I have a Phenom ii X4 965BE, it's 8 years old now and I need a new CPU. All I do on my PC is game, so I was thinking of finding a cheap i5 CPU since their single core performance is top notch apparently, but since most games only use 1-2 cores would it hurt to get a good i3 dual-core instead and save a lot of money? Or are games today actually utilizing full quad-cores now?
i3 6100 is still an excellent choice for budget builds
Wait for Zen in October.
>Or are games today actually utilizing full quad-cores now?
Some even use all of my eight cores. (Planetary Annihilation, for example)
It probably makes a lot of sense to go for an i3 now, especially because you can't overclock new i5s till expensive K ones. You can also don't fall for a skylake meme and by a haswell i5, which would probably be a little more expensive than skylake i3.
t. fallen for a skylake meme and bought i5 6600(without K)
>>54870291
I was just browsing on newegg and opened that one in a newtab, 3.7ghz for intel sounds pretty good for a default ghz.
oh shit, what did I type
>>54870312
>Go on Ebay
>But a socket 1366 Motherboard for roughly $100
>Buy a Bloomfield i7 for roughly $60 (or less), or even an i5 for cheaper.
>Have a Quad-core, gaymen system for cheap.
>>54870271
Don't listen to the Intel shills and wait for Zen. It's just a few more months and will give you way more bang for the buck than Intel CPUs.
>>54870355
If I got $1 every time I heard that new AMD CPU line will be better than Intel, I would be a millionaire.
>>54870271
Upgrade to fx6300.
>>54870391
From what I hear, the whole FX line is absolutely terrible for gaming in any way, shape, or form.
>>54870333
at first I looked on ebay and it seemed like a great deal, a Intel Core i7-950 SLBEN Bloomfield for only $50, but then according to CPU boss it's worse than a FX 6300.
>>54870381
Two words:
Remember bulldozer
Oh and the phenom I
And II
And basically everything since the 64
>>54870391
after seeing >>54870419, now I'm thinking of maybe sticking with even my AM3+ and just blowing $160-180 on an 8350 or whatever AM3+ CPU that has the best single core performance.
>>54870408
Except it isn't. Fx8350 can match an i5 6600 in dx12.
>>54870442
platform is dated as shit and is a dead end in every way
>>54870433
Please don't. FX6300 is absolutely terrible for the price. even i3-6100 will destroy it and it's no gaming CPU.
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/350/AMD_FX-Series_FX-6300_vs_Intel_Core_i3_i3-6100.html
>>54870450
see, this is what I'm afraid of, AMD has enticing prices but I don't want to get stuck in a corner with a shitty socket type.
>>54870419
For a processor that was made in 08-09 going vs a modern processor, I gotta say that i7 put up a hell of a fight.
But the 6300 does have generally higher clock speeds to begin with, so obviously it's single-core performance would win-out.
>>54870465
>. even i3-6100 will destroy it and it's no gaming CPU.
i3 doesn't destroy it. They're just comparable in performance.
Obviously. They're at the same price point.
>>54870271
I am in the same boat, using an 8 year old cpu, the Xeon x5470 @4.3ghz and after upgrading to a GTX 970 I noticed a bottleneck in some games, but I can't upgrade until I at least see what Zen's price/performance stats are.
>>54870450
Doesn't change performance.
My i7 870 is dated as fuck but it still does the job for me, very well too.
>>54870504
>My i7 870 is dated as fuck but it still does the job for me, very well too.
andy, stop posting
we all know that anime doesn't require a powerful computer
I'm watching some comparisons for the i3 6100, can someone tell me what the DDR4 mhz is? I'm assuming it's the GPU video ram speed right?
>>54870565
>can someone tell me what the DDR4 mhz is?
it means nothing. Just marketing.
>>54870535
It's overclocked to 4.1ghz and I still haven't experienced a cpu bottleneck.
>>54870574
It apparently is important enough to make a 10fps difference in Witcher 3.
>>54870465
The fx will be a pretty nice upgrade and he won't need a new mobo or ram.
>>54870565
RAM speed or some shit.
From what i've seen over the years, it seems insignificant since DDR3 was still fast too.
Also CAS timings is important with RAM response too.
>>54870565
No, thats a system RAM speed.
>>54870585
>It apparently is important enough to make a 10fps difference in Witcher 3.
they're lying to you then.
>>54870588
Throw a good cooler on it, and overclock it to min. 4.2 GHz. That's not intel, you do whatever you fucking want with your processor.
>>54870615
Wow, what a surprise. 700mb benchmark doesn't care about ram speed and game with shitload of actors/textures and shit does.
>>54870595
>>54870574
So if I paired an i3-6100 with a generic 2x4gb DDR3 1600 RAM I'd be fine? All the comparison videos on youtube seem to have the i3-6100 tied with DDR4 RAM.
>>54870675
i3 6100 supports DDR3/DDR3L RAM as well, depends on whatever motherboard you get with it.
DDR3 1600 would be fine, there's pretty much no significant improvement over the RAM types.
>>54870408
Nah.
it's not the best, but a 8370 @ 4.8ghz on air and stock volts is pretty solid. And cheap.
Don't get a i3, you'll find that the bottle necking will pick up as the years go on.
you've waited this long you can wait a few more months for Zen.
>>54870740
Gotcha.
I'm running pic related and it's been holding pretty damn strong too, especially considering it's age. And the fact I got the mobo+CPU for a trade of a $40 power unit.
I'd probably still be with the AMD crowd if that trade had never happened since I still have my AM3 mobo in a drawer next to me.
>>54870271
i ended up replacing the exact same cpu yesterday, i cheaped out a bit and got this one. almost regretted it but apparently i got one of the better ones. almost doubled my fps on every game even browsing my expansive porn folders feels twice as fast.
might recommend a skylake though if you're not avoiding it purposefully like i am
>>54870419
>cpuboss
>ever
>>54870484
>But the 6300 does have generally higher clock speeds to begin with, so obviously it's single-core performance would win-out.
the i7-920 actually has way higher IPC. OC both to about 4.3 ghz the 6300 scores 84.8 single core the i7-920 gets 106.
bump the 6300 up to 5ghz a number the 920 just can't reach and it's still only scoring 93.2
you can't use clock speeds to compare between brands and definitely not cpuboss
>>54870959
How about multithread? Most games use at least 4 threads now.
>>54871046
http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/1181562
http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/965674
see for urself under Quad Core / Multi Core
AMD is just dildos
>>54871086
Still cheaper.
>>54870355
it'll be at least 4 months, more probably six or more. and it will be sub-skylake in performance.
>>54871119
ehh.
>>54870635
>Wow, what a surprise.
yea, it's surprising how gullible you are.
next I want results, I'll just paralyze 2666 ram instead of getting a natural 2133 stick. :)
>>54870271
I recently upgraded from a Phenom II X4 955 BE to a Core i5 6600k:
>steady 60fps in my games (MMO and RTS mostly) where I had 30-40fps before
>perfect video playback up to 4k HEVC (still not for 10bit though)
>system feels much snappier overall
>half the power draw
>room for overclocking to >4.5 GHz
Games actually ARE using more than 2 cores properly these days, and will only get better at multithreading when Dx11 starts getting properly replaces with Dx12 and vulcan. i3 still does fine - for now.
>>54871184
I can't get a 6600k for so cheap but he never messages me reeeeeeeeeeee
>>54870271
>I need a new CPU
you don't
>>54871203
Can ***
>not geting the cheapest iGPU-less workstation Xeon
hi gaymers
>>54871262
What are you doing with your extra cores? Browsing /g/? Pls tell me
>>54871262
hello
>>54871280
>extra cores
Xeon e3s are quadcores, anon.
>>54871280
what extra cores, dummy?
>>54871307
Doesn't specify which one he has okay then what is that from 2007?
>>54871262
>>54871280
>>54871289
If anyone says they are using xeon, they are trying too hard to sound cool.
4790 nonK or 6700nonK is infinitely better.
>>54870271
Just get an 8320e on the same board.
>>54871354
>4790 nonK or 6700nonK is infinitely better.
>>54871354
that was kind of obvious given the shit tier anti-gamer trolling by some fag who sits on /g/.
>>54871354
Literally the same processor, anon. The only benefit of an i7 over xeon is that it can be overclocked, and you don't even get THAT with non-k SKUs.Too bad intel made skylake xeons only compatible with server motherboards despite using 1151 socket.
>>54871374
It is though. Same frequency and cheaper. 99% of boards are designed for consumer i7s too.
Slam dunk in every way possible.
>>54870271
How did you come to the conclusion that you need a new CPU if you don't know what CPU you need?
>>54871414
>cheaper
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117315 vs http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116987&cm_re=4790-_-19-116-987-_-Product
>>54871414
I wasn't aware that
>intel made skylake xeons only compatible with server motherboards
In previous generations, they absolutely were a better choice than i7.
>>54871431
You are not comparing equivalent speeds.
It's 1276 dummy.
>>54871409
Well is it really the same? It has about half the tdp
>>54871478
Yeah, because that extra 100 MHz is totally worth $50.
wait for zen, and even if it doesn't deliver, intel prices will hopefully be driven down
>>54871510
What are the expected tdps on Zen?
>>54871524
95w for the 8c/16t cpu
>>54871461
It was never a good idea to go xeon. For the 20 bucks you save, you needlessly expose yourself to potential Intel driver issues from the server overhead of xeon.
Going xeon has always been the choice for tryhards, unless it's a literal hand me down from an abandoned server.
>>54871524
rumored around 95W iirc
>>54871543
>server overhead of xeon
>>54871543
Until Haslel you had "Workstation" Xeons, which were just i7 minus iGPU plus optional ECC and worked in almost all 1150 boards.
This was too good for customers so they killed it off and now you have to pay more.
Daily reminder that post-Sandy non-E Intel chips have TIM'd IHS, which translates to poor overclock potential as the heat doesnt transmit well without delidding.
This is a Intel saving a penny for each CPU and you want to buy CPU from a company like this?
>>54870271
DOOM caps out on i3. Might be the only game to bottleneck this CPU in budget builds. But Vulcan patch is Soon.
i3 is usually more than enough, but i5 is more of a safe bet.
>>54871632
they're reaching the limit of the way they can their make cpu's perform. they blew their load after nehalem and sandy bridge came out. They've been doing what they can since to make their higher end chips more desirable but they're still pointless.
>>54871632
I don't give a shit about OC
>>54871417
Dark Souls 3 and other newer games are getting bad stutter in certain areas of the game, and turning down settings to low does nothing, changing resolution to 800x600 does nothing. It's a CPU bound issue.
>>54870312
Why don't you like the processor?
I got the 6600k and am delighted with it. Is there that much of a difference?
>>54870419
>CPUBoss
Only going on Intel/Nvidia biased websides
>looking at single core performance
lurk moar newfag
>>54871797
CPU Boss heavily favors the cpu with better single core performance. Even if a CPU loses everything else by a fairly large margin as long as they win the two or so single threaded benchmarks they'll probably tie or win overall
>>54871856
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Pentium-G3258-vs-AMD-FX-9590
apparently g3258 is better
>>54871895
G3258 can't even beat an athlon 860k
>>54871895
Yeah I'm not really sure what their deal is. They also include integrated graphics into the score apparently which is useful if you're looking for integrated graphics but if you're not it's just misleading.
>>54870675
Get DDR4, it's actually cheaper than DDR3 per GB.
>>54871262
You can't do that with Xeon E3 v5s you need to spend the big bucks on a C206 motherboard.
>>54870291
Ditto. If you don't want to wait around until early 2017, then i3 6100 is a good choice. AFAIK it has the best price to performance ratio, a little bit ahead of the FX-6300.
>>54870271
I'm tired of telling you people to wait and see what impact Zen has on the market
>>54870271
I got a Phenom II X4 955, still using it.
I was thinking of buying a i5 2500k from ebay or something for cheap and then overclocking the shit out of it.
AMD Atlhon II X3 440 reporting in.
>>54874736
Go for 2500K, considering the resale value, it will cost you almost nothing.
>>54870271
imho 965 is still good enough (if you dont plan to play games in 4k). i use one myself.
i would wait for Zen and see how it competets to Intel CPUs.
side effect: some more months to save for a new machine ;)
>>54870959
Intel has always had higher IPC, and that totally slipped my goddamn mind. Even as old as the i7 920 (my current CPU) is, I'm surprised it can still wreck AMD's shit.
But looking at the temperatures my i7 is constantly at, which is roughly high 40's - low 50's with a Hyper 212 Plus, I'll have to go liquid cooled to clock it above 4Ghz and not burn a hole though the socket.
I don't use CPUBoss, because nobody who knows what they're doing won't, but I did have the misconception that clock speeds were quite important to the processing power of any CPU.
>>54875051
Used to have an Athlon II x2 260.
It was better than my Athlon XP I had before that, but couldn't do much gaming.
