Which AMD Processor

L

lankyman

n00b
Joined
May 11, 2015
Messages
36
Hi,
I am looking for the best bang for buck on the CPU i wish to buy.
I was originally looking at getting the FM1 range back then when it was news,
The some guy on here told me to wait for the FM2 which i did, but now I am married and a little daughter of 1 years old.
Anyways i am still keen on the FM2 which i see you now can get FM2+ boards also.
I dont really want yo spend a fortune on stuff because it just loses its value so quickly.
I was really considering the A10 7850K Kaveri cpu but then i was thinking hang on this is too bloody expensive , i considered buying from ebay USA or UK and shipping but it just does not work out such a great price it just seems crazy expensive.
I was considering a decent low end A8 cpu i think it was.
Anyways, i recently moved from a BFG AGP 7800 BArton 2800+ with 1 GIG OCZ DDR1 to a better socket 939 AMD 4400+ X2 with decent 9800gt grfix card.
I reckon now i should just forget about the A10 and go for the 6 or the 8 cpus.
So either AMD FX-6300 or the AMD FX-8350 , not sure.
I looked at pricing and it seems the best buy for me is the 6300.
Would you agree that I do not need the A10 since i have a graphics card 9800gt and I might actually get a 650 GTX which is faster than the 9800 GT. I am not sure about the CPU though, do i just go full out and buy the best 9590 or 9690 whatever it is, or just a 8350 or go with the 6300 because it seems to be the best priced ?
I am not a hard core gamer , i love my music and my videos, but then again with a kid and a wife it is tough to get too much time with a pc, Also, i have realized that games are so so amazing these days. The last best game i ever played was Call OF Duty 4 Modern Warfare and Need For Speed Most Wanted. I have Call Of Duty Black Ops but it did never work on my AGP system (never yet tried it on my current 939 4400+ i assume it will work?) I also have yet to play my sealed MAx Payne 3 dvd set.
Anyways, thanks for reading.
 
You might consider the AMD 860k (not an APU) with a nice FM2+ motherboard and your 9800 GT. Runs cooler than the AM3+ chips, and newer motherboard technology. Also less expensive.

I don't know about SA, but in the US you can get the 860k now sometimes for $50 to $55 US.
 
Hey man , i didnt even know about all my options.
This AMD Athlon X4 860K looks amazing man.
I see the benchmark sites say it is really competitive.
The one i think game debate says that the FX6300 has L3 cache and 6 Megs L2 cache while the X4 860k has 2 megs L2 and no L3 , so not sure what those features really do.
Will they change my life like a good bowl of spaghetti, i dont know.
As an overall cpu the 6300 beats the X4 860k but the 860k shows better strength in single core performance? i guess thats what i can see .

anyways, i really thought i was done with the FM2/+ idea and that i was going to go old school and get the AM3/+ stuff.

I understand the FM2 stuff is newer and so are the Axx apu;s but again i see this X4 860 is also fairly new and in fact newer than the fx-6300 released in 2014 if i read it correctly.

What do you reckon i do now, seriously?
Oh, i have a old work friend who is going to Hong Kong after the Philippines, and i see it is it slightly cheaper compared to Philippines here in South Africa and even US or UK.
Do you know of places in Hong Kong to get parts?

I was going to get him to get it from a place called Jumbo-Computer (the 6300)
I need to see if they have the X4 860k
But anyways, considering he is going to get me the cpu i want from Hong Kong, and i can break even on price if i was to say get it more expensive at another place. Do u think i should still budget and get the X4 860K / FX-6300 or something higher? I did hear rather bad things about the FX-9XXX cpus as they are hot and here in my flat at times it is pretty hot also, but i suppose when you buy the cpu u get decent fans to cool the chip right?
Also, will i need paste?
 
Since you have the 9800gt, go with the 860k. I just picked one up and really like it. If you are want to keep electric costs down, then maybe one of the APUs such as the 6800k. I had the 6400k, but you might its not much good beyond very basic games. In either case, I would lean towards the FM2/+ motherboard as opposed to AM3. The Fm2+ looks to have a better future for upgrade ability. I am pretty certain that the next gen of APUs will still be FM2+.
 
Thanks for the suggestions, i think i will then be revisiting the FM2 world since it is newer architecture , but i am asking myself this.
I am going to get my CPU from Hong Kong as my old work friend is headed there for holiday just after he visits my wifes country the Philippines.
I originally wanted :
A10 7850 only because it would be cheaper than buying it here in South Africa because they rape you with so many electronic goods even though the Rand currency has depreciated so much against the Dollar, i just think they are fixing prices.
Anyways, then i was STILL considering budgeting and getting the best bang for my buck.
So i had a few thoughts and decided to then steer away from the AMD A10 FM2 stuff (because i have a decent grafix card currently 9800gt) and get an AMD FX-6300 , though i looked at the 8350 which has 8 cores but then i noticed they released these E series chips so it makes it even more complicated to decide. Its standing in front of the food hall and deciding which is a better fast food to eat, Nandos; KFC; MacDonalds; its crazy sometimes.
Also now i have learnt that the 8xxx and 9xxx cpus run very hot.
Now i recently learnt of this X4 860K and amazingly it is newer technology than the 6300, though they are very close in speeds.
I do have a 9800gt grafix card at the moment running on my socket 939 X2 4400+ athlon CPU.
My friend here tells me "dude, just buy the 6300 already and or anything its like night and day it will be worlds apart... if i have the 6300 or whatever it is , it will be miles faster than what i have now". He says he will even sell me his Nvidia 650 GTX card which he reckons is even faster than the 9800GT.
So here here i am now, I am still hearing and taking in to account what everybody here is telling me, which is get the FM2 socket stuff and consider the X4 860K.
I see it will definitely be affordable and it makes sense for my pocket,
I am considering though, since i dont often have, OR EVER have somebody going to Hong Kong, or which ever country to buy cheap computer parts, maybe i should just buy the fastest CPU ? in the FM2 range, AND IF FASTEST is the case, then do I just get the top of the range AM3 or is it still FM2 that i should be strongly considering because of the technology which is newer or what do you guys think.
 
why not buy used parts?
I almost always buy used parts and saved tons of money over the years.
 
XoR said:
why not buy used parts?
I almost always buy used parts and saved tons of money over the years.
Click to expand...

I hear you, we got junkmail here and bidorbuy and some other sites. I dont seem to come across the parts i am looking for, and if i do see something its for a whole lot i dont want , as i only want certain pc parts.

I certain have looked around here local like on sites such as olx and other "craigs" list type sites but no cigar really.

Like i looked for fx-6300 and the x4 860k, its not common here it seems.
 
lankyman said:
Rand currency has depreciated so much against the Dollar, i just think they are fixing prices
Click to expand...

It's no mystery as to why your currency is worthless, the government in South Africa is corrupt from head to toe and has grossly mismanaged the economy because of it.

That and the lack of foreign investment causes currency = toilet paper. You aren't to Jamaica levels of cesspool government, but you're damn close.

If you're going to keep your 9800GT, get a FM2 part. If you're going to get the GTX660, get an AM3 part. If you want better performance than that, don't waste your money on a 95xx, just get an Intel CPU instead.

If you got a 95xx CPU, by the time you bought the liquid cooling setup for it, you'd already have a decent Intel quad core.
 
GiGaBiTe said:
It's no mystery as to why your currency is worthless, the government in South Africa is corrupt from head to toe and has grossly mismanaged the economy because of it.

That and the lack of foreign investment causes currency = toilet paper. You aren't to Jamaica levels of cesspool government, but you're damn close.
Click to expand...

Pretty much many countries are corrupt i just think there is better interest in it for some and some have got the right people living in it. Perceptions and understanding are vastly different for billions of people in the world.
Amazing to see how some countries have huge debt yet they continue to stay afloat and have strong currencies too. Watched a documentary the other day about GM's EV1 , what a story that is.Not to mention SA make a good amount of own cars and sell it to other countries cheaper and yet we get raped here .
Very sad to acknowledge



GiGaBiTe said:
If you're going to keep your 9800GT, get a FM2 part. If you're going to get the GTX660, get an AM3 part. If you want better performance than that, don't waste your money on a 95xx, just get an Intel CPU instead.

If you got a 95xx CPU, by the time you bought the liquid cooling setup for it, you'd already have a decent Intel quad core.
Click to expand...

I like AMD because it is cheaper and u need much more tom for Intel in general.
I hear you though and it makes sense to get Intel more because it seems to be more powerful.
I dont follow though with regards to the FM2 with 9800 GT combo and AM3 with GTX650.
If i have the GTX650 then surely i can use it with either the AM3 or FM2.

*still thinking though, hmm, what should i do*
 
Yoh Dude.

Here is some pasta to fuel your spaghetti fire.:D

Compared to your old system any upgrade will blow your mind. Lets say we use the example of your old system as being two minute noodles. Now, it will almost get you full but you will always wish for more. Your 939 socket X2 might have been cutting edge about 10 years ago but in computer years ... Lightyears difference to the current tech.

When taking the 6300 in comparison with the 860 then one of the other posters made a valid point: 860k newer platform etc (not going in the amount of cores as you will mostly use single core operations from your description) then lets pasta compare your options:
Lets say the 6300 is spaghetti with meatballs
The 860k will be spaghetti meatballs with cheese
The 8350 will be spaghetti meatballs, hot sauce and cheese (when you pump it with turbocore / overclocking)
The 9xxx will be spaghetti meatballs, on fire with mozzarella, mature cheddar, blue cheese, Parmesan ... <just add any other cheese> in here

Thus bottomline ... with the 9xxx you have a stinking rich, sick processor leaving you burning afterwards (your machine and your pocket) ... ;'(

With the 860k you are already getting cheese!! (so why go for more cheese when you know it will let you feel sick afterwards - rather take that money and invest in decent RAM or even an SSD)

To Finish: the bang for buck on the 860k is the best of all the above mentioned CPUs.
The Cherry on top: Newer platform, CPU with lower operating temps and less power consumption. Greener option:p
 
Last edited:
Forget your 9800gt

I'd go with a A10-7870k or A10-7850k. The integrated graphic performance will be around the same as the 9800GT. If you still wanna use the 9800GT then go with the 860k.

might get shunned but a intel haswell i3 would probably be the better choice.
 
ebduncan said:
...
might get shunned but a intel haswell i3 would probably be the better choice.
Click to expand...
and so the pasta sauce thickens ...
Actually upon some heavy reading last night, not a bad recommendation. Seemingly having better single core performance than the APUs from AMD (need more stats on this one), hyper threading enabled so you will be able to get multitasking support when needed. :cool: Similar price point ... slightly less power consumption but missing a few instruction sets and without trusted computing. Bandwidth is quite lower on the i3.

Too close for me to make a call (I am not a fan of intel graphics). I say, compare motherboards and the one with the best sound quality on the lowest price point will take my vote.
 
ebduncan said:
Forget your 9800gt

I'd go with a A10-7870k or A10-7850k. The integrated graphic performance will be around the same as the 9800GT. If you still wanna use the 9800GT then go with the 860k.

might get shunned but a intel haswell i3 would probably be the better choice.
Click to expand...


I will be getting a 650GTX card, so in this case would you still suggest i get an A10-7850k ?
I will also get DDR3 ram for free. I am not sure on the latency, brand or frequency yet.

As i said, i originally wanted to get the 7870 but then i went to the AM3 option because people told me to buy the 8350. Then i saw the 9xxx has been released, but in terms of price and running hot the 6300+ is the best option for the AM3 socket BUT then i considered to go back to the FM2 socket because of the technology being newer and thus i was told about the x4 860k .

So this is where i am ...
 
lankyman said:
I will be getting a 650GTX card, so in this case would you still suggest i get an A10-7850k ?
I will also get DDR3 ram for free. I am not sure on the latency, brand or frequency yet.

As i said, i originally wanted to get the 7870 but then i went to the AM3 option because people told me to buy the 8350. Then i saw the 9xxx has been released, but in terms of price and running hot the 6300+ is the best option for the AM3 socket BUT then i considered to go back to the FM2 socket because of the technology being newer and thus i was told about the x4 860k .

So this is where i am ...
Click to expand...
Wait, hold up: Are you getting the GTX 650 new or is someone giving it to you for free?

Anyway, if you're getting a dedicated card at all, the A10-7850K is a poor choice since the whole point of the A10-7850K is its relatively fast graphics. In other words, the A10-7850K is only worth it if there's a 100% chance of no future video card upgrades. IF there is a chance, you're better off getting a regular CPU. Now if you're mainly looking for gaming performance, go Intel. Specifically the Pentium G3258 CPU. Here's why:
http://www.techspot.com/review/1017-best-budget-gaming-cpu/

Just in case you didn't know: The X4 860K is basically the A10-7850K but without built-in graphics.
 
I would spring for an Intel quad if using a separate video card. DX12 is too close and the OP doesn't seem like the person that wants to upgrade if DX12 is found to be significantly faster on quad core chips.
 
Dangman said:
Wait, hold up: Are you getting the GTX 650 new or is someone giving it to you for free?

Anyway, if you're getting a dedicated card at all, the A10-7850K is a poor choice since the whole point of the A10-7850K is its relatively fast graphics. In other words, the A10-7850K is only worth it if there's a 100% chance of no future video card upgrades. IF there is a chance, you're better off getting a regular CPU. Now if you're mainly looking for gaming performance, go Intel. Specifically the Pentium G3258 CPU. Here's why:
http://www.techspot.com/review/1017-best-budget-gaming-cpu/

Just in case you didn't know: The X4 860K is basically the A10-7850K but without built-in graphics.
Click to expand...

Yeh Dangman, i am getting the 650GTX for like 500 Rand which is like 40 bucks in American terms. I am getting memory with it, not sure how much ,i think its 6GB and its DDR3. I do not know what brand the Memory or the Frequency or the Latency.
 
if you are going to use a GPU then go intel.

Haswell I3-4370 will best the 7850k in all processor benchmarks, or nearly all. Use a lot less power. You will not be able to overclock the i3 though.

The 860k is just the 7850k without the graphics built in. So if you are going to use a GPU again you would use the 860k over the 7850k to save some $$. You can overclock the AMD APU's as they have a unlocked multiplier. They will out perform an i3 in multi threaded benchmarks when overclocked but not by much, and will use nearly twice the power. Single thread performance still goes to the I3.


Gaming wise the Haswell will be better, unless you're comparing the built in graphic performance of the i3-4370 to the 7850k. The 7850k built in graphics is WAY stronger than the Intel 4600 series integrated graphics in this case.
 
FX-6300 is a great overclocker. 4.3 ghz+ on air should be relatively easy to achieve. At that speed its more than enough for virtually all games out there right now.
 
WuTangClam said:
FX-6300 is a great overclocker. 4.3 ghz+ on air should be relatively easy to achieve. At that speed its more than enough for virtually all games out there right now.
Click to expand...

If we're going to bring in overclocking, an overclocked Pentium G3258 will outperform a 4.3Ghz FX-6300.
 
Depending on the application. Single threaded, sure.
4.3 ghz is also fairly conservative, many can be pushed far higher.
 
WuTangClam said:
Depending on the application. Single threaded, sure.
4.3 ghz is also fairly conservative, many can be pushed far higher.
Click to expand...

We're talking about gaming here which is what the OP wants to do. For gaming, even if that FX-6300 could be OC'd to 4.5Ghz to 4.6Ghz, it still would be slower than a 4Ghz clocked G3258. Considering that some people are hitting 4.5Ghz to 4.7Ghz with the G3258, it should be clear that for a gaming setup, the G3258 is the better choice.
 
Dangman said:
We're talking about gaming here which is what the OP wants to do. For gaming, even if that FX-6300 could be OC'd to 4.5Ghz to 4.6Ghz, it still would be slower than a 4Ghz clocked G3258. Considering that some people are hitting 4.5Ghz to 4.7Ghz with the G3258, it should be clear that for a gaming setup, the G3258 is the better choice.
Click to expand...


I don't think OP is building a pure gaming machine.

"I am not a hard core gamer , i love my music and my videos" - OP

Most games are pretty multithreaded now and will be increasingly so in the future. 2 cores isn't going to cut it anymore. 4.5 ghz is definitely very very achievable with a hyper 212 and the FX-6300. Please show benchmarks where a 4 Ghz G3258 beats a 4.6 Ghz FX-6300 in any recent multithreaded game.
 
WuTangClam said:
I don't think OP is building a pure gaming machine.

"I am not a hard core gamer , i love my music and my videos" - OP

Most games are pretty multithreaded now and will be increasingly so in the future. 2 cores isn't going to cut it anymore. 4.5 ghz is definitely very very achievable with a hyper 212 and the FX-6300. Please show benchmarks where a 4 Ghz G3258 beats a 4.6 Ghz FX-6300 in any recent multithreaded game.
Click to expand...

This link I posted earlier should suffice:
http://www.techspot.com/review/1017-best-budget-gaming-cpu/

IIRC, the Kaveri based APUs/CPUs are faster clock for clock than the AMD Bulldozer FX CPUs. Or at the very least, equal. Now considering that the G3258 outperforms the faster quad-core X4 860K in multithreaded games such as Civilization Beyond Earh and BF4, I do not see how the FX-6300 could beat the G3258.
 
Dangman said:
This link I posted earlier should suffice:
http://www.techspot.com/review/1017-best-budget-gaming-cpu/

IIRC, the Kaveri based APUs/CPUs are faster clock for clock than the AMD Bulldozer FX CPUs. Or at the very least, equal. Now considering that the G3258 outperforms the faster quad-core X4 860K in multithreaded games such as Civilization Beyond Earh and BF4, I do not see how the FX-6300 could beat the G3258.
Click to expand...

Have to be careful when comparing cores in games. 4 core and up can be compared. 2 cores can not. Common practice with 2 cores is games will cut out some animations and other stuff to allow games to be playable on those being most 2 cores are laptops. Hence why I refrain from ever recommending anything under 4 core.
 
durquavian said:
Have to be careful when comparing cores in games. 4 core and up can be compared. 2 cores can not. Common practice with 2 cores is games will cut out some animations and other stuff to allow games to be playable on those being most 2 cores are laptops. Hence why I refrain from ever recommending anything under 4 core.
Click to expand...

I've never heard that before. Do you have a link or something I can read further about it? I mean if it were "common practice" you'd think a major website reviewing gaming CPU's would have mentioned it.
 
I will note that some games will refuse to run a dual core.

Far Cry 4 is an example of this, also Dragon Age Inquisition.

The pentium edition G3258 cpu isn't a bad choice, but it has its limitations. I would do with an I3-4370 over the pentium edition G3258, as its hyper threaded and will not run into the same limitations a pure dual core cpu will run into.

The FX-6300/6350 isn't a bad choice, but is going to be slower in games than the Intel I3, and use more power. It will beat the I3 in non gaming benchmarks which can take advantage of the extra threads. The main reason to stay away from the FX cpu's is they have outdated boards, and there is ZERO upgrade path other than say another FX cpu.
 
ebduncan said:
I will note that some games will refuse to run a dual core.

Far Cry 4 is an example of this, also Dragon Age Inquisition.
Click to expand...

But the community works around stupid programmers:

Dragon Age: Inquisition Fix:

http://forum.bioware.com/topic/5490...dragon-age-inquisition-on-intel-dual-core-pc/

And this review shows a clearly-playable 30fps from the stock Pentium Anniversary Edition MAXED, proving this is just a case of lazy developers (likely can drive more FPS, but they targeted max playable GPU-LIMITED settings):

http://www.techspot.com/review/1017-best-budget-gaming-cpu/page5.html

FarCry 4 Fix:

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/266114-running-farcry-4-on-a-dual-core-cpu-guide-my-fps-numbers/

The thread above shows playable framerates at Medium. Pretty good for a dual-core!

And as always, the Pentium dual-core at stock is faster than the overclcoked Athlon X4 860K in the majority of games. Read the rest of the review I linked :D
 
Last edited:
defaultluser said:
But the community works around stupid programmers:

Dragon Age: Inquisition Fix:

http://forum.bioware.com/topic/5490...dragon-age-inquisition-on-intel-dual-core-pc/

And this review shows a clearly-playable 30fps from the stock Pentium Anniversary Edition MAXED, proving this is just a case of lazy developers (likely can drive more FPS, but they targeted max playable GPU-LIMITED settings):

http://www.techspot.com/review/1017-best-budget-gaming-cpu/page5.html

FarCry 4 Fix:

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/266114-running-farcry-4-on-a-dual-core-cpu-guide-my-fps-numbers/

The thread above shows playable framerates at Medium. Pretty good for a dual-core!

And as always, the Pentium dual-core at stock is faster than the overclcoked Athlon X4 860K in the majority of games. Read the rest of the review I linked :D
Click to expand...


why would i read a forum post? If you paid attention to my recommendations we wouldn't be here. Don't buy a dual core cpu period, work around or not, its not worth it.

edit here is a recent article talking about cpus and gaming performance.
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Systems/Quad-Core-Gaming-Roundup-How-Much-CPU-Do-You-Really-Need
 
Last edited:
ebduncan said:
why would i read a forum post? If you paid attention to my recommendations we wouldn't be here. Don't buy a dual core cpu period, work around or not, its not worth it.
Click to expand...

So what, you're against fixing broken games? It's a time-honored tradition in PC gaming, so you'd better get used to it or go game on a console.

edit here is a recent article talking about cpus and gaming performance.
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Systems/Quad-Core-Gaming-Roundup-How-Much-CPU-Do-You-Really-Need
Click to expand...

And it concludes that Intel's dual-core delivers the same performance as AMD's quad-core...when it's GPU-limited by a scrawny GTX 750 Ti. :yawn:.

The Tech Spot article at least has the balls to try a GPU that actually stresses the processors by using a $200 GPU.

And I wouldn't call 3 game tests performed last year "conclusive" (yes, those are the test results they used to compare against this 2015 article with THREE TIMES THE GAMES). Lazy fucks:

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/System...System-Builds-Compared/Game-Benchmark-Results

And they reuse that graph without adding any of their latest results, giving you absolutely no comparative information between the runs (because fuck analysis, we don't need that shit):

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Systems/Quad-Core-Gaming-Hardware-Roundup/Conclusion

It honestly took me 15 minutes to figure out why hardware combinations not tested in this review ended-up in that graph.

And no, they never directly tested 2 cores, nor did they provide any easy-to-read comparison graph of 4 cores versus 8 cores. Such a waste of my time. And there is WAY TOO MUCH fucking information packed on those 3 pages to quickly analyze on my own.
 
Last edited:
defaultluser said:
And it concludes that Intel's dual-core delivers the same performance as AMD's quad-core...when it's GPU-limited by a scrawny GTX 750 Ti. :yawn:.

The Tech Spot article at least has the balls to try a GPU that actually stresses the processors by using a $200 GPU.

And I wouldn't call 3 game tests performed last year "conclusive" (yes, those are the test results they used to compare against this 2015 article with THREE TIMES THE GAMES). Lazy fucks:

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/System...System-Builds-Compared/Game-Benchmark-Results

And they reuse that graph without adding any of their latest results, giving you absolutely no comparative information between the runs (because fuck analysis, we don't need that shit):

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Systems/Quad-Core-Gaming-Hardware-Roundup/Conclusion
Click to expand...


dude stop arguing with me, and go back to see my cpu recommendations.

I only mentioned the dual core being a problem because it will not run newer games out of the box, which hey is a rather big point...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If that article shows performance under Mantle with certain cpu you know what to expect under DX12 ;) . The reason why AMD get clobbered on these benchmarks is the flaw before every DirectX before 12 which only allows 1 cpu core to talk to the gpu. Then basically you can "cripple" an AMD cpu as much as you can cripple current Intel cpu by just runing enough programs at the same time where AMD just performs ....
 
Last edited:
Pieter3dnow said:
If that article shows performance under Mantle with certain cpu you know what to expect under DX12 ;) . The reason why AMD get clobbered on these benchmarks is the flaw in DirectX >12 which only allows 1 cpu core to talk to the gpu. Then basically you can "cripple" an AMD cpu as much as you can cripple current Intel cpu by just runing enough programs at the same time where AMD just performs ....
Click to expand...

I am real interested to see how much of a performance increase we will see with that. So far on batch calls with Star swarm, which is ok. But to see a game and how being DX11 differs to DX12 in the same game.
 
durquavian said:
I am real interested to see how much of a performance increase we will see with that. So far on batch calls with Star swarm, which is ok. But to see a game and how being DX11 differs to DX12 in the same game.
Click to expand...

It is easy :) none of the games out there that are DX11 will push the same amount of batches as Mantle games do. 10K-15K batches is to what is out now (DX11) if you translate that to something as Battlefield 4 under Mantle which pushes around 40K batches

The BF4 Mantle stuff runs very well under a Phenom II 960T at ~4ghz using a R9 290X that would mean that if the engine used for DX11 games just gets a "port" without increasing the amount of batches it would almost cross out the cpu from playing _any_ part.

If a develop wants more profit then it needs a better install base the lower the hardware requirements would mean more potential buyers. For certain games this would be something to keep in mind while other games pushing higher number of batches might work better for their target audience.

People laughed at those tiny laptop chips which AMD made those would function very well without needing a discreet graphics card in most cases. Even tablets would be able to play games you play on the desktop (yes playable, not freaking out on all the major graphics settings).
 
I love how intel biased benchmarks will run a game on low settings at 1024x768 just to show a graph that kills AMD. when you max the settings and run a high end video card the AMD cpus do just fine.

There is a couple exceptions where intel does make a notable lead but never have i had a bad gaming experience on one of my AMD systems that made me think i needed to jump ship.

The part making me jump ship is the continued progress intel makes with motherboards, power efficiency, performance increased while we are still left with a limited FM2+ quad cores or an ancient am3+ platform that is dead end.

Would be nice if at least AMD updated the motherboards...
 
My vote is the 860k overclock it a little bit if you wanna but no need. Get the 650 from your friend (as long as it is indeed cheap) and call it a day. Coming from your 939 system this will make you more than happy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top