• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

X4 845 or 880K to go with RX 460 4GB

H

h3r3t1k

Junior Member
I've read the article on the former CPU with interest and the conclusion says that for 20 bucks more to definitely get the 880K. Now the RX 460 is a PCIe x8 card so no bottleneck. That leaves the question of the smaller cache of the 845. 6% performance loss in gaming attributable to it? You might say that the 845 costs 15% less and has a 32% lower TDP. I'm planning to overclock the 880K to 4.2GHz without raising voltage kind of like a free speed boost. You can't do that with the 845. Please don't tell me to buy Intel or wait for Zen. This is not my main rig and is supposed to be for gaming on the cheap without taking upgradability into consideration. The only thing that might be upgraded down the line will be the graphics card in two years or so. Which CPU will give me more value in this case? I'm guessing the 880K because the chance of it being a bottleneck down the line is lower?
 
h3r3t1k said:
I've read the article on the former CPU with interest and the conclusion says that for 20 bucks more to definitely get the 880K. Now the RX 460 is a PCIe x8 card so no bottleneck. That leaves the question of the smaller cache of the 845. 6% performance loss in gaming attributable to it? You might say that the 845 costs 15% less and has a 32% lower TDP. I'm planning to overclock the 880K to 4.2GHz without raising voltage kind of like a free speed boost. You can't do that with the 845. Please don't tell me to buy Intel or wait for Zen. This is not my main rig and is supposed to be for gaming on the cheap without taking upgradability into consideration. The only thing that might be upgraded down the line will be the graphics card in two years or so. Which CPU will give me more value in this case? I'm guessing the 880K because the chance of it being a bottleneck down the line is lower?
Click to expand...

Today, i would wait one-two weeks for the new AM4 platform and get a new BristolRidge Quad Core with the added bonus to upgrade to ZEN next year or later.
If you dont want or cant wait for the AM4, get the 880K if you are considering to OC.
 
Thing is I'm not a fan of OC because it usually means more heat/noise compared to small performance gains. Consensus seems to be to get the 845 if you don't OC. Smaller price, a third lower TDP and not much weaker.
 
If you are going AMD, then I can't see any sense at all in buying into the old platform at this point.
The best value for your money is almost certainly going to be with the new AM4 platform, even if you never upgrade it to Zen.
 
I'd get the faster chip. Both struggle in a lot of modern AAA games already, so I wouldn't want to make it worse.

Dunno why you're avoiding Intel, but I'd just like to throw out there that an i3 6100 is only about $20 more and in an entirely different league. It also draws about half the power, if noise and heat are of any concern.

i5-6500-i5-6400-57.jpg
 
If you are buying an old platform anyway, and not planning an upgrade, why not go with a 6 or 8 thread FX?
At least you'd have more thread support down the road.
 
Yeah I'd OC the 880K a little if I can do it without raising the voltage. I just can't decide between the two CPUs and need input. I guess the 880K at 4.2GHz is more future proof than the 845.

With the 845 I'd land at 400 for the whole build which is what I wanted to spend and it seems like the 845 is good enough for the forseeable future but it's true that there already are titles that push it to its limit. Of course knowing you got the most powerful CPU on the platform gives you some peace of mind and the cooler is added value.
 
Last edited:
There is one other thing to possibly consider if it matters to you. AVX2. 845 has it, 880K does not.
Most likely, this will not matter to you.
 
h3r3t1k said:
I need to build it right now. Do you agree that the X4 845 makes more sense if you don't OC?
Click to expand...

If you need to build it now you shouldn't be buying AMD to begin with. Gaming lives single threaded performance so you really are better served buying a cheap i3 instead of an XV or SR based CPU.
 
Arachnotronic said:
If you need to build it now you shouldn't be buying AMD to begin with. Gaming lives single threaded performance so you really are better served buying a cheap i3 instead of an XV or SR based CPU.
Click to expand...

Athlon 845 currently selling for $65, Cheapest Core i3 Skylake 6100 is at $120. That is almost double the price and by using the RX 460 it will not give him almost nothing in the vast majority of games at 1080p.

prices from newegg
 
AtenRa said:
Athlon 845 currently selling for $65, Cheapest Core i3 Skylake 6100 is at $120. That is almost double the price and by using the RX 460 it will not give him almost nothing in the vast majority of games at 1080p.

prices from newegg
Click to expand...

OP was also looking at the 880K, a $93 chip. $30 more for a measurably better experience, better platform, etc. just isn't much in the long term. Better to buy something that will actually last than to penny pinch and wind up with something bad.
 
The 845 is 62€, the 860K is 73€ and the 880K is 83€ and the i3-6100 is 30 bucks more. 30 bucks I would have to pay from the GPU budget. This is a budget build and I'm fully aware of the constraints. My main rig actually has the i3 so no need to convince me it's better. The question is: Is spending 20€ more on the 880K over the 845 justified on a budget build or is the performance difference too minuscule? Keep in mind that if this pc is upgraded it'll be another budget gpu in two years or so anyways. So I'm wondering if the 880K might be less of a bottleneck in the future as both CPUs are gonna be pushed to their limits.
 
h3r3t1k said:
The question is: Is spending 20€ more on the 880K over the 845 justified on a budget build or is the performance difference too minuscule?
Click to expand...

Owning an 845 myself, that'd be a no. Especially if you're paying with the GPU.

Keep in mind, that the 845 is in reality a 3.8GHz chip. It might be boost, but it has zero problem keeping it.

As mentioned, you might be better of waiting the few weeks until AM4 launches. The Athlon X4 950 is essentially the 845 with DDR4 and a future-proof socket.
 
h3r3t1k said:
I've read the article on the former CPU with interest and the conclusion says that for 20 bucks more to definitely get the 880K. Now the RX 460 is a PCIe x8 card so no bottleneck. That leaves the question of the smaller cache of the 845. 6% performance loss in gaming attributable to it?
Click to expand...

Athlon x4 845 (with DDR3 2133) had 6% slower gaming performance per clock compared to Athlon x4 860K (with DDR3 1866) according to the Anandtech review, but keep in mind the Athlon x4 860K also has a 200 Mhz faster turbo clock and base clock. The 880K's base clock is 500 Mhz faster and the turbo is 400 Mhz faster than the 845.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10436/amd-carrizo-tested-generational-deep-dive-athlon-x4-845/26

Graph%2010%20-%20Gaming%20Gen_575px.png




The gaming side of the equation is a different story, and the results were fairly consistent across all benchmarks and all GPUs: the X4 845 performs worse than the X4 860K clock for clock. There are two ways to attribute this, as mentioned above: PCIe 3.0 x8 and 2MB of L2 cache. Given previous experience with PCIe lane bandwidth requirements resulting in only a tiny difference in performance, it would seem that the latter has more of an effect on gaming (at this level of CPU power) than one might expect. It means a 6% decrease in performance when clock speeds are identical compared to Kaveri, but still ends up 5% over Trinity and Richland.
Click to expand...

P.S. (For other people in this thread) I wonder how the Athlon x 4 950 will fare with its faster (but higher latency) DDR4 2400?
 
Last edited:
h3r3t1k said:
Thing is I'm not a fan of OC because it usually means more heat/noise compared to small performance gains. Consensus seems to be to get the 845 if you don't OC. Smaller price, a third lower TDP and not much weaker.
Click to expand...

One thing to keep in mind is that the 880K comes with the better cooler (Wraith without shroud) compared to the Athlon x 845's 95W copper cored quiet cooler.
 
I'll be using corsair ddr3-2133 cl9 with either CPU. I don't recall exactly but didn't the review state that in gaming the Kaveri was faster than the carrizo even when both ran at a fixed 3GHz?

I usually prefer efficiency over overclockability but in this case when you know you'll be pushing the envelope with either CPU from the get go the 880K might become more imteresting even on a super budget build.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top