@Ridelynn - Yeah, I guess buying FX 8xxx and having more money left for SSD/GPU is a wiser thing to do, especially if the only difference will be few FPS or seconds. Thank you.
@Malabooga - So I won't notice a difference in newer games with a 4 year old FX 8xxx CPU? Sounds awesome and rather future-proof. 560ti is a card that I got for free, it'll be enough at first, and the problem is that I can only get my hands on 380 as 470 is not in the stores for some reason. Maybe go for Nvidia 980/10x0, but it's rather expensive, and I see AMD cards to deliver approx. the same thing for a lower price.
Newer games do support multi-core better. But most Intel chips have enough cores that you won't be able to really overcome the benefit of those extra cores. An 4-core Intel will still tend to beat our an 8-core AMD in all but the most parallel of operations (say, movie encoding... but typically not gaming) - just by virtue that Intel's cores are that much faster, and the multi-core performance benefit (at least in gaming) hasn't really made up that much of a difference yet. Although in some things, such as movie encoding, an 8-core AMD may beat a 4-core Intel, but those tend to be exceptions and not the rule.
You would notice a difference if you sat a FX-8300 next to a Core i5-6600, for instance. The question would be is that difference enough to make it worth the extra cost, or is the FX-8300 "good enough". In some games the difference may be pretty wide - say 80fps vs 120fps (just an example, I didn't go look up any games or numbers)... but unless your trying to game at 144Hz, does that difference really matter all that much?
On a somewhat different, but related note, I recently purchased an AMD RX470, and it was a very nice card for a reasonable price. I recently saw a post where someone compared average FPS to average card price, and the results were pretty suprising. Of course, the prices are all over the place right now because availability is still somewhat iffy for some of the models. The 1060 (3GB, less expensive) model came out on top, with the older GTX970 and newer RX-470 right on it's heels. After that it started to go up pretty quickly. Now, price per FPS isn't the best metric, as it may gloss over a lot of important items and doesn't take into account what you can find available and at what price, but it may be an interesting read for you.
The general advice I give to people on GPU is get the best you can afford. But that "can afford" thing has a wide margin of error, based on where you are looking in terms of the hierarchy of GPU performance and the rest of your computer build. Going from $100US to $150US has a huge impact. Going from $150US to $200US has a decent impact. Going from $200 to $250-300 a noticable impact. Going up past that, your looking at a lot of money for very little return. So it's all a matter of managing your tradeoffs.
For example, if your shoehorning an Intel Core i7 in a build, but that restricts your budget to a $100 tier video card, you're probably making a poor choice, since for the same money you could get up to a $300 video card and a FX-8300. But something like a Core i5 with a $200 GPU would cost about the same and probably run better overall than either of those options.
Thats chart is actually wrong, 470 costs 190$ (its cheaper than 1060 3GB in US and EU) and he used reference RX480 8GB 239$ results with 289$ price.
When used properly, 470=1060 3GB and 480= 239/336,9= 0,71 which is 10% better than 1060 6GB at 0,77.
And he omitted RX480 4GB which performs much better than reference 8GB but costs 229$ which would put it around 0,61
And thats true just for those games listed (and tested). AMD cards perform better in new games (especially DX12/Vulkan) while NVidia cards perform better in older games so thats also consideration.
Nah, he said that he did the chart somewhat "unscientific". And using wrong data is just using wrong data.
And i know tha he intentionally omitted some games and used only certain ones. If i used differetn 5 from that review id get different results.
Also, reference 480 4GB for 199$ is tremendous value, just use 480 results with 199$ price tag and see what you get
Anyway, RX480 is a better value than 1060 6GB (especially 4GB models), and 470/1060 3 GB are same because 470 arrived a bit more expencive than expected (but you have to take into consideration theres pretty much "bling" 470 models at 199$ like MSI Gaming X and Asus Strix, and 1060 3GB are cheapest budget "mini ITX" models for 199$, Gaming X 3GB costs 239$ for instance thats why i said that budget 470 models will come in cheaper up to 20-30$ so ~169$-179$)
@Ridelynn - Yeah, I guess buying FX 8xxx and having more money left for SSD/GPU is a wiser thing to do, especially if the only difference will be few FPS or seconds. Thank you.
@Malabooga - So I won't notice a difference in newer games with a 4 year old FX 8xxx CPU? Sounds awesome and rather future-proof. 560ti is a card that I got for free, it'll be enough at first, and the problem is that I can only get my hands on 380 as 470 is not in the stores for some reason. Maybe go for Nvidia 980/10x0, but it's rather expensive, and I see AMD cards to deliver approx. the same thing for a lower price.
Newer games do support multi-core better. But most Intel chips have enough cores that you won't be able to really overcome the benefit of those extra cores. An 4-core Intel will still tend to beat our an 8-core AMD in all but the most parallel of operations (say, movie encoding... but typically not gaming) - just by virtue that Intel's cores are that much faster, and the multi-core performance benefit (at least in gaming) hasn't really made up that much of a difference yet. Although in some things, such as movie encoding, an 8-core AMD may beat a 4-core Intel, but those tend to be exceptions and not the rule.
The problem with so called 8-core AMD CPUs is that they have 8 integer cores paired up in 4 modules and each module has a single FPU. So when it comes to floating point operations these CPUs only have 4 cores since they have all together 4 FPUs in 4 modules and apparently these floating point units don't perform as well as the ones in Intel CPUs. This applies to 3D gaming too. Most 2D games and many of the most popular desktop applications usually need integer processing power but gamers clearly benefit from Intel CPUs compared to AMD in most cases. There are some scenarios when AMD 8-cores outperform Intel 4-cores but that's just usually multitasking desktop stuff which is I guess pretty irrelevant from a gaming standpoint.
After some thinking, everything boiled down to the fact that I will be building an Intel machine.
CPU - i5-6500
Mobo - MSI H110 mATX
RAM - Fury HyperX 8GB
PSU - Corsair VS550 550W
HDD - Toshiba 1TB 7200RPM (SSD in the future)
Saving up for a GPU, but for now a free GTX 560Ti
Now there is a choice between a full-tower or an mATX case. Which one would you choose and why?
Thank you!
Full Tower is huge. Like, up to 3 feet tall huge. You can yell inside these things and it will echo. These are the cases servers use to hold 16 hard drives, or enthusiasts use for quad-video card buillds, or hobbyists use for huge internal water cooling loops.
~Most~ desktops are mid-tower. They aren't too big, have plenty of room inside for your build, and will probably seem too big once you get it put together, but you'll appreciate the room while your putting it together.
mATX are smaller, not the super small form factors, but a good bit smaller than a mid tower. These are nice because they take up less space, but because they have less space, they are much more difficult to assemble. You must use a mATX motherboard with these cases, regular ATX motherboards won't fit, and you have to watch which heatsink you get. Some cases may require a specific power supply as well.
@Ridelynn - Yeah, I guess buying FX 8xxx and having more money left for SSD/GPU is a wiser thing to do, especially if the only difference will be few FPS or seconds. Thank you.
@Malabooga - So I won't notice a difference in newer games with a 4 year old FX 8xxx CPU? Sounds awesome and rather future-proof. 560ti is a card that I got for free, it'll be enough at first, and the problem is that I can only get my hands on 380 as 470 is not in the stores for some reason. Maybe go for Nvidia 980/10x0, but it's rather expensive, and I see AMD cards to deliver approx. the same thing for a lower price.
Newer games do support multi-core better. But most Intel chips have enough cores that you won't be able to really overcome the benefit of those extra cores. An 4-core Intel will still tend to beat our an 8-core AMD in all but the most parallel of operations (say, movie encoding... but typically not gaming) - just by virtue that Intel's cores are that much faster, and the multi-core performance benefit (at least in gaming) hasn't really made up that much of a difference yet. Although in some things, such as movie encoding, an 8-core AMD may beat a 4-core Intel, but those tend to be exceptions and not the rule.
The problem with so called 8-core AMD CPUs is that they have 8 integer cores paired up in 4 modules and each module has a single FPU. So when it comes to floating point operations these CPUs only have 4 cores since they have all together 4 FPUs in 4 modules and apparently these floating point units don't perform as well as the ones in Intel CPUs. This applies to 3D gaming too. Most 2D games and many of the most popular desktop applications usually need integer processing power but gamers clearly benefit from Intel CPUs compared to AMD in most cases. There are some scenarios when AMD 8-cores outperform Intel 4-cores but that's just usually multitasking desktop stuff which is I guess pretty irrelevant from a gaming standpoint.
Is that really all that much different from a hyperthreaded "8 core" Intel CPU, that only has 4 integer cores and 4 FPUs?
Performance is performance - no one cares that Intel has fewer cores than AMD, because it performs better for the most part. If AMD performed better, everyone would be saying the same thing about Intel HT cores. The reason AMD doesn't perform as well isn't just because it has fewer FPU cores. It has the same amount as a Core i5 or Core i7. It performs worse for a lot of other reasons. But it's also a lot cheaper, so there's still a case to be made for using it.
Good low cost build. The difference in the black edition? Complicated to explain entirely but the basic difference is overclocking. Standard editions have locked multipliers, black editions do not.
Good low cost build. The difference in the black edition? Complicated to explain entirely but the basic difference is overclocking. Standard editions have locked multipliers, black editions do not.
The difference is cooler, both have unlocked multiplier. Not particularly complicated...
There you go again, gratuitously cutting memory bandwidth in half by leaving a channel vacant.
Indeed, assumptions and pulling stuff out of the nose is your expertize, I am still more into data, actual performance, purpose and money, things that do matter.
wouldnt an i3 has better upgrade ability than the FM2+ socket? I could squeeze all this in for exact $500 Would it worth the extra $ for the i3 rather than the X4 860K or 880K? any bottle necking when it comes to GPU ?
wouldnt an i3 has better upgrade ability than the FM2+ socket? I could squeeze all this in for exact $500 Would it worth the extra $ for the i3 rather than the X4 860K or 880K? any bottle necking when it comes to GPU ?
i3 is definitely better pick - much lower power consumption, an upgrade path. It is even a bit faster than FX.
If you can get the money for i3,imo it is definitely worthy. Athlon is really an entry minimum CPU.
Well, a i3 6100 and a FX6300 cost about the same, CPU to CPU. And the i3 will tend to beat out a FX, but not by a huge margin: they both perform fairly close to each other in gaming right now. An i3 has faster per-core performance. A 6-core FX will win out on things that can multithread better (not so much most games right now, but if you do movie encodes or streaming or anything like that).
That figures on the hyperthreading in a Core i3. That basically lets Windows (and other programs) think there are 4 cores available, even though there are only 2. The HT cores will give about 40% of the performance of a real core. That doesn't really impact a i3 vs a FX, because that's already baked into those benchmarks, but it does become interesting when your comparing a i3 to i5 to i7.
And yes, you can upgrade an i3 to an i5 (or i7) later on, of the same generation (so another Skylake or possibly Kaby Lake).
That being said. If your getting a cheap H110 motherboard to drop that i3 into (so you can make it all fit in your budget), that isn't exactly something I'd recommend going back and dropping an i5 or i7 into later on. For starters, now you've spent an extra $120 on your computer that you didn't have to by virtue of having had purchased 2 CPUs for it over time. Second, when you do decide to upgrade it later on, your probably going to want whatever the latest chip is (Coffee Lake / Cannonlake / Zen / whatever), and your going to be stuck on Skylake/Kaby. Which, to my third rationale against it - either you go used, or you'll still be buying that Sky/Kaby at full retail (and possibly more than you could buy a faster Coffee/Cannon/Zen/whatever with more performance) - just because it won't be stocked very much and CPUs don't get cheaper as they get discontinued.
The general rule is, don't build something lesser now planning to upgrade it later to what you want, because that will cost a lot more money than just building what you want now. And if you can't afford what you really want, then build the best you can with what you got - but don't build it planning on upgrades later, build it with as much performance as you can pack in there now.
Feature for feature, a AM2+ motherboard runs about $20-30 less than a similar H110 (and a lot more than that for a Z170). AM2+ also uses DDR3 ram, versus DDR4 - now if you are buying new RAM, right now that costs about the same, but more people have DDR3 laying around than DDR4, which may or may not make a difference in this build. Even $20 is a significant savings on a $500 budget, and that can go directly into things that net you better performance: a bit better video card, a bit bigger SSD, etc.
For those reasons, I'd recommend a FX6300 instead of an i3. Either will work, but I think in that budget range, the FX still makes sense.
Ridelynn said: For those reasons, I'd recommend a FX6300 instead of an i3. Either will work, but I think in that budget range, the FX still makes sense.
So the reasons to go with FX-6300 are:
1) FX is slower
2) FX use older DDR3
3) FX board is supposedly better fitted with features - you wouldn't recommend using FX with 760G board, right? In that case it is not even true and the actual difference is like 3$, not to say those "features" are mostly useless anyway(ie RAID, abundance of USB 2.0, etc). 4) FX isn't any cheaper, in fact if anything it is likely to be more expensive. 5) FX use way more power
6) FX is dead end platform
Yeah, completely makes sense
@dg29031994 i3+RX470 is the best performance you can buy for $500.
FX is possible alternative, just there aren't any reasons why would you do that apart from brand affection...
Ridelynn said: For those reasons, I'd recommend a FX6300 instead of an i3. Either will work, but I think in that budget range, the FX still makes sense.
So the reasons to go with FX-6300 are:
1) FX is slower
2) FX use older DDR3
3) FX board is supposedly better fitted with features - you wouldn't recommend using FX with 760G board, right? In that case it is not even true and the actual difference is like 3$, not to say those "features" are mostly useless anyway(ie RAID, abundance of USB 2.0, etc). 4) FX isn't any cheaper, in fact if anything it is likely to be more expensive. 5) FX use way more power
6) FX is dead end platform
Yeah, completely makes sense
@dg29031994 i3+RX470 is the best performance you can buy for $500.
FX is possible alternative, just there aren't any reasons why would you do that apart from brand affection...
I'm trying to break my habit of responding to troll bait, but sometimes I just do anyway
1 ) Partially True, but not by much in most gaming situations, and certainly not true in all cases.
2 ) True, but: a) doesn't really impact performance b) allows for reuse of existing RAM if you have it on hand, providing another avenue for cost savings c) cost neutral if you are buying new
3 ) Nope, I don't think you understood what I was saying there. Can you find AM3+ motherboards that are more expensive than an Intel Board? Sure. But if you compare similar features and quality levels across AM3+ and H110/Z170, you'll find the AM3+'s are consistently less expensive, in large part because Intel charges a good deal for socket compatibility.
4 ) FX6300 is listing for $99 right now on Newegg new in retail box. i3 6100 are listing for $120 on Newegg right now. $20 just on the CPU alone. Each CPU has a different set of rotating bundles and other offers. So, yeah, what you said.
5 ) So. Unless you have hundreds of them running in a high density, high load server farm, the additional energy and cooling requirements of 51W TDP vs 95W TDP is pretty much a rounding error.
6 ) So is 1151. Pretty much every CPU released by Intel, the socket has lasted for maybe 2 of their cycles. A H110/Z170 will be good for Skylake, probably work with Kaby Lake, and then it's done. It went that way for Nehalem (it was a one-off). It went that way for Sandy/Ivy. It went that way for Haswell/Broadwell. No platform has extended longevity any more.
If it were my money, and I were on a tight budget, I would save the $20-40 on all-in cost differences in the CPUs, and put that savings into either better graphics (going from 470 to 480, or getting a nice AIB cooler on the 470 for better clocks, for instance), or more capacity on an SSD - either of those would yield a better use experience than the minor difference in performance between an i3 and a FX 6300.
But it's not my build, and it's not my money. I wouldn't fault a person going with an i3, it's a decent enough gaming CPU. I just don't think it's the best option overall.
Comments
Newer games do support multi-core better. But most Intel chips have enough cores that you won't be able to really overcome the benefit of those extra cores. An 4-core Intel will still tend to beat our an 8-core AMD in all but the most parallel of operations (say, movie encoding... but typically not gaming) - just by virtue that Intel's cores are that much faster, and the multi-core performance benefit (at least in gaming) hasn't really made up that much of a difference yet. Although in some things, such as movie encoding, an 8-core AMD may beat a 4-core Intel, but those tend to be exceptions and not the rule.
You would notice a difference if you sat a FX-8300 next to a Core i5-6600, for instance. The question would be is that difference enough to make it worth the extra cost, or is the FX-8300 "good enough". In some games the difference may be pretty wide - say 80fps vs 120fps (just an example, I didn't go look up any games or numbers)... but unless your trying to game at 144Hz, does that difference really matter all that much?
On a somewhat different, but related note, I recently purchased an AMD RX470, and it was a very nice card for a reasonable price. I recently saw a post where someone compared average FPS to average card price, and the results were pretty suprising. Of course, the prices are all over the place right now because availability is still somewhat iffy for some of the models. The 1060 (3GB, less expensive) model came out on top, with the older GTX970 and newer RX-470 right on it's heels. After that it started to go up pretty quickly. Now, price per FPS isn't the best metric, as it may gloss over a lot of important items and doesn't take into account what you can find available and at what price, but it may be an interesting read for you.
https://hardforum.com/threads/gpu-cost-per-fps-with-digital-foundry.1910247/
The general advice I give to people on GPU is get the best you can afford. But that "can afford" thing has a wide margin of error, based on where you are looking in terms of the hierarchy of GPU performance and the rest of your computer build. Going from $100US to $150US has a huge impact. Going from $150US to $200US has a decent impact. Going from $200 to $250-300 a noticable impact. Going up past that, your looking at a lot of money for very little return. So it's all a matter of managing your tradeoffs.
For example, if your shoehorning an Intel Core i7 in a build, but that restricts your budget to a $100 tier video card, you're probably making a poor choice, since for the same money you could get up to a $300 video card and a FX-8300. But something like a Core i5 with a $200 GPU would cost about the same and probably run better overall than either of those options.
When used properly, 470=1060 3GB and 480= 239/336,9= 0,71 which is 10% better than 1060 6GB at 0,77.
And he omitted RX480 4GB which performs much better than reference 8GB but costs 229$ which would put it around 0,61
And thats true just for those games listed (and tested). AMD cards perform better in new games (especially DX12/Vulkan) while NVidia cards perform better in older games so thats also consideration.
And i know tha he intentionally omitted some games and used only certain ones. If i used differetn 5 from that review id get different results.
Also, reference 480 4GB for 199$ is tremendous value, just use 480 results with 199$ price tag and see what you get
Anyway, RX480 is a better value than 1060 6GB (especially 4GB models), and 470/1060 3 GB are same because 470 arrived a bit more expencive than expected (but you have to take into consideration theres pretty much "bling" 470 models at 199$ like MSI Gaming X and Asus Strix, and 1060 3GB are cheapest budget "mini ITX" models for 199$, Gaming X 3GB costs 239$ for instance thats why i said that budget 470 models will come in cheaper up to 20-30$ so ~169$-179$)
After some thinking, everything boiled down to the fact that I will be building an Intel machine.
Now there is a choice between a full-tower or an mATX case. Which one would you choose and why?
Thank you!
~Most~ desktops are mid-tower. They aren't too big, have plenty of room inside for your build, and will probably seem too big once you get it put together, but you'll appreciate the room while your putting it together.
mATX are smaller, not the super small form factors, but a good bit smaller than a mid tower. These are nice because they take up less space, but because they have less space, they are much more difficult to assemble. You must use a mATX motherboard with these cases, regular ATX motherboards won't fit, and you have to watch which heatsink you get. Some cases may require a specific power supply as well.
Performance is performance - no one cares that Intel has fewer cores than AMD, because it performs better for the most part. If AMD performed better, everyone would be saying the same thing about Intel HT cores. The reason AMD doesn't perform as well isn't just because it has fewer FPU cores. It has the same amount as a Core i5 or Core i7. It performs worse for a lot of other reasons. But it's also a lot cheaper, so there's still a case to be made for using it.
case: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811553018&ignorebbr=1
psu: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817438016&ignorebbr=1
gpu: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150781&ignorebbr=1
HDD: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA5AD4TR8861&ignorebbr=1
MB: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128763&ignorebbr=1
RAM: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231460&ignorebbr=1
CPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA1UH3Z95810&cm_re=X4_860k-_-19-113-410-_-Product
what do yall think? will there be any bottlenecking between CPU and GPU? Will an aftermarket CPU cooler needed? OC potential?
what is the difference bw 860K and 860K black edition?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA85V4M09523&cm_re=X4_860k-_-9SIA85V4M09523-_-Product
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=2MN-0004-00002&cm_re=i3_6100-_-2MN-0004-00002-_-Product
and MB:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128930&ignorebbr=1
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=2MN-0004-00002&cm_re=intel_i3-6100-_-2MN-0004-00002-_-Product
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157685
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIAA443ZG0040
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822236339
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150781
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817151074
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811235058
If you can get the money for i3,imo it is definitely worthy. Athlon is really an entry minimum CPU.
That figures on the hyperthreading in a Core i3. That basically lets Windows (and other programs) think there are 4 cores available, even though there are only 2. The HT cores will give about 40% of the performance of a real core. That doesn't really impact a i3 vs a FX, because that's already baked into those benchmarks, but it does become interesting when your comparing a i3 to i5 to i7.
And yes, you can upgrade an i3 to an i5 (or i7) later on, of the same generation (so another Skylake or possibly Kaby Lake).
That being said. If your getting a cheap H110 motherboard to drop that i3 into (so you can make it all fit in your budget), that isn't exactly something I'd recommend going back and dropping an i5 or i7 into later on. For starters, now you've spent an extra $120 on your computer that you didn't have to by virtue of having had purchased 2 CPUs for it over time. Second, when you do decide to upgrade it later on, your probably going to want whatever the latest chip is (Coffee Lake / Cannonlake / Zen / whatever), and your going to be stuck on Skylake/Kaby. Which, to my third rationale against it - either you go used, or you'll still be buying that Sky/Kaby at full retail (and possibly more than you could buy a faster Coffee/Cannon/Zen/whatever with more performance) - just because it won't be stocked very much and CPUs don't get cheaper as they get discontinued.
The general rule is, don't build something lesser now planning to upgrade it later to what you want, because that will cost a lot more money than just building what you want now. And if you can't afford what you really want, then build the best you can with what you got - but don't build it planning on upgrades later, build it with as much performance as you can pack in there now.
Feature for feature, a AM2+ motherboard runs about $20-30 less than a similar H110 (and a lot more than that for a Z170). AM2+ also uses DDR3 ram, versus DDR4 - now if you are buying new RAM, right now that costs about the same, but more people have DDR3 laying around than DDR4, which may or may not make a difference in this build. Even $20 is a significant savings on a $500 budget, and that can go directly into things that net you better performance: a bit better video card, a bit bigger SSD, etc.
For those reasons, I'd recommend a FX6300 instead of an i3. Either will work, but I think in that budget range, the FX still makes sense.
Also, yourge gonna spend 120$ on i3 now just to spend another 250+$ in the future?
i3 is rapidly going down the toilet, apparently even pentiums in Kaby Lake have Hyperthreading just like i3.
If you want more permanent solution that you wont have to replace in quite a bit of time:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA1N84285311&cm_re=fx_8300-_-19-113-399-_-Product
even on sale with promo code ATM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138435
or
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128651
or
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157688
(also on sale AMT so currently best pick)
and pick up 25$ CPU cooler down the line.
This will get you ~2 years after which Zen+/new Intel gen will be out hopefully with more improvements that wha has been offered so far.
1) FX is slower
2) FX use older DDR3
3) FX board is supposedly better fitted with features - you wouldn't recommend using FX with 760G board, right? In that case it is not even true and the actual difference is like 3$, not to say those "features" are mostly useless anyway(ie RAID, abundance of USB 2.0, etc).
4) FX isn't any cheaper, in fact if anything it is likely to be more expensive.
5) FX use way more power
6) FX is dead end platform
Yeah, completely makes sense
@dg29031994
i3+RX470 is the best performance you can buy for $500.
FX is possible alternative, just there aren't any reasons why would you do that apart from brand affection...
1 ) Partially True, but not by much in most gaming situations, and certainly not true in all cases.
2 ) True, but:
a) doesn't really impact performance
b) allows for reuse of existing RAM if you have it on hand, providing another avenue for cost savings
c) cost neutral if you are buying new
3 ) Nope, I don't think you understood what I was saying there. Can you find AM3+ motherboards that are more expensive than an Intel Board? Sure. But if you compare similar features and quality levels across AM3+ and H110/Z170, you'll find the AM3+'s are consistently less expensive, in large part because Intel charges a good deal for socket compatibility.
4 ) FX6300 is listing for $99 right now on Newegg new in retail box. i3 6100 are listing for $120 on Newegg right now. $20 just on the CPU alone. Each CPU has a different set of rotating bundles and other offers. So, yeah, what you said.
5 ) So. Unless you have hundreds of them running in a high density, high load server farm, the additional energy and cooling requirements of 51W TDP vs 95W TDP is pretty much a rounding error.
6 ) So is 1151. Pretty much every CPU released by Intel, the socket has lasted for maybe 2 of their cycles. A H110/Z170 will be good for Skylake, probably work with Kaby Lake, and then it's done. It went that way for Nehalem (it was a one-off). It went that way for Sandy/Ivy. It went that way for Haswell/Broadwell. No platform has extended longevity any more.
If it were my money, and I were on a tight budget, I would save the $20-40 on all-in cost differences in the CPUs, and put that savings into either better graphics (going from 470 to 480, or getting a nice AIB cooler on the 470 for better clocks, for instance), or more capacity on an SSD - either of those would yield a better use experience than the minor difference in performance between an i3 and a FX 6300.
But it's not my build, and it's not my money. I wouldn't fault a person going with an i3, it's a decent enough gaming CPU. I just don't think it's the best option overall.