Best Value CPU for Non-Gaming

[Brinson]

I'm jumping around between Intel and AMD. All the gamers rave about AMD, but that's mostly about single threaded performance for games. If you plan to rarely if ever game, what's the choice?

My currenty computer is an Athlon X4 640. I've had it for about 5 years. I am wanting to get something a little faster. I work in business intelligence so I do alot of scripting in Python/R and am often running testing instances of SQL databases.

I am toying with the FX-6300 just because its on sale for $99 on amazon...but curious if there is anything worth paying extra for? I would say my budget is up to $300 or so the cpu if it is worth the performance gains and lets me keep my computer longer.

Curious as to everyone's opinions.

 

[escrow4]

4690 + H97 mobo. More modern platform that runs cooler and quieter. Plus that workload looks mostly single threaded. If you look at all the pre-builts from business manufacturer's they all go with either i3 or i5.

 

[mfenn]

4690 + H97 mobo. More modern platform that runs cooler and quieter. Plus that workload looks mostly single threaded. If you look at all the pre-builts from business manufacturer's they all go with either i3 or i5.

Or one of the i5's that are lower on the totem pole like the 4460 and 4590 depending on how pricing looks at the time of purchase.

I'm jumping around between Intel and AMD. All the gamers rave about AMD, but that's mostly about single threaded performance for games. If you plan to rarely if ever game, what's the choice?

I would guess that you've been listening to misinformed gamers. Current AMD chips cannot hold a candle to current Intel chips in terms of single-threaded performance. Even after clocking the chips to the moon (with the associated heat/power consequences), AMD cannot compete in terms of single-threaded performance.

 

[Cerb]

If you're running those scripts, and SQL work, at the same time, and it bogs all your cores down, up just past $300, you can find the i7-4790K. It can run 8 threads simultaneously, where your current CPU can only manage 4, and each will be 2x as fast, or better. Plus, it runs several hundred MHz faster than any other LGA1150 CPU. But, that having value hinges on your being able to make use of more threads.

So, while doing work now, keep up the Performance tab of Task Manager, and watch the CPU use. Somewhere in the menus, you can merge the separate core time graphs into one. Find that and do that. The graph cannot go over 25% without more than one core working a lot, cannot go over 50% without more than 2, 75% without more than 3, and 100% means all 4 cores are maxed out.

See if you often have >80% CPU usage. If you do not see that often, especially during times the PC feels kind of slow, you will likely not see much benefit from a CPU with >4 threads. If you see near 100% most of the time you wish it were being faster, some 8-thread CPU likely would be worth it (being a relative value judgment, and without experience or empirical testing to go on, it's hard to say it definitely is or isn't).

If it looks like you can use the extra threads, go for it. But, if not, that's $100-150 that could be better used elsewhere, and thus would be wasted on the CPU.

The FX-6300 is that cheap because it's a relatively poor value, ultimately. Each CPU "core" is slower than what you use now, just with bigger and better caches. Even if your work sped up from it, it would not be a huge upgrade, without a single multithreaded program using a lot of shared data. The extra $100 for an Intel Core i5 will be worth it every time. The Core i5-4460 is fine, and the 4590 typically a good bang/buck one.

 

[glazer1972]

Cheaper I5 if need be gets my vote.