Please recommend an AMD Processor for me

[soccerballtux]

I find this really, really hard to believe.

I just checked, it actually appears to be set to high in 7-ultimate. I'm pretty sure it was normal in 7-pro-64, and that sort of thing is just the sort of thing they would do to "make sure ultimate is the ultimate experience". "Ooops. guess you should have got ultimate. sorry"

can someone with 7-pro or 7-home check? right click taskbar, start task manager, look at taskmgr.exe's priority level

 

[soccerballtux]

Debates over guys, he doesn't care about a few games therefore they don't matter. Looks like the 8350 is faster now

yes, that's right. wave your hands and ignore what I said about the only games on that list I know about: they're dual threaded, no more.

 

[TheELF]

Oh. With the exception of BF4 none of those are legitimate game engines

And yet, even on the legitimate game engine of BF4, a I3-4330 (basically an I3-4150/4160 with better igpu) is just as fast as an FX-8xxx at 4,7Ghz (FX-9370)
Games just won't scale well on more than 4 cores,and AMD just has no (quad) core that is strong enough.

 

[AtenRa]

And yet, even on the legitimate game engine of BF4, a I3-4330 (basically an I3-4150/4160 with better igpu) is just as fast as an FX-8xxx at 4,7Ghz (FX-9370)
Games just won't scale well on more than 4 cores,and AMD just has no (quad) core that is strong enough.

I wouldnt take the Core i3 performance in that review as being indicative of BF4 MP (Last Stand). They only benchmarked 38sec of no combat. Bellow is the video they used to test for the review.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMGTwG6XN_4

 

[soccerballtux]

does anyone have more BF4 tests to confirm?

 

[AtenRa]

Confirm what ??

 

[tential]

The FX-8000 series vs the i3 is kind of like that "Haha intel beats AMD at every price segment!!!!"
Ya, the i3 may beat the FX-8000 in a lot of games, but would you really want it over the FX-8000? I think the performance lead of the i3 isn't that large, but the benefit of simply having more cores for background tasks is great.

Who actually turns off EVERY process before gaming? I don't. I may have 150+ tabs open sometimes, and some of those tabs eat up processor cycles. With 30 tabs open right now on my C2Duo machine, I'm at 25% cpu usage. Flash video, ads, whatever eat up CPU usage.

I'd rather have an FX-8000 series processor where I know I have 2-3 extra threads unused while gaming that can eat that up, rather than an i3, where I need to shut everything off to get that extra performance. At that point, do I really care if I always have to exit every single application before gaming?

The i3 is like the GTX 770 2GB. It benches nice, but I still took an AMD GPU with more VRAM for the longevity. GTX 770 owners are upgrading, I'm not as my GPU still runs well due to more VRAM.

For me it's:
Pick up an FX processor on sale and OC
i5-4690k
i7-4790k
i7-5820k

Those are my favorite value picks.

 

[SlowSpyder]

FX8350 is a fine processor for high budget AAA games. Expensive games = suited for cheap processor? For less known games, you'll suffer performance issues. I play mostly indie games, other than a few listed above, and run programs for work that don't scale well past 2 cores, so an FX chip would not suit me.

I play a few games that are single/lightly threaded. I don't have any problems. Not to say an FX is better in those situations, quite the opposite as Intel shines in those games. But I never feel like my hardware isn't up to snuff as far as simply gaming and enjoying the game. I've lost myself in hours of Torchlight 2, as an example, on my FX without ever feeling I need more CPU/GPU grunt.

 

[Erenhardt]

You know what you can do? Block the game from using half the threads on the fx and not loose a single frame most of the time (observation on fx6300)
Good luck with i3

 

[TheELF]

The FX-8000 series vs the i3 is kind of like that "Haha intel beats AMD at every price segment!!!!"
Ya, the i3 may beat the FX-8000 in a lot of games, but would you really want it over the FX-8000? I think the performance lead of the i3 isn't that large, but the benefit of simply having more cores for background tasks is great.

Yeah,learned about computers in the 90ies have we?
Nowadays OS's work with priorities,first off well behaved software lowers priorities when minimized and secondly windows gives higher priority to what ever is focused.
So you don't need to shut down anything,minimizing is enough and you don't even have to do that because windows will do anything to run foreground tasks(your game) as fast as possible by slowing down background tasks.

And thirdly you can restrict the FPS of whatever game, with vsync or game specific commands,this way you will free up CPU cycles if there is something that you want to run in the background at all costs,so to speak.
If you have more than enough power you can slow down your game if you want to,good luck making a slow game on an FX go any faster.
(but at least your adds will run fluidly)

 

[schmuckley]

1100T with a Single stage
This one
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/AMD-Opteron%206180%20SE%20-%20OS6180YETCEGO.html

http://www.ebay.com/itm/MATCHING-PA...US_Server_CPUs_Processors&hash=item2347018151

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Supermicro-...510706628?pt=Motherboards&hash=item418b587dc4

$365 total

 

[BSim500]

With 30 tabs open right now on my C2Duo machine, I'm at 25% cpu usage. Flash video, ads, whatever eat up CPU usage.

Do yourself a favor and install Adblock (and Flashblock, Ghostery / Disconnect, etc). I have over 80 tabs open and under 3% CPU. Much more pleasant web browsing experience too. :thumbsup:

 

[frozentundra123456]

Personally, I can't imagine why anyone would want to game while having a huge number of other programs open. I certainly would not base my buying decision on running other programs while gaming. But each to his own. I think the choice between FX and i3 really depends on what games you want to play, whether you are willing to overclock, and how important energy use is to the user. Again though, I would just spend the relatively small extra and get an i5.

 

[III-V]

I just checked, it actually appears to be set to high in 7-ultimate. I'm pretty sure it was normal in 7-pro-64, and that sort of thing is just the sort of thing they would do to "make sure ultimate is the ultimate experience". "Ooops. guess you should have got ultimate. sorry"

can someone with 7-pro or 7-home check? right click taskbar, start task manager, look at taskmgr.exe's priority level

Thanks for checking up on that. Sorry if I was a bit rude.

Personally, I can't imagine why anyone would want to game while having a huge number of other programs open. I certainly would not base my buying decision on running other programs while gaming. But each to his own. I think the choice between FX and i3 really depends on what games you want to play, whether you are willing to overclock, and how important energy use is to the user. Again though, I would just spend the relatively small extra and get an i5.

I usually have a pretty heavily loaded browser running alongside my games, and occasionally music. I don't think others would go much farther than that, although I can't see why my habits would have any significant impact on my framerate. Right now, I'm certainly GPU-bound, but even then, I don't think the impact would be all that large. Probably wouldn't be good for the stutters, though.

 

[escrow4]

The FX-8000 series vs the i3 is kind of like that "Haha intel beats AMD at every price segment!!!!"
Ya, the i3 may beat the FX-8000 in a lot of games, but would you really want it over the FX-8000? I think the performance lead of the i3 isn't that large, but the benefit of simply having more cores for background tasks is great.

Who actually turns off EVERY process before gaming? I don't. I may have 150+ tabs open sometimes, and some of those tabs eat up processor cycles. With 30 tabs open right now on my C2Duo machine, I'm at 25% cpu usage. Flash video, ads, whatever eat up CPU usage.

I'd rather have an FX-8000 series processor where I know I have 2-3 extra threads unused while gaming that can eat that up, rather than an i3, where I need to shut everything off to get that extra performance. At that point, do I really care if I always have to exit every single application before gaming?

The i3 is like the GTX 770 2GB. It benches nice, but I still took an AMD GPU with more VRAM for the longevity. GTX 770 owners are upgrading, I'm not as my GPU still runs well due to more VRAM.

For me it's:
Pick up an FX processor on sale and OC
i5-4690k
i7-4790k
i7-5820k

Those are my favorite value picks.

I have a separate 5930K PC just for games that is used for nothing else . . . . you may as well buy a 5820K and stop fiddling around with these other slow ass CPUs. Its 2015, you really think a poky old dual core and ancient FX is really enough for consistent 60FPS gaming? Both are compromises, so stop compromising and buy something that will actually last.

 

[DrMrLordX]

The most probable uses of exterior applications while gaming would be streaming/recording apps and comm apps (Ventrillo and suchlike). An FX would be nice to have for those things, though it certainly is possible to do either one with an i7. An i3? Vent, no problem. Not real sure I'd want to run a 4+ thread game on a big multiplayer map and try to stream it on an i3.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

yes, that's right. wave your hands and ignore what I said about the only games on that list I know about: they're dual threaded, no more.

Even Dirt 2, an old game by today's standards, uses 4 threads while on maxed settings. What are you taking about?

And to these posters who can't believe people would have other programs running while they game, just look at all the people on Twitch.tv who have to use a second computer to broadcast without dropping frames because they only have a quad core. The FX-8xxx series has no problem with it. It's only going to get more CPU demanding from here!

 

[xthetenth]

Personally, I can't imagine why anyone would want to game while having a huge number of other programs open. I certainly would not base my buying decision on running other programs while gaming. But each to his own. I think the choice between FX and i3 really depends on what games you want to play, whether you are willing to overclock, and how important energy use is to the user. Again though, I would just spend the relatively small extra and get an i5.

It's the other way round that's why I want to game with other programs open. I'd rather not have to close firefox even if it is routinely over a gigabyte of memory, I routinely play with my own music, etc. But I have processor and memory to spare so I don't care about the impact of 500 tabs in firefox.

 

[tential]

Yeah,learned about computers in the 90ies have we?
Nowadays OS's work with priorities,first off well behaved software lowers priorities when minimized and secondly windows gives higher priority to what ever is focused.
So you don't need to shut down anything,minimizing is enough and you don't even have to do that because windows will do anything to run foreground tasks(your game) as fast as possible by slowing down background tasks.

And thirdly you can restrict the FPS of whatever game, with vsync or game specific commands,this way you will free up CPU cycles if there is something that you want to run in the background at all costs,so to speak.
If you have more than enough power you can slow down your game if you want to,good luck making a slow game on an FX go any faster.
(but at least your adds will run fluidly)

Thanks for trying to be condescending but most of you guys are using i5s/i7s.
We talk about i3's in THEORY, yet how many people are actually running them?
I think the i3 is simply a shortsighted CPU to purchase. Like Frozen says below me, unless you have a game that SPECIFICALLY benefits from the i3 (Dolphin Emulator is my favorite example), I'd still pick the FX.

Maybe you guys will be willing to purchase that i7 on ebay/craigslist/whatever but the average joe probably won't yet this is almost always a justification used for getting an i3 is that you can just upgrade later! Most users who aren't enthusiasts simply will upgrade mobo/cpu again, if a person is an enthusiast that wanted to get an i3 then upgrade to an i7, chances are they wouldn't need to make a thread asking in the first place.

Personally, I can't imagine why anyone would want to game while having a huge number of other programs open. I certainly would not base my buying decision on running other programs while gaming. But each to his own. I think the choice between FX and i3 really depends on what games you want to play, whether you are willing to overclock, and how important energy use is to the user. Again though, I would just spend the relatively small extra and get an i5.

I wouldn't base it around that but if the choice is between the FX and the i3, I think the FX is probably the better choice due to being more flexible in tasks.

But I also agree with you completely on the upgrade to an i5. At the end of the day, I always say "Can you wait a month and get an i5?"
Why buy an i3/FX processor that only has so much life on it? We still have sandybridge as a great processor today. Purchasing an i5/i7 gives you so much CPU life it's certainly worth the additional cost.

 

[tential]

Even Dirt 2, an old game by today's standards, uses 4 threads while on maxed settings. What are you taking about?

And to these posters who can't believe people would have other programs running while they game, just look at all the people on Twitch.tv who have to use a second computer to broadcast without dropping frames because they only have a quad core. The FX-8xxx series has no problem with it. It's only going to get more CPU demanding from here!

Exactly, I can't tell you how many times I was watching a twitch stream and the person was running some CPU that wasn't strong enough for the task. Yet an FX-8000 series is ENTRY LEVEL CPU (you can pick this up really cheap) and it will do the task.

It's flexibility that's important when I make a recommendation on processor. I wouldn't recommend an i3 then have that user come back and go "I couldn't do x, y, and z at the same time this sucks." Why? For an extra 3-5 frames you got from the i3?

 

[TheELF]

And to these posters who can't believe people would have other programs running while they game, just look at all the people on Twitch.tv who have to use a second computer to broadcast without dropping frames because they only have a quad core. The FX-8xxx series has no problem with it. It's only going to get more CPU demanding from here!

Old school thinking,nowadays you get quick sync with your intel CPUs and with that even the humble celeron can stream/record high quality video in real-time with a minimal foot print.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Old school thinking,nowadays you get quick sync with your intel CPUs and with that even the humble celeron can stream/record high quality video in real-time with a minimal foot print.

You do realize that LoL can be played just fine on a 1.6Ghz Pentium 3 as long as it has a dedicated video card like a Radeon X300, right? You cherrypicked a game that could run on a potato.

And looking at that video, it's at 25-35 fps, both CPU cores completely maxed out (core temp on the right). The video framerate does drop quite a bit. That should be 60fps EASY. Since the video card is struggling, the CPU usage goes down, allowing for decent encoding at 25-35fps. If that's acceptable performance and a minimal footprint from 60 to 25FPS with hardware acceleration, and not even full-screen on a game that any computer can run well... LOL! Sure. You bet.

 

[soccerballtux]

Thanks for checking up on that. Sorry if I was a bit rude.

whatever. most of the soft parts of me from younger days are dead now. Also, I just don't bother taking it too personally, it's not worth it.

If you have 7-pro, can you check?

 

[soccerballtux]

Even Dirt 2, an old game by today's standards, uses 4 threads while on maxed settings. What are you taking about?

And to these posters who can't believe people would have other programs running while they game, just look at all the people on Twitch.tv who have to use a second computer to broadcast without dropping frames because they only have a quad core. The FX-8xxx series has no problem with it. It's only going to get more CPU demanding from here!

everybody gets a good framerate on Dirt2 though no matter what.

I wasn't aware of that about Twitch.TV and hadn't considered it, but yes that makes sense and is a really really good point. So good in fact it should be mentioned in every buying decision. "Do you ever want to gamecast on Twitch for fun? Then you're going to need to spend that $100 on an FX-8xxx chip not what it buys you from Intel (a dual core with HT)"

 

[TheELF]

You do realize that LoL can be played just fine on a 1.6Ghz Pentium 3 as long as it has a dedicated video card like a Radeon X300, right? You cherrypicked a game that could run on a potato.

And looking at that video, it's at 25-35 fps, both CPU cores completely maxed out (core temp on the right). The video framerate does drop quite a bit. That should be 60fps EASY. Since the video card is struggling, the CPU usage goes down, allowing for decent encoding at 25-35fps. If that's acceptable performance and a minimal footprint from 60 to 25FPS with hardware acceleration, and not even full-screen on a game that any computer can run well... LOL! Sure. You bet.

You totally missed the point of the video,its not about how fast the game runs,you can have a discrete VGA and use that to get high FPS,
quick sync uses ~15% of this very slow CPU and ~40% of this very slow IGPU for a good quality H264 recording,this is no full frames nonsense.
On a faster CPU this numbers will be even lower.

Can you show us how much of an FX-8xxx it's gonna take to record a video in this resolution and quality with the H264 codec?