Who said anything about other programs?The answer is simple, don't run other programs while gaming.
Who said anything about other programs?
I meant the normal background tasks like AV, various updates and so on. Yes, you can turn the AV off but turning off all Windows and other services, schedule tasks, and similar is not that easy. Better to have spare actual cores.
Threads like these are hilarious. You have people who clearly have never used both product lines and never spent extensive time troubleshooting and configuring both.
An i3 will not be a chip that lasts very long. An actual quad will stand the test of time. We had these same damn discussions two years ago, revisiting six year old threads, showing how shortsighted having a dual core in 2014 was. In modern games would you choose a Q6600 or the E8500? It's the same conundrum today. Prices were much higher for the fast dual core, the power consumption was a hell of a lot higher (53w vs 85w), the quad was bound to a slower FSB and the new i architecture was near. Which was clearly the better choice long term? You know the answer.
Not only that, you use your computer for a hell of a lot more than gaming. Something the Intel-only crowd doesn't see I'm the benchmarks is that fx-6/8 has a consistent level of responsiveness and multitasking ability that any dual core is incapable of. Try loading a game, a streaming application and YouTube/twitch live on a dual core. One of the most popular things right now is gameplay reviews and commentary. As a developer, having the most consistent experience bests erratic, potentially quick experiences.
Too bad the i3 is better for everything you mention in your post. It would be good advice if it was actually slower, but it isn't and runs circles around the AMD FX chips for all the things you say. That's just the reality of the situation. And though the i3 doesn't have two PHYSICAL cores, for all intents and purposes, it's a quad core processor by virtue of how it functions and performs. The only thing the FX can claim is great benchmarks in Cinebench, which isn't that great of a measure for anything, really.
Duh!!!Yes we all know how crappy AMD GPUs/drivers are,everybody complains about it since forever...
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-call-of-duty-advanced-warfare-pc-performance
If you want decent performance without bad frame times get an Nvidia card.
I wouldn't lose any sleep over convincing someone which CPU to buy. I'm quite happy with my FX, I personally wouldn't build a new system around one today unless I got a stellar deal, but they get the job done.
It's really a dead end system though. AM3+ is obsolete so if you want to upgrade in the future you'll need a new mobo, CPU and probably RAM. At least if you cheap out and get an i3 or a low end i5 you still have the option to pop in a new CPU at some point in the future.
If you go for socket 1151 and Core i5 then you actually dont have an upgrade path, Quad Core Core i7 will not really give you a good upgrade for the money you will spend.
In 2016 for a new system and low budget i would go for the Core i3 and have an upgrade path to unlocked Core i7 or go from the start to Core i5 6500 and keep the system for 2-3 years and only change the dGPU.
What people overlook when they see AMD CPU's being cheaper is that they have to buy expensive motherboards in order to put the AMD CPU's to good use. TBH a good FX 8350 setup is equal to an i5 standard setup price-wise, and the i5 will still beat the AMD's ass.
PS- Fallout 4 runs fine on an i3.
The upcoming RX 470 looks like a really good bang for the buck.
Have him build the system around the i3-6100. Games that require a quad core CPU will see it as one.
An extra $200 over the life of a desktop is irrelevant.
i3 (6100) will do just fine. Usually better, certainly not worse than old FX. Plus RX 470 (if 480 or 1060 is out of budget).
Here's some comparisons of the i3-6100 to the FX-8350 (faster than an 8320): http://pclab.pl/art66945-10.html
The 8350 wins significantly in BF4, and one Crysis 3 benchmark. It barely wins in Witcher 3, Watch Dogs, and Total War (meaning you'd have to overclock an 8320 to get that result.)
The i3 wins in Assassin's Creed Unity, Arma 3, CS:GO, another Crysis 3 benchmark, Far Cry 4, GTA5, Project CARS, and Starcraft 2.
I just filled the Steam Survey and half the users are gaming with dual core CPUs:
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
So an i3 will work just fine.
To the OP: a used SB or IV i5 would probably be the best idea if used is acceptable.
Real friends don't let friends buy i3s...
Considering one can get a i3-6100 and a H110 board for slightly more than a 8350 CPU itself, and the i3 generally performs better in games, sips power like a miser, has upgrade path to Kaby I dunno why are we having this discussion at all.
Or this simple fact if one can't spend $200 for a CPU maybe they shouldn't be building new gaming PCs? [...] There is a minimum barrier of entry for everything [...]
harsh, but information pays.
saw a Dell XPS tower at retail store for $900... had i7-6700 with cheap GT-730, and then an aisle down, Asus Oculus desktop, for $850, i5-6600 with GTX-970.
the idea here, is some people don't have the luxury of building extravagant systems, so sometimes pre-builds from good name brands are the way to go if the configuration is a good price/match up of quality parts.
we could all put that Asus Oculus computer together for cheaper, couldn't we? (rhetorical)
retail pricing, even if we got a deal on particular parts, it'll still be close to $1K, give or take, depending on upping the quality on something or dropping the price to take out that DVD-RW drive? some people want new, not used, is the idea here, too.
i5 6600 w/HSF - $230
motherboard - $50
OS - $120
PSU - $50
GTX 970 - $300
DVD-RW - $25
WLAN AC card - $30
Chassis - $50
1TB_HDD - $50
8GB RAM - $50
so far, it's 955, no shipping or tax included. doesn't even have an SSD.
lifespan, if the system is being pushed hard on a Delta 433w PSU, 6 months to 2 years, lucky if it can go five plus years on the best circumstances.
anyway, if the budget and circumstances call for AMD, it can work, usually combined with enough RAM, a good SSD and a decent graphics card and just enough easy-flow wattage from a cheap priced, but quality PSU. if stuff's on sale, go pre-built and modify the rig if need be, to save an extra $200 or $300, and labor time. not everyone wants to play at high frame rates, or even want to attempt the newest games at the highest frame/sec, at ultra settings, they want playable at 45 fps, if that's even playable for some...
at the end of the day, it's their budget and their circumstances. save the grace.
some people are okay with fluctuating 30/60 FPS on playstation and xbox consoles, displaying at 900p/1080p, and are willing to pay and play with that on high input-lag 4K TV's. so be it.
Nope. UD3P Gigabyte board is good for 4.4 GHz and is cheap.What people overlook when they see AMD CPU's being cheaper is that they have to buy expensive motherboards
Wikipedia says the first Vishera 8 core chips, the 8350 and 8320, debuted in 10/23/2012. The 8320E came out in 9/2/2014.I have an FX8320e which overclocks to 4.5Ghz@1.4v with a Zalman CNPS11X air cooler on it. Running an MSI 970 gaming MB. I only play games on this thing really and not much else but email/ebay/craiglist/internet news and lurking here at AT. I paid like a $105 for the CPU and $100 for the MB. That was like 2yrs ago just after Vishera fisrt came out.
I'm quite happy with my FX, I personally wouldn't build a new system around one today unless I got a stellar deal, but they get the job done.