Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question
Solved

AMD upgrade path, reccomendations ?

Tags:
  • Go
  • AMD
  • CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
February 19, 2014 7:28:57 AM

I've been reading and researching quite a bit lately before deciding which way to go with an upgrade. At 42 I've had plenty of PCs/ laptops and experience dating back to Windows 3.1, but
I've not built or upgraded a system since the early Win XP days. Migrating back from gaming on Xbox for mostly those 10 years. Obviously, things have changed.

Let me lay out a couple of things to give as much info as possible:
1) In those 20 some years of computing and as a building automation specialist, I've had at least 4 or 5 Nvidia or Gforce cards stop working or fail in different machines, without overclocking any of them. So NVidia is NOT an option for me. Fan boys need not reply, you will be ignored. I don't care about increased performance or 10% more FPS, I want something that will last.

2) My current machine is an ASUS CM1630. Specs are Athlon X2 270 @ 3.4 GHZ. 12 GB 1333 PC-10666 Ram (4 channels w/ 8gb on 1 and 4gb that came stock on the other), XFX 2GB DDR3 6670 discrete card, ASUS M4A78LT-M mobo (8.1 Bios), 500 Watt Power Center. It has the 760G chipset and obviously I am not using the integrated graphics as I added the 6670 last year.

So basically for now, I'm looking at a new Mobo and CPU, because most everything else I have will work. I also want the ability to add on later. I want a future upgrade path. That's the key.

3) My priorities are based on steady gaming for Skyrim and BF4 @ 1960x1080 or lower with medium to high settings, but mostly for longevity. I usually run 1600x900, so a second monitor or Hydravision isn't really a concern except for maybe the Battlescreen on a 2nd monitor. I am able to play both titles currently, but experience stuttering and sub-30 FPS here and there. My Skyrim is heavily modded, but playable.

BF4 is basically unplayable for multiplayer, even with low and tweaks settings..

4) I've looked at the i5-4670k with the Z87-1150, but I'm not willing to spend an extra $80-100 on a CPU/mobo combination for a name. Yes Intel is better, but for my purposes that's $100 that could be spent on a SSD or new tower with a cooling solution. Intel also likes to change their sockets, so it limits my upgrade path down the road so I ruled that out as well.

I have been debating between the new A10-7850 and upgrading the discrete card down the road to pair with Dual Graphics, or throwing in an FX-8350 or 6300 to mate with the 6670 and upgrading the card down the road.

If I go the 7850 route, it would be with the 88X chipset mobo. If I go the FX route, I want to get the 990FX or X chipset mobo. I read this revue below and was wondering what the difference is between the ASrock extreme 3 and extreme 9, or the UD3 vs. 4 or other on the Giga are considering the price difference. Do I need the higher board ? I usually don't overclock, but I would like the ability to do minor OCing if I choose. If I get the ASUS, I'd likely go with the Pro R2.0.

Either way, the cost is about the same. I'm thinking either solution (7850 or FX) with the 6670 will get me to at least a playable game on lower resolutions

If I go the FM2+ mobo route, any recommends for the Mobo ? The onboard LAN and Sound will be important short term. Long term the SC will be upgraded.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/990fx-motherboard-r...

I was leaning towards the 7850 considering dual graphics and the benefits of Mantle and integration. I like the direction that is going and it appears the FX line isn't going to see much change in the near future but the A10 is (according to published AMD flow chart).I also like the PCIe3.0 support the FM2+ boards have that the AM3+ boards don't.

Problem is that I keep reading only the R7 240s and R7 250s will Dual Graphics with the A10 series cards. Is that going to change in future driver releases ? I was hoping to eventually pair it with a R7 260x or R9, but if the A10 will only ever pair with the 240 or 250 then the decision is obvious.

I don't have or run many applications where multiple cores are a concern. My current rig is plenty for basically everything but BF4.

At any rate, obviously I have a fork in the road here in terms of which way to go. Open to suggestions for CPU and Mobo pairings. Also looking at a new case with cooling and Power. Calculator says I'm good to go with my current 500W, but if I add a sound card and better GPU down the road I may need 600 or so.

As stated before, I want to upgrade the Mobo and CPU now while giving myself a lot of room for an upgrade path. Thanks in advance.

More about : amd upgrade path reccomendations

February 19, 2014 7:53:28 AM

For one, you wouldn't want to pair an APU with a higher end graphics card. The lower end GPU in the APU will drag down the dedicated graphics. Some games even perform better with just an R7 250 over an R7 250 with dual graphics enabled with the APU.

Someone will have to verify this, but I believe AM3+ is a dying socket and everything is moving over to FM2+. An 8-core FX would definitely be your best bet for bf4 in terms of performance right now, as it's optimized for that many cores. However, there may be little or no upgrade path. If you decide to go for FM2+, I'd suggest considering the Athlon X4 750K. Even it carries the Athlon name, it's really just a trinity APU with integrated GPU disabled.

Also, if you live in the US, high end AMD graphics cards are overpriced. I'd definitely go with an AMD card over an nVidia card personally, but because of all the scrypt mining, prices on the higher end AMD cards are through the roof, sometimes as much as 50% more than what they released for. If you really hate nVidia that much, an AMD card will still perform well, it'll just be horrible for the price. The prices for HD 7850s aren't too bad at the moment though, it's more the R9 series. The R9 290x, for example, launuched at $550, has spiked to $900, but right now is sitting at $700 which is still way too much.

500w is enough for almost any GPU on the market except the higher end ones, and then 600w is plenty. Don't trust PSU calculators exclusively though, they're notorious for being inaccurate.

Hope this helped.
m
0
l
February 19, 2014 7:58:10 AM

VaBhodi said:
I've been reading and researching quite a bit lately before deciding which way to go with an upgrade. At 42 I've had plenty of PCs/ laptops and experience dating back to Windows 3.1, but
I've not built or upgraded a system since the early Win XP days. Migrating back from gaming on Xbox for mostly those 10 years. Obviously, things have changed.

Let me lay out a couple of things to give as much info as possible:
1) In those 20 some years of computing and as a building automation specialist, I've had at least 4 or 5 Nvidia or Gforce cards stop working or fail in different machines, without overclocking any of them. So NVidia is NOT an option for me. Fan boys need not reply, you will be ignored. I don't care about increased performance or 10% more FPS, I want something that will last.

2) My current machine is an ASUS CM1630. Specs are Athlon X2 270 @ 3.4 GHZ. 12 GB 1333 PC-10666 Ram (4 channels w/ 8gb on 1 and 4gb that came stock on the other), XFX 2GB DDR3 6670 discrete card, ASUS M4A78LT-M mobo (8.1 Bios), 500 Watt Power Center. It has the 760G chipset and obviously I am not using the integrated graphics as I added the 6670 last year.

So basically for now, I'm looking at a new Mobo and CPU, because most everything else I have will work. I also want the ability to add on later. I want a future upgrade path. That's the key.

3) My priorities are based on steady gaming for Skyrim and BF4 @ 1960x1080 or lower with medium to high settings, but mostly for longevity. I usually run 1600x900, so a second monitor or Hydravision isn't really a concern except for maybe the Battlescreen on a 2nd monitor. I am able to play both titles currently, but experience stuttering and sub-30 FPS here and there. My Skyrim is heavily modded, but playable.

BF4 is basically unplayable for multiplayer, even with low and tweaks settings. I'm thinking either solution (7850 or FX) with the 6670 will get me to at least a playable game on lower resolutions.

4) I've looked at the i5-4670k with the Z87-1150, but I'm not willing to spend an extra $80-100 on a CPU/mobo combination for a name. Yes Intel is better, but for my purposes that's $100 that could be spent on a SSD or new tower with a cooling solution. Intel also likes to change their sockets, so it limits my upgrade path down the road so I ruled that out as well.

I have been debating between the new A10-7850 and upgrading the discrete card down the road to pair with Dual Graphics, or throwing in an FX-8350 or 6300 to mate with the 6670 and upgrading the card down the road.

If I go the 7850 route, it would be with the 88X chipset mobo. If I go the FX route, I want to get the 990FX or X chipset mobo. I read this revue below and was wondering what the difference is between the ASrock extreme 3 and extreme 9, or the UD3 vs. 4 or other on the Giga are considering the price difference. Do I need the higher board ? I usually don't overclock, but I would like the ability to do minor OCing if I choose. If I get the ASUS, I'd likely go with the Pro R2.0.

Either way, the cost is about the same.

If I go the FM2+ mobo route, any recommends for the Mobo ? The onboard LAN and Sound will be important short term. Long term the SC will be upgraded.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/990fx-motherboard-r...

I was leaning towards the 7850 considering dual graphics and the benefits of Mantle and integration. I like the direction that is going and it appears the FX line isn't going to see much change in the near future but the A10 is (according to published AMD flow chart).I also like the PCIe3.0 support the FM2+ boards have that the AM3+ boards don't.

Problem is that I keep reading only the R7 240s and R7 250s will Dual Graphics with the A10 series cards. Is that going to change in future driver releases ? I was hoping to eventually pair it with a R7 260x or R9, but if the A10 will only ever pair with the 240 or 250 then the decision is obvious.

I don't have or run many applications where multiple cores are a concern. My current rig is plenty for basically everything but BF4.

At any rate, obviously I have a fork in the road here in terms of which way to go. Open to suggestions for CPU and Mobo pairings. Also looking at a new case with cooling and Power. Calculator says I'm good to go with my current 500W, but if I add a sound card and better GPU down the road I may need 600 or so.

As stated before, I want to upgrade the Mobo and CPU now while giving myself a lot of room for an upgrade path. Thanks in advance.


So, long story short; you want to upgrade your CPU and Motherboard and still leave room for even more possible future upgrades. (At least that's what I got out of it.) I'd go for the AMD FX-4300 (four core) or an AMD FX-6300 (six core), both are fairly speedy and fairly cheap too. (I've had the 6300 six core for about two weeks and it works fabulous.) As for a motherboard, I'd go for the Gigabyte 990XA-UD3 AM3+. Both work very well, built sturdy, reliable, and can always be upgraded later.

AMD FX-4300: Click here
AMD FX-6300: Click here
GA-990XA-UD3: Click here

Let me know what you think.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
February 19, 2014 8:00:40 AM

The AM3+ road pretty much doesn't have an upgrade path, I don't see AMD releasing Kaveri based steamroller chips on it, but maybe there will be non apu Athlons for the FM2+, that is actually more probable. It is not much different with Intel since they upgrade the socket every time a new generation of their processors is released (every 18 months or so); so unless you are upgrading during this period you won't probably be able to upgrade later and you will be stuck with the same platform unless you find some used parts for reasonable prices. Upgrade path aside, if you are planning to use the same CPU+motherboard(Probably RAM as well) for the next 5 or so years it won't really matter whither you go Intel or AMD in my opinion. The 6300 and 8350 chips are still quite popular because of their prices , number of cores/threads, and overclockability, which for many people, make them more future proof although the socket itself doesn't seem to have much of a future. With an APU, don't expect games to be running smoothly on something higher than 720p.
I don't know what Power Center is but I doubt it is a reputable power supply brand.
m
0
l
February 19, 2014 8:04:08 AM

Thanks for your reply morgoth. I don't "hate" NVidia, but I've never had an AMD card or CPU fail on me.

You hit on my concern for a future path and my dilemma. Everything indicates that the AM3+ sockets and FX processors are going no where any time soon, but it will give me more right now than the FM2+ solution will. More now, but no path later.

Is that Athlon the best Athlon or non FX CPU available for that socket ? What about a X6 ? Can I still use the 990 chipset Mobo for it, or will I have to go back to the 760G ?

The AMD GPU prices are why I waiting to upgrade later. I refuse to pay more for a GPU than I could buy a whole PC or laptop for. Like paying $400 for a pair of sneakers.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 19, 2014 8:08:48 AM

morgoth780 said:
For one, you wouldn't want to pair an APU with a higher end graphics card. The lower end GPU in the APU will drag down the dedicated graphics. Some games even perform better with just an R7 250 over an R7 250 with dual graphics enabled with the APU.

Someone will have to verify this, but I believe AM3+ is a dying socket and everything is moving over to FM2+. An 8-core FX would definitely be your best bet for bf4 in terms of performance right now, as it's optimized for that many cores. However, there may be little or no upgrade path. If you decide to go for FM2+, I'd suggest considering the Athlon X4 750K. Even it carries the Athlon name, it's really just a trinity APU with integrated GPU disabled.

Also, if you live in the US, high end AMD graphics cards are overpriced. I'd definitely go with an AMD card over an nVidia card personally, but because of all the scrypt mining, prices on the higher end AMD cards are through the roof, sometimes as much as 50% more than what they released for. If you really hate nVidia that much, an AMD card will still perform well, it'll just be horrible for the price. The prices for HD 7850s aren't too bad at the moment though, it's more the R9 series. The R9 290x, for example, launuched at $550, has spiked to $900, but right now is sitting at $700 which is still way too much.

500w is enough for almost any GPU on the market except the higher end ones, and then 600w is plenty. Don't trust PSU calculators exclusively though, they're notorious for being inaccurate.

Hope this helped.


Dual graphics performance has considerably enhanced with Kaveri from the mess it used to be with older generation APUs but still, only being able to pair the APU with a low end card and only to be able to play at medium quality settings at 720p isn't really worth it. APUs make more sense for non-gamers/non pro since they are great for multimedia and typical everyday use for their price.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 19, 2014 8:10:49 AM

VaBhodi said:
Thanks for your reply morgoth. I don't "hate" NVidia, but I've never had an AMD card or CPU fail on me.

You hit on my concern for a future path and my dilemma. Everything indicates that the AM3+ sockets and FX processors are going no where any time soon, but it will give me more right now than the FM2+ solution will. More now, but no path later.

Is that Athlon the best Athlon or non FX CPU available for that socket ? What about a X6 ? Can I still use the 990 chipset Mobo for it, or will I have to go back to the 760G ?

The AMD GPU prices are why I waiting to upgrade later. I refuse to pay more for a GPU than I could buy a whole PC or laptop for. Like paying $400 for a pair of sneakers.


I had a P II X2 running on a 990 chipset board.
m
0
l
February 19, 2014 8:12:14 AM

@ AnEwG the Power Center is Best Buy...Antec I think.

@Ironhide, yeah that Giga UD3 is the one in the review. Why the 6300 over the 8350 ? I know it's a $60-80 difference in price, but are the extra two cores and Cache not worth it ? What about the 6350 ?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 19, 2014 8:15:57 AM

From a performance per price ratio point of view the FX-6300 is better but he probably meant getting the 6300 or the 4300 now so that you can have an upgrade path to the 8350 later, which is pointless because you will be saving money when you get the 8350 from the get go.
m
0
l
February 19, 2014 8:21:32 AM

Right, either way is about $300 when you factor in the mobo ...the a10-7850 or the fx-8350. Why spend $200 only to spend more later when I can spend $300 and be done with it for this machine.
m
0
l
February 19, 2014 8:22:26 AM

VaBhodi said:
Thanks for your reply morgoth. I don't "hate" NVidia, but I've never had an AMD card or CPU fail on me.

You hit on my concern for a future path and my dilemma. Everything indicates that the AM3+ sockets and FX processors are going no where any time soon, but it will give me more right now than the FM2+ solution will. More now, but no path later.

Is that Athlon the best Athlon or non FX CPU available for that socket ? What about a X6 ? Can I still use the 990 chipset Mobo for it, or will I have to go back to the 760G ?

The AMD GPU prices are why I waiting to upgrade later. I refuse to pay more for a GPU than I could buy a whole PC or laptop for. Like paying $400 for a pair of sneakers.

The AM3+ socket supports the FX series, and the FM2+ socket supports APUs (A10s, A8s, A6s, etc.) and the newest Athlons. The 760G chipset uses an AM3+ socket, so you'd have to get a different motherboard as the newer Athlons I mentioned are FM2+, like the APUs.

I'd suggest getting an Athlon X4 750k and an FM2+ motherboard (I'm not familiar with AMD motherboards, so someone else would have to recommend one). That upgrade should be manageable for about $150 or a little more, while improving your CPU performance on bf4. If higher end CPUs appear on the FM2+ socket, you'd already have a motherboard for it. If not, it wasn't as huge a mistake in terms of money if you had sprung for a high-end AM3+ setup that became a dead-end in terms of upgrading. I'd really just suggest waiting until AMD announces what is happening with both sockets, but you do need more power now for bf4.

It's also worth noting that your 6670 isn't the best card for bf4. It can manage low settings at 1280x720 with a minimum FPS of 32 (http://media.bestofmicro.com/L/N/403835/original/Low-12...), at least according to the Tom's benchmark during the beta. Patches seem to have lowered the performance of cards overall, and the 6670 isn't a GCN card and therefore can't utilize mantle. So while upgrading your CPU should increase performance some, it likely won't result in a massive jump in performance.
m
0
l
February 19, 2014 8:24:40 AM

VaBhodi said:
Right, either way is about $300 when you factor in the mobo ...the a10-7850 or the fx-8350. Why spend $200 only to spend more later when I can spend $300 and be done with it for this machine.

That isn't a bad idea to just go with an 8-core FX immediately, but it's unlikely you'll have anything worth upgrading to at that point (except an FX 9590, which won't provide enough of a performance gain for the price). So when you need a more powerful processor you might have to go for a whole new motherboard and CPU again.
m
0
l
a c 204 À AMD
a c 639 à CPUs
February 19, 2014 8:25:13 AM

I would avoid going with AMD APUs if you plan on adding a graphics card. The CPU processing power of APUs is less than the FX so games that are even somewhat dependent on the CPU will suffer a penalty. You are better off going with an AMD FX CPU.

Generally speaking Intel CPUs provides better performance than AMD CPUs in CPU dependent games. The more CPU dependent the game is, the bigger the difference. In general it can be a 5% - 10% difference. BioShock Infinite is an example of a game that simply does not care how powerful the CPU is as long as it does not bottleneck the GPU. So in this case the performance difference should be close to 0%.

However, Skyrim is one of those very few games the does extremely well on Intel CPUs. The more mods you add the more likely the performance difference between AMD and Intel will increase. Meaning mods generally causes performance to decrease a bit, with an Intel CPU the decrease should be less.

Below is a CPU benchmark for Skyrim when it was released back in 2011 using a GTX 580 GPU. Naturally, Skyrim predates the AMD PileDriver FX CPUs and Intel Haswell CPUs so they are not part of the performance chart. The Bulldozer FX-8150 and Sandy Bridge i5-2500k are benchmarked though. Those two were direct competitors back then. The FX-8150 scored 50 FPS vs 67 FPS for the i5-2500k. That means the i5-2500k performs 34% better than it's AMD competitor. That is a significant performance difference. Probably the next biggest difference I have seen between an AMD and Intel CPU (FX-8350 vs i5-3570k) is about 14% for SimCity.

http://www.techspot.com/review/467-skyrim-performance/p...

m
0
l
February 19, 2014 8:37:53 AM

Right, the a10-7850 will do better than the 6670 for BF4. Forgot to mention I would not be using the 6670 if I went that route. I could pair an a10-6800k with the 6670 for Dual Graphics, but it would still fall short of the 7850 or FX8350 w/6670.

How do the Athlon x4 750 and a10-7850 CPU portions compare ? I guess what I am driving at is where AnEwG is coming from. If the CPU cores are equivalent and I get integrated R7 over 6670 AND an FM2+ board it seems like a win. I get better performance now, not as much as I could, but I have a path later. BF4 is at least playable and I can shift the 6670 to my daughter's machine.

I may take your advice and wait a month or so to see where the sockets are headed and if anything other than the 240s and 250s will be supported for Dual Graphics.
m
0
l
February 19, 2014 8:49:52 AM

VaBhodi said:
Right, the a10-7850 will do better than the 6670 for BF4. Forgot to mention I would not be using the 6670 if I went that route. I could pair an a10-6800k with the 6670 for Dual Graphics, but it would still fall short of the 7850 or FX8350 w/6670.
Edit: It's also worth noting the price difference. the A10 7850k sells for ~$180 whereas the Athlon X4 750k sells for ~$80.

How do the Athlon x4 750 and a10-7850 CPU portions compare ? I guess what I am driving at is where AnEwG is coming from. If the CPU cores are equivalent and I get integrated R7 over 6670 AND an FM2+ board it seems like a win. BF4 is at least playable and I can shift the 6670 to my daughter's machine.

I may take your advice and wait a month or so to see where the sockets are headed and if anything other than the 240s and 250s will be supported for Dual Graphics.

I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think there was much of an increase in CPU performance from the A10 6800k to the A10 7850k. The Athlon X4 750k has identical CPU performance to the 6800k, assuming identical clock speeds. The downside of just starting with an APU and disabling the iGPU later is that will result in higher temperatures, but you're not planning on major overclocking so that shouldn't be a major issue.

As for dual graphics, you wouldn't want to set that up for a higher end graphics card even if you could. Because of the way dual graphics and crossfire work, the higher end card (i believe) would be forced to run at a lower clock speed and also perhaps disable stream processors. I'm not entirely sure how it works, but I know it would result in lower performance from the dedicated card, and most likely the dedicated card would just give better performance by itself. Also, setups with dual graphics tend to have both driver issues and problems with stuttering. A single gpu solution will both be less headache in terms of compatibility with games as well as avoid stuttering in most scenarios (for example, the Titanfall beta stutters on HD 7950 even though I apparently maintain 60 fps, but that's due to poor driver or poor game optimization).
m
0
l
February 19, 2014 9:06:18 AM

Well, going the Athlon/Giga UD3 route, I could spend another $20-40 over the FX and/or 7850 solution and pick up an R7 260x. Leaves me a path as well.

I appreciate all the feedback folks. Going to churn this over in the brain for a week or so.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 19, 2014 9:14:53 AM

Do you mean going for either the Athlon or AM3+ board?
m
0
l
February 19, 2014 9:16:17 AM

VaBhodi said:
@ AnEwG the Power Center is Best Buy...Antec I think.

@Ironhide, yeah that Giga UD3 is the one in the review. Why the 6300 over the 8350 ? I know it's a $60-80 difference in price, but are the extra two cores and Cache not worth it ? What about the 6350 ?


I feel like the 8 cores isn't really needed unless you're into hardcore video editing and photoshop and all that jazz, the six cores really does all you need it to do. I had a Phenom II x4 (4 cores) a couple months ago and it worked with flying colors.
m
0
l
February 19, 2014 9:32:10 AM

AnEwG said:
Do you mean going for either the Athlon or AM3+ board?


I'd have to go with a FM2+ board that accepts FM2 for the Athlon to be a viable upgrade path, so that 990FX wouldn't work. Had a blonde moment there.
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 204 À AMD
a c 639 à CPUs
February 19, 2014 10:26:07 AM

VaBhodi said:

I'd have to go with a FM2+ board that accepts FM2 for the Athlon to be a viable upgrade path, so that 990FX wouldn't work. Had a blonde moment there.


While socket FM2+ has a future upgrade path, thus far the CPU processing power is a bit lackluster vs. the FX CPUs.

By going with FM2+ you are sacrificing CPU processing power now for a potential increase in the future. I am not even sure if Excavator will equal the performance of Piledriver if it is going to be squeezed into a APU package. You may need to wait for Excavator's successor to see an improvement beyond the Piledriver FX series.

Excavator will be the final generation AMD processor that will be based on the original Bulldozer architecture. The next AMD architecture will be total different from what I understand. Meaning AMD will abandon the "module concept" of having two CPU cores share a single FPU core. The APU released after Excavator would probably mean a new socket as well.

Thus, to get better performance than a FX CPU you will need to wait a couple of years and you may have to buy a new motherboard to use that future AMD APU. This basically defeats the purpose of going with socket FM2+ over socket AM3+ in the hope for better CPU core performance in the future.

EDITED
Replaced Steamroller with Excavator; the 4th and final generation of the Bulldozer architecture.
Share
February 19, 2014 10:40:03 AM

@ Jaguar, that makes sense and drills down into the crux of the matter. All the feedback here has been helpful. It really comes down to gambling on the FM2+ and MAYBE having a viable path going forward. Or going sure fire immediate performance with the FX, but having no path forward except for Memory and GPU.

Just out of curiosity, if I did go the 7850 or Athlon path, which FM2+ would you recommend ? ASrock Extreme 6+ ? Giga sniper ? Both are around $100.

ATX case.

EDIT: have 1333 Ram, would like a board I could mildly OC or eventually upgrade speed.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...

m
0
l
February 19, 2014 11:26:05 AM

AnEwG said:
If you are not planning on a major overclock then I think something like this should be fine and looks pretty solid to me with good reviews as well: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


Looks like a great board, but A78 Bolton3 vs. 88x Bolton 4. Any substantial difference from chipsets ?

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 19, 2014 11:46:12 AM

Most probably it has a better overclock ability. But for mild overclocks on the stock cooler without core voltage increase I don't think it would make much difference.
m
0
l
February 19, 2014 11:55:47 AM

Actually found a combo with the 88x mobo and R7 260x for about $200. Add in the Athlon 750k trinity and I'm at $300. Same place where the FX or A10 would have taken me.

$10 more, I can get a x4 760k richland at 400 MHz higher.

I do appreciate all the help folks, You've really helped me to narrow it down. Wish I could give out more kudos than the thread will let me.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?Ite...
m
0
l
a c 204 À AMD
a c 639 à CPUs
February 19, 2014 12:51:39 PM

In instances such as Metro 2033 I generally discourage people who are considering going with an APU when they will adding a dedicated graphics card. The Richland generation A10-5700 (3.7GHz) APU provides very low performance compared to the FX-6350 (3.9GHz) / FX-8350 (4,0GHz) CPUs. 36 FPS vs 65 FPS with a GTX Titan is a huge performance difference; over 80%.

Note that the 2008 Intel i7-920 performs nearly just as well as a 2012 FX-8350 CPU. The 3rd generation i5-3570k CPU does not perform that much better than the 1st gen i7-920 because the game is not very CPU dependent. At the same clockspeed the increase in raw CPU performance between the 1st gen and 3rd gen is about 19%.

http://www.techspot.com/review/670-metro-last-light-per...

m
0
l