gaming performance=day to day performance?

[fluffyPC]

Hi, this question has probably been answered indirectly many times, but i want a straightforward answer (might not be one but whatever). So ive been looking around for a cpu for a budget build around $500-$600, and all of the reviews at least on YouTube seem to focus on gaming, and my question is what correlation is there between gaming performance and regular day to day stuff (loading applications, file management, etc). Is the answer as simple as looking at the clock speeds or specs?

[mvitkun]

Hi, this question has probably been answered indirectly many times, but i want a straightforward answer (might not be one but whatever). So ive been looking around for a cpu for a budget build around $500-$600, and all of the reviews at least on YouTube seem to focus on gaming, and my question is what correlation is there between gaming performance and regular day to day stuff (loading applications, file management, etc). Is the answer as simple as looking at the clock speeds or specs?

For regular day to day stuff you'd probably be fine with something like an i3 with an SSD.

The extra threads would help for multitasking, while also being at that relatively low price.

And an SSD would make it more responsive.

[AlwaysFSX]

Games require good core performance, so do regular applications. Regular applications are usually single threaded, not like how games are being multithreaded. Better performance in games will show the cpu can handle less stressing loads.

[SOUTHwarrior]

Loading applications is a combination of your storage device and processor. 

 

As far as clock speeds Never go by what the clock speed is to base what kind of performance you will get.

 

For instance you can have a quad core clocked at 3.3ghz and a dual core clocked at 3.5ghz. The quad will outperform the dual any day.

[mvitkun]

For instance you can have a quad core clocked at 3.3ghz and a dual core clocked at 3.5ghz. The quad will outperform the dual any day.

Not any day, not when that quad core is an A8 series APU and the dual core is a core i3.

To the OP @fluffyPC, unless comparing processors based on the same architecture you can't linearly compare them based on clock speed or core count.

[Nuds]

It depends on what your day to day performance is going to be? If you run just games you can get away with a dual core but if you have multiple applications opened at once you may want more.

[SkilledRebuilds]

For regular day to day stuff you'd probably be fine with something like an i3 with an SSD.

The extra threads would help for multitasking, while also being at that relatively low price.

And an SSD would make it more responsive.

I agree with this, even light video editing for 1080p output or other variable semi heavy programs on an i3 and onboard will suffice, the SSD keeps her snappy and the extra threads for the semi decent workloads. Secondary or External storage thereafter...

[fluffyPC]

im not so sure that i can have an SSD on my budget and get the storage i want. I probably need at the very least 300gb total. Of course the main consumer of this storage is games, so i could buy a small SSD and a larger HDD, then put games on the HDD and everything else on the SSD. would storing games on HDDs vs SSDs sacrifice too much performance?

[Bagmup]

im not so sure that i can have an SSD on my budget and get the storage i want. I probably need at the very least 300gb total. Of course the main consumer of this storage is games, so i could buy a small SSD and a larger HDD, then put games on the HDD and everything else on the SSD. would storing games on HDDs vs SSDs sacrifice too much performance?

 

That's pretty much what everyone does, a smallish SSD for your OS and maybe a couple of your usual programs, then a large HDD for game/movie/music storage.

[SkilledRebuilds]

That's pretty much what everyone does, a smallish SSD for your OS and maybe a couple of your usual programs, then a large HDD for game/movie/music storage.

Pretty much, then some people even sacrifice some programs to fit their "one" game they play the most on there too

But overall, games on the secondary drive and the SSD powering Windows fullspeed is still much better than a single slower drive doing it all.

[mvitkun]

im not so sure that i can have an SSD on my budget and get the storage i want. I probably need at the very least 300gb total. Of course the main consumer of this storage is games, so i could buy a small SSD and a larger HDD, then put games on the HDD and everything else on the SSD. would storing games on HDDs vs SSDs sacrifice too much performance?

I'd go for a 128GB or 256GB SSD, and store your most used apps and maybe some games on it with a 1TB HDD.

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

 

CPU: Intel Core i3-4130 3.4GHz Dual-Core Processor  ($109.98 @ SuperBiiz) 

Motherboard: ASRock H81 Pro BTC ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($44.99 @ Newegg) 

Memory: Kingston Blu Red Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory  ($71.88 @ NCIX US) 

Storage: Kingston SSDNow V300 Series 240GB 2.5" Solid State Drive  ($99.99 @ Amazon) 

Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  ($54.98 @ OutletPC) 

Video Card: PowerColor Radeon R7 260X 1GB Video Card  ($69.99 @ Newegg) 

Power Supply: EVGA 500W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply  ($34.99 @ NCIX US) 

Total: $486.80

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

 

And then windows at G2A

 

If you want to spend a bit more you could buy a better graphics card, although for everyday use I think an R7 260X, or equivilent card, should be plenty.

You could also get a better motherboard or processor, but again for a computer that will be used lightly I think the current specs are fine.

[fluffyPC]

yea i think i would spend more in the graphics dept. i just want something that can run at 1080p and med settings. doesn't that i3 have integrated graphics? Wouldn't that boost performance too?

[fluffyPC]

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/asrock-motherboard-am1bitx and what about this board, the specs are the same except this has a USB 3 and this is a lot cheaper. i know specs aren't always everything

[fluffyPC]

sorry about all the questions and i  realize im straying off topic but would an AMD FX 8-Core Black Edition FX-8120 be a good upgrade for $10 more than the i3? the 8 cores sounds better, but i am probably wrong about that.

[GloriousPain]

 

I'd go for a 128GB or 256GB SSD, and store your most used apps and maybe some games on it with a 1TB HDD.

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

 

CPU: Intel Core i3-4130 3.4GHz Dual-Core Processor  ($109.98 @ SuperBiiz) 

Motherboard: ASRock H81 Pro BTC ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($44.99 @ Newegg) 

Memory: Kingston Blu Red Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory  ($71.88 @ NCIX US) 

Storage: Kingston SSDNow V300 Series 240GB 2.5" Solid State Drive  ($99.99 @ Amazon) 

Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  ($54.98 @ OutletPC) 

Video Card: PowerColor Radeon R7 260X 1GB Video Card  ($69.99 @ Newegg) 

Power Supply: EVGA 500W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply  ($34.99 @ NCIX US) 

Total: $486.80

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

 

And then windows at G2A

 

If you want to spend a bit more you could buy a better graphics card, although for everyday use I think an R7 260X, or equivilent card, should be plenty.

You could also get a better motherboard or processor, but again for a computer that will be used lightly I think the current specs are fine.

 

At that point why not just suggest getting an APU? would save money for nearly the same performance... 

 

 

sorry about all the questions and i  realize im straying off topic but would an AMD FX 8-Core Black Edition FX-8120 be a good upgrade for $10 more than the i3? the 8 cores sounds better, but i am probably wrong about that.

That's where preference comes in, and the fan boys come out. If your gonna multitask or use something that can use more than one core it's probably better. at that point it's Quality vs Quantity or Intel vs AMD. I personally would suggest the 8120 specially if your not using the IGPU but remember you'll need a different motherboard for it which can change everything drastically very very quickly.

[mvitkun]

At that point why not just suggest getting an APU? would save money for nearly the same performance... 

 

 

That's where preference comes in, and the fan boys come out. If your gonna multitask or use something that can use more than one core it's probably better. at that point it's Quality vs Quantity or Intel vs AMD. I personally would suggest the 8120 specially if your not using the IGPU but remember you'll need a different motherboard for it which can change everything drastically very very quickly.

If he said he was planning on doing video editing or something along those lines I would recommend the FX 8120 or FX 8320.

However for everyday multitasking the i3 with higher single core performance while still having enough threads to handle multitasking of a lower intensity seems like a better choice to me.

 

That's going to be my response to the APU as well, while the APU is great in that it integrates a CPU and a GPU in one chip it does not have a strong CPU or strong GPU.

It can do a little of everything, but it can't do a lot of anything.

Were the OP to have set a lower budget I'd have picked an APU instead.

 

If you want to make your own pcpartpicker recommendation and tell the OP that he needs a stronger machine or a weaker one, feel free; I gave my recommendation there's nothing stopping you from giving yours.

[Degraximus]

sorry about all the questions and i  realize im straying off topic but would an AMD FX 8-Core Black Edition FX-8120 be a good upgrade for $10 more than the i3? the 8 cores sounds better, but i am probably wrong about that.

Sure. 8150 is a good cpu, but i suggest you to look at 8320. Both of those cpus are slower in single threaded programs than i3 but much better in games and video editing and that sort of stuff. Both of the amd's cpus are unlocked so oveclocking isnt out of the question. It all comes down to what you#ll be using it for. If you need more info you can pm me and I'll answer tommorow.

[fluffyPC]

Gigabyte GV-R725O5-2GI 98.93 Asus H81M-D PLUS 52.98

AMD FX 8-Core Black Edition FX-8120   120.00

Crucial CT120M500SSD1 SSD 72.00

Seagate ST3320418AS HDD 38.99

EVGA 100-B1-0500-KR PSU 34.99

case 40.00

Kingston KHX16C9B1RK2/8 RAM 79.99

total = 548.74

 

 

What about this build, its starting to sound like the i3 might be the way to go

[Sigmatech]

I was going to make another thread...but seeing as this one sorta hints at what i am asking, i'll throw in here.

Obviously FX8xxx series are designed with specific things in one's mind.

What i was going to ask was...with the release of the Pentium K, i was considering saving up or buying it outright either this week or next (It's cheap) so i could see how it stacked up next to my current 8320 (Rig i JUST finished)...but the question i would want to know is this:

At current, how do the two CPu's stack up against each other in GAMING and other tasks such as using Teamspeak or OBS in the background....or even Streaming to Twitch? Would i be better off sticking to AMD's platform as my main? or putting the Pentium through the gauntlet?

Some things i have weighed up in my head so far, and factors that will trade blows:

-Memory is limited to 1333Mhz on the G3258, 1866Mhz on the 8320 (The latter is negligible for the meanwhile)

-The 8320 has more cores, is unlocked to 4.5...and in multi-threaded situations it really does shine.
-The G3258 will give broadwell a chance for upgrading to in the near future...but then will Broadwell do what Haswell did and have it's own 'Devils canyon' later on?

-The System will use 2x270X's in CF mainly for some nice 144Hz 1080p gaming....until 4k is alot more recognized in games (Textures etc etc) and monitors are faster refresh etc etc.

With all these in mind....would i personally see any gains/losses that would be 'seen' as in...drops to 8fps from 52 for example? or will it all be 60FPS+?

Power consumption is sorta a factor ONLY if these two processors are actually being put head to head on all the pros-cons each has....seeing as JaysTwoCents kinda showed that an 8320 and a 4770k can't be compared as the 'value' aspect drops off because upgrade paths would mean i would ditch Haswell definitely before 5 years were up.

Thoughts on this people?
Should i pull the trigger? or would the difference be negligable enough to say 'Sorta? But you're better off just staying on the 8320 for now'.