Cheapest cpu for BF3?

Fel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
322
Wanting to spend as little as possible, a new cpu for my mobo would not be much of a performance increase would it? The most demanding game i play is battlefield and i'd like to get min 60 fps. If there is a really could used cpu i could buy that is a good value that would be the best, the e8400 used to be good right?
 
E8400 is a Intel CPU for Socket 775. Your motherboard, going by your signature, is a Socket AM2+ motherboard. The two are not compatible.

Your best bet I think, is a Phenom II X6.
 
E8400 is good, but I bet you could get an i3+mobo for just a little bit more that will outperform the E8400 entirely.
 
Microcenter.com

I just bought one today:

AMD FX-4100 + free Asus or Gigabyte motherboard = 109.00 out the door!

Plenty of CPU power for BF3 and Cheeeep.
 
If your coming from a dual core and a 5770. You'll be needing a newer quad core CPU+GPU/CFX+DDR3 memory realistically speaking.

Cheapest

960T, or AMD FX 4100 MCenter deal like above posted, or used Quad Phenom II.

i5 2300 is Intels cheapest Quad.

Then Grab another 5770 with CFX Mobo or sell yours. Match it all with DDR3 Ram 8GB kit and Windows 7 64 bit.
 
Get the Microcenter deal w/FX4100 + Radeon 6870....they are like $140 now and you can play BF3 on med/high settings at 60fps all day.
 
im not ordering today so no deals or anything like that.
 
i3-2100 is a great processor for BF3... Personally I don't like 64 player maps anyway, those are the only ones that can actually peg my CPU 90+%.

in 32, 48 player maps an i3-2100 is plenty to keep framerates at 60 or above...
 
tomshardware regularly does guides showing the best gaming gpu and cpu for the money. your request (60fps) may not match your budget though.

i3 2100 is the cheapest option, but 2500k is an even better deal. get one of those microcenter 2500k deals everyone is always talking about, or wait 2 months for ivy bridge which will be the same thing only a bit better.
 
IF you have an MC nearby, this is the way to go...

FX-4100 + craptastic old 7xx series amd board: $109.99
FX-6100 + craptastic old 7xx series amd board: $139.99
8120+nice $100 board: $190+tax
i5-2400+Z68 board ~ $200-$220
i5-2500k+Z68 board ~ $220-$250
i7-2600 ($199 with fb coupon)+Board ~ $300-$325
 
MoBo: eVGA SLI $110 amir

CPU: i5-2300 free copy of Rage $180

RAM: 2x4GB 1.5V $37


Grand Total: $367 shipped, $327 amir

If you like near a Microcenter, you can probably get a smoking deal on an i5 + Z68 combo for less than the $290 total above.
 
Just keep an eye on this/other sites for sale forums and wait for some great deals. Be patient.
 
I ran a bunch of my own tests at 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 and the i3-2100 is significantly faster than the Pentium G line in BF3 for not much more money just fyi.

On Gulf of Oman with an overclocked 6990 I only averaged around 30 fps test after test on the G series on ultra. Adding hyperthreading improved that number into the low 40s - a big improvement in playability. Both of these tests were done with at least 60 players, and three 3 minute tests were averaged, unlike review sites which only tested single player.
 
If it were me, I'd go with the Gigabyte H61 board or even the Asrock H61 board. I haven't had good luck with Biostar in the past, and I can't see anyone choosing a Biostar board over a Gigabyte that even ends up being a couple bucks cheaper.

You can also get an 8GB kit for another $10-12.
 
On my budget build, the FX 4100 and 6850, I played BF3 on high just fine. I don't know how many fps, but it was definitely playable.
 
what's the cheapest used video card I can get away with (ATI) for *decent* play BF3?

(rig: giga Ex58-ud3r v1.7; i7-920; PCI-e 2.0 (not 2.1); 6Gb Ram; HP 2311 1920x1080 23" monitor)

Tnx
 
If it were me, I'd go with the Gigabyte H61 board or even the Asrock H61 board. I haven't had good luck with Biostar in the past, and I can't see anyone choosing a Biostar board over a Gigabyte that even ends up being a couple bucks cheaper.

You can also get an 8GB kit for another $10-12.

Isn't the difference between 4 and 8 in gaming negligible?


I ran a bunch of my own tests at 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 and the i3-2100 is significantly faster than the Pentium G line in BF3 for not much more money just fyi.

On Gulf of Oman with an overclocked 6990 I only averaged around 30 fps test after test on the G series on ultra. Adding hyperthreading improved that number into the low 40s - a big improvement in playability. Both of these tests were done with at least 60 players, and three 3 minute tests were averaged, unlike review sites which only tested single player.
i thought battlefield didnt support ht?
 
Any real disadvantage to micro-atx motherboards?

Not really. From a feature standpoint the only thing they lack is more PCI slots. But frankly the only thing most of us use them for is graphics, and it's not as if everyone is running an SLI/CFX setup.

The only thing to possibly consider is PCI slot spacing if you're doing SLI/CFX. Ideally you want to maximize the space between cards for cooling purposes; on a MATX board, though, you have less of it to work with. But for a single-card setup, this is totally not an issue.
 
Isn't the difference between 4 and 8 in gaming negligible?



i thought battlefield didnt support ht?

Yes it does, and I tested it to death - although going from the i5 to the i7, clock for clock made no difference.

Here is a thread where I posted most of my results - http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1669236&page=3

The other info pertinent to your question is that you will not get 60 fps minimum without a 2500k if you are talking stock processors. I would assume an overclocked AMD quad core or an overclocked first gen i3 both on the budget side could also accomplish that, but if your desire is to get a new processor hit 60 fps and play 64 person multiplayer, the 2500k is the best game in town.
 
Yes it does, and I tested it to death - although going from the i5 to the i7, clock for clock made no difference.

Here is a thread where I posted most of my results - http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1669236&page=3

The other info pertinent to your question is that you will not get 60 fps minimum without a 2500k if you are talking stock processors. I would assume an overclocked AMD quad core or an overclocked first gen i3 both on the budget side could also accomplish that, but if your desire is to get a new processor hit 60 fps and play 64 person multiplayer, the 2500k is the best game in town.

This guy is accurate. My sig rig gets mid-40s low 50s in combat in BF3 at 1080. My processor is the choke point because if I look at the graph the task manager provides, I'm constantly hitting 100% while my graphics card dips at about the same point. In almost any other game I've played, my graphics card was the bottleneck. To be honest, I was planning on upgrading to the 3570k when it came out, but it really doesn't pay since I'm getting great performance as is.

BF3 is completely playable with this processor. But you won't be getting 60 fps minimum.
 
So i guess i'm being convinced.. i thought there wasn't much difference between i3/i5 but if its as much as yall say im going for it. any price drops coming within the next month?
 
Any real disadvantage to micro-atx motherboards?

i bought a micro atx board and you need to pay attention to details, for example the sata ports were facing outward instead of to the side so my gpu covered all but 1 sata connection
 
i bought a micro atx board and you need to pay attention to details, for example the sata ports were facing outward instead of to the side so my gpu covered all but 1 sata connection

As you said, definitely depends on the board. That was one of my reasons for staying far away from the Gigabyte mATX Z68 boards... which I guess may go against my advice to choose a Gigabyte earlier. I'm just definitely anti-Biostar. My MSI Z68MA-ED55 is an awesome little board. I love this thing. Quite a bit more pricey at $140 though (I bought it open-box on Newegg for $100 a month or two back).
 
Back
Top