RE: UPGRADING CURRENT PC

[Prysin]

2 hours ago, LizardsAreOP said:

AMD CPU's are worthless for gaming and video rendering,whats your budget and location?

lol no.

Your bias is so thick that the air around you is mallable.

 

Yes, AMD CPUs are not a competitor to the unlocked i5s and up. But even against LOCKED i5s, they are not a lost cause.

Yes the chipset is old, but it has most of the features you need and want.

No PCIe Gen2 vs Gen3 matters close to nothing for gaming. Refer to these two article for proof: Source 1 Source 2

The majority of Intel boards has worse feature sets, even skylake boards, then some of the newest AM3+ boards

An i5 need to be heavily overclocked to even have a slight chance at beating a FX 8xxx in video rendering.

An i3 can under almost no circumstances beat even a Quad Core AMD CPU in rendering. Yes, the difference between 4 shitty cores and 2 cores + HT will manifest itself pretty quickly.

 

You can tout the "oh AMD CPUs so shit" all you want, but unless you can afford a unlocked i5 or above, then AMD has an option.

 

As for the benchmarks showing the i3 6100 beat the shit out of a FX 8350. Yes, in FPS numbers it does. But in quality it does NOT.

I have never had so bad stuttering with that i3 as i have had with ANY other CPU ive owned. Including mobile products.

I personally spend 279 USD out of my own pocket to buy a Intel i3 6100, Gigabyte Z170MX GAMING 5 motherboard and Corsair Vengance LPX 2x4GB DDR4 memory.

The i3 was supposed to replace a A10 7850k APU. In theory, the i3 has nearly 70% higher single core and 10% higher multi-core performance.

In reality i have never had so bad stuttering in my life. It was worse then on ANY AMD CPU i have ever used or owned, and i own a few, namely a A10 7870k, Athlon x4 845 and FX 8320.

 

i3s are not for modern gaming. Especially NOT with mid range GPUs. It just isnt. It will stutter in modern games.

 

Now why isnt this apparent in reviews? I do not know.

Bias?

Pre-scripted benchmark suites, thus reviewers just start up a benchmark session and let the scripts run the benches in order. Thus they dont actually sit and look at the screen. (this is actually common practice among many reviewers. Even the big ones like Anandtech and PCPer)

Or simply they didnt care.

 

I do not know.

 

What i do know was that i should have bought an i5. NOT an i3. And i wasted quite a bit of money by not doing so.

The saddest bit is. The only reason i bought the i3 6100 over an i5, was because i saw all these amazing benchmarks online, praising the i3.

 

 

 

[LizardsAreOP]

35 minutes ago, Prysin said:

lol no.

Your bias is so thick that the air around you is mallable.

 

Yes, AMD CPUs are not a competitor to the unlocked i5s and up. But even against LOCKED i5s, they are not a lost cause.

Yes the chipset is old, but it has most of the features you need and want.

No PCIe Gen2 vs Gen3 matters close to nothing for gaming. Refer to these two article for proof: Source 1 Source 2

The majority of Intel boards has worse feature sets, even skylake boards, then some of the newest AM3+ boards

An i5 need to be heavily overclocked to even have a slight chance at beating a FX 8xxx in video rendering.

An i3 can under almost no circumstances beat even a Quad Core AMD CPU in rendering. Yes, the difference between 4 shitty cores and 2 cores + HT will manifest itself pretty quickly.

 

You can tout the "oh AMD CPUs so shit" all you want, but unless you can afford a unlocked i5 or above, then AMD has an option.

 

As for the benchmarks showing the i3 6100 beat the shit out of a FX 8350. Yes, in FPS numbers it does. But in quality it does NOT.

I have never had so bad stuttering with that i3 as i have had with ANY other CPU ive owned. Including mobile products.

I personally spend 279 USD out of my own pocket to buy a Intel i3 6100, Gigabyte Z170MX GAMING 5 motherboard and Corsair Vengance LPX 2x4GB DDR4 memory.

The i3 was supposed to replace a A10 7850k APU. In theory, the i3 has nearly 70% higher single core and 10% higher multi-core performance.

In reality i have never had so bad stuttering in my life. It was worse then on ANY AMD CPU i have ever used or owned, and i own a few, namely a A10 7870k, Athlon x4 845 and FX 8320.

 

i3s are not for modern gaming. Especially NOT with mid range GPUs. It just isnt. It will stutter in modern games.

 

Now why isnt this apparent in reviews? I do not know.

Bias?

Pre-scripted benchmark suites, thus reviewers just start up a benchmark session and let the scripts run the benches in order. Thus they dont actually sit and look at the screen. (this is actually common practice among many reviewers. Even the big ones like Anandtech and PCPer)

Or simply they didnt care.

 

I do not know.

 

What i do know was that i should have bought an i5. NOT an i3. And i wasted quite a bit of money by not doing so.

The saddest bit is. The only reason i bought the i3 6100 over an i5, was because i saw all these amazing benchmarks online, praising the i3.

 

 

 

Too lazy to read your post

[Prysin]

1 hour ago, LizardsAreOP said:

Too lazy to read your post

I guess people shouldnt bother with your opinion then. If you are so lazy you cannot read or listen to what they say.

[LizardsAreOP]

10 minutes ago, Prysin said:

I guess people shouldnt bother with your opinion then. If you are so lazy you cannot read or listen to what they say.

i read the whole thing,im to lazy to start a argument or fight so i just back down ima let other people start talking instead of me

[Evexis]

so it will be between i3 6100 and i5.. interesting. 
 

[david cassar]

Just get a used sandy bridge or ivy bridge i7/i5 and then get a better gpu such as an rx 480.