From AMD to Intel Processors.


Jun 18, 2017
I recently upgraded my build and got a new gpu which I thought would increase my fps for CSGO a ton, but only 20-30. My old card sucked and this is one of the best 1060s out there. I then realized it was my A,D FX 8320 holding me back. I get around 80-100 fps at the moment and I'm hoping to get above 250. Any suggestions on good intel processors that will give me that but also aren't the most expensive?
My build
It's not just the CPU but:
1) CPU
2) Motherboard
3) DDR4 memory (if newer Intel CPU)
4) Windows license (must buy new unless RETAIL copy which is highly unlikely)
5) must REINSTALL everything (though can SAVE your Steamapps folder and copy it back to prevent downloading those games again. You can also link to Blizzard games and there's a way to do this for UPLAY and ORIGIN games too by keeping the folders)

Now if you get say 90FPS average now I think asking to get almost 3x the FPS is extremely unlikely at the same settings. Maybe 2x the FPS at best, again at same settings.

*The best CPU's would be:
a) at least FOUR cores, and
b) highest clock per core

Basically the i5-7600K is probably the best that's not as expensive as the i7-7700K though frankly if I was going to rebuild my entire system based on a high FPS shooter build I'd spring the extra money and get the i7-7700K. Maybe $100USD or so more money but you're spending maybe $600 or so (haven't calculated it out).
There is a MASSIVE DIFFERENCE in FPS that I can't explain just based on CPU performance per core. Not sure what's going on.

I think these two videos use similar settings, so watch the beginning of each to see the settings as well as the FPS in-game (which should vary somewhat but this gives a rough idea).

Both have a GTX1060 6GB, and I think the only difference is the Intel setup using 4xMSAA (2xMSAA on AMD setup). Otherwise it appears to be mostly max settings at 1080p.

Update: motion blur is on with the AMD setup (should be more of a GPU thing though I expect so not sure it matters)

So that's maybe a little over 2x the performance on the INTEL system.
These are expensive, but if your monitor isn't great I'd consider getting one of those and just run with your current setup.

It's hard to compare 250FPS average VSYNC OFF to 100FPS (ish) on a GSYNC monitor but GSYNC really does help a lot. I'm frankly not sure what would be better. It depends on whether the screen tearing is obvious.

For OTHER games the FX-8320 isn't nearly as bad comparatively so for slower games you can just tweak to get about 50FPS average or so with GSYNC. I'd rather have that if it means a much nicer monitor. For example, what's better on a game like Assassin's Creed?

a) Game at 80FPS average, VSYNC OFF (assume annoying screen tearing), or

b) Game at 50FPS average, no screen tearing.

Even with an INTEL setup, if you have a non-GSYNC monitor you still have to worry about how best to tweak a game. VSYNC ON? If so you'll get screen tearing if you can't keep the FPS up to match the Hz rate. VSYNC OFF? Then you get screen tearing.

With GSYNC again you just tweak to get the average FPS best suited to the game. No FPS cap issues to worry about.

GSYNC monitors that I like start at $500USD (for a TN panel, 2560x1440, 144Hz, 27") and go up from there however that's also about the cost to rebuild your system.

*Not sure what monitor you have though so this is all conjecture.


Jun 18, 2017
For some reason when I started the game I was getting what I said for fps and now I'm getting 180-230. I'm still looking for a CPU but my game is running better. Thanks