amd build

[Tech Deals]

On 3/31/2016 at 11:02 AM, yannick121212 said:

no not yet, why not?

Intel i3-6100

ASUS H110M-A D3

 

If you have existing DDR3 RAM, you might be able to use it, otherwise, pickup 16GB of DDR3 and rock on.

 

That chip will beat the FX CPU in, more or less, everything.  You might find one or two obscure cases where it doesn't.  But frankly, those will be rare.

 

On 3/31/2016 at 11:34 AM, Shahnewaz said:

If you want to buy an Intel CPU for gaming, at least get the lowest end Core i5. No longer should anyone invest in dual core processors for gaming. Games will choke on only 2 threads, and the situation will get worse in the future.

The i3-6100 is a dual core, quad thread CPU.  It is actually pretty good at running everything out there currently.

 

Yes, a i5-6500 is my preferred long term choice, but not everyone has $300 for an i5-6500 + H170.

 

$180 for i3-6100 + H110 motherboard is a really good second choice.

[Shahnewaz]

10 hours ago, Tech Deals said:

The i3-6100 is a dual core, quad thread CPU.  It is actually pretty good at running everything out there currently.

 

Yes, a i5-6500 is my preferred long term choice, but not everyone has $300 for an i5-6500 + H170.

 

$180 for i3-6100 + H110 motherboard is a really good second choice.

10 hours ago, sapphirethunder said:

1: I know it's not as good as in DX12

2: B150/H170/Z170 will also support the Kaby Lake, meaning you can later upgrade to i5 7600 and such cpus. While not for sure drastically better than Skylake, is still an improvement.

 

NO matter what, there is ABSOLUTELY 0 reason to even think about getting FX series anymore. Rather get equal modern 2-core 4 thread with upgradability than a cpu which MIGHT get all threads used in few year and MIGHT get truly better performance but has ABSOLUTELY NO UPGRADABILITY.

 

With FX-6300, a person needs to get new cpu, motherboard and RAM within 2 years, completely changing the platform. THAT is a waste of money and WILL cost more than just getting a new cpu later.

 

Also: it's not unfair because that's the point of it. The newer has faster stuff available. That's just how it is. There is nothing unfair about it. One is tech made 1 year ago, other is tech made 5 years ago.

 

 

EDIT: I'm speaking from experience. Bought my FX-8350 in 2013 December in a hurry and because I thought those extra cores would help in gaming.

But in the end I was matched by a i7 2600 and now i3 6100 is trading blows with it. Even on multi-threaded stuff like AC Unity and The Crew.

DX12 will improve it a bit, but Vishera cpus are just so old that getting a whole new platform is much more efficient now.

Even at DX11, LTT tested how many cores you need, and the results are conclusive:

 

You buy a PC, not to upgrade 2 years down the line. That's absolutely ridiculous, and a serious waste of money. People buy builds they keep for at least 3 years or more before thinking of some upgrade.

There is no guarantee, that next generation Intel CPUs will have more cores. Again, I don't recommend based on speculations.

 

And as I said before, thanks to DX12, these FX processors (aka the 6 core Core i3 4130) will have much better longevity and performance in future titles. There WILL be DX12 games 2 years down the line.

 

And yes, it is unfair, because the FX 6300 officially supports DDR3 1866MHz RAM speeds, and it also works fine with with 2133MHz memory on stock speeds, and 2400MHz with some overclock.

 

Your purchase and experience with the FX 8350 doesn't hinder my recommendation. He's building a budget build, and the FX 6300 is perfect for his category. Of course, I wouldn't recommend an FX 8350 over an i5 6500, but that's not the case here.

 

Are you convinced I do my prior research before suggesting anything?

On 2016-03-31 at 0:41 PM, sapphirethunder said:

At least research stuff before you suggest anything.

 

[sapphirethunder]

21 minutes ago, Shahnewaz said:

Even at DX11, LTT tested how many cores you need, and the results are conclusive:

 

You buy a PC, not to upgrade 2 years down the line. That's absolutely ridiculous, and a serious waste of money. People buy builds they keep for at least 3 years or more before thinking of some upgrade.

There is no guarantee, that next generation Intel CPUs will have more cores. Again, I don't recommend based on speculations.

 

And as I said before, thanks to DX12, these FX processors (aka the 6 core Core i3 4130) will have much better longevity and performance in future titles. There WILL be DX12 games 2 years down the line.

 

And yes, it is unfair, because the FX 6300 officially supports DDR3 1866MHz RAM speeds, and it also works fine with with 2133MHz memory on stock speeds, and 2400MHz with some overclock.

 

Your purchase and experience with the FX 8350 doesn't hinder my recommendation. He's building a budget build, and the FX 6300 is perfect for his category. Of course, I wouldn't recommend an FX 8350 over an i5 6500, but that's not the case here.

 

Are you convinced I do my prior research before suggesting anything?

 

 

Sigh...

Getting an Vishera at this point is just waste in every possible way.

Even with DX12 decreasing the CPU overhead, it still won't make up for simply lower performance across the chip.

 

Even now, all DX12 have recommended or even minimum cpu of FX-8 on AMD side while Intel side might be an old i5 like 2500. Which is same performance as i3 6100.

This means that i3 6100 is at the least the minimum or even recommended cpu in some cases.

So, while FX-6300 gets a performance boost, it won't be at the same level.

 

With i3 6100: You can later, after 2-5 years, upgrade to i7 7700K (if using Z170) and get HUGE performance increase.

With FX: You won't have ANYTHING to which you can upgrade 2-5 years down the road. You will need to get WHOLE NEW SET. CPU, MB, RAM.

 

Changing cpu: take out cooler and old cpu, put in new and apply new thermal paste, install cooler ---> play

Changing cpu,motherboard and ram: often fresh install of Windows needed, first taking a back-up of all your needed files and then going removing the motherboard, plug-out cables and so on. Install new hardware, plug-in the cables, install Windows, install programs you need, move your files back

 

Changing cpu: cost 200-450$

Changing everything: 150-450$ for cpu, 100-200$ for motherboard, 50-100$ for RAM. Total of 300-750$

 

Also, since Intel went out of Tick-Tock cycle, it means that after Kaby Lake, we might see 8xxx being still on LGA1151, meaning that would also be possible upgrade if that happens.

[Tech Deals]

7 minutes ago, Shahnewaz said:

Even at DX11, LTT tested how many cores you need, and the results are conclusive:

 

You buy a PC, not to upgrade 2 years down the line. That's absolutely ridiculous, and a serious waste of money. People buy builds they keep for at least 3 years or more before thinking of some upgrade.

There is no guarantee, that next generation Intel CPUs will have more cores. Again, I don't recommend based on speculations.

 

And as I said before, thanks to DX12, these FX processors (aka the 6 core Core i3 4130) will have much better longevity and performance in future titles. There WILL be DX12 games 2 years down the line.

The world is wide enough for people to have different opinions.

 

I stand by my points of view and you are welcome to yours.  Neither of us are "wrong", we just see it differently.

 

And that's ok.

[Shahnewaz]

2 minutes ago, sapphirethunder said:

Sigh...

Getting an Vishera at this point is just waste in every possible way.

Even with DX12 decreasing the CPU overhead, it still won't make up for simply lower performance across the chip.

 

Even now, all DX12 have recommended or even minimum cpu of FX-8 on AMD side while Intel side might be an old i5 like 2500. Which is same performance as i3 6100.

This means that i3 6100 is at the least the minimum or even recommended cpu in some cases.

So, while FX-6300 gets a performance boost, it won't be at the same level.

You say these without any evidence or proof.

 

Let me debunk your statements with some proof:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-why-directx-12-is-a-gamechanger

 

Entry Level CPUs	GeForce GTX 750 Ti	Radeon R7 260X	GeForce GTX 970	Radeon R9 290X
i3 4130 DX11 Single Thread	1.1m	0.7m	1.2m	0.7m
i3 4130 DX11 Multi-Thread	1.2m	0.7m	1.2m	0.7m
i3 4130 DX11 Mantle	-	7.6m	-	7.9m
i3 4130 DX12	8.1m	8.5m	9.6m	8.8m
FX 6300 DX11 Single Thread	1.1m	0.8m	1.1m	0.8m
FX 6300 DX11 Multi-Thread	1.3m	0.7m	1.3m	0.7m
FX 6300 DX11 Mantle	-	10.1m	-	10.1m
FX 6300 DX12	7.7m	12.6m	12.5m	12.7m

 

Mainstream CPUs	GeForce GTX 750 Ti	Radeon R7 260X	GeForce GTX 970	Radeon R9 290X
i5 4690K DX11 Single Thread	1.4m	1.1m	1.3m	1.1m
i5 4690K DX11 Multi-Thread	2.1m	1.0m	2.1m	1.0m
i5 4690K DX11 Mantle	-	13.0m	-	13.2m
i5 4690K DX12	8.1m	14.1m	14.5m	14.7m
FX 8350 DX11 Single Thread	1.2m	0.9m	1.2m	0.9m
FX 8350 DX11 Multi-Thread	2.1m	0.8m	2.1m	0.8m
FX 8350 DX11 Mantle	-	12.9m	-	13.3m
FX 8350 DX12	7.7m	14.1m	16.0m	14.8m

[sapphirethunder]

4 minutes ago, Shahnewaz said:

You say these without any evidence or proof.

 

Let me debunk your statements with some proof:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-why-directx-12-is-a-gamechanger

 

Entry Level CPUs	GeForce GTX 750 Ti	Radeon R7 260X	GeForce GTX 970	Radeon R9 290X
i3 4130 DX11 Single Thread	1.1m	0.7m	1.2m	0.7m
i3 4130 DX11 Multi-Thread	1.2m	0.7m	1.2m	0.7m
i3 4130 DX11 Mantle	-	7.6m	-	7.9m
i3 4130 DX12	8.1m	8.5m	9.6m	8.8m
FX 6300 DX11 Single Thread	1.1m	0.8m	1.1m	0.8m
FX 6300 DX11 Multi-Thread	1.3m	0.7m	1.3m	0.7m
FX 6300 DX11 Mantle	-	10.1m	-	10.1m
FX 6300 DX12	7.7m	12.6m	12.5m	12.7m

 

Mainstream CPUs	GeForce GTX 750 Ti	Radeon R7 260X	GeForce GTX 970	Radeon R9 290X
i5 4690K DX11 Single Thread	1.4m	1.1m	1.3m	1.1m
i5 4690K DX11 Multi-Thread	2.1m	1.0m	2.1m	1.0m
i5 4690K DX11 Mantle	-	13.0m	-	13.2m
i5 4690K DX12	8.1m	14.1m	14.5m	14.7m
FX 8350 DX11 Single Thread	1.2m	0.9m	1.2m	0.9m
FX 8350 DX11 Multi-Thread	2.1m	0.8m	2.1m	0.8m
FX 8350 DX11 Mantle	-	12.9m	-	13.3m
FX 8350 DX12	7.7m	14.1m	16.0m	14.8m

 

You're forgetting something: That doesn't factor in the Skylake.

It only compares Haswell/Haswell-Refresh.

And on i3 side, it compares the LOWEST CLOCKED ONE.

 

Sure, 300Mhz doesn't add much, but it still is slightly faster.

 

EDIT: I might be wrong with this, so I'm not enforcing it anymore than just mentioning, but iirc Draw Calls do not straight up translate to performance on gaming.

[Shahnewaz]

Just now, sapphirethunder said:

You're forgetting something: That doesn't factor in the Skylake.

It only compares Haswell/Haswell-Refresh.

And on i3 side, it compares the LOWEST CLOCKED ONE.

There is little to no performance difference between Haswell and Skylake.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Haswell-vs-Skylake-S-i7-4790K-vs-i7-6700K-641/

21 minutes ago, sapphirethunder said:

With i3 6100: You can later, after 2-5 years, upgrade to i7 7700K (if using Z170) and get HUGE performance increase.

With FX: You won't have ANYTHING to which you can upgrade 2-5 years down the road. You will need to get WHOLE NEW SET. CPU, MB, RAM.

 

Changing cpu: take out cooler and old cpu, put in new and apply new thermal paste, install cooler ---> play

Changing cpu,motherboard and ram: often fresh install of Windows needed, first taking a back-up of all your needed files and then going removing the motherboard, plug-out cables and so on. Install new hardware, plug-in the cables, install Windows, install programs you need, move your files back

 

Changing cpu: cost 200-450$

Changing everything: 150-450$ for cpu, 100-200$ for motherboard, 50-100$ for RAM. Total of 300-750$

 

Also, since Intel went out of Tick-Tock cycle, it means that after Kaby Lake, we might see 8xxx being still on LGA1151, meaning that would also be possible upgrade if that happens.

This is pure speculation.

[sapphirethunder]

14 minutes ago, Shahnewaz said:

There is little to no performance difference between Haswell and Skylake.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Haswell-vs-Skylake-S-i7-4790K-vs-i7-6700K-641/

This is pure speculation.

 

 

Only on i7 levels.

i5 have quite good difference, just not so much

i3 have the biggest difference in performance.

 

This can be seen in games when i5 6600k gets about 10-15fps more than 4690k.

And i3 6100 gets up to 30fps more than 4130.

Meanwhile i7 difference is at most 10fps.

 

 

As for speculation:

It's just as much speculation as yours "FX-6300 will last well enough because of DX12"

The thing is: we can't tell how game industry evolves.

i3 6100 just simply makes it cheaper to do the upgrade once the time comes.

And I can bet on that FX-6300 would become obsolete faster. Even with it's all 6 threads.

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

 

 

 

 

[Shahnewaz]

8 minutes ago, sapphirethunder said:

Only on i7 levels.

i5 have quite good difference, just not so much

i3 have the biggest difference in performance.

 

This can be seen in games when i5 6600k gets about 10-15fps more than 4690k.

And i3 6100 gets up to 30fps more than 4130.

Meanwhile i7 difference is at most 10fps.

That is because of the clock speed bump and the faster memory speeds, both of which are possible to do on the FX 6300, while having 4 more cores at its disposal.