AMD FX 6100 or A8 7650K for Gaming?

mrsweet1991

Distinguished
Nov 30, 2013
228
0
18,710
Hello,

I can get both Motherboard and CPU combo's for a similar price, although one is a 6 core and the A8 is a quad core it boils down to a lot more and I was just wondering which the best option was? It will be used with a GTX 760 and I'm hoping to play the latest titles (BF1, Watch Dogs 2) I'm not particularly concerned for hitting high/ultra in 1080p I'm just after something to run maybe medium settings at 1366x768 (TV resolution I'm using as a monitor)

Cheers.
 
Solution
Like @Supahos said, neither chip is going to be stellar. I don't know about "poor" performance, since the slightly improved FX-6300 gives decent performance @ 1080p resolutions with a high-end GPU (http://www.techspot.com/review/1267-battlefield-1-benchmarks/page4.html). But, since you don't have a high-end GPU (http://www.techspot.com/review/1267-battlefield-1-benchmarks/page2.html, look for the GTX 760), I would think you would still expect to be able to get at least 40-50FPS on ultra, if not 60+, at 1366x768 resolutions.

As to which of those 2 options...if those are the only 2 options we have, then I would go for the FX-6100. The A8 is an APU, which means it comes with integrated graphics...but you don't need them, because you're...

Supahos

Expert
Ambassador
Both are garbage honestly and will perform poorly in bf1. Those CPUs are like 6 and 4 years old and were behind Intel.when they were released. If you could only choose those two CPUs the 6100 is "probably" better but once again both are pretty bad
 

spdragoo

Splendid
Ambassador
Like @Supahos said, neither chip is going to be stellar. I don't know about "poor" performance, since the slightly improved FX-6300 gives decent performance @ 1080p resolutions with a high-end GPU (http://www.techspot.com/review/1267-battlefield-1-benchmarks/page4.html). But, since you don't have a high-end GPU (http://www.techspot.com/review/1267-battlefield-1-benchmarks/page2.html, look for the GTX 760), I would think you would still expect to be able to get at least 40-50FPS on ultra, if not 60+, at 1366x768 resolutions.

As to which of those 2 options...if those are the only 2 options we have, then I would go for the FX-6100. The A8 is an APU, which means it comes with integrated graphics...but you don't need them, because you're going to install the GTX 760. The 760 is a 7th-tier GPU, but the R7 250 built into the A8 chip is at best a 12th-tier GPU (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html), & would have to use system RAM in lieue of regular VRAM.

That being said...depending on the price these are being sold for, you might have some options for some alternatives. For example, some of the new Kaby Lake Pentiums have Hyper-Threading, which makes them essentially cheaper core i3 chips, & would probably provide comparable or better performance than the FX-6100...but without knowing the budget you're looking at, I don't know if they'd be a good pick for you.
 
Solution

Supahos

Expert
Ambassador
10-15% slower than a 6300 is poor. It's barely able to hold a good fps rate with the 6300 resolution doesn't matter for a CPU. In have a GTX 760 myself paired with a i5 3350p (z chipset oc applied) and so far havnt found a game I can't hold 60 fps in (admittedly I don't play a ton of AAA titles)

My nephew had a 6100 and my old 750ti to and was struggling to.hold 60 fps on world of tanks which is a pretty simple game. With the same GPU I got 80+
 

mrsweet1991

Distinguished
Nov 30, 2013
228
0
18,710
Thank you all for your answers, given that it seems like a pointless upgrade I won't go ahead. In a few weeks I'll be purchasing a laptop in the region of £1200 to get back into gaming properly. The Motherboard and CPU upgrade was just a cheap idea to game on before I get the money for the laptop.

Regardless of the "solution" I selected, thank you all for your answers it's appreciated.