(US-Amazon) AMD Athlon X4 860K Black Edition $59.99 + Free Shipping!

[Dive5885]

Pretty good deal for a decent quad core!

 

Link : http://www.amazon.com/AMD-Athlon-Black-3700Mhz-AD860KXBJABOX/dp/B00MU00IOQ/ref=lp_229189_1_10?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1444456374&sr=1-10

 

Also if you live next to a Frys Electronics you can pick one up there for $59.99 but it ends today (10/10/2015)

 

Link : http://www.frys.com/product/8295286?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG

[Oberon.Smite]

I think this is a repost.

[Dive5885]

I think this is a repost.

If it is I didn't see the previous post anywhere unless I'm that blind and missed it

[PCPartPickerPro9171787]

For $15 more dollar you can get a FX 6300 (6 core) which people are going to going to be pissed that a mentioned, because the Athlon performs slightly better per a core. 

[Dive5885]

For $15 more dollar you can get a FX 6300 (6 core) which people are going to going to be pissed that a mentioned, because the Athlon performs slightly better per a core. 

Dosen't the Athlon have a higher IPC than the 6300?

[PCPartPickerPro9171787]

Dosen't the Athlon have a higher IPC than the 6300?

I look at apples to apples performance test (in the actual game) to determine that the Athlon and the FX 6300 perform roughly equal. 

[PlayStation 2]

For $15 more dollar you can get a FX 6300 (6 core) which people are going to going to be pissed that a mentioned, because the Athlon performs slightly better per a core. 

The Athlon has a significantly better IPC even if Passmark doesn't really say so.

[Clyne]

This will be fine to pair with my HD 5830.

[PCPartPickerPro9171787]

The Athlon has a significantly better IPC even if Passmark doesn't really say so.

Which makes no difference if it gets the same frame rate as the FX 6300

[Dive5885]

I look at apples to apples performance test (in the actual game) to determine that the Athlon and the FX 6300 perform roughly equal. 

Interesting! I'm debating on picking one up or just going with one of the FX Cpu's

[PCPartPickerPro9171787]

Interesting! I'm debating on picking one up or just going with one of the FX Cpu's

There is nothing wrong with the Athlon, it just has different advantages and disadvantages. The Athlon is slightly better per a core and a little cheaper but lacks the raw processing power of the FX 6300 because the FX 6300 has 6 cores. Most people on this forum will hate the FX 6300 out of hand because they are intel fan boys and can't tolerate more than 4 cores. It is all dependent on what you are doing with your computer on witch CPU you should choce   

[Dive5885]

There is nothing wrong with the Athlon, it just has different advantages and disadvantages. The Athlon is slightly better per a core and a little cheaper but lacks the raw processing power of the FX 6300 because the FX 6300 has 6 cores. Most people on this forum will hate the FX 6300 out of hand because they are intel fan boys and can't tolerate more than 4 cores. It is all dependent on what you are doing with your computer on witch CPU you should choce   

Well I just need something that will run Battlefield and GTA with a few other Triple AAA games.

 

I wont be gaming everyday but when I have time I would like to sit down and enjoy some playing time.

[PCPartPickerPro9171787]

Well I just need something that will run Battlefield and GTA with a few other Triple AAA games.

 

I wont be gaming everyday but when I have time I would like to sit down and enjoy some playing time.

How much are you spending on your graphics card. If it is under $200 then either the Fx 6300 or Athlon will be fine because it will match the bottleneck of the GPU. If you are not going to be doing anything CPU dependent then the Athlon should be fine. Also I just checked and the Fx 6300 was actually $100 at this point, so all the more reason to pick the Athlon.   

[Dive5885]

How much are you spending on your graphics card. If it is under $200 then either the Fx 6300 or Athlon will be fine because it will match the bottleneck of the GPU. If you are not going to be doing anything CPU dependent then the Athlon should be fine. Also I just checked and the Fx 6300 was actually $100 at this point, so all the more reason to pick the Athlon.   

Well I was thinking of gaming at 1440p instead of 1080p to reduce the load on the cpu and put it on the graphics card.

 

Maybe a R9 390X or GTX 980?

 

At the end of the day I honestly care more about having a smooth 60Fps experience over how the game looks.

 

I still want the game to look good but I would prefer having a smooth 60Fps experience.

[PCPartPickerPro9171787]

Well I was thinking of gaming at 1440p instead of 1080p to reduce the load on the cpu and put it on the graphics card.

 

Maybe a R9 390X or GTX 980?

 

At the end of the day I honestly care more about having a smooth 60Fps experience over how the game looks.

 

I still want the game to look good but I would prefer having a smooth 60Fps experience.

Well if your looking to match a CPU with a R9 390X or GTX 980, the Athlon and FX 6300 bottleneck is significantly below R9 390X or GTX 980. You mostly likely want to get a i5 or maybe even FX 8300. Like before, the i5 will generally perform better in games but has significantly less raw processing power compared to the FX 8300.  

[Dive5885]

I'm gunna say this since I have experience with FX and i7s and i5s.  Unless you are doing nothing but single core the computing performance is not that difference.  In GPU extensive games the FPS difference in every area is not as massive as the Intel guys keep telling you here, "Meh frames are higher!"  Really?  Why am I only getting a 3-5 fps difference?  However, there could be a difference if the games you play are CPU extensive.  Even with the slight bottleneck of FX even with a 280x crossfire the fps difference isn't that massive.  So, don't let the Intel fantards delude your choice.

Only reason I don't want intel is because its going to cost me more and I already have a AM3+ Motherboard.

[Dive5885]

I kinda needed it for dev reasons and editing reasons.  But, ya AM3+ and FX are nice if you don't want to swap mobo and actually utilize most of it or do more GPU extensive tasks.

Yeah the FX is great for those reasons but I plan on gaming most of the time on it and doing some editing with Adobe Photoshop. 

[Dive5885]

Well if your looking to match a CPU with a R9 390X or GTX 980, the Athlon and FX 6300 bottleneck is significantly below R9 390X or GTX 980. You mostly likely want to get a i5 or maybe even FX 8300. Like before, the i5 will generally perform better in games but has significantly less raw processing power compared to the FX 8300.  

Even if I push for a higher resolution there's still going to be a bottleneck?

[Dive5885]

Then FX is fine.  I did notice that FX handles multi-tasking a lot better than my 4790k.  Even with HT on.

Yeah when I had my first AMD build I had a 8350 and it was a good system and then I had a i5 4690K and I did notice a few games run better on that system but It wasn't that big of a difference but I had to sell that system off.

[Dive5885]

Depends on the resolution.  Around 4k it becomes more about the GPU than having almost anything to do with the CPU.

I gamed at 1440p and sometimes on 1080p back when I had my FX Cpu.

 

It just came to mind if for some reason I do get a Athlon 860K I could pair it with a high end gpu and get away with bottlenecking by upping the resolution to 1440p or even 4K

[Dive5885]

Oddly, I run into more screen tears with the i7+280x crossfire than I did with the 9370+280x crossfire in games.

Oh that's interesting. I would expect it to run better with the i7 system.

 

How was it when you had the 9370 running, Was it worth getting?

Edited October 10, 2015 by Dive5885

[Dive5885]

1) It was only in BO2 mp that did that, but it processed Tomb Raider better.

 

2)  Streaming and Multi-tasking while deving was nice.  Though the editing is a lot faster especially rendering.  Yes, for 2 reasons.  1=binned 8320, so easy high OC with water.  2=The OC benefiting the streaming and multi-tasking as well as heavy core deving compared to a base 8320.

Was heat a issue with the 9370?

 

Have you noticed any other gaming differences with the i7 compared to the 9370?

[Dive5885]

No, but I had it watercooled.  Sold it though downclocked it for a forum user to 3.2..long story.  

 

Let me check one more game.

Hahaha, I had a friend disable 4 cores on a 8320E.. Now that's a long story

 

Okay!

[vanished]

I just looked up this chip... compared to the one in my laptop from Q1 2011, this performs 1.2% better overall and has only 21% better per thread performance, despite being a HT dual core (mine was quad) and running at over 1 GHz faster... AMD, how? 

[Dive5885]

I just looked up this chip... compared to the one in my laptop from Q1 2011, this performs 1.2% better overall and has only 21% better per thread performance, despite being a HT dual core (mine was quad) and running at over 1 GHz faster... AMD, how? 

Good question!