CPU vs. APU [Which To Buy]

[Jason Werthman]

I know that the basic difference is that an APU has a graphics/video card built into it (be it not a great one) and I am not sure which to get. I made the mistake of purchasing a PS4 so im planning to use that to run all my heavy "AAA" games, and I would like to have a decent PC that is good for video editing and recording lighter games like minecraft or kerbal space program. I am looking at a FX 6300 CPU with a GeForce GTX 650, and on the APU side im looking at a AMD A10-7850k [has radeon 8GNC core graphics] and from the website, it looks like the APU would offer better fps than the cpu/gpu combo. I need windows 7 with it and I am trying to keep it under $600 or as close to $600 as possible, which is why I am leaning towards the APU. I also found a comparison of the A10 to a fx6300 and they both have about the same performance, with the A10 having better single core performance, and being that games do not use more than 4 cores, would the A10 be better if I paired it with a mid grade graphics card

 

[JOOK-D]

The CPU and GPU would offer better performance.

 

[Jason Werthman]

I may have answered my own question, the A-10 is apparently capable of running battlefield 4 @ 1080p @ 30fps. It is not the best, but a PC with that in it is cheaper.

 

[JOOK-D]

I may have answered my own question, the A-10 is apparently capable of running battlefield 4 @ 1080p @ 30fps. It is not the best, but a PC with that in it is cheaper.

At what graphics settings?

At ultra settings the 660 could run it about the same, 34 FPS.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2013/11/27/battlefield-4-performance-analysis/3

The 6300 is also stronger than the A10, and has a better 'upgrade' path.

 

[Jason Werthman]

I may have answered my own question, the A-10 is apparently capable of running battlefield 4 @ 1080p @ 30fps. It is not the best, but a PC with that in it is cheaper.

At what graphics settings?

At ultra settings the 660 could run it about the same, 34 FPS.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2013/11/27/battlefield-4-performance-analysis/3

The 6300 is also stronger than the A10, and has a better 'upgrade' path.

I looked into it, and the A10 has a better performance per core, and being that games only use 4 cores it would be faster, and the GTX 660 is a fair bit more expensive with a FX6300 than the A10 is, and you could crossfire the A-10. Anyways I think im going with the FX 6300 unless I hear that a better APU is coming out soon

 

[JOOK-D]

I may have answered my own question, the A-10 is apparently capable of running battlefield 4 @ 1080p @ 30fps. It is not the best, but a PC with that in it is cheaper.

At what graphics settings?

At ultra settings the 660 could run it about the same, 34 FPS.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2013/11/27/battlefield-4-performance-analysis/3

The 6300 is also stronger than the A10, and has a better 'upgrade' path.

I looked into it, and the A10 has a better performance per core, and being that games only use 4 cores it would be faster, and the GTX 660 is a fair bit more expensive with a FX6300 than the A10 is, and you could crossfire the A-10. Anyways I think im going with the FX 6300 unless I hear that a better APU is coming out soon

Slightly better performance per core. A few AAA games use up to 8.

Did you edit the original post? I thought it said 6300+ GTX 660; if not, my apologies. If it's the 6300 + GT630 I'd honestly probably take the A10 instead, unless you're planning to upgrade the GPU soon. I believe the integrated graphics in the A10 perform similarly to a 7770 or a 7790.

 

[Jason Werthman]

I may have answered my own question, the A-10 is apparently capable of running battlefield 4 @ 1080p @ 30fps. It is not the best, but a PC with that in it is cheaper.

At what graphics settings?

At ultra settings the 660 could run it about the same, 34 FPS.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2013/11/27/battlefield-4-performance-analysis/3

The 6300 is also stronger than the A10, and has a better 'upgrade' path.

I looked into it, and the A10 has a better performance per core, and being that games only use 4 cores it would be faster, and the GTX 660 is a fair bit more expensive with a FX6300 than the A10 is, and you could crossfire the A-10. Anyways I think im going with the FX 6300 unless I hear that a better APU is coming out soon

Slightly better performance per core. A few AAA games use up to 8.

Did you edit the original post? I thought it said 6300+ GTX 660; if not, my apologies. If it's the 6300 + GT630 I'd honestly probably take the A10 instead, unless you're planning to upgrade the GPU soon. I believe the integrated graphics in the A10 perform similarly to a 7770 or a 7790.

You are right. I had a few typo's. I think im going with the FX 6300 and a GTX 650 to start with, and a few months down the line I may upgrade to a 660 or try to crossfire another 650. I do not want to sink a ton of money into a hardcore PC right now because im not entirely sure if im going to ditch my console yet. But would I be better off going with a 1gb GTX 650 or a Radeon R7 250 [2GB]