Please recommend an AMD Processor for me

[tential]

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.

So I guess you completely ignored the R9 290x graphs?
I thought you were the CPU expert supposedly? So you do know that lower resolution removes the GPU bottleneck so you can see differences in CPU processing power easier right?

Edit: And I think you messed up some of your post. I don't believe you're a native English speaker but you got some mistakes in there that make it a little difficult to understand what you're saying.

 

[john5220]

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.

Yup I don't waste time in 720P settings and low settings.

Absolutely NO ONE in the right mind is going to run BF4 on low with 720P with a GTX 770 aka a GTX 680.

Anyone who has a card like that is going to run BF4 in all its glory regardless of CPU scaling. And in such a situation it shows how AMD shines!!

I just wanted to help the OP decide on his CPU since he intends to keep his expensive AMD mainboard, "and admittedly I also wanted him to feel good about his purchase since he was wishing he had a i7"

I just wanted to show him that he should not be sad and that a 8 core or 6 core AMD purchase would be amazing especially since you are paying $85 for the 6 core and $105 for a 8320 8 core on Amazon.

Admittedly multi player experiences will differ no doubting that. But a general overall average benchmark is what one is looking for. And the evidence shows a $85 6 Core AMD is a FAR FAR better value for money than any i5 for $230 since they both achieve more or less the same performance.

 

[Abwx]

I thought you were the CPU expert supposedly? So you do know that lower resolution removes the GPU bottleneck so you can see differences in CPU processing power easier right?

Should one buy a CPU according to the 720p scores or to the 1080p scores..?.
You re implying that it s the former that is the way to go.

 

[tential]

Yup I don't waste time in 720P settings and low settings.

Absolutely NO ONE in the right mind is going to run BF4 on low with 720P with a GTX 770 aka a GTX 680.

Anyone who has a card like that is going to run BF4 in all its glory regardless of CPU scaling. And in such a situation it shows how AMD shines!!

I just wanted to help the OP decide on his CPU since he intends to keep his expensive AMD mainboard, "and admittedly I also wanted him to feel good about his purchase since he was wishing he had a i7"

I just wanted to show him that he should not be sad and that a 8 core or 6 core AMD purchase would be amazing especially since you are paying $85 for the 6 core and $105 for a 8320 8 core on Amazon.

Admittedly multi player experiences will differ no doubting that. But a general overall average benchmark is what one is looking for. And the evidence shows a $85 6 Core AMD is a FAR FAR better value for money than any i5 for $230 since they both achieve more or less the same performance.

State for me where you see 720p on these graphs
State for me where you see "Low" on these graphs

Both are 1080p Ultra... One with 4x MSAA

Are you ever reading the graphs posted?
Edit: Be careful John5220 when you read other people's posts. You have to know what country they're from and recognize mistakes or things that don't translate. He never meant "low settings" Abwx meant "Low resolution". Another thing you'll learn posting on here.

 

[Sweepr]

So I guess you completely ignored the R9 290x graphs?
I thought you were the CPU expert supposedly? So you do know that lower resolution removes the GPU bottleneck so you can see differences in CPU processing power easier right?

Some people like to create GPU bottlenecks to hide the poor performance of certain processors. It's impressive that Core i5/i7 managed to stay ahead even in the 1080p Ultra benchmarks you posted.

 

[tential]

Some people like to create GPU bottlenecks to hide the poor performance of certain processors. It's impressive that Core i5/i7 managed to stay ahead even in the 1080p Ultra benchmarks you posted.

I don't believe it's that sinister at all. I believe it's what abwx touched on. The "I don't game at 720p I want 1080p benchmarks!". People aren't aware that lower resolutions allow you to see differences in CPU performance better by removing GPU performance out of the equation.

Being a member here for so long, and reading this website for even longer (I'm a member since 2008 yet I've read this site since 2003 I think since I used this site to pick my Athlon 64 3200+), I have learned these things. Reading all of you guys discussions during that time period helped me learn a lot and since I sat there and read, and didn't actually register, I got to concentrate on actually learning, rather than jumping into a conversation I wasn't prepared for.

Now we have users who simply register, having never even read in depth reviews and think they know it all. Even I still don't participate in a lot of convos here and just follow them. A good trait to have is to know when you realize there is a lot to learn on a subject and you sit and listen rather than try and teach everyone how little you know.

 

[ShintaiDK]

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.

If you absolutely have to use an AMD CPU, using a nVidia card would better due to better threaded driver.

Price is the same or cheaper today when you compare with the price index. So you couldnt be more wrong.

 

[tential]

If you absolutely have to use an AMD CPU, using a nVidia card would better due to better threaded driver.

Price is the same or cheaper today when you compare with the price index. So you couldnt be more wrong.

Omega driver right around the corner though, so we might want to hold off on that and see the Omega driver's improvements.

 

[Phynaz]

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.

Kid, you need to grow up.

 

[hunkeelin]

Amd is garbage. Go with intel. Unless you really benefit from heavy multi threading. Even a 1st gen i3 performs better than the best amd chip in a single threaded task.

 

[jhu]

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.

The illness that brought down many in P&N is infecting CPUs and Overclocking. Help!

 

[Yuriman]

It makes the most sense to benchmark a game with max settings and lowest resolution, on a fast video card, because sometimes certain graphical settings can increase CPU load. Resolution is entirely CPU independent, allowing you to remove the GPU's speed from the equation. Allow me to set up a hypothetical:

CPU A @ 1080P, max settings: 40fps
720P: 70fps

CPU B @ 1080P, max settings: 40fps
720P: 55fps

One might say that for all practical purposes, CPU A is no faster than CPU B because at 1080P, they have the same framerates, so why bother benchmarking at anything other than max settings? However if you want 60fps from CPU B, there is absolutely nothing you can do to obtain it, while with CPU A you can just drop a setting or two to achieve a fluid 60.

^ To me, the 1080P benchmark is completely irrelevant, as I usually drop a setting or two in games to achieve a desired framerate, rather than just taking whatever I get with max settings.

 

[Abwx]

Allow me to set up a hypothetical:

CPU A @ 1080P, max settings: 40fps
720P: 70fps

CPU B @ 1080P, max settings: 40fps
720P: 55fps

One might say that for all practical purposes, CPU A is no faster than CPU B because at 1080P, they have the same framerates, so why bother benchmarking at anything other than max settings? However if you want 60fps from CPU B, there is absolutely nothing you can do to obtain it, while with CPU A you can just drop a setting or two to achieve a fluid 60.

That s a flawed logic since you re removing any indications about min framerates, what if as in a case above a CPU has lower max framerates and higher min framerates at 1080p but is slower at 720p..?..

The equation is not that simple...

 

[escrow4]

Or stop going around in circles and buy a 5820K and a cheaper X99 mobo like an Extreme 4 and avoid a dead end chip with a chipset from 2010 . . . . .

 

[AtenRa]

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.

Get the FX8320E or FX8370E. Disable Turbo and OC over 4GHz, i believe 4.4GHz to 4.6GHz is the sweat spot for the Vishera.

 

[Idontcare]

And the evidence shows a $85 6 Core AMD is a FAR FAR better value for money than any i5 for $230 since they both achieve more or less the same performance.

True, but only if all you will ever do with your computer is play that game, at that resolution, and with that video card until the end of time.

But if you happen to do other stuff with your computer, or intend to play more demanding games down the road, or upgrade your GPU to something that requires more CPU horsepower to push up those minimum framerates...then yes, you will find out very quickly that things are priced as they are because generally you will get what you are paying for.

Isn't a salesman around that doesn't love a short-sighted customer though.

 

[TheELF]

That s a flawed logic since you re removing any indications about min framerates, what if as in a case above a CPU has lower max framerates and higher min framerates at 1080p but is slower at 720p..?..

The equation is not that simple...

The min fps (or avg/max) do not change whatever resolution you play at,unless it is the VGA that cant perform fast enough.
A cpu that can play a game at ~25-30fps will play that game at ~25-30fps no matter if you play at 320x240 with IGPU or at 1920x1080 ultra with a very strong VGA
And that's why you benchmark CPU's at resolutions and quality settings that do not slow down the VGA, it's the only way to see how good a CPU will play a game in theory,
after that you can put in whatever VGA you like with whatever settings you like even if you trade in lower FPS for better looking graphics,nobody cares about that in an CPU benchmark,a CPU benchmark is about what you CAN achieve with this CPU,not how YOU want to play that game.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

Most reactions here are pointless.

OP already has a 2500K, so there is absolutely no reason to recommend any amd cpu. I'd recommend not getting a new cpu.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Most reactions here are pointless.

OP already has a 2500K, so there is absolutely no reason to recommend any amd cpu. I'd recommend not getting a new cpu.

I wasnt clear on that, but I though the OP was getting another system. If not, I agree a 2500k is a better choice, especially if you overclock it, for gaming than anything from AMD.

 

[Yuriman]

I wasnt clear on that, but I though the OP was getting another system. If not, I agree a 2500k is a better choice, especially if you overclock it, for gaming than anything from AMD.

OP asked for an AMD CPU recommendation, so I gave it. Though it may be no better for gaming than a 2500K on average, my/AtenRa's suggestion is the best OP can do on AM3.

 

[ElFenix]

I wasnt clear on that, but I though the OP was getting another system. If not, I agree a 2500k is a better choice, especially if you overclock it, for gaming than anything from AMD.

yeah i think OP wants to play around with an AMD cpu just because. and if that's the purpose, might as well go all 4 modules and get the full experience.

agreed that OP shouldn't spend money that he has yet to make, though.


(oh the irony at anarchist getting a government job)

 

[soccerballtux]

prices up after BFriday, I got an AMD FX-8310 for $100-25$ paypal from TigerDirect, right now they have $20 off

get a good motherboard, mine has crappy bios and the CPU won't ever turbo to the full 4.3ghz, which would make a huge difference if it did, the turbo is very responsive/snappy, and 4.3ghz is also very snappy.

Don't let people talk you into a dual core Intel. Those people are lying through their teeth, what I got is at least twice as fast as the closest Intel option.

If you go intel, you must get i5 quad core for it to make sense. There's another guy on here who spent $140 or $150 on the i5 quad and THAT is something I was not aware was an option. I probably come out about equal to him even with him overclocking though so I'm not really complaining.

 

[Erenhardt]

I see you want am3+, but I vote for FM2+ kaveri APU.
Get a10-7850k and see if IGP can be enabled with r9 290.
Do some benches. Overclock it and do the benches again. See if the igp can be helpful with such a monstrous GPU. If not games (Civ beyond earth?), maybe some software can use it

 

[Enigmoid]

I see you want am3+, but I vote for FM2+ kaveri APU.
Get a10-7850k and see if IGP can be enabled with r9 290.
Do some benches. Overclock it and do the benches again. See if the igp can be helpful with such a monstrous GPU. If not games (Civ beyond earth?), maybe some software can use it

No this will not work. IGP is not supported for Hawaii.

A A10-7850k, overclocked or not, will hold back a 290.

 

[frozentundra123456]

prices up after BFriday, I got an AMD FX-8310 for $100-25$ paypal from TigerDirect, right now they have $20 off

get a good motherboard, mine has crappy bios and the CPU won't ever turbo to the full 4.3ghz, which would make a huge difference if it did, the turbo is very responsive/snappy, and 4.3ghz is also very snappy.

Don't let people talk you into a dual core Intel. Those people are lying through their teeth, what I got is at least twice as fast as the closest Intel option.

If you go intel, you must get i5 quad core for it to make sense. There's another guy on here who spent $140 or $150 on the i5 quad and THAT is something I was not aware was an option. I probably come out about equal to him even with him overclocking though so I'm not really complaining.

The only place an 8310 will be twice as fast as an i3 is in some productivity benchmark that loads all 8 cores. No way in gaming. In fact, stock for stock, I think the i3 would win more than it loses.