/ Sign-up
Your question

Advice on which CPU is better for me

  • CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
February 21, 2013 6:06:41 PM

Hello forum. I have some cash (about $220 but can perhaps stretch $250) and I'm looking to upgrade my CPU. Here is my current build:

Mobo: ASRock 970DE3/U3S3 AM3+ AMD 770
CPU: AMD Athlon II X3 450 Rana 3.2GHz
RAM: G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3 1333
GPU: Nvidia GTX 650 (Asus DirectCU)

So, I've done a lot of reading about what to upgrade to based on benchmarks and threads here and I've narrowed it down to either a Core i5 3470 or an FX 8350. My current usage is primarily moderate gaming and image editing with GIMP. I'm looking to improve performance in Planetside 2 (not playing on very high settings and I'm CPU bound) and perhaps to compile Android Open Source Project (preferably withing 1.5 hours) with a new CPU. I do not intend to overclock and I want to keep power usage down as much as possible.

I would be getting the Core i5 from Micro Center so even with the cost of a new mobo, it will be in the same-ish ballpark for both.

I know Intel tends to be better for gaming but AMD does better in multi-threaded cases. Based on this, can you advise me in what processor I should choose?

More about : advice cpu

February 21, 2013 6:17:34 PM

I forgot to mention my budget is pretty much $220. I might be able to strech to $250, though I'd rather not. Since I won't be overclocking I saw no reason to get the i5-3570K. The i7 is straight out.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
February 21, 2013 6:42:49 PM

If you can afford an i5 3570k go for it, it gives you the same if not marginally better performance than an i7, and much better performance than any AMD cpu. If you cant afford the i5 go with a fx6300, it gives probably the best price to performance out of an amd cpu. A 8 series has to many extra cores, pretty much 4 don't ever get used, so the 6300 uses less power for basically the same performance.

1st choice: i5 if possible
2nd Choice: AMD FX 6300
February 21, 2013 7:07:38 PM

logainofhades said:
That board you have only supports 95w FX chips. That limits you to an FX 6300 at best based on what Microcenter currently carries.

It certainly would've helped if I read the compatible CPU list, wouldn't it? Since the FX 8300 isn't available yet that does lower my ceiling a lot. If the only other option is the FX 6300, this becomes a battle of price rather than performance. Is it more wise to choose the FX for budget reasons or to spend more on the i5 for better benefits now, given that it'll trounce the FX 6300 at every turn, and moderate long term benefits (PCIe 3.0 support)?
a c 1098 à CPUs
February 21, 2013 8:47:18 PM

I would save your money an get the FX 6300. I think it would still be a very significant upgrade over what you have now. Then you could save your money till Haswell comes out. :D 
February 21, 2013 9:35:35 PM

logainofhades said:
I would save your money an get the FX 6300. I think it would still be a very significant upgrade over what you have now. Then you could save your money till Haswell comes out. :D 

Normally I'd agree, but I'm trying to make PS2 a little more playable. Right now I'm getting stuck at 18 fps in larger battles. Seems like PS2 is optimized for Intel too. I can't find many good examples of how these perform in the game though. Perhaps the FX 6300 would build AOSP faster, considering that can take advantage of more threads than most games do. Now that my choices have changed I'll be approaching this differently.
August 6, 2014 2:05:16 AM

I am in the same boat. Thinking of getting FX6300 for AOSP compiling and general use- No hard gaming. Should I got ahead?