Looking to get a New Processor

[fixx]

Also no, and you can reserve cores.

Nope. You can only tell the OS "this program can run only in core x" to set things like rendering use all except one core or programs not running on HT cores, but you can't tell the OS "only this program can run in core x". There's small but important difference.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Latency from thread syncing? No.

Because you're never guaranteed no other program besides the game is using those cores they will get out of sync almost immediately and every second. That's the whole point of multitasking that the cores get shared by several hundred background tasks as seen fit by the OS.

[Deleted]

Cause the i3-4330 is $135 while the FX-8320 is $140? The FX-4300 is $100. Though I still wouldn't recommend the 4300, not when the 6300 is just $10 more.

You can get the i3-4150 (3.5GHz) for $100
You can get the i3-4160 (3.6GHz) for $118
You can get the i3-4360 (3.7GHz) for $130

[moremana]

Duke, your really starting to embarrass yourself here.

Look, Im glad you are a AMD fan, but trying to prove your point with useless synthetic benchmarks and a few crappy game designers games is just old. This site is dedicated to WoW (MMOs) and the AMD FX is just a brick and outdated. Is it good for FPS, sure it is so is any dual core, yes I said dual core, they aren't useless outdated cpus just because a few crappy game developers want people to use quads because of their bad coding (Ubisoft, etc.), so please stop with that argument. The Intel Duals are much better options and play any game better than a AMD FX so why buy a FX processor? There is just no reason too, even on a budget, there is no reason to.

I bought a AMD setup (dirt cheap FX8320 and Asus M5A97 MB) from a friend a while back and its sitting in my garage collecting dust, I cant even sell it for a couple hundred bucks on Craigslist because I refuse to lie to people interested when they ask about performance and temps, it runs hot, loud and really just a piece of shit compared to any intel setup that costs $50-75 bucks more. I know the differences, I have tried it, its terrible compared to my Intel pc's.

There are plenty of valuable arguments for AMD in other areas such as HTPC using the A series chips and they make some decent video cards. I am in no way saying AMD as a whole is crap, but even they admit the FX line is lacking.


I hope in the future they come out with a decent cpu for us that competes with Intel, its good for business and our bank accounts, but currently they dont have one.

Since you like them so much, why dont you take this MB and FX8320 off my hands?

[Thandrend]

Duke, your really starting to embarrass yourself here.

Look, Im glad you are a AMD fan, but trying to prove your point with useless synthetic benchmarks and a few crappy game designers games is just old. This site is dedicated to WoW (MMOs) and the AMD FX is just a brick and outdated. Is it good for FPS, sure it is so is any dual core, yes I said dual core, they aren't useless outdated cpus just because a few crappy game developers want people to use quads because of their bad coding (Ubisoft, etc.), so please stop with that argument. The Intel Duals are much better options and play any game better than a AMD FX so why buy a FX processor? There is just no reason too, even on a budget, there is no reason to.

I bought a AMD setup (dirt cheap FX8320 and Asus M5A97 MB) from a friend a while back and its sitting in my garage collecting dust, I cant even sell it for a couple hundred bucks on Craigslist because I refuse to lie to people interested when they ask about performance and temps, it runs hot, loud and really just a piece of shit compared to any intel setup that costs $50-75 bucks more. I know the differences, I have tried it, its terrible compared to my Intel pc's.

There are plenty of valuable arguments for AMD in other areas such as HTPC using the A series chips and they make some decent video cards. I am in no way saying AMD as a whole is crap, but even they admit the FX line is lacking.


I hope in the future they come out with a decent cpu for us that competes with Intel, its good for business and our bank accounts, but currently they dont have one.

Since you like them so much, why dont you take this MB and FX8320 off my hands?

See, this is where the Intel vs. AMD argument should be. Neither dominates both sides of the market, performance wise. Intel clearly demolishes AMD economically. I use AMD because I do a lot of shit with my computer, but AMD is very clearly shit for MMO gaming. I didn't expect to get 120 constant FPS with my 8350 and 270x.

[Vash The Stampede]

There are plenty of valuable arguments for AMD in other areas such as HTPC using the A series chips and they make some decent video cards. I am in no way saying AMD as a whole is crap, but even they admit the FX line is lacking.

Admittedly yea, the FX line lacks and priced accordingly. Nothing AMD has right now compares to the i7 line and most of the i5's. But for budget builds it makes sense to go with AMD. This is the only forum that I find people always recommending Intel for budget. Especially when it comes to gaming where a better graphics card is more important. In most games the CPU makes very little difference.

And again, the reason is because Intel. That's literally the extent of the reasoning here. Why? Cause Intel. Not a performance per dollar. The fact that Intel is still trying to pass dual cores as relative is amazing. Your cheap Android cell phones come with Quad cores, and some now have 8 cores in them.

And watch, by next year Intel will make quad cores standard on all product lines and this argument would be pointless cause everyone is going to say go quad core or go home. The only reason Intel would is because by then AMD will have their new products and quad core has been standard for them for some time. By this time new games will crop up that require quad cores and every i3 and Pentium owner is going to be pissed cause we told them to buy these CPUs. Why? Cause Intel.

[Idrinkwhiterussians]

Admittedly yea, the FX line lacks and priced accordingly. Nothing AMD has right now compares to the i7 line and most of the i5's. But for budget builds it makes sense to go with AMD. This is the only forum that I find people always recommending Intel for budget. Especially when it comes to gaming where a better graphics card is more important. In most games the CPU makes very little difference.

And again, the reason is because Intel. That's literally the extent of the reasoning here. Why? Cause Intel. Not a performance per dollar. The fact that Intel is still trying to pass dual cores as relative is amazing. Your cheap Android cell phones come with Quad cores, and some now have 8 cores in them.

And watch, by next year Intel will make quad cores standard on all product lines and this argument would be pointless cause everyone is going to say go quad core or go home. The only reason Intel would is because by then AMD will have their new products and quad core has been standard for them for some time. By this time new games will crop up that require quad cores and every i3 and Pentium owner is going to be pissed cause we told them to buy these CPUs. Why? Cause Intel.

I think your logic on this is quite fallible. I mean, the reasoning for suggesting Intel is NOT because of fanboyism, but because of BETTER IPC. Which, as you should know is "Instructions Per Clock".

You also state that just because cell phones come with quad cores, PC users should be mindful of it... Where is your evidence that this suggests dual cores are garbage at the budget end?

Spouting nonsense is not going to help your cause, if you even know what that is.

[Arbiter]

"most games the CPU makes very little difference"

Ok...well if that's the case then why suffer in games like WoW by avoiding intel when it makes little difference? You can choose to suffer in some games, or you can choose to suffer in no games.

Just because other forums are recommending AMD for budget builds doesn't mean they are making the right choice. You also forget that the name of this website is MMO-Champion. Majority of users here play WoW or at least some sort of an MMO and if not currently that then usually some other game that can perform better from an intel.

And the reason isn't intel. It's single threaded performance. End of story. If the tables were turned and AMD has the advantage in most games while Intel lacked single threaded performance then we'd be choosing it over that, but it's not the case. And boo fucking hoo our Android phones have extremely low end quad cores. Each of those cores power is literally a small fraction of what our desktop CPUs push out.

And if Quad core randomly becomes the standard next year, well then so be it. In order for that to happen all games would have to modify code to support 4+ cores entirely. You still forget that an i3 processor STILL OUT PEFORMS AND AMD QUAD CORE.

So again we ask, what argument could you POSSIBLY have past "cause intel"?

We showed you that budget isn't much of an issue. We showed you dual core CPUs that outperform AMD quad cores. It's very clear that the few games that "require" quad core is in no way shape or form a needed form of action. They play just fine on dual core and it was just a shit move on their end while it's a good thing the general player base game out with fixes for the developers mistake.

At this point you're literally just too ignorant to see facts or trolling. I can't tell anymore.\

EDIT: Also, you seem to not even realize that half the time AMD says "quad core" or "8 core" or "6 core" it's not even that in reality. The FX quad cores are essentially dual core processors with 4 threads. Your 8350 is essentially a quad core with 8 threads..it just does it so inefficiently.

[Drunkenvalley]

Etc.

You have willfully chosen to ignore that Intel perform better in games from the very start, haven't you? Your only argument that's held water is that AMD processors are good for tasks that are multithreaded well... but you do realize that games aren't? And until someone solves the multithread game design problem that's going to stay.

And no, your inept idea of how to make games multithreaded doesn't hold water. Nor does it change that a game that would implement a solution wouldn't come out for another two years.

[Deleted]

And all those things you said are again assumptions. What will happen, when and if. Right...

You forget or continually ignore or don't understand (take your pick) a simple thing. You buy or propose depending on the buyers needs. What games he/she plays? Do they use 1-2 cores, then 2 cores and above enough so we look per core performance. When games will require 4, IF and WHEN they do, your 2core new-now will be old, even if you had a 4 core now.

[Deleted]

​So should I get an Intel or amd?

[moremana]

Well, when that happens we can revisit. At this moment you dont have an argument because the FX line is all thats out besides APUs. A i3 with Hyperthreading is a much better option than a FX for the same price, and sometimes cheaper depending on the mother board.

And the reason we all recommend Intel, is because well....they are just better.

[Deleted]

Well, when that happens we can revisit. At this moment you dont have an argument because the FX line is all thats out besides APUs. A i3 with Hyperthreading is a much better option than a FX for the same price, and sometimes cheaper depending on the mother board.

And the reason we all recommend Intel, is because well....they are just better.

Wow, just noticed your build is almost identical to mine. Ok. Awkward.

[moremana]

Wow, just noticed your build is almost identical to mine. Ok. Awkward.

Then u has a awesome system

[Deleted]

Stuff...

Looks like he forgot to touch on the price discrepancies I pointed out here, extremely easy to cherry pick and ignore stuff just to spew the same stuff in a different topic and later on here.

This is the only forum that I find people always recommending Intel for budget. Especially when it comes to gaming where a better graphics card is more important. In most games the CPU makes very little difference.

Nope here is fishing again, because we can find those better Intel CPU's for less or same price of the AMD and still focus on the GPU. Already proven many times but again it's easier "to win an argument" when you ignore this.

[Drunkenvalley]

​So should I get an Intel or amd?

Are you gaming? An i3 or i5. That's about the end of that conversation alas.

[Arbiter]

Are you gaming? An i3 or i5. That's about the end of that conversation alas.

until tomorrow when we have this exact same conversation in another thread -.-

[Vash The Stampede]

"most games the CPU makes very little difference"

Ok...well if that's the case then why suffer in games like WoW by avoiding intel when it makes little difference? You can choose to suffer in some games, or you can choose to suffer in no games.

Cause it's the here and now suffering. A G3258 works now but may not work at all in the near future. As in Dragon Age: Inquisition future.

We showed you that budget isn't much of an issue.

Who's budget? The OP is asking for 200$-250$.

We showed you dual core CPUs that outperform AMD quad cores. It's very clear that the few games that "require" quad core is in no way shape or form a needed form of action. They play just fine on dual core and it was just a shit move on their end while it's a good thing the general player base game out with fixes for the developers mistake.

Besides all the complaints with G3258 owners with newer games? And by newer we're talking about Far Cry 4, Inquisition, and Unity. The i3 gets away with it but barely. Buying either CPU right now is not future proof. Game like Dying Light requires an i5 minimum.

Also understand I'm not saying not to buy Intel, I'm saying not to buy dual core. An i5 should be the lowest on Intel anyone should go. Cause you'll run into that problem where an i3 may have 4 threads but only 2 cores. A game could just ignore it and require 4 real cores.

[Remilia]

Since when did games know what's a hyperthread or not? That's something that's configured at the BIOS.

[skitszo]

toms hardware is pretty amd/intel nuetral. They will talk about AMD and show graphics between amd and intel benchmarks....intel wins mostly but AMD is not like it can't do stuff. just not as fast or not as efficient.

[Arbiter]

Also understand I'm not saying not to buy Intel, I'm saying not to buy dual core. An i5 should be the lowest on Intel anyone should go. Cause you'll run into that problem where an i3 may have 4 threads but only 2 cores. A game could just ignore it and require 4 real cores.

Considering an 8350 is still pretending to be an 8 core CPU and the FX-4300 is still pretending to be a quad core but games haven't noticed that yet I don't see it happening anytime soon. Or do you want to keep pretending that CPUs like the FX-4300 is ACTUALLY a quad core?

And here you are still stuck on those 3 games.

Unity: biggest optimization fuck up in a probably history.
Far Cry 4: Made by that same shitty company. Runs JUST FINE on a G3258 btw. There was a video earlier in this thread showing you that but like every other fact presented you ignore it
DA:I: Not made by the same developer, but indeed a fuck up. Had a fix for it and runs fine on G3258. Not as well as something like an i5 from what I've seen but considering it needed a player bypass I'm sure it's an optimization issue because of the forced fix considering you claim the FX-4300 would run it just fine (because you know.."quad core") so there isn't much reason why an OC'd Pentium wouldn't run it just as well.

You know what's most annoying is that you keep making these claims and keep talking about the future, but last I checked it's impossible to predict the future...and you still show no ACTUAL EVIDENCE of your claims besides some irrelevant benchmarks that don't matter in today's games.

toms hardware is pretty amd/intel nuetral. They will talk about AMD and show graphics between amd and intel benchmarks....intel wins mostly but AMD is not like it can't do stuff. just not as fast or not as efficient.

That's great man, you've been recommending toms hardware all night I can see. The day we opt to recommend "just not as fast or not as efficient" well be sure to name the website tomshardwarejr.com