AMD CPU's???

[Clyne]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

but even then the core i3 is a better choice, it's faster and more energy efficient and has an upgrade path to a core i5, a core i7 or a xeon down the road.

Meant it as in, once you spend money to OC the 860K, the i3 seems more reasonable.

Shown in above post. 

[PlayStation 2]

5 minutes ago, Bubblewhale said:

Even so once you overclock then their's no point, might as well get a i3.

Most basic i3 setup

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i3-4150 3.5GHz Dual-Core Processor  ($109.99 @ SuperBiiz) 
Motherboard: MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($44.99 @ SuperBiiz) 
Total: $154.98
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-03-07 19:58 EST-0500

 vs 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD Athlon X4 860K 3.7GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($72.89 @ OutletPC) 
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($24.75 @ OutletPC) 
Motherboard: ASRock FM2A88M PRO3+ Micro ATX FM2+ Motherboard  ($52.38 @ Newegg) 
Total: $150.02
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-03-07 19:59 EST-0500

Most basic i3 setup. Couple it with something like a decent H97 board and the same cooler and costs are gonna hit just south of $200.

[Clyne]

Just now, Dan Castellaneta said:

Most basic i3 setup. Couple it with something like a decent H97 board and the same cooler and costs are gonna hit just south of $200.

Who said anything about with a cooler on a i3?
Even so price difference is worth the performance...

 

[PlayStation 2]

Just now, Bubblewhale said:

Who said anything about with a cooler on a i3?
Even so price difference is worth the performance...

 

Eh. I'd say so only if OP has the intention with going on an i5 or i7. And believe me, it's not really worth running any CPU outside of the Pentiums or Celerons with the shitty stock heatsink.

[Clyne]

1 minute ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Eh. I'd say so only if OP has the intention with going on an i5 or i7. And believe me, it's not really worth running any CPU outside of the Pentiums or Celerons with the shitty stock heatsink.

Well...you're not going to do any BCLK overclocking on a Haswell i3?

Even with a stock heatsink for i5 and i7, it's fine.

Why would Intel put a heatsink on a CPU that cannot be cooled well? 

[PlayStation 2]

Just now, Bubblewhale said:

Well...you're not going to do any BCLK overclocking on a Haswell i3?

Even with a stock heatsink for i5 and i7, it's fine.

Why would Intel put a heatsink on a CPU that cannot be cooled well? 

I know you aren't but still. The stock heatsink isn't that good.

That's like saying you're gonna leave the stock heatsink on an APU.

 

At this point, the cooler is more personal opinion.

[EpicAdom]

I would go for an Athlon X4 and a discrete GPU

[i_build_nanosuits]

50 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

I know you aren't but still. The stock heatsink isn't that good.

That's like saying you're gonna leave the stock heatsink on an APU.

 

At this point, the cooler is more personal opinion.

the i3-4150 is faster across the board though, by quite a bit:

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-4150-vs-AMD-Athlon-II-X4-860K/2309vs3265

[PlayStation 2]

16 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

the i3-4150 is faster across the board though, by quite a bit:

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-4150-vs-AMD-Athlon-II-X4-860K/2309vs3265

Ah, good ol' benchmarks, because they're 100% representative of what people do in the real world!

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Ah, good ol' benchmarks, because they're 100% representative of what people do in the real world!

they are indeed the best way to evaluate and compare processors to one another...that's why they've been created.

[PlayStation 2]

2 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

they are indeed the best way to evaluate and compare processors to one another...that's why they've been created.

Not exactly.

They're the best way to have fun with them, but it's very rarely representative of what the CPU would actually be used for.

Cinebench, for example, is a really arbitrary benchmark because it's not really representative of any sort of regular load. It's not bad, mind you, but still.

[i_build_nanosuits]

5 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Not exactly.

They're the best way to have fun with them, but it's very rarely representative of what the CPU would actually be used for.

Cinebench, for example, is a really arbitrary benchmark because it's not really representative of any sort of regular load. It's not bad, mind you, but still.

alright look, here this guy has the AMD fanboy youtube channel...he picked a G3258 + GTX 960 system and an 860K + R9 380 and the intel/nvidia system performed better in 6 out of 7 games he tested...and this with a crappy pentium chip...so unless you want to argue that the R9 380 is not as good as the GTX 960 (which i highly doubt you would ) then i think it's safe to say that the core i3 will be running away with it easily when it comes to gaming:

 

 

 

 

[PlayStation 2]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

alright look, here this guy has the AMD fanboy youtube channel...he picked a G3258 + GTX 960 system and an 860K + R9 380 and the intel/nvidia system performed better in 6 out of 7 games he tested...and this with a crappy pentium chip...so unless you want to argue that the R9 380 is not as good as the GTX 960 (which i highly doubt you would ) then i think it's safe to say that the core i3 will be running away with it easily when it comes to gaming:

 

 

 

 

About the 380 vs. 960 thing, it's just best to read my sig. It's for the 390 and 970 but the same rules apply.

 

What games? At the moment I don't really have the time to watch it.

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

About the 380 vs. 960 thing, it's just best to read my sig. It's for the 390 and 970 but the same rules apply.

 

What games? At the moment I don't really have the time to watch it.

 

Fallout 4 he put in red...but the minimum FPS is even more important and since the average is the same i would put it in blue, i think you'll agree:

 

[PlayStation 2]

2 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

 

Fallout 4 he put in red...but the minimum FPS is even more important and since the average is the same i would put it in blue, i think you'll agree:

 

I kind of want to disregard Fallout 4 but eh.

One thing that I noticed was Rise of the Tomb Raider. I know DigitalFoundry ain't the most brilliant kid on the block but how is he running it with a G3258 and a 960 while they couldn't even manage it with an i3 and 750 Ti?

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 minute ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

I kind of want to disregard Fallout 4 but eh.

One thing that I noticed was Rise of the Tomb Raider. I know DigitalFoundry ain't the most brilliant kid on the block but how is he running it with a G3258 and a 960 while they couldn't even manage it with an i3 and 750 Ti?

i don't know...but check the channel...the guy is building FX-9590 and R9 295X2 gaming rigs...he would have been the first to jump on it if intel would have been weaker or would have not launched some titles...trust me!

That said i would still pick the 860K over the pentium myself...but the core i3 is in another league.