Best CPU 100$ Range to use without GPU?

Are you planning on playing any games on this computer at all?
Do you already have ram, power supply and everything else?

Also is this American dollars?

I think you'd be looking at and AMD APU for that price range, with an FM2 motherboard. I don't know enough about them to really recommend one though.

I would look at an AMD A10 5800, or an FX 8 series if I could stretch.

They will terrorize a low budget i3 by any stretch of imagination.

Intel rule the top end, but AMD dominate the midrange, gaming or other. Of course it's a little over your budget but you will make up the difference on the cost of motherboard.

See here for confirmation.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/id-1876779/6600k-a10-5800k-4130.html

I would say to In3rt1a, there are no games I know of right now that are single threaded and by any stretch CPU demanding. We have had dual cores for nearly 10 years now (It'll be 10 years by new year).

Either way, a Quadcore, with equal integer performance per core and half the FP performance is still going to dominate a Dual core with better single thread performance, especially when you bundle that with an IGP that runs circles around Intels. That benefit is literally only visible in older game engines and old intensive apps like old copies of WinZip and Adobe 6 from pre-2005.

Put simply, AMD give you more bang for your buck at the $100 mark. It's not even really debatable unless you are using legacy heavy apps that are single-threaded.

To add to that the OP said he does not intend to game. That means he will probably never use single threaded intensive applications. A quad core is the greatest form of futureproofing he can get. The better IGP is just a bonus.

To genz, I would say that you can hyperthread an intel processor to get 4 cores, and all of his web browsing and word writing isn't going to use more than one core the majority of the time, and if you were to acutally monitor any of your cpus worklaod while gaming, which i have, you would see that I am correct about most games not using more than 1 or 2 cores. Even though the op said he wouldn't game, I was stating that intel>amd for gaming because it was stated earlier that amd is better for gaming.

ANd also, to say that the amd processor of same price as intels has better singlethreaded performance is ridiculous, and has time and time again been proven incorrect (see pretty much every cpu benchmark)

Hyperthreading gives you 4 virtual cores, you don't actually have any more power than you had with it turned off (and only showing two cores), you are only giving your existing two cores work to do when it is supposed to be waiting for data from a slow data source like RAM. This is nowhere near a substitute for another real core. You can get an up to 20% performance boost with a HT core when running inefficient/sloppy code, vs a 70-90% performance boost with another real core which can be gained regardless of the efficiency of the code. HT is an efficiency improvement like better tyres on a car, another physical core is an additional engine.

and all of his web browsing and word writing isn't going to use more than one core the majority of the time

Click to expand...

That's two tasks, which gives both of them the chance to use a core each. Word 2007 and up is multi processing. So is all modern forms of browser including Chrome, Safari, Firefox and IE. The question is not whether they will need that much power, the question was can they use it if they do because it is simple not a question which has the most power if they can use it all: the A10 does. If we were asking what he needs then he would be getting a Pentium model. They word process fine too.

Also, lets not forget he has an Antivirus, Disk scanner, and server hundred services/processes running on that machine all the time.

And also, to say that the amd processor of same price as intels has better singlethreaded performance is ridiculous, and has time and time again been proven incorrect (see pretty much every cpu benchmark)

Click to expand...

I never said it had better single threaded performance. Read it again, then check your benchmarks. If it doesn't break down your benching to the type of commands being sent (Integer vs FP) then check another. And FYI, most office processing is of a very integer nature. Whereas gaming, scientific processing like 3D space and simulation use the most FP commands, every thing else tends to be integer heavy. (Gaming is actually quite a mix, which is why BF4 for example seems biased toward AMD more than Intel when you factor in which chips are commonly regarded as faster than others.)

I was stating that intel>amd for gaming because it was stated earlier that amd is better for gaming.

Click to expand...

AMD is better for gaming in this case. The OP explicitly stated that he did not intend to buy a GPU, so AMD would have been the better gaming solution for him regardless of whether it was the better CPU due to the fact that AMD includes superior GPUs in their APU chips. Had he not said that then yes, Intel may have been a better option, but he did so it was no contest. Intel HDX000 cannot hold a candle to an AMD 8 series GPU. Even the Iris models which they do not offer on desktop i3s can't.

No. An i3 3220 is worse than an i3 - 4130. An i3 4130 has less total power than an AMD A10.

First off, since all he needs to do is power hd videos, intel hd is plently, and still a more powerful cpu, and I was not referring to the integrated graphics when saying intel was superior, I was referring to the compute power. Second off, just because one is using multiple applications, thereby opening a window of opportunity for another core to be utilized, doesn't mean that another core WILL be utilized. A haswell chip at 3.4 ghz doesn't need more than one core to run word processing + web browsing + video watching at the same time. And, if on the off chance it wasn't, hyperthreading would more than make up for any difference. And once again, since all of these applications are based off singlethreaded performance, Intel is superior!

1. To make the assumption that all the average PC user runs off the GPU is HD movies is a stupid one. Had that been the case, Intel could have stopped back at GMA HD. They did not. Why? Webkit is OpenGL, HTML5 leverages OpenGL, Unity, Java, Flash, and many many more all use your GPU, and that's just in your browser. That means your GPU is now directly linked to how fast webpages load in every browser except IE, and powers over 50% of all possible rich content.

Also, the Intel unit is not a more powerful CPU. Do not forget that most office systems can sit there for 10 years plus. In 2024, what would you rather, because I know what will stand the test of time best.

and I was not referring to the integrated graphics when saying intel was superior, I was referring to the compute power.

Click to expand...

2.You were not referring to compute power. You were referring to his statement without realizing that he was speaking in context. Even in compute power you fail as the AMD system has more total compute power, just spread over more threads.

Second off, just because one is using multiple applications, thereby opening a window of opportunity for another core to be utilized, doesn't mean that another core WILL be utilized. A haswell chip at 3.4 ghz doesn't need more than one core to run word processing + web browsing + video watching at the same time.

Click to expand...

Erm. This is pretty irrelevant. A P4 from 2004 can run word processing + web browsing + video watching.

And, if on the off chance it wasn't, hyperthreading would more than make up for any difference. And once again, since all of these applications are based off singlethreaded performance,

Click to expand...

No it wouldn't. There is no situation where hyper-threading would offer any performance boost to any of the offered scenarios here. Maybe very large scale word processing would see benefits, but nothing compared to the benefits of additional real cores. Web Browsing and Video watching are both heavily dependent on being linear (Web browsing being limited by network, and mostly using an insignificant amount of CPU, and asking from the GPU much more often than it really taxes CPU, and Video being purely GPU reliant)

Intel is superior!

Click to expand...

Can you stop it. You really are starting to ignore all of the important things I have stated so you can stick to your fanboyisms to RAM Intel down his throat.

I'm writing from a i7E - 3930k machine. I love Intel, but it's not about brand, it's about which chip is better than which at a certain price point. Leave your bias at the door.

My bias will come in the door with me, because of personally poor experiences with amd products and friends with poor experiences as well. If your are a fanboy of something, it is because you have had a good experience with said product, which I have had with intel, and have not had with amd. I am not ignoring the plethora of incorrect facts you've posted, I'm refuting them because I believe they are incorrect, and that intel is a better brand of processor and the right decision for the op's build. Leave your arrogance at the door.

$126.21 will get you this motherboard and CPU.
It will do everything you want just fine.
You do not need hyperthreading, you do not need AMD APU graphics to watch youtube videos and spending anymore than this will be a waste of money.
This CPU is a pentium which basically a new haswell core i3 without hyperthreading on SALE

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00D12OAOG/?tag=pcpapi-20

http://www.outletpc.com/gh1197-intel-pentium-g3220-dual-core-lga-1150-cpu.html?utm_source=gh1197-intel-pentium-g3220-dual-core-lga-1150-cpu&utm_medium=shopping%2Bengine&utm_campaign=pcpartpicker&utm_content=Intel%2B-%2BCPUs%20%28Processors%29%20%3E%20Intel%20Dual%20Core%20%3E%20Intel%20G%20Series

Please excuse the Fanboyism in this thread. It happens a lot in these forums.
But take it from some who has a complete AMD system themselves that this intel set up is all you will need.

get an A4 6300. only $60 and will do any normal pc thing. streaming, browsing, word, it could even do some decent gaming if paired with a gpu.
It's only $60

UPDATE: as I posted this jay2577 posted the i3 on sale... You can't really beat that. I'd go with that. and to avoid any flame, I should have said if you want to save as much money go with an A4. but that i3 and mobo will be about the same price and will be faster.

Guys are you kidding me ? A simple question by OP gets turned into an amd vs Intel war. He just said he needs a cheap CPU mobo combo with integrated graphics to drive high qualify videos. SO the simple answer to his question is an A8-6600k with an FM2 A75 mobo or a Haswell Intel Pentium or core i3 with a cheap H87/H81 or B85 mobo.

+1

I commented pretty simply, then came back and read this thread. :lol: For simple tasks, either would be fine.

If you live close to a microcenter you can get this for $99.99
The Core i3 4130 3.4GHz processor is very quick indeed

http://www.microcenter.com/product/419424/Core_i3_4130_34GHz_LGA_1150_Boxed_Processor

Intel Core i3 4330 Dual Core HYPER-THREADING 3.5GHZ Processor LGA1150 Haswell 4MB Cache Retail Our Price: $119.97
Canadian Funds
Reg. Price: $144.33
Instant Savings: $24.36

http://www.directcanada.com/products/?sku=16950BD4785&vpn=BX80646I34330&manufacture=Others

I don't know if you will find a better deal. That's the best i could find from the UK