CPUs
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
Would an Intel Skylake i5 6600k perform well enough over an AMD FX-8350 to justify the extra money spent between the chip/mobo/ddr4?
I am looking to upgrade from my A10 (seeing as I now have an R9 380) and am not really sure.
I5 6600k is a great processor, far away from the 8350. It's near the i7 4790k. Upgrade only if it's worth the extra pay for a decent motherboard and ddr4. Fx 8350 is doing well too
>>54603785
I would choose the fx as it is well appropriated for a r9 380
The 8000 and rarely the 6000 (FX series) are pretty good chips.
Cheap.
Yes.
Better that Intel
Barely worse.
I would go for an 8000 series because you can get a better mobo/ram
>>54603847
the 8000 series runs on the same mobo and chipset as the 6000 series, the only differents is more cores, no pcie lane differences, and no difference in the amount of ram it can handle
How's this for a mobo?
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005POPQZA/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_S_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=3FG1DO87BY85J&coliid=I1NZM74FZAF7X5
I got an AMD FX-6100 for my PC, ordered and built in late 2012. Is it time to upgrade?
No I can't switch to Intel, replacing my motherboard would be too much trouble for rebuilding and system reasons.
>>54603555
OP, if you are asking about the raw CPU performance, you can check out my old OC data sheet (just my profile @overclockers.net cropped) I've made with my FX-8300, which has been overclocked to 4.2GHz - that's equal to 8350 with TurboCore active. You can easily google the results of 6600k for any of these tests to see the difference.
>>54604234
How recent is this?
>>54604318
It's from Feb 2016.
>>54604330
I am not too great at this but it seems comparable to a 6600k? Maybe I am reading things wrong.
>>54604234
>>54604346
Synthetic benchmarks are utterly meaningless. Assuming you want it for gaymes, look through these pages and get an idea of how CPUs perform (CPU results are near the bottom):
http://gamegpu.com/%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82-gpu/action-/-fps-/-tps/
The 6600K isn't on there, but you can basically equate it to the 4770K.
>>54603555
OP here.
I think I am just going to spend the extra $100-200 on an i5 setup.
Thanks guys.
>>54604346
Well, 6600k on stock settings is slightly worse or better than stock Vishera in synthetic CPU benchmarks. But as soon as you puch 6600k to 4.0, 4.2 or 4.4 GHz - Vishera will not be able to compete with this CPU, especially in games like this anon pointed >>54604404
Not to mention that for Vishera overclocking you're gonna have to buy pretty expensive mobo and water cooler or good air cooler to push it beyond 4.4GHz safely, because Vishera, unlike Intel, throttles @60C core.
I'd suggest to buy 6600k or wait zen.
