lol at how wrong you are John5220 though we have to actually look at the SINGLEPLAYER benchmarks

Wow... so in singleplayer, the FX holds up well, but in multiplayer, it's the Intel CPUs that shine.

By the way, I played BF4 since it came out and Betatested it. But I'll go back to my "skyrim", a game I don't even own.

 

[Abwx]

He doesn't even understand how benchmarking works. You don't benchmark to show the difference between processors using 2 lowend GPUs?
Why would you do that with a GTX 660 or a HD7870?
Sweclockers.com
http://www.sweclockers.com/artikel/17810-prestandaanalys-battlefield-4/4#pagehead

Do you know why it's easy for me to find these graphs John5220? Because I've been here for 6 years and I've seen every major release of every single game talked about, over analyzed, and picked apart. And I didn't sit there and run my mouth during that time period. I shut it, and I simply followed the discussion. Something you could try and do.
pclab.pl's review

OC'd FX-8350 can't even keep up with a stock i5-4670k in multiplayer.

We saw these benchmarks LAST YEAR because we talked about this game LAST YEAR.
You can catch up on this discussion here:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2350810&page=2

But I doubt you will since you never bother to actually read anything people post.

Yes but when it suits your needs a 770, wich is a 680, can be used for comparing CPUs on the bottom graph, wouldnt think that so much bad faith could be possible, not counting your graph for BF MP at 720p, a definition no one will use with such gear, the other member was much more relevant with 1080p graphs.