Dark Shroud
Golden Member
- Mar 26, 2010
- 1,576
- 1
- 0
All I want is for AMD's Richland APUs to hybrid crossfire with the HD 7000 series, 7700 cards would be preferable.
FX-6300 is definitely the best bang for the buck gaming processor for the money as it is. Another 8-15% drop in price is just icing on the cake. Definitely prefer that over the overpriced i3's that are currently in it's price range.
All I want is for AMD's Richland APUs to hybrid crossfire with the HD 7000 series, 7700 cards would be preferable.
Depends on what level of performance you want. It is a good value in the budget range, but for 50 to 100 dollars more you can have a low end i5 or a 3570k.
When you consider the cost of an entire system, it is only 10 to 15 percent increase in cost for a greater percent increase in overall performance, not to mention more well balanced performance in older games as well as the limited newer games that utilize more cores.
For 175$ you can get FX 8320 and its 25$ cheaper than i5 3470 and 45$ than i5 3570k.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/698?vs=702
And your point is???
Edit: All right, I will answer you seriously. I am talking about gaming. The benchmarks you linked are a strong case against the 8320. The i5 is 20 to 50 percent faster in every game tested. Not to mention that over a 3 year or so life of a computer the lower power usage of the i5 will make up for the small difference in initial purchase price.
SC2 and WOW performance on AMD is a known "issue". These 2 games are not nearly enough to claim one is vastly superior. Although it's true i5 is a better gaming CPU, differences in most modern games are hardly anything worth talking about (both coupled with high end GPU and tested in appropriate high settings).
Most of those games are Intel optimized or outdated...![]()
Most of those games are Intel optimized or outdated...![]()
That's how I've always seen it.More reason to buy an Intel CPU.
More reason to buy an Intel CPU. Why would you want to cripple your performance for a mere $25, and then lose that $25 and more in long term power costs??
Do "outdated" games somehow become less fun to play?
You mentioned you don't have a BD CPU. What CPU are you gaming on?
So I should give my money to a less efficient company -- one that uses bank notes as fuel for heating their offices? Got it.Its not Intel's![]()
Its not Intel's![]()
He didn't ask what it isn't, he asked you what it is.
Your unwillingness to answer in straightforward fashion is noted.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't AMD's stock clock idle power usage very close to Intel's even though we are talking a .32nm versus .22nm? Since most time is spent idling or web surfing and not gaming the power usage isn't dramatically different (although it does favor Intel at every point).
Now, if you are talking about overclocking a Bulldozer FX-8150 to 4+ Gigahertz in order to match an i7-2600K, then it is a night and day difference.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't AMD's stock clock idle power usage very close to Intel's even though we are talking a .32nm versus .22nm? Since most time is spent idling or web surfing and not gaming the power usage isn't dramatically different (although it does favor Intel at every point).
Now, if you are talking about overclocking a Bulldozer FX-8150 to 4+ Gigahertz in order to match an i7-2600K, then it is a night and day difference.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't AMD's stock clock idle power usage very close to Intel's even though we are talking a .32nm versus .22nm? Since most time is spent idling or web surfing and not gaming the power usage isn't dramatically different (although it does favor Intel at every point).
Now, if you are talking about overclocking a Bulldozer FX-8150 to 4+ Gigahertz in order to match an i7-2600K, then it is a night and day difference.
