AMD CPU under 100$

[Insert_Nickname]

Seams to me an Athlon 860K at 4.3GHz will be just fine with the GTX980

You're preaching to the choir. The 860K is plenty for most* modern games, when coupled with a reasonable graphics card. Its quite simple that with this budget the OP isn't going to get more then a 960/270X, both of which the 860K is good enough to feed at 1080p.

The ironic thing here is that the 860K (3.7/4.0GHz + Kaveri enhancements) will have higher single thread performance (at stock) then either the 6300 (3.5/3.8GHz) or 8320E (3.2/3.5GHz), something that seem to escape most posters here. Who are constantly touting single thread performance... :whiste:

* Of course there will be a few outliers, but one can't expect everything on a budget.

ps: Seams TotalWar is also GPU limited

Total War games have always been hard on both CPU and GPU...

 

[ShintaiDK]

From the AT review of the A8-7650K. An overclocked Athlon 860K at 4.3GHz will be faster than the A10-7850K bellow.

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

Alien Isolation
Core i5 4690K + GTX770 = 123,35
A8-7650K + GTX980 = 137,84

TotalWar Attila
Core i5 4690K + GTX770 = 20,6
A8-7650K + GTX980 = 23,9
A10-7850K + GTX980 = 24,4

GTA V
Core i5 4690K + GTX770 = 48,8
A8-7650K + GTX980 = 48,35

Grid Autosport
Core i5 4690K + GTX770 = 111,45
A8-7650K + GTX980 = 105,29
A10-7850K + GTX980 = 113,73

Shadows Of Mordor (1080p)
Core i5 4690K + GTX770 = 41,36
A8-7650K + GTX980 = 88,19
A10-7850K + GTX980 = 91,17

Shadows Of Mordor (4k)
Core i5 4690K + GTX770 = 18,23
A8-7650K + GTX980 = 38,10
A10-7850K + GTX980 = 38,46


Seams to me an Athlon 860K at 4.3GHz will be just fine with the GTX980

ps: Seams TotalWar is also GPU limited

I guess you even know how wrong you are yourself. Since you compare an i5 with a GTX770 to an AMD CPU witha GTX980 to try and excuse the fact that the AMD CPU is too slow for the GTX980.

Lets see apples to apples.

Alien Isolation
Core i5 4690K + GTX770 = 123,35
Core i5 4690K + GTX980 = 182.93
A8-7650K + GTX980 = 137,84

TotalWar Attila
Core i5 4690K + GTX770 = 20,6
Core i5 4690K + GTX980 = 35.8
A8-7650K + GTX980 = 23,9
A10-7850K + GTX980 = 24,4

GTA V
Core i5 4690K + GTX770 = 48,8
Core i5 4690K + GTX980 = 72.66
A8-7650K + GTX980 = 48,35

Grid Autosport
Core i5 4690K + GTX770 = 111,45
Core i5 4690K + GTX980 = 167.14
A8-7650K + GTX980 = 105,29
A10-7850K + GTX980 = 113,73

Shadows Of Mordor (1080p)
Core i5 4690K + GTX770 = 41,36
Core i5 4690K + GTX980 = 98.59
A8-7650K + GTX980 = 88,19
A10-7850K + GTX980 = 91,17

Shadows Of Mordor (4k)
Core i5 4690K + GTX770 = 18,23
Core i5 4690K + GTX980 = 38.53
A8-7650K + GTX980 = 38,10
A10-7850K + GTX980 = 38,46

Holy reality batman! Epic fail to match a performance card with a slowpoke CPU.

And in Shadow of Mordor, even a stock Pentium beats all AMD CPUs.

 

[Enigmoid]

I can tell you you can OC the Athlon 860K to 4GHz (turbo off and LLCs at high) with lower Voltage than default. You can reach 4.1 to 4.3GHz by fine tuning with the default Cooler. At those settings it will be enough to drive even a R9 290X/GTX980.

From the AT review of the A8-7650K. An overclocked Athlon 860K at 4.3GHz will be faster than the A10-7850K bellow.

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

Alien Isolation
Core i5 4690K + GTX770 = 123,35
A8-7650K + GTX980 = 137,84

TotalWar Attila
Core i5 4690K + GTX770 = 20,6
A8-7650K + GTX980 = 23,9
A10-7850K + GTX980 = 24,4

GTA V
Core i5 4690K + GTX770 = 48,8
A8-7650K + GTX980 = 48,35

Grid Autosport
Core i5 4690K + GTX770 = 111,45
A8-7650K + GTX980 = 105,29
A10-7850K + GTX980 = 113,73

Shadows Of Mordor (1080p)
Core i5 4690K + GTX770 = 41,36
A8-7650K + GTX980 = 88,19
A10-7850K + GTX980 = 91,17

Shadows Of Mordor (4k)
Core i5 4690K + GTX770 = 18,23
A8-7650K + GTX980 = 38,10
A10-7850K + GTX980 = 38,46


Seams to me an Athlon 860K at 4.3GHz will be just fine with the GTX980

ps: Seams TotalWar is also GPU limited

Sure it seems to work in some games but a lot of games will be different.

Alien Isolation - 980 allows eye candy to be turned up but its definitely CPU limited at 1080p as its barely 10% faster than a 770

Total War - Solid CPU limitation

i5 is playable a10 is not

GTA - Playable but a solid CPU limitation with the a10

Grid - Easily playable but again solidly CPU limited at 1080p

SOM - 980 brings tangeable advantages over the 770
Vram limited on the 770

Conclusion:

A 980 and a A10 CPU are a pointless combination at 1080p. Some CPU limitations present in games and frequently there is no advantage over a weaker GPU and stronger CPU combination.

I'm also not sure why you are making this about i5 + 770 or A10 + 980. The point was that the a10/a8 is not enough CPU for a 980.

Given the longevity aspect of CPUs vs. GPUs it makes sense to buy a stronger CPU and weaker GPU.

 

[frozentundra123456]

From the AT review of the A8-7650K. An overclocked Athlon 860K at 4.3GHz will be faster than the A10-7850K bellow.

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

Alien Isolation
Core i5 4690K + GTX770 = 123,35
A8-7650K + GTX980 = 137,84

TotalWar Attila
Core i5 4690K + GTX770 = 20,6
A8-7650K + GTX980 = 23,9
A10-7850K + GTX980 = 24,4

GTA V
Core i5 4690K + GTX770 = 48,8
A8-7650K + GTX980 = 48,35

Grid Autosport
Core i5 4690K + GTX770 = 111,45
A8-7650K + GTX980 = 105,29
A10-7850K + GTX980 = 113,73

Shadows Of Mordor (1080p)
Core i5 4690K + GTX770 = 41,36
A8-7650K + GTX980 = 88,19
A10-7850K + GTX980 = 91,17

Shadows Of Mordor (4k)
Core i5 4690K + GTX770 = 18,23
A8-7650K + GTX980 = 38,10
A10-7850K + GTX980 = 38,46


Seams to me an Athlon 860K at 4.3GHz will be just fine with the GTX980

ps: Seams TotalWar is also GPU limited

As usual, one of your infamous gpu limited benchmarks to "compare" cpus. In this case it is even more deceptive, because you paired the faster cpu with a much slower gpu.

Why dont you try showing the corresponding data with the GTX980 for the 4690? In atilla, the 4690 is almost 50% faster than the 7850k. And yes, you can overclock the athlon, but you can also overclock the 4690 if you get a k model. The x4 860k is a decent budget choice for a midrange or lower gaming rig, but it is absurd to pair it with a high end dgpu.

 

[kawi6rr]

I warned you not to feed him. All you've gotten was the same reply parroted a couple times.

The same can be said about you.

 

[magnus3142]

haha Do you argue in every post about which brand is better ?

 

[R0H1T]

haha Do you argue in every post about which brand is better ?

I guess every "recommend me a new CPU" thread should have a warning attached to it :whiste:

Flame wars to follow

 

[Enigmoid]

haha Do you argue in every post about which brand is better ?

A lot of the discussion isn't brand orientated. Its simply that the A10 is not enough grunt for a 980. Doesn't matter the brand, thats not being explicitly discussed (though it does come into the conversation as the i3/i5 delivers significantly improved performance) its the amount of CPU power.

An i3 and a 980 would be a better combo but still unbalanced. I would critize it just the same.

 

[R0H1T]

A lot of the discussion isn't brand orientated. Its simply that the A10 is not enough grunt for a 980. Doesn't matter the brand, thats not being explicitly discussed (though it does come into the conversation as the i3/i5 delivers significantly improved performance) its the amount of CPU power.

An i3 and a 980 would be a better combo but still unbalanced. I would critize it just the same.

Ask yourself this, not directed at you per se but hear me out, in two or three years the OP can get 980 (or even Titan X) level performance probably around the 300$ range. With an 8320e he wouldn't be held back in good coded DX12 games, can you say the same for an i3?

If the OP is willing to upgrade two components, instead of one, some years down the line the choice is clear else the 8320e is still the best VFM for him IMO. MT isn't going away & it's going to matter even more in the future, I doubt anyone can challenge that notion

 

[frozentundra123456]

one can challenge any extrapolation for which there is no data. We heard the same projections about the new consoles "games are going to use 8 cores, or 6 or whatever, because the consoles do. FX is going to overtake intel". Well, it hasnt happened yet. In fact, i3 is still faster than FX in a lot of current games. So now the rallying cry has become DX12. Now is it possible, even likely, that FX will pull ahead of an i3 in DX12 games? I would say yes, but it is only conjecture at this point.

 

[Enigmoid]

Ask yourself this, not directed at you per se but hear me out, in two or three years the OP can get 980 (or even Titan X) level performance probably around the 300$ range. With an 8320e he wouldn't be held back in good coded DX12 games, can you say the same for an i3?

If the OP is willing to upgrade two components, instead of one, some years down the line the choice is clear else the 8320e is still the best VFM for him IMO. MT isn't going away & it's going to matter even more in the future, I doubt anyone can challenge that notion

Given GPU depreciation and decreases in price it makes little sense to splurge on the GPU at the expense of a solid CPU.

I will answer your question but again, not in the context of the OP because he isn't looking at that kind of GPU. If his price limit is a hard limit then the 6300/8370E are good choices.

People who bought a i7-920 in 2008 are laughing all the way to the bank. That CPU was quite costly but it has aged really well and overclocked competes with a 8350. Hex core e-bay chips can also be dropped in for cheap. On the other hand, any GPU bought at that time is hopelessly obsolete (4890 level) and unable to play some modern (DX 11) games.

Same for anyone who bought an i5-2500k vs. a cheaper i3 and better video card (560 vs. 560 Ti or 560 Ti vs. 570). Either video card is pretty much obsolete but the i3 is certainly a bit more of a problem while the overclocked i5 is laughing.

IMO if you are building a gaming computer and have a decent budget and you plan on using it for a while buy the better sweet spot CPU and a mid range GPU rather than a low end CPU and better GPU. I've said this numerous times. Now obviously other people's priorities are different but this is what I would do.

Also your comparison above is flawed. Its not replacing 1 vs. two components a few years down the road. Its replacing 1 vs. 4 components. Looking at AMD's lineup AM3+ is being phased out so if you ever want to upgrade the CPU it means a new MOBO and DDR4 RAM as well. Compared with upgrading solely the GPU. Not appealing.

DX12 may help things but it won't help game code scaling (which will improve but is not related to DX 12). DX 11 uses a single thread for rendering but many games have scaling up to four cores for instance and use those cores heavily.

 

[R0H1T]

one can challenge any extrapolation for which there is no data. We heard the same projections about the new consoles "games are going to use 8 cores, or 6 or whatever, because the consoles do. FX is going to overtake intel". Well, it hasnt happened yet. In fact, i3 is still faster than FX in a lot of current games. So now the rallying cry has become DX12. Now is it possible, even likely, that FX will pull ahead of an i3 in DX12 games? I would say yes, but it is only conjecture at this point.

No not really, even the posters supporting an i3 say to drop in an i5 or i7 a couple of years down the line would be preferable. That's one of the arguments in favor of a cost saving solution like an i3, as compared to an i5, because unless you're just looking at 2015 even a skylake i3 would be inadequate for gaming two years from now.
Now the question is do you agree with this, but more importantly does the OP?

2core+HT is highly questionable investment if you're looking to keep the same CPU for 2~3 years, advising to get that CPU just so you can upgrade to an i5 or i7 is even more suspect. By that time a GPU upgrade would make more sense, so given the budget Intel native quads are out of the equation while i3 is - you know just bad investment IMO, the OP has had a good look at all the replies by now & am sure can make his mind up himself ^_^

Given GPU depreciation and decreases in price it makes little sense to splurge on the GPU at the expense of a solid CPU.

Haha, I never said in fact given the choices the 8320e or 8370e are his best VFM options, that's all there's to it nothing more & no less. The next upgrade, if he gets one of these, can be a better GPU instead of going for an i5/i7 & a GPU - much better option at that point in time IMO.

 

[kawi6rr]

haha Do you argue in every post about which brand is better ?

I actually don't argue and post much but it gets really old when every thread about someone wanting to purchase an AMD chips is met with Intel fanboys throwing out benchmark graphs and doing everything they can to try to talk the individual out of buying an AMD chip.

 

[Enigmoid]

Haha, I never said in fact given the choices the 8320e or 8370e are his best VFM options, that's all there's to it nothing more & no less. The next upgrade, if he gets one of these, can be a better GPU instead of going for an i5/i7 & a GPU - much better option at that point in time IMO.

Which I agree with. That said, when building a PC I would always advise to push for a stronger CPU over GPU when possible (and still in a reasonable balance not a 5820K and a 260x obviously but I would go with an i5 + 280X vs an i3 or equivalent + 290 - depending on the exact games this may differ). Obviously not possible in this case.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I actually don't argue and post much but it gets really old when every thread about someone wanting to purchase an AMD chips is met with Intel fanboys throwing out benchmark graphs and doing everything they can to try to talk the individual out of buying an AMD chip.

And it does not make sense to post a thread limiting yourself to one manufacturer. Seems to me like the decision should be made on objective evidence, which posters are trying to provide, rather than some subjective, unquantifiable "feeling" about relative performance.

Our lab just completed a large study of a food supplement, I guess we dont have to analyze any data, we can just say it "feels like" it did what we wanted it too.

 

[kawi6rr]

And it does not make sense to post a thread limiting yourself to one manufacturer. Seems to me like the decision should be made on objective evidence, which posters are trying to provide, rather than some subjective, unquantifiable "feeling" about relative performance.

Our lab just completed a large study of a food supplement, I guess we dont have to analyze any data, we can just say it "feels like" it did what we wanted it too.

Apples and oranges, not the same thing. Charts and graphs show which CPU is faster but that does not mean you'll see a difference when actually using the computer. Why send a user to a more expensive option when it can be done cheaper. OP was asking for advise on AMD chips.

 

[DrMrLordX]

You're preaching to the choir. The 860K is plenty for most* modern games, when coupled with a reasonable graphics card. Its quite simple that with this budget the OP isn't going to get more then a 960/270X, both of which the 860K is good enough to feed at 1080p.

The ironic thing here is that the 860K (3.7/4.0GHz + Kaveri enhancements) will have higher single thread performance (at stock) then either the 6300 (3.5/3.8GHz) or 8320E (3.2/3.5GHz), something that seem to escape most posters here. Who are constantly touting single thread performance... :whiste:

* Of course there will be a few outliers, but one can't expect everything on a budget.

You're right, and I've said as much in this thread. The 860k can be cheaper AND faster when the software uses 4 threads or fewer. Cost of ownership can be slightly lower once you factor in other things, like boards and power draw. And you get a newer platform which has a few upgrades for 2015 (Kaveri refresh, if it matters). The closest thing AM3+ has to an upgrade path is the 8320E, 8370E, and certain late-date 9590s. AMD may start using the newer wafers on all the FX chips, but again, I fully expect them to EoL the FX-4xxx and FX-6xxx chips and go all FX-83xx before they finally pull the plug. It's a shame, but we will probably not see FX-6300s off the new wafers. Now those would be interesting . . .

Also consider that nobody who is suggesting an 8320E in this thread recommends leaving it at stock! The reason to get that thing is to overclock it. 4.3 ghz on an 8320E is going to be pretty easy in most cases. As I've mentioned, the stock cooler and the board the OP mentioned should get him there.

But if all he cares about are 2-4 thread applications and he wants an AMD chip for that, the 860k is actually his best bet. And it's cheap, too.

haha Do you argue in every post about which brand is better ?

. . . yes. Sorry. You can't ask for AMD CPU recommendations without Intel promoters showing up and telling you to buy something else.

I actually don't argue and post much but it gets really old when every thread about someone wanting to purchase an AMD chips is met with Intel fanboys throwing out benchmark graphs and doing everything they can to try to talk the individual out of buying an AMD chip.

Well, really, the worst part is that they'll drag out the i3, which is a chip nobody will actually recommend outside of an AMD thread. Seriously, we had a guy here asking about getting a cheap i3, and the forum as a whole pushed i5s on him, with few exceptions. If i3s are that good, why doesn't anyone here actually recommend their use?

 

[magnus3142]

You're right, and I've said as much in this thread. The 860k can be cheaper AND faster when the software uses 4 threads or fewer. Cost of ownership can be slightly lower once you factor in other things, like boards and power draw. And you get a newer platform which has a few upgrades for 2015 (Kaveri refresh, if it matters). The closest thing AM3+ has to an upgrade path is the 8320E, 8370E, and certain late-date 9590s. AMD may start using the newer wafers on all the FX chips, but again, I fully expect them to EoL the FX-4xxx and FX-6xxx chips and go all FX-83xx before they finally pull the plug. It's a shame, but we will probably not see FX-6300s off the new wafers. Now those would be interesting . . .

Also consider that nobody who is suggesting an 8320E in this thread recommends leaving it at stock! The reason to get that thing is to overclock it. 4.3 ghz on an 8320E is going to be pretty easy in most cases. As I've mentioned, the stock cooler and the board the OP mentioned should get him there.

But if all he cares about are 2-4 thread applications and he wants an AMD chip for that, the 860k is actually his best bet. And it's cheap, too.



. . . yes. Sorry. You can't ask for AMD CPU recommendations without Intel promoters showing up and telling you to buy something else.



Well, really, the worst part is that they'll drag out the i3, which is a chip nobody will actually recommend outside of an AMD thread. Seriously, we had a guy here asking about getting a cheap i3, and the forum as a whole pushed i5s on him, with few exceptions. If i3s are that good, why doesn't anyone here actually recommend their use?

Good point! I have ordered 860k and i pretty sure i wont be dissapointed because it totaly worth 85$

 

[Justinbaileyman]

AMD may start using the newer wafers on all the FX chips, but again, I fully expect them to EoL the FX-4xxx and FX-6xxx chips and go all FX-83xx before they finally pull the plug. It's a shame, but we will probably not see FX-6300s off the new wafers. Now those would be interesting . . .


So when will we start seeing these new FX-83xx on these new wafers? You've peaked my interest.Or is this something your making up or guessing at? seeing how cheap FX stuff is right now I think I would snag one of those new wafer FX-83xx's up in a heart beat just for something to do to hold me over till Skylake or Zen comes into play.

 

[escrow4]

Apples and oranges, not the same thing. Charts and graphs show which CPU is faster but that does not mean you'll see a difference when actually using the computer. Why send a user to a more expensive option when it can be done cheaper. OP was asking for advise on AMD chips.

Of course it obviously does. If an FX can't crack 60FPS minimum and only gets 40 whilst an i5 gets 60, which one will dip and stutter more? It isn't brain surgery. AMD FX is rubbish in 2015 and APUs are little better, hitching a half decent iGPU to a maladjusted CPU makes no sense. If you are triple AAA gaming in 2015 with FX or lower than an i3 you are going to have a poor time compared to starting off with a stock Haswell i5.

 

[escrow4]

I own GTA V, an FX is plenty for that game. In one of the anti-AMD posters own links a four module FX @ 3.5GHz gets 60FPS. OP, I'd get the FX 6300 in your budget. It isn't the fastest, but you are budgeted for the fastest. But it offers great bang for the buck, in many day to day tasks you'll never notice a differnce.

Which one? The techspot one that tested normal textures at 1600p? That was jut sloppy. And even they show the disparity of an i7 @ 2.5GHz vs FX. Again.

 

[kawi6rr]

Of course it obviously does. If an FX can't crack 60FPS minimum and only gets 40 whilst an i5 gets 60, which one will dip and stutter more? It isn't brain surgery. AMD FX is rubbish in 2015 and APUs are little better, hitching a half decent iGPU to a maladjusted CPU makes no sense. If you are triple AAA gaming in 2015 with FX or lower than an i3 you are going to have a poor time compared to starting off with a stock Haswell i5.

You're nit picking, get real. And the OP wasn't even asking for gaming at 60fps he was asking for advise on an AMD chip, not only should you check yourself you should stay on topic.

 

[Yuriman]

Good point! I have ordered 860k and i pretty sure i wont be dissapointed because it totaly worth 85$

Just reposting this. OP ordered an 860K, which is probably the best they could have done in the price range.

 

[coffeemonster]

it gets really old when every thread about someone wanting to purchase an AMD chips is met with Intel fanboys throwing out benchmark graphs and doing everything they can to try to talk the individual out of buying an AMD chip.

The reason I gave up contributing advice at Tomshardware forums.

 

[BeauCharles]

Just reposting this. OP ordered an 860K, which is probably the best they could have done in the price range.

And if it was the cheapest he did well. He wouldn't see a tremendous difference in gameplay in many/most games between an 860K, FX-4350 or FX-6300. A cheap AMD CPU is a cheap AMD CPU. You'll never get an "OMG this is SOOOO much better!" moment going from one to another (using the same midrange GPU).