If your buying a 1070 or even RX 480 at 1080p, that 860k is going to limit your gfx card in cpu bound titles heavily.
I can agree with you BF4 on ultra everything maxed out with a r7 260x was still playable. 
On high settings it stays around 50 to 60fps on the 860k
These are averages after 10 passes Multiplayer. trying to run the same route on Parcel storm going from 60second fraps benchmark running from A to B 64 man server.
I said Gtx 1070 or Rx 480, and lets not say the r7 260x is comparable. Someone who is considering an I5 level system should not be looking at 260x's to pair it with, lets be honest.
I wasnt comparing a 1070 or a 480. just the processing power. of the 860k I only have those 2 processor so couldnt compare any other. In a processor heavy game
I know but comparing with a 1070, RX 480, or even preferably a 1080 would actually depict the difference more accurately, because a 260x doesn't really showcase what a processor like a 6700k or even locked I5 could keep up with. Having a gpu that is faster would really showcase how fast a 860k or i3 really can hinder a gpu. I liked this pcper article on quad core gaming cpus:
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Systems/Quad-Core-Gaming-Roundup-How-Much-CPU-Do-You-Really-Need
Obviously if this article had been done with a 1080 or 1070 to test with the results would be exacerbated.
1 Like
I would like to point out you're sorta wrong. FX chips will run on AM4, they said as much. AM4 will likely drop before the new CPU's, also said as much, and the norm for AMD. That is how they have always worked. Mobo -> CPU upgrade cycles.
When the AIB 480s drop I can check the 2 processor. If someone wants to send me a 1080 I can tell you the fps with a 860k lol
This realy highly depends on what you can afford honnestly.
And next ot that it also depends on the games you play and how you play them.
But overall if this rig is mainly ment for gaming, and you could afford something like a Skylake i5 setup.
Then i would personaly highly recommend that.
Because those i5's simply have better core performance and ipc, which can still be a benefit in certain games or gaming scenario´s.
I personaly dont realy see much reasons to invest money in an old am3+ platform anymore, if you also could afford something like Skylake.
Unless you realy do certain workloads on which those extra threads might become handy to have like virtualization.
1 Like
No actually. I talked about this in another thread.
When the hell did this happen and did you have sauce that is actually
credible on this? I see no reason any CPU maker would make this move,
period.
https://www.techpowerup.com/223086/amd-confirms-key-summit-ridge-specs
"The AM4 socket sees AMD completely relocate the core-logic (chipset) to the processor's die. Socket AM4 motherboards won't have any chipset on them. This also means that the processor has an integrated PCI-Express gen 3.0 root complex, besides the DDR4 integrated memory controller. With the chipset being completely integrated, connectivity such as USB and SATA will be routed out of the processor. The AM4 socket is shared with another kind of products, the "Bristol Ridge" APU, which features "Excavator" CPU cores and a 512-SP GCN 1.2 iGPU."
Having the south bridge on the cpu die means that they will probably be able to provide the peripherals that go through the south bridge more bandwidth. As it has been, the south bridge has been on the motherboard and the south bridge has piggy backed through the north bridge that was moved onto the cpu die first on Intel's sandy bridge. This has meant that the bandwidth available to the south bridge has been minuscule in comparison to what the south bridge. Now that the south bridge will be on die, much greater bandwidth can be allotted to anything that passes through the bridge.
Oh shit i misread what you said entirely. I thought you meant they are removing the northbridge back to the mobo, i'm like WTF? you mean they are moving the SOUTHBRIDGE to the CPU, interesting. Huh....guess we'll see.
1 Like
This thread was mainly to see what people thought, I personally have no intent to purchase anything right now I was running a A88x with an 860k then I upgraded to a FX4300 a while ago and because I mainly use linux and use the computer for programming not gaming my rig does what its supposed to do without any issues.
For future upgrades personally I was thinking more about the Z170 and an intel build or maybe an X99, but the anticipation for Zen is high and holding the dollars until we get some news about this processor in the market place seems to be a good strategy.
Although for the person who maybe itchy to get their hands on a decent computer at the moment I cant quite pass up the idea of a Pentium CPU dual core (skylake socket) with perhaps an H170 or B150 motherboard, whilst these platforms are really not for enthusiasts board manufacturers have made some of the boards in this range with 'gaming' like features. I suspect people with a budget in mind would not at all be thinking of a xfire or SLI setup anyway and the same goes for overclocking... so in this context you could quite easily have a Hxxx or Bxxx Skylake capable mobo with a 3ghz dual core pentium cpu from intel for less than $200 with DDR4 memory..
This would also be somewhat future proof as you could upgrade the cpu on the Hxxx or Bxxx motherboards to an i7 when you could afford that, and the boards still come with at least 1 pci-e x16 slot so you can put a decent GPU, perhaps a 970 or RX480 in the machine and expect relatively smooth gaming performance at least at 1080, maybe even 1440.
I suppose the challenge of this thread is really to look at the Sub 200-300 range of products and be able to define what are the good options in this price bracket going forward.
@noenken Actually yes I did plan it thoroughly before proceeding each upgrade step. I weighed the cost of the upgrade/performance vs switching to a new Intel platform, and in my case the small incremental upgrades ended up to be better because the AMD parts were a lot cheaper in my area.
Did I know that there will be an AM3+ FX 8xxx when I built the AM2 platform? Of course not. But I did know that there was an upcoming AM2+ CPU at that time. And when I built the Phenom, I know there was AM3+. Although, I did not get the parts when they released, because I was budget limited so I had to wait for sales/ price cuts.
@jonnytombstone I guess we'll see. The only news I heard about AM4 was the coolers were backwards compatible.
You know whats really intriguing about this is that if Multi-core optimization becomes a focus for developers of any software, whereby the use of more cores enables better performance then all of a sudden even someone with an older AM3+ hex or octa-core cpu could experience significant boosts in their current rig based on better firmware and software support.
Whether devs consider such a thing to be redundant and a waste of time is still unknown I mean, as someone mentioned earlier in this thread very few applications or games use more than 2 cores, some utilise 4 and you see the performance bump instantly in those instances on any platform intel or amd.
The focus of the AMD vs Intel CPU argument though tends to focus around IPC and also the processors ability to manage several things... a good point was made earlier about intel integrating the north an southbridge into the cpu and thereby improving performance and AMD is going to do the same with their AM4 chipset, however there is little actual scientific examination of whether an 8 core FX cpu could have been improved even in its current generation because as per the FM2+ cpu's AMD did improve their IPC on their APU range in the Carrizo cpu. http://www.extremetech.com/mobile/207229-207229. It has been hard to understand though why they made the excavator cores for a specific tdp range, and did not consider extending this particular part to a performance product.
Lets assume an FX CPU with Excavator cores and a higher power envelope matched in with the feature set of a high performance part, would this have then done anything to improve AMD's flagship performance product, rather than simply delegating this particular core to their APU range.
Some may argue though that their focus was the Zen, and that all the developments since the Phenom up until now with the FX and Kaveri were just testing platforms to see if their engineering was achieving any substantial results. Remember AMD's last big commercial win against intel was literally more than a decade ago and their x64 architecture at one point was industry lead for a short space of time, intel could not keep up with them during those short few years up until the massive investment intel decided to make on their engineering which now has given the company a minimum 5year architecture gap according to most critics when they compare latest gen intel cpus to the commercial grade amd cpus available.
Outside of cores and technology in itself AMD kinda decided it would aim for a bigger market in the longer term by producing products that did not necessarily push the performance limits but did scale themselves adequately at a price point most people found favourable. Although this didn't work very well for them in corporate sales with intel desktop and server cpus dominating the corporate landscape, whilst the domestic market for retail machines did see an abundant number of much cheaper quality AMD cpus used so that retailers and vendors could milk the rewards of profits from the mainstream consumer.
2 Likes
WRONG...
http://pcpartpicker.com/list/4wbGWZ
PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/list/4wbGWZ
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/list/4wbGWZ/by_merchant/
CPU: AMD FX-8300 3.3GHz 8-Core Processor ($119.88 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($61.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $181.86
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-07-05 17:37 EDT-0400
The CPU turboes to 4,2 freaking GHz... And the board is very decent... $182
i5 4440 is $177
i5 6400 is $180
The boards are not that expensive...
2 Likes
That's what DX12 and Vulkan are for, they lower CPU overhead and allow multithreading. But that's if the developers took the time to optimize it. DX12 and Vulkan are lower level api meaning more involvement with the hardware where as before it was left mostly to DX11 api and AMD/Nvidia drivers.
rocking 8 core AMD FX no problem, but if you don't need new pc NOW, i would suggest waiting for zen and see how that's gonna turn out.
If you need new pc NOW and have extra money, well i5 i guess, if don't, 8 core FX is still ok and you can buy them super cheap. Only poorly optimized games could have biger framerate difference (Arma, Dayz, ..), but so far i don't have any problems playing games like GTA V nealy maxed with sweetFX on 40-50 FPS in 1080p (paired with Nvidia 970)
What do you guys think about the 8350 vs a i3?
Maybe read that post again, including the quote.