CPU Upgrading help: AMD A10 7860K or FX 6300?

[Tír na nÓg]

^+1

 

[InfoSponge16]

Byron182, thought I would drop in and give another perspective. I gotta say I agree with some others. Your Main issue is your GPU. Something to keep in mind is that many games were optimized for fewer cores. But they already are and will continue to optimize for more cores. DX12. As another member noted, a CPU upgrade wouldn't hurt. But for games, all you really need is four cores. Stay away from duels, the least future proof. With these things in mind I would say upgrade GPU first. If performance is still not up to par AMD you feel you still want a new CPU. Take note that the faster in GHz, the better. (Games) This is not talking about Intel as you have an AMD board. So that in mind, the 6300 cost about 109$. An extra two cores which doesn't hurt. Compare that to the 4350 for 70$ us. Both at 125w tdp. Take the money saved and get a hyper212 evo for 34. Less cores, less heat. Meets minimum core count for new games. 990 board+4350= pretty good overclock. The 4350 also has better single threaded performance compared to the 6300. CPU bottlenecking GPU, wouldn't worry so much depending on the GPU. For the cheapest possible gaming solution. Take a look at the Sapphire R7 370 4 gig unit. Does 1080p no problem. Costs 20 dollars more than a 750ti and runs circles around it in performance. Even a lowly 360 beats the 750ti. The Sapphire unit is pretty good with 4 gigs, solid 1080p performance. Dx12 ready. Plus you don't have a 1080p monitor yet. Keep your monitor in mind thinking about cards. Gonna game at 1080? 1440? 4k? You want as many fraps as possible. With budget in mind I think there are still some good options for that board.

 

[InfoSponge16]

One more thing. Benchmarking comparisons are nice and can be informative. They are unfortunately skewed one way or the other. I suggest also going onto YouTube and doing a search for gaming videos of the GPU and CPU combo in mind. Why would an owner skew results? IE FX4350 R7370 gaming

 

[Tech Tweaker]

Nice. If you had sprung for a gtx 760 right now (ebay perhaps) should find that round 100 bucks. Use the 750 for physx if you play games that utilize them. Your gaming experience will be even better.

I've got to agree with ShrimpBrime here. If you're on a tight budget, used parts might be a good way to spend a bit less and get a bit more performance for your Dollar (or Peso in your case), than if you were buying new hardware. I have quite often built entire computers from used or pre-owned hardware, either because my budget was low or the budget of whoever I was buying them for was low. Plus, recycling is nice, when and where possible.

Prices on older Nvidia GeForce 600 and 700 series GPU's are definitely falling lately (in the States at least, don't know about the Philippines), and cards like the GTX 670, 680, 760, and 770 are a tempting option for a lower-budget upgrade.

A dual core isn't really a good idea generally though, some games flat out refuse to load or play on them and will not even load up the game if you have a dual core.

 

[byron182]

--update

I went to the store yesterday to buy the FX-8320E and guess what, the unit they had was defective. Jesus.. So I sold my board, Gpu, and cpu to the store (they "refurbish" and sell it bundled) for some extra bucks. I have now a budget of around $450. Prices here are virtually the same in the US. Although 1o or 20 dollars may not seem much to you it makes a difference in Peso.

This is what I'm planning to get.

Core i5-4460 or Core i3-4170
MSI GTX 960 2048MB 256bit DDR5 or Palit GTX 960 4096MB 128bit DDR5 Jetstream

the 960 is the highest one I can afford.

 

[InfoSponge16]

What's up. Sorry to hear about that. From what you mention I would definitely go with the i5 as it's a quad. I and others mentioned you won't have a good experience with the dual. Go with that and less video memory if you have too. But 4gb of video is optimal for most games. I've only seen a few so far that use more. If you can spring for the i5 and 4 GB memory 960 you'll be happy with your build. Should run nicely.

 

[byron182]

will the bits (128 or 256) matter?

 

[InfoSponge16]

The bits do matter and you want as much as you can get. That of course does depend on the game or application in question. Think of it this way. There are two containers of water. One has an outlet with a 1 foot diameter. The other has an outlet of 8 inches. Which will drain faster? So in essense, would it be better to have a card with 256 bits and 2 gigs or 196 and 4 gigs. We are talking about memory bus when we say 192 or 256. The bus is the quantity of information that can be transferred. The higher bit bus should perform better even with less memory. Here is another way of thinking. Two roads, both need to pass 100 cars. One road has four lanes and one has two. That's basically how a bus works. So of course it does depend on the amount of cars.

- - - Updated - - -

Correction, information transfer is a better way to put it.

 

[byron182]

The bits do matter and you want as much as you can get. That of course does depend on the game or application in question. Think of it this way. There are two containers of water. One has an outlet with a 1 foot diameter. The other has an outlet of 8 inches. Which will drain faster? So in essense, would it be better to have a card with 256 bits and 2 gigs or 196 and 4 gigs. We are talking about memory bus when we say 192 or 256. The bus is the quantity of information that can be transferred. The higher bit bus should perform better even with less memory. Here is another way of thinking. Two roads, both need to pass 100 cars. One road has four lanes and one has two. That's basically how a bus works. So of course it does depend on the amount of cars.

- - - Updated - - -

Correction, information transfer is a better way to put it.

Let's see if i understand this correctly

Card A: 1100ghz 2g 256bit
Card B: 1100ghz 4g 128bit

So if a game only needs 2G to play at the highest settings so a cardA with 2Gs Memory/256bit is better than CardB 4G/128bit. Because the game uses only 2gigs and wastes the other 2 with card B. While Card A can transfer 2gs faster than Card B. Am I correct?

But, If a game needs more than 2gigs, Card A will be crippled with lack of memory even tho if its faster bec. it needs the mems to store info. Card B has enough mems but store it but slower.. Won't that make them even in this instance?

 

[InfoSponge16]

You understand, that is what I was pointing out. So it does really come down to the games or apps in question. But keep in mind that current and upcoming games will be optimizing for 4 GB memory or more.

- - - Updated - - -

I should have pointed this out but also, in that instance your mention, then it would come down to core count. Or streaming procs if there was a diff in the two cards.

 

[PetrolHead]

I'd also go for a 4 GB GPU, but instead of the GTX 960, I'd get an R9 370. If you can buy used, then you naturally have more to pick from and a tougher choice to make (in other words, more to reasearch). Which mobo were you going to pick?

One more thing. Benchmarking comparisons are nice and can be informative. They are unfortunately skewed one way or the other. I suggest also going onto YouTube and doing a search for gaming videos of the GPU and CPU combo in mind. Why would an owner skew results?

Anyone can fake a YouTube account. I wouldn't be surprised if both AMD's and NVidia's marketing departments had dozens of accounts for posting "benchmarks". Even if the account is actually legit, that doesn't make the results trustworthy for several possible reasons, including (but not limited to):

1. Incompetence
2. Fanboyism
3. Trolling for lulz (post fake results and watch the fanboys lose it)

In other words, there's always room for doubt.