Best cheap cpu to pair with gtx 1060 (6gb)
- Thread starter BogomilBG
- Start date
Solution
geofelt
Titan
- Oct 9, 2006
- 54,307
- 4,149
- 174,240
What is your budget?
I assume this is for gaming.
A G4560@3.5 is a great budget chip that will be a good improvement.
Unfortunately, the word is out and the chip is being sold well past the original $64 price.
If you live near a microcenter, they will sell you one for $57
http://www.microcenter.com/product/477030/g4560_350ghz_kaby_lake
The slightly faster G4600 does not command such a premium and might be a decent deal.
You will need a lga1151 motherboard. H110 motherboards are inexpensive, Perhaps $45, but you need a bios update to run 7th gen processors.
B250 based motherboard will be fine, for about $60.
a 2 x 4gb kit of ddr4 ram will be about $60.
Nice thing is, you have a future upgrade path to a cpu as good as a I7-7700K.
Here is a recent set of tests which includes G4560, FX-8350, ryzen 1200 and 1400.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1474-ryzen-vs-older-budget-cpus/
One interesting takeaway is the comparison between the 1200(4 threads) and the 1400(8 threads)
There is no difference! that tells me that the need for more than 4 threads is much overblown.
I assume this is for gaming.
A G4560@3.5 is a great budget chip that will be a good improvement.
Unfortunately, the word is out and the chip is being sold well past the original $64 price.
If you live near a microcenter, they will sell you one for $57
http://www.microcenter.com/product/477030/g4560_350ghz_kaby_lake
The slightly faster G4600 does not command such a premium and might be a decent deal.
You will need a lga1151 motherboard. H110 motherboards are inexpensive, Perhaps $45, but you need a bios update to run 7th gen processors.
B250 based motherboard will be fine, for about $60.
a 2 x 4gb kit of ddr4 ram will be about $60.
Nice thing is, you have a future upgrade path to a cpu as good as a I7-7700K.
Here is a recent set of tests which includes G4560, FX-8350, ryzen 1200 and 1400.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1474-ryzen-vs-older-budget-cpus/
One interesting takeaway is the comparison between the 1200(4 threads) and the 1400(8 threads)
There is no difference! that tells me that the need for more than 4 threads is much overblown.
geofelt
Titan
- Oct 9, 2006
- 54,307
- 4,149
- 174,240
Where are you shopping?
What is your budget?
G4600 or G4620 is still 4 threads and a reasonable buy.
Any I3-7xxx will be stronger yet.
It all depends on the price and your budget.
Ryzen 3 1200 looks to start at $110, 1400 at around $150.
What is your budget?
G4600 or G4620 is still 4 threads and a reasonable buy.
Any I3-7xxx will be stronger yet.
It all depends on the price and your budget.
Ryzen 3 1200 looks to start at $110, 1400 at around $150.
Shektron
Honorable
- May 31, 2017
- 3,373
- 248
- 9,740
Well it is worth it, but it does depend on how long you want the CPU to last you. A Ryzen 5 1400 will last you a little bit longer in games due to SMT(or hyperthreading), though not much. The difference will not be night and day, but there will definitely be a difference. I would recommend the Ryzen 5 1400 if you aren't sacrificing too much for getting it.
As for AM4 board, an ASRock B350 Pro4, Asus Prime B350-Plus, MSI B350 Tomahawk, or Gigabyte Gaming 3 will all be good choices, pick the brand you prefer the most. If you want to go cheaper, get a B350 micro-ATX, they're a little cheaper.
As for AM4 board, an ASRock B350 Pro4, Asus Prime B350-Plus, MSI B350 Tomahawk, or Gigabyte Gaming 3 will all be good choices, pick the brand you prefer the most. If you want to go cheaper, get a B350 micro-ATX, they're a little cheaper.
constantine_99
Estimable
- May 18, 2017
- 1,977
- 0
- 3,960
while u say the extra 4 thread aren't really utilize it right now, it will be in the next gen games, and when that happens, the OP would've thank god that his CPU already had that extra thread available at his disposal, and if u say about an upgrade path, Ryzen 5 can be upgraded to Ryzen 7 too 
i personally prefer Ryzen right now, unless the Coffelake can convince me otherwise with their performance, but we'll have to wait till they launch it
i personally prefer Ryzen right now, unless the Coffelake can convince me otherwise with their performance, but we'll have to wait till they launch it
geofelt
Titan
- Oct 9, 2006
- 54,307
- 4,149
- 174,240
I have heard some say that 8 cores will be required for future games.
I have yet to see such an assertion coming from a knowledgeable source like a game developer.
I think that is FUD perpetuated by AMD.
Game developers want the largest possible market for their games.
No game developer will willingly undertake the extra cost to make their game multi core enabled and also require many cores to run.
They would not sell many games.
But... OH you say, I see activity on all 8 threads.
Be careful how you interpret task manager cpu utilizations.
Windows will spread the activity of a single thread over all available threads.
So, if you had a game that was single threaded and cpu bound, it would show up on a quad core processor as 25%
utilization across all 4 threads.
leading you to think your bottleneck was elsewhere.
It turns our that few games can usefully use more than 2-3 threads.
How can you tell how well threaded your games or apps are?
One way is to disable one thread and see how you do.
You can do this in the windows msconfig boot advanced options option.
You will need to reboot for the change to take effect. Set the number of processors to less than you have.
This will tell you how sensitive your games are to the benefits of many threads.
If you see little difference, it tells you that you will not benefit from more cores.
Likely, a better clock rate will be more important.
Many threads are good for an app such as editing that can really use them.
Even then, single thread speed counts.
Read about "Amdahl's law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law
I think threadripper is coming up against this phenomenon.
I have yet to see such an assertion coming from a knowledgeable source like a game developer.
I think that is FUD perpetuated by AMD.
Game developers want the largest possible market for their games.
No game developer will willingly undertake the extra cost to make their game multi core enabled and also require many cores to run.
They would not sell many games.
But... OH you say, I see activity on all 8 threads.
Be careful how you interpret task manager cpu utilizations.
Windows will spread the activity of a single thread over all available threads.
So, if you had a game that was single threaded and cpu bound, it would show up on a quad core processor as 25%
utilization across all 4 threads.
leading you to think your bottleneck was elsewhere.
It turns our that few games can usefully use more than 2-3 threads.
How can you tell how well threaded your games or apps are?
One way is to disable one thread and see how you do.
You can do this in the windows msconfig boot advanced options option.
You will need to reboot for the change to take effect. Set the number of processors to less than you have.
This will tell you how sensitive your games are to the benefits of many threads.
If you see little difference, it tells you that you will not benefit from more cores.
Likely, a better clock rate will be more important.
Many threads are good for an app such as editing that can really use them.
Even then, single thread speed counts.
Read about "Amdahl's law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law
I think threadripper is coming up against this phenomenon.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram