Is there a better price/performance CPU on the market right now?
Should i overclock a FX-6300 to 3.8 or should i get a FX-6350?
What GPU should i get with a FX-6300?
Also pc specs thread/
Postin mah specs. The 970/980 was an amazing launch, really cool running card, everyone should consider a 970 at least.
>consider a 970/980
yea unless you are using multiple cards, then use the R9 series, the r9 290 scales all the way up to 4 cards. the 980 has issues at 2.
Also 20w lower power draw does not make it a better card.
>3 real cores
Wrong, its 6 real cores that share 2 sets of resources.
Get it right..
Just like how the FX-8350 and up have 8 physical cores and share 2 sets of resources.
They are real, unlike intels hyper-threading emulation.
>refering to reference cards
Actually the R9 290 MSI runs cooler than the reference GTX 980 and all but the tri-wind 980/970.
Why do you shills always use out of date arguments. you want me to bring up firmi?
The only AMD processor worth buying is the X4 860k and that's if you're a poorfag and it still loses to an overclockable pentium
Don't buy AMD, their CPUs are slower than Intel's even at the same clock.
It's the same situation as with the old P4 vs A64, only Intel isn't a scumbag like AMD was and isn't putting the equivalent AMD Ghz next to its models.
Otherwise the i5 would be an i5 9999.
The point that the 980 runs significantly cooler than the 290x is only true if the 290x isn't set to uber and going by that bench the 980 actually runs hotter.
My own 290x (tri-x specifically) only hits 85c when massively overclocked - i'm using it at 1160 core 1475 (which is 5.9ghz) memory on air. I am aiming for 1200 core on air but I doubt I can get it stable with the sort of volts I would have to put through it.
>blows out of the market
you read benchmarks like this don't you.
It actually pisses me off how much I see benchmarks made like this...
I have a one, it's a good poorfag cpu and runs most modern games well but I think i5 is still an better investment.
Built a budget PC last year with the CPU, it's pretty good, you could definitely do better with an extra €50 or €60 though. Still, I'd recommend it if you really don't have the cash to spare
/g/entoo here. For playing video games, an FX-6300 is just fine. Even better if you can overclock it.
The latest Intel i5's are obviously better but at the same time 2 and sometimes 3 times more expensive than AMD. When it comes to most games, the performance difference between AMD and Intel CPUs are minimal unless you plan on playing a CPU intensive game like Arma 3 or Planetside 2 where an Intel CPU will definitely give you better framerates.
If you're on a budget, stick with AMD.
If not or you plan on doing CPU intensive tasks, go with Intel.
Isn't the 2 core pentium g3258 on par with the finest i7's in terms of core performance?
This would be the only reasonable choice for a poorfag since games don't benefit from added cores and multithreading that much anyway.
I'm building from scratch, with the intel stuff, i would probably end up with a $500-600 box that can't play any games, becus cheap/no GPU.
Unless i can use the gpu from my 32-bit machine... but it just seems a bit to expensive.
I'd think i'd rather skimp on the cpu a bit then on the gpu no?
I have a 6300 OC to 4.5 with a sapphire r9 270. I can max everything and get 60 fps, unless it's Planetside 2, where I get 40 fps.
Originally I was running an amd4600+ with a 9800gt since 2008. How I could stand that I will never know.
Toms still heavily weights their charts in Intel's favor by using two aging single threaded games. They need to at least add another multithreaded benchmark, or drop one of the old benchmarks.
My Fx-8350 with 840 Evo Pro 250 SSD as my main boots in 5-7 seconds everytime.
I think your system is fucked up anon.
Except they don't. there is a reason they use both games as benchmark tools..
Why does no one ever do price/performance benchmarks? we always get same GPU + different GPU when it would be much more interesting to see equal cost benchmarks to see just how much real performance spending an extra $100 on your CPU really gets you.
you can switch the CPU and motherboard for a pentium if you want
They would because they know that's bullshit.
Benchmark from a none biased website.
these are even 4k benchmarks..
yes and yes
i did a fresh install and even tested on a fresh install on my laptop too and it still booted faster on my laptop
Those ruskies recently put out a cpu test for dragon age and it showed excellent core scaling and it had the 9590 right below intel's 6c/12t and 8c/16t chips (though the 3770k and whatever the fuck the 8c chip is had a pretty substantial lead).
Man there is some shit going on for those test systems - the intel chip is using a goddamn water cooler vs the 8350 being stock (though the picture appears to have a evo hyper 212).
>tfw I wanted to buy 6300 as an upgrade
>tfw AMD is kill CPU to go for APU
I want to switch to intel but I'm a poor fag
Depends on what type of video games you want to play and what type of quality you want.
For 1080p/60FPS gaming at high/max settings right now, an overclocked FX-6300 and an R9 280X will get you that.
Mantle prefers any chip that has moar coars (which is the whole point) - but the biggest gains are had by the AMD chips. It is why in Mantle games i5's get left in the dust dust to no hyperthreading.
Because Intel has a much better marketing department than AMD and has used it for decades now to create the perception that AMD hardware is worse even at times when AMD had the undisputed best performance. Now that Intel has essentially succeeded in getting everyone ignoring AMD they're able to charge whatever they want.
unless you have an over 1000$ CPU the 290x is still the best videocard
Except that the R9 290x has better scaling at 4k than the GTX 780ti (yes that's right, the 780ti loses out to cards half its price) does when it comes to 3 and 4 GPU systems.
Buying AMD is way better when you jump into the 4k regions.
I'm sick of people spewing bullshit towards AMD when they don't even know what the fuck they are talking about.
It's been shown over and over on multiple sites that when it comes to 4k gaming AMD is winning out all around. and with the next generation of R9 300 using HBM we will see a even larger lead since Nvidia will also be sticking with out of date limited GDDR5 till about 2016.
Supported with more non biased benchmarks
Jesus christ anon I know that motherboards dont have a cooling system but what the fuck
I had a pretty good run with mine until now, gonna buy a new next year.
to everyone who is thinking about getting an FX-8350. It's a fine CPU and has very good performance, but there's a downside to it, a MAJOR one.
Buy an aftermarket cooler while you're at it if you dont want your CPU to cook itself with the stock cooler. AMD ships absolutely abysmal stock coolers for the FX-8350.
Trust me, it's a piece of trash and it easily gets the CPU up to dangerous temperatures. Also, it's loud as fuck.
temp is fine. speccy is somehow not detecting it properly
>AMD ships shit coolers
So does intel, holy fuck, both companies suck at stock coolers come on anon. At least you don't feel like you are going to crush your CPU when you put on your CPU like you do with that intel twist lock clip shit.
Even if you still overclock a FX 6300 to, let's say, to 4.3ghz, you'd still get your ass kicked by a fucking stock i3, while spending double of its power.
I'm showing a Ubishit port because you should be used on getting shitty ports for this generation. So you'd be double fucked by choosing AMD.
But if you still don't believe it, pick ANY benchmarks from here and you'll see the pattern eternally repeating.
IIRC the 970 doesn't even officially support 3 or 4 way sli (and again iirc the 980 only goes to 3 way) unless you get some modded drivers.
Crossfire scales all the way to 4 cards at least for the 290/x (dunno about older cards). It is lol to see various tech forums and sites across the net basically implode when the 980 has proven to be less than world ending - especially in sli.
>tfw stock cooler on an X6
>shit never goes over 60c
What went wrong?
I bought a 9370 and holy fuck does it run hot. You pretty much need to have a decent aftermarket cooler for the 8 or 9 series CPU's expecialy if your overclocking
Stock coolers are allways shit tho.Its the same with intel
R9 290 MSI costs $280 new and about $200 used.
I just recntly purchased 3 of them till the R9 300 series comes out. That's about 2.5 times the performance of a GTX 980 for the nearly the same cost.
My evo hyper 212 with a single noctua fan (p12 I think) will handle my 8320 at 4.2 - pushing it to 4.3 and then slamming the chip with something like the metro LL benchmark maxed out (save physx) pushes the chip beyond what the budget cooler can handle.
I need to fuck around with my fan config to see what I can do but i'm pleased with the performance right now.
same here dude, but you have to take into consideration that 60 is the ceiling temp for phenoms. if it goes over 60 it's toast. obviously the stock cooler wont let it get that high.
tfw overclocked my 1100t to 4.2 with an aftermarket cooler, mas temps were 54°
I'll just stop posting at this point because I've messed up again
The big problem with the 8XXX (ignoring the most recent 8320E and 8370) chips is their 125w tdp. They're just power hungry as all fuck. That DOES mean heat, but it also means your board's VRM/MOSFET are getting stresses to shit. A hotter chip means more electrical resistance, meaning more stress on the voltage systems.
In short, the coolers are "OK" for running stock speeds, but even then, get a quality board. The VRMs on mine are fucking shit. Despite the heat spreader, i still had to install a small fan or else the system would throttle under load, even at stock with an aftermarket CPU cooler. Problem in my case was, the board assumed a downward facing fan to get air over the heat spreader. It's a trivial problem in the long run, for me, but the point stands.
That stock fans are "fine". Just get a decent mobo. Actually, fuck that. If you get one of the newer 95w FX-8xxxx chips you should be fine, since it is less power draw and heat.
lots of amd 290 and 290x models have better cooling than the 970/980 gpus so they get better temps than say most 980 models now.
I dont get the point when all these gpus and their chips are rated to work at a higher temp anyway
take into account that the r9 290X uses a much hotter chip and thereforce requries more powerful cooler solutions than the 970
what does this mean? it means that evga is shit. the apple of gpus
Who cares about power draw and heat. It's just pennies, and in what way do 10 degrees affect anything, much less you. You're not gonna keep your pc for 15 years.
Those lower power fx chips also have lower performance, just get any 8320+
The stock amd coolers on those 8 core fx cpus are much better than the garbage intel bundles with their cpus, so I dont get your beef
>a DX9 game
>something AMD refuses to work on anymore
The bulldozer series came out after DX10, let alone 11, the chips were not focusing on DX9 games like skyrim *which is bullshit it was even DX9*.
Square just developed a completely garbage engine. It wasn't really made to be cross platform, and wasn't even good short of real-time cinematics. It was basically bootstrapped to run on PC. XIII-2 should fair better, because they planned for cross-platform from the 'start'. Mind, I still don't think it will be as 'good' as Valkyria Chronicles, but it should be worlds better than XIII.
That said, VC doesn't really do anything to merit being remotely taxing on any systems. I doubt it was even particularly taxing on the PS3 when it launched so many years ago.
Still, it does show Sega had a somewhat better engine to work with, partly because it was practically PS2 era tech with a few shaders slapped on. I won't discount Sega did a better job with the port regardless.
>Is there a better price/performance CPU on the market right now?
No. It's also a great part - Ignore the >lol AMD!!! memes.
>What GPU should i get with a FX-6300?
For price/performance, right now, that depends on your budget. You can get an MSI GTX 760 right now for $180, which is kick ass. That's roughly double the performance of your PS4. Remember the $20 mail in rebate.
And that's the best price/performance GPU on the market by a significant margin right at the moment.
Are there any benchmarks of the X4 860k and FX6300? I heard the X4 860k is better because it has better single core performance but loses out to multicore stuff.
Also, I think the X4 860k is better since they have newer motherboards. It doesn't matter if FM2+ is a dead platform because AM3+ is dead too
No it won't, you cunt. It doesn't bottleneck my 970. It doesn't bottleneck anything, and it's going to be a damn long time before anything needs a card on a significantly higher level than the current flagships.
The FX 6300 is top-tier right now
so either the 970 or r9 290 msi
I don't know shit about computers but their prices are similar. Leaning towards the r9 290 since my current gpu is a amd radeon hd 7800 and has served me faithfully for a long while.
I really don't want to pay 500+ for a gpu that's for sure
I'll say this, I'm switching from 2 4GB Elsa GTX 770s to 3 4GB MSI R9 290s.
Before I used the 770s I was with 2 6870s, and personally I was more satisfied with those even though the 770s was more powerful.
Considering the emphasis in next-gen engines is shifting from single thread performance to using more threads a 6300 is less likely to bottleneck you than an i5. The only reason to avoid the 6300 is the AM3+ socket seems pretty dead.
I got an Intel Core I3-4150 3.50Ghz and a Gtx 770, because it was the best I could afford.
Is the I3 going to bottleneck? Did I fuck up?
oh alright, it's for 4k
you had me worried here like
>what the fuck you buy 3 cards
>are you emulating real life
A single msi r9 290 should suit my needs then, I suppose
I barely play AAA games, and don't mind lowering the settings for 60 FPS but 2015 is looking like a good year. Also I want in on that glorious witcher 3 grafix
Its quite silly to recommend the gtx760 when it's definetly rubbish as he can get a r9 280 anywhere for less and its the faster card. The 760 is just a 2gb card to boot.
The 760 was never the price/performance card to get and I cringe everythime I see someone say he bought one for that reason.
>That mass change won't come any time soon.
But it will have an upper limit in terms of how much the individual cores can actually be stressed, and a bottom limit on how poorly games can actually run, to a degree.
I see no reason to be concerned about the performance of higher clocked FX-6000 chips.
it'll still get better performance
if you bought an i5, you'd probably have to spend $100 less on the gpu and end up getting a 760 which will end up getting you lower fps either way
anyway, you're an idiot for not buying a 970
It's so easy to overclock, infact I recommend it as its the same card as the 280x/7970 only with lower frequency and less compute units
Thank you to the anon earlier who mentioned overheating VRMs with 125w FX chips, i did not know that it was an important thing to check with my motherboard.
Luckily, i have an FX-8350 with an Asus M5A97 LE R2.0 so i should be just fine as long as i dont overclock my cpu. Thank GOD i didnt choose an MSI, 90% of the 125w cpu failure horror stories come from that brand in particular.
I normally wouldn't, but any game that is sufficiently damanding that performance will be an issue is probably going to be multiplatform, which means, ironically enough, it actually won't be all that demanding on the CPU. Again, short of just shit coders leaving their PC/Windows ports to be brute forced by way the fuck higher clocked CPUs.
I want to emulate PS 2 and Gamecube games. Is this an okay build for that
R9 290 GPU
Why does core quality/power mean when emulating?
Like if i try to run a n64/psx game with an FX or a i3 would i really see much difference?
Or hell even with a i5, how much emulation performance do you gain, really?
I'm happy with this build, haven't got a game yet that I can't run on ultra.
Multi-core means very little for emulation. THE best CPU for emulation right now is Intel's pentium g3258. Just overlock the little shit and it will be out even the fastest i7s.
it's still shit but it's cheaper. It's not for gaming. If you're going to spend more than 800$, go intel, else go amd.
I've tried both so i'm not a fanboy. I curently use an email@example.comGHz
AMD has always been competitive to Intel, you just can not disregard price, and even then, depending on your purposes, AMD completely smokes Intel FOR THE PRICE. Having said that, Intel far and away has the best performing chips on the market. If you're willing to pay, you WILL get better performance. It is just that the performance does not scale very well with each additional dollar you are adding to the equation.
get a better heatsink+cooler
replace stock thermal paste with something decent
clean current heatsink + cooler
clean inside of your case
add some coolers to the case if there are mounting points for that
those are your options, use all or only one, should help
Hey anons, Black friday is coming, there will be lots of deals EVERYWHERE on computer hardware. To avoid the usual human stampede and lack of stock in stores, shop online on whatever retailer you like best.
It'll be way worth it. Black friday is on the 28th of this month.
If you don't really see any deals you like, then additionally, wait until 'cyber Monday', immediately following the weekend. In fact, just start looking for deals right now. E-retailers don't really bother with one day sales, because they don't rely on 'Door busters' like brick and mortar.
Not very. It is technically sufficient for most games right now, but the fact it has very threads/cores means it will not really scale down the line. It is absolutely just a low end consumer, non-gaming part, that just happens to be absolutely perfect for what emulation demands.
It does well in games that like fast cores but its days are numbered - far cry 4 won't even launch on a dual core chip and more games are gonna be bottlenecked by it as time goes on.
Fantastic chip, but an i3 will serve you better.
I'm aiming for something similar anon. Thanks for posting.
How's that GPU working for you?
Can you run at 1980p and high/ultra?
The only changes I might do is f9 290 GPU and 240GB SSD (luckily I don't stash all my pr0n on my PC so that's enough space)
I have a 660 and it rests at an average of 35C.
I will be doing a clean sometime this weekend, will be upgrading a bit too with a £800 budget so I will be looking everywhere to boost performance. Plenty of space for coolers just need to know the best places to sit them.
Also just found that this heatsink had prized itself loose a bit, so I screwed the motherfucker in solid and CPU nor rests at an average of 43C.
AMD is the only thing that Intel has a competitor, and actually treat their customers better than Intel and aren't part of the global elite
I have a FX-8350, no regrets. and I'll probably replace it when amd stops fiddling around with their fucking APU's.
guys i have gt 630 and i5 3330. In wow i get like 20 fps with medium to low settings outside. Tried to play farcry 4 and i cried, its impossible.
What cheap gpu should i get so that i could at least play wow decently?
/g/ seems to talk less about actual hardware than this thread does.
And besides, we're helping our fellow pc game-people maintain good pc health. It's helping the community as a whole.
You can probably do a G3258 + an r9 280. Just get a Micro-mobo, 8GB of ram, a 500w PSU, and either a ~160GB SSD or a TB HDD.
I would recommend going to Microcenter if it is anywhere near you, if not just get it all from new egg