Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

A10-7850k vs i5-4670k vs FX8350

Tags:
  • Gaming
  • CPUs
  • Intel i5
  • Build
Last response: in CPUs
January 16, 2014 9:56:04 AM

Hi All,

I m gonna build my new pc .. pls suggest me between these CPUs. i m curious to know which one is better for GAMING !

& FPS in Games ?:
CS:GO
Black Ops 2
Call of Duty Ghost
Battleflied 3 & 4
GTA 4

My Monitor (LG W1941S) Max Resolution : 1360x768

& Going to Buy :
8GB Corsair Vengeance
550w Corsair Power Supply

Motherboard Chipset :
A10 with A88X
Fx 8350 with 990XA
i5 4670k with z87

Tight Budget & at least survive 5 years :) 

should i go for CPU+iGPU Or DCPU & DGPU still confusing :( 

More about : a10 7850k 4670k fx8350

a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2014 9:58:16 AM

4670k, hands down the overall best. There are a few edge cases where the 8350 makes sense if that's all you use it for, the 7850k is only good for casual gaming boxes and that's about it.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2014 10:00:01 AM

I would go with the 8350 but you would need a Graphics card to go along with it. I would suggest and HD 7850 or HD 7790. If you don't want to get a Graphics card than get the A-10. It has a GPU built into it and it would play all of those games very well.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2014 10:03:50 AM

Tight budget? Go with a 6300 instead and a 785/7870/r9 270/270x.

Of the three, the i5 would be the winner if the PC is solely for gaming.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 80 à CPUs
January 16, 2014 10:06:13 AM

the 4670k..............but you need a discreet card because the onchip graphics isn't as good as the APU's.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 154 à CPUs
January 16, 2014 10:10:50 AM

As a pure CPU, the A10-7850K is, performance-wise, like an FX-8350 cut in half. At best. It has a newer architecture, but lower clocks and no L3 cache.

The integrated GPU in the A10-7850K is quite a lot better than the one in the Core i5-4670K, and the FX-8350 doesn't even have one.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2014 10:45:31 AM

Given all other hardware being equal, i5 is ranked over the FX-8350, which is ranked over the A10-series. However, since you also mentioned that you're on a tight budget, that is going to limit some of your hardware choices. AMD's CPUs are cheaper (FX is about $20 less than the i5, & the A10-6800K is about $70 cheaper), so for gaming you can counterbalance the lower CPUs with a better GPU and/or more memory.

The biggest question, though, is what resolution you can achieve on your monitor. If you're looking at higher resolutions (1920x1080 or higher), you'll want the FX or i5 with a mid-range GPU. If, however, your monitor limits you to lower resolutions (i.e. 1600x900, 1280x720, etc.), then an A10 will be more than sufficient for you (& might allow you to afford an SSD).
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 154 à CPUs
January 16, 2014 11:00:49 AM

spdragoo said:
The biggest question, though, is what resolution you can achieve on your monitor. If you're looking at higher resolutions (1920x1080 or higher), you'll want the FX or i5 with a mid-range GPU. If, however, your monitor limits you to lower resolutions (i.e. 1600x900, 1280x720, etc.), then an A10 will be more than sufficient for you (& might allow you to afford an SSD).

Not really. A lower resolution doesn't really lower the CPU load. You need just as much CPU performance for 1600x900 as you do for 1920x1080.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2014 11:20:29 AM

Your best bet for gaming ONLY would be a 6350/6300 and using the money you save on a graphics card. I am running a 6300 with a 7870, and I can say without a doubt that pairing a 970 series motherboard with those two parts is probably the best value for high- very high @ 1080p and medium-high at 1440p
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2014 11:22:10 AM

Sakkura said:
spdragoo said:
The biggest question, though, is what resolution you can achieve on your monitor. If you're looking at higher resolutions (1920x1080 or higher), you'll want the FX or i5 with a mid-range GPU. If, however, your monitor limits you to lower resolutions (i.e. 1600x900, 1280x720, etc.), then an A10 will be more than sufficient for you (& might allow you to afford an SSD).

Not really. A lower resolution doesn't really lower the CPU load. You need just as much CPU performance for 1600x900 as you do for 1920x1080.


he was referring to needing the iGPU on the A-10 vs pairing a mid-tier GPU with a FX or i5

m
0
l
a c 337 4 Gaming
a c 639 à CPUs
January 16, 2014 11:40:22 AM

On a budget the best CPU to buy would be the FX-6300. It can be bought at Newegg.com for $120.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?gclid=CP-k14...


The A10-7850k sells for $174 at Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00H7Z7YMI/?tag=pcper04-20


In terms of just CPU core performance, the FX series out performs Kaveri APUs. Without a doubt the Kaveri APU's integrated graphics core (iGPU) outperforms the FX series... then again the FX series do not have iGPUs. In terms of iGPU performance, the high end Radeon HD 8650D in Richland APUs performs the same as a Radeon HD 6670 DDR3 graphics card. The high end R7 iGPU in Kaveri APUs only performs a little better at around 11%. That still makes it slower than a Radeon HD 5670 DDR5 graphics card.

The price difference between the FX-6300 and the A10-7850k is $54. Toss in another $26 and you can buy a budget Radeon HD 7750 graphics card ($80 after rebate). Install it with the FX-6300 CPU and that combo will slap the A10-7850k and it's integrated GPU silly.... for just $26 more.... assuming the FM2+ and AM3+ motherboards cost the same.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 154 à CPUs
January 16, 2014 12:34:56 PM

rishiswaz said:
he was referring to needing the iGPU on the A-10 vs pairing a mid-tier GPU with a FX or i5


But if the CPU performance of the A10 is sufficient at low resolution, its CPU performance would still be sufficient at high resolution. All you'd have to do would be to add a graphics card.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
January 17, 2014 4:50:55 AM

Sakkura said:
rishiswaz said:
he was referring to needing the iGPU on the A-10 vs pairing a mid-tier GPU with a FX or i5


But if the CPU performance of the A10 is sufficient at low resolution, its CPU performance would still be sufficient at high resolution. All you'd have to do would be to add a graphics card.


Yes, but that's the whole point of the APUs: buying a single chip to handle both the CPU and the GPU functions. Even if an APU costs you $60 more than an FX-series chip, you're saving money becuase you don't have to shell out $150-300+ for a discrete graphics card. And unless you're going to be playing at high- to super-high-level resolutions, you don't even need a midrange/enthusiast, let alone high-end, GPU to reach playable FPS levels.

So again, since he's talking about a tight budget, we need to know what resolution he plans on playing at, especially if he's not replacing his monitor. If we're talking 1600x900 (which is what my 21" monitor can handle), or even 1366x768 (maximum resolution on my wife's 15.6" laptop), then an A10 with at least 8GB of RAM is going to be a good budget-conscious build for him (& might even let him afford to use an SSD for his OS and a conventional drive for his regular files). If he's planning 1920x1080 or higher, then the better choice would be an FX-6300/-6350 paired with a $100-200 discrete GPU (foregoing the SSD).

Of course, having actual budget numbers would be nice as well.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 154 à CPUs
January 17, 2014 5:15:36 AM

For a full system build, we would need to know what resolution he'll be playing at, yes. But not for just an isolated CPU decision.
m
0
l
January 17, 2014 5:47:34 AM

spdragoo said:
Sakkura said:
rishiswaz said:
he was referring to needing the iGPU on the A-10 vs pairing a mid-tier GPU with a FX or i5


But if the CPU performance of the A10 is sufficient at low resolution, its CPU performance would still be sufficient at high resolution. All you'd have to do would be to add a graphics card.


Yes, but that's the whole point of the APUs: buying a single chip to handle both the CPU and the GPU functions. Even if an APU costs you $60 more than an FX-series chip, you're saving money becuase you don't have to shell out $150-300+ for a discrete graphics card. And unless you're going to be playing at high- to super-high-level resolutions, you don't even need a midrange/enthusiast, let alone high-end, GPU to reach playable FPS levels.

So again, since he's talking about a tight budget, we need to know what resolution he plans on playing at, especially if he's not replacing his monitor. If we're talking 1600x900 (which is what my 21" monitor can handle), or even 1366x768 (maximum resolution on my wife's 15.6" laptop), then an A10 with at least 8GB of RAM is going to be a good budget-conscious build for him (& might even let him afford to use an SSD for his OS and a conventional drive for his regular files). If he's planning 1920x1080 or higher, then the better choice would be an FX-6300/-6350 paired with a $100-200 discrete GPU (foregoing the SSD).

Of course, having actual budget numbers would be nice as well.


The A10 isn't a good buy at US$173.
If he's planning low resolution gaming, he can buy today a Pentium G + HD 7770GE (or even 7790, looking carefully) for US$3, US$ more than the A10's price.

I can guarantee you that the performance of a budget Pentium (or even Athlon) CPU plus a HD 7770GE will outclass the A10 completely in every single title. In fact, it can even reach 60 fps @ 1080p if you lower some settings.
m
0
l
January 17, 2014 6:00:48 AM

A10-7850K will be able to support dual graphics with discrete DX10 and DX11 based GPUs. In conjunction with the upcoming Crossfire frame pacing drivers, this will add significant FPS to your discrete card. Current beta drivers only support R7 series discrete cards but support for others will be added in the near future. So an R9 270X can get you running Bioshock Infinite in Ultra settings @ 90fps. This is currently WITHOUT support for Mantle.

On its own, i5-4670k is better for current gaming. In the future, the octocore is likely to outrank it if multi-threading catches on big time. In conjunction with a Radeon card (GCN Only) the A10-7850K will be superior to both primarily due to the inherent FPS boost... which you would otherwise only gain from forking out for a much more expensive card without the CPU upgrade.

All three processors can be overclocked stably, significantly. The power consumption of all three is largely irrelevant. The advanced tech in A10-7850K will only gain more and more support, as is happening with AMD in general at present. So, take the plunge and reap the probable future benefits or hedge your bets and get definite good value for money with the FX. Of course if you have the cash lying around, the i5 is still the winner for raw power.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
January 17, 2014 6:30:47 AM

S0kar said:
A10-7850K will be able to support dual graphics with discrete DX10 and DX11 based GPUs. In conjunction with the upcoming Crossfire frame pacing drivers, this will add significant FPS to your discrete card. Current beta drivers only support R7 series discrete cards but support for others will be added in the near future. So an R9 270X can get you running Bioshock Infinite in Ultra settings @ 90fps. This is currently WITHOUT support for Mantle.


This has never worked anywhere near close to properly or well in the past, what makes you think this time it will magically be awesome?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 17, 2014 6:44:52 AM

Long story short the i5 has better ipc, power/watt, and raw processing power, but that does come with a hefty price tag; FX series 6 and 8 core solutions are good enough to not bottleneck graphics cards for higher resolutions and multi monitor setups; APUs have value in that in a lower TDP they are able to provide decent CPU and GPU power at lower resolutions.
For price it would be FX<APU<i5 for just the CPU if you are going with the 6300.
m
0
l
January 17, 2014 7:16:52 AM

S0kar said:
A10-7850K will be able to support dual graphics with discrete DX10 and DX11 based GPUs. In conjunction with the upcoming Crossfire frame pacing drivers, this will add significant FPS to your discrete card. Current beta drivers only support R7 series discrete cards but support for others will be added in the near future. So an R9 270X can get you running Bioshock Infinite in Ultra settings @ 90fps. This is currently WITHOUT support for Mantle.

On its own, i5-4670k is better for current gaming. In the future, the octocore is likely to outrank it if multi-threading catches on big time. In conjunction with a Radeon card (GCN Only) the A10-7850K will be superior to both primarily due to the inherent FPS boost... which you would otherwise only gain from forking out for a much more expensive card without the CPU upgrade.

All three processors can be overclocked stably, significantly. The power consumption of all three is largely irrelevant. The advanced tech in A10-7850K will only gain more and more support, as is happening with AMD in general at present. So, take the plunge and reap the probable future benefits or hedge your bets and get definite good value for money with the FX. Of course if you have the cash lying around, the i5 is still the winner for raw power.


Dual graphics is still broken in many titles. We cannot assume that it's a viable solution when micro stuttering is so hideous that games at a higher FPS due dual graphics actually looks worse when compared to the dGPU alone.

We've been being promised a fix with drivers since llano.

-

About the HSA capabilities that you mentioned as 'gaining more and more support', good as it is, we never had in computing history software adoption fast enough to justify the purchase of a hardware with the mentality that 'it will get better and better over time'. What always happens is that when the software support is mature enough for the new technology to be actually relevant, it's already time to buy a new CPU for the one you purchased as an early adopter is already outdated.

It may be different with Kaveri, but history teach us not to rely on software that may never come when deciding what to buy.

That being said, I wouldn't rely on tricky dual graphics or future support for HSA to choose the A10.
m
0
l
January 17, 2014 7:42:44 AM

Traciatim said:
S0kar said:
A10-7850K will be able to support dual graphics with discrete DX10 and DX11 based GPUs. In conjunction with the upcoming Crossfire frame pacing drivers, this will add significant FPS to your discrete card. Current beta drivers only support R7 series discrete cards but support for others will be added in the near future. So an R9 270X can get you running Bioshock Infinite in Ultra settings @ 90fps. This is currently WITHOUT support for Mantle.


This has never worked anywhere near close to properly or well in the past, what makes you think this time it will magically be awesome?


Yep, dud frames being dropped all over the place so the FPS is there but not truly visible in all circumstances. This time AMD have got TrueAudio, Mantle and Steamroller out of the way and so not only are more able to but more inclined to deliver the promised results.

Dual graphics with Kaveri from first hand experience is greatly improved, with a few broken titles still as you say but after the beta drivers are ironed out this should improve. It is a should not a definitely however as you say and SHOULD have been done long ago.

Either way as of right now, benchmarks between the Kaveri and Piledriver models are pretty tied in terms of CPU performance only, albeit accompanied by a price increase with the more recent range.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
January 17, 2014 8:10:54 AM

S0kar said:
Yep, dud frames being dropped all over the place so the FPS is there but not truly visible in all circumstances. This time AMD have got TrueAudio, Mantle and Steamroller out of the way and so not only are more able to but more inclined to deliver the promised results.

Dual graphics with Kaveri from first hand experience is greatly improved, with a few broken titles still as you say but after the beta drivers are ironed out this should improve. It is a should not a definitely however as you say and SHOULD have been done long ago.

Either way as of right now, benchmarks between the Kaveri and Piledriver models are pretty tied in terms of CPU performance only, albeit accompanied by a price increase with the more recent range.


I'll believe that when I see independent tests showing that using the dual setup actually functions properly, and the gains are even remotely close to what adding the power of the two cards together would suggest. Until then I assume anything AMD is promising is either a year away or more from functioning, doesn't work, or is a complete lie.
m
0
l
January 17, 2014 8:14:51 AM

Traciatim said:
S0kar said:
Yep, dud frames being dropped all over the place so the FPS is there but not truly visible in all circumstances. This time AMD have got TrueAudio, Mantle and Steamroller out of the way and so not only are more able to but more inclined to deliver the promised results.

Dual graphics with Kaveri from first hand experience is greatly improved, with a few broken titles still as you say but after the beta drivers are ironed out this should improve. It is a should not a definitely however as you say and SHOULD have been done long ago.

Either way as of right now, benchmarks between the Kaveri and Piledriver models are pretty tied in terms of CPU performance only, albeit accompanied by a price increase with the more recent range.


I'll believe that when I see independent tests showing that using the dual setup actually functions properly, and the gains are even remotely close to what adding the power of the two cards together would suggest. Until then I assume anything AMD is promising is either a year away or more from functioning, doesn't work, or is a complete lie.


I agree with you. I'm waiting dual graphics to be actually relevant since llano. Catalyst after catalyst the results I see are questionable, at most. Nothing that justifies this sort of setup.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 17, 2014 8:50:20 AM

dual graphics is also essentially putting two 6670s in crossfire and sure you will get higher performance but is the gain you get worth the extra money, more noise, more heat, and potentially a different psu?
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
January 17, 2014 10:15:49 AM

Kai Dowin said:
spdragoo said:
Sakkura said:
rishiswaz said:
he was referring to needing the iGPU on the A-10 vs pairing a mid-tier GPU with a FX or i5


But if the CPU performance of the A10 is sufficient at low resolution, its CPU performance would still be sufficient at high resolution. All you'd have to do would be to add a graphics card.


Yes, but that's the whole point of the APUs: buying a single chip to handle both the CPU and the GPU functions. Even if an APU costs you $60 more than an FX-series chip, you're saving money becuase you don't have to shell out $150-300+ for a discrete graphics card. And unless you're going to be playing at high- to super-high-level resolutions, you don't even need a midrange/enthusiast, let alone high-end, GPU to reach playable FPS levels.

So again, since he's talking about a tight budget, we need to know what resolution he plans on playing at, especially if he's not replacing his monitor. If we're talking 1600x900 (which is what my 21" monitor can handle), or even 1366x768 (maximum resolution on my wife's 15.6" laptop), then an A10 with at least 8GB of RAM is going to be a good budget-conscious build for him (& might even let him afford to use an SSD for his OS and a conventional drive for his regular files). If he's planning 1920x1080 or higher, then the better choice would be an FX-6300/-6350 paired with a $100-200 discrete GPU (foregoing the SSD).

Of course, having actual budget numbers would be nice as well.


The A10 isn't a good buy at US$173.
If he's planning low resolution gaming, he can buy today a Pentium G + HD 7770GE (or even 7790, looking carefully) for US$3, US$ more than the A10's price.

I can guarantee you that the performance of a budget Pentium (or even Athlon) CPU plus a HD 7770GE will outclass the A10 completely in every single title. In fact, it can even reach 60 fps @ 1080p if you lower some settings.


http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Pentium-G2030-vs-AMD-A10-...

Picked it because it's the cheapest Pentium G at the local Micro Center (costs $130 less than the A10-7850K). But while there's maybe a slight boost over the A10 for single-core performance in Passmark, overall the A10 smacks it down (48% better multi-core Passmark performance), & the onboard graphics are much better.

But since you're wanting to compare systems with a discrete GPU anyway, & there's no point in buying an A-series if you want a discrete GPU, then how about the FX-6350 (costs $80 more than the G2030). Again, the slight single-core Passmark performance is trounced by the FX's superior multi-core performance (140% higher Passmark score), and it has 6 cores/threads vs. the Pentium's 2. In fact, the cheapest Intel processor that meets or exceeds the FX-6350's multi-core benchmark is the i5-4670... & while its CPUBoss rating is higher than the FX, it's also $70 more expensive. Since he's more concerned about rendering vs. gaming, he'll benefit from more cores in his CPU than from the GPU, & that means AMD either gives him better performance (compared to the Pentium Gs) or saves him enough money to upgrade other hardware on the machine (compared to the Core i5).
m
0
l
January 17, 2014 10:25:14 AM

spdragoo said:
Kai Dowin said:
spdragoo said:
Sakkura said:
rishiswaz said:
he was referring to needing the iGPU on the A-10 vs pairing a mid-tier GPU with a FX or i5


But if the CPU performance of the A10 is sufficient at low resolution, its CPU performance would still be sufficient at high resolution. All you'd have to do would be to add a graphics card.


Yes, but that's the whole point of the APUs: buying a single chip to handle both the CPU and the GPU functions. Even if an APU costs you $60 more than an FX-series chip, you're saving money becuase you don't have to shell out $150-300+ for a discrete graphics card. And unless you're going to be playing at high- to super-high-level resolutions, you don't even need a midrange/enthusiast, let alone high-end, GPU to reach playable FPS levels.

So again, since he's talking about a tight budget, we need to know what resolution he plans on playing at, especially if he's not replacing his monitor. If we're talking 1600x900 (which is what my 21" monitor can handle), or even 1366x768 (maximum resolution on my wife's 15.6" laptop), then an A10 with at least 8GB of RAM is going to be a good budget-conscious build for him (& might even let him afford to use an SSD for his OS and a conventional drive for his regular files). If he's planning 1920x1080 or higher, then the better choice would be an FX-6300/-6350 paired with a $100-200 discrete GPU (foregoing the SSD).

Of course, having actual budget numbers would be nice as well.


The A10 isn't a good buy at US$173.
If he's planning low resolution gaming, he can buy today a Pentium G + HD 7770GE (or even 7790, looking carefully) for US$3, US$ more than the A10's price.

I can guarantee you that the performance of a budget Pentium (or even Athlon) CPU plus a HD 7770GE will outclass the A10 completely in every single title. In fact, it can even reach 60 fps @ 1080p if you lower some settings.


http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Pentium-G2030-vs-AMD-A10-...

Picked it because it's the cheapest Pentium G at the local Micro Center (costs $130 less than the A10-7850K). But while there's maybe a slight boost over the A10 for single-core performance in Passmark, overall the A10 smacks it down (48% better multi-core Passmark performance), & the onboard graphics are much better.

But since you're wanting to compare systems with a discrete GPU anyway, & there's no point in buying an A-series if you want a discrete GPU, then how about the FX-6350 (costs $80 more than the G2030). Again, the slight single-core Passmark performance is trounced by the FX's superior multi-core performance (140% higher Passmark score), and it has 6 cores/threads vs. the Pentium's 2. In fact, the cheapest Intel processor that meets or exceeds the FX-6350's multi-core benchmark is the i5-4670... & while its CPUBoss rating is higher than the FX, it's also $70 more expensive. Since he's more concerned about rendering vs. gaming, he'll benefit from more cores in his CPU than from the GPU, & that means AMD either gives him better performance (compared to the Pentium Gs) or saves him enough money to upgrade other hardware on the machine (compared to the Core i5).


Having faster multi-threaded performance will not make an A10 APU give a better experience in game than a Pentium/Athlon + HD 7770GE. That's the point.

It isn't about "it's unfair to compare dGPU system with iGPU system". It's about money. They cost the same.

As the poster clearly specify, he wants which is the best pick for gaming, that's what we're discussing in here. I would never recommend a Pentium G for rendering, for goodness sake.

-

The A10 clearly outclasses the Pentium in productivity, but if gaming is the point, Pentium + dGPU is an A10 killer. One must take note that if anyone buying a CPU is concerned about getting the work done in less time, it means that this person is a professional and should go for the i5 (or even the FX), which costs the same and will get the work done quicker than the A10.

If this person desperately need i3 level performance AND 720p gaming and is also cash strapped, than the APU might be a good choice.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 17, 2014 10:34:59 AM

@ Kai I'm on my phone so I can't directly reply but you pretty much hit the nail on that one. An Athlon 750 or Haswell Pentium would be good enough. And paired with a. 7770 GHz edition or 7790 would be perfect for OPs needs. i5 or 6300 gaming performance is better but on a tight budget for 720p that is great.
m
0
l
January 18, 2014 4:49:15 AM

spdragoo said:
Given all other hardware being equal, i5 is ranked over the FX-8350, which is ranked over the A10-series. However, since you also mentioned that you're on a tight budget, that is going to limit some of your hardware choices. AMD's CPUs are cheaper (FX is about $20 less than the i5, & the A10-6800K is about $70 cheaper), so for gaming you can counterbalance the lower CPUs with a better GPU and/or more memory.

The biggest question, though, is what resolution you can achieve on your monitor. If you're looking at higher resolutions (1920x1080 or higher), you'll want the FX or i5 with a mid-range GPU. If, however, your monitor limits you to lower resolutions (i.e. 1600x900, 1280x720, etc.), then an A10 will be more than sufficient for you (& might allow you to afford an SSD).


My Monitor (LG W1941S) Max Resolution : 1360x768

m
0
l
January 18, 2014 5:03:01 AM

spdragoo said:
Sakkura said:
rishiswaz said:
he was referring to needing the iGPU on the A-10 vs pairing a mid-tier GPU with a FX or i5


But if the CPU performance of the A10 is sufficient at low resolution, its CPU performance would still be sufficient at high resolution. All you'd have to do would be to add a graphics card.


Yes, but that's the whole point of the APUs: buying a single chip to handle both the CPU and the GPU functions. Even if an APU costs you $60 more than an FX-series chip, you're saving money becuase you don't have to shell out $150-300+ for a discrete graphics card. And unless you're going to be playing at high- to super-high-level resolutions, you don't even need a midrange/enthusiast, let alone high-end, GPU to reach playable FPS levels.

So again, since he's talking about a tight budget, we need to know what resolution he plans on playing at, especially if he's not replacing his monitor. If we're talking 1600x900 (which is what my 21" monitor can handle), or even 1366x768 (maximum resolution on my wife's 15.6" laptop), then an A10 with at least 8GB of RAM is going to be a good budget-conscious build for him (& might even let him afford to use an SSD for his OS and a conventional drive for his regular files). If he's planning 1920x1080 or higher, then the better choice would be an FX-6300/-6350 paired with a $100-200 discrete GPU (foregoing the SSD).

Of course, having actual budget numbers would be nice as well.


My Monitor (LG W1941S) Max Resolution : 1360x768
&
Going to Buy:
8GB Corsair Vengeance
550w Corsair Power Supply
Motherboard Chipset :
A10 with A88X
Fx 8350 with 990XA
i5 4670k with z87

Still Confusing with CPU+iGPU Or DCPU & DGPU :( 


m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 80 à CPUs
January 18, 2014 5:04:07 AM

go with the apu. best on die graphics. time comes when you need more you can always buy a discreet graphics card for more performance/
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 80 à CPUs
January 18, 2014 5:04:20 AM

go with the apu. best on die graphics. time comes when you need more you can always buy a discreet graphics card for more performance/
m
0
l
January 18, 2014 5:09:20 AM

Sakkura said:
spdragoo said:
The biggest question, though, is what resolution you can achieve on your monitor. If you're looking at higher resolutions (1920x1080 or higher), you'll want the FX or i5 with a mid-range GPU. If, however, your monitor limits you to lower resolutions (i.e. 1600x900, 1280x720, etc.), then an A10 will be more than sufficient for you (& might allow you to afford an SSD).

Not really. A lower resolution doesn't really lower the CPU load. You need just as much CPU performance for 1600x900 as you do for 1920x1080.


Sakkura said:
For a full system build, we would need to know what resolution he'll be playing at, yes. But not for just an isolated CPU decision.


My Monitor (LG W1941S) Max Resolution : 1360x768
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2014 9:57:55 AM

At that resolution an APU should be fine
m
0
l
January 19, 2014 11:48:19 AM

I think for the games you listed the i5 4670k would be the best solution. Except BF 3 & 4, they almost all rely on high IPC / single thread performace, so intel would be the way to go. But whats interesting is that most games developed in the future will most probably make use of all the cores (/modules) included in a CPU, but even then AMD's FX processors are often worse than Intel's products.
And then there still is hyperthreading. Of course most people would say there isnt any processor with SMT in that price category but there is, the E3 1230v3. That processor costs about the same as the i5 but has hyperthreading abilities (but cant be overclocked) and the power of an i7. With that soltuion you would also not need a Z87 board; a H87 or even B85 would be enough. So all in all I would recommend the E3 1230v3 from intel because it's near-to-i7 performacne and its relative low price.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2014 1:01:21 PM

Do you even know what you are talking about? You realize you are suggesting that he get a low-end server CPU for gaming. And on top of that for benchmarks and imperial data over fanboy-ism would be appreciated, if you have numbers to say that the B85 and Xeon would be better than an 8350 on a 990FX. The gpu is more the limiting performance factor and OP has said tight budget
m
0
l
a c 337 4 Gaming
a c 639 à CPUs
January 19, 2014 1:53:19 PM

The Xeon E3-1230 v3 is essentially a Haswell generation Core i7 CPU without the integrate graphics core. It runs at 3.3GHz with Turbo Boost speeds of 3.7GHz. With 4 core and a total of 8 threads it is hardly a "low-end" server CPU.

In games the Xeon E-1230 v3 can outperform a FX-8350 at stockspeeds.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 154 à CPUs
January 19, 2014 1:55:54 PM

rishiswaz said:
Do you even know what you are talking about? You realize you are suggesting that he get a low-end server CPU for gaming. And on top of that for benchmarks and imperial data over fanboy-ism would be appreciated, if you have numbers to say that the B85 and Xeon would be better than an 8350 on a 990FX. The gpu is more the limiting performance factor and OP has said tight budget

You seem to be the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. The difference between a Xeon E3 and Core i7 is minimal. The Xeon is marketed towards server use, but that doesn't mean it's somehow bad for non-server use.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 80 à CPUs
January 19, 2014 11:25:01 PM

I use a 1230 for gaming. nothing low end there. server chips are of a higher breed. also they don't have on board video chip. also run cooler. right now my hottest core is 29c.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
January 21, 2014 9:24:06 AM

The only problem with the Xeon E3-1230 is that it's the Socket 1155...which predates the Socket 1150 (which itself is eventually going to be replaced by the Socket 1151). And that particular chip was designed for the Sandy Bridge chipset...which, again, has been superceded not only by Ivy Bridge but Haswell.

So recommending a chip from almost 2 generations back, especially when he can get an i5-4670K (Socket 1150, Haswell chipset) processor for the same price, probably isn't a good idea.
m
0
l
January 21, 2014 9:43:20 AM

If I was buying today, I'd go with the A10-7850k. You're going to take a hit in performance for non-gaming tasks, but when coupled with an R7 graphics card, you should more bang for your buck. Unfortunately, none of the choices you gave us are anything that I would safely recommend for a five year plan, but I'd give this choice probably a safe 3 years before needing to upgrade.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 154 à CPUs
January 21, 2014 11:47:50 AM

spdragoo said:
The only problem with the Xeon E3-1230 is that it's the Socket 1155...which predates the Socket 1150 (which itself is eventually going to be replaced by the Socket 1151). And that particular chip was designed for the Sandy Bridge chipset...which, again, has been superceded not only by Ivy Bridge but Haswell.

So recommending a chip from almost 2 generations back, especially when he can get an i5-4670K (Socket 1150, Haswell chipset) processor for the same price, probably isn't a good idea.


Socket LGA 1155 is not a chip. And there are two generations of chipsets associated with it; the 6 series or Cougar Point, and the 7 series AKA Panther Point. Panther Point was released at the same time as Ivy Bridge. The Xeon E3 1230v2 is an Ivy Bridge-based CPU.

Anyway, the CPU we're actually talking about is the Xeon E3 1230v3, which is Haswell-based.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 21, 2014 12:30:51 PM

Hey man! You should definitely go for the a10 if you are on a budget. You are gettig the gpu performance of like a 60-80 dollar gpu which is definitely worth it. The cpu will also do you fine for gaming. You can actually play games like battlefield 4 on the a10 and pretty much any other game. Also if you have a little extra money to spend, get a fx 8320 instead for like 150 dollars paired up with a 7770 ghz for 110 dollars and your looking at a powerful configuration. That is what I am running and it runs any game on max settings or high! Have fun! Enjoy building!
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 95 à CPUs
January 21, 2014 12:37:59 PM

Anyone actually knows what his budget is, before suggesting things.
For gaming:
Core i7-4770k > Core i5, 4670k > fx 8320 > fx 6300
take whatever fits in the budget without going on compromise with the other parts.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 21, 2014 1:19:46 PM

Sorry if I offended anyone, my answer was misinterpreted. I was not meaning to say that the E3 1230v3 was a low end part, I was saying it is low on the Xeon scale as compared to 12 core E5s and the like. Also nobody has given benchmarks to say that taking the Xeon would be better than the i5, I can say right now that for gaming hyperthreading is a moot point and should be disregarded the benchmarks for gaming show that the difference between i7s and i5s are minimal if any, very few games can take advantage of more than 4 cores and at that point those games become GPU limited as well and for the resolution OP is planning on playing I do not think that the point where you need that extra thread width will be in sight. In the original post he said that there is a tight budget and he wants it to last 5 years, if that is the case and he is not going for QHD extreme gaming why is an 8 thread chip even in the discussion? If he wants it to last 5 years at that resolution and giving room to bump up to 1080p even why not go for something like this:

CPU: AMD Athlon II X4 750K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($85.98 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: MSI FM2-A75MA-E35 Micro ATX FM2 Motherboard ($68.26 @ Newegg)
Memory: Corsair Vengeance 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($82.76 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($69.86 @ Newegg)
Video Card: Asus Radeon R7 260X 2GB Video Card ($166.90 @ Newegg)
Case: Cougar Solution (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case ($33.73 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Corsair CSM 550W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($97.48 @ Newegg)
Total: $604.97

instead of a proposed B85+ Xeon configuration:

CPU: Intel Xeon E3-1230 V3 3.3GHz Quad-Core Processor ($284.86 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: ASRock B85M Pro4 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($82.79 @ Newegg)
Memory: Corsair Vengeance 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($82.76 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($69.86 @ Newegg)
Video Card: Asus Radeon R7 260X 2GB Video Card ($166.90 @ Newegg)
Case: Cougar Solution (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case ($33.73 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Corsair CSM 550W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($97.48 @ Newegg)
Total: $818.38)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-01-21 15:50 EST-0500)
Both list prices in USD with California Sales Tax


So as you can see there is a 213 dollar price difference (~170 dollar if no sales tax) for two builds that would give OP the same performance. http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1044 Those 1080p benchmarks are great and OP is currently using a 1360x768 monitor so if within the next 5 years he decides to upgrade to a 1080p monitor he should still be fine. I used the cheapest 8GB Vengeance and the cheapest 550W Corsair PSU PC part picker pulled out from Newegg, obviously there will be different prices all over the place but Newegg is a major online computer hardware store and prices tend to not sway too much away from theirs for most parts. Why should OP spend more? if you say that an Athlon II x4 can't keep up 5 years from now here is another build:

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor ($119.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: Asus M5A97 LE R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($86.73 @ Newegg)
Memory: Corsair Vengeance 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($82.76 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($64.99 @ Newegg)
Video Card: Asus Radeon R7 260X 2GB Video Card ($166.90 @ Newegg)
Case: Cougar Solution (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case ($33.73 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Corsair CSM 550W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($97.48 @ Newegg)
Total: $655.70
Same USD and CA sales tax+Shipping

In this situation there is a 163 dollar price difference (~120 without tax) with gaming performance being the same and having 6 cores. If you think I am skimping on any part make a build yourself where you can honestly say that for OP's needs the Xeon comes out to be a better value.
m
0
l
January 21, 2014 7:39:29 PM

AMD fx series ans A series are good processors but if u want to compare it with i5-4670k, then 4670 k is much better than all amd series processors. just go for 4670 k with close eyes, it is easily OC to 4.0 gtz when require more power.
m
0
l
January 21, 2014 8:03:33 PM

Go for the APU build, that'll give you better gaming performance than an i5 4670k (if only iGPU based) and save you a good sum of money which you can invest for either a dGPU for hybrid CFX (which is still not mature). I would suggest instead save the bucks and get a better high speed RAM, APU's are gaming beasts when paired with high speed RAM. I suggest this one http://www.gskill.com/en/product/f3-2400c9d-8gtxd, your Kaveri+this high-speed ram will be nearly impossible to beat at this price for gaming
m
0
l
January 22, 2014 2:26:24 AM

imran27 said:
Go for the APU build, that'll give you better gaming performance than an i5 4670k (if only iGPU based) and save you a good sum of money which you can invest for either a dGPU for hybrid CFX (which is still not mature). I would suggest instead save the bucks and get a better high speed RAM, APU's are gaming beasts when paired with high speed RAM. I suggest this one http://www.gskill.com/en/product/f3-2400c9d-8gtxd, your Kaveri+this high-speed ram will be nearly impossible to beat at this price for gaming


Cheap Pentium or Athlon processor + dGPU (7770 GE~). Beaten. :) 
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2014 11:17:04 AM

Kai Dowin said:


Cheap Pentium or Athlon processor + dGPU (7770 GE~). Beaten. :) 


This. The APU doesn't make sense if you play games because there are far better options for gaming. If you don't play games then pretty much any on board video will do so there are far cheaper options that have faster CPU's. So to sum it up, the APU's just don't make sense.
m
0
l
a c 568 4 Gaming
a c 1148 à CPUs
January 22, 2014 11:21:25 AM

You can get a Pentium G and an R7 260x for about $5-10 more than the cost of a 7850k on newegg right now. That would out game any APU. Not to mention a better upgrade path to an i5 or i7 down the road. I personally would rather spend a bit more and get the far better performance. For less than $12 more, you will get far better gaming capability.

AMD example:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: AMD A10-7850K 3.7GHz Quad-Core Processor ($189.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: Asus A88XM-A Micro ATX FM2+ Motherboard ($79.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ares Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($72.25 @ Newegg)
Total: $332.23
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-01-22 14:27 EST-0500)

Intel example:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: Intel Pentium G3220 3.0GHz Dual-Core Processor ($64.97 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock H87M Pro4 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($72.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: Mushkin Silverline 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($69.97 @ NCIX US)
Video Card: XFX Radeon R7 260X 2GB Video Card ($135.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $343.92
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-01-22 14:27 EST-0500)
m
0
l
January 22, 2014 9:29:10 PM

Guyz just take a second look at what he's planning to play, for those kinda games FX-6300 and above or i7 is suited and from both of these FX is definitely a wise choice, FX-8320 is the best to pick - it has great performance, its 8-cores (BF3 & 4 use 6 &/or more cores AFAIK) and supports many instruction sets that don't appear in Intels list. i7 is better if you want an overall better performance since it has got great IPC which means that a 3.4 GHz i7 is equal to 4.5 GHz FX-8320. But considering cost 8320 is first choice since you won't want to go for any cheap MoBo with i7, is it? Moreover, gaming performance depends more on graphics card than on the CPU, choice of CPU is not much important, just any CPU that won't bottleneck your GPU is sufficient.

Traciatim said:
Kai Dowin said:


Cheap Pentium or Athlon processor + dGPU (7770 GE~). Beaten. :) 


This. The APU doesn't make sense if you play games because there are far better options for gaming. If you don't play games then pretty much any on board video will do so there are far cheaper options that have faster CPU's. So to sum it up, the APU's just don't make sense.

APU's iGPU is mighty, it can play almost any demanding title at 1080p on medium or high settings. As for Kaveri, its iGPU is supposed to be the most powerful iGPU to be used in any processor. A gamer always overlooks the HD4600 iGPU of haswell and moves on to use dGPU instead, but in case of Kaveri's iGPU you can't overlook it, it is equivalent to an R7 DDR3 dGPU, moreover you can't sli or crossfire Inte;'s igpu with either radeon or nVidia, but Kaveri's iGPU can be crossfired with any XDMA enabled radeon GPU (only R7 DDR3 GPUs for now, R7 DDR5 & R9 290's will be supported by future driver releases) so you won't have to dump the iGPU that you once paid for to use a dGPU.
It is like you don't have budget right now, so APUs iGPU will let you play at 1080p medium settings for playable (near 30 fps) frame-rates and low-medium settings for good frame-rates (40+ fps). And in future if you got more budget then you can buy any supported good GPU and hybrid crossfire it and enjoy every game at full blast.

Dheeraj bhai, just remember, any CPU that doesn't bottleneck your dGPU is fine. Better CPU will just ad 4-6 fps in best case so if only for gaming any quad APU or hyperthreaded dual-core i3 will do, since if you plan to go for i5 you'll pay more than what you'll have to pay for an 8-core processor, on flipkart you can see their prices and their capable motherboards.
Also, if going for the APU (I suggest Kaveri, not available on flipkart, but I guess it'll soon be) buy the fastest RAM that you can get. Fast RAM will give a great boost in iGPU's performance. I know of a RAM kit on flipkart I think its G.Skill TridentX 2133C9 which is the best you may get on flipkart, since APU officially support 2133 MHz RAM.
m
0
l
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest