AMD CPU under 100$

[kawi6rr]

thanks for reply,
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-Athlon-X4-860K-vs-AMD-A4-6300

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-6300-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-860K

Are u talking about FX6300?

I put together an Athlon X4 760K and it's a great machine and it games well too. The FX-6300 or X4-860K would both make nice machines with over clocking room.

 

[Yuriman]

MT = multithreaded, most games today only use a few threads heavily, leaving 8-core AMD CPUs mostly un-used. It's commonly believed that directx12 will improve the situation, but early numbers are showing similar improvements on both Intel and AMD CPUs.

HT = hyperthreading. A Core i3 is a dual core CPU, but hyperthreading lets it process 4 threads at once. It isn't as fast as a true quad core, but Intel cores are in the range of 50-60% more powerful than AMD cores, and in applications that only use a couple of cores, Intel has the advantage. However, if you can *fully utilize* all of your cores (as is often the case in things like video encoding), an AMD 8 core CPU that costs $100-130 will match or even slightly pass an Intel i5, which is $190+.

IPC = instructions per clock. Intel cores do more work per clock than AMD CPUs, but AMD CPUs tend to have more cores. Because of this, an Intel quad core almost always beats an AMD 6 core, and in cases where you can't fully use all 8 cores, generally beats AMD 8 core CPUs too.

Quicksync is an Intel feature that lets their integrated GPU encode your videos, and is much faster than relying on the CPU. However, it has limited customization options, so if you're not happy with the quality or size of the result, you might prefer to use your CPU instead. Most people are pretty content with Quicksync's balance between quality, size, and time needed to complete an encode.

~

As has been said, CPU progress has slowed much more in recent years than GPU progress. Someone who bought an Intel i5 in 2011 still has a viable processor, while a mid-range video card bought in the same era will struggle. If looking to build a long-lasting system, a good case can be made for spending relatively more on a processor, since it will last a lot longer. However, you also want to enjoy your games NOW, so a balance must be found.

Generally speaking, an Intel i5 is the minimum CPU needed for a no-compromises experience, with AMD FX-8xxx and Intel i3's being very usable but somewhat compromised cheaper alternatives. People have been saying for years that FX chips will pull ahead of Intel chips because software will become more able to utilize more cores, but this hasn't really materialized. There are a handful of games where the FX-8 performs like an i5 or better, but in most, an i3 and an FX-8 are around the same, and cost around the same, so you get what you pay for.

I don't feel the G3258 is a good option, but it is exceptionally cheap. I'd probably opt for an Athlon 860K in that price range. Some games perform very poorly on the Pentium because it can only process 2 threads at once, which causes stuttering for some reason, despite those threads being processed 50-100% faster than an AMD chip can run 4 at once (slower).

As for the power supply, the trend has been in recent years that PCs are using less and less power. An i3 draws around 50w under full load, a mid-range video card will be 125-175w, and a high-end video card will be in the 250-300w range. The rest of the system is generally peanuts, but you want to have a healthy safety margin so 400w is appropriate for an i3 system. AMD chips are generally more power hungry, with their 8 cores drawing 150-200w (or more for the FX-9xxx chips) when fully utilized. However, most games don't fully utilize AMD chips, so real-world power consumption is often less. 500-600w is more appropriate for an AMD system, but this means more up-front cost, cutting into your budget. Overclocking increases power consumption, but as long as it's a modest overclock, you probably won't need a larger power supply. It's also true that Intel CPUs do more work using the same power, and if electricity is very expensive in your country, you might save a few tens of dollars per year if you heavily use your system by going with an Intel CPU.

~

With regards to cooling, the stock cooler on both Intel and AMD systems is adequate for running at stock speeds, and even for a minor overclock. If you plan to add much voltage, you'll want an aftermarket cooler, but this adds to your total costs. Additionally, you need to spend more on a motherboard to overclock an AMD CPU because they need additional power circuitry.

~

I feel Frozentundra is right in that both an i3 and FX-8xxx are budget-appropriate chips that will serve you pretty well in the foreseeable future. Both have limitations, but are also somewhat less expensive than an i5, freeing up budget for a video card.

An FX-8 is power hungry, but has excellent performance on-tap in programs that can utilize all of its cores. It also has the ability to overclock.

An i3 runs very cool and draws very little power, allowing for a smaller power supply and preventing the need of an aftermarket cooler, and performs admirably compared to a stock FX-8.

 

[erunion]

A few thoughts:

The cheapest option is not always the best value.

Why do you want to OC? For its own sake or because you expect it to increase your performance/$?

GPUs become outdated faster than CPUs, get a good CPU and it will out last several GPU upgrades.

AMD only offers a good value in the budget price point. Above about $130 CPU price point, Intel is the better value as well as a step up in performance.

I'll echo what others have said, get an i3 if your budget allows it. But If you dont want to spend the extra money get a fx6300 and don't worry about it.

 

[magnus3142]

A few thoughts:

The cheapest option is not always the best value.

Why do you want to OC? For its own sake or because you expect it to increase your performance/$?

GPUs become outdated faster than CPUs, get a good CPU and it will out last several GPU upgrades.

AMD only offers a good value in the budget price point. Above about $130 CPU price point, Intel is the better value as well as a step up in performance.

I'll echo what others have said, get an i3 if your budget allows it. But If you dont want to spend the extra money get a fx6300 and don't worry about it.

Yes, performace/$ thats why, i really want to have intel but i5 is right over my budget. Also still trying to research why so many ppl suggest i3 when it has only 2 cores compared to octa with ~ 4ghz.
Still looking if someone can tell me what is the closest to 200$ i5 intel i can get. What about this one i5-4440? it is 130$ and i have 100 left for mobo.

 

[ShintaiDK]

You dont need a 100$ mobo. 50-70$ is plenty.

I linked you a cheap LGA1150 mobo for under 500NOK.

 

[erunion]

Yes, performace/$ thats why, i really want to have intel but i5 is right over my budget. Also still trying to research why so many ppl suggest i3 when it has only 2 cores compared to octa with ~ 4ghz.
Still looking if someone can tell me what is the closest to 200$ i5 intel i can get. What about this one i5-4440? it is 130$ and i have 100 left for mobo.

People are recommending the i3 because its faster than almost every AMD CPU. It has hyperthreading, so it does run 4 threads. Benches were posted earlier in this thread.

An added benefit would be that later on you could swap a cheap used i5/i7 into the same board if you wanted.

 

[Yuriman]

Yes, performace/$ thats why, i really want to have intel but i5 is right over my budget. Also still trying to research why so many ppl suggest i3 when it has only 2 cores compared to octa with ~ 4ghz.
Still looking if someone can tell me what is the closest to 200$ i5 intel i can get. What about this one i5-4440? it is 130$ and i have 100 left for mobo.

$130 is a steal for that CPU. Pair it with a cheap H81-chipset board for $50-70 and you're golden.

 

[magnus3142]

Magnus, did you consider the issue of using prosjakt prices? With multiple places of shopping your cost due to shipping goes up.

The 8320E looks be be around 1300NOK and the board 995NOK (with shipping) from 2 difference places.

You can just get a board like this:
http://www.proshop.no/Hovedkort/ASUS-H81M-E-Haswell-2423474.html

LGA1150 and under 500NOK. Then you got 1800NOK for a CPU with the same price.

1700NOK for an i5 4460:
http://www.proshop.no/Prosessor/Intel-Core-i5-4460-Haswell-Refresh-Box-2441751.html

Or 1850NOK for an i5 4590.
http://www.proshop.no/Prosessor/Intel-Core-i5-4590-Haswell-Refresh-Box-2441753.html

No need to punish yourself going AMD for nothing. It also uses much less power and a platform that isnt ancient. And you dont have to overclock to get any meaningful performance. And you can stick with stock cooler and a smaller PSU.

You dont need a 100$ mobo. 50-70$ is plenty.

I linked you a cheap LGA1150 mobo for under 500NOK.

Yes, but as far as i understand they are not overclockable, motherboard too. Will they give better performace than for example earlier mentioned AMD FX 8320E?

 

[ShintaiDK]

Yes, but as far as i understand they are not overclockable, motherboard too. Will they give better performace than for example earlier mentioned AMD FX 8320E?

Overclocking is not a guarantee and you may get a dud. But even then, Intel is still faster overall even if you get a 1Ghz OC.

And you dont have to get an aftermarket cooler for extra $, you dont have to get 150W more heat in your room and PSU draw. And you dont have to sit with a 5 year old chipset on your mobo and stuck with PCIe 2.0.

 

[magnus3142]

Thank you all for your help, i really appreciate it. I havent decided which cpu i will go for but i got a picture and information given was very useful for me.

 

[AtenRa]

Overclocking is not a guarantee and you may get a dud. But even then, Intel is still faster overall even if you get a 1Ghz OC.

And you dont have to get an aftermarket cooler for extra $, you dont have to get 150W more heat in your room and PSU draw. And you dont have to sit with a 5 year old chipset on your mobo and stuck with PCIe 2.0.

You can just get a board like this:
http://www.proshop.no/Hovedkort/ASUS-H81M-E-Haswell-2423474.html

And yet you suggested to him to get an H81 motherboard which is way inferior than any AMD 970/990 chipset motherboard like the MSI 970 Gaming he was looking. Not to mention that H81 only has PCIe Gen 2.0

 

[Yuriman]

You're in luck, as it seems Anandtech has just published an article that partially covers what you're interested in:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9217/the-amd-a8-7650k-apu-review-also-new-testing-methodology/8

I wonder a bit about their methodology, as they have plenty of tests on mid-range video cards with an average framerate below 30 (or even below 20), which is completely unplayable in fast-paced games. As the GPU becomes less of a bottleneck, Intel CPUs increase their lead, as can be seen in their benchmarks with higher-end cards:

^ Note that I picked the charts that show Intel the farthest ahead. In some games, the differences are smaller, though Intel chips remain faster.

 

[ShintaiDK]

And yet you suggested to him to get an H81 motherboard which is way inferior than any AMD 970/990 chipset motherboard like the MSI 970 Gaming he was looking. Not to mention that H81 only has PCIe Gen 2.0

The CPU got PCIe 3.0 for graphics.

Its also half price of the MSI 970 gaming.
http://www.proshop.no/Hovedkort/MSI-970-GAMING-2455849.html

 

[AtenRa]

The CPU got PCIe 3.0 for graphics.

Its also half price of the MSI 970 gaming.
http://www.proshop.no/Hovedkort/MSI-970-GAMING-2455849.html

The CPU may have PCIe 3.0 but the Motherboard only supports PCIe Gen 2.0.

He said he found the FX6300 + MSI 970 Gaming for $200.

 

[erunion]

The CPU may have PCIe 3.0 but the Motherboard only supports PCIe Gen 2.0.

He said he found the FX6300 + MSI 970 Gaming for $200.

The board supports the 16 PCI 3.0 lanes on the CPU. But the extra lanes on PCH are 2.0.

 

[AtenRa]

The board supports the 16 PCI 3.0 lanes on the CPU. But the extra lanes on PCH are 2.0.

No, H81 only supports PCIe Gen 2.0.

 

[DrMrLordX]

you can find a phenom x6 on the used market for less than $100. They don't support avx instruction set or sse4.1 though, and that might hurt you in some applications.

Certainly not. Thuban was great, but it is past its prime, and things will only get worse for it as AVX/AVX2/xOP support becomes more widespread. Also, good luck getting one for less than $100, even in the US.

Yes, but as far as i understand they are not overclockable, motherboard too. Will they give better performace than for example earlier mentioned AMD FX 8320E?

You have hit the nail on the head here. Let me give you some extra advice:

Between the FX-6300 and FX-8320E, the 8320E is OVERALL the better processor. It is newer silicon, and it can do some nice things for people who are willing to tweak and tune vcore and clockspeed (that is, overclocking, or undervolting, take your pick). Pay no mind to the people pushing i3s. Nobody pushes i3s except in threads where people want to buy AMD chips. Recently we had a guy come on here wanting an i3, and everyone told him to buy an i5 instead . . . i3s are overpriced for what you get! Nobody really buys or uses the things on this board. Think about that!

If you are going to overclock an FX-6300 or an FX-8320E, you will find that your two limitations will be heat and motherboard quality. The MSI 970 Gaming should be okay for some mild overclocking on either chip. That 8320E should hit 4.3-4.5 ghz on that board. You will probably want an aftermarket cooler which brings price up a bit. If not, expect to cap out at 4.3 ghz for your base clockspeed, which is still faster than an FX-8350 @ stock, so . . . not too shabby regardless.

The 860k is cheaper, and you can do some decent overclocking to speeds between 4.3-4.5ghz using the stock cooler. You will not be board-limited or cooling-limited in most cases. It will be faster in a few odd things than an 8320E at the same clockspeed, but anything that can use more than 4 cores will be faster on the 8320E. If you are seriously interested in the 860k, let me know what boards you are looking at. I have a lot of hands-on experience with the Asus A88x-Pro, which is one of the better FM2+ boards out there. You could probably do just as well with the A88x-Plus in all honesty, or some of the other, cheaper FM2+ boards.

 

[Yuriman]

Certainly not. Thuban was great, but it is past its prime, and things will only get worse for it as AVX/AVX2/xOP support becomes more widespread. Also, good luck getting one for less than $100, even in the US.



You have hit the nail on the head here. Let me give you some extra advice:

Between the FX-6300 and FX-8320E, the 8320E is OVERALL the better processor. It is newer silicon, and it can do some nice things for people who are willing to tweak and tune vcore and clockspeed (that is, overclocking, or undervolting, take your pick). Pay no mind to the people pushing i3s. Nobody pushes i3s except in threads where people want to buy AMD chips. Recently we had a guy come on here wanting an i3, and everyone told him to buy an i5 instead . . . i3s are overpriced for what you get! Nobody really buys or uses the things on this board. Think about that!

If you are going to overclock an FX-6300 or an FX-8320E, you will find that your two limitations will be heat and motherboard quality. The MSI 970 Gaming should be okay for some mild overclocking on either chip. That 8320E should hit 4.3-4.5 ghz on that board. You will probably want an aftermarket cooler which brings price up a bit. If not, expect to cap out at 4.3 ghz for your base clockspeed, which is still faster than an FX-8350 @ stock, so . . . not too shabby regardless.

The 860k is cheaper, and you can do some decent overclocking to speeds between 4.3-4.5ghz using the stock cooler. You will not be board-limited or cooling-limited in most cases. It will be faster in a few odd things than an 8320E at the same clockspeed, but anything that can use more than 4 cores will be faster on the 8320E. If you are seriously interested in the 860k, let me know what boards you are looking at. I have a lot of hands-on experience with the Asus A88x-Pro, which is one of the better FM2+ boards out there. You could probably do just as well with the A88x-Plus in all honesty, or some of the other, cheaper FM2+ boards.

My two PCs right now are an i5 3570K, and an i3 4150. I would be perfectly content using the i3 rig as my main PC. In fact, if my i5 died somehow, I'd probably replace it with an i3. They're great because they draw practically no power, so you can get away with the stock cooler, a cheap motherboard, and a low-cost power supply. These things add up.

That said, I feel the 860K is not a bad chip for the price.

 

[erunion]

No, H81 only supports PCIe Gen 2.0.

Thanks, my mistake.guess I was thinking of h87.

 

[magnus3142]

Certainly not. Thuban was great, but it is past its prime, and things will only get worse for it as AVX/AVX2/xOP support becomes more widespread. Also, good luck getting one for less than $100, even in the US.



You have hit the nail on the head here. Let me give you some extra advice:

Between the FX-6300 and FX-8320E, the 8320E is OVERALL the better processor. It is newer silicon, and it can do some nice things for people who are willing to tweak and tune vcore and clockspeed (that is, overclocking, or undervolting, take your pick). Pay no mind to the people pushing i3s. Nobody pushes i3s except in threads where people want to buy AMD chips. Recently we had a guy come on here wanting an i3, and everyone told him to buy an i5 instead . . . i3s are overpriced for what you get! Nobody really buys or uses the things on this board. Think about that!

If you are going to overclock an FX-6300 or an FX-8320E, you will find that your two limitations will be heat and motherboard quality. The MSI 970 Gaming should be okay for some mild overclocking on either chip. That 8320E should hit 4.3-4.5 ghz on that board. You will probably want an aftermarket cooler which brings price up a bit. If not, expect to cap out at 4.3 ghz for your base clockspeed, which is still faster than an FX-8350 @ stock, so . . . not too shabby regardless.

The 860k is cheaper, and you can do some decent overclocking to speeds between 4.3-4.5ghz using the stock cooler. You will not be board-limited or cooling-limited in most cases. It will be faster in a few odd things than an 8320E at the same clockspeed, but anything that can use more than 4 cores will be faster on the 8320E. If you are seriously interested in the 860k, let me know what boards you are looking at. I have a lot of hands-on experience with the Asus A88x-Pro, which is one of the better FM2+ boards out there. You could probably do just as well with the A88x-Plus in all honesty, or some of the other, cheaper FM2+ boards.

Its funny how people stand up for their favorite brands Best forum i have used so far.
Well after all i have decided to go for amd, cant afford i5. So i have stopped on 860k. Last 2 hours i was looking for motherboard for it, here are some i have found https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/A88XPLUS/ and http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=4714#ov
Is there any good? 120$ each
Do i need aftermarket cooler to OC?

 

[Yuriman]

You can't really go wrong with ASRock, Gigabyte or Asus (and probably MSI too). ASRock is generally the cheapest of the four with a given feature set, and their quality is fine. I'd hesitate when looking at ECS or Biostar products, though I don't have any data to justify that they're not good. They just have a reputation for being cheap above all else.

Remember that an i3 beats an 860K 10 times out of 10, sometimes significantly, and has an upgrade path while FM2 chips do not. Whether it's worth the extra $$ is another matter.

 

[erunion]

Its funny how people stand up for their favorite brands Best forum i have used so far.
Well after all i have decided to go for amd, cant afford i5. So i have stopped on 860k. Last 2 hours i was looking for motherboard for it, here are some i have found https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/A88XPLUS/ and http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=4714#ov
Is there any good? 120$ each
Do i need aftermarket cooler to OC?

Remember the 860k is an ultra budget CPU. Dont pair it with a high end motherboard and cooling.
If you have the money to buy after market cooling and an expensive motherboard, you are better off spending that money on a better CPU instead.

Edit: Not all "quad cores" are equal, dont let marketing spec sheets fool you. Check benchmarks.

 

[magnus3142]

Remember the 860k is an ultra budget CPU. Dont pair it with a high end motherboard and cooling.
If you have the money to buy after market cooling and an expensive motherboard, you are better off spending that money on a better CPU instead.

Edit: Not all "quad cores" are equal, dont let marketing spec sheets fool you. Check benchmarks.

This getting really complicated when i get different suggestions from you , i also have watched gaming reviews on youtube, and 860k wasnt worse than i3

 

[magnus3142]

You can't really go wrong with ASRock, Gigabyte or Asus (and probably MSI too). ASRock is generally the cheapest of the four with a given feature set, and their quality is fine. I'd hesitate when looking at ECS or Biostar products, though I don't have any data to justify that they're not good. They just have a reputation for being cheap above all else.

Remember that an i3 beats an 860K 10 times out of 10, sometimes significantly, and has an upgrade path while FM2 chips do not. Whether it's worth the extra $$ is another matter.

upgrade path? What exactly do u mean?

 

[magnus3142]

Remember the 860k is an ultra budget CPU. Dont pair it with a high end motherboard and cooling.
If you have the money to buy after market cooling and an expensive motherboard, you are better off spending that money on a better CPU instead.

Edit: Not all "quad cores" are equal, dont let marketing spec sheets fool you. Check benchmarks.

No i dont have extra money just wonder if i need extra cooling for this 860k because some say it getting very hot and default cooler get very loud.
Saved money will go for ssd because i didnt include it to my budget