Are AMD graphics card optimized for low end cpus?

[RansomRenso]

Hello everyone,

I am currently looking into building my first gaming PC on a budget and as far as graphics cards go I was looking at the GeForce GTX 960 and the Radeon R9 280x. They both cost around $200 and offer similar performance with maybe a slight edge to the R9 280x. I plan to buy an i3 4160 for my cpu because you cannot go wrong with Intel and it only cost a little over $100.

While researching the performance of the two cards I came across an article on eurogamer.net explaining how AMD cards can be detrimental to performance if running them on an older Intel cpu. The article is mostly about Dx 12, however in the fourth paragraph starting with "In the graphics market ..." it goes into detail in the following paragraphs that Dx 11 drivers on the AMD side do not perform as well as they should when they are matched with a lower end Intel cpu.

The article links to a Call of Duty Advanced Warfare article, they had written previously, where the issue first became apparent. They have a video of the benchmark that has some devastating evidence.

Here is the link to the article: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-why-directx-12-is-a-gamechanger

The article was written a few months ago, meaning the info is up to date.

I have a link to another article on hardware.info which pits an i3 against the FX-6300 which, in my eyes, says the opposite of the first article I read. It looks to me as though even on an i3, running an AMD graphics card is better than the FX-6300, leaving me questioning whether if AMD cards are optimized to run on any low end cpu whether it be Intel or AMD.

Here is the link: http://us.hardware.info/reviews/5766/3/amd-fx-6300-vs-intel-core-i3-4330-budget-gaming-cpu-deathmatch-performance-in-games

My question to everyone is should I go with the GTX 960 instead of the R9 280x?

Do you guys have any evidence which proves what I have found to be wrong? I would love to hear your input.

By the way I tried searching the forums and the internet in general for more info on this but I could not come across anything.

 

[cdabc123]

intel cpu's run better in alot of things. so comparing a i3 to something you might believe to be high-end amd cpu might not be the case because the amd might still be slower.

 

[GMDS44]

Get an i3 and an R9 280x!

Don't bother with the GTX 960, you get more performance out of the 280x and more VRAM/bus width it is a no brainer.

I currently use a 280x and I couldnt be happier with its performance. I have it paired with an i5-4460 and its a solid build

 

[Gam3r01]

Get the 280x.

 

[meat_loaf]

First of all, if you are building your computer on a budget then you will never consider intel. Because even the i3 costs more than a quad core AMD. For you there are a list of options on AMD side that gives you top-notch performance on a variety of aspects.

--> You could try and find a Phenom II processors. Out of the AMD line, Phenom and Athlons are the best performing processors compared to FX, they give you top performance at a really cheap price.

--> Your second option would be to buy the new Athlon 860K. That cpu is on par with an mid end i5 in terms of CPU benchmark. And the 860k is generally around $80 which no intel cpu beats on a quad core level for that price.

I wouldn't worry much for the cpu. GPU should be your concern. For a cheap price, I would buy the old R9 280X with 3gb ram. I wouldnt recommend R9 380 since the 2gb is just a no no unless you can find a 3gb version which some do make.

 

[RansomRenso]

So no one feels as though the R9 280x would have problems running with an i3 CPU?

I feel as though no one actually read the article lol.

 

[cdabc123]

So no one feels as though the R9 280x would have problems running with an i3 CPU?

I feel as though no one actually read the article lol.

i dont believe one gpu will work better with a lower performance cpu then the other. you might bottle neck on some more cpu oriented programs but in the end it will come to what gpu is better. you do not need to try to match cpu with gpu just get the best gpu and cpu within your budget and that will preform the best.

 

[meat_loaf]

So no one feels as though the R9 280x would have problems running with an i3 CPU?

I feel as though no one actually read the article lol.

The i3 doesn't bottleneck the R9 280 because games are mostly GPU dependant rather than CPU. The i3 can handle itself well in the single core perfermance aspect and will not bottleneck the R9 280 much.

However, buying an i3 is pointless today, since its a dual core. Besides there are already triple AAA games that won't even allow dual core with hyperthreading to run. Far Cry 4 and DA:I as an example. So why even waste time considering dual core when qaudcore is the better option?

 

[RansomRenso]

First of all, if you are building your computer on a budget then you will never consider intel. Because even the i3 costs more than a quad core AMD. For you there are a list of options on AMD side that gives you top-notch performance on a variety of aspects.

--> You could try and find a Phenom II processors. Out of the AMD line, Phenom and Athlons are the best performing processors compared to FX, they give you top performance at a really cheap price.

--> Your second option would be to buy the new Athlon 860K. That cpu is on par with an mid end i5 in terms of CPU benchmark. And the 860k is generally around $80 which no intel cpu beats on a quad core level for that price.

I wouldn't worry much for the cpu. GPU should be your concern. For a cheap price, I would buy the old R9 280X with 3gb ram. I wouldnt recommend R9 380 since the 2gb is just a no no unless you can find a 3gb version which some do make.

From what I know Intel almost always beats AMD in game performance so I'm scared to jump into getting an AMD CPU.

I also want to be able to set myself up for easy upgrades in the future. With the i3 at least I can continue to upgrade to an i5. If I get one of the AMD CPUs I do not know how easy it would be as far as motherboard compatibility.

I believe there are fixes for Far Cry 4 and DA:I as been patched for 2 cores.

 

[cdabc123]

get the i3 for exactly the reasons you stated

 

[meat_loaf]

First of all, if you are building your computer on a budget then you will never consider intel. Because even the i3 costs more than a quad core AMD. For you there are a list of options on AMD side that gives you top-notch performance on a variety of aspects.

--> You could try and find a Phenom II processors. Out of the AMD line, Phenom and Athlons are the best performing processors compared to FX, they give you top performance at a really cheap price.

--> Your second option would be to buy the new Athlon 860K. That cpu is on par with an mid end i5 in terms of CPU benchmark. And the 860k is generally around $80 which no intel cpu beats on a quad core level for that price.

I wouldn't worry much for the cpu. GPU should be your concern. For a cheap price, I would buy the old R9 280X with 3gb ram. I wouldnt recommend R9 380 since the 2gb is just a no no unless you can find a 3gb version which some do make.

From what I know Intel almost always beats AMD in game performance so I'm scared to jump into getting an AMD CPU.

I also want to be able to set myself up for easy upgrades in the future. With the i3 at least I can continue to upgrade to an i5. If I get one of the AMD CPUs I do not know how easy it would be as far as motherboard compatibility.

I believe there are fixes for Far Cry 4 and DA:I as been patched for 2 cores.

I personally would advise against an i3. Because the cost difference between i3 and i5 4440 is not huge probably $20-30. The i5 haswell is only $30 more than i5 4440. But you get the benefits of a i5 quad-core versus duo core that will last you longer. Dual core is considered obsolete.

That is why I said if you are on a tight budget just buy a cheap amd 860k. I;m still using a phenom that is 6 years ago and it still performs well in majority of games and everyday use.