Hi guys, I am wanting to build a new Budget Custom Built PC, but I am choosing between 3 processor but I don't know which one to go with. I won't be overclocking and I am going to be using stock cooling. I am choosing between the AMD FX-8350, the AMD A10-7850K, or the Intel Core i3-4370. Which one would be the best? I am also choosing between the R7 265 and the GTX 750 Ti Graphics Cards. If I go with a Micro-ATX Motherboard I am going to go with the Foxconn TLM-436 Case, but if I go with Standard ATX Motherboard, then I am going to get the Foxconn TS-001 Case. The are cheap and come with a Power Supply. Any suggestions anyone? Thanks!
Budget Custom Build
- Thread starter NotShawn
- Start date
Solution
wurkfur
Distinguished
- Dec 27, 2011
- 336
- 1
- 18,965
The R7 265 is faster than the 750 ti.
A dual core i3 will not run newer games like Watch Dogs.
The 7850K is an APU and there is no reason to get one if you are adding in a GPU.
The FX-8350 is an excellent choice and will run all modern games and even games in the future. It can also over clock well with the right MB and cooling.
A dual core i3 will not run newer games like Watch Dogs.
The 7850K is an APU and there is no reason to get one if you are adding in a GPU.
The FX-8350 is an excellent choice and will run all modern games and even games in the future. It can also over clock well with the right MB and cooling.
Yeah, I actually looked on GPUBoss about that and you're right. http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R7-265-vs-GeForce-GTX-750-Ti And I didn't notice it was a 2-Core until now. But what I am wondering, someone told me that the R7 265 can do crossfire with the Integrated Graphics in the AMD A10-7850K which is why I thought about that one as a choice.
JOOK-D
Dignified
- Aug 28, 2013
- 3,910
- 0
- 15,960
It absolutely will. The i3 often matches or outperforms an FX when less than 4 threads are used (which is the majority of instances). I honestly haven't seen an i3 "4370", whether it's to be one of the refresh models released I'm unsure, but if it has hyperthreading I'd easily take it over the FX. AM3+ is an outdated socket, even if you get the outdated FX 8350 that might sometimes outperform the i3 you have no upgrade path. From the i3 you can go to an i5 which will solidly outperform the FX, or the i7 which the FX can't touch.
Agreed.
It does run games well. But once you factor in the cost of a 990FX motherboard and expensive CPU cooling you should have just gotten a stock i5 which will outperform the FX even when the FX is overclocked.
wurkfur
Distinguished
- Dec 27, 2011
- 336
- 1
- 18,965
JOOK-D, Watch Dogs requires a 4 CORE CPU. You are talking out your rear. He is asking for a budget gaming build. Why would you make a suggestion that is obsolete for his intended purposes?
Quality Intel boards cost more than quality AMD boards. You can get a faster AMD processor with more cores that are better for modern games for less money than an Intel processor.
Single threaded performance? He's not playing Angry Birds...
As far as the board goes NotShawn, that is a good choice. If you can step up to the Sabertooth by ASUS, you will have a little more headroom if you ever feel inclined to overclock. The FX-8350 has an unlocked multiplier and it as simple as increasing it.
Zircoben
Distinguished
- Apr 15, 2014
- 1,474
- 0
- 20,710
Exactly. An i5 will outperform an FX-8350 in nearly everything, besides heavy multitasking and things like that. I always recommend the Xeon 1230v3:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks
CPU: Intel Xeon E3-1230 V3 3.3GHz Quad-Core Processor ($239.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H97M-D3H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($89.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $329.97
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-05-26 11:23 EDT-0400)
The Xeon WILL outperform the FX-8350 in every task, and will game significantly better. Intel's cores are far more powerful than AMD's cores, and that's why everyone on AMD always has to overclock. It may seem like a steep price, but lets compare it:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks
CPU: AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($159.99 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($29.94 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Asus M5A99FX PRO R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($126.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $316.91
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-05-26 11:25 EDT-0400)
See. not that big of a price difference, and the Xeon will game MUCH better and will use a fraction of the electricity, run a lot cooler, and save you money.
Zircoben
Distinguished
- Apr 15, 2014
- 1,474
- 0
- 20,710
AMD processors are never faster. Even a Pentium will outperform an FX-8350 in day to day tasks. If you are overclocking, you need expensive boards, so Intel has cheaper motherboards. You don't need expensive fans and coolers for Intel. It just runs. Faster.
I respect your opinion. The FX-8320, at it's current price of $135, will waste an i3 at the same price in multithreaded games and tasks that can utilize the whole CPU. However, in this guy's setting, I don't think he would advantage from getting the inferior FX-8350.
wurkfur
Distinguished
- Dec 27, 2011
- 336
- 1
- 18,965
Quote: An i5 will outperform an FX-8350 in nearly everything, besides heavy multitasking and things like that.
Due to the consoles of this generation coming with 8 cores, expect most future game titles to come heavily threaded from the onset. Also, being that the consoles uses AMD architecture, this means most future games will be able to take advantage of said architecture. Also consider that the FX-8350 can easily be overclocked and the Xeon cannot.
How much power will he save a year? $10? Maybe $15? Are we saving squirels or trying to build a gaming machine?
Due to the consoles of this generation coming with 8 cores, expect most future game titles to come heavily threaded from the onset. Also, being that the consoles uses AMD architecture, this means most future games will be able to take advantage of said architecture. Also consider that the FX-8350 can easily be overclocked and the Xeon cannot.
How much power will he save a year? $10? Maybe $15? Are we saving squirels or trying to build a gaming machine?
Zircoben
Distinguished
- Apr 15, 2014
- 1,474
- 0
- 20,710
FX-8350: Passmark Single Thread: 1511 (OC and not OC mix)
Intel Xeon E3-1230v3: Passmark Single Thread: 2114 (Not OC)
The Xeon has 8 threads, so it is ready for the future. Especially with an overclock, the Xeon will save you probably $20-50 in electricity every year you own it. It wastes the FX-8350 in single thread, and in turn, GAMES. You don't need to overclock the Xeon for it to be good, so that point is not valid.
It doesn't even cost much more to grab a Xeon instead of an FX-8350. The cost of electricity and expensive coolers to overclock make the Xeon much more economical, all while giving you significantly better performance.
wurkfur
Distinguished
- Dec 27, 2011
- 336
- 1
- 18,965
The Xeon has 8 threads but it is still a FOUR CORE processor. The newer modern games like Battlefield and Watch Dogs can take advantage of all the cores that are available. Most modern games ARE NOT single threaded.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+E3-1230+v3+%40+3.30GHz
The FX-8350 is right there with it in their evaluation and can be overclocked. It rates higher on the value list as well.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+E3-1230+v3+%40+3.30GHz
The FX-8350 is right there with it in their evaluation and can be overclocked. It rates higher on the value list as well.
JOOK-D
Dignified
- Aug 28, 2013
- 3,910
- 0
- 15,960
Requires a 4 core CPU? I highly doubt that. If they develop a game that requires a 4 core CPU in the current market they'll lose a huge amount of potential profit. Moreover it's possible the particular i3 has hyperthreading. The devs already said that they overstated the CPU requirements for that game. Plus, why Watch Dogs in particular, when the i3 will outperform the FX in most other games on the market?
As for the quality of boards, possibly. That depends on where you look and what you need for your feature set. Note that AM3+ boards don't even have PCI-E 3.0 yet.
Per-core performance is still the determining factor in most games. Hence why intel consistently outperforms AMD and their 'moar corez' mentality.
If you're willing to buy an 8350 and a Sabertooth instead of, as Zircoben suggested, a Xeon 1230v3 you're insane. Even an overclock to 5GHz won't match the Xeon, and by that time you've wasted a lot of time, effort, money and component lifetime and longevity (and yes, your power bill will most certainly portray the difference).
wurkfur
Distinguished
- Dec 27, 2011
- 336
- 1
- 18,965
Core 2 Quad Q8400 2.66GHz and Phenom II X4 940 are the minimum CPU's required for Watch Dogs. The developer even said you need at least 4 cores. Please tell them they don't know what they are talking about. It's not like they designed the game.
When a Radeon R9 290X and a GTX 780 ti can't max out a 16X PCI-E 2.0 Lane, what does it matter if it is 3.0 or not...
I'll state it again. The consoles are similar to PC's now and have 8 cores. Developers are going to be making games that are heavily threaded. The single core performance will not matter in future games. It is a silly argument at this point. In the past you had a 3 core Xbox 360 or a screwy PS3 cell processor and bad ports. The future is going threaded due to Moore's law.
When a Radeon R9 290X and a GTX 780 ti can't max out a 16X PCI-E 2.0 Lane, what does it matter if it is 3.0 or not...
I'll state it again. The consoles are similar to PC's now and have 8 cores. Developers are going to be making games that are heavily threaded. The single core performance will not matter in future games. It is a silly argument at this point. In the past you had a 3 core Xbox 360 or a screwy PS3 cell processor and bad ports. The future is going threaded due to Moore's law.
JOOK-D
Dignified
- Aug 28, 2013
- 3,910
- 0
- 15,960
And a C2Q is faster than a Haswell i3 with 4 threads?
Longevity. I was simply stating that there are premium features that intel boards have that AMD do not.
Speculation and conjecture. Until we actually see any games running 8 heavy threads in parallel I refuse to believe it (and by that time any of these current CPUs we're talking about will be obsolete). Even current games that can supposedly use 8 threads (BF4 and Crysis 3) tend to do it rather poorly, spawning a few main threads (that love high single-threaded performance) and sub-threads (that do little work, don't necessarily need their own thread).
Single-core performance currently matters, and will do for the forseeable future. I do agree with Moore's law, but until it develops to that point I see no reason for the number of threads to increase, as intel's (market leaders) 4 core CPU's are not yet saturated by games. Sure, for video editing/rendering and other heavy software an increase in thread count is necessary for agreeable performance, but games don't currently require it. I'm not saying they won't, I'm saying they don't at the moment and multi-threading is being implemented extremely slowly, and inefficiently.
My argument, simply, is that an FX truly doesn't have a place in the gaming market. Most games are threaded poorly, so an i3 will come on top. By the time you move into FX 83xx terrirory you'd be better off with a similarly priced i5. By the time you start to want to overclock that FX you'd be looking at an i5 or workstation Xeon that would also outperform it. Not to mention that once you buy an FX CPU, you don't really have an upgrade path.
Zircoben
Distinguished
- Apr 15, 2014
- 1,474
- 0
- 20,710
Right now and for the forseeable future, Intel CPUs clearly outperform AMD CPUs in gaming. By the time games can take advantage of 8 threads like you say, the entire AMD FX line (which is already about 4 years outdated) will be useless.
wurkfur
Distinguished
- Dec 27, 2011
- 336
- 1
- 18,965
Moore's law aside. If you haven't noticed, Intel hasn't been innovating or advancing at that great of a pace despite having superior fabs. This is in contrast to the late 90's when AMD had a fire up under Intel's butt. Competition pushed rapid innovation that worked well for the consumer. Ask where we would be today if this had not have happened? In contrast, where would we be if Intel didn't use anti-competitive tactics to bully AMD away from large manufacturers like Dell?
I respect that Intel may have a superior design right now, but if "NotShawn" or anyone else can have their needs met and support the underdog, it is healthier for the market place. Imagine a world were the only choice is Intel. That is a pretty scary picture.
I respect that Intel may have a superior design right now, but if "NotShawn" or anyone else can have their needs met and support the underdog, it is healthier for the market place. Imagine a world were the only choice is Intel. That is a pretty scary picture.
JOOK-D
Dignified
- Aug 28, 2013
- 3,910
- 0
- 15,960
As much as competition drives excellence and it's best for everyone, I'm not going to be essentially guilt tripped into recommending a sub-par product. Once AMD gets their act together and competes better at the high-end of the market it may come time to recommend their products once again.
Zircoben
Distinguished
- Apr 15, 2014
- 1,474
- 0
- 20,710
Well, ARM is doing very well, and they may even start making desktop-style crap.
I agree, though, and I hope AMD's next x86 arcitecture in 2016 is competitive. I really want them to do well. It's too bad that they are now targeting small niches (Kabini, ARM servers, etc.) instead of trying to compete on the desktop.
And honestly, your point, wurkfur, of Threads vs Cores I never really thought of. Do games use cores or threads? An Intel 8 thread but 4 core is not equal to an AMD 8 thread, 8 core?
And sorry for taking such an argumentative stance in all this. It is really fun for me learning and comparing the too, and I hope you realize that
wurkfur
Distinguished
- Dec 27, 2011
- 336
- 1
- 18,965
Zircoben :
Well, ARM is doing very well, and they may even start making desktop-style crap.
I agree, though, and I hope AMD's next x86 arcitecture in 2016 is competitive. I really want them to do well. It's too bad that they are now targeting small niches (Kabini, ARM servers, etc.) instead of trying to compete on the desktop.
And honestly, your point, wurkfur, of Threads vs Cores I never really thought of. Do games use cores or threads? An Intel 8 thread but 4 core is not equal to an AMD 8 thread, 8 core?
And sorry for taking such an argumentative stance in all this. It is really fun for me learning and comparing the too, and I hope you realize that
I want both companies to make great products. Sandy, Ivy, and Haswell have all been very minuscule improvement. Tiny baby steps.
JOOK-D
Dignified
- Aug 28, 2013
- 3,910
- 0
- 15,960
I don't think I've made myself clear enough. The FX's are good chips, but do perform worse than intel. The disparity to which differs depending on the scenario. I'm not about to go out and scour for benchmarks, but from personal experience the FX's lacked per-core performance, especially in multiplayer scenarios (which often can't be accurately benchmarked). I do however still own that 8320 (motherboard sadly died, chip is still intact) and I do have planned uses for it as it is very capable.
Having said that, the FX's are more than sufficient - I want to make my stance on that very clear. I however believe that intel is the smarter choice, for the reasons I've outlined earlier in this thread. And once again this debate has sprawled out of control, as it does in every intel/amd thread. :lol:
I think we've made our points, and probably confused the heck out of OP. Fact of the matter is most modern CPUs will be more than fast enough, and GPUs or other components are often left as the bottleneck.
Having said that, the FX's are more than sufficient - I want to make my stance on that very clear. I however believe that intel is the smarter choice, for the reasons I've outlined earlier in this thread. And once again this debate has sprawled out of control, as it does in every intel/amd thread. :lol:
I think we've made our points, and probably confused the heck out of OP. Fact of the matter is most modern CPUs will be more than fast enough, and GPUs or other components are often left as the bottleneck.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Download speed is slow on only my PC - please help!- Started by Ograsmium
- Replies: 16
-
-
Question Buying a used card, what should I look for before purchase?- Started by MatthewJamess
- Replies: 8
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram