Can the Athlon 5150/5350 be used for AAA Titles with a powerful DIscrete GPU (750Ti)

[DragonBorn1511]

These 2 APU's are SUPER cheap along with SUPER cheap Motherboards.

5150 comes in at £28. 5350 comes in at £37.

They're both Quad cores at relatively low clock speeds.

Games such as The Witcher 3 and Far Cry 4 REQUIRE Quad core CPUs to even run.

WIth a discrete GPU such as an R7 260X or 750 Ti (I've read on reviews the 750Ti starts to get bottlenecked by the 5350), can these 2 APU's handle AAA titles?

Will games such as FC4 and Witcher 3 run on such low speed Quad Cores?

WIll games such as GTA5 run well on this sort of setup?

I'm asking this because I'm looking to build a super cheap Gaming PC.

 

[DragonBorn1511]

Anyone?

 

[DragonBorn1511]

Someone must have an answer for this...

 

[DragonBorn1511]

Anyone?

 

[DragonBorn1511]

Anyone?

 

[teknobug]

Athlon 5350 won't get you very far, you'll be getting what you pay for.

 

[mlga91]

Those CPUs are not meant for gaming, get a at least a athlon 860k or a i3 4150.

 

[synphul]

Agreed, super cheap and running AAA titles well don't go together. Just like a cheap base model kia will suffer at the race track. Performance comes with cost. An i3 would be about the lowest cpu I'd go with for any real gaming, it performs above the 860k and even the 8320/8350 in most every game. A 750ti is a decent low power gpu option on a budget, but it's not a gtx 970/980 or r9 280x/290x. With an i3 and a 750ti you'll probably be able to play most games and depending on your resolution, may have to turn graphics down to medium or high. Some may run on very high, but med/high would be a more realistic expectation.

 

[DragonBorn1511]

Agreed, super cheap and running AAA titles well don't go together. Just like a cheap base model kia will suffer at the race track. Performance comes with cost. An i3 would be about the lowest cpu I'd go with for any real gaming, it performs above the 860k and even the 8320/8350 in most every game. A 750ti is a decent low power gpu option on a budget, but it's not a gtx 970/980 or r9 280x/290x. With an i3 and a 750ti you'll probably be able to play most games and depending on your resolution, may have to turn graphics down to medium or high. Some may run on very high, but med/high would be a more realistic expectation.

I'm not looking for crazy performance out of my 5150/5350 CPUs.

Stuff like the withcer 3 and Far Cry 4 REQUIRE 4 cores.

WOuld these sorts of games veen run on such a slow and low end quad core? That was the basis of my question.

 

[teknobug]

Everyone answered your question, do not waste your time and money with a 5350 if you want to game unless you want single digit framerate.

 

[synphul]

Some of these newer games are still being patched and can have a hard time running smooth frames on high end hardware like an i7 with a gtx 970/980. If you're on a really low budget I'd look to save up enough to be able to go with at least an i3. Or consider a console which will be a bit cheaper and offer consistent repeatable performance.

There's a reason they're 'so cheap'. Quad core doesn't mean much if it doesn't have the horsepower to do anything, despite quad cores being more standard for newer games. An i3 will still satisfy the 4 thread requirements of a 'quad core'. Intel's igpu's are known to be much weaker than the integrated graphics on amd apu's (though neither are comparable to dedicated gpu's).

Even so the i7 with intel's lowly integrated gpu still runs games better than those low end 5xxx apu's. They might be 'enough' for light steam games but for AAA titles you need some hardware that will handle it and 30-40gbp apu's aren't going to cut it. The 260x is questionable and the 750ti would do better as a mid range gpu. Will the games run on those apu's? More than likely. Will it look like a slideshow and be miserable? Probably.

Far cry 4 minimum system requirements
http://blog.ubi.com/far-cry-4-pc-specs/

The cpu doesn't meet min requirements since it doesn't say 'cheapest quad core you can find', they listed specific models. The r7 260x likely meets bare min requirements. Expect to have to turn down resolution and eye candy.

Witcher 3 minimum system requirements, same story.

http://www.pcgamer.com/the-witcher-3-system-requirements-announced/

Every game lists the minimum and recommended system requirements to play their software.

 

[DragonBorn1511]

Some of these newer games are still being patched and can have a hard time running smooth frames on high end hardware like an i7 with a gtx 970/980. If you're on a really low budget I'd look to save up enough to be able to go with at least an i3. Or consider a console which will be a bit cheaper and offer consistent repeatable performance.

There's a reason they're 'so cheap'. Quad core doesn't mean much if it doesn't have the horsepower to do anything, despite quad cores being more standard for newer games. An i3 will still satisfy the 4 thread requirements of a 'quad core'. Intel's igpu's are known to be much weaker than the integrated graphics on amd apu's (though neither are comparable to dedicated gpu's).

Even so the i7 with intel's lowly integrated gpu still runs games better than those low end 5xxx apu's. They might be 'enough' for light steam games but for AAA titles you need some hardware that will handle it and 30-40gbp apu's aren't going to cut it. The 260x is questionable and the 750ti would do better as a mid range gpu. Will the games run on those apu's? More than likely. Will it look like a slideshow and be miserable? Probably.

Far cry 4 minimum system requirements
http://blog.ubi.com/far-cry-4-pc-specs/

The cpu doesn't meet min requirements since it doesn't say 'cheapest quad core you can find', they listed specific models. The r7 260x likely meets bare min requirements. Expect to have to turn down resolution and eye candy.

Witcher 3 minimum system requirements, same story.

http://www.pcgamer.com/the-witcher-3-system-requirements-announced/

Every game lists the minimum and recommended system requirements to play their software.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

As for requirements, I know requirements list specific models but I will give you an examplke: http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri/requirements/dying-light/11912/?p=r

Dyling light says MINIMUM i5 2500.

DOes this mean a ver ysimilar i5 2400 won't work? DOes it mean something like an athlon 860K/FX4300 won't work?

I know they list specific models but the reason I asked about quad cores in general was because an 860K will run dying light. however both the minimum CPU requirments are much higher than an 860K.

 

[synphul]

5150's and 5350's aren't 860k's and 860k's are pretty low budget for gaming. A 2400 and 2500 are extremely close where a 5150 really isn't in the ballpark at all. Apples and oranges. You're also comparing intel quads which quite easily outperform amd's offerings. Ipc efficiency is usually referred to as 'single core' performance which many mistake for 'performance is higher when only a single core is being used'. When in fact it means at the very foundation, each core is much stronger in terms of processing power and a quad has 4 of those much faster/stronger/efficient cores.

 

[LookItsRain]

Some of these newer games are still being patched and can have a hard time running smooth frames on high end hardware like an i7 with a gtx 970/980. If you're on a really low budget I'd look to save up enough to be able to go with at least an i3. Or consider a console which will be a bit cheaper and offer consistent repeatable performance.

There's a reason they're 'so cheap'. Quad core doesn't mean much if it doesn't have the horsepower to do anything, despite quad cores being more standard for newer games. An i3 will still satisfy the 4 thread requirements of a 'quad core'. Intel's igpu's are known to be much weaker than the integrated graphics on amd apu's (though neither are comparable to dedicated gpu's).

Even so the i7 with intel's lowly integrated gpu still runs games better than those low end 5xxx apu's. They might be 'enough' for light steam games but for AAA titles you need some hardware that will handle it and 30-40gbp apu's aren't going to cut it. The 260x is questionable and the 750ti would do better as a mid range gpu. Will the games run on those apu's? More than likely. Will it look like a slideshow and be miserable? Probably.

Far cry 4 minimum system requirements
http://blog.ubi.com/far-cry-4-pc-specs/

The cpu doesn't meet min requirements since it doesn't say 'cheapest quad core you can find', they listed specific models. The r7 260x likely meets bare min requirements. Expect to have to turn down resolution and eye candy.

Witcher 3 minimum system requirements, same story.

http://www.pcgamer.com/the-witcher-3-system-requirements-announced/

Every game lists the minimum and recommended system requirements to play their software.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

As for requirements, I know requirements list specific models but I will give you an examplke: http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri/requirements/dying-light/11912/?p=r

Dyling light says MINIMUM i5 2500.

DOes this mean a ver ysimilar i5 2400 won't work? DOes it mean something like an athlon 860K/FX4300 won't work?

I know they list specific models but the reason I asked about quad cores in general was because an 860K will run dying light. however both the minimum CPU requirments are much higher than an 860K.

Honestly, the listed requirements are almost always wrong, most games that say they need an i5/i7, cant even use 2 threads properly.

 

[synphul]

I think they list the i5 as a min requirement since it's the lowest model of intel that's a true quad core. Even if the first two threads are heavily loaded they're letting people know it does run on more threads. If the requirements are that far off then I guess we all got tricked and should all have thrown $40 cpu's into our systems instead. I've seen a number of newer games struggling to run on i5's and i7's much less anything slower.

 

[teknobug]

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

As for requirements, I know requirements list specific models but I will give you an examplke: http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri/requirements/dying-light/11912/?p=r

Dyling light says MINIMUM i5 2500.

DOes this mean a ver ysimilar i5 2400 won't work? DOes it mean something like an athlon 860K/FX4300 won't work?

I know they list specific models but the reason I asked about quad cores in general was because an 860K will run dying light. however both the minimum CPU requirments are much higher than an 860K.

Dying Light runs just fine on an i3, specs are to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[LookItsRain]

I think they list the i5 as a min requirement since it's the lowest model of intel that's a true quad core. Even if the first two threads are heavily loaded they're letting people know it does run on more threads. If the requirements are that far off then I guess we all got tricked and should all have thrown $40 cpu's into our systems instead. I've seen a number of newer games struggling to run on i5's and i7's much less anything slower.

http://www.techspot.com/review/972-intel-core-i3-vs-i5-vs-i7/
http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page6.html

 

[DragonBorn1511]

5150's and 5350's aren't 860k's and 860k's are pretty low budget for gaming. A 2400 and 2500 are extremely close where a 5150 really isn't in the ballpark at all. Apples and oranges. You're also comparing intel quads which quite easily outperform amd's offerings. Ipc efficiency is usually referred to as 'single core' performance which many mistake for 'performance is higher when only a single core is being used'. When in fact it means at the very foundation, each core is much stronger in terms of processing power and a quad has 4 of those much faster/stronger/efficient cores.

I think they list the i5 as a min requirement since it's the lowest model of intel that's a true quad core. Even if the first two threads are heavily loaded they're letting people know it does run on more threads. If the requirements are that far off then I guess we all got tricked and should all have thrown $40 cpu's into our systems instead. I've seen a number of newer games struggling to run on i5's and i7's much less anything slower.

You're not understanding my point here.

I never said the 860K was close to the i5, nor did I say the 5350 was close to the 860k or i5.

My point was: The witcher 3 says it needs an i5 minimum or 8 core. however the much less powerful 860K is able to run it (and by run I mean the game actually loads up)

so using the same principal, a weaker quad core (the 860k) was still able to run it.

Would a 5350 be able to run it? As again it's far less powerful than the 860K and by run it I mean would the game even load up? or would the game fail to run at all (like far cry 4 on a dual core) because the quad core is so weak?

 

[synphul]

So what point is being made, other than an i3 does well in many things since it runs 4 threads? If you read my first response to the op, did I not suggest an i3 as a decent budget solution?

https://support.rockstargames.com/hc/communities/public/questions/203473047-GTA-V-PC-Stutter-Issue
Despite the bench's on review sites, gtav is a perfect example. Have a read through the pages of all the people with fx 8350's, i5's and i7's with gtx 970's and 980's, 16gb of ram and ssd drives who are hitting frames into the 30fps range. Reality vs a perfect world at it's best. I5's and i7's still easily outperform the i3 due to 4 physical cores which are blatantly better than a dual core with ht but the fact the i3 has ht and can process 4 threads still makes it a suitable budget option for games, even those with a quad core requirement. Which is why I suggested it.

 

[DragonBorn1511]

So what point is being made, other than an i3 does well in many things since it runs 4 threads? If you read my first response to the op, did I not suggest an i3 as a decent budget solution?

https://support.rockstargames.com/hc/communities/public/questions/203473047-GTA-V-PC-Stutter-Issue
Despite the bench's on review sites, gtav is a perfect example. Have a read through the pages of all the people with fx 8350's, i5's and i7's with gtx 970's and 980's, 16gb of ram and ssd drives who are hitting frames into the 30fps range. Reality vs a perfect world at it's best. I5's and i7's still easily outperform the i3 due to 4 physical cores which are blatantly better than a dual core with ht but the fact the i3 has ht and can process 4 threads still makes it a suitable budget option for games, even those with a quad core requirement. Which is why I suggested it.

I wasn't asking about the i3. but you've failed to answer my question so I'm going to make a new thread.

 

[teknobug]

I wasn't asking about the i3. but you've failed to answer my question so I'm going to make a new thread.

And get your posts locked? GG. I can see it now, you putting your hands over your ears going "lalalalala".

Replies said 5350 isn't worth it, 4 cores isn't mandatory if the CPU is up to the task aka the i3, the point being made is just take minimum system specs with a grain of salt and do some research (such as Youtube) to see how a particular game you're interested in runs on processors you're interested in, but you're not going to find many on the AMD 5350.

 

[synphul]

I'm not sure what the op is looking for here. My best guess is trolling and they didn't really want help. Instead just wanted to hear what they wanted to hear and hoping someone will say yes, those cheap as dirt underperforming apu's will give a great gaming experience for hardly any cost. No one knows about it though so keep the magic of these chips secret or everyone will want them. Ask until you hear the answer you're dead set looking for I suppose.

As far as I'm concerned, the question WAS answered. "super cheap", gaming pc and AAA game titles don't belong in the same sentence in any context. There are high budget and lower budget options but those two apu's listed are bottom of the barrel and it won't change that no matter how many times it's asked. It's reflected in their bargain basement pricing as well. Gaming in general is a luxury, not a necessity. AAA gaming titles even more so. Luxuries cost money. I'm just trying to be realistic, if people could build a worthwhile gaming pc for $200-300, there would be no reason for the vast majority to be buying $400-500 consoles and $600-1000 gaming pc's. Looking to play games even decent where the game costs the same or more than the cpu you plan to play it on should be the first clue. What kind of a car do you expect to get for less than the cost of the stereo to go in it?

 

[DragonBorn1511]

I wasn't asking about the i3. but you've failed to answer my question so I'm going to make a new thread.

And get your posts locked? GG. I can see it now, you putting your hands over your ears going "lalalalala".

Replies said 5350 isn't worth it, 4 cores isn't mandatory if the CPU is up to the task aka the i3, the point being made is just take minimum system specs with a grain of salt and do some research (such as Youtube) to see how a particular game you're interested in runs on processors you're interested in, but you're not going to find many on the AMD 5350.

I'm not sure what the op is looking for here. My best guess is trolling and they didn't really want help. Instead just wanted to hear what they wanted to hear and hoping someone will say yes, those cheap as dirt underperforming apu's will give a great gaming experience for hardly any cost. No one knows about it though so keep the magic of these chips secret or everyone will want them. Ask until you hear the answer you're dead set looking for I suppose.

As far as I'm concerned, the question WAS answered. "super cheap", gaming pc and AAA game titles don't belong in the same sentence in any context. There are high budget and lower budget options but those two apu's listed are bottom of the barrel and it won't change that no matter how many times it's asked. It's reflected in their bargain basement pricing as well. Gaming in general is a luxury, not a necessity. AAA gaming titles even more so. Luxuries cost money. I'm just trying to be realistic, if people could build a worthwhile gaming pc for $200-300, there would be no reason for the vast majority to be buying $400-500 consoles and $600-1000 gaming pc's. Looking to play games even decent where the game costs the same or more than the cpu you plan to play it on should be the first clue. What kind of a car do you expect to get for less than the cost of the stereo to go in it?

I wrote this a few posts back at 17:44:06.


"You're not understanding my point here.

I never said the 860K was close to the i5, nor did I say the 5350 was close to the 860k or i5.

My point was: The witcher 3 says it needs an i5 minimum or 8 core. however the much less powerful 860K is able to run it (and by run I mean the game actually loads up)

so using the same principal, a weaker quad core (the 860k) was still able to run it.

Would a 5350 be able to run it? As again it's far less powerful than the 860K and by run it I mean would the game even load up? or would the game fail to run at all (like far cry 4 on a dual core) because the quad core is so weak?"

That was my question.

 

[LookItsRain]

Post 1,2 and 3 after your bumps answered your question.

 

[mlga91]

Looks like someone didn't like those answers. Its hard to please everyone in these forums.