I recently build a gaming pc for a friend, with an FX8350, which allowed him to step up from a 270X, to a 280X. I am still convinced this gave him the most bang for his budget.
The thing is, the cpu difference will only show in games, where the fps is above 100. Like Warcraft or the like. Or when "scientific" hardware sites, set the resolution to 1024, and turn all Graphical options to low, and use the biggest GPU they can get their hand on.
And people read this and see the difference (FX is about 60%), and yet don't understand the data they are presented. They buy Intel, have never tried to play on an FX, and trash AMD on forums thininking they know.
But the above benchmark is synthetic, noone plays in such a configuration. Instead they play at HD 1080, and they play new games that tax the GPU, and set the graphics as high as they can get away with.
And here the Intels and the FX deliver the same experience.
There's hardly any difference.Take a game where you get close to 60 FPS, like Sleeping Dogs. Theres a 3 FPS difference.
And this is what the Intel fans trashing AMD have never understood. They play the game on their intel, and think if they had an FX cpu they would only get 60% of the framerates.
You could argue that Intel has longevity. But first, anychange of cpu, is going to meanbuying a new motherboard, or I dare say you bought the wrong cpu from the start.
Direct X is coming, and it has happened because of AMD Mantle, and it will make all cpus, that already are good for generations, last a good deal longer.
FX6300 is a good budget buy, and I'll take FX8350 over an i3 any day.
I recently build a gaming pc for a friend, with an FX8350, which allowed him to step up from a 270X, to a 280X. I am still convinced this gave him the most bang for his budget.
The thing is, the cpu difference will only show in games, where the fps is above 100. Like Warcraft or the like. Or when "scientific" hardware sites, set the resolution to 1024, and turn all Graphical options to low, and use the biggest GPU they can get their hand on.
And people read this and see the difference (FX is about 60%), and yet don't understand the data they are presented. They buy Intel, have never tried to play on an FX, and trash AMD on forums thininking they know.
But the above benchmark is synthetic, noone plays in such a configuration. Instead they play at HD 1080, and they play new games that tax the GPU, and set the graphics as high as they can get away with.
And here the Intels and the FX deliver the same experience.
There's hardly any difference.Take a game where you get close to 60 FPS, like Sleeping Dogs. Theres a 3 FPS difference.
And this is what the Intel fans trashing AMD have never understood. They play the game on their intel, and think if they had an FX cpu they would only get 60% of the framerates.
You could argue that Intel has longevity. But first, anychange of cpu, is going to meanbuying a new motherboard, or I dare say you bought the wrong cpu from the start.
Direct X is coming, and it has happened because of AMD Mantle, and it will make all cpus, that already are good for generations, last a good deal longer.
FX6300 is a good budget buy, and I'll take FX8350 over an i3 any day.
The worst kind of advice is to get Intel+worse GPU over AMD+better GPU, crapping out on game performance across the board.
And recommending dual cores...only very misleaded can do that.
63xx/83xx are still better buy in their respective categories. Unless you need i7-xxxk, or at least i5-xxxk with a top of the line GPU, Intel just doesnt cut it, as you can do monster OC on FXes.
The arguments between getting an Intel or an AMD cpu will probably go on forever, but, if your on a budget, then AMD produces the better CPU's within an affordable price range, intel is only better if price is no object, and as for Dual Cores, they aren't good enough for gaming rigs, and probably haven't been for quite a while now, after all, when was the last time you saw a console with a dual core processor in? there really isn't an earthly reason to build a rig, gaming or otherwise, using an I3 dual core, if money is no object, go with an I7, and if its on a budget, then AMD has you covered. One of the reasons i ended up with a 9590 was because of budget constraints, yes i would have loved to have been able to afford an I7, but i couldn't afford it, so i went the affordable route, and in a few months time i'll try and upgrade my GPU, as i am still using an MSI 660gtx twin frozr, although honestly, its working very well in the system as is, so i can easily afford to take the time to save up for the next one.
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
I wouldnt worry about the cpu all that much. As for that GPU you picked, for those 2 games your talking about you could run them easily. Considering I have a just a 370, and a older i5 3570 underclocked to 3 ghz, and i get way over 60fps on diablo 3. I dont play LOL, but heros of the storm, and that runs on max. It also plays the secret world fine, and everquest 2. The only way I would say you would need a brand new processor, like the i5 6th gen, is if you were trying to do something CPU intense, which modern games really arent. Maybe trying to do 4k, but then you would need 2 390s or better so. My friend still uses a 1090t 6 core, which is older than the fx, there is not much difference in FPS, between his or mine. At one time we both had a radeon 5870, and the difference between fps, between that old amd, and my at the time new i5 was 2 or 3, which made me regret the 210 dollar price tag of the i5. As far as gaming goes, the only time I have noticed any significant difference is in Civs4 and 5, the turns take longer with a slower processor, but from the sounds you dont play those kind of games. If you want the cheapest and best GPU out now, I would go with a 7970, which is like 140, which would get you similar performance of a 380, if not better if you over clock. So yep, there will be no games you are not going to be able to play with what you picked, at 1080p. That setup would be like 2x the playstation 4. The other option you have are the Steam Machines, which look nice, but have a worse graphics card. They come with a i5 though, for under 500 I believe. Well its 150 more,
Intel Core i5 - 4590T Quad Core
nVidia GeForce GTX GPU w/2GB GDDR5
8GB DDR3
1TB 7200RPM HDD
2x2 802.11 Wireless Card
Steam Controller
The card they are talking about is a Nvidia 960 gtx, which isnt much different than a 380. there is like a 3-5 fps difference. So if you want to save 150, have a nicer case, and a steam controller, with steam os, which you could easily put windows on it, and get a free upgrade to windows 10, that would be the better route I think. Also consider the fact of trying to re sell it, it is very very difficult to sell a custom made pc. It will not be that hard to re sell a steam machine. http://www.gamestop.com/pc/consoles/alienware-steam-machine-i5-1tb/121864 . If I was gonna buy a pc again, I would def go with a steam machine.
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
I have an fx 8350 right now and it has never ever let me down.
Although if you can definitely go Intel but if not the 8350 is by far the better choice.
Nice you are liking the 9590. I game on my PC but I also use it for photo editing and music production. I like AMD for what I do.
Yet any Core I7 processor crushes even the 8 core AMD processors... and even more funny, the Core I5 processors, which don't have hyperthreading, also crush the 8 core AMD processors. AMD makes awesome graphic cards, but lets be honest... their desktop CPUs are sub-par.
Nope, x8 performs same/better than i5 in most cases for 1/2 the price.
So tell me, where does i5 or even normal i7 shine so great that you have to pay such amount of money?
i7? lowest i7 costs 3x more than x8 (and even more expencive mobos), and doesnt have much (if any) over it. Again if its k version and you OC it. Unless you delve into something that costs 6-8 times more expencive.
But since 99,9999% of people have budget for whole rig less than that i7, thats so irrelevant that it couldnt be more irrelevant.
Nice you are liking the 9590. I game on my PC but I also use it for photo editing and music production. I like AMD for what I do.
Yet any Core I7 processor crushes even the 8 core AMD processors... and even more funny, the Core I5 processors, which don't have hyperthreading, also crush the 8 core AMD processors. AMD makes awesome graphic cards, but lets be honest... their desktop CPUs are sub-par.
But yeah, if you get the high-clocked desktop CPUs and aren't running something that scales to far more cores than you've got, AMD's CPUs aren't competitive with Intel's. They're also not as expensive, and the argument for buying an AMD CPU in a desktop is basically the price tag.
Zen should shake things up next year. I don't know if AMD will catch Intel, but they should at least be a lot closer. It's much easier to greatly improve on your last product when your last product was awful than when it was really good.
Comments
The part I can't believe is that none of the AMD supporters brought up Broadwell on the desktop
They're not paid enough ? :P
either that or they are more civilized and productive/working members of society without time to waste on ego-stroking and trolling
It's a tough choice to decide between these 2 xD
I recently build a gaming pc for a friend, with an FX8350, which allowed him to step up from a 270X, to a 280X. I am still convinced this gave him the most bang for his budget.
The thing is, the cpu difference will only show in games, where the fps is above 100. Like Warcraft or the like. Or when "scientific" hardware sites, set the resolution to 1024, and turn all Graphical options to low, and use the biggest GPU they can get their hand on.
And people read this and see the difference (FX is about 60%), and yet don't understand the data they are presented. They buy Intel, have never tried to play on an FX, and trash AMD on forums thininking they know.
But the above benchmark is synthetic, noone plays in such a configuration. Instead they play at HD 1080, and they play new games that tax the GPU, and set the graphics as high as they can get away with.
And here the Intels and the FX deliver the same experience.
Look around in this comparison.
http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1117&page=8
There's hardly any difference.Take a game where you get close to 60 FPS, like Sleeping Dogs. Theres a 3 FPS difference.
And this is what the Intel fans trashing AMD have never understood. They play the game on their intel, and think if they had an FX cpu they would only get 60% of the framerates.
You could argue that Intel has longevity. But first, anychange of cpu, is going to meanbuying a new motherboard, or I dare say you bought the wrong cpu from the start.
Direct X is coming, and it has happened because of AMD Mantle, and it will make all cpus, that already are good for generations, last a good deal longer.
FX6300 is a good budget buy, and I'll take FX8350 over an i3 any day.
http://wccftech.com/witcher-3-cpu-benchmarks-fx-63008350-i7-4790ki5-4690ki3-4130g3258-oc/
and why dual cores are (and will be more and more) crap.
And recommending dual cores...only very misleaded can do that.
63xx/83xx are still better buy in their respective categories. Unless you need i7-xxxk, or at least i5-xxxk with a top of the line GPU, Intel just doesnt cut it, as you can do monster OC on FXes.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
One of the reasons i ended up with a 9590 was because of budget constraints, yes i would have loved to have been able to afford an I7, but i couldn't afford it, so i went the affordable route, and in a few months time i'll try and upgrade my GPU, as i am still using an MSI 660gtx twin frozr, although honestly, its working very well in the system as is, so i can easily afford to take the time to save up for the next one.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
As far as gaming goes, the only time I have noticed any significant difference is in Civs4 and 5, the turns take longer with a slower processor, but from the sounds you dont play those kind of games. If you want the cheapest and best GPU out now, I would go with a 7970, which is like 140, which would get you similar performance of a 380, if not better if you over clock. So yep, there will be no games you are not going to be able to play with what you picked, at 1080p. That setup would be like 2x the playstation 4. The other option you have are the Steam Machines, which look nice, but have a worse graphics card. They come with a i5 though, for under 500 I believe. Well its 150 more,
The card they are talking about is a Nvidia 960 gtx, which isnt much different than a 380.
Although if you can definitely go Intel but if not the 8350 is by far the better choice.
If i5 isnt k version, it cant even compete.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/core_i5_6600k_processor_review_desktop_skylake,1.html
http://wccftech.com/witcher-3-cpu-benchmarks-fx-63008350-i7-4790ki5-4690ki3-4130g3258-oc/ (And thats wiht Titan X, GPUs dont get better than that)
So tell me, where does i5 or even normal i7 shine so great that you have to pay such amount of money?
i7? lowest i7 costs 3x more than x8 (and even more expencive mobos), and doesnt have much (if any) over it. Again if its k version and you OC it. Unless you delve into something that costs 6-8 times more expencive.
But since 99,9999% of people have budget for whole rig less than that i7, thats so irrelevant that it couldnt be more irrelevant.
http://ark.intel.com/products/47700/Intel-Core-i7-640UM-Processor-4M-Cache-1_20-GHz
But yeah, if you get the high-clocked desktop CPUs and aren't running something that scales to far more cores than you've got, AMD's CPUs aren't competitive with Intel's. They're also not as expensive, and the argument for buying an AMD CPU in a desktop is basically the price tag.
Zen should shake things up next year. I don't know if AMD will catch Intel, but they should at least be a lot closer. It's much easier to greatly improve on your last product when your last product was awful than when it was really good.