Originally posted by Loke666 I wouldn't call Intel a dead platform but I3 is crap anyways. A nice Haswell-E or something is good but Intel never been a good choice for the low budget users (with the exception of a few early Celeron CPUs that could be clocked insanely).Sure, they will change their socket soon again but how many people actually change their CPUs anyways but keep their motherboard? Rarely worth the work in most cases, motherboards are not that expansive anyways.For budget users: Go AMD.
FX-6300 goes for $110. i3-4170 goes for $125.
$15 difference can be easily compensated with cheaper mobo, since AM3+(970) boards are expensive. Regardless, the difference is next to none, but for the same money, you get slightly better performance, less generated heat and sensible upgrade path.
It is not that FX is bad CPU, just there is no reason to get one when there is i3 alternative.
Originally posted by Loke666 I wouldn't call Intel a dead platform but I3 is crap anyways. A nice Haswell-E or something is good but Intel never been a good choice for the low budget users (with the exception of a few early Celeron CPUs that could be clocked insanely).
Sure, they will change their socket soon again but how many people actually change their CPUs anyways but keep their motherboard? Rarely worth the work in most cases, motherboards are not that expansive anyways.
For budget users: Go AMD.
FX-6300 goes for $110. i3-4170 goes for $125.
$15 difference can be easily compensated with cheaper mobo, since AM3+(970) boards are expensive. Regardless, the difference is next to none, but for the same money, you get slightly better performance, less generated heat and sensible upgrade path.
It is not that FX is bad CPU, just there is no reason to get one when there is i3 alternative.
The i3 is a great part for older games, the latest games are developed for multi-core CPUs. Also, the more cores you have, the more processes you can run simultaneously while gaming. The latest consoles are currently powered by eight core AMD APUs so developers can now program for multi-core support. More cores can help if you are streaming, recording in-game footage, it's all about multi-tasking as well as being compatible with future releases.
Hey guys, Last year I had built a budget PC for around $450. Needless to say it died. lol. So I'm in the market for building a new PC and would love your guys help! Cause right from the start I'm at a stand still.
Is the FX6300 (Priced at $99) a better Budget build CPU over the slightly more expensive FX8350 (Priced currently at $139). Now the only reason I'm not looking at an i5 is my budget, at $600. I would really love a powerful CPU & GPU for steaming/recording games such as League of Legends & Diablo, I believe an i5 would simply leave me without enough for a capable GPU.
Talking about GPUs. The one I was looking at was the newish R9 380 2GB. Its priced at $234 currently which is a bit much I believe but I've been told its the best mid-level graphics card I could buy, simply put.. is this true???
I'm not worried about RAM. I can simply pick up 2 x4GB ripjaws & or Ballistics costing around $50.
Having said all this; This is the build I was looking at possibly ordering (Keeping in mind I will not be ordering untill possibly the 20th of course things change, but my core parts will not).
If you have any, ANy at all feed back or something I should change plz let me know. While this isnt set in stone it is a build I will be looking at getting. Thank you
u will have tons of problems with that PSu that Cpu is taking tons of power and so is the Gpu.
Amd is not known for any good stuff really it's known for extreamly high power use and bad drivers. etc
AMD 8350fx is solid. I've been using mine for a little over a year now. The nicest part is the over clocking. it scales upwards easily without a large power draw. THe 8350fx also outperforms the i5 intel chips .
The 8350fx has played every single players game and it is a beast for mmorpgs. I also do multimedia design, so the chip also works well for that. I can run the Adobe suite with out any problems.
I love AMD products and will continue to use them since they fit my budget and have great performance.
come again lol
8350 Fx doesnt outperform any i5.
it barely outperformence intel G3258 pentium.
thats a Dual Core no Hyper Thead
This pentium owns the Fx8350 at way less then half its price
Originally posted by booniedog96 The i3 is a great part for older games, the latest games are developed for multi-core CPUs. Also, the more cores you have, the more processes you can run simultaneously while gaming. The latest consoles are currently powered by eight core AMD APUs so developers can now program for multi-core support. More cores can help if you are streaming, recording in-game footage, it's all about multi-tasking as well as being compatible with future releases.
Guess what, PS2 already have 8(7) cores and we hear the same tale since around 2000 and still waiting for those fabled "latest games are developed for multi-core CPUs"...
Look up gaming tests, i3 does not lag behind in any newly released games. More cores are useless and will remain useless because gain from multi-core CPUs is limited.
Hey guys, Last year I had built a budget PC for around $450. Needless to say it died. lol. So I'm in the market for building a new PC and would love your guys help! Cause right from the start I'm at a stand still.
Is the FX6300 (Priced at $99) a better Budget build CPU over the slightly more expensive FX8350 (Priced currently at $139). Now the only reason I'm not looking at an i5 is my budget, at $600. I would really love a powerful CPU & GPU for steaming/recording games such as League of Legends & Diablo, I believe an i5 would simply leave me without enough for a capable GPU.
Talking about GPUs. The one I was looking at was the newish R9 380 2GB. Its priced at $234 currently which is a bit much I believe but I've been told its the best mid-level graphics card I could buy, simply put.. is this true???
I'm not worried about RAM. I can simply pick up 2 x4GB ripjaws & or Ballistics costing around $50.
Having said all this; This is the build I was looking at possibly ordering (Keeping in mind I will not be ordering untill possibly the 20th of course things change, but my core parts will not).
If you have any, ANy at all feed back or something I should change plz let me know. While this isnt set in stone it is a build I will be looking at getting. Thank you
u will have tons of problems with that PSu that Cpu is taking tons of power and so is the Gpu.
Amd is not known for any good stuff really it's known for extreamly high power use and bad drivers. etc
The PSU is fine as long as you don't overclock, you won't need to with those parts. A 600W PSU would be better but if you are not bench testing every day you'll be alright. Unless you are living in Hawaii where electricity costs $0.37 per kilowatt hr you won't be saving much $$$ switching to Intel. If you live on main land US you may save up to $25 annually with Intel for regular use. There are 4 of us in this house and 2 AMD FX Gaming PCs and our monthly electric bill is about $85 during this summer.
The i3 is a great part for older games, the latest games are developed for multi-core CPUs. Also, the more cores you have, the more processes you can run simultaneously while gaming. The latest consoles are currently powered by eight core AMD APUs so developers can now program for multi-core support. More cores can help if you are streaming, recording in-game footage, it's all about multi-tasking as well as being compatible with future releases.
Guess what, PS2 already have 8(7) cores and we hear the same tale since around 2000 and still waiting for those fabled "latest games are developed for multi-core CPUs"...
Look up gaming tests, i3 does not lag behind in any newly released games. More cores are useless and will remain useless because gain from multi-core CPUs is limited.
Look, you can game with dual-core but you will have less room to do more things. Once you get the 2 cores to 100% capacity you'll end up running into issues. With more cores you can game, down load Netflix movies, stream Twitch etc. all at the same time. If the PC was solely just for gaming and only gaming why not just get a console anyway. With my FX 8350 I am able to play an MMO, watch a twitch stream, argue on MMORPG.com, stream music from soundcloud, and work on my excel spreadsheet for crafting and only use up 30% of CPU capacity.
Originally posted by booniedog96 Look, you can game with dual-core but you will have less room to do more things. Once you get the 2 cores to 100% capacity you'll end up running into issues. With more cores you can game, down load Netflix movies, stream Twitch etc. all at the same time. If the PC was solely just for gaming and only gaming why not just get a console anyway. With my FX 8350 I am able to play an MMO, watch a twitch stream, argue on MMORPG.com, stream music from soundcloud, and work on my excel spreadsheet for crafting and only use up 30% of CPU capacity.
i3 is hyper-threaded thus it is essentially a quad core rather than dual core.
The i3 is a great part for older games, the latest games are developed for multi-core CPUs. Also, the more cores you have, the more processes you can run simultaneously while gaming. The latest consoles are currently powered by eight core AMD APUs so developers can now program for multi-core support. More cores can help if you are streaming, recording in-game footage, it's all about multi-tasking as well as being compatible with future releases.
Guess what, PS2 already have 8(7) cores and we hear the same tale since around 2000 and still waiting for those fabled "latest games are developed for multi-core CPUs"...
Look up gaming tests, i3 does not lag behind in any newly released games. More cores are useless and will remain useless because gain from multi-core CPUs is limited.
Look, you can game with dual-core but you will have less room to do more things. Once you get the 2 cores to 100% capacity you'll end up running into issues. With more cores you can game, down load Netflix movies, stream Twitch etc. all at the same time. If the PC was solely just for gaming and only gaming why not just get a console anyway. With my FX 8350 I am able to play an MMO, watch a twitch stream, argue on MMORPG.com, stream music from soundcloud, and work on my excel spreadsheet for crafting and only use up 30% of CPU capacity.
Look, you can game with dual-core but you will have less room to do more things. Once you get the 2 cores to 100% capacity you'll end up running into issues. With more cores you can game, down load Netflix movies, stream Twitch etc. all at the same time. If the PC was solely just for gaming and only gaming why not just get a console anyway. With my FX 8350 I am able to play an MMO, watch a twitch stream, argue on MMORPG.com, stream music from soundcloud, and work on my excel spreadsheet for crafting and only use up 30% of CPU capacity.
i3 is hyper-threaded thus it is essentially a quad core rather than dual core.
You still have only 2 cores, Hyper-threading is not the same as have 4 physical cores.
Originally posted by booniedog96 You still have only 2 cores, Hyper-threading is not the same as have 4 physical cores.
Hyper-threading allows you to process instructions from 2 different threads within 1 cycle just like 4 physical cores, it just won't be as efficient/fast but the parallelism is still there.
The i3 is a great part for older games, the latest games are developed for multi-core CPUs. Also, the more cores you have, the more processes you can run simultaneously while gaming. The latest consoles are currently powered by eight core AMD APUs so developers can now program for multi-core support. More cores can help if you are streaming, recording in-game footage, it's all about multi-tasking as well as being compatible with future releases.
Guess what, PS2 already have 8(7) cores and we hear the same tale since around 2000 and still waiting for those fabled "latest games are developed for multi-core CPUs"...
Look up gaming tests, i3 does not lag behind in any newly released games. More cores are useless and will remain useless because gain from multi-core CPUs is limited.
Look, you can game with dual-core but you will have less room to do more things. Once you get the 2 cores to 100% capacity you'll end up running into issues. With more cores you can game, down load Netflix movies, stream Twitch etc. all at the same time. If the PC was solely just for gaming and only gaming why not just get a console anyway. With my FX 8350 I am able to play an MMO, watch a twitch stream, argue on MMORPG.com, stream music from soundcloud, and work on my excel spreadsheet for crafting and only use up 30% of CPU capacity.
then pay 60$ more and get a i3-4170 its better
Here are system requirements of some of the latest titles and let me know where dual core fits in.
You still have only 2 cores, Hyper-threading is not the same as have 4 physical cores.
Hyper-threading allows you to process instructions from 2 different threads within 1 cycle just like 4 physical cores, it just won't be as efficient/fast but the parallelism is still there.
It's still only a 2 core CPU, reach cap that's it. It thinks its a 4 core but still only processes with 2 physical cores.
Originally posted by booniedog96It's still only a 2 core CPU, reach cap that's it. It thinks its a 4 core but still only processes with 2 physical cores.
It's still only a 2 core CPU, reach cap that's it. It thinks its a 4 core but still only processes with 2 physical cores.
No, you "thinks" it's dual core
Yeah, listing "recommended" specs..
Who plays at minimum specs, you use minimum specs if you are going to log in and check your mail. You use recommended specs to get 30-60 fps at a decent fidelity.
MMOs tend to perform a lot better on Intel CPUs as they're mostly very reliant on single core performance when a lot of stuff is going on. That being said, the FX CPUs will be fine, but be sure to overclock them to at least 4GHz. Games vary of course - and the problems with performance are mostly in raids.
AMD 8350fx is solid. I've been using mine for a little over a year now. The nicest part is the over clocking. it scales upwards easily without a large power draw. THe 8350fx also outperforms the i5 intel chips .
The 8350fx has played every single players game and it is a beast for mmorpgs. I also do multimedia design, so the chip also works well for that. I can run the Adobe suite with out any problems.
I love AMD products and will continue to use them since they fit my budget and have great performance.
come again lol
8350 Fx doesnt outperform any i5.
it barely outperformence intel G3258 pentium.
thats a Dual Core no Hyper Thead
This pentium owns the Fx8350 at way less then half its price
and the G3258 uses 1/3 of the power Fx8350 does
I am not sure if you are intentionally trying to state false facts or if this is all sarcasm. The FX-8350 certainly outperforms an i5 and holds its own to i7 especially for those that overclock. It has 4 times the amount of l2 cache as well as 3 times the amount of l3 cache not to mention 4 times the cores. Thats why most games when they list recommended specs they say "i7-4770k or fx-8350" Please try to convey the correct information as it is important to the topic at hand.
It's still only a 2 core CPU, reach cap that's it. It thinks its a 4 core but still only processes with 2 physical cores.
No, you "thinks" it's dual core
Yeah, listing "recommended" specs..
Who plays at minimum specs, you use minimum specs if you are going to log in and check your mail. You use recommended specs to get 30-60 fps at a decent fidelity.
Just have to ignore him tbh, i don't know if its because he loses money every time people don't buy I3's or whether he honestly believes they are any good, they aren't suitable for games in any case, and dual core cpu's are pretty much done for these days, 5 years ago, it was probably good, now it isn't, so if your going to get intel, you want at least an I5 quad core, with decent performance, which is expensive, which is why when your on a budget AMD tends to be the cpu of choice.
Originally posted by c0exist I am not sure if you are intentionally trying to state false facts or if this is all sarcasm. The FX-8350 certainly outperforms an i5 and holds its own to i7 especially for those that overclock. It has 4 times the amount of l2 cache as well as 3 times the amount of l3 cache not to mention 4 times the cores. Thats why most games when they list recommended specs they say "i7-4770k or fx-8350" Please try to convey the correct information as it is important to the topic at hand.
Maybe because CPU tests actualy prove otherwise...?
Only task FX might get an upper hand is video decoding but tht is about all performance advantage.
Originally posted by PhryJust have to ignore him tbh, i don't know if its because he loses money every time people don't buy I3's or whether he honestly believes they are any good, they aren't suitable for games in any case, and dual core cpu's are pretty much done for these days, 5 years ago, it was probably good, now it isn't, so if your going to get intel, you want at least an I5 quad core, with decent performance, which is expensive, which is why when your on a budget AMD tends to be the cpu of choice.
So how do you explain gaming test showing that i3 is at least as fast or even faster than FX...?
If i3 is "not suitable for games" then neither FX is...
Originally posted by NightHaveN But coming back to topic, both chips are from the same architecture. Except for clock speed and number of cores there is no other difference.Since for gaming more than 4 cores or threads doesn't make much difference, the question is:Do you plan to overclock? Is the answer is No, then go for the FX8350. Higher clock = faster per thread execution that is better for games. Two extra cores is better for desktop. Is a win win.But if overclocking is in your mind, probably will be able to reach same results or better with the FX6300 because very likely will heat less.
Seeing that FX-8350 goes for $175, one would need to be really rabid AMD fan to buy that instead of i5-4430 that is just $5 more or i5-4460 that you get for $15 extra over FX-8350.
with a 8300 you can delegate 4 of the cores to the streaming program, and 4 to the game, so you will have a much easier time streaming at higher quality, that's the only upside to taking the 8300 vs 6300.
Also don't listen to Gdemami, any i3 processor is a horrible choice.
You still have only 2 cores, Hyper-threading is not the same as have 4 physical cores.
Hyper-threading allows you to process instructions from 2 different threads within 1 cycle just like 4 physical cores, it just won't be as efficient/fast but the parallelism is still there.
If number of threads resident is all that matters and execution resources don't, then a Radeon HD 7870 (51200 threads) would be faster than a GeForce GTX Titan X (49152 threads). But that doesn't happen outside of extreme corner cases.
Comments
FX-6300 goes for $110.
i3-4170 goes for $125.
$15 difference can be easily compensated with cheaper mobo, since AM3+(970) boards are expensive. Regardless, the difference is next to none, but for the same money, you get slightly better performance, less generated heat and sensible upgrade path.
It is not that FX is bad CPU, just there is no reason to get one when there is i3 alternative.
The i3 is a great part for older games, the latest games are developed for multi-core CPUs. Also, the more cores you have, the more processes you can run simultaneously while gaming. The latest consoles are currently powered by eight core AMD APUs so developers can now program for multi-core support. More cores can help if you are streaming, recording in-game footage, it's all about multi-tasking as well as being compatible with future releases.
u will have tons of problems with that PSu that Cpu is taking tons of power and so is the Gpu.
Amd is not known for any good stuff really it's known for extreamly high power use and bad drivers. etc
come again lol
8350 Fx doesnt outperform any i5.
it barely outperformence intel G3258 pentium.
thats a Dual Core no Hyper Thead
This pentium owns the Fx8350 at way less then half its price
and the G3258 uses 1/3 of the power Fx8350 does
Guess what, PS2 already have 8(7) cores and we hear the same tale since around 2000 and still waiting for those fabled "latest games are developed for multi-core CPUs"...
Look up gaming tests, i3 does not lag behind in any newly released games. More cores are useless and will remain useless because gain from multi-core CPUs is limited.
The PSU is fine as long as you don't overclock, you won't need to with those parts. A 600W PSU would be better but if you are not bench testing every day you'll be alright. Unless you are living in Hawaii where electricity costs $0.37 per kilowatt hr you won't be saving much $$$ switching to Intel. If you live on main land US you may save up to $25 annually with Intel for regular use. There are 4 of us in this house and 2 AMD FX Gaming PCs and our monthly electric bill is about $85 during this summer.
Look, you can game with dual-core but you will have less room to do more things. Once you get the 2 cores to 100% capacity you'll end up running into issues. With more cores you can game, down load Netflix movies, stream Twitch etc. all at the same time. If the PC was solely just for gaming and only gaming why not just get a console anyway. With my FX 8350 I am able to play an MMO, watch a twitch stream, argue on MMORPG.com, stream music from soundcloud, and work on my excel spreadsheet for crafting and only use up 30% of CPU capacity.
i3 is hyper-threaded thus it is essentially a quad core rather than dual core.
then pay 60$ more and get a i3-4170 its better
You still have only 2 cores, Hyper-threading is not the same as have 4 physical cores.
Hyper-threading allows you to process instructions from 2 different threads within 1 cycle just like 4 physical cores, it just won't be as efficient/fast but the parallelism is still there.
Here are system requirements of some of the latest titles and let me know where dual core fits in.
Batman: Arkham Knight
Processor: Intel Core i7-3770, 3.4 GHz | AMD FX-8350, 4.0 GHz
FFXIV
Processor: Intel® Core™ i5
GTA5
Intel Core i5 3470 @ 3.2GHZ (4 CPUs) / AMD X8 FX-8350 @ 4GHZ (8 CPUs)
Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor
Intel Core i7-3770 or AMD FX-8350
Battlefield Hardline
INTEL QUAD-CORE CPU, AMD SIX-CORE CPU
It's still only a 2 core CPU, reach cap that's it. It thinks its a 4 core but still only processes with 2 physical cores.
No, you "thinks" it's dual core
Yeah, listing "recommended" specs..
Who plays at minimum specs, you use minimum specs if you are going to log in and check your mail. You use recommended specs to get 30-60 fps at a decent fidelity.
taken from Newegg
Intel Core i3-4170 3M Haswell Dual-Core 3.7GHz LGA 1150 54W BX80646I34170 Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics 4400
I am not sure if you are intentionally trying to state false facts or if this is all sarcasm. The FX-8350 certainly outperforms an i5 and holds its own to i7 especially for those that overclock. It has 4 times the amount of l2 cache as well as 3 times the amount of l3 cache not to mention 4 times the cores. Thats why most games when they list recommended specs they say "i7-4770k or fx-8350" Please try to convey the correct information as it is important to the topic at hand.
Just have to ignore him tbh, i don't know if its because he loses money every time people don't buy I3's or whether he honestly believes they are any good, they aren't suitable for games in any case, and dual core cpu's are pretty much done for these days, 5 years ago, it was probably good, now it isn't, so if your going to get intel, you want at least an I5 quad core, with decent performance, which is expensive, which is why when your on a budget AMD tends to be the cpu of choice.
Maybe because CPU tests actualy prove otherwise...?
Only task FX might get an upper hand is video decoding but tht is about all performance advantage.
Just check gaming test linked above.
http://www.hardwarepal.com/best-cpu-gaming-9-processors-8-games-tested/
So how do you explain gaming test showing that i3 is at least as fast or even faster than FX...?
If i3 is "not suitable for games" then neither FX is...
Seeing that FX-8350 goes for $175, one would need to be really rabid AMD fan to buy that instead of i5-4430 that is just $5 more or i5-4460 that you get for $15 extra over FX-8350.
with a 8300 you can delegate 4 of the cores to the streaming program, and 4 to the game, so you will have a much easier time streaming at higher quality, that's the only upside to taking the 8300 vs 6300.
Also don't listen to Gdemami, any i3 processor is a horrible choice.
If number of threads resident is all that matters and execution resources don't, then a Radeon HD 7870 (51200 threads) would be faster than a GeForce GTX Titan X (49152 threads). But that doesn't happen outside of extreme corner cases.
AMD FX-4350 Vishera is going for only $79.99 and with promo code you can get for $69.00
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113326