having trouble deciding best cpu/mobo for the money

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
J

Jordan Booth

Reputable
Feb 6, 2015
60
0
4,630
hello all my current set up is an i5 2320 w/ pos motherboard that doesnt allow oc sli or crossfire, gtx 970, 750w corsair psu 80+ b cert, 1tb seagate sshd, and 12gb ram. My problem is that i would like to future proof my comp to be able to stay relevant with games that are super demanding such as witcher III. To do such a thing i need to have sli but im just not sure if i want to buy a new $100+ for no real benefit. As of right now as an upgrade from an i5-2320 to lets say an i5-3570k wouldn't be worth the money to me. My problem is that the cpu socket is kinda dated and not sure if i should just go with a more budget appropriate fx-8320 with a new mobo that can sli/crossfire or just spend the extra money on a new mobo for my current i5-2320. But like i said i want to future proof so im not too sure how relevant this old cpu will be when i need dual gtx 970's to game.
 
Solution
Darkbreeze
i5-2320 to any FX chip isn't much of an upgrade, if it could even be considered an upgrade. You'd want to go to a newer core chip like pretty much any of the Haswell Refresh lineup or even wait for Skylake in the next couple of months. That will likely be expensive though, for Skylake. The cheapest upgrade to a newer platform I'd recommend as being truly worth your investment, would be this:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($166.95 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-Z97X-Gaming 5 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($115.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $282.94
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available...
Sort by date Sort by votes
The 3670k and associated MoBos are already 2 generations old, soon to be 3. I don't see logic in either of those choices.

If buying today, the MSI or Gigabyte Gaming 5's have the best performance / price ratio and range in cost from $125 to $150 depending on which one is on sale or has nice rebate that week.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
i5-2320 to any FX chip isn't much of an upgrade, if it could even be considered an upgrade. You'd want to go to a newer core chip like pretty much any of the Haswell Refresh lineup or even wait for Skylake in the next couple of months. That will likely be expensive though, for Skylake. The cheapest upgrade to a newer platform I'd recommend as being truly worth your investment, would be this:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($166.95 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-Z97X-Gaming 5 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($115.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $282.94
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-07-04 15:29 EDT-0400



But if you wanted to stay with the CPU you currently have, just for the sake of gaining SLI capability with a minimal investment, then this is probably your best option:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Motherboard: ASRock Z77 Extreme4 ATX LGA1155 Motherboard ($129.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $129.99
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-07-04 15:32 EDT-0400
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution


see thats what I was thinking but I really didnt want to spend the extra money as i can get an fx-8320 for 129.99 and ASUS M5A97 PLUS for 55.99 for a total of 20 more than just the new cpu let alone the mobo and i wouldnt be able to oc that cpu when i know that the gtx 970 is actually going to be my bottle neck not cpu unless games suddenly become more cpu dependent without utilizing the 8 cores of the amd processor.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


according to benchmarks on intense games such as witcher III the gtx 970 would actually be the item delivering lower fps not the cpu. Games are mostly gpu intense not cpu and as games grow they should start to utilize the 8 cores in theory but as of right now neither i5 4460 or the fx 8320 would be the cause for lower fps in my rig. according to http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-the-best-pc-hardware-for-the-witcher-3 the i5 4690k overclocked to 3.9 ghz gets a low of 52 fps and an average of 79.2 where as the fx 8350 oc at 4.2 got a low of 56.0 and an average of 75.2. Since the 4460 cant be oc i be it will get lower than the i5 4690k did and since most fx 8320 can oc to around 4.5 ghz safely i would say for the money the fx would be better right?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
There are plenty of games that already utilize four or more cores, and even on the majority of those even the core performance of an i3 with only two cores and hyperthreading beats them out as seen here:

http://www.techspot.com/review/943-best-value-desktop-cpu/page6.html


The majority of titles that are in any way CPU dependent run better in ALMOST all cases, on a core i3, i5, i7 or E3 Xeon Haswell Refresh chip. Personally, having an FX-8320 overclocked to 4.5Ghz myself, I can definitively say that it does NOT outperform any of the current gen i5 processors, and barely beats out the i3-4360 and even then it only does so in a few very CPU dependent and highly threaded titles. If you're asking us, we're going to tell you that if you are going to spend the money to upgrade both the CPU and motherboard, going with an FX chip should only be a last resort for budget purposes on a new build, NOT as an upgrade over a chip you already have that probably outperforms what you'll end up with.

If you take a look at that article I linked to, the stock i3 beat out an 8320 overclocked to 4.8Ghz in most games, a good number of applications and used about half or less of the amount of power the FX chip used. What you do is up to you, but I think just upgrading your board to an SLI capable model, or saving a few more bucks until you can afford the LGA 1150 or Skylake upgrades.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The link that you posted tested games that only utilize 2 cores at most if I wanted strong single core performance as a sacrifice to strong multi-core performance then I'd just get a pentium g3258 and oc it........ I'm talking new games that make most pc's crawl on their knees to even hit 30 fps such as witcher III and Batman: AK. That's why I hate biased websites like that they give people a false "knowledge" of amd. If I tried to use an i3-4130 I'd see low frame rates of around 38 fps and with an i5-4690k a low of 52fps where as with the fx 8320 I'd see a low of 56fps. And that is not biased that is just the results of a new cutting edge game taking advantage of multiple cores. I'm not saying that the i5-4690k isn't better than the fx 8320 I'm just saying that for similar performance I can get the cpu and mobo for $100 less then just the i5-4690k let alone a mobo
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Company of heroes=4 threads

Metro Redux can use up to 8 threads.

Hitman absolution was shown to use 4-6 cores, and be almost unplayable with a dual core that didn't have hyperthreading. The i5 and i7 stomped all the FX chips regardless of overclock.

http://www.techspot.com/review/608-hitman-absolution-performance-benchmarks/page6.html


Tomb Raider 2013=

Before going into more details, know that there is a 14fps difference between a dual-core and a quad-core processor. Tomb Raider benefits from a quad-core, and we strongly suggest using one.
Click to expand...

Crysis 3:

On the other hand, Battlefield 4, Crysis 3 and Civilization V surprised us as there was a 10fps performance difference between our hexa-core and our quad-core tests. Do note that there were no performance differences between our simulated penta-core and our six-core systems, indicating that there are currently no games that benefit from eight-core CPUs (hell, we couldn’t find one title able to push all of our six CPU cores to their limits).
Click to expand...


Clearly, none of those titles are dual core limited. If you want an FX chip, get one, that's your choice. I have had one for the last two years as I got an outstanding deal on it and needed something quick to replace a failed system. When I next purchase however, you can be sure I'll be getting an Intel i7 or E3 Xeon for the 8 thread support PLUS much stronger performance per core than I have with my 8320. I can assure you that this is what I do on a daily basis and after MUCH research, from top to bottom, there is no way the core architecture of the FX lineup can compete, even if there were ten core modules, since all Intel and AMD consumer chips share resources between core/thread or module. Even high end Intel chips with 6 cores and 12 threads don't show any substantial improvements on the most highly thread optimized game titles currently available.


On the other side of the coin, I can currently play any game I want to with fairly high settings using my 8320 and R9 290x, but it does suffer versus the same configuration with an i5 or i7. Even in multithreaded application benchmarks the i5 beats out the 8 core FX chips in all but a handful of titles. Go whichever way helps you sleep better at night I guess.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
No matter how I try and look at it I just can't seem to justify paying that much money for a cpu+mobo I'll just go buy a ps4 for less and play on that should be relevant for a couple more years
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
My current build definitely would beat any current console but I'm just not made of money to go spend an extra $900 to add a second 970 and new cpu+mobo $500 is even stretching the limit. So I'll just stick with what I got and if in the future my rig can't play certain games I'll switch to platform gaming.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
For the budget, a console would probably give the best experience. Pc gaming gives a better experience but not without a steeper price. Consoles are locked and lower frames but are affordable and give steady consistent game play. Pc gaming can vary from title to title depending how well it's coded, patched etc, can push higher resolutions and fps but costs a fair bit more to achieve that. Gaming on a pc built with a similar budget/cost as a console will struggle in most AAA games.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You can get to the store in both a Chevette and a Corvette. The only question is how smooth you want the ride to be and whether or not the ride and performance are worth paying for. If not, go with the grocery getter. If so, pay the fiddler. If things worth having came easily, everybody would have them. I understand the concerns regarding the significance of the investment, so the only real question here was what you were willing to pay for. Personally, this seems like a wiser choice than a console purchase, when added to what you already have and considering that all your hardware aside from the CPU and board can likely be repurposed later into a separate upgrade. I'd like to see you upgrade your console in three years.

I think a larger issue here might be whether or not your current PSU is even capable of supporting a second GTX 970. What's your current PSU model?

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom