Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Fx 8320 vs i5 4670k for future

Tags:
  • New Build
  • CPUs
  • Intel i5
  • Processors
Last response: in CPUs
September 28, 2013 9:08:13 PM

In my new build which processor should i choose as i will be using it for 3 years.
Does cpu matter in gaming

More about : 8320 4670k future

September 28, 2013 9:13:29 PM

i'd go with the i5 4670K since you will be only gaming, the FX would be for video editing etc.
they are both good but if your going to game and nothing else then go for the i5 4670K

Also yes the CPU does matter in gaming.
m
0
l
September 28, 2013 9:16:43 PM

NotSoCivil said:
i'd go with the i5 4670K since you will be only gaming, the FX would be for video editing etc.
they are both good but if your going to game and nothing else then go for the i5 4670K

Also yes the CPU does matter in gaming.


what about heavy programmings?
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 166 à CPUs
September 28, 2013 9:33:53 PM

Programming by itself is a very light task. Compiling is something different. The 8320 would be a bit faster in compiling, but that comes at the expense of twice the power required.
m
0
l
a c 297 à CPUs
September 28, 2013 9:37:37 PM

programing... heavy or otherwise isn't all that cpu intensive. waiting for a program to compile is measured in seconds not minutes. but yes, you probably will be able to time the haswell as a critical 2 or 3 seconds faster then the fx on a big hefty piece of code. Seriously now... while i don't disagree that intel cpus are better then amd cpus, i think sometimes people lose a lot of perspective about how big a difference we're talking about. If you just have one monitor with a 60hz refresh rate, you'll NEVER tell the difference between an AMD cpu or Intel when gaming (yes even in skyrim or civ5). You gpu is far more important then your pc is for giving you a better or worse gaming experience.

If by building an AMD rig you're able to squeeze an SSD or better gpu into your budget, Get the AMD. it will feel like a better computer with either of those upgrades. If your rig will be identical regardless of the cpu you use, then get the intel, as, it is a slightly better part. if you have 3 monitors and plan to SLi/xfire and all of them are 144hz monitors, then get the intel. otherwise you'll never tell the difference unless the two hypothetical rigs are sitting next to each other and you have a stopwatch in your hand.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 28, 2013 10:05:30 PM

^+1 bro. Intel fan boys and AMD fan boys are just way too exaggerating things between their fave products. No doubt Intel has the fastest in the market, but the priciest too. haha But AMD is also not that far, and it's way cheaper. :)  You can even just get the 6350 bro if you don't need that much power from the 8350 or 4670k
m
0
l
September 28, 2013 10:28:15 PM

ingtar33 said:
programing... heavy or otherwise isn't all that cpu intensive. waiting for a program to compile is measured in seconds not minutes. but yes, you probably will be able to time the haswell as a critical 2 or 3 seconds faster then the fx on a big hefty piece of code. Seriously now... while i don't disagree that intel cpus are better then amd cpus, i think sometimes people lose a lot of perspective about how big a difference we're talking about. If you just have one monitor with a 60hz refresh rate, you'll NEVER tell the difference between an AMD cpu or Intel when gaming (yes even in skyrim or civ5). You gpu is far more important then your pc is for giving you a better or worse gaming experience.

If by building an AMD rig you're able to squeeze an SSD or better gpu into your budget, Get the AMD. it will feel like a better computer with either of those upgrades. If your rig will be identical regardless of the cpu you use, then get the intel, as, it is a slightly better part. if you have 3 monitors and plan to SLi/xfire and all of them are 144hz monitors, then get the intel. otherwise you'll never tell the difference unless the two hypothetical rigs are sitting next to each other and you have a stopwatch in your hand.


I'am totaly confused.these are my trouble.
1.The computer sellers tell amd loses performance as it gets old.
2.if i choose intel i cant get a good gpu,but iam afraid i will lose performance if i go for amd,thus wasting money.
Chaos..:|
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 28, 2013 11:18:22 PM

He's just saying that so that you'll buy the more expensive one, hence more sale for him.
m
0
l
a c 297 à CPUs
September 28, 2013 11:24:38 PM

yeah... remember pc salesmen generally are like car salesmen and get a commission. (yes they are paid commission)

that means his MAIN purpose is to get you to spend $$. any pc salesman who claims AMD cpus get "weaker" with age is either a liar or an idiot. either way i wouldn't talk to him again.
m
0
l
September 28, 2013 11:25:54 PM

adimeister said:
He's just saying that so that you'll buy the more expensive one, hence more sale for him.


these are my needs, also will be using a single 21.5 or 23 inch monitor cost under 200 .
1.casual gaming
2.browsing,online video
3. Programming
4.watching movie
5.pdf book reading
6.other basic tasks.
So which cpu to go for?
Also a gpu?

m
0
l
a c 297 à CPUs
September 28, 2013 11:34:08 PM

what's your budget and what country are you in?

frankly your desires could be matched with a low end build pretty easily. but if you want something a bit more on the high end we can see if we can get it into your budget.
m
0
l
September 28, 2013 11:41:15 PM

ingtar33 said:
what's your budget and what country are you in?

frankly your desires could be matched with a low end build pretty easily. but if you want something a bit more on the high end we can see if we can get it into your budget.


country india, budget 600 dollar
m
0
l
September 28, 2013 11:43:11 PM

Intel i5 4670k for sure if I were to choose between those two.
Frankly your needs don't demand so high CPU you could well be happy with an i3 too; and as ingtar33 said, if you are making a high end system then you got to fix and mention your budget.
But in the end I feel you could be pretty much happy with a casual system judging from your tasks.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 28, 2013 11:43:42 PM

Get i5 - it is a lot better than 8320 in single threaded apps, and just a bit slower in multithreaded apps (but that depends on OC'ed GHz).

Why get i5 then? Well, you will be able to easily upgrade to i7 in the future while with 8320 you will not have any upgrade path.
m
0
l
a c 297 à CPUs
September 28, 2013 11:50:09 PM

Bharatcs said:
ingtar33 said:
what's your budget and what country are you in?

frankly your desires could be matched with a low end build pretty easily. but if you want something a bit more on the high end we can see if we can get it into your budget.


country india, budget 600 dollar


a $600 budget in india... hrm... prices are high in india. let me chew on that one. i don't think you'll want an intel at that price point. not even sure you'll want an 8320... maybe a 6300... let me chew on this for a bit.
m
0
l
September 28, 2013 11:51:22 PM

Ok ,i just want a build thats up to my needs thats all max budget 600.
m
0
l
September 28, 2013 11:57:25 PM

ingtar33 said:
Bharatcs said:
ingtar33 said:
what's your budget and what country are you in?

frankly your desires could be matched with a low end build pretty easily. but if you want something a bit more on the high end we can see if we can get it into your budget.


country india, budget 600 dollar


a $600 budget in india... hrm... prices are high in india. let me chew on that one. i don't think you'll want an intel at that price point. not even sure you'll want an 8320... maybe a 6300... let me chew on this for a bit.


correct mate, actually online prices are overpriced but from wholesalers there is a difference of about 40-50 dollars cheaper.also gpu cost is higher,not much change
so which build should i go for
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 29, 2013 12:57:48 AM

Bharatcs said:
ingtar33 said:
programing... heavy or otherwise isn't all that cpu intensive. waiting for a program to compile is measured in seconds not minutes. but yes, you probably will be able to time the haswell as a critical 2 or 3 seconds faster then the fx on a big hefty piece of code. Seriously now... while i don't disagree that intel cpus are better then amd cpus, i think sometimes people lose a lot of perspective about how big a difference we're talking about. If you just have one monitor with a 60hz refresh rate, you'll NEVER tell the difference between an AMD cpu or Intel when gaming (yes even in skyrim or civ5). You gpu is far more important then your pc is for giving you a better or worse gaming experience.

If by building an AMD rig you're able to squeeze an SSD or better gpu into your budget, Get the AMD. it will feel like a better computer with either of those upgrades. If your rig will be identical regardless of the cpu you use, then get the intel, as, it is a slightly better part. if you have 3 monitors and plan to SLi/xfire and all of them are 144hz monitors, then get the intel. otherwise you'll never tell the difference unless the two hypothetical rigs are sitting next to each other and you have a stopwatch in your hand.


I'am totaly confused.these are my trouble.
1.The computer sellers tell amd loses performance as it gets old.
2.if i choose intel i cant get a good gpu,but iam afraid i will lose performance if i go for amd,thus wasting money.
Chaos..:|


I think that dude said the right thing and you should listen to him.

Yeah, Intel one is more powerful, but it's nowhere near significant really. The GPU advice is sound, although CPU is not to be underestimated, but FX one should do well enough for everything.

As on the CPU longevity, either will do fine for 3 years and more. Worst case scenario - there is a warranty. Don't do the useless overclocking, don't mess with the components like CPU heatsink or paste after the initial installation and it will last all the time you need.

On the overclocking - don't do it, it's useless and pointless. It does not matter really, if whatever you do runs well, then don't screw with it and if it runs like shit, then overclocking won't really change it.


Oh and with lower budget definitely go AMD, their CPU's have amazing value in them, anything same price from Intel would probably be worse (except for that FX95whatever failure).
m
0
l
September 29, 2013 1:21:35 AM

I believe that if performance in alone is your main concern i would definitily go with the 4650k as it performes better in single threaded applications (which most games are) and consume a lot less power . But... On the other hand you could spend your money on a 8320 which is cheaper and pick up a cheaper motherboard and then save your money on a nice mid tier graphics card (gtx760 or 7870) which will make a more of a difference in performance for gaming . I would even consider dropping to a fx6300 or a i3 as that will be fine for gaming and the tasks you require in your $600 dollar budget .
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 29, 2013 2:02:03 AM

For gaming pass on the i7. Put saved money into gpu.

Also, multiple monitor gaming makes the cpu work less due to the gpu usually being the bottleneck with huge resolutions.

Finally... for longevity go for the i5 hands down. Atm the fx is plenty nearly all games and seem close to intel in performance in gaming. However, if you find benchmarks with dual or more gpus, or reduced resolution to remove gpu bottleneck, the true power of the i5 starts to show. Amd simply bottlenecks hard in these scenarios compared to intel. This gives us a glimpse into the future, once gpus get stronger and games get more demanding requiring strong gpu setups the amd users will be upgrading and you'll just need to overclock. There is a reason intel doesnt scale great with overclocking in most games, the gpu is the bottleneck, its already overkill.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 29, 2013 3:26:58 AM

Well.. I also live in India and I might be able to help you out, but we need to know some more things :

1. What parts do you need in that 600 dollar budget.
2. So, do you want a build under 40,000 rupees? (little more than 600 dollars.)
3. Also what are you going to use it for? Gaming, Video Editing, etc?
4. What parts do you already have? Maybe from your old rig?
m
0
l
September 29, 2013 4:56:15 AM

Sangeet Khatri said:
Well.. I also live in India and I might be able to help you out, but we need to know some more things :

1. What parts do you need in that 600 dollar budget.
2. So, do you want a build under 40,000 rupees? (little more than 600 dollars.)
3. Also what are you going to use it for? Gaming, Video Editing, etc?
4. What parts do you already have? Maybe from your old rig?



this includes cpu,motherboard,gpu,smps,hdd and ram.
Not above 600
i will be using it for
casual gaming
browsing
watching movie
large pdf files
programming
basic things
i have a cooler master elite case

also friends i will buy i5 4670 and a h87 motherboard now with other parts,it will be in budget.
Then later buy a graphics card?
m
0
l
September 29, 2013 5:45:05 AM

The 4670k is a mid range CPU

Go with i5 4670k it beat that other CPU Easily all sides

Hope that help.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 29, 2013 5:59:53 AM

Do not go with the Intel, go with the AMD instead. The lower price of the AMD chip will allow us to get a much better GPU and the GPU is what matters the most for gaming.

Hence I recommend this build.

CPU: AMD FX 6300 6 Core CPU (₹7674 @ Flipkart)
Mobo: MSI 970A-G46 (₹5879 @ Flipkart)
RAM: Kingston HyperX 8GB 1600Mhz CL9 (₹4719 @ Flipkart)
PSU: Corsair Cx 500 80 Plus (₹3890 @ Flipkart)
HDD: Seagate Barracuda 1TB HDD (₹4575 @ Flipkart)
Graphics Card: MSI NVIDIA N660-2GD5/OC 2 GB (₹15688 @ Flipkart)
Total: ₹42425

Just one thing. Don't overclock with this build. If you want an overclocking motherboard, then add 200 more to it. If you are not overclocking then that is fine.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 29, 2013 6:14:24 AM

hafijur said:
The cpu matters more then the gpu. If you are cpu bottlenecked whats the point of having a faster gpu. In fact thats why intel cpus are the best value option its gets those fps higher of lower end cards. For example some games are 40fps on an fx6300 with dips to 20fps could be 80fps with dips to 70fps with the same gpu with an intel cpu. I think amd cpus are priced just about right intel are great value hough for what you are getting.

Intel cpus come with dx11igpu. Look at how much an i3 costs with hd 4600 and an a10-6800k. The i3 is priced similar with similar gpu performance taking around 80w less for same price.


1. No, the 6300 would never ever bottleneck the 660 at all. Get your facts right.

2. Clearly just going for the Intel CPU is not going to increase the FPS to twice. This is clearly not how it works.

3. Clearly, the things you are saying makes no sense at all. I am quite surprised that even though you have some seriously wrong information about how gaming works you still have the CPU Authority badge.

Always remember that for gaming, the basic thing that matters is that you need a CPU that can push the GPU to it's maximum. That is all you need. And as far as I know the FX 6300 is easily able to push the Nvidia 660 to it's maximum.

And please get your facts right. You are not supposed to be suggesting wrong things to guys at TomsHardware.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 29, 2013 7:09:52 AM

hafijur said:
You can see here that games that use 4 cores intel cpus get double the fps:
http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-core-i...
http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-core-i...

Now that is for 2x7970 but all I am saying is in games that use 4 cores expect intel in cpu bound games to get a lot more fps. That review actually shows how linear the gains are for intel ivy bridge 2x ipc ovr piledriver fx cpu.


Well.. that test is neither for the i5, nor for the FX 6300 and neither it has the 660 in it.

Also you simply cannot compare 2 x 7970 with a single mid range 660, it is not at all relevant.

Please do not just simply show any benchmark for anything. It does not make sense. You are like confusing the OP.
m
0
l
a c 222 à CPUs
September 29, 2013 9:31:24 AM

hafijur, you need to pay attention to the OP's budget and in this case his budget does not allow for an i5-4670k, as much as you like to push Intel on every one there are those that just can't afford it.
Those benchmarks that you linked have nothing in common with what's being discussed in this thread, i7-3770k, FX-8350, 16gb of 2400ghz ram and 2x 7970. You can't get any further from what the OP can afford and those components will give completely different benchmarks from the components being discussed here.

If you can't make reasonable suggestions according to the OPs budget and back it up with benchmarks to support it then don't post in this forum you are causing confusion with people trying to figure out what your talking about.
m
0
l
September 29, 2013 12:01:39 PM

if you are not a serious gamer than you donot need a graphic card the 4670k as it"s has hd 4600 which is okay for mid setting modern games and it is better than a 1GB sapphire radeon hd 6450
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 29, 2013 1:07:23 PM

Really, get a grip, dudes.

If you have a tight budget, then without a doubt I would suggest AMD FX-8320 - it's a CPU with a great value, good performance and relatively cheap too.

Don't go Intel, it's true that they are usually better, but it's not an earth-shattering difference, while the price is much heavier.

And this comes for a guy using I7-4770 here. Obvious things are obvious.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 29, 2013 1:24:11 PM

Gaidax said:
Really, get a grip, dudes.

If you have a tight budget, then without a doubt I would suggest AMD FX-8320 - it's a CPU with a great value, good performance and relatively cheap too.

Don't go Intel, it's true that they are usually better, but it's not an earth-shattering difference, while the price is much heavier.

And this comes for a guy using I7-4770 here. Obvious things are obvious.


It can actually mean a pretty big difference in certain applications. And the price difference isn't really earth shattering for everyone either. It's all about what you're willing to spend and what you want to get for your money. If you have the money and don't mind spending it, the 4670k is the smart buy. If funds are limited and the FX-8350 is all you can afford, go for it.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 29, 2013 1:32:59 PM

VenBaja said:
Gaidax said:
Really, get a grip, dudes.

If you have a tight budget, then without a doubt I would suggest AMD FX-8320 - it's a CPU with a great value, good performance and relatively cheap too.

Don't go Intel, it's true that they are usually better, but it's not an earth-shattering difference, while the price is much heavier.

And this comes for a guy using I7-4770 here. Obvious things are obvious.


It can actually mean a pretty big difference in certain applications. And the price difference isn't really earth shattering for everyone either. It's all about what you're willing to spend and what you want to get for your money. If you have the money and don't mind spending it, the 4670k is the smart buy. If funds are limited and the FX-8350 is all you can afford, go for it.


True. but the op set 600$ budget and at this range AMD makes most sense, since blowing half the budget for Intel and Intel motherboard is just not smart/
m
0
l
a c 222 à CPUs
September 29, 2013 2:01:24 PM

It is unfortunate that in other parts of the world prices are much higher so hard choices have to be made to make your budget work. Yes everyone knows that Intel is better in gaming but when all the benchmarks are reviewed you find that an AMD CPU is able to play games and is not that far behind so your not making a bad decision by going with an AMD CPU because of cost.
Don't forget we're talking about gaming here and the video card is going to make the biggest difference so all you need is a good quad core and put as much of your budget towards the video card as you can.
The FX-6300 (rs.7874) is a six core and makes perfect sense for a low budget PC as it lets you get a very decent Graphics card. I happen to use an Intel CPU but it's because I can afford it and I recommend CPUs according to a persons budget and needs.
In the end the OP has to decide if he wants or has to stay in budget and that will determine which way he goes.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 29, 2013 11:11:45 PM

I don't think that living in India you can build anything better than this considering that he is able to stretch his budget to a bit more. The prices are insane here.

Also do not comment on other's builds. If you can improve something then suggest your own build. The build that I am suggesting is 100% budget restrained. So, I cannot recommend him the i5 even if I wanted to because it would cross like 15,000 rupees over his budget which is why I suggested him this build. It is a little more than the budget but completely worth it, because I don't recommend getting anything less than the 660 for gaming as for now.

CPU: AMD FX 6300 6 Core CPU (₹7674 @ Flipkart)
Mobo: MSI 970A-G46 (₹5879 @ Flipkart)
RAM: Kingston HyperX 8GB 1600Mhz CL9 (₹4719 @ Flipkart)
PSU: Corsair Cx 500 80 Plus (₹3890 @ Flipkart)
HDD: Seagate Barracuda 1TB HDD (₹4575 @ Flipkart)
Graphics Card: MSI NVIDIA N660-2GD5/OC 2 GB (₹15688 @ Flipkart)
Total: ₹42425

Guys just don't post things like, no this part is not fine and that part is not fine..

If you can do anything then improve it and post another build similar to this.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 30, 2013 1:06:07 AM

At a $600 USD price point going with a $240 USD CPU isn't a very good idea. fx8320 is $160 USD and the fx6350 is $140 USD. Going with either of those gives you solid CPU performance while leaving a good chunk of the budget for a decent MB, case, PSU, memory and a dGPU. You being in India just exacerbates the problem even more.
m
0
l
a c 166 à CPUs
September 30, 2013 2:59:37 AM

I would propose to swap the motherboard to:

http://www.flipkart.com/asus-m5a97-le-motherboard/p/itm...

The advantages the Asus has over MSI:
-thicker PCB
-better power design (the MSI is 4+1, this is 4+2 as well as higher quality capacitors)
-same prices
-better customer support from Asus (hope that it is not needed at all)

And the third argument can sound biased to some people who like MSI, but in my experience, under no circumstances I will ever recommend MSI. The biggest % of failed boards are MSI. And MSI products are not that lasting.

P.S http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/325414-30-decent-bo...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 30, 2013 9:33:48 AM

But it is like thousand rupees more expensive.

Also note that the MSI 970A G46 comes with heatsink on the VRM wheras the ASUS M5A97 LE does not have heatsink on the VRM.

Also MSI 970 boards fail only when people try to overclock with them. But clearly neither the MSI 970A-G46 nor the Asus M5A97 L.E is designed for overclocking in mind.

So, my final advice is :

Go for the MSI board, just DO NOT overclock on it, it should be just fine.
m
0
l
a c 166 à CPUs
September 30, 2013 10:57:57 AM

Also you should note that if there is heatsink on the VRM that means that it needs. For such a low end board to get hot VRMs that only means bad implementation or marketing gimmick. Also note that even if on the MSI website they show support for CPUs of 125W it is actually too much for the board. Anything above 95 will strain the board too much and it will fail in few years. I found tons of such reports for this specific board. That board hold great value but paired with an 95W or less CPU.

The Asus board is 140W rated. Those 771 you are bragging about come to a good use. It is better to throw few bucks more than to be sorry later. Because if a board fails, it may take all your components with it, if you are unlucky.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 30, 2013 12:36:46 PM

I have to agree with Shneiky here. There are two components you never want to buy cheap, PSU's and MB's. They both handle large amounts of power and are central to your systems stability, going cheap just has you replacing them sooner rather then later or pulling your hair out from random reboots and such.
m
0
l
a c 222 à CPUs
September 30, 2013 2:11:56 PM

MSI boards are terrible they brag about military grade parts but the make the board too thin and that in not military grade. Any one that picks up a MSI board and a Gigabyte or Asus board can feel the weight difference and the board stiffness. The MSI board bends far too easily , I bought one of their high end boards (Big Bang Power) and was installing the heat sink on it when I noticed the board starting to bend and it wasn't even tightened all the way yet. I replaced that one with the Gigabyte G1 Assassin and the board was twice the thickness of the MSI.
So I wasn't buying cheap inexpensive boards here and the difference was very noticeable.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 30, 2013 2:27:09 PM

fx 6300 would be the best p/p, only 100$ lol
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 1, 2013 3:24:29 AM

Well.. I think the MSI board can handle the FX 6300 which is in fact only a 95W CPU.

The condition remains that same that he should not overclock.

I think the MSI board is good enough for a 95W CPU. Yes, I would not recommend it for a 125W CPU, but for 95W CPU, it is just enough.
m
0
l
a c 166 à CPUs
October 1, 2013 4:10:49 AM

You do realize that that TDP does not mean actual power draw. TDP is Thermal Design Power - or in other words, it points out what type of cooler it needs. This CPU draws up around 105-110W at full load. It is also common knowledge (if you have the experience) that FX CPUs always top and go higher than their TDP at full load.

Also I saw your "gaming builds" list and I saw that you have that MSI board in 2 of them. Fanboyism?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 1, 2013 8:31:40 AM

Nah.. not at all fanboyism. I thought that the G46 was good enough for the FX 6300. I would soon change them to something else now that I know this.

Another thing that made me recommend this board was because in one of TomsHardware build, the 650$ one at http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/build-a-pc-fx-6300-... , they used the MSI 970A-G43 which does not have heatsink on the VRM too but they were able to get a decent overclock from them. Though I do not suggest that one, I thought since they were able to overclock on the version which does not have heatsink on the VRM, I thought the G46 which has heatsink should do better.

But anyways now since so many people are teling me that it is prone to being burned out, so I take back that board from my recommdation and would soon change the boards in my build to something other than G-46 as far as the FX 6300 builds are concerned.

Thanks for your information, I really appreciate it.

After all.. we all learn things each day. Today was my day to learn. :) 
m
0
l
October 2, 2013 2:30:28 AM

Friends this is what i found

first fx 6300
power under full load 227w
normal 102w

i5 4670
full load 132w
normal 79w

so if i use it 4 hours with 3.5hours full load and .5 hours normal daily.in a month
Fx consumes 25 kwh
i5 consumes 15 kwh
but fx pc needs a graphics card assuming msi 660
total power consumption of fx pc in a month is 60 kwh.:o 
total power consumtion of i5 pc in a month is 15 kwh.(using hd 4600).

So extra power consumed is 45 kwh in a month.

In a year 540 kwh.

Power Cost a in year:close to 70 dollar .(excess usage you pay higher rates per unit as a average home uses 100-200 kwh plus fx pc = more fine charge)

iam going for intel,not for fx garbage. Because in the end you pay more than cost of an intel.

And with saving i can buy a gpu later.

Is it soo dump to buy a cheap cpu for low performane then end up paying the cost of a higher cpu.

Note* energy cost used in calculation as per kseb india
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2013 2:39:08 AM

fx 6300 on full load very unrealistic
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2013 4:47:33 AM

Seriously, the power output is not that different as the guy told a few posts ago.

Yeah! The AMD requires quite more power but it is not so much like 45 dollar price difference.

I ran the Phenom II X4 965 BE CPU which is like 125W and seriously, the power consumption is not that much high as you are telling. The diference is not that much.

Seriously, power consumption by a CPU is not that much. The real power consumption in a gaming rig is because of the GPU, Motherboard, etc.

The price difference between AMD and Intel CPU in terms of power consumptioon would not be more than 10-15 dollars at most.

So, I think you should go for the AMD.

If not, then go for the 4670k sure, but it would take up half your budget, then good luck fitting in a good graphics card at that budget. For gaming GPU matters more than CPU. Always remember it. You just need a CPU that can push the GPU to it's maximum, that is avoid bottleneck, that is it.

Pairing a FX 6300 with a Nvidia 660 would offer much better gaming performance than the 4670k + AMD 7750. So, it is up to you to decide.
m
0
l
October 2, 2013 4:56:44 AM

Marcopolo123 said:
fx 6300 on full load very unrealistic


Sangeet Khatri said:
Seriously, the power output is not that different as the guy told a few posts ago.

Yeah! The AMD requires quite more power but it is not so much like 45 dollar price difference.

I ran the Phenom II X4 965 BE CPU which is like 125W and seriously, the power consumption is not that much high as you are telling. The diference is not that much.

Seriously, power consumption by a CPU is not that much. The real power consumption in a gaming rig is because of the GPU, Motherboard, etc.

The price difference between AMD and Intel CPU in terms of power consumptioon would not be more than 10-15 dollars at most.

So, I think you should go for the AMD.

If not, then go for the 4670k sure, but it would take up half your budget, then good luck fitting in a good graphics card at that budget. For gaming GPU matters more than CPU. Always remember it. You just need a CPU that can push the GPU to it's maximum, that is avoid bottleneck, that is it.

Pairing a FX 6300 with a Nvidia 660 would offer much better gaming performance than the 4670k + AMD 7750. So, it is up to you to decide.


at first i also belived so but not now amd cpu +gpu= large power cosumption for performance.

I have two friends one uses fx 8320 and other phenom 2 x4 .
Both complained to me about higher electricity bills .

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2013 5:34:59 AM

Okay, it is your choice. But I am pretty sure that with your budget, you would not be able to get a good GPU with a 4670k. 7750 should be the most you could afford in the build budget of yours if you go for the 4670k and that GPU is not at all good for gaming.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2013 8:35:20 AM

Pricing in India is a lot different and hence you should not compare it to the prices at UK. We at India pay like 30-40 percent more than the guys at UK do and the difference with USA is like 50 percent. So prices are not directly comparable. Everything is overpriced here, not sure why... but it is the way it is.
m
0
l
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest