Best CPU/Mobo combo for Gaming/Vid <$300?

[pcsavvy]

CPU+Mobo for under 300 shipped for gaming with a side of video editing?

Options:

Intel Quad core K series + m/b--able to o/c
AMD Quad core FM2 + m/b--able to o/c
AMD Quad+ core AMD3+ + m/b--able to o/c

Intel fastest CPU in the west, need a higher end m/b to o/c $$$$ (Used $$$)

AMD FM2 (750K, IGP disabled) + either A75 or A85X m/b + faster ram $$-$$$

AMD AMD3+ (6300-8350) + either 970 or 990FX m/b $$-$$$$


Intel combo is more expensive when purchased new but you can buy used cheaper and take your chances with the seller.

AMD FM2 combo is more reliant on faster ram to o/c and is a little more challenging to accomplish but doable. Depending upon which m/b you get an A75 can still o/c and get a lot of features but an A85X is an extremist m/b and is made to oc the cpu and graphics, costs a bit more than an A75 m/b. But a 750k Quad core can be bought for about $80-90.

AMD3+ can go budget and get a six core and a 970 m/b for about half the price of an Intel combo, can easily o/c. Or you can go for broke and get a 8350 and a 990FX m/b be able to be an extreme gamer, this would be closer to the cost of an Intel combo.

It is all a matter of budget and where you are willing to compromise and what you want to accomplish. If you are looking at a system to be up to date and fastest on the block for more than 6 months, you will sorely be disappointed. Though lately Intel seems to be more of incremental step up with their new cpu's rather than revolutionary fast speed demon.

These days unless you are an extreme gamer looking for bragging rights it seems to me that for a mainstreamer most of these new technologies are overkill. Besides with more money left in your budget you can add other stuff to your system, SSD, better case, bigger HD, faster Ram, third party cpu cooler, more case fans, tv tuner card, or have more fun money.

No haters need apply.

 

[AtenRa]

Wondering what is the current best duo, CPU+Mobo for under 300 shipped for gaming with a side of video editing?

1. Have One GPU (so SLi/CF not required)
2. Have 8 GB DDR3 1066 (so 4x+ ram slots req but im sure thats a given)
3. Will OC the CPU

I posted this in motherboards forum but that place is about dead.

What games do you play, at what resolution and what GPU do you currently use ??

 

[icanhascpu2]

$299 AR: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819116504 (Intel 3570K CPU)

Something along those lines (3570K + a Z77 mobo) is the best you'll be able to do for an overclockable Intel setup on a $300 budget.

I hear z75 is good too (doesnt take away thinking id miss) unless its not a good OC bored? Obviously Im not looking for 5Ghz, but something moderate 4.0 or 4.2. Thanks for the link!

 

[icanhascpu2]

Options:

Intel Quad core K series + m/b--able to o/c
AMD Quad core FM2 + m/b--able to o/c
AMD Quad+ core AMD3+ + m/b--able to o/c

Intel fastest CPU in the west, need a higher end m/b to o/c $$$$ (Used $$$)

AMD FM2 (750K, IGP disabled) + either A75 or A85X m/b + faster ram $$-$$$

AMD AMD3+ (6300-8350) + either 970 or 990FX m/b $$-$$$$


Intel combo is more expensive when purchased new but you can buy used cheaper and take your chances with the seller.

AMD FM2 combo is more reliant on faster ram to o/c and is a little more challenging to accomplish but doable. Depending upon which m/b you get an A75 can still o/c and get a lot of features but an A85X is an extremist m/b and is made to oc the cpu and graphics, costs a bit more than an A75 m/b. But a 750k Quad core can be bought for about $80-90.

AMD3+ can go budget and get a six core and a 970 m/b for about half the price of an Intel combo, can easily o/c. Or you can go for broke and get a 8350 and a 990FX m/b be able to be an extreme gamer, this would be closer to the cost of an Intel combo.

It is all a matter of budget and where you are willing to compromise and what you want to accomplish. If you are looking at a system to be up to date and fastest on the block for more than 6 months, you will sorely be disappointed. Though lately Intel seems to be more of incremental step up with their new cpu's rather than revolutionary fast speed demon.

These days unless you are an extreme gamer looking for bragging rights it seems to me that for a mainstreamer most of these new technologies are overkill. Besides with more money left in your budget you can add other stuff to your system, SSD, better case, bigger HD, faster Ram, third party cpu cooler, more case fans, tv tuner card, or have more fun money.

No haters need apply.

Not en extreme gamer else this would actually be a much easier choice. My 965BE simply isnt cutting it, and I was told it would not bottleneck the games I play on my 460GTX. Well, it does. Its a huge bottleneck and I learned the hard way that most games rely on strong single threat performance.

I dont want to make that mistake again, and Im not going into this budget thinking Id be anywhere close to uptodate, but Id like to, for once, not have the damn CPU be the bottleneck, and it will regardless of my GPU in a game like Minecraft FTB if I go the FX route.

What games do you play, at what resolution and what GPU do you currently use ??

1152p Minecraft FTB, Many PS2 emulated titles, GW2, Wow, etc. 460GTX. The main killer is Minecraft FTB. On my 4Ghz 965BE framerates will drop to 20. CPU is pumping its lil heart out at 25%, and the GPU sits at around 7-10% because it doesn't have much to do unless I turn on shaders. An FX would sit at 12.5%

 

[ViRGE]

I hear z75 is good too (doesnt take away thinking id miss) unless its not a good OC bored? Obviously Im not looking for 5Ghz, but something moderate 4.0 or 4.2. Thanks for the link!

Z75 is generally fine. However there aren't very many choices as virtually every mobo maker stuck with Z77.

 

[pcsavvy]

Have 8 GB DDR3 1066 (so 4x+ ram slots req but im sure thats a given)

This indicates that you have 4 x 2 Gigs of DDR3 1066 Ram to me. If I am wrong sorry. Are you sure that it is your CPU holding you back and not your system as a whole?

Here is a chart from an article from Tom's Hardware written in Feb of this year about the different cpus and apus under $200:

The performance curve starts to fall off pretty quickly once we look at the Pentium G860, Athlon II X3 450, and the two A4 APUs.

To me there doesn't seem to be super big difference in overall performance between AMD and Intel when you get between $100-200 for the cpu alone. Granted this chart is using the Pentium G860 as the baseline. Tom's hardware does state that as strictly gaming platform Intel is hard to beat but for a general purpose platform some of AMD's offerings are worth considering. Granted this was done before Haswell but still if you factor in the cost of a new m/b, Intel m/b's always run a lot higher for the same features of a comparable AMD m/b.

 

[icanhascpu2]

Z75 is generally fine. However there aren't very many choices as virtually every mobo maker stuck with Z77.

Yeah seems to be easier to find deald with 77 too. No complaints!

This indicates that you have 4 x 2 Gigs of DDR3 1066 Ram to me. If I am wrong sorry. Are you sure that it is your CPU holding you back and not your system as a whole?

Here is a chart from an article from Tom's Hardware written in Feb of this year about the different cpus and apus under $200:

The performance curve starts to fall off pretty quickly once we look at the Pentium G860, Athlon II X3 450, and the two A4 APUs.

To me there doesn't seem to be super big difference in overall performance between AMD and Intel when you get between $100-200 for the cpu alone. Granted this chart is using the Pentium G860 as the baseline. Tom's hardware does state that as strictly gaming platform Intel is hard to beat but for a general purpose platform some of AMD's offerings are worth considering. Granted this was done before Haswell but still if you factor in the cost of a new m/b, Intel m/b's always run a lot higher for the same features of a comparable AMD m/b.

Here is my reasoning
1. Per Mhz the i5s are roughly 40% faster than the FX of the same price bracket
2. The vast majority of what id do wont use more than 4 cores, and most of that wont use more than 1
3. Even if I could get a FX for $50 cheaper than an i5, the FX is roughly half as power efficient, meaning the longer I own it, the less the initial savings is going to matter. Over the lifetime of the two chips the i5 would cost me less.

RAM would be the other bottleneck in my system, but its to a much lesser degree to my 965BE.

If AMD would stop tossing cores at problems and build an architecture that can actually compete with (within 10% per core) Intel, gave it four cores and priced it (over 10%) less than the intel chips and made it more power efficient, Id be all over that.

Maybe the RADEON guys need to start making the next FX lineup....

Also in that graph it seems like the GPU is bottlenecking a bit, but it does illustrate how futile it would be for me to go from 965 -> FX

 

[crashtech]

Re point 2, some new games seem to be finding use for more than 4 threads. I don't see this being less true moving forward.

 

[icanhascpu2]

Re point 2, some new games seem to be finding use for more than 4 threads. I don't see this being less true moving forward.

Its not a matter of its not being true, its a matter of the pace. I've been hearing it for nearly 8 years now, and Im no longer making it a point in CPU buys. Too few games take advantage of more than four.

 

[pcsavvy]

I beg to differ about the need for more cores. Video encoding runs more efficiently with as many cores as you can afford. Even an APU can handle the graphics but VE is more cpu intensive than gpu. All the research I have done about what is the best bang for the buck at the low budget end reviews and articles all seem to agree that most games produced today and in the future will need more than 1 core to run efficiently. It was true that a few years ago games could get by with either a single or dual core cpu but now a days quad core is quickly becoming the bare minimum for an entry level gaming system.
Even though AMD is not as efficient it still offers a decent system for an entry level gamer. Especially the 6300 which is a 6 core cpu is highly recommended for performance/price ratio and AMD m/b generally cost less than a comparable Intel m/b, you save there too. So you can get a 6300 and a decent m/b with all the features you need to o/c and other extras for about $150-200 combined.

 

[crashtech]

The 6300 is not a match for the 3570K:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/701?vs=699

But with the 2600K it is more of a mixed bag, with the 2600K eking out a win despite it being a generation behind:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/287?vs=701

I think the 2600K is a lot easier to overclock as far as temps go, since it's soldered.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Re point 2, some new games seem to be finding use for more than 4 threads. I don't see this being less true moving forward.

This is true but hard to predict. Unfortunately for intel, I think it depends on how well the console games are ported to utilize fewer fast cores rather than a lot of slow cores. I think a quad intel will have more than enough cpu power for next gen games if they are ported well. If the ports are poorly done to utilize more fast cores, an i5 could be at a disadvantage.

However, I still think there will be some non-console ports that will utilize fewer fast cores, especially RTS games and some MMOs. Considering the whole spectrum of games, not just the latest (or possible upcoming) shooters, I still would consider an i5 a well rounded gaming cpu.

 

[pcsavvy]

I was not comparing the 6300 to an 3570K. I was making a general statement based on reviews and articles that I have read that a 6300 is viable option for an entry level gaming system for those who are on a tight budget. I don't think I mentioned comparing directly the various Intel cpu's, just the m/b's since AMD m/b's do run cheaper than comparable Intel m/b's. I was attempting to say the if you compare an Intel m/b with an AMD with as close to possible same feature set, the AMD usually runs much cheaper than the Intel m/b. So someone who wanted to build from scratch and had a tight budget, AMD can get you in the door for a budget gaming build with money left over to either add more quality stuff with your system or add upgraded video card or just have a little extra pocket money.

Some Intel and AMD cpu's do run close benchmarks in certain areas but that was not my focus. I was looking at overall cost of a cpu & m/b combo how much you can spend or save depending upon which route you take. In budgeting for a computer system it is all about where one is willing to make compromises and if you do your research you will find that it is only in a few areas you compromise if you decide to go the AMD route.

 

[crashtech]

I was referencing this comment by the OP:

I'll probably go the 3570K if I can find it used for ~200, and a used mobo

 

[icanhascpu2]

I beg to differ about the need for more cores. Video encoding runs more efficiently with as many cores as you can afford. Even an APU can handle the graphics but VE is more cpu intensive than gpu. All the research I have done about what is the best bang for the buck at the low budget end reviews and articles all seem to agree that most games produced today and in the future will need more than 1 core to run efficiently. It was true that a few years ago games could get by with either a single or dual core cpu but now a days quad core is quickly becoming the bare minimum for an entry level gaming system.
Even though AMD is not as efficient it still offers a decent system for an entry level gamer. Especially the 6300 which is a 6 core cpu is highly recommended for performance/price ratio and AMD m/b generally cost less than a comparable Intel m/b, you save there too. So you can get a 6300 and a decent m/b with all the features you need to o/c and other extras for about $150-200 combined.

No. Video encoding runs more *efficiently* with better architecture. It runs *faster* with more cores. This is evident in every benchmark about the 8350 and 2500/3570k out there.

Actual gaming disagrees with you. You do not toss more cores at gaming past 4 and hope a magical threading fairy will come and touch all devs in a special place and we all become blessed with games that would actually use all of 8350s potential. CPU intensive games simply want strong per core performance. This is going to change in the next few years about as much as its changed since 2010; not very much.

Recommending a 6300 to me when Ive already stated the games I play (and most games made) wont be using more than 4 cores, is strange. The 6300s 6 cores wont even beat a i2500ks 4 in VE. Why would anyone with a P2965 "upgrade" to a 6300 when a 8350 is in their price range and still not the best option for what they intend to do with it? AMD really got to people with the "toss more cores at it" mentality. Even if I were doing 50/50 VE/gaming I wouldn't go 8350. Why? Because I can walk away from the computer when encoding, I cant when gaming.

I was not comparing the 6300 to an 3570K. I was making a general statement based on reviews and articles that I have read that a 6300 is viable option for an entry level gaming system for those who are on a tight budget. I don't think I mentioned comparing directly the various Intel cpu's, just the m/b's since AMD m/b's do run cheaper than comparable Intel m/b's. I was attempting to say the if you compare an Intel m/b with an AMD with as close to possible same feature set, the AMD usually runs much cheaper than the Intel m/b.

If by 'cheaper' you mean $20 a year more expensive than a 3570k setup, sure.. so depending on how long I keep the setup, the AMD route could turn out to be the more expensive option.

 

[Erenhardt]

There will be minecraft on 360 (E3 announcement?). Go buy that for $200 or less and you'r covered!

 

[icanhascpu2]

The 6300 is not a match for the 3570K:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/701?vs=699

But with the 2600K it is more of a mixed bag, with the 2600K eking out a win despite it being a generation behind:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/287?vs=701

I think the 2600K is a lot easier to overclock as far as temps go, since it's soldered.

The only kinda option on the AMD side would be the 8350. I'm starting to look on eBay at options now. More risky, but I have time. Finding 3570k for under 180 regularly with high feedback rates and low shipping.

Also microcenter has some crazy Intel/AMD mb/cpu deals but they are in-store pickups, so its a matter of time and gas there, but could be an option.

 

[icanhascpu2]

There will be minecraft on 360 (E3 announcement?). Go buy that for $200 or less and you'r covered!

I'll assume its a joke but..

MC on 360 is crap. Plus all the games are pale imitations of PC ones.

 

[crashtech]

I envy you if you are in driving distance of a Microcenter. I'd make the pilgrimage, as there are no better deals to be found, for new stuff anyway.

 

[Mallibu]

I had a Phenom II 965@4 ghz before, also, and was told it wouldn't be a bottleneck in games. That was half the truth. In reality, in almost half the games played I had frame-drops or low gpu usage. After 1.5 year I switched to an i5 2500, and those things disappeared. Applications/games scale tall as well as wide, and no matter how multithreaded something is, unless it's a high parallel workload like video encoding, chances are you're going to need strong per core performance.
Go with an i5.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Wrong thread sorry >.<

 

[Concillian]

Keep an eye on the FS / FT forum. Sometimes you see a 2500k + mobo for $200-250.

No is the season for people upgrading to Haswell. You might not see a lot of people going from ivy to Haswell, but you'll see i5-750s and 2500ks popping up throughout the coming months. If you're patient you can easily hit your target and have leftover for 2x4GB of faster RAM.

 

[crashtech]

Check this out:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2322887

 

[icanhascpu2]

I had a Phenom II 965@4 ghz before, also, and was told it wouldn't be a bottleneck in games. That was half the truth. In reality, in almost half the games played I had frame-drops or low gpu usage. After 1.5 year I switched to an i5 2500, and those things disappeared. Applications/games scale tall as well as wide, and no matter how multithreaded something is, unless it's a high parallel workload like video encoding, chances are you're going to need strong per core performance.
Go with an i5.

Are you me? Because I was told the same. A hard $100 lesson. I gained roughly 10% fps in FTB and my GPU sits at 10-20% still. Even in GW2 (can use all 4 cores) my 460GTX isnt the bottleneck. I still see people here trying to do it again. Im not sure if they actually believe what they are saying and honestly dont know better or they are just trolling me.

Core #s is the Ghz for this era. I cant afford buying another architecture three generations behind and sit twiddling my thumbs hoping X software will catch upto my 30 dozen core hardware.

Keep an eye on the FS / FT forum. Sometimes you see a 2500k + mobo for $200-250.

No is the season for people upgrading to Haswell. You might not see a lot of people going from ivy to Haswell, but you'll see i5-750s and 2500ks popping up throughout the coming months. If you're patient you can easily hit your target and have leftover for 2x4GB of faster RAM.

Yeah ill def be checking in there more

Check this out:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2322887

Aw looks like I was late. Thanks for that though

 

[crashtech]

Aw looks like I was late. Thanks for that though

Dang, it was a 2600K and a Z68 mobo for well under $300...

Anyway, I think I've read so many posts today I forgot what you are now leaning towards. 3570K? 2500K?