Best value AMD CPU for gaming?

[Kevinkt]

He doesn't need new RAM?  Seriously?  Learn about components.

 

New motherboard, also he doesn't need that.  LGA1150, he can plug and play with an i7-4790k if he wants, no issue, easy upgrade, nothing has to be changed other than processor.

 

Listen.  Do not post anything until you have read through every word, every link, every video on that big research blurb I post.  You are missing out on the big picture.

You know how many people still buy new ram even if they have 8gb already in their current system? Alot of people do.

 

You're pushing this too hard and all this thread is you hating on amd and bullying him into intel. AMD IS FUCKING FINE. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH AN AMD QUADCORE OVER DUALCORE INTEL, SURE YOU MIGHT LOSE 5-10 FPS IN SOME GAMES BUT WHO CARES. HE MIGHT NOT EVEN BE PLAYING THOSE GAMES.

[Faceman]

You know how many people still buy new ram even if they have 8gb already in their current system? Alot of people do.

 

You're pushing this too hard and all this thread is you hating on amd and bullying him into intel. AMD IS FUCKING FINE. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH AN AMD QUADCORE OVER DUALCORE INTEL, SURE YOU MIGHT LOSE 5-10 FPS IN SOME GAMES BUT WHO CARES. HE MIGHT NOT EVEN BE PLAYING THOSE GAMES.

Its a lot more than 5-10fps in the minimums, which is the most important, and lastly, why would you recommend him a processor that can only play 4 out of 5 games at an acceptable level, when for the same/similar price, he can play 5 out of 5 games well, and have an upgrade path to a more powerful CPU if necessary, and be able to buy a more powerful GPU without bottlenecking if he wants.  Just because you don't play those games, doesn't mean the OP doesn't either.  Even these modern games, like Dying Light, are running much better on an i3 than an FX8.  Cores don't matter, its about architecture and IPC.

[Hieb]

Same if not better with AMD APU + GTX 780

Start around 6:30

 

Except he's playing on a rather uneventful Golmud Railway and only shows like 30 seconds of gameplay. Jay needs to do a side-by-side test showing framerate over time between A10-7850K, FX-8350 and his i5-4670. He's always told people that the FX is fine for gaming but he's never actually provided a decent test, and you can tell his results are just him eyeballing the fps (given that he reported the average fps as being x-y rather than a single number).

 

I think Jay knows he's full of crap. He's spent weeks doing custom water-cooling videos, yet refuses to do any sort of good test on the AMD vs Intel thing and opts to just talk casually about the subject. Because on YouTube saying that AMD is the best bang for your buck gets you more viewers. I highly doubt it's just coincidence that on this one topic he's decided not to put in the time to produce hard evidence.

 

Even an FX-6300 falls below 60 fps a lot on Paracel Storm, especially during the storm.

[StarFire]

I will say that as someone with a $300 budget for her rig, and seeing you debate the difference between an $80 cpu and a $125 cpu, (a $20 difference after motherboards) that $20 makes a hell of a difference for the budget bracket.it is the difference between a 750 and an R7-265, which will mean a hell of a lot more than i3 vs 860K.

My word is to go 860K.

[Noot Noot]

I will say that as someone with a $300 budget for her rig, and seeing you debate the difference between an $80 cpu and a $125 cpu, (a $20 difference after motherboards) that $20 makes a hell of a difference for the budget bracket.it is the difference between a 750 and an R7-265, which will mean a hell of a lot more than i3 vs 860K.

My word is to go 860K.

Finally! One who understands me!

As a penguin, money is hard to come by.

$20 is a horrendously massive difference in this world of sub $400 rigs.

[HereBakA]

I think you shuld get an AMD Athlon x4 860K, because it will be enough if you are not going to buy a 300$ GPU and i think it has better price/performance ratio than intel i3.I have AMD Phenom II x4 955 Black edition and it works great for light gaming.

 

Here is an video interesting video i found on youtube:

[Faceman]

I will say that as someone with a $300 budget for her rig, and seeing you debate the difference between an $80 cpu and a $125 cpu, (a $20 difference after motherboards) that $20 makes a hell of a difference for the budget bracket.it is the difference between a 750 and an R7-265, which will mean a hell of a lot more than i3 vs 860K.

My word is to go 860K.

 

Finally! One who understands me!

As a penguin, money is hard to come by.

$20 is a horrendously massive difference in this world of sub $400 rigs.

What if that i3 lasts you 2-3 more years than the Athlon?  While still providing you an upgrade path should you come into more money?  The day one performance boost of being able to play any game with ease, as well as the future potential for upgrades and extended useful life of the machine is worth an extra $20.

 

I understand the point where if the person is on an ultra budget and they have no option, they have to go with the 860k, but if at all possible to scrounge up an additional $20, an i3 will be a much better short and long term solution that could end up saving the person money in the long run because they don't have to upgrade as soon as they would have if they went with an i3.

[Hieb]

I will say that as someone with a $300 budget for her rig, and seeing you debate the difference between an $80 cpu and a $125 cpu, (a $20 difference after motherboards) that $20 makes a hell of a difference for the budget bracket.it is the difference between a 750 and an R7-265, which will mean a hell of a lot more than i3 vs 860K.

My word is to go 860K.

 

CPU can make a surprisingly big difference. I don't understand the concept of "spend most of your money on the GPU". If your CPU is a limiting factor, throwing more GPU power at it won't improve performance. An i3 + GTX 750 Ti performs about the same as an Athlon 860K + R9 270 in Battlefield 4 multiplayer (unless you use Mantle), in spite of the R9 270 being significantly faster than the 750 Ti.

 

Athlon drags down minimum framerates subtantially... play something like TDM on Operation Locker and you're looking at spending a lot of time in the 40-50 fps range.

[Faa]

I have read it many times, And I'm calling complete and udder bullshit.

Nobody is interested in seeing you lying to yourself. AMD is not cheaper, AMD performs worse = AMD is not a viable option. Pull your shit together and stop whining.

 

 

I think you shuld get an AMD Athlon x4 860K, because it will be enough if you are not going to buy a 300$ GPU and i think it has better price/performance ratio than intel i3.I have AMD Phenom II x4 955 Black edition and it works great for light gaming. 

 

Here is an video interesting video i found on youtube:

He updated it with the G3258 which he declared as a better value. 

 

 

I will say that as someone with a $300 budget for her rig, and seeing you debate the difference between an $80 cpu and a $125 cpu, (a $20 difference after motherboards) that $20 makes a hell of a difference for the budget bracket.it is the difference between a 750 and an R7-265, which will mean a hell of a lot more than i3 vs 860K.

My word is to go 860K.

The 30$ price difference between the i3 & 860K is the difference between being able to play games or not. 

860K; 15.5 fps/70$ = 0.22 price/performance ratio

i3; 32 fps/100$ = 0.32 price/performance ratio

The i3 offers a 50% better value.

[niofalpha]

Cheap i3s suck for gaming generaly, except in games running on out dated engines who need single core performance like Arma 3, SC2 etc

You really don't know what your talking about, do you?

[i_build_nanosuits]

sup bro not that you probably remember me but hey long time no see

 

anyways back on topic.

 

depending on where you buy a i3 might suit your budget and can be upgraded to an i5 within this year (for less hassle) and performs awesome.

 

also check in availability of the store.

sure i do remember you Joshua!

Glad to see you back!

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

bros a freaking core2quad is still good for gaming on most games and a 6300 /8350 do much much better than them. most games are gpu bound anyways and amd 8 cores can handle a gtx 980 no problem so anyone saying they are not good for gaming are  lying to your faces.

[JustCallMeVlad]

bros a freaking core2quad is still good for gaming on most games and a 6300 /8350 do much much better than them. most games are gpu bound anyways and amd 8 cores can handle a gtx 980 no problem so anyone saying they are not good for gaming are lying to your faces.

What? Lol... Who uses a Q2D these days?

[han_han08]

after reading most of the posts....

 

get an i3!!!!

 

better upgrade path (personal choice)

[dandrix]

Except he's playing on a rather uneventful Golmud Railway and only shows like 30 seconds of gameplay. Jay needs to do a side-by-side test showing framerate over time between A10-7850K, FX-8350 and his i5-4670. He's always told people that the FX is fine for gaming but he's never actually provided a decent test, and you can tell his results are just him eyeballing the fps (given that he reported the average fps as being x-y rather than a single number).

 

I think Jay knows he's full of crap. He's spent weeks doing custom water-cooling videos, yet refuses to do any sort of good test on the AMD vs Intel thing and opts to just talk casually about the subject. Because on YouTube saying that AMD is the best bang for your buck gets you more viewers. I highly doubt it's just coincidence that on this one topic he's decided not to put in the time to produce hard evidence.

 

Even an FX-6300 falls below 60 fps a lot on Paracel Storm, especially during the storm.

Youre just making excuses.

[dandrix]

You really don't know what your talking about, do you?

And you being biased snob with your run alongers would know better right ?

[david cassar]

This thread has gone to shit way too quickly lmao. Anyways op, the 860k isn't a bad choice but as you have seen an i3 is a much better option. It has 4 threads, runs games faster than most amd processors (if not all) and will allow you to upgrade to an i5 and i7. Also do mind that the 860k is a rather new CPU and isn't supported out of the box on the many available fm2+ motherboards. Which means that you would probably have to buy another fm2+ CPU in order to update the BIOS.

[Alibaladin]

Hi everyone,

I am gonna build a new PC soon but I still don't know which CPU to choose.

I want 4 cores and I was hoping to spend around 115$ or less on the CPU. I've seen some people reccomend an FX-6300, but since I don't need 6 cores, there should be an even cheaper option. Also I'm not planning to overclock it, so the relatively low clock speed of the FX-6300 might result in lower performance. Should I go for an FX series CPU because of the LM3-cache or should I go for an Athlon x4 one?

Thnx for your time, I would love tot hear some recommendations.

First and foremost. Which country do you reside?

[harrynowl]

What? Lol... Who uses a Q2D these days?

[JustCallMeVlad]

 

You poor poor man

[alifirefx]

8 core amds arent even good as a decent i5 for gaming

[harrynowl]

You poor poor man

Nah my lovely Xeon performs better than a stock 2500k, the only downside being is it probably sucks more power than most amds.

[niofalpha]

And you being biased snob with your run alongers would know better right ?

Actually I know how to read benchmarks, and do 3rd grade math.

 

And i'll take it my question's answer is a yes?

[dandrix]

Actually I know how to read benchmarks, and do 3rd grade math.

 

And i'll take it my question's answer is a yes?

You know how to read benchmarks, thats impressive.

[Analog]

he said AMD and wants four cores. yes, an i3 has HT but it's still two cores.

 

6350 is a faster 6300 and a six core. that should work better than FN2/4xxx cpu

 

Cores =/= Performance

Frequency =/= Performance

 

I hate it when people say stuff like this!!! The FX 6300 is not really a six-core, it is just marketed as such. It is like a 3-core with hyperthreading, just saying... Also it is so old, it makes Sandy Bridge seem new... I am not even going to argue anything about the inefficiency of the architecture...

 

OP go for the i3 and forget those FX processors.