What GPU + CPU combo would you get?

[Simmonz]

Yes and no. While there are games that are starting to use more than four threads, the IPC of the Intel cores with HT still out paces the AMD CPUs when it comes to gaming. Even the so called games like BF4 that reportedly use more CPU threads than most still run nearly as well on an i3 as they do an FX-9590. A faster GPU is the better place to spend your money.



Well fi you want to bring productivity applications into it then by all means go AMD. The FX-9590 is well suited to that and beats the i3 and even the LGA1150 i7's some of the time. In terms of gaming alone, the i3 isn't always faster but it isn't far off and in many cases it is the better CPU. This is largely because games don't really make use of multiple threads all that well. Even when they do the GPU is still far more important.



I'm not saying an AMD CPU can't give you a great gaming experience or get the job done. But have trouble if you like but there are plenty of benchmarks out there that back this up. The i3 is just as good, in some cases better or nearly as good as the FX-9590 when it comes to gaming alone. In the productivity segment the i3 gets killed in most cases.

I'm not saying the i3 is better by leaps and bounds. It obviously isn't. My point is that an i3 isn't going to gimp his GPU as much as you might think. What I am saying is that a better GPU is always better even if the CPU isn't fantastic. I'm pretty sure an i3 with a R290 will out run any i5 based with an R270. It will certainly outrun an FX-9590 with the lesser GPU. The GPU is always the more important piece when it comes to gaming. If your on a really tight budget I think money is better spent on the GPU than the CPU. That is, when gaming is your only concern.

We agree on the GPU being more important to gaming, we just differ on what CPU to cut down to to save money.

What I take away from those benchmarks you linked is that the 6 core AMD is pretty much equal to most i3's. Across all 6 games you lose a total of 18.7 FPS which is an average of 3.12 FPS per game. Now the i3-4360 where I work is usually $189.99 CAD, the FX-6300 is $139.99 CAD. $50 for an extra 3.12 FPS per game isn't great value to me. That is $50 that can be put towards the GPU or a better cooler for the FX-6300 which has an unlocked multiplier where the i3 isn't so overclocking is a perk of the FX-6300.

 

[Michaelius]

I paired my FX-8350 at 4.5 GHz with a GTX 980 and Watch Dogs had an AVG FPS in the 70`s from start to finish of the game. I used FRAPS during every session. That was 1080P, SMAA, all other settings maxed out. I have a hard time believing an i3 could do that.

You are lucky as you are using Nvidia GPU so at least driver can benefit from multiple cores instead of putting everything on single thread like AMD.

 

[Nenu]

Op, I wouldnt get any of those setups so didnt vote.
There is good advice about high speed dual core CPUs being a fair bet for many games, but GTA V will be bogged down by a dual core quite a lot and reduce the point of your high end gfx card.
At times, GTA V maxes out even my 2500K @ 4.3GHz and causes me to use lower settings than I would like on my 290x.
I can see some future games pushing the CPU envelope as well now that the code base has been developed and with DX12 able to make better use of the CPU.

So why not have your cake and eat it?
Get a second hand 2500K or a new i5 K series and if needed, save for a better gfx card.

Get an I5 OC it, and save for a 290x.

At minimum.

Do not get a graphics card without a RAMDAC, such as the 290 and 290X.

Why?
He hasnt mentioned needing analogue out.

 

[Hagrid]

Op, I wouldnt get any of those setups so didnt vote.
There is good advice about high speed dual core CPUs being a fair bet for many games, but GTA V will be bogged down by a dual core quite a lot and reduce the point of your high end gfx card.
At times, GTA V maxes out even my 2500K @ 4.3GHz and causes me to use lower settings than I would like on my 290x.
I can see some future games pushing the CPU envelope as well now that the code base has been developed and with DX12 able to make better use of the CPU.

So why not have your cake and eat it?
Get a second hand 2500K or a new i5 K series and if needed, save for a better gfx card.


At minimum.


Why?
He hasnt mentioned needing analogue out.

Why not overclock your cpu higher? 4.3 is pretty low for the I5.

 

[Nenu]

It will do 4.5GHz but is an early chip, a pretty bad sample that needs water cooling due to the required 1.42V.
GTA V was a little unstable at 4.5GHz so I downclocked it for my sanity.
I will clock it up again when I have time to stability test.

0.2GHz will make about 4.5% performance difference so it isnt high on my agenda

 

[Simmonz]

You are lucky as you are using Nvidia GPU so at least driver can benefit from multiple cores instead of putting everything on single thread like AMD.

Could you clarify that ? With my Radeon 7950 I can cite games such as Watch Dogs, BF4, Far Cry 4, etc that my CPU usage was at 50-70% while gaming which means it was spreading out the work to multiple cores. How is that dumping everything on a single CPU thread ?

 

[Dan_D]

We agree on the GPU being more important to gaming, we just differ on what CPU to cut down to to save money.

What I take away from those benchmarks you linked is that the 6 core AMD is pretty much equal to most i3's. Across all 6 games you lose a total of 18.7 FPS which is an average of 3.12 FPS per game. Now the i3-4360 where I work is usually $189.99 CAD, the FX-6300 is $139.99 CAD. $50 for an extra 3.12 FPS per game isn't great value to me. That is $50 that can be put towards the GPU or a better cooler for the FX-6300 which has an unlocked multiplier where the i3 isn't so overclocking is a perk of the FX-6300.

Well I was just showing how well the i3 does in the benchmarks despite it having the fewest cores of all Intel's CPUs. This is to point out that even multithreaded games still run better on Intel CPUs because clock speed and IPC still matter more than the threading of the application does. It takes 6 to 8 AMD cores at higher clocks to equal Intel cores with hyperthreading at lesser speeds. I'd personally recommend the Core i5 for gaming at a minimum. I am not making a case for the i3, just showing it in comparison to the AMD CPUs and the i3 is a CPU the OP mentioned.

 

[Elf_Boy]

Well I was just showing how well the i3 does in the benchmarks despite it having the fewest cores of all Intel's CPUs. This is to point out that even multithreaded games still run better on Intel CPUs because clock speed and IPC still matter more than the threading of the application does. It takes 6 to 8 AMD cores at higher clocks to equal Intel cores with hyperthreading at lesser speeds. I'd personally recommend the Core i5 for gaming at a minimum. I am not making a case for the i3, just showing it in comparison to the AMD CPUs and the i3 is a CPU the OP mentioned.

@Dan

May I ask a completely hypothetical question based a on few premises?

I should also state I totally get the difference between CPU and GPU bound. While perhaps not as exact and specific as an industry reporter likes the Logitech ARX software on my Ipad does me good for checking these things.

Premis: I have read some/or the 'main'/best compiler in use in the industry is written by Intel. ( thats was a while ago and I dont know if it still holds) - Games in particular but all/most code is simply just easier to write in a single thread. - So far as I know there are no truly multi-threaded game engines on the market.

*IF* and I get this is a gigantic, huge, massive -> *IF*< -. A compiler were to use AMD silicon as well as In/tel, and If, a game engine able to use an arbitrary number of threads, certainly more then 8, and if OS and Driver did the same, how would you see things work out?

I remember reading a while back, at least a generation or two ago in the GPU wars that AMD was better on day 1, 6-12 months down the line due to better driver support Nvidia was a better long use choice.

All the AMD / Intel benchmarks and comparisons I have seen focus on current FPS type games... I am curious how older stuff handles and if one or the other has better holding power.

I know I am a minority voice - or at least that is my perception - when will, can we please, get some of the IQ tests if nothing else outside the FPS space?

I will need to go for now, my furry balls are begging for attention (get your minds out of the gutter people) and I shall need to pet and play with them a bit.

(10 week old rats, named 'Pinky' and 'The Brain.' They are a handful and they want to play with daddy right now.