Buxtyy wrote

atombomb30000 wrote it is a medium/high build you would put that into ultra based gaming at all lmao...especially with an amd processor..maybe the 8320+ because its good at process handling personally myself i have GTX 770 oced with a 6100 and my cpu does bottleneck..due to being a 6100

Every processor is good at processing, thats why they are called processors. Also you're running a Bulldozer CPU which probably isn't overclocked with a overclocked newer card, so thats your issue.

true also i heard the higher revisions eg 6300 are better as they have been made to handle processes differently.. in comparison to the primary 6100 model

Yes, anything 61XX or 81XX uses the Bulldozer architecture, anything 63XX or 83XX or the new 9 series uses the Piledriver architecture which is better.

New AMD APU's like the A10-7850k use Steamroller B, which is miles ahead of Piledriver so that would be the one to get if you were considering AMD as a performance option imo.

Buxtyy wrote Yes, anything 61XX or 81XX uses the Bulldozer architecture, anything 63XX or 83XX or the new 9 series uses the Piledriver architecture which is better.

New AMD APU's like the A10-7850k use Steamroller B, which is miles ahead of Piledriver so that would be the one to get if you were considering AMD as a performance option imo.

just checked the a10 is a quad core...but how much in percentage wise would you say it outperforms the 6100?

Isn't going to be a LOT, but you would get better single core performance, better power consumption and performance per watt, and the benefits of a newer platform. AM3+ is so damn old now, its silly to buy into it.

Buxtyy wrote Isn't going to be a LOT, but you would get better single core performance, better power consumption and performance per watt, and the benefits of a newer platform. AM3+ is so damn old now, its silly to buy into it.

hmm just researched the comparison of 6100 to 8350 which is about 50% difference in all fields also the i5 is about 60% better then 6100 think i might have to go with the i5

The i5 is stronger whichever way you look at it. Unless you can get a 8320/8350 for like a hundred pounds then it might be worth it.

270x>750ti, my 750ti easily reaches 45fps on BF4 ultra, i don't really see that as budget.

Buxtyy wrote The i5 is stronger whichever way you look at it. Unless you can get a 8320/8350 for like a hundred pounds then it might be worth it.

The FX 8320 actually is just under £100 from scan.co.uk
Here- [ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
I'd still go with an i5-4590 over an FX-8320 though, because it's still a stronger CPU and I think it's worth the extra £40. For the price though, the FX-8320 is fantastic and there's no denying that.

Potion_Jr_Jr wrote

I don't know where these people are getting their info about running games on medium and things such as that. But Tek Syndicate, Linus Tech Tips, and Austin Evans all have benchmark graphs bench marking the r9 270x on games such as battlefield. Now running BF4 may require a slightly better CPU (Add 50-70$ and you can grab a cpu that can beat most intel cpus out there depending on the activity. But I use to have this same setup and could run bf4 on Ultra with most settings max and still get 40+ FPS, 70+ on Ultra Bioshock Infinite, 30+ High on last light. But the only thing you should worry about is bottle necking, but Its not as common until you go overboard. I would also recommend waiting an try to grab the FX-8350 when it has a rebate or goes on sale.

---

Source: I had a setup with the FX-6300 and R9 270x

"you can grab a cpu that can beat most intel cpus out there" what? Lol. ok then. The i5-4590 performs just as well as an FX-9590 and the i5 is much, much cheaper. Price wise, the i5-4590 is matched with an FX-9370 and the i5 would be a better choice. There is also the fact that getting an Intel CPU(pentium/i3/i5) has more upgrade potential than getting something like an FX-8320. Going by price tags, the i7-4790 and the FX-9590 are matched. The i7 again, is a much better choice as it's a more powerful CPU so your statement is completely invalid. Granted, not that long ago, AMD would be the way to go for a budget build but with the recent release of the Pentium G3258, I'd even go with Intel now on a budget build. The G3268 is £70(or around that) which is matched with the FX-6300. Guess what. The Pentium wins. Considering the G3258 can be overclocked to meet i7-4790k standards in a lot of games, the Pentium is an absolute steal. The FX-6300 comes nowhere near the i7-4790k in terms of performance. Granted, the pentium has to be overclocked but it's absolutely worth it. Although, from a non-overclocking point of view, the FX-6300 does beat the G3258. I wouldn't recommend an FX-8350. It's £20 more expensive than the 8320 and is basically an overclocked version of the 8320 so purchasing the FX-8320 and then overclocking it yourself would be a better option IMHO. Then again, an overclocked G3258 could still potentially beat an FX-8320, depending on the game/task and how well the CPU has been overclocked etc.


In all honesty, if I had to build a PC on a £500 budget, I'd be going with this;
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
and then I'd just use an old, spare HDD that I have.