Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by Shambles1980, May 6, 2014.
Then you probably don't need to upgrade at all, because you aren't doing it right.
We're not trying to make fun of or insult you, OP. We're just saying that you're using your monitor "improperly." And if you want to upgrade, then you should decide with or against it. We're just here to help.
I only just recently started piecing a machine together. Im going from an Athlon Xp to a Fx setup, see sig rig.
Also you might aswell save cash for a Haswell E setup.
OP, if you want to upgrade, you should consider an i5 4670k. Thats probably the best choice for you:
1) Intel is so much further beyond AMD's single thread performance that you would be obsolete much sooner with an AMD setup
2) don't need hyperthreading for games, so i5 is probably the way to go instead of i7
2) haswell (4670k) is possibly 5% faster than ivy bridge (3570k) for games at any given clock
3) latest socket, and you can buy it with a z97 board now that they are being released.
If you don't think its worth it, then don't talk yourself into it and keep what you have. There will always be something better coming out just around the corner.
Another option is buying a used 2500k and motherboard combo from a forum, and selling your q6600 + motherboard to offset the price. 2500k isn't much behind a 4670k as far as games are concerned.
You don't need more than 8GB of ram.
here's what i got with my old Phenom II 920
Just over 4000
I've got a cheaper i5 and a 7850. I could try running some benchmark for you. To be honest as others have said, the q6600 was the high end of its time, so anything other than at least an i5 4670k wouldn't be worth it. It might perform slightly better than what you have but it will not last as long as your q6600 and you'd soon need another upgrade.
I think you should get a small SSD(100-120Gb is good for windows+some apps+ a few games) with the money you have saved now because I saw a huge speed up from that, and then start saving for a more long lasting upgrade.
any reason not to get a AMD FX-6300 ?
Because it cant hold a candle to an Intel I5
Because its a joke?
Really, I disagree as compared to a q6600 (my last intel chip) my phenom quad was noticeably quicker in all tasks and my fx is a leap ahead of a q6600 and in all gaming loads is more than adequate for the next five to ten years, go cheap, go fx83## live happy I have..
My old, old computer had a Q6600. It was a great chip, but it would be crushed under my current computer. As others have mentioned, it's not just the CPU's performance, but all the other newer technology that comes with newer chipsets: USB3.0, PCI-E3.0, SATA III, etc. Mobo's still had IDE headers standard. DDR3 was just coming out. My mobo had DDR2 and DDR3 slots.
My Q6600 and 4850 would be hopeless in any modern game trying to run at 1080p. Also, running and LCD at below it's native resolution does sacrifice some visual clarity, no matter what your graphics settings are. Running less than native on my monitor makes everything look a little bit fuzzy on edges.
If Q6600 is reasonably overclocked, i think it can still be pretty good CPU. Stock, not so much.
It's a good budget CPU.. I'll be running it soon.
game debate say its about 10% better than an i5 2400 3.1Ghz,
1% better than an i5-2500k (at stock)
and 54% better than my q6600 (at stock)..
what about a FX-8120 then? is that any better? (i have a feeling you guys will say no because game debate say its only 3% better than the fx-6300)
It looks like at the prices the only options i really have for a step up by the margin i expect for the price im willing to pay would be one of those.
for some reason the i5-2400 and 2500k are still ridiculously expensive. considering the % of performance difference i would actually notice in the real world..
i can buy a new fx-6300 + new board + 4gb of new ram for the price of 1 and a half second hand I5-2500k chip(s)
for 1% less performance in general gaming that does seem like a bit of a steep price.
i however have noticed that the usa prices arent nearly as ludicrous as the uk prices, but shipping + custom charges then put it back in the "you must be stupid" price bracket
Game Debate isn't a good place to compare. Looking at benchmarks against other CPUs is about the best you can get.
It's pretty well known Intel's chips are overpriced and that's because AMD can't compete with their higher-end chips, so they can charge whatever they want. But, really, the upper FX chips are going to serve your just fine for gaming. I just built my system with a 4770k and I kind of wish I'd gone with an AMD setup and saved myself several hundred dollars. The only downside with going with an FX, to me, is the older chipset, at the time I bought my system.
AMD also likes to shove a lot of wattage into their chips. And single-threaded apps don't run as well as Intel chips do.
Yet the hundred notes I saved changed a 7850 gpu into a 7970 and all future modern games for the next ten years areamd x64 x 8 go figur aand wattage smotage oc'ers care little for such petty nonsense
Check my sig rig. Its a work in progress but once im done it will be a solid gaming/ media crunching machine.
Ether way is fine. All i can say is my 3770K w/ 2 - 7950s up against a 8350 w/ 2 - 7970s I scored 10% higher on 3d mark. And used 100 less watts. But both systems run good
But I would take a i5 4670K over a 8350 anytime and its only what $30 more
if you want to have larger icons, text, etc you can just turn the DPI up or just right click>view>large icons
lol my desktop is at 1920 x 1080 it just games arent
Only a tool would believe a four core has more longevity then an eight core in this moment and drop the xfire and ive no doubt my rig would claw that ten percent back at 5ghz yet 2-300watts more power used and no im not assed cost was king when I upgraded
8350 is not an 8 core, it has 4 modules with 2 integer cores and 1 floating point core each.
And a ps4 xbone has the same 8 integer and float units , an I5 has four of each
Separate names with a comma.