Intel i3 4170 vs AMD A8-7600 vs AMD A8-7650K

[Prysin]

yeah...those numbers would be nice...but they gimped the chips and gave them slow as hell cache and not enough and no L3 cache...results...the 860K is slower than the FX-4300. Also last time i checked piledrvier was more around 12% better than bulldozer...not 20%.

 

If you are referring to the 2MB L2 cache then that is a mistake made by many web-pages. It is actually 4MB L2.

 

The 860k has the same CPU specs as the A10 7850k, give or take some clock speeds.

[i_build_nanosuits]

 

But everyone say it is better! Is this forum lying to me?

 

snip!

HERE: http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-FX-4300-vs-AMD-Athlon-II-X4-860K/2879vs3265

These are user submitted results therefore valid results..as you can see FX-4300 +1% effective speed overall (this is because the FX overclock a lot and this is taken into consideration from the user submitted results as well), the athlon being slightly faster in integer speed and the FX being slightly faster in floating point operations...they are basicaly the same performance as you can see...both are very poor choices and if you read at the bottom of the page for each chip you'll see  why.

[Prysin]

actually, the highest end is the A10-7870K.

 

Edit: Ninja'd

Actually according to AMDs driver page (if you manually select "choose APU" under driver selection). The 7890k is the highest. But is hasnt been released yet. Although it IS mentioned in AMDs own web pages. Be it a mistake or not.

[Nena Trinity]

HERE: http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-FX-4300-vs-AMD-Athlon-II-X4-860K/2879vs3265

These are user submitted results therefore valid results..as you can see FX-4300 +1% effective speed overall (this is because the FX overclock a lot and this is taken into consideration from the user submitted results as well), the athlon being slightly faster in integer speed and the FX being slightly faster in floating point operations...they are basicaly the same performance as you can see...both are very poor choices and if you read at the bottom of the page for each chip you'll see  why.

I still think they are nice budget chips!

[i_build_nanosuits]

I still think they are nice budget chips!

yes, but the core i3 offer a MUCH better experience, it being a 43% overall faster processor.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-4170-vs-AMD-Athlon-II-X4-860K/m28214vs3265

 

The Intel Core i3-4160 is a dual-core four threaded 4th generation (Haswell) processor. It was released in Q3 2014 and scores a respectable 91 for effective speed. With its base frequency of 3.6 GHz, the 4160 is fast enough to run the vast majority of applications smoothly and it’s very reasonably priced for its performance which make it a sensible choice even when considering building a gaming PC. Although the integrated Intel HD Graphics 4400 are absolutely fine for general desktop use such as web browsing and word processing they may bottleneck a gaming machine. A 20% price premium would buy the slightly older i3-4350 which has a 33% larger (4MB) cache but its only about 1% faster (full comparison here). Overall the i3-4160 represents the best value for money I have seen outside Intel's Pentium and Celeron range of CPUs.

[Nena Trinity]

yes, but the core i3 offer a MUCH better experience, it being a 43% overall faster processor.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-4170-vs-AMD-Athlon-II-X4-860K/m28214vs3265

 

The Intel Core i3-4160 is a dual-core four threaded 4th generation (Haswell) processor. It was released in Q3 2014 and scores a respectable 91 for effective speed. With its base frequency of 3.6 GHz, the 4160 is fast enough to run the vast majority of applications smoothly and it’s very reasonably priced for its performance which make it a sensible choice even when considering building a gaming PC. Although the integrated Intel HD Graphics 4400 are absolutely fine for general desktop use such as web browsing and word processing they may bottleneck a gaming machine. A 20% price premium would buy the slightly older i3-4350 which has a 33% larger (4MB) cache but its only about 1% faster (full comparison here). Overall the i3-4160 represents the best value for money I have seen outside Intel's Pentium and Celeron range of CPUs.

I guess it is better but...

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2362&cmp[]=2317

 

Score: (all threads)

AMD Athlon X4 860K Quad Core

5,642

Intel Core i3-4160 @ 3.60GHz

5,035

 

Single Thread Rating 1599 / 2073 (from same page)

 

Most people I know says this page is best for this!

[i_build_nanosuits]

 

I guess it is better but...

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=2362&cmp[]=2317

 

Score:

AMD Athlon X4 860K Quad Core

5,642

Intel Core i3-4160 @ 3.60GHz

5,035

if multi-threaded performance would be as important as single-threaded performance in this world at this day and age what you post would make sense...but when it comes to processing pretty much EVERYTHING still rely on STRONG SINGLE CORE PERFORMANCE AND INSANELY HIGH INSTRUCTIONS PER CYCLE COUNT...something AMD does not have...PassMark allows a lot of points for integer based compute and multi-threaded compute performance but in the real world this won't benefit much to 95%+ of the users out there...what people want and need is FAST AND STRONG cpu cores.

 

2 very fast and very strong hyper-threaded haswell cores will always perform better than 4 very weak ones assembled in pairs in a module sharing the FPU and cache...the same way the 4 cores of the intel i5-4690K slap bitch the 4 weak modules of the AMD FX-83XX in just about anything.

[Nena Trinity]

if multi-threaded performance would be as important as single-threaded performance in this world at this day and age what you post would make sense...but when it comes to processing pretty much EVERYTHING still rely on STRONG SINGLE CORE PERFORMANCE AND INSANELY HIGH INSTRUCTIONS PER CYCLE COUNT...something AMD does not have...PassMark allows a lot of points for integer based compute and multi-threaded compute performance but in the real world this won't benefit much to 95%+ of the users out there...what people want and need is FAST AND STRONG cpu cores.

Most games seems to use all 8-cores on my FX...

 

Sure the old ones does not but they are so old even a toaster can run em! And we got World of Tanks but I hate that game... (War Thunder FTW!)

[i_build_nanosuits]

Most games seems to use all 8-cores on my FX...

 

Sure the old ones does not but they are so old even a toaster can run em! And we got World of Tanks but I hate that game... (War Thunder FTW!)

they might split the load some and appear to be using them, but do they BENEFIT from it? the answer is NO.

Why? because the CPU does not process any FASTER...you're still limited to the performance of your fastest CPU core...so your CPU is processing the load in a way that it might FEEL to be more efficient having the load spread out like that, but in real world, as i said where PER CORE PERFORMANCE disctates the OVERALL performance 95% of the times, it's not any faster.

WHen it comes to gaming, it's all about speed...and you can only be as fast as your FASTEST processing core, and let's be honest, AMD's fastest processing core is really not that fast.

 

THat's why when i was playing Watchdogs on my FX-8320@4.6ghz my CPU was seing average load of around 60% on each CPU ''cores'' with none of them being maxed out, but my GPU was still dancing between 65 and 85% load...the CPU was just plain too slow to feed it properly, and having 16 cores might have dropped the load to 30% on every cores playing this game but the performance would have been exactly the same.

[Nena Trinity]

they might split the load some and appear to be using them, but do they BENEFIT from it? the answer is NO.

Why? because the CPU does not process any FASTER...you're still limited to the performance of your fastest CPU core...so your CPU is processing the load in a way that it might FEEL to be more efficient having the load spread out like that, but in real world, as i said where PER CORE PERFORMANCE disctates the OVERALL performance 95% of the times, it's not any faster.

WHen it comes to gaming, it's all about speed...and you can only be as fast as your FASTEST processing core, and let's be honest, AMD's fastest processing core is really not that fast.

 

THat's why when i was playing Watchdogs on my FX-8320@4.6ghz my CPU was seing average load of around 60% on each CPU ''cores'' with none of them being maxed out, but my GPU was still dancing between 65 and 85% load...the CPU was just plain too slow to feed it properly, and having 16 cores might have dropped the load to 30% on every cores playing this game but the performance would have been exactly the same.

I know its not better than Intel but I have had no issues at all!

[i_build_nanosuits]

I know its not better than Intel but I have had no issues at all!

And i'm glad that you enjoy your experience with your AMD FX chip...but if you play at 1080p and monitor the GPU load on your GTX 970 while gaming with Vsync OFF and no other kind of a framecap...you'd realise that your FX chip is slowing down your GPU a fair amount, if that's something you don't mind having to deal with then fine...but personaly i paid 500$ for my GTX780 graphics card and there was no way i was gonna game at 40FPS in some games due to an old 100$ power hungry CPU.

[Nena Trinity]

And i'm glad that you enjoy your experience with your AMD FX chip...but if you play at 1080p and monitor the GPU load on your GTX 970 while gaming with Vsync OFF and no other kind of a framecap...you'd realise that your FX chip is slowing down your GPU a fair amount, if that's something you don't mind having to deal with then fine...but personaly i paid 500$ for my GTX780 graphics card and there was no way i was gonna game at 40FPS in some games due to an old 100$ power hungry CPU.

I went for the 60Hertz monitor and overkill GPU so I could not need to upgrade for 60FPS gaming in a long, long time!

 

Sure the source games I play with Vsync off because it works better then for some reason... X_X (I get same FPS in CS:GO as my friend with i7-4790K+GTX 980)

[i_build_nanosuits]

I went for the 60Hertz monitor and overkill GPU so I could not need to upgrade for 60FPS gaming in a long, long time!

i guess it depends on what games you play...if you launch Dying light or hitman:absolution for example you'd realise that your setup is actualy not even reaching 60FPS even on lowest possible settings at 720P...like this user here for example who realised that changing the settings won't affect his performance because he is completely CPU bottlenecked:

 

[Nena Trinity]

i guess it depends on what games you play...if you launch Dying light or hitman:absolution for example you'd realise that your setup is actualy not even reaching 60FPS even on lowest possible settings at 720P...like this user here for example who realised that changing the settings won't affect his performance because he is completely CPU bottlenecked:

 

That game I was considering getting on PS4 once...

On PC I play H1Z1 mostly but before that I played DayZ on a Laptop with P7550+GT130M.

So I doubt the FX would be that bad for DayZ I only test ran the game once on FX.

Also DayZ is dead so no one to play with!

[i_build_nanosuits]

That game I was considering getting on PS4 once...

On PC I play H1Z1 mostly but before that I played DayZ on a Laptop with P7550+GT130M.

So I doubt the FX would be that bad for DayZ I only test ran the game once on FX.

Also DayZ is dead so no one to play with!

 

BTW, i played this game on my i7-4770k and GTX 780 from begining to end without the FPS ever dropping bellow 60FPS...here's how it run's on MY system (i show my settings)

 

 

it's a damn nice game BTW...really worth picking up...very scary stuff.

[Nena Trinity]

BTW, i played this game on my i7-4770k and GTX 780 from begining to end without the FPS ever dropping bellow 60FPS...here's how it run's on MY system (i show my settings)

 

 

it's a damn nice game BTW...really worth picking up...very scary stuff.

But i7 is much better!

 

I would have bought one if they was not so costly!

[i_build_nanosuits]

But i7 is much better!

 

I would have bought one if they was not so costly!

nahhh...an i5-4460 will play this game just as well to be honest.

You might see benefit from having an i7 in some other games out there, but this clearly isn't one of them.

[Nena Trinity]

nahhh...an i5-4460 will play this game just as well to be honest.

You might see benefit from having an i7 in some other games out there, but this clearly isn't one of them.

My friend had a i5-4460 and it performed badly in H1Z1 and my i7-4700HQ laptop did not have issues...

[jk441]

Guys just to be back on point again. This will be for a budget gaming PC and mostly will be for games like SC2 or HOTS. The most graphic intense game will probably b the Division, when it's out, but mind you it wont have to run on like high settings, low/Med will do fine on 1080p/720p gaming. Might be bit of a challenge getting that performance for the Division but still. Also keep in mind that we have a GTX660Ti for this build so even if we go for a AMD it should b one that wont cause bottlenecks (which i expect not a lot from a 660ti)

[Demonking]

i3 hands down.

[ubw]

if you want to game then the i3

[Prysin]

Guys just to be back on point again. This will be for a budget gaming PC and mostly will be for games like SC2 or HOTS. The most graphic intense game will probably b the Division, when it's out, but mind you it wont have to run on like high settings, low/Med will do fine on 1080p/720p gaming. Might be bit of a challenge getting that performance for the Division but still. Also keep in mind that we have a GTX660Ti for this build so even if we go for a AMD it should b one that wont cause bottlenecks (which i expect not a lot from a 660ti)

In that case, AMD Athlon X4 860k, or even an APU will be enough. especially for 720p gaming.

Here is a few build suggestions.

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/rjKwvK

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/rjKwvK/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i3-4160 3.6GHz Dual-Core Processor ($119.99 @ Newegg)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-DS3H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($41.98 @ Newegg)

Memory: Corsair Vengeance 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($45.99 @ Newegg)

Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($46.89 @ OutletPC)

Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 660 Ti 2GB Video Card

Case: Cougar MG100 MicroATX Mini Tower Case ($28.99 @ SuperBiiz)

Power Supply: Corsair Builder 430W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($19.99 @ Newegg)

Total: $288.83

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-07-14 05:33 EDT-0400

OR

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/TKb3GX

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/TKb3GX/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD Athlon X4 860K 3.7GHz Quad-Core Processor ($69.99 @ NCIX US)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-F2A88XM-D3H Micro ATX FM2+ Motherboard ($50.89 @ OutletPC)

Memory: Corsair Vengeance 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($45.99 @ Newegg)

Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($46.89 @ OutletPC)

Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 660 Ti 2GB Video Card

Case: Cougar MG100 MicroATX Mini Tower Case ($28.99 @ SuperBiiz)

Power Supply: Corsair Builder 430W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($19.99 @ Newegg)

Total: $262.74

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-07-14 05:35 EDT-0400

OR

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/tPLGgs

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/tPLGgs/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD A10-7850K 3.7GHz Quad-Core Processor ($123.99 @ SuperBiiz)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-F2A88XM-D3H Micro ATX FM2+ Motherboard ($50.89 @ OutletPC)

Memory: G.Skill Sniper Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-2400 Memory ($49.99 @ Newegg)

Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($46.89 @ OutletPC)

Case: Cougar MG100 MicroATX Mini Tower Case ($28.99 @ SuperBiiz)

Power Supply: Corsair Builder 430W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($19.99 @ Newegg)

Total: $320.74

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-07-14 05:37 EDT-0400

The last setup may seem more expensive, but considering it does not feature a GTX660Ti, it would realistically be "cheaper", atleast new.

Seeing as you own the GTX already, i suggest you run with the 860k as it is the least expensive, but offers the best performance for price. In gaming, it closely rivals the i3, especially with your GPU, but in CPU heavy tasks, the i3 will be a bit faster.

[FlanK3r]

7850K clock to clock is better than Vishera, only few situation where L3 cache help to FX-43xx. But after relase of 7870K OC vs OC...Kaveri is chepaer and better in x4 860K CPU+some middle segment GPU+A88XM-Plus example (board with good VRM, highest chipset and prize)

 

btw, my quick 7870K testing there: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/404163-amd-a10-7870k-minireview-better-kaveri-for-enthusiast/

 

Of course, I have all modern CPUs, so some experience I have with them (AMD and Intel CPus)