Best CPUs of 2015: What you should buy depending on your budget

[cliffordcooley]

Paying over 120 dollars for dual core processor sounds even worse head injury to me

That is two Intel cores not AMD cores. You would have to give me 8 AMD cores before I looked away from 2 Intel cores (4 threads).

The real head injury is AMD's core count while trying to compete with those two cores. A situation I hope will change with the release of ZEN.

 

[HardReset]

That is two Intel cores not AMD cores. You would have to give me 8 AMD cores before I looked away from 2 Intel cores (4 threads).

The real head injury is AMD's core count while trying to compete with those two cores. A situation I hope will change with the release of ZEN.

That is why I have 8 cores. My next CPU will have at least 8 cores also. AM4 platform may be limited to 4 cores + HT and 8 core models need more expensive motherboard. We'll see.

Common software uses cores very poorly and that is why AMD is taking strong core, less cores approach. So problem is not only Bulldozer but also very poor software.

 

[Peter Farkas]

Paying over 120 dollars for dual core processor sounds even worse head injury to me

what is your problem with 2 cores?
My 4 core i5-4460 eats your 8 AMD cores for breakfast when it comes to gaming... Where is your point in having 8 cores now? better have 4 proper cores than 8 shitcores
by the way technically yours is 4 core as well. I assume you have heard the scandal how AMD lied to its customer about 8 cores.... apparently they count cores in a funky way...

 

[HardReset]

what is your problem with 2 cores?
My 4 vore i5-4460 eats your 8 AMD cores for breakfast when it comes to gaming... Where is your point in having 8 cores now?

2 cores are too little. Quad cores arrived 2007 so...

It does not. I have background tasks running while gaming, so there is my point having 8 cores.

 

[Peter Farkas]

2 cores are too little. Quad cores arrived 2007 so...

It does not. I have background tasks running while gaming, so there is my point having 8 cores.

you still have much worse performance with your 8 cores than I do with my 4... I would not punish your poor AMD CPU with background tasks while gaming. It can barely handle gaming at all. no offense...

 

[HardReset]

you still have much worse performance with your 8 cores than I do with my 4... I would not punish your poor AMD CPU with background tasks while gaming. It can barely handle gaming at all. no offense...

Put 4 cores of your CPU to full load and try how fast it is. Then come back.

 

[Peter Farkas]

Put 4 cores of your CPU to full load and try how fast it is. Then come back.

dude if that matters for you, you WON!!! ;-)
I prefer having more FPS in my games. but we are different.

peace

 

[HardReset]

dude if that matters for you, you WON!!! ;-)
I prefer having more FPS in my games. but we are different.

peace

I have 60 Hz monitor so steady 60 FPS is enough. Also most people have 60Hz monitor so more FPS don't matter if it's over 60.

144 Hz 16:10 monitor would be nice but have't seen any.

 

[Peter Farkas]

I have 60 Hz monitor so steady 60 FPS is enough. Also most people have 60Hz monitor so more FPS don't matter if it's over 60.

144 Hz 16:10 monitor would be nice but have't seen any.

sigh )

 

[Fulltone]

Have an older I7-4790? works ex with any games 16 gig mem. probably won't upgrade for a while.

 

[STbob]

Replace best budget CPU with the FX 8300 and it's a deal.

It's at most 10 dollars more than the FX 6300 and has 30% more CPU power.

That is either FX-8320, FX-8320E or FX-8350.

Exactly!
Any engine that is properly multi-threaded does not show such a significant difference between AMD FX's and i5's. Did everyone forget that the Creation engine used by fallout 4 is based on a super old engine they was never really optimized for anything????

Exactly. Fallout 4 engine is modified from year 1997 engine. In 2015 making recommendations based on Fallout 4 performance is (n)(n)

Look fatbody, Fallout 4 and Just cause 3 are popular and fun games. An older engine should be easy to optimize for and even if not, OMG a modern cpu that struggles is a joke. AMD is a joke for gamers. I think people with AMD come on here to defend the non defensible instead preferring to blame the game.

Just hush and buy intel. Don't buy AMD and then try to cry way out of it by blaming the games.

 

[Peter Farkas]

Have an older I7-4790? works ex with any games 16 gig mem. probably won't upgrade for a while.

you are fine for a long time ahead! ;-)

 

[Peter Farkas]

Look fatbody, Fallout 4 and Just cause 3 are popular and fun games. An older engine should be easy to optimize for and even if not, OMG a modern cpu that struggles is a joke. AMD is a joke for gamers. I think people with AMD come on here to defend the non defensible instead preferring to blame the game.

Just hush and buy intel. Don't buy AMD and then try to cry way out of it by blaming the games.

But hey, we gotta give credit to such blind AMD fanatics as well. At least for the fact that they definitely pay less for their heating bills since that CPU does an amazing job on that front!
I can see them making their bacon and eggs breakfasts on the top of their cases...

 

[Rage3D]

Is this comment section trying to compete with WCCFTech's?

 

[HardReset]

Look fatbody, Fallout 4 and Just cause 3 are popular and fun games. An older engine should be easy to optimize for and even if not, OMG a modern cpu that struggles is a joke. AMD is a joke for gamers. I think people with AMD come on here to defend the non defensible instead preferring to blame the game.

Just hush and buy intel. Don't buy AMD and then try to cry way out of it by blaming the games.

It seems that you like technically crappy games. You are happy with game engine based on 1997 techonology. You seem to like the fact that half of your processor cores are sitting idle when playing.

Perhaps that is why you are Intel fan. AMD fans have much higher standards.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Perhaps that is why you are Intel fan. AMD fans have much higher standards.

Core efficiency is the higher standard. If you were about standards, you would be with Intel.

 

[HardReset]

Core efficiency is the higher standard. If you were about standards, you would be with Intel.

I talked about games. Anyway, I'm happy with 2011 year architechture AMD. You may stick with tweaked Pentium Pro architechture from 1994.

 

[cliffordcooley]

I talked about games. Anyway, I'm happy with 2011 year architechture AMD. You may stick with tweaked Pentium Pro architechture from 1994.

Tell me if Intel's Pentium Pro tweak (as you say) is so bad, why is AMD with ZEN now mimicking Intel's Hyperthreading (which dates back to 2002)? With that line of thought alone, you can loose your 2011 AMD date.

 

[HardReset]

Tell me if Intel's Pentium Pro tweak (as you say) is so bad, why is AMD with ZEN now mimicking Intel's Hyperthreading (which dates back to 2002)? With that line of thought alone, you can loose your 2011 AMD date.

Zen does not support Hyper Threading. It supports SMT (Simultaneous Multi Threading). Hyper Threading is one way to implement SMT, Zen probably has something different SMT that Hyper Threading.

Why AMD goes with SMT? Because:

- It gives some more multiprocessing power with same core count. Many server software license fees are now per core, not per socket
- Generally SMT gives nice boost if software is bad (like some modern games), something that should not be

There you got it. Then you must remember that Hyper Threading debuted on Pentium 4 3,06. If Hyper Threading is bad, why Intel took it from architechture it totally abandoned somewhere around 2006?

So your arguments make no sense.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Why AMD goes with SMT? Because:

- It gives some more multiprocessing power with same core count. Many server software license fees are now per core, not per socket
- Generally SMT gives nice boost if software is bad (like some modern games), something that should not be

Which is precisely what Hyper-threading does, hence the word "mimicking".

I'm not trying to shame AMD for their decision to change. I'm glad they are making changes going forward with ZEN, it makes their CPU efficiency better. You are the one trying to shame Intel, when they are the ones to dethrone.

Then you must remember that Hyper Threading debuted on Pentium 4 3,06. If Hyper Threading is bad, why Intel took it from architechture it totally abandoned somewhere around 2006?

I can only imagine the answer to this being the same as when the frequency or any other feature is limited and the CPU is sold for less. It was a feature Intel knew they didn't need to sell their multi-core CPU's, in place of the single-core (P4 w/HT).

 

[Steve]

I talked about games. Anyway, I'm happy with 2011 year architechture AMD. You may stick with tweaked Pentium Pro architechture from 1994.

OMG LOL, cliffy mate I wouldn't even bother this is beyond a joke now. Pure trolling.

 

[Peter Farkas]

OMG LOL, cliffy mate I wouldn't even bother this is beyond a joke now. Pure trolling.

Don't feed the monkey please.

 

[NightAntilli]

Seems like you're unaware that an 860k has higher IPC than any of the FX CPUs. You're seriously better off with an 860k than an FX6300. Not only because of the higher IPC & lower price, but because the motherboards support newer technology also.

 

[HardReset]

Which is precisely what Hyper-threading does, hence the word "mimicking".

I'm not trying to shame AMD for their decision to change. I'm glad they are making changes going forward with ZEN, it makes their CPU efficiency better. You are the one trying to shame Intel, when they are the ones to dethrone.

Not quite mimic because SMT is about only way to improve multicore performance without raising core count. Bulldozer was great to put many cores on one socket (besides manufacturing problems) but as server software are moving to per core pricing, putting as many cores as possible on one processor no longer make that much sense.

I can only imagine the answer to this being the same as when the frequency or any other feature is limited and the CPU is sold for less. It was a feature Intel knew they didn't need to sell their multi-core CPU's, in place of the single-core (P4 w/HT).

Pentium 4 architechture has nothing to do with Core architechture. Also SMT can be put on any CPU architechture. It may have more drawbacks than advantages so not every CPU has SMT. In any case, SMT does not necessarily make CPU good or bad.

OMG LOL, cliffy mate I wouldn't even bother this is beyond a joke now. Pure trolling.

I wrote clear fact (Core i7 is based on Pentium Pro) and you say I'm trolling. This completly proves that you are just Intel fanboy who
don't understand anything about CPU's. Anyone can run benchmarks and promote crappy games like Fallout 4 if benchmarks favour Intel.

You didn't even bother to comment that one https://www.techspot.com/community/...-4430-amd-fx-8320e.221137/page-2#post-1513716

Perhaps you should say that Allan M Systems is just trolling ? Always easier to say others are trolling than write facts.

 

[cliffordcooley]

You may stick with tweaked Pentium Pro architecture from 1994.

Pentium 4 architecture has nothing to do with Core architecture.

I'm going to stop right here, and laugh at your contradictions.