Godivari core

There are plenty of reviews of it out there, its just a slightly higher clocked Steamroller core, same as Kaveri. Basically that means in 9 out of 10 games it loses to a cheaper i3. If you're set on the FM2+ platform and a discreet GPU get an 860K and save yourself $60 towards something else.
 
Which is why I suggested the 860k and not an i3, just being realistic about the performance. I'm using a 7700k right now with a GTX 950. Supposedly an 870k/880k were on the way but I doubt we'll ever see them.
 
If you are buying this with a 380 you are wasting money, as the other person suggested buy the x4 860k.
if you want to buy this anyways and waste your money then why are you asking someone how it performs.
It performs worse than a x4 860k + r7 250 which when purchased together add up to the same price of this APU. So in other words, it performs terribly bad.

x4 860k is much cheaper than the i3 so definitely cant compare.
 
LigTasm said:
Which is why I suggested the 860k and not an i3, just being realistic about the performance. I'm using a 7700k right now with a GTX 950. Supposedly an 870k/880k were on the way but I doubt we'll ever see them.
Click to expand...

Yup, the 860k is clocked exactly the same as the more expensive GPU-enabled cores, and it overclocks exactly the same.

Since the Core i3 has been getting faster, they've had to bump the core clock of their basic quad core to keep up.
 
defaultluser said:
Yup, the 860k is clocked exactly the same as the more expensive GPU-enabled cores, and it overclocks exactly the same.

Since the Core i3 has been getting faster, they've had to bump the core clock of their basic quad core to keep up.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you're using a discreet GPU like the R9 380 the 7870k makes no sense at $140. The other Godavari is a single module/dual core IIRC so that makes no sense either.
 
LigTasm said:
Yeah, if you're using a discreet GPU like the R9 380 the 7870k makes no sense at $140. The other Godavari is a single module/dual core IIRC so that makes no sense either.
Click to expand...

And if you absolutely must have IGP (as a backup), then the A8-7670K ($110) is as high as you need go. Again, same exact core clocks as the big boys,just a cut-down GPU.
 
For a 380 I'd go with a 8350 if you can. A slight OC and bottlenecks should be much more rare.
 
a3venom said:
Btw, I believe it will still bottleneck a r9 380.
Click to expand...

Agreed...I had a 860K and it will be a bottleneck for almost everything but the entry level add in cards. I read a review that showed even with a heavy OC it was still behind the AM3+ and any Intel core platforms in IPC. You'll really feel it with minimum fps numbers. Don't delude yourself into thinking the FM2+ platform is a higher level gaming machine.
 
Not quite. From experience with an 8350, 7850k and a 7870k, I can say that it takes a 4.8/5.0Ghz 8350 to match a 7850/7870k @ 4.4Ghz. 4.4Ghz is easily achieved where as 5.0Ghz on the 8350 is a bit more cumbersome and equipment sensitive. As far as gaming, @60fps any of these will do especially with a 380. @4.6Ghz my 8350 maintain a steady 60 fps in most all my games with a 290. So I doubt seriously that a 380 will perform worse because of the CPU, it will because it isn't nearly as strong.

Besides not everyone buys CPU/APUs based on benchmarks or reviews. Sometimes they just want it, be it for novelty or specific use. Not sure why so many of you feel it is your job to make the decision for him?
 
Don't waste your money, wait for Zen later or go Intel now. The Skylake i3-6100 puts to shame everything AMD has right now.
 
wyqtor said:
Don't waste your money, wait for Zen later or go Intel now. The Skylake i3-6100 puts to shame everything AMD has right now.
Click to expand...

Actually the shame is everyone assuming they know best. It is laughable at best when anyone promotes an i3. Besides most of you never give criteria. Using a 60hz monitor is there any difference between AMD @73fps and Intel@ 126fps? Hell even to this day every test in a side by side comparison shows the majority of users cant tell the difference.
 
JustReason said:
Actually the shame is everyone assuming they know best. It is laughable at best when anyone promotes an i3. Besides most of you never give criteria. Using a 60hz monitor is there any difference between AMD @73fps and Intel@ 126fps? Hell even to this day every test in a side by side comparison shows the majority of users cant tell the difference.
Click to expand...

There are exactly 3 reasons to buy AMD CPUs right now
1. Lack of knowledge about the whole price/perf thing ( AMD doesn't give you cheap performance)
2. Brand Nostalgia (You bought it 20 years ago and remember the good ol days so buy it again)
3. Niche Reasons (You need more cores for the applications you run and don't mind abysmally slow per core perf) - This is when you should actually buy it.

Only CPUs i say that don't absolutely suck will be X4 860k and maybe FX 6 core.

X 4 860k is definitely better than the Pentium Overclock, since Pentium got only 2 threads.
FX 6 Core is great at a budget deal, it comes very close to the i3 for a slightly lower price.

The FX 8 Cores are not going to beat an i3 6100 in gaming(OC FX vs Stock i3), you can even OC the i3 now so that's a completely different story that no one has compared yet. DX 12 - FX loses even worse.

a 7870k loses to AMD's own product in gaming - x4 860k + r7 250. They both are the same price so why would you pay more for less?

People come to this forum for suggestions or to comfort their own emotional needs after purchasing a shit product?

OP asked for advice and people gave him advice, the x4 860k is by no means supposed to be paired with a r9 380, it will not give you 60 fps. Similarly if two CPUs for the same price give you 60 and 70 fps respectively, why would you buy the slower one? It doesn't matter if the human eye can't see anythign above 5 fps, why would you willingly pay less for more - being able to notice the difference doesn't matter.

Again no one can tell the OP to buy the i3 because it is almost double in cost.
 
I was waiting for Zen, but my sons computer died and forced my hand. I ordered two 860k ($63 each), motherboards, ddr3 2400 and I am very pleased with the 860k performance.

My 3dmark score only went from 6600 to 7222 with a geforce 970, but my most demanding (mechwarrior online) game plays fantastic on max settings.
 
buttons said:
I was waiting for Zen, but my sons computer died and forced my hand. I ordered two 860k ($63 each), motherboards, ddr3 2400 and I am very pleased with the 860k performance.

My 3dmark score only went from 6600 to 7222 with a geforce 970, but my most demanding (mechwarrior online) game plays fantastic on max settings.
Click to expand...

Yeah for $63 new you can't beat the 860K. For $140 a 7870K is a little bit expensive if you aren't using the iGPU.
 
JustReason said:
Actually the shame is everyone assuming they know best. It is laughable at best when anyone promotes an i3. Besides most of you never give criteria. Using a 60hz monitor is there any difference between AMD @73fps and Intel@ 126fps? Hell even to this day every test in a side by side comparison shows the majority of users cant tell the difference.
Click to expand...

Leaving Intel out of this an AMD 6300+ or 8320+ cpu will be faster in games than any FM2+ cpu/apu. They have more cores and L3 cache than any APU. The 860K over clocked can't max out anything higher than a 270X. You certainly can't keep a steady 60 fps unless you are running 720P or lower and minimum fps will be much lower as well. You'd be better off getting a 7850K and use the apu graphics as at least you would save yourself the cost of a video card. FYI...the newest i3 cpu's would stomp the floor with the 860K in games is why I'd leave it out of the conversation plus the OP wants to stick with AMD. Shame on you. I've owned a 860K and AM3+ cpu's so I know exactly what you are getting.
 
Bowman15 said:
Leaving Intel out of this an AMD 6300+ or 8320+ cpu will be faster in games than any FM2+ cpu/apu. They have more cores and L3 cache than any APU. The 860K over clocked can't max out anything higher than a 270X. You certainly can't keep a steady 60 fps unless you are running 720P or lower and minimum fps will be much lower as well. You'd be better off getting a 7850K and use the apu graphics as at least you would save yourself the cost of a video card. FYI...the newest i3 cpu's would stomp the floor with the 860K in games is why I'd leave it out of the conversation plus the OP wants to stick with AMD. Shame on you. I've owned a 860K and AM3+ cpu's so I know exactly what you are getting.
Click to expand...

Do you have a 7870/7850k/860k? Doubt it. My wife plays WoW with a 7770 for now and she gets 60fps with the occasional 50fps most of the time. I guarantee you it is the 7770 GPU that is causing the problem, not the CPU @4.5Ghz with 2133 ram.

See this is what I don't like about people who give advice, they know next to nothing about how it REALLY works, only the drivel given by the ignorant masses that think benchmarks tell the whole story.

Or maybe you missed the part where I said:
Hell even to this day every test in a side by side comparison shows the majority of users cant tell the difference.
Click to expand...

One forum poster tried a 7850K with a 290 against an Intel 4 core(think it was a 4770K) with an identical 290 and tried a blind test. None could say which was the AMD and which was Intel. He even found most preferred the AMD rig.

Now I am in no way saying AMD is better than Intel, we all know that Intel is the far stronger option. But without criteria blanket statements cant be made nor be accurate. Like I said at 60FPS Most of the processors in the market will do.

And honestly yes I would likely recommend a FX 8 core over an APU. However there is the extra equipment cost , namely cooling the beast.
 
As mentioned previously.. why would you, if you had the choice, buy a cpu that provides 60fps over one that provides 73? Sure, at this moment, in game XYZ you dont see an issue, but what about the future? What about the game that IS noticeable? Because I'll be frank, 40fps vs 60 fps is noticeable all day long.
 
JustReason said:
Do you have a 7870/7850k/860k? Doubt it. My wife plays WoW with a 7770 for now and she gets 60fps with the occasional 50fps most of the time. I guarantee you it is the 7770 GPU that is causing the problem, not the CPU @4.5Ghz with 2133 ram.

See this is what I don't like about people who give advice, they know next to nothing about how it REALLY works, only the drivel given by the ignorant masses that think benchmarks tell the whole story.

Or maybe you missed the part where I said:


One forum poster tried a 7850K with a 290 against an Intel 4 core(think it was a 4770K) with an identical 290 and tried a blind test. None could say which was the AMD and which was Intel. He even found most preferred the AMD rig.

Now I am in no way saying AMD is better than Intel, we all know that Intel is the far stronger option. But without criteria blanket statements cant be made nor be accurate. Like I said at 60FPS Most of the processors in the market will do.

And honestly yes I would likely recommend a FX 8 core over an APU. However there is the extra equipment cost , namely cooling the beast.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid to tell you a 7770 is not even in the same class as a 270X (7870+) and yes I've owned both a 860K and a 7850K. Stop telling others they don't know what they are saying when you don't give out good advice yourself. Nothing you stated counters what I said. Use what you want but don't go giving out advice or tell somebody they are wrong unless you can back it up. There is no blanket statement when its plain facts. The 860K is a low budget gaming cpu at best. If that's what you like fine but don't delude yourself they are as good as a AM3+ cpu in gaming over all or tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.
 
buttons said:
I was waiting for Zen, but my sons computer died and forced my hand. I ordered two 860k ($63 each), motherboards, ddr3 2400 and I am very pleased with the 860k performance.

My 3dmark score only went from 6600 to 7222 with a geforce 970, but my most demanding (mechwarrior online) game plays fantastic on max settings.
Click to expand...

Define fantastic because as far as I know MWO uses tons of cpu power and people are struggling to get stable 60 fps without i5.
 
I'd still do a 8350 and OC it if OP can swing it. There's a decent increase over a 860k.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page5.html

I was doing a miniITX build and was willing to use a 8350 (which no board actually exists for) but a 7870k even OCd was too big of a hit for me. I ended up with a 4690k/GTX970. If I was doing a miniATX or higher I would of did 8350/970 for the fun of it.
 
Bowman15 said:
I'm afraid to tell you a 7770 is not even in the same class as a 270X (7870+) and yes I've owned both a 860K and a 7850K. Stop telling others they don't know what they are saying when you don't give out good advice yourself. Nothing you stated counters what I said. Use what you want but don't go giving out advice or tell somebody they are wrong unless you can back it up. There is no blanket statement when its plain facts. The 860K is a low budget gaming cpu at best. If that's what you like fine but don't delude yourself they are as good as a AM3+ cpu in gaming over all or tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

You really need to learn to read and comprehend. The point of the 7770 was that it would be the bottleneck in the system not the CPU. Therefore a stronger GPU would likely have better results and being the minimum is met with a 7770 it isn't likely the 7870/7850k would be a bottleneck at all with an even better GPU.

And as far as backing it up I gave REAL world results not some alluding points to some fore owned parts with no details. You still miss the point that he asked how the 7870K part performed with a 380. Not what else he should get. Granted you can add that part in but to dismiss a part solely because it doesn't fit your own criteria is quite selfish and quite dishonest toward the truth.

And as far as my experience with the parts I have them right here and can give details as to their performance. In single core, as I have stated previous, the 7870k/7850k is a fair bit stronger where 4.4Ghz on the 7870k = ~ 4.8/5.0Ghz on the 8350. Now my 8350 is still faster simply because of the higher core count and how I have the total system OCed, but not by much. But I wasn't debating that but rather pointing out that the 7870k can perform quite well and meet the needs of a beefy system quite well.

Look at any benchmark for reference and you can see they come quite close to 60fps at stock. At 4.5Ghz 60fps is quite a bit easier. Hence why I stated My wifes 7870k tends toward 60fps (capped at 75fps) with Minimums generally around 45-50 during general gameplay. WoW is a bottom end game too. Most other games run far better so maintaining 60Fps is very attainable.

Now based on the OPs choice, the 7870k paired with a 380 will be satisfactory at 60fps. Higher frame rate monitors would then be less so and not really a proper recommendation. The 860k would give equal results if the OP was so inclined to entertain similar performance/lower cost (exact performance in this case). Or if the OP was so inclined to entertain a wider variety albeit still AMD then I would recommend the 8350/8370/9590 depending on how deep his pockets were. But seeing how the question was how it performed not whether it was worth it, I don't see the need in dredging up every possibility or browbeating the decision.
 
Been thinking about the same thing. Whats better low end intel and a dGPU or a AMD build with the highest end APU. Im leaning towards intel and dGPU.
 
JustReason said:
You really need to learn to read and comprehend. The point of the 7770 was that it would be the bottleneck in the system not the CPU. Therefore a stronger GPU would likely have better results and being the minimum is met with a 7770 it isn't likely the 7870/7850k would be a bottleneck at all with an even better GPU.

And as far as backing it up I gave REAL world results not some alluding points to some fore owned parts with no details. You still miss the point that he asked how the 7870K part performed with a 380. Not what else he should get. Granted you can add that part in but to dismiss a part solely because it doesn't fit your own criteria is quite selfish and quite dishonest toward the truth.

And as far as my experience with the parts I have them right here and can give details as to their performance. In single core, as I have stated previous, the 7870k/7850k is a fair bit stronger where 4.4Ghz on the 7870k = ~ 4.8/5.0Ghz on the 8350. Now my 8350 is still faster simply because of the higher core count and how I have the total system OCed, but not by much. But I wasn't debating that but rather pointing out that the 7870k can perform quite well and meet the needs of a beefy system quite well.

Look at any benchmark for reference and you can see they come quite close to 60fps at stock. At 4.5Ghz 60fps is quite a bit easier. Hence why I stated My wifes 7870k tends toward 60fps (capped at 75fps) with Minimums generally around 45-50 during general gameplay. WoW is a bottom end game too. Most other games run far better so maintaining 60Fps is very attainable.

Now based on the OPs choice, the 7870k paired with a 380 will be satisfactory at 60fps. Higher frame rate monitors would then be less so and not really a proper recommendation. The 860k would give equal results if the OP was so inclined to entertain similar performance/lower cost (exact performance in this case). Or if the OP was so inclined to entertain a wider variety albeit still AMD then I would recommend the 8350/8370/9590 depending on how deep his pockets were. But seeing how the question was how it performed not whether it was worth it, I don't see the need in dredging up every possibility or browbeating the decision.
Click to expand...

All I can say is you are wrong. A 860K or 7870K will not make a good pair with a R9 380 (not even an X ver.) and a resolution of 1080P+ and expect a 60 fps average, unless you turn graphic settings way down. And most everyone plays at 1080P and higher. My 290X had a hard time maintaining 60 fps with newer games. Would that be good enough at 1366x768 or lower, yes. If you feel that strongly please post a 10 minute video with a newer game and fraps showing were it gets a constant 60 fps with minimum hitching and that combination, your choice 860K or 7870K plus a 380.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
Been thinking about the same thing. Whats better low end intel and a dGPU or a AMD build with the highest end APU. Im leaning towards intel and dGPU.
Click to expand...

This depends entirely on the use case (games being played + other uses for the computer), parts on hand, your budget, and any sale price. Personally, from my experience, I don't think the cheap intel and dGPU can come anywhere close to competing with a A10 7870.

On black Friday I picked up a 7870K for $110, combo'd with an A88X-Pro for an extra $50. I had 16GB of 2133 ram on hand, so I didn't need to buy ram for the AMD, where I would have had to buy ram for an i3 skylake.

The system replaced a old intel Q9550 OC'd to 3.6Ghz and an OC'd ATI 4870 both water cooled with a pair of old Black Ice Radiators. This system was primarily being used for e-mail, web browsing, 4 Eve online clients, and pushing TV in my office, all at the same time. The old vid card was slowly but surely becoming unstable, especially if I bumped the DVI cable, and it was time for a replacement.

I picked up a swiftech water block for the APU, and moved the new system into the old Core 2 Quad case. I'm still in the process of tweaking the new system, but for $160, the new Godivari @ 4.7ghz with integrated video set to "extreme" blows the doors off the old setup. I'm quite certain that for $160 total, there is no intel setup that can even come close to compete.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
Been thinking about the same thing. Whats better low end intel and a dGPU or a AMD build with the highest end APU. Im leaning towards intel and dGPU.
Click to expand...
Any Intel 1366 or later and discrete GPU.Overclockability + more cores is a bonus.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
Been thinking about the same thing. Whats better low end intel and a dGPU or a AMD build with the highest end APU. Im leaning towards intel and dGPU.
Click to expand...

That would all depend on if you want smallest footprint and power usage, If you are looking to go with the smallest footprint and power usage you would go with the apu. If you didn't care about power but still wanted small, you would go with the i3 and a dedicated gpu.

You surely wouldn't go with intel for the integrated gpu. They are not bad but after playing with the i5-4690k, I will stick with my A10 -7850K. For almost a 100 dollars more, the i5 is only on par with the A10. Some games that need single thread performance, the i5 wins. If the game is gpu bound, the A10 wins.
 
You have to compare these products within a price range.

If you compare a new x4 860k to a new Pentium G3258, i can never recommend the pentium just because it is 2c/2t and that doesnt run most modern titles optimally even with high clocks. The X4 860k will give you a much better performance in this case.


But once you move upto an i3 6100 ( you cannot compare this to a x4 860k, it is much much more expensive) - the i3 flat out beats any CPU that AMD makes overclocked FX to 4.5 GHZ / whatever from a purely gaming standpoint (FPS, minimum fps etc.) - DX 11 or 12.

You do not put an APU like 7870k in this category because it is fucking retarded to buy an APU for more money than an i3 than performs considerably worse. The APU is a x4 860k + shitty iGPU - you can buy a x4 860k and a r7 250 for the price of a 7870k and the dGPU will always perform better.

There is a guy talking about watercooling an APU - holy fuck do i even have to stress how bad of an idea is it to spend $50 on a $100 CPU for cooling? Basic common sense when spending your money unless you want stuff for novelty !
 
a3venom said:
There is a guy talking about watercooling an APU - holy fuck do i even have to stress how bad of an idea is it to spend $50 on a $100 CPU for cooling? Basic common sense when spending your money unless you want stuff for novelty !
Click to expand...

I reused old WC gear from my old core2 quad, and bought a used swiftech apogee WB for $30, which is less than or equal to pretty much any heatsink you're going to buy. You're suggestion I should have spent MORE money on something that would provide less cooling? .... I don't get it...

Also, I'm pretty sure that the A10 7870 integrated video is better than a just plain 250, and it certainly uses less power than going with a 860k + discreet card.
 
Last edited:
Endgame said:
I reused old WC gear from my old core2 quad, and bought a used swiftech apogee WB for $30, which is less than or equal to pretty much any heatsink you're going to buy. You're suggestion I should have spent MORE money on something that would provide less cooling? .... I don't get it...

Also, I'm pretty sure that the A10 7870 integrated video is better than a just plain 250, and it certainly uses less power than going with a 860k + discreet card.
Click to expand...

Recycling - ok. I didnt know.
a10 7870 is worse than a r7 250.
Also A10 7870 + r7 250 in X Fire is slower than a x4 860k + r7 260.
 
a3venom said:
Recycling - ok. I didnt know.
a10 7870 is worse than a r7 250.
Also A10 7870 + r7 250 in X Fire is slower than a x4 860k + r7 260.
Click to expand...

As i mentioned in the original post - low end intel vs APU depends on parts you have on hand, any sale prices, goals for the system, and budget.

As for 860k + r7 250 vs A10 7870, got some benchmarks? Can't compare a APU easily to discreet vid card in anandtech bench, and the conclusion here http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/inde...mpare=radeon-r7-7870k-vs-radeon-r7-250-v2-2gb says that the igpu is faster. Even if the iGPU isn't faster, is it worth the extra power consumption and $10 to 15 over the APU at retail prices (APUs always seem to be on sale when I look at them at micro center).
 
Endgame said:
As i mentioned in the original post - low end intel vs APU depends on parts you have on hand, any sale prices, goals for the system, and budget.

As for 860k + r7 250 vs A10 7870, got some benchmarks? Can't compare a APU easily to discreet vid card in anandtech bench, and the conclusion here http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/inde...mpare=radeon-r7-7870k-vs-radeon-r7-250-v2-2gb says that the igpu is faster. Even if the iGPU isn't faster, is it worth the extra power consumption and $10 to 15 over the APU at retail prices (APUs always seem to be on sale when I look at them at micro center).
Click to expand...

The 7870K apu is about even with a R7 250 and DDR3. The R7 250 is faster with GDDR5.
 
Endgame said:
As i mentioned in the original post - low end intel vs APU depends on parts you have on hand, any sale prices, goals for the system, and budget.

As for 860k + r7 250 vs A10 7870, got some benchmarks? Can't compare a APU easily to discreet vid card in anandtech bench, and the conclusion here http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/inde...mpare=radeon-r7-7870k-vs-radeon-r7-250-v2-2gb says that the igpu is faster. Even if the iGPU isn't faster, is it worth the extra power consumption and $10 to 15 over the APU at retail prices (APUs always seem to be on sale when I look at them at micro center).
Click to expand...

In our Gaming tests we used Tomb Raider, Hitman Absolution and Sleeping Dogs. We used the same settings we used in our Kaveri Review and, you guess it, the 860K with the R7 250 gives significantly better performance than the 7850K APU in all the games tested.

The AMD A10-7850K APU can be ran hybrid crossfire with a R7 250 GPU in what AMD has called "Dual Graphics" mode, we have shown the Gaming results of that Graphics configuration below. In the 3 games tested only Tomb Raider was able to benefit from the Dual GPU setup, though not considerably. In Sleeping Dogs the dual graphics performance was slightly worse than that of the R7 250 on it own and in Hitman Absolution the performance was worse than the APU by itself and considerably worse than a single R7 250.

It is clear that as a whole the 860K + R7 250 is a better setup than the A10-7850K + R7 250 in dual graphics mode, both from a performance basis and in terms of cost.
Click to expand...

Add some numbers to it for the better perf of the 7870k, the x4 + r7 250 is much faster than a solo APU and costs the same.

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_athlon_860k_black_edition_cpu_review/8
20153242868l.jpg

20153242921l.jpg

20135419136l.jpg
 
a3venom said:
Add some numbers to it for the better perf of the 7870k, the x4 + r7 250 is much faster than a solo APU and costs the same.
Click to expand...
I see 129 for a A10 7879K (http://www.microcenter.com/product/449242/A10_7870K_39GHz_4_Core_FM2_Black_Edition_Processor), which was 109.99 on Black Friday - I don't know if there was a BF deal on the x4, though, so I can't really compare prices there.

I see a total of 155 for a x4 (74.99)+ r7 250 (79.99) on new egg, which is appx 20% more expensive for 53% more performance.

Looks like the x4 is a pretty good deal if you don't mind the extra power draw, though I wonder how much difference you'd see in a older game like Eve Online. For my use case listed above, I'm pretty sure the APU was still the right call, but I learned something today about the x4. Thanks!
 
The Igpu should be used more, even with a discrete card with DX12. Also software in the future may use the Igpu more as time goes on regardless if it is doing graphics or not. Just a thought.
 
Lol. Such venom. I've owned i7 [email protected], 2600k @4.6ghz. Xeon @4.3ghz(socket 1366), i5 2500k @4.6ghz, AMD [email protected], 7850'[email protected], and now skylake [email protected] From a pure windows experience outside of benches etc.. The 7850 system was good and will do whatever the common user wants totally fine. In games with a gpu added, I cannot recall anything I've played that has bogged even the 7850k. That said, I don't play new AAA titles. I play csgo which isn't all that demanding; plus 1-2 yr old games that I can buy cheaper. I just cannot justify the cost of.brand new titles when I don't have the time/energy to.devote to them. Any other games I play are a distraction and if they are not as fast as can be I don't care. For those on a budget the 7850 combo is a decent option. The i3 combo is as well, but will add the cost of ddr4 to the mix. Given the choice the i3 will be the more capable solution, but the end user needs to.figure out what their ultimate needs are. Paying for 2,000fps now.so u can play a future title well; is money wasted imo. At least in the expectation that your cpu will last more than a year or two, post purchase. Imo buy enough for now, and upgrade as .needs arise. If u just want an i5/7 that's fine and all, but I would say that 90%+ of our purchases are wants and not needs. Again, that's fine, but admit as much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top