so my dad wants to buy a desktop PC from me this is my chance to get a new CPU and MB

[crashtech]

Yeah, he starts a lot of threads that inevitably end up in indecisiveness, and the starting of yet another thread, but what the hey, it's cheap entertainment.

 

[crashtech]

buy guys 1150 is also a dead socket.

How do we even know skylake is going to be 1150?

1150 Is not dead yet, Broadwell-K will use it.

Skylake won't use 1150, it will use the as-yet unreleased LGA 1151, as has been already stated earlier.

 

[escrow4]

Neither. Every AAA game so far recommends quads now. Buying lower than an i5 in 2015 is just pointless.

 

[crashtech]

Neither. Every AAA game so far recommends quads now. Buying lower than an i5 in 2015 is just pointless.

I don't know about your motivations, but I for one like to supply at least a bit of encouragement to those getting into the PC building hobby. But when I read statements like your post I can't help but think a new builder would be very put off. Besides, it's not even factual to call an i3 or FX-6300 "pointless." That's just your opinion. It may well be that the i5 offers more performance per dollar, but if a person simply doesn't want to spend that much, who are we to try and force the issue.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

Used 2500K + used or refurb Z68 gets my vote. Really the best bang for buck, and CPUs tend to last forever, even when overclocked.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

5960x

 

[john5220]

I don't know about your motivations, but I for one like to supply at least a bit of encouragement to those getting into the PC building hobby. But when I read statements like your post I can't help but think a new builder would be very put off. Besides, it's not even factual to call an i3 or FX-6300 "pointless." That's just your opinion. It may well be that the i5 offers more performance per dollar, but if a person simply doesn't want to spend that much, who are we to try and force the issue.

I realize how much illiterate and clueless people they are out there even on this website.

From my overwhelming research I have conducted on games that actually matter and that actually count.

Such as battlefield 4 multi player on 64 player maps that destroys every dual core, there is overwhelming evidence that a i7 does little to nothing and even gets beaten by the i3 of the same generation.

I consider anandtech to be a failure of a benchmarking website and I do not rely on them, they provide you with single player benchmarks in games like battlefield where NO ONE plays the single player mode and they present you with evidence of every single CPU from single core to 8 core all getting same fps

yet in multi player 64 player maps you know the maps that people actually play? the mode that people buy the game to play? the mode that matters?
yeah that

It seems the i3 even beats the 4770k i7 and destroys AMD aswell

so why on gods green earth would I buy an i5? I would have to be utterly stupid to do so when that extra money could have gone towards more RAM or a better GPU or solid capacitor mainboard for longevity.

 

[Enigmoid]

I have no idea where you are getting that an i3 will beat the 4770k. At best they will be equal within the margin of error.

 

[Burpo]

i3 is a good budget gaming chip, but don't fool yourself into thinking it's better than i5 4690 or i7 4790 at anything..

Bundle available at MC
4th Gen Intel® Core™ i3-4370 3.4GHz LGA 1150 Processor
ASRockZ97 Extreme 4 LGA 1150 ATX

$224.98

 

[Yuriman]

Crysis 3 is one of the few examples of games that gobble up every bit of processing power you can throw at them, and are capably of very evenly distributing load across cores:

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/crysis-3-test-gpu/graficheskaya-chast.html

Granted, this chart doesn't have newer chips (Ivy Bridge, Haswell), but I'd expect a Haswell i3 to be just a hair below the 2500K, and a Haswell i5 to be just above the 2600K. A Haswell i5 will be considerably faster than a Haswell i3 in any game using the same engine, and an i7 will be better still.

Those who recommend AMD chips today postulate that as time goes on, more and more games will start to look like this. I'm not sold on this idea, because developers are lazy and not all code can be easily parallelized. Even if it ends up being true though, an FX6300 will be slower than an i5, but it's a fact that Intel's quads have considerably more raw grunt than their duals + HT.

An i3 will give a better experience than an FX-6300 in a vast majority of games, but it's not universal. The FX chip has about 25% more processing power distributed across its 6 cores (which a vast majority of games are not capable of using effectively). A Haswell i5 will always win though.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, right now an i5 is the minimum chip for no compromises in performance, the only compromise is in cost.

 

[Loser Gamer]

You need all the cores you can get. FX6300 will work. Advanced Warfare uses all 6 of my cores.
Don't settle for a dual core in this age

 

[escrow4]

I'll add that Crysis 3 minimums feel way smoother on a hexa core than a quad - I have a 5930K @ 3.7GHz and levels with a lot off grass run with way less dips compared to even a hyperthreaded quad. That said, CryEngine is the exception, not the rule (yet).

 

[john5220]

having just checked Diablo 3 with my Pentium G3220 I realize its also dipping to 12 FPS in massive fights with 5 players paragon 500 etc its purely CPU limited.

Intel runs better than AMD however I realize now in the end both this chip and my old athlon II X2 won't make a difference once too much stuff happens on the screen.

With that said it I might aswell just go with a nice $55 Gigabyte all solid cap capacitor mainboard and the FX 6300

 

[Yuriman]

having just checked Diablo 3 with my Pentium G3220 I realize its also dipping to 12 FPS in massive fights with 5 players paragon 500 etc its purely CPU limited.

Intel runs better than AMD however I realize now in the end both this chip and my old athlon II X2 won't make a difference once too much stuff happens on the screen.

With that said it I might aswell just go with a nice $55 Gigabyte all solid cap capacitor mainboard and the FX 6300

All Blizzard games are very IPC limited. If you go with the FX-6300, be prepared to have 8fps where you now have 12, and 20fps where you now have 30 on your Pentium. Crysis 3 will run much better, Diablo will run much worse. Early FX chips (Bulldozer) were actually slower than the chips they were replacing (Phenom II) in this game.

 

[Spawne32]

The choice of how to build really comes down to 3 basic things, will you overclock, if not, then unlocked chips are not really a requirement, what is your budget, if your a low budget gamer or need to operate within a budget that having a better graphics card over a faster processor is a requirement, AMD is probably your best choice, and lastly, build the system around the kind of games your gonna play, if the games are heavily single threaded, a locked i5 with a higher clock speed will serve you better then an AMD chip with 8 cores. Crysis 3 is one of those few examples where AMD can perform extremely well, and be very cheap, but aside from that, most games are going to perform better on a locked i5 quad core then they will on a 8 core AMD FX chip.

Another thing to consider is future proofing, AM3+ is a deadend platform, where as FM2+ and 1150 still have a year or two left in them of upgrade paths as well as more modern chipset technology then what AM3+ offers.

 

[john5220]

ow yes I remember how the Bulldozer got bulldozed by the previous gen Phenom II LOL

Diablo seems to also have other issues regarding the servers. Even with the best i7 devils canyon the game can often seem incredibly slow and laggy due to rubberbanding and server lag on Blizzard's side to keep up with all thats going on.

I think the community seems to accept how this goes, Blizzard designed D3 and starcraft 2 for the Pentium 4 because they believed that people would never have upgraded.

If those games used 4 cores would be so wonderful.

But with that said I am buying the FX 6300 I researched all the benchmarks etc I mostly want to play battlefield 4 and stuff. The FX 6300 scores about same as i5 and i7 in this game on 64 player maps

 

[john5220]

Ow I already ordered the setup I bought this mainboard

http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=4602#ov

I hope its decent enough for the FX 6300. I got it for $58 on Amazon and the FX 6300 for $99

 

[Yuriman]

The FX-6300 is a solid chip for the price. I hope you enjoy it.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

COD AW seems like it should really do well on an FX-6300 also, as the game seems pretty well parallelized. Looks like the load is distributed pretty well among the 8 threads of an i7 4770k.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wBpB_793Zs

 

[Spawne32]

Ow I already ordered the setup I bought this mainboard

http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=4602#ov

I hope its decent enough for the FX 6300. I got it for $58 on Amazon and the FX 6300 for $99

Shot yourself in the foot, I just dumped that board and an 8320 for 125 bucks for a 860K and a A88XM-Gaming FM2+ setup. The 760G chipset on that board is from 2008, it has no SATA 6gbps support nor does it have PCIE 3.0.

 

[frozentundra123456]

COD AW seems like it should really do well on an FX-6300 also, as the game seems pretty well parallelized. Looks like the load is distributed pretty well among the 8 threads of an i7 4770k.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wBpB_793Zs

Not really. According to game.gpu, FX6300 performs very poorly in this game. Even a Haswell i3 is about 40% faster.

This is an example of why I dont necessarily agree with the AMD fans that better threaded games are going to allow FX to catch up to intel. This game uses all cores of an FX, but it still trails intel badly.

Advanced Warfare Benchmarks

 

[frozentundra123456]

You need all the cores you can get. FX6300 will work. Advanced Warfare uses all 6 of my cores.
Don't settle for a dual core in this age

FX6300 is a good chip for the money, but hardly a clear choice over a Haswell i3. For instance as shown in my previous post, that i3 that you have to "settle for" destroys the FX6300 in Advanced Warfare.

Personally, it think it is false economy to "settle" for anything below an i5, but if one has to or makes the choice to, FX6300,and a haswell i3 offer similar value. Both unfortunately have serious drawbacks, FX in ipc and i3 in real cores. That is why I would be reluctant to recommend either except in very unusual budget limited circumstances.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Not really. According to game.gpu, FX6300 performs very poorly in this game. Even a Haswell i3 is about 40% faster.

This is an example of why I dont necessarily agree with the AMD fans that better threaded games are going to allow FX to catch up to intel. This game uses all cores of an FX, but it still trails intel badly.

Advanced Warfare Benchmarks

Wow, even the SB i3 is way stronger.

 

[escrow4]

Ow I already ordered the setup I bought this mainboard

http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=4602#ov

I hope its decent enough for the FX 6300. I got it for $58 on Amazon and the FX 6300 for $99

You went with a 2007 board with no next to no heatsinks and poor VRMs for a hot running FX chip. That board is so old it comes with HD 3000 and advertises 3TB HDD as a feature. Eh?

 

[escrow4]

The FX-6300 is a solid chip for the price. I hope you enjoy it.

Except AC Unity murdered it:

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/assassin-s-creed-unity-test-gpu.html

FX 6300: 40 | 47

Haswell i3: 57 | 69

Haswell i5: 72 | 84

and I wouldn't hold my breath for Inquisition or Far Cry 4 . . . .