Upgrading to avoid CPU bottlenecking; $200-$300 budget

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
H

hooverk01

Honorable
Apr 14, 2015
11
0
10,510
I recently purchased a new video card and am facing a bottlenecking issue with my CPU. I am looking to upgrade my CPU specifically but I am quite certain that I will need a new mobo as well due to the fact that my current CPU is FM2+. I need help in choosing a good CPU or CPU/MOBO combo that will eliminate bottlenecking with my existing build and stay within my budget.

I would like to keep it cheap so 200-300 total if possible but I am open to spending more if the need is clear. I am a gamer so keep that in mind when making suggestions; I am building with The Witcher 3 in mind. I play in 1080p resolution. I would like to purchase in the next month or two but will wait if there is a good reason to.

Here is my current build:

OS: Windows 10 64 bit
MOBO: ASUS A88X-PRO
CPU: AMD A10-6800k Black Edition 4.4 Ghz; Liquid Cooled; no Overclocking
GPU: Sapphire Nitro R9 380x 4 GB GDDR 5
RAM: 8 GB DDR3
Storage: 100 GB SSD (Mostly for OS and select games); 1 TB Western Digital Blue HDD
Power Supply: EVGA 850w

Any help is appreciated.

Thanks!
 
Solution
imsqam
One of the biggest misconceptions that people have is that the effective speed of a CPU is solely based on core speed (3.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). There are many other things such as how well tasks are coordinated with other parts of the CPU that impact the effective speed of the CPU. If one CPU has a 20% faster core speed but has to complete 20 activities to finish an operation it will be slower than a CPU that has a 20% slower core speed but only has to complete 10 activities to finish an operation. It is how the whole system works together that is important, not just the speed of one thing.

Instead, look at how well a CPU can carry out different tasks and how this relates to your particular application. Examples of this would be say...
Sort by date Sort by votes
Here are two but you will need new ram for the Skylake. I would go for the 4460.

UPDATE: That is a monster of a PSU for no overclocking by the way.

Haswell LGA 1150
PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/JDWy8d
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/JDWy8d/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($174.89 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock H97 Anniversary ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($74.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $249.88
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-02-03 16:49 EST-0500

Skylake, LGA 1151
PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/9WKCRB
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/9WKCRB/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-6500 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($199.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H170M-D3H Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($89.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4-2400 Memory ($38.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $328.96
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-02-03 16:52 EST-0500
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Thanks for the reply imsqam.

I admit that I am somewhat new to the world of PC gaming and what not. The PSU was on sale, had good ratings, and exceeded my power requirement by a significant margin so I decided to pull the trigger. It is definitely OP.

I have heard a lot of really good things about Intel processors but I have noticed that their clock speeds are significantly lower than many AMD processors at that price point and even cheaper in some cases (my current processor included). I suppose I don't understand how a processor with a slower clock speed can out perform a processor with a higher clock speed. For example, Why is the I5-4460 at 3.2 ghz superior to my current processor at 4.4 ghz?

I have also been looking at the FX series processors and have been impressed with what I have seen so far. Do the I5's possess a clear advantage over the FX series? Or is it a matter of preference?

Thanks!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
One of the biggest misconceptions that people have is that the effective speed of a CPU is solely based on core speed (3.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). There are many other things such as how well tasks are coordinated with other parts of the CPU that impact the effective speed of the CPU. If one CPU has a 20% faster core speed but has to complete 20 activities to finish an operation it will be slower than a CPU that has a 20% slower core speed but only has to complete 10 activities to finish an operation. It is how the whole system works together that is important, not just the speed of one thing.

Instead, look at how well a CPU can carry out different tasks and how this relates to your particular application. Examples of this would be say video editing versus gaming. Video editing needs a CPU that can multi-task well (multi-core performance) while gaming needs a CPU that performs fewer tasks simultaneously but does them more quickly (single core performance). Again, core speed is not the only thing that impacts single core performance.

Think of it like trying to race a quarter-mile fuel dragster on a grand prix course. Goes fast down the straight-away but doesn't corner well. Just not good for the application.

For gaming Intel rules the roost for high end CPU's, just look at the best picks and the hierarchy chart to see this. No AMD CPU is in the same tier as the most recent Intel i5 and i7 processors. AMD's current market position is more for the entry level and mid-range CPU's. Wasn't always this way and who knows, maybe the release of Zen will change this.

The 4460 is three tiers above the A10-6800K making it significantly faster. That is, you will notice the difference. Your price point takes you to a High End CPU so Intel it is.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
Intel is more efficient than AMD not only power consumption, but in how it performs tasks. Intel can do more per clock, than AMD. Looking at clock speed alone doesn't work. Like how when AMD was decimating P4, with slower clocked Athlon 64's. Even slower clocked Athlon XP's were faster than faster clocked P4's available at the time. At equal clock speeds, a K7 Athlon was better than PIII. Intel pulled the same trick, against AMD, and their own previos chips, with core 2. AMD's current lineup is their P4. The architecture matters a great deal more than clock speed.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom