Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / So, processors.

Author
Message
FLAME123
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jun 2009
Location: Scotland
Posted: 3rd Jan 2015 01:08
Important note: I ask for advice on here as I fear posting on any other place would just cause a massive blitz between AMD and Intel fanboys leading to nothing productive getting done. Thus, I come here for impartial verdicts on what I should get or what I should avoid.

Now, I've recently been considering to upgrade my processor as that seems to be starting to become my computer's weak point. It still plays everything fine, but I can't help but feel that I want more from it than what the processor has to offer.

So, in an ideal world, we'd all be running the latest and greatest i7 with dual SLI nvidia Titans and a terabyte of RAM but alas, money is an object and I want to make sure that I get a worthwhile upgrade without blowing all of my finances.

Let's get to the matter at hand shall we?

I'm currently running an AMD FX 6100 so anything that fits an AM3+ socket would spare me the woes of buying a new motherboard on top of the cost of the processor. My budget would not really extend anywhere beyond £250 and this would only go to that extreme if the upgrade was well and truly worthwhile.

I'm currently eyeing up the AMD FX 8350 but I wanted to get second opinions before investing such a huge chunk of moolah.
Seditious
9
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Aug 2013
Location: France
Posted: 3rd Jan 2015 02:19
While it won't provide a definitive answer, I'd suggest looking at the charts on cpubenchmark.net and using that as a reference.
Dar13
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th May 2008
Location: Microsoft VisualStudio 2010 Professional
Posted: 3rd Jan 2015 02:28
I'm running an AMD-8350 at the moment, and I haven't had any issues or complaints about it. It's single-thread performance isn't as strong as Intel's but if you don't mind or you run a lot of multithreaded applications it might be worth it. It's sub $200 last I checked and has overclocked versions if that's what you want.

Otherwise I'd go for a Haswell version of Intel or wait for the Broadwell/Skylake desktop versions to come out. That's the more expensive options but most newer i5s and and all the i7 (except the very first generation) perform better than AMDs best offering at the moment. AMD's architecture at the moment is a major disappointment.

bitJericho
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 3rd Jan 2015 15:49
In the US you can get an 8 core Fx-9590 for under 250 usd. That would blow anything out of the water at that price point for intel. Not to mention you'd have to split your purchase between a cpu and motherboard.

Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 3rd Jan 2015 18:42 Edited at: 3rd Jan 2015 18:43
I run the FX-8350, you won't find a better deal for the power!

It's handled everything I've thrown at it with no problems whatsoever. Everything is stable and fast. The FX-9590 might be a bit overkill but it would definitely be wise to invest in something more powerful if you can afford it!

One tip if you go AMD, make sure you have enough fans/cooling because they do take in slightly more power than their Intel couterparts. But if you make sure you've got proper cooling it's really not a big deal at all. If you have water cooling you're all set already!


It's back, baby!
FLAME123
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jun 2009
Location: Scotland
Posted: 3rd Jan 2015 20:41
Thanks for all the feedback thus far:

Also, in response to bitJericho

Quote: "In the US you can get an 8 core Fx-9590 for under 250 usd. That would blow anything out of the water at that price point for intel. Not to mention you'd have to split your purchase between a cpu and motherboard."


I somehow get the feeling that I'm going to have to pay £250 for tha...

Wait a minute... £179.57, that's it?


FAIR(ER) REGIONAL PRICING! WOO!
bitJericho
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 3rd Jan 2015 22:54
Quote: "FAIR(ER) REGIONAL PRICING! WOO! "


I can't believe it!

Clonkex
Forum Vice President
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th May 2010
Location: Northern Tablelands, NSW, Australia
Posted: 6th Jan 2015 01:40
My best suggestion is i7 if you can afford it, i5 if you can't. I don't like AMD and have no knowledge of which of their CPUs are good.

bitJericho
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 6th Jan 2015 02:02 Edited at: 6th Jan 2015 02:04
Quote: "My best suggestion is i7 if you can afford it, i5 if you can't. I don't like AMD and have no knowledge of which of their CPUs are good."


So your suggestion is to spend 4-500 usd on an intel cpu and mobo instead of a 250usd on an amd cpu upgrade that would deliver the same performance? Great advice XD

Dar13
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th May 2008
Location: Microsoft VisualStudio 2010 Professional
Posted: 6th Jan 2015 02:07
Yeah since he already has a AM3+ mobo, he should just upgrade to a 8350 or 9590. If he had to get a new mobo I would recommend a 4-core i5.

Clonkex
Forum Vice President
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th May 2010
Location: Northern Tablelands, NSW, Australia
Posted: 6th Jan 2015 05:00
Quote: "So your suggestion is to spend 4-500 usd on an intel cpu and mobo instead of a 250usd on an amd cpu upgrade that would deliver the same performance? Great advice XD"


As I say, I don't like AMD CPUs and I can't recommend a good one.

Dar13
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th May 2008
Location: Microsoft VisualStudio 2010 Professional
Posted: 6th Jan 2015 05:27
Quote: "As I say, I don't like AMD CPUs and I can't recommend a good one."

Why don't you like AMD CPUs? Just curious, as I know you had a rough experience with one of their APUs.

JLMoondog
Moderator
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Jan 2009
Location: Paradox
Posted: 6th Jan 2015 22:05
I love AMD, so I'm biased. Go with the upgrade, the price / power ratio is the best in my opinion otherwise.

I'm lucky to live near a MicroCenter, I can usually get a decent AMD FX and motherboard combo for 50% original retail. They're always running deals. If you have a computer shop near by, scope out the ad deals. Or try sites like newegg.com, they tend to run deals like buy a AMD chip, get a case and ram for a fraction of the price, just have to look.

<a href="http://www.slidedb.com/games/kayak-escape" title="View Kayak Escape! on Slide DB" target="_blank"><img src="http://button.slidedb.com/popularity/medium/games/34310.png" alt="Kayak Escape!" /></a>
Clonkex
Forum Vice President
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th May 2010
Location: Northern Tablelands, NSW, Australia
Posted: 7th Jan 2015 01:48
Quote: "Why don't you like AMD CPUs? Just curious, as I know you had a rough experience with one of their APUs."


Because, aside from the fact that my entire experience with AMD had been pretty terrible, their CPUs tend to favour more cores rather than faster cores, and in practice that's not a good thing (unless you do video editing with professional software) as no game can use 8 cores. Additionally, they have the least compatibility.

Unless Intel or Nvidia does something utterly stupid and makes me hate their products, I have no reason to ever try AMD again.

Dar13
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th May 2008
Location: Microsoft VisualStudio 2010 Professional
Posted: 7th Jan 2015 02:09
Quote: "Additionally, they have the least compatibility."

What do you mean least compatibility? It's a CPU, it just runs x86-64 instructions. Heck, AMD invented x86-64 that's why it used to be called AMD64. Now perhaps they don't support Intel tech like hyperthreading but that's because it's Intel technology. It's not like it's an open standard.

TheComet
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Oct 2007
Location: I`m under ur bridge eating ur goatz.
Posted: 7th Jan 2015 02:50 Edited at: 7th Jan 2015 03:01
Guys, guys.
1) He has an AM3+ socket.
2) He has no money.

Intel is completely out of the question here.

I'm not sure how good the following advice is, but the phenom 2 series had a really long streak. Specifically the phenom II x4 955 (quad core), phenom II x4 965 (quad core), phenom II x6 1090T (hex core) and phenom II x6 1100T (hex core). Four years ago they were cutting edge and posed a real threat to Intel because they were cheap and could be over-clocked to ridiculous frequencies without requiring any special cooling. Today, still, I see people talking about them.

With AMDs new bulldozer and piledriver CPUs out, I'm sure you can get your hands on a phenom 2 for a very cheap price.

I myself am running a phenom II x6 1090T (OC 4.2GHz) and no game or program has really come along to challenge it yet. I've seen no reason to upgrade and it's been 4 years.

If you go for a phenom 2 then overclocking it is a must. One does not simply buy a phenom 2 and does not overclock it, you don't get your money's worth otherwise, as cheap as it is.

I like offending people. People who get offended should be offended. -- Linus Torvalds
Clonkex
Forum Vice President
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th May 2010
Location: Northern Tablelands, NSW, Australia
Posted: 7th Jan 2015 03:52
Quote: "Intel is completely out of the question here."


I know. That's why I said "my best suggestion". Maybe it was poorly worded, but what I meant was that was the best I could do in terms of suggesting CPUs

Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 7th Jan 2015 04:49 Edited at: 7th Jan 2015 04:49
Quote: "I know."
He knows.

FLAME123
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jun 2009
Location: Scotland
Posted: 8th Jan 2015 18:12
Quote: "I know. That's why I said "my best suggestion". Maybe it was poorly worded, but what I meant was that was the best I could do in terms of suggesting CPUs "


Believe me, if I lived in the U.S. and had a part time job, then my rig would have nvidia and Intel parts, but due to their horrific price conversion, (almost as bad as razer) for their UK products, plus the fact that I, as TheComet so nicely put it:
Quote: "1) He has an AM3+ socket.
2) He has no money."


I will be sticking with AMD for the foreseeable future. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Clonkex
Forum Vice President
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th May 2010
Location: Northern Tablelands, NSW, Australia
Posted: 9th Jan 2015 07:24
Quote: "I will be sticking with AMD for the foreseeable future. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing."


Objectively, no, it's probably not a bad thing at all

ionstream
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2004
Location: Overweb
Posted: 10th Jan 2015 19:17
I have an 8350+ on my gaming machine. It's frustrating to see only a couple of cores used when I'm playing a game, but so far all new games are very playable with my GTX 760 (I plan on upgrading that). If you're going to get a 9590 make sure your motherboard can support the wattage used by the CPU, which is double that of the 8350.

FLAME123
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jun 2009
Location: Scotland
Posted: 11th Jan 2015 21:50
Hmm... starting to think that the 8350 might be the better option for my needs. Looks like you're gonna need one hell of a cooling solution to run a 9590 at its best. And since I see a lot of people who seem to be perfectly satisfied an 8350, it's still gotta be a damn decent upgrade over my 6100.
Phaelax
DBPro Master
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 12th Jan 2015 19:29
Quote: "In the US you can get an 8 core Fx-9590 for under 250 usd. That would blow anything out of the water at that price point for intel."


Quote: "So your suggestion is to spend 4-500 usd on an intel cpu"


Not entirely sure where you're getting your prices at. I can get the 4GHz i7-4790K for $280 at my local store, which will outperform the 9590.

Intel uses significantly less power than AMD. If power usage isn't a concern, and you're looking for maximum overclock potential, then AMD might be the right choice.


AMD has a lot of great CPUs, as does Intel. But if you want the verdict on who has the best of the best, it's Intel. But not everyone needs the absolute best, and that's where your preference and needs comes into play.


Quote: " It's frustrating to see only a couple of cores used when I'm playing a game, but so far all new games are very playable with my GTX 760"

The gfx card is going to make a bigger difference in gaming than a CPU ever will.



My personal opinion? Get the FX 8350 for price and lower power consumption (less heat if that's a concern). But in all honesty, I think you'd be wasting your money on a CPU upgrade. My question is, why do you want to upgrade it? It won't help with gaming. And your 6100 will handle your normal every day to day tasks already.


"I like offending people, because I think people who get offended should be offended." - Linus Torvalds
Seditious
9
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Aug 2013
Location: France
Posted: 12th Jan 2015 19:39
Quote: "But in all honesty, I think you'd be wasting your money on a CPU upgrade. My question is, why do you want to upgrade it? It won't help with gaming. And your 6100 will handle your normal every day to day tasks already."


Pretty much what I would have said. The GPU will almost always be the bottleneck in video game performance.
bitJericho
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 12th Jan 2015 19:45
Phaelax, the cost of an AMD chip is about 2/3 the cost of Intel if you are just looking at raw performance. The price I quoted was what it would cost for the cpu plus mobo at a midrange level.

Clonkex
Forum Vice President
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th May 2010
Location: Northern Tablelands, NSW, Australia
Posted: 13th Jan 2015 12:14
Quote: "Pretty much what I would have said. The GPU will almost always be the bottleneck in video game performance."


Unless you have a super-crappy CPU or are trying to play any Ubisoft game.

FLAME123
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jun 2009
Location: Scotland
Posted: 16th Jan 2015 19:29
I recently upgraded to a R9 280 gpu from my HD6850 and it does what it does beautifully and is a lot cooler than my old card (I did use to get quite a few heat issues with the HD6850). I've been wanting to upgrade my cpu as that is what's appearing to be quickly becoming my bottleneck.

Quote: "trying play any Ubisoft game."


Don't get me started...

http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=212586&b=2

http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=212948&b=2

In fact, I bought Farcry 4 a couple of days ago, I heard the PC port was pretty decent. But then, of course, I can't start it, all I get is a black screen, every. Single. Time. So I browse the internet, and everybody who gets this problem has either a Razer Orbweaver (which I do not have) or a dual core processor (which again, I do not have). I tried everything the community has to offer but alas, I guess I just have to hope for the best in upcoming patches. Although, I look at people with pretty much identical rigs, they're running it smooth as silk and it's lookin' beautiful. So in all fairness, it's probably an issue on my end, but I have no idea what on earth would be causing it.

Oh well, guess I'll stick with Assassin's Creed Unity for the time being.
Indicium
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2008
Location:
Posted: 16th Jan 2015 19:45
Aw I'm running a HD6850 and it still does the job for me. I guess I'll have to upgrade soon though
Clonkex
Forum Vice President
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th May 2010
Location: Northern Tablelands, NSW, Australia
Posted: 17th Jan 2015 06:32
Quote: "But then, of course, I can't start it, all I get is a black screen, every. Single. Time."


Really? Huh. Some quick googling reveals other possibilities; try:

- Unplugging ALL USB devices except your keyboard and mouse.
- Disabling ALL HID devices in Device Manager except your keyboard and mouse.
- If your mouse has any kind of strange functionality (such as a touchpad or tiny joystick), try a different mouse.

I don't own Far Cry 4 so that's all I can do to help.

FLAME123
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jun 2009
Location: Scotland
Posted: 18th Jan 2015 17:10 Edited at: 18th Jan 2015 18:26
@Clonex, believe me. I've tried all of that, the only difference it made was inconvenience starting up the application. I also tried with keyboard only and mouse only. Still nothing.

My Laptop on the other hand, runs it just fine (with a dual core processor might I add) just so long as everything is on its lowest settings and at 720p. I guess it's just like playing it on a PS3/XBOX360.

[EDIT] Nevermind everybody! It turns out that all this time my processor was only using 3 cores out of 6 (facepalm), after fiddling with my BIOS a little bit I can now run Farcry 4 and my framerate in Assassin's Creed Unity is greatly improved. Looks like the FX6100 is sticking around a little while longer.
bitJericho
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 18th Jan 2015 18:30
Haha you just doubled your computer's speed for free XD

Phaelax
DBPro Master
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 18th Jan 2015 20:27
Quote: "my processor was only using 3 cores out of 6 (facepalm), after fiddling with my BIOS a little bit I can now run Farcry 4"


Farcry uses multiple cores? The game relies on the cpu that much?


"I like offending people, because I think people who get offended should be offended." - Linus Torvalds
Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 18th Jan 2015 20:30
Quote: "The game relies on the cpu that much?"
It's a farcry from needing only one core.

Clonkex
Forum Vice President
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th May 2010
Location: Northern Tablelands, NSW, Australia
Posted: 20th Jan 2015 02:03
Quote: "Nevermind everybody! It turns out that all this time my processor was only using 3 cores out of 6 (facepalm), after fiddling with my BIOS a little bit I can now run Farcry 4 and my framerate in Assassin's Creed Unity is greatly improved. Looks like the FX6100 is sticking around a little while longer."


LOL haha that's awesome! xD Brilliant news!

Quote: "Farcry uses multiple cores? The game relies on the cpu that much?"


FarCry 4 requires at least 4 cores to start. Since FAME123's CPU was only running on 3 cores, it was failing the same way as it did on dual-core CPUs.

Dark Java Dude 64
Community Leader
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Sep 2010
Location: Neither here nor there nor anywhere
Posted: 20th Jan 2015 02:06
No one's complained about my farcry pun.

Clonkex
Forum Vice President
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th May 2010
Location: Northern Tablelands, NSW, Australia
Posted: 20th Jan 2015 04:10
Quote: "No one's complained about my farcry pun."


I groaned and tried not to look at it any further

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2023-01-28 06:14:10
Your offset time is: 2023-01-28 06:14:10