CPU choosing

[Harry_766]

Ok so I've gone from Intel to AMD for my CPU and I'm planning on building a budget gaming rig so which is more important?

More cores less GHz

Or

less cores more GHz

[needmorewood]

more cores. frequency is less important nowadays

[MbV93]

If you're going for the FX line of CPUs get no less than the FX-6300, FX-4000 are not worth it. An FX 6300 is a great option for a budget build but if you can get the FX-8320 that would be better.

[ShadowRaven]

purpose of build

[Cryptonite]

Ok so I've gone from Intel to AMD for my CPU and I'm planning on building a budget gaming rig so which is more important?

More cores less GHz

Or

less cores more GHz

 

If you're going for the FX line of CPUs get no less than the FX-6300, FX-4000 are not worth it. An FX 6300 is a great option for a budget build but if you can get the FX-8320 that would be better.

exactly this.

 

The FX-6300 is an amazing 6 core processor for a budget price. The FX-4000 series chokes a little under pressure so I'd stay away and the FX-8320 is an 8 AMD's cheapest piledriver architecture 8 core with outstanding performance for the price. 

 

I personally would, if on a tight budget go with the FX-6300 and put the extra cash into a better graphics card than I would have had, had I gone with the 8320.

 

To answer your question though, Both are important (cores being more so nowadays) but there are also other things to factor in for example the architecture of the CPU.

 

purpose of build

He said it's a budget gaming rig?

[kinkywink]

i recommend 8320, you get both cores and frequency. plus its a good overclocker..

if you can afford it, get the 8350 instead of its defective brother, higher bin clock = higher overclock

6300 as people are saying is a brilliant chip for the low budget build, but alas, spend an extra 100 and you get more performance

[ShadowRaven]

exactly this.

 

The FX-6300 is an amazing 6 core processor for a budget price. The FX-4000 series chokes a little under pressure so I'd stay away and the FX-8320 is an 8 AMD's cheapest piledriver architecture 8 core with outstanding performance for the price. 

 

I personally would, if on a tight budget go with the FX-6300 and put the extra cash into a better graphics card than I would have had, had I gone with the 8320.

 

To answer your question though, Both are important (cores being more so nowadays) but there are also other things to factor in for example the architecture of the CPU.

 

He said it's a budget gaming rig?

iit does not interpret the full purpose of the build to correctly interpret the correct usage of the cpu  Intel or amd

[Cryptonite]

iit does not interpret the full purpose of the build to correctly interpret the correct usage of the cpu  Intel or amd

ok then. I guess the budget gaming PC's out there are intended for video editing. thus stating that they are budget gaming computers.

 

You can however ask him what his budget is so that we know exactly how much he is willing to spend and then decide if an AMD or intel solution would be best, however most budgets would benifit more from an AMD rig.

[ShadowRaven]

ok then. I guess the budget gaming PC's out there are intended for video editing. thus stating that they are budget gaming computers.

 

You can however ask him what his budget is so that we know exactly how much he is willing to spend and then decide if an AMD or intel solution would be best, however most budgets would benifit more from an AMD rig.

it does not have anything to do with video  editing  just what the full description of gaming he wanted in the build to determine the best cpu  for his build

[Cryptonite]

lol

[WoodenMarker]

Not all cores are the same. 

Whether cores or frequency matters depends on the situation. 

 

Things that can take advantage of more cores will prefer that. Those that can't will prefer fewer faster cores.