a10-5800k+hd7770?

[Rvenger]

I assume he wants to do some gaming. It would be helpful to know more about what he wants to use the computer for. Personally, I don't see much point in using an A10 and disabling the best part of the chip by adding a discrete gpu. I would go with the i3. With such a low end card even a cheaper Pentium might suffice.

If you are recommending an Intel CPU, please recommend the i3. Not a dual core w/o HT. I have a dual core sandybridge at home and have owned 2 of them. They choke under load. If you want to play games, you need to make sure everything is closed off your desktop until you can proceed. The dual core pentiums and celerons cannot handle an internet browser with flash, file transfer, and an open program consecutively. It will freeze until one of the running applications are finished. When windows is doing behind the scenes scans such as virus scanning etc this becomes an issue. Its annoying and I cannot recommend it for any gaming at all. The A8, A10, and i3 does not exhibit this behavior.

If anyone wants to argue this.. I am not going to agree or disagree with you. I will just say I told you so when it does happen.

 

[frozentundra123456]

If you are recommending an Intel CPU, please recommend the i3. Not a dual core w/o HT. I have a dual core sandybridge at home and have owned 2 of them. They choke under load. If you want to play games, you need to make sure everything is closed off your desktop until you can proceed. The dual core pentiums and celerons cannot handle an internet browser with flash, file transfer, and an open program consecutively. It will freeze until one of the running applications are finished. When windows is doing behind the scenes scans such as virus scanning etc this becomes an issue. Its annoying and I cannot recommend it for any gaming at all. The A8, A10, and i3 does not exhibit this behavior.

If anyone wants to argue this.. I am not going to agree or disagree with you. I will just say I told you so when it does happen.

I did not give a strong recommendation to the pentium. I only suggested it because a recent article in Toms Hardware did a 500.00 build with a pentium and the performance was quite good. To be honest, we need more information from the OP regarding what games he wants to play, what resolutions, and a budget. Personally, if I were building a gaming PC, I would go no less than a low end i5. Considering how long a computer should last, and all the other expenses involved in gaming, the extra cost for an i5 seems more than worth it to me. But the OP specifically mentioned low end, so I hesitated to suggest that.

BTW though, would you not eliminate any background cpu intensive tasks while gaming??

 

[Rvenger]

BTW though, would you not eliminate any background cpu intensive tasks while gaming??

Oh I would eliminate background tasks but its not just gaming that is the issue. For example, I had itunes, steam, and virus scan open at the same time. Itunes and steam were idle and Antivirus was doing a quick scan. The desktop was literally non responsive during that time of the quick scan. IMO it will only get worse as more applications become more dependent on multiple threads. It's amazing how flash player spikes the cores on the G530.


If I were to recommend a CPU it would be the i3 or the FX 6100. FX 6100 can be found for a measly $105.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Oh I would eliminate background tasks but its not just gaming that is the issue. For example, I had itunes, steam, and virus scan open at the same time. Itunes and steam were idle and Antivirus was doing a quick scan. The desktop was literally non responsive during that time of the quick scan. IMO it will only get worse as more applications become more dependent on multiple threads. It's amazing how flash player spikes the cores on the G530.

Interesting. Might I ask if you were running an SSD on that machine...?

On a secondary note, I completely agree. Flashplayer can be punishing...

 

[Rvenger]

Interesting. Might I ask if you were running an SSD on that machine...?

On a secondary note, I completely agree. Flashplayer can be punishing...

I ran an OCZ Onyx and a Seagate Barracuda XT, same exact results. Switched to an FX 6100, all problems went away.

 

[Mallibu]

I suspect something else would probably hog your CPU cycles, or the HDD that was beeing scaned was the OS one.

I have an C2Duo E8400 and an Athlon II 250 as backup machines, and in everyday usage and normal multitasking (heavier than what you described), I can't see differences between them and my i5 2500. In the Athlon 250 one, I have multiple browser windows, a heavy IDE open, 64 bit photoshop open, and some other things, and never ever became unresponsive.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

I ran an OCZ Onyx and a Seagate Barracuda XT, same exact results. Switched to an FX 6100, all problems went away.

I was only asking, because I have used a similar setup (G530/4GB/Intel SSD320/Win7). Even under heavy load, I have never experienced a Sandy/Ivy core (Nehalem/Core2's I have, but that was running HDD's) to become completely unresponsive... odd...

I'd never run a complete (including zipped files, THAT can pull some teeth out) antivirus scan while doing something on the computer though...

 

[Hubb1e]

Techreport does some really interesting tests. Their microstutter tests are really cool, but take a look at the times involved. You're talking about a 10th of a second over the course of an entire benchmark. Only the A8 and Pentium spend any appreciable time stuttering and the A8 is overclockable. I would be far more inclined to go with a 4 core or 6 core chip than a dual core with hyperthreading. They're more likely to not get tripped up by background tasks and as time goes on, the # of games that can use more cores is only going to increase. Then there is the fact that you can overclock them which is fun on its own and that you're supporting the underdog who if were to disappear would wreck the market for CPUs. When talking about budget gaming, i3 vs FX gets really interesting. Neither are a bad choice and keep in mind that the extra power consumption is less than a 100W lightbulb and that's only when the CPU is on full load which is very rare. At idle both consume the same amount of power. And yes, stick to the AM3+ platform if you're using a 7770 unless of course you can find one of those FM2 Athlon 750s.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Techreport does some really interesting tests. Their microstutter tests are really cool, but take a look at the times involved. You're talking about a 10th of a second over the course of an entire benchmark. Only the A8 and Pentium spend any appreciable time stuttering and the A8 is overclockable. I would be far more inclined to go with a 4 core or 6 core chip than a dual core with hyperthreading. They're more likely to not get tripped up by background tasks and as time goes on, the # of games that can use more cores is only going to increase. Then there is the fact that you can overclock them which is fun on its own and that you're supporting the underdog who if were to disappear would wreck the market for CPUs. When talking about budget gaming, i3 vs FX gets really interesting. Neither are a bad choice and keep in mind that the extra power consumption is less than a 100W lightbulb and that's only when the CPU is on full load which is very rare. At idle both consume the same amount of power. And yes, stick to the AM3+ platform if you're using a 7770 unless of course you can find one of those FM2 Athlon 750s.

Personally, I prefer to support the better product, and the more efficient one. FX6300 vs i3 I agree is a difficult decision, but I definitely feel no obligation to support AMD unless their product is superior or at least equal in the attributes that are relevant to my usage patterns. Maybe if bulldozer had come out as refined as PD and PD had improved on that, people would by them because of performance, not sympathy.

 

[Hubb1e]

I don't believe that the FX chips are inferior to an i3. The fact that AMD is the underdog is only a side benefit. AMD's chips cannot compete on the high end, but they priced them effectively such that they are a viable option for budget builds. There are no bad products, just bad prices and AMD is pricing their large chips low making them competitive at their price points. Power consumption under load is really a non issue for me since they are under load so infrequently. Leave even one light on in your house and you're using more power than AMD's chips are. I can't believe all the people on this forum who complain about power consumption are so diligent about turning off their lights.

I would have no problem gaming on an FX 6300 since I know it can maintain high framerates in all the games I play. Even the PhII 965 I just bought does extremely well in my backup machine.

 

[SPBHM]

I fail to see much appeal on the a8/a10 trinity when you are not using the integrated graphics, for not a lot more you can buy AMD CPUs with l3 cache (significant difference for gaming) and more cores, and if you want a chip with lower power usage and the Intel platform, also a little bit faster for gaming you have the i3 at around the same price,

the FX 6300 is great, but for gaming it doesn't look clearly faster than the i3, and it uses twice the power under full load (but I think when gaming the difference could be smaller)

but, if you decide to overclock the FX,you may well end up spending more money with a decent motherboard (FX uses more power than the Intel CPUs, so you need a good motherboard for any overclock) and cooling, so it may well be faster when overclocked, but with additional cost, and much higher power usage...

if you go on that route (better MB, FX, better cooling), I think some i5+b75 board could make more sense.

 

[infoiltrator]

The difficulty I have is AMD overclocked needs a $30-60 cooler added, and prefers "better" motherboards for best overclocking results.
Added nuisance is the 8350 doesn' upgrade the 6300 much, while the I3 can be replaced by an i5 or i7 upgrade.

 

[SlowSpyder]

You can say it and wish it as much as you like, it ain't gonna make it true.

I3 wins games.
FX 6300 wins MT apps but consumes twice the power.

So, according to someone's needs, each CPU eats the other for breakfast. :awe:

I don't think this is accurate. I doubt you were trying to mislead, but I think often people overlook some points worth mentioning regarding gaming on these two CPU's.

The FX6300 certainly has the potential to consume more power than an i3, no doubt about that. But, with most games you're not pushing six cores, so the power figures often are a bit skewed as they typically show the processor at or very near 100% usage. The i3 will always be busy gaming, using both cores and HT. The FX6300, probably not so much, often two to four of those cores will just be sitting idle, or very lightly used.

I think I would get the FX6300 over an i3 nine times out of ten. It is more versatile as you can overclock and overvolt, or you can undervolt and drop the clocks if you wish. It requires a little more tinkering, but I think it'd be the better all around choice if considering these two chips. It is a shame Intel won't release an unlocked i3 with HT. I think that'd be an awesome chip to play with, and likely on the cheap. But, Intel knows that'd cut into i5 sales, so I doubt we will see such a chip.

 

[AtenRa]

but, if you decide to overclock the FX,you may well end up spending more money with a decent motherboard (FX uses more power than the Intel CPUs, so you need a good motherboard for any overclock) and cooling, so it may well be faster when overclocked, but with additional cost, and much higher power usage...

No you dont need expensive Motherboard nor Cooling, you can OC the FX6300 at 4.2GHz with any AM3+ motherboard using the default heat-sink.

if you go on that route (better MB, FX, better cooling), I think some i5+b75 board could make more sense.

FX6300 + ASUS M5A97 LE R2.0 = $219,98 AMR

Intel Core i5-3330 + ASUS P8B75-M LX PLUS = $259,98

+ $10 for Core i5 3470 = $269,98
+ $25 for Core i5 3570K = $284,98

Core i5 3330 is clocked at 3GHz (3.2GHz with turbo) and by using a B75 motherboard you loose the ability to OC. Even if you use the mighty Core i7 3770K (at default) you will get inferior performance from a 4.6GHz FX8350.

Now for a lower price than the Core i5 3330 + B75 Motherbord, you get the FX6300 with a dissent motherboard (970 Chipset) and you OC to a relaxed 4.2GHz with default heat-sink. You get better performance at lower price and the ability to install and OC an FX8350 in the future.


7-zip 9.2

FX6300 @ 4.2GHz is faster even than Core i5 3570K

x264 HD5.0.1 Second pass

FX6300 @ 4.2GHz is almost equal to Core i5 3570K

POV-Ray 3.7 RC6

FX6300 @ 4.2GHz is faster even than Core i5 3570K

Cinebench 11.5

FX6300 @ 4.2GHz is faster even than Core i5 2500K or close to Core i5 3470

FX6300 @ 4.2GHz is faster or close to a higher priced Core i5 3470 or 3570K (default) in most Multithreaded applications costing much less.

 

[SPBHM]

No you dont need expensive Motherboard nor Cooling, you can OC the FX6300 at 4.2GHz with any AM3+ motherboard using the default heat-sink.



FX6300 + ASUS M5A97 LE R2.0 = $219,98 AMR

Intel Core i5-3330 + ASUS P8B75-M LX PLUS = $259,98

+ $10 for Core i5 3470 = $269,98
+ $25 for Core i5 3570K = $284,98

Core i5 3330 is clocked at 3GHz (3.2GHz with turbo) and by using a B75 motherboard you loose the ability to OC. Even if you use the mighty Core i7 3770K (at default) you will get inferior performance from a 4.6GHz FX8350.

Now for a lower price than the Core i5 3330 + B75 Motherbord, you get the FX6300 with a dissent motherboard (970 Chipset) and you OC to a relaxed 4.2GHz with default heat-sink. You get better performance at lower price and the ability to install and OC an FX8350 in the future.


FX6300 @ 4.2GHz is faster or close to a higher priced Core i5 3470 or 3570K (default) in most Multithreaded applications costing much less.

I was talking about the cheap $50 MBs, which can barely handle a 95w TDP CPU...

now let's see,
b75 MB http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157335
$55

i5 3350P
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819116782
$190

total $ 245 compared to 230 from the FX 6300...

$15, and you will have a stronger CPU IMO, compared to the oced FX 6300 it will probably be still faster in most games, and use less than half the power...

your handpicked benchmarks are not so relevant for a gamer, general usage and ignore the the power usage, also, how usable is that 4.2GHz with the stock HSF on a closed cheap case?


the 3350P is faster than the i5 2400,
the 6300@4.2Ghz is as fast as the 8350 here I think (turbo)
from the graphs you posted

in some games is quite clear the superiority of basically any i5...

I suppose both options have some strengths and weakness, one or the other could suit better the users preferences and habits...

 

[AtenRa]

your handpicked benchmarks are not so relevant for a gamer, general usage and ignore the the power usage, also, how usable is that 4.2GHz with the stock HSF on a closed cheap case?

At 1080p the limited factor will be his HD7770-7870, even if he will use the HD7970 the bottleneck in most modern games will be his GPU and not his OCed FX6300.

At 4.2GHz the FX6300 is fine with the default Heat-Sink.

The following reviews used the GTX670 and GTX680, the majority of modern games are GPU limited and it is clear that an OCed FX6300 will be cheaper(with better motherboard) and perform close to Core i5 or better.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/fx-8350-8320-6300-4300_6.html#sect0

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...15-amd-vishera-fx-6300-fx-4300-review-12.html

 

[SPBHM]

At 1080p the limited factor will be his HD7770-7870, even if he will use the HD7970 the bottleneck in most modern games will be his GPU and not his OCed FX6300.

At 4.2GHz the FX6300 is fine with the default Heat-Sink.

The following reviews used the GTX670 and GTX680, the majority of modern games are GPU limited and it is clear that an OCed FX6300 will be cheaper(with better motherboard) and perform close to Core i5 or better.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/fx-8350-8320-6300-4300_6.html#sect0

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...15-amd-vishera-fx-6300-fx-4300-review-12.html

I would agree that any CPU should be OK in most games, but not in every single game, at any situation... most reviews are a bit shallow in how they test and the games they choose... there are far more games out there, and higher load situations which can escape the most basic benchmarks...
the xbitlabs is a good example of a not so great test...

but if there is no difference in CPU performance, than the i3 would make more sense, you can save some money on the CPU + MB compared to the 6300 and it will produce less heat (as long as you are mainly gaming and doing other basic tasks)

also, you can always lower the details if your VGA is not so fast... but when you have the CPU limiting the performance, it's harder to do anything about it.

again, the FX 6300 is a good choice, but I still think the i5 is worth the extra money when you consider the more consistent performance for gaming and lower power usage... the price difference can be really small if you go with a cheap MB (which supports the most important stuff, your VGA, the CPU, 8GB of memory, USB 3.0, a Sata III SSD, while a cheaper MB for AM3+ have some really old chipsets and bad VRMs considering the power the FX can demand...)

 

[infoiltrator]

You can match an I3 with a $50-60 motherboard and the cheapest 1333 or 1600 RAM and spend more on the GPU, where it matters most.
An AMD 6300 needs a cooler, add $30-40, likes 1866 or faster RAM, add $10-30, and decent VRM overclocking motherboards are at least $100, I'm more comfortable at $110-120 to start.
IF you have budget you can get a better GPU or go I5.

 

[NTMBK]

You can match an I3 with a $50-60 motherboard and the cheapest 1333 or 1600 RAM and spend more on the GPU, where it matters most.
An AMD 6300 needs a cooler, add $30-40, likes 1866 or faster RAM, add $10-30, and decent VRM overclocking motherboards are at least $100, I'm more comfortable at $110-120 to start.
IF you have budget you can get a better GPU or go I5.

4.2 is a relatively mild OC for the 6300 and can be done on stock cooler.
Faster RAM doesn't really matter for the 6300 any more than it does for the i3- perhaps you are thinking of Trinity's integrated graphics liking fast RAM?
I've not tried OC'ing a 6300, but again 4.2 is not a high clock for Piledriver. Given that the 8350 hits 4GHz on 8 cores at stock, any board rated to handle the 8350 should handle a 6300 at 4.2.

 

[Mallibu]

Stock AMD coolers absolutely suck in the noise department when CPU is in load, that thing sounded like an airplane. When I googled it, I saw that there's a lot of public rage about the noise they make. So yeah, "O/C to 4.2 ghz on stock cooler!" sounds to me like the Nigerian prince sending me 1 million $.

Also, you link the same cherry picked benchmarks all-the-time.
x264 (only 2nd pass ofc :whiste: )
Pov-ray
7 zip

Ok we got it, for people that wake up, use those 3 applications and then shut the PC down, the FX will be better. For the rest of us that run a lot of programs and play a couple of games, the I5 is miles better. If FX 6300 was all around better than the I5, as you make it to be, then AMD wouldn't have to sell it at 140$. They're not a philanthropic institute, gifting away CPUs.

And yes, GPU will be the limiting factor in some of the games, but in a lot of new AA+ games the FX can't even get above 60 fps, therefore CPU bottlenecking you.
Borderlands 2, Guild Wars 2, Starcraft 2, World of Warcraft, Civilization V, Shogun 2, FarCry 3, and a lot more popular titles are bottlenecked by AMD cpus.

 

[NTMBK]

Stock AMD coolers absolutely suck in the noise department when CPU is in load, that thing sounded like an airplane. When I googled it, I saw that there's a lot of public rage about the noise they make. So yeah, "O/C to 4.2 ghz on stock cooler!" sounds to me like the Nigerian prince sending me 1 million $.

Also, you link the same cherry picked benchmarks all-the-time.
x264 (only 2nd pass ofc :whiste: )
Pov-ray
7 zip

Ok we got it, for people that wake up, use those 3 applications and then shut the PC down, the FX will be better. For the rest of us that run a lot of programs and play a couple of games, the I5 is miles better. If FX 6300 was all around better than the I5, as you make it to be, then AMD wouldn't have to sell it at 140$. They're not a philanthropic institute, gifting away CPUs.

And yes, GPU will be the limiting factor in some of the games, but in a lot of new AA+ games the FX can't even get above 60 fps, therefore CPU bottlenecking you.
Borderlands 2, Guild Wars 2, Starcraft 2, World of Warcraft, Civilization V, Shogun 2, FarCry 3, and a lot more popular titles are bottlenecked by AMD cpus.

I would certainly not say that the 6300 is better than an i5 in general. But it beats it in certain benchmarks at stock (yes, the multithreaded ones). And it beats the i3 at stock in certain games, loses in others. An overclock will push it to beating the i3 pretty much all round, and it won't limit in the games you listed as much as the stock i3 would.

 

[Mallibu]

I would certainly not say that the 6300 is better than an i5 in general. But it beats it in certain benchmarks at stock (yes, the multithreaded ones). And it beats the i3 at stock in certain games, loses in others. An overclock will push it to beating the i3 pretty much all round, and it won't limit in the games you listed as much as the stock i3 would.

No it doesn't beat the i5 in "multithreaded" benchmarks. It beats him in some multithreaded benchmarks, therefore the niche of the niche. Cherrypicking at it's finest.
That's equivalent to me linking games where Pentium G620 beats FX8350 (there are a lot) and then proclaiming the Pentium is better.

This kind of marketing "Hiding the 90% that's against us, and showing only 10%" is a common tactic by a certain guy here.

 

[Hubb1e]

None of the reviews test the FX6300 power consumption while playing actual games. They load the CPUs to 100% or 0%. During a 2 threaded game I bet both CPUs use similar amounts of power since the i3 is using all resources and the 6300 is only using 1/3, though the i3 would be faster in that scenario unless it was overclocked. So don't go around quoting 100% CPU load tests as evidence of lower power bills while gaming because they are irrelevant. The stock AMD cooler is loud yes, but again, you're loading all 6 cores infrequently during normal use cases so your actual heat produced would be lower than at 100% and your graphics card is probably drowning out that CPU cooler in the first place.

 

[AtenRa]

No it doesn't beat the i5 in "multithreaded" benchmarks. It beats him in some multithreaded benchmarks, therefore the niche of the niche. Cherrypicking at it's finest.

Those benchmarks (7-zip, Cinebench, x264, POV-Ray and more) are what AT reviews use, i haven't seen anyone here proclaiming those are niche and Cherrypicking benchmarks until a cheaper OverClocked AMD CPU beat Intels Core i5.

This kind of marketing "Hiding the 90% that's against us, and showing only 10%" is a common tactic by a certain guy here.

Only you dont want the truth to be told, FX6300 cost the same as Core i3 but it is as fast or faster than Core i5 when OCed, and that is a fact that you dont want to be heard.

Nobody said that FX6300 is the best CPU in the world, but it's sure is way better than Core i3 at current prices.

 

[SlowSpyder]

None of the reviews test the FX6300 power consumption while playing actual games. They load the CPUs to 100% or 0%. During a 2 threaded game I bet both CPUs use similar amounts of power since the i3 is using all resources and the 6300 is only using 1/3, though the i3 would be faster in that scenario unless it was overclocked. So don't go around quoting 100% CPU load tests as evidence of lower power bills while gaming because they are irrelevant. The stock AMD cooler is loud yes, but again, you're loading all 6 cores infrequently during normal use cases so your actual heat produced would be lower than at 100% and your graphics card is probably drowning out that CPU cooler in the first place.

This is very similar to what I said about 10 posts above you. A lot of people make a big deal out of power consumption, but the truth is when gaming the FX chip may actually use less power than an i3. That i3 is going to be loaded on both cores, probably pushing a lot closer to its max power use more often. The FX will often have two to four cores that are idle of very lightly loaded. I would not be surprised if power use when gaming (generally speaking) is actually quite close.