Should I get an AMD CPU for gaming?

[Remobz]

I have 3 Intel based computers for all my important day to day tasks. It has been years since I owned anything near a gaming type computer. I have some computer parts laying around collecting just for months now and would like to add it to my dare I say budget gaming system.

Money is an issue these days for me but I am tired of leaving my computers parts (never been opened before) just laying around collecting dust.

I know Intel is good for gaming but an Intel based system can be very expensive these days. However, I don't know much about AMD CPUs at all.

The computer will be solely used for gaming and internet surfing (watching movies, youtube etc.). I have a radeon 7850 2gb but will upgrade soon to a much better card. I also own a 23 inch 1080p monitor and Samsung 840pro 128mb.


MY questions are....

1) Does it make sense to build an AMD system now? Or just stick with cheap Intel i3 type cpu?

2) What AMD CPU would be a good buy and not bottleneck me in games for awhile? I want to play BF3 and BF4 on 64 multiplayer type maps.


What do you guys think?

 

[OCGuy]

The best thing to do would be to tell us your budget for the CPU, since each range may have a different answer.

Although if you are going to be upgrading beyond a 7850, you will definitely want some CPU overhead.

 

[RaistlinZ]

I think BF4 make use of more than 4 cores, so an AMD chip may actually be better than an i3 Intel.

How much are you actually looking to spend for a CPU+Mobo?

 

[OCGuy]

If you live near a Microcenter, you can't really get better than the $179.00 4670k. If you don't ever OC, the $159.00 4570 will be relevant for a decade.

 

[scannall]

For an inexpensive gaming build, the AMD 6350 offers great bang for the buck. I'd go that way for a budget build.

 

[OCGuy]

For an inexpensive gaming build, the AMD 6350 offers great bang for the buck. I'd go that way for a budget build.

Except he uses discreet video cards that need CPU power for longevity.

 

[SPBHM]

For an inexpensive gaming build, the AMD 6350 offers great bang for the buck. I'd go that way for a budget build.

the i3 4130 is as good or better for gaming, and it sucks half the power, have better MB options and platform...

going with a lower power part makes sense for an inexpensive build.

 

[scannall]

the i3 4130 is as good or better for gaming, and it sucks half the power, have better MB options and platform...

going with a lower power part makes sense for an inexpensive build.

A dual core for gaming just doesn't make any sense. The 6350 performs quite a bit better than the i3 for roughly the same money.

PassMark bench for the 6350 is 7001, and for the i3 there is 4855.

 

[OCGuy]

A dual core for gaming just doesn't make any sense. The 6350 performs quite a bit better than the i3 for roughly the same money.

PassMark bench for the 6350 is 7001, and for the i3 there is 4855.

Gaming != Passmark. Not all cores are created equal.

 

[frozentundra123456]

How much are you planning to pay for the gpu? If you are going to upgrade to something "much better" than a HD7850 you must be looking for a powerful card. That sort of takes you out of the budget category of a FX6350 or i3.

In that case it does not make sense to me to cheap out on the cpu. I would go for the 4670k.

If you arent willing to pay that much, a Haswell i3 is pretty competent, as is the Fx 6350. Despite the difference in passmark scores, a haswell i3 and an FX6350 are pretty equal in gaming, and which is better will vary depending on the game.

 

[pw257008]

On the "if he lives near Micro Center" front, the 8320 is 99.99 there currently on its own, while the 6300 and 6350 run 110 and 130 respectively with motherboard included.

 

[SlowSpyder]

AMD CPU's are fine for gaming. Though Intel definitely has the faster CPU's in absolute terms, depending on your budget an AMD CPU may or may not be a good choice. I don't think CPU performance is really the issue with AMD these days, it is that the FX platform is fairly old these days. But with that being said, it is still quite capable today and I doubt it'll really hold you back much if at all (in practical terms) for some years yet.

 

[norseamd]

If you don't ever OC, the $159.00 4570 will be relevant for a decade.

to make flat statements about 10 years in the future is just being ignorant. you have no idea what 10 years from now will really be like and no one else does either.

you would want 8 cores and good single thread performance to play games in the next 3 to 5 years. this way you can take full advantage of the improvements that are coming to multiplatform games. however the amd fx have a large amount of cores but not as good single thread performance as the intel cpus. they are still adequate though. the intel however have much better single thread performance and have hyperthreading. but hyperthreading is not as good as the amd multicores. just remember that amd does not have full 8 core processors and actually uses a module system. your choice. either one would work for gaming right now. you may have to upgrade when cpu requirements rise. that is hard to think of when that will happen though. you can get a 8 core 8120 for like 140 or cheaper. some of the other amd processors would make good cpus also. otherwise go with a i5 or if you want to spend the money go with a i7. hyperthreading will do a rough example of 8 cores.

 

[Arkaign]

Spend the cash and get the 4670k at minimum. If you've got the cash for a 'much better' card than a 7850 2GB, you won't want to cheap out on the CPU.

The good news is that if you aren't running multi-GPU, the mobo choice for new Intel processors isn't that big of a deal (not anything like it was back in the C2D and older days). Tons of people are stuck on buying mega pricey boards, but to be honest, so many things have been moved onto the CPU that it's no longer a real worry. Quality has gone up, even cheap boards have solid-state caps for power delivery, and the new processors are also a ton less stressful on the board. It's not like trying to run a Q6600 at 3.5Ghz, where the best of the best boards showed major improvements.

The bottom line is that a 4670K or 4770K on a $99 Asrock Z87 is going to run JUST AS GOOD as the $400/$500 boards if you're running a single GPU.

While I think AMD is a fine value, and the FX63xx/83xx work great with a 78xx class GPU, it doesn't sound like you'd be best suited with that solution. "Much better" than a 7850 is talking about things like Maxwell, 780ti, 290X, etc. And I wouldn't pair any of those with any AMD CPU. I say this as someone with an HTPC with an FX6350 and AMD 7950. When you're talking $400 and $500 GPUs, don't try to stick with $100-$120ish CPUs.

 

[leeb2013]

I think BF4 make use of more than 4 cores, so an AMD chip may actually be better than an i3 Intel.

How much are you actually looking to spend for a CPU+Mobo?

not necessarily, fewer strong cores are generally better than more weak cores. Intel cores are around double the performance of AMD cores and the I3 has hyperthreading and is much more efficient.

 

[Blue_Max]

I understand budgets, but I also crave performance. I'm sorry to AMD fans (I used to be one of you!) but Intel just kicks the pants out of AMD in gaming.

Go for the cheapest 1150 i5 + mobo combo you can get, even if it means a B85 or H81 chipset and a non-overclocking chip. The gaming performance you'll gain is unbelievably good.

BUT - there's a moderate chance that 1-2 years from now, you might see games that REALLY use every CPU core you have, and the AMD 8-core CPUs may finally get a chance to catch up... maybe. Even then, it'll only barely squeak ahead of the awesome i5 with fewer, but far better, cores.

I vote i5.

 

[eternalone]

I have a 6300 and it handles BF4 nicely but quite honestly I would get the haswell refresh or just get Haswell now. But you will have no problem with the 6300 and BF4 it seems to like AMD fx cpus nicely. But my next cpu will probably be Haswell refresh or skylake or whatever is after haswell because I miss the single threaded performance of Intel cores. Unless AMD pulls a secret rabbit out the hat.

 

[norseamd]

And I wouldn't pair any of those with any AMD CPU. I say this as someone with an HTPC with an FX6350 and AMD 7950. When you're talking $400 and $500 GPUs, don't try to stick with $100-$120ish CPUs.

how would a 280x with overclocked 8350 work together

 

[norseamd]

I3 has hyperthreading and is much more efficient.

will not work as good as 4 actual logic cores. he should have at least a quad core. he should go with either a i5 or i7 or an fx of his choice.

 

[Arkaign]

I understand budgets, but I also crave performance. I'm sorry to AMD fans (I used to be one of you!) but Intel just kicks the pants out of AMD in gaming.

Go for the cheapest 1150 i5 + mobo combo you can get, even if it means a B85 or H81 chipset and a non-overclocking chip. The gaming performance you'll gain is unbelievably good.

BUT - there's a moderate chance that 1-2 years from now, you might see games that REALLY use every CPU core you have, and the AMD 8-core CPUs may finally get a chance to catch up... maybe. Even then, it'll only barely squeak ahead of the awesome i5 with fewer, but far better, cores.

I vote i5.

You know, that's a possibility honestly. It would have to involve really good coding, and it will probably be irrelevant by then (a couple more CPU gens, getting to 14nm, yadda yadda), BUT :

Anyone remember the days when Pentium 4 3.2Ghz, 3.6Ghz, etc? End of netburst, and early AMD64 days? The AMD64 chips were overall more respected because their performance was usually a bit better at the time.

Well, I've discovered something. I rebuild PCs for a local charity, and we get nearly free non-profit licenses of Windows 7. Given that most of the PCs we're refurbing are old, I almost always install Windows 7 32-Bit Home Premium, as 64-Bit only pays off with 4GB+ of ram.

Now that I've explained that, what I've discovered is that all other things being equal or near equal (eg; 250GB SATA 7200RPM HDD, 2GB DDR2 Memory, Onboard Video, OEM mobo with no OC), the Pentium 4's with Hyperthreading ALWAYS outperform the single-core Athlon 64s of similar model in Windows 7 and modern software (LibreOffice, newest IE/Firefox/Chrome/Foxit/Youtube/etc). At the time it didn't seem to work all that great, but these days it's quite amazing really.

A clean install of W7 32 SP1 with 2GB of ram and a P4 3.4 actually is usable. So are the AMD boxes, but they just aren't as responsive. Strange but true. I'll make a video next time I get in a similar pair. Power on to desktop time, desktop time to open common apps, time to play youtube 480p, etc. Just better on the much maligned P4.

Once you get to the Athlon X2s, the P4s are absolutely left behind though, ditto Pentium Ds even. The single core AMDs though really bog (and the non HT P4s!).

 

[AtenRa]

If you are on a budget, get a nice FM2+ X88 motherboard. Buy the AMD Athlon II 760K, OC to 4.2GHz or above (It can go up to 5GHz with good cooling). Use Mantle in BF4 and you are set to go even using a R9 290X

 

[SPBHM]

If you are on a budget, get a nice FM2+ X88 motherboard. Buy the AMD Athlon II 760K, OC to 4.2GHz or above (It can go up to 5GHz with good cooling). Use Mantle in BF4 and you are set to go even using a R9 290X

the 760k is $35 cheaper than the 4130 at the moment, I think the 4130 is more logical choice to be honest, if you are going to pay an extra for MB and cooling,

faster with mantle and other games, and is fine with stock cooling and $50 MB

 

[norseamd]

You know, that's a possibility honestly. It would have to involve really good coding, and it will probably be irrelevant by then (a couple more CPU gens, getting to 14nm, yadda yadda), BUT : Anyone remember the days when Pentium 4 3.2Ghz, 3.6Ghz, etc? End of netburst, and early AMD64 days? The AMD64 chips were overall more respected because their performance was usually a bit better at the time. Well, I've discovered something. I rebuild PCs for a local charity, and we get nearly free non-profit licenses of Windows 7. Given that most of the PCs we're refurbing are old, I almost always install Windows 7 32-Bit Home Premium, as 64-Bit only pays off with 4GB+ of ram. Now that I've explained that, what I've discovered is that all other things being equal or near equal (eg; 250GB SATA 7200RPM HDD, 2GB DDR2 Memory, Onboard Video, OEM mobo with no OC), the Pentium 4's with Hyperthreading ALWAYS outperform the single-core Athlon 64s of similar model in Windows 7 and modern software (LibreOffice, newest IE/Firefox/Chrome/Foxit/Youtube/etc). At the time it didn't seem to work all that great, but these days it's quite amazing really. A clean install of W7 32 SP1 with 2GB of ram and a P4 3.4 actually is usable. So are the AMD boxes, but they just aren't as responsive. Strange but true. I'll make a video next time I get in a similar pair. Power on to desktop time, desktop time to open common apps, time to play youtube 480p, etc. Just better on the much maligned P4. Once you get to the Athlon X2s, the P4s are absolutely left behind though, ditto Pentium Ds even. The single core AMDs though really bog (and the non HT P4s!).

windows 7 is likely written for multi core proccessors. so a single core intel with 2 virtual logic cores is likely faster than a single core amd.

 

[beginner99]

If you are on a budget, get a nice FM2+ X88 motherboard. Buy the AMD Athlon II 760K, OC to 4.2GHz or above (It can go up to 5GHz with good cooling). Use Mantle in BF4 and you are set to go even using a R9 290X

they problem being that the OC motherboard and cooler make the setup just as expensive as an intel based one without offering a huge advantage.

BF4 64-player maps is (besides RTS like SC2) the most CPU demanding scenario in gaming.

 

[DigDog]

to make flat statements about 10 years in the future is just being ignorant. you have no idea what 10 years from now will really be like and no one else does either.

relax bro; he just got carried away a little.