Is the AMD A10 7850k a really weak CPU? I don't think so.

[daynwsowulf]

Hello Tom's Hardware's CPUs and PC gaming experts. Would you kindly answer me: is the AMD A10 7850k a weak CPU?, is it not worth paired with a GTX 960?

Well I have a budget PC, 6GB RAM, AMD A10 7580k and recently bought a GTX 960 GPU. I was looking on the forums around the internet and they said that the A10 7850k it is only worth paired with a GTX 750ti or Radeon R9 260/270 because it's a bad CPU and would bottleneck. Today I said "Flock it, I'm going to buy a GTX 960, if it bottlenecks I'm going to buy a new motherboard later and a new Intel CPU".

I bought the GPU, installed and booted Dragon Age Inquisition, and surprisingly I am able to play Dragon Age Inquisition on maximum settings, at 60FPS, it brought tears on my eyes. I tested many games, BF4, CoD Advanced warfare, and many others and no signal of bottleneck, even Watch Dogs is OK. It runs amazingly well and when I checked the recommended CPU specs for Dragon Age Inquisition it says a "Six-Core AMD" and my CPU is 4 Quad-core and performs as the recommended.

I don't know if I can trust people on internet anymore, they have "CPUs expert" emblems and achievements, and only knows about high end CPUs, if I had listened to these guys, I would have "wasted" money on a GTX 750 Ti and playing games on 30-40fps with MSAA Off probably medium to high settings, because some rich guy, misinformed, benchmark number addicted had recommended me that so.

What do you guys think?

 

[eatmypie]

I think your minimum FPS would be the most to suffer or any game that leverages the most off of single core performance such as moba, some mmorpg's etc.. Like my friend went from a budget 3870k the first gen apu the best you could get at the time for the FM1 socket, he upgraded to a 7870 and he got a really huge gain in performance, back then crysis 2 was still one of the heavy hitters on systems but he played bf4 also and he got 35 for the min on ultra for crysis 2 and the average was about 55 fps and max was about 75. BF3 was 60+ all the time. Then he upgraded to the 4670k then his fps actually went up in a lot of games. So the processor does have a factor to fps, but the 7850k with 960 would still be a very solid system. The card would get more fps from a better processor, but yours isn't terrible enough that I would consider upgrading to something else just for a 15 to 20 fps gain.

 

[daynwsowulf]

I think your minimum FPS would be the most to suffer or any game that leverages the most off of single core performance such as moba, some mmorpg's etc.. Like my friend went from a budget 3870k the first gen apu the best you could get at the time for the FM1 socket, he upgraded to a 7870 and he got a really huge gain in performance, back then crysis 2 was still one of the heavy hitters on systems but he played bf4 also and he got 35 for the min on ultra for crysis 2 and the average was about 55 fps and max was about 75. BF3 was 60+ all the time. Then he upgraded to the 4670k then his fps actually went up in a lot of games. So the processor does have a factor to fps, but the 7850k with 960 would still be a very solid system. The card would get more fps from a better processor, but yours isn't terrible enough that I would consider upgrading to something else just for a 15 to 20 fps gain.

I understand now, my friend told me that NVidia Cuda cores technology helps the CPU on various occasions, is that right?

Oh one more thing, I ran BeamNG known for being a CPU hungry game, it runs at 40-45fps mostly, and when I disable game physics the FPS locks to 60. That's a signal of bottleneck, right?

 

[delaro]

Hello Tom's Hardware's CPUs and PC gaming experts. Would you kindly answer me: is the AMD A10 7850k a weak CPU?, is it not worth paired with a GTX 960?

Well I have a budget PC, 6GB RAM, AMD A10 7580k and recently bought a GTX 960 GPU. I was looking on the forums around the internet and they said that the A10 7850k it is only worth paired with a GTX 750ti or Radeon R9 260/270 because it's a bad CPU and would bottleneck. Today I said "Flock it, I'm going to buy a GTX 960, if it bottlenecks I'm going to buy a new motherboard later and a new Intel CPU".

I bought the GPU, installed and booted Dragon Age Inquisition, and surprisingly I am able to play Dragon Age Inquisition on maximum settings, at 60FPS, it brought tears on my eyes. I tested many games, BF4, CoD Advanced warfare, and many others and no signal of bottleneck, even Watch Dogs is OK. It runs amazingly well and when I checked the recommended CPU specs for Dragon Age Inquisition it says a "Six-Core AMD" and my CPU is 4 Quad-core and performs as the recommended.

I don't know if I can trust people on internet anymore, they have "CPUs expert" emblems and achievements, and only knows about high end CPUs, if I had listened to these guys, I would have "wasted" money on a GTX 750 Ti and playing games on 30-40fps with MSAA Off probably medium to high settings, because some rich guy, misinformed, benchmark number addicted had recommended me that so.

What do you guys think?

It's not entirely a bad CPU,My son runs a A8 7600 and it is never far behind my I5 4690K in the games we play. The only time I see him struggle is when we play GW2, World vs World really kills the CPU I even have to turn the settings down a few notches.

A A10-7XXX or Athlon X4 760/860 respectably overclocked and matched with a 960 GTX would probably do fairly well in most titles. Most newer games are more GPU dependent or have the ability to pars off the load to whatever is the stronger between the CPU/GPU.

 

[daynwsowulf]

Resolution? Texture settings? Lighting?
I think you should post some bona fide provable benchmarks.
Any game will set itself up playable to start with, and there may be some scaling going on.
(the game may play differently with better equipment).

Resolution is always 1600x900, because my monitor supports maximum 900p. Texture settings are always at maximum, because the 960 has a good memory bandwidth, 112gb/s I'm pretty sure. I run fraps to monitor the frame rate, DA: Inquistion run 60fps mostly, with MSAA2x, Far Cry 4: 48-55 mostly, CoD Advanced Warfare always 60, BF:4 mostly 60 goes to 50-55 sometimes. I thing it's fine, playable, isn't that right? All these games are maxed out, except MSAA. Watch Dogs haves some spikes, rarely, not frequently, but I enjoy it and find it playable.

 

[eatmypie]

at your current resolution you will be completely fine. Even at 1080p you would have no problems.

 

[Megazone2011]

I have the AMD A10-7800 which is basically the 7850K and Can Run Battlefield 4 Until I get into gunfights which it drops to about 20fps, I have the ITX 960

 

[shadismad]

I know this thread has some age to it but I thought I would add anyways. I have a custom build that i spent right about $2400 (probably could have spent less, lol). My thought process at the time was, it was my first build and i didnt want it failing on me due to a cheap part going bad. Ill add that that i have 7850k liquid cooled and OC with a 290x. Ive had it since q4 2014. I have to say, its been a great build. I game @ 1080p. Every game i play, i can turn every setting to the highest option. The exception would be turning down AA a notch or 2 on nvidia optimized games. I never regretted my build. Optimizing it was a pain in the ass. There was so much I didnt know at the time i ordered the parts. Would i recommend this apu now? The architecture is becoming dated but you can get away with a similar build to mine for a fraction of the cost i paid lol. It serves as a great first build or budget apu that can perform. OC isn't that bad when you get to a certain base knowledge of it, also liquid cooling is a must.

 

[shadismad]

The price of liquid cooling ruins the budget.

I am talking about $100 units like the Corsair H80i.

 

[delaro]

So a $100 water cooler doesnt negate the point of building a budget gaming rig with an A.M.D. chip then.

Applying a $100 Water Cooler to any chip below a Heavy overclocked FX-8320 and above is a big waste of money, really why would you other than for bragging rights? If anything use that money to get a non K I5 and have much better performance out of the box.

 

[Redneck5439]

I think the biggest point to be made is in most games you won't notice the difference between a quality AMD rig and an Intel rig. Most of the time an AMD rig (higher end APU with good dedicated graphics or FX overclocked) is going to run most AAA titles @ 1080p at or near 60FPS. Most monitors are only 60hz so all the extra benchmarking prowess of the powerful Intel processors isn't doing anything for your gaming experience if you monitor is only 60hz.

Is Intel better at gaming? Yes. Intel is also much more expensive and at the end of your build that extra money spent on the Intel system can't follow you to your next system. A good after market cooler will be able to be used in your next system, so yea spending $100 on an aftermarket cooler is a good investment. I know with my FX 8370 @ 5.05Ghz I get single core performance nearly equal to Sandy Bridge, and multi-core performance better than any i5. It is a great gaming rig and an even better work station. While it is true an i7 would be better in every way, an i7 is also much more. So I have work station performance between the newest i5 and i7 processors and single core performance roughly equal to first generation Sandy Bridge for less than the cost of an i5. Its a great system and a great value. The best thing is the NH-D15S that I have will be following me when I upgrade to second generation Zen (plan on keeping my current set up for at least the life span of the PS4 - what all AAA titles are produced to run on). So as far as the costs of an aftermarket cooler... They are a great investment.

 

[Redneck5439]

Something to keep in mind to, while you poke fun at people running AMD hardware is a lot of us upgraded several times on the same platform. I bought the Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 when it first came out with a Phenom II 965BE. I'm now running an FX 8370 on all the same supporting hardware except a RAM upgrade. The AM3+ platform has been around so long that it has a great upgrade path to it, if you were on older processors such as Phenom II. Upgrading just the processor to get multi-threaded performance much greater than an i5 and much cheaper than an i7 was a great upgrade for me or anyone else who needs a work station type computer. Heavy video editing, multi-tasking and heavily multi-threaded applications runs much better on my FX 8370 (especially @ 5.05Ghz) than any i5. At 5.05Ghz it has nearly the single core execution of Sandy Bridge so even with older games like Skyrim I have no problems gaming on Ultra 1080P, 60FPS+.

And as I have stated the aftermarket cooler I invested in will follow me though many builds to come so it was a great investment. I'll be able to use the same cooler to overclock my next rig, and the rig after that.

 

[Redneck5439]

In 2003, my bruv in law made the same point about not noticing the difference.(May have been close here) He made the point again in 2006 when he built a new A.M.D. machine. In 2008 he emailed me from france (now EX bro in law) to ask me about overclocking.
I havent really thought about it much since then,except to say the sap spent more on drives and cases than i ever did on processors.

My system is identical to what it was when I built it years ago with the exception of a RAM upgrade (went from 1333mhz to 1866mhz) and a processor upgrade. When I built it I went overboard with the psu for the time (1000W 80+ Gold) and I'm still using the same tower, motherboard, hard drives, optical drives. The only other upgrade was my NH-D15S and 2 Delta 3400rpm fans (that I use to have on an older Hyper 212 EVO). My entire upgrade cost when the FX refresh came out was $150 for the FX 8370 (bought it at MicorCenter on a special promotion) and $80 for the NH-D15S which will be with me for many years to come. How is that more expensive than going from something like Core 2 Duo to Sandy Bridge to Haswell and now pondering Skylake as many people I know have done?

 

[Redneck5439]

Can't attest to UK prices, here in the states an AMD system can be built for a really great deal. For example new gaming edition 970 motherboards for $70 with 8+2 power phase and VRM cooling and the FX 8370E which can be picked up for $139. Total investment motherboard and processor $209 (all prices US currency) for a work station computer that can outperform an i5 (multi-threaded applications) and is cheater than an i5 and much cheaper than an i7. Here in the U.S. AMD systems can be built cheap and are a great alternative, especially when you overclock them. As far as power consumption goes an AMD FX 8370 rig run 8 hrs a day 7 days a week will only cost $10 - $20 (US) more a year to operate than an Intel computer ran the same. If you overclock the Intel (which just about everyone with a K processor does) that great performance per watt disappears really quickly. Overclocked an Intel system is power hungry too.

I did forget that I upgraded my motherboard from an old crappy bargain Gigabyte to the Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 when the Sabertooth first came out I think late 2012 and ran it with my Phenom II 965BE until I upgraded to the FX 8370. I had actually totally forgotten about that old Gigabyte board, bad memories with that board, couldn't overclock on it ran it a couple years before getting the Sabertooth that I've had ever since.

However A lot of the Intel builds that I've built for customers have that customer going from Core 2 Duo to Sandy Bridge to Haswell (most skipped Ivy Bridge as it wasn't much of an upgrade) and are now contacting me for pricing on upgrading to Skylake. If your keeping count that is 3 different motherboards and 3 different expensive processors in the span that I've had 2 motherboards and 2 much cheaper processors in my AMD rig. The kicker is most of the time people want the i5s and in any application that will use more than 6 threads my "lowly" FX 8370 far outperforms an i5. And here is something too, most guys who buy Intel processors also want to overclock so they are spending the same amount of money on the same aftermarket heat sinks as AMD customers.

If you overclock an FX processor properly (using both fsb and multiplier) you can get a really good overclock that will boost single core performance. I run all the latest AAA titles ultra setting 1080p 60FPS+ with my R9 290 Vapor X. When I have to do heavy video editing the only way I could get better performance is with an i7, which is a much larger investment. I fully plan on keeping my current system though the life span of the PS4, at which time Zen will be close to or have second gen released and at that time I'll have to decide if I should go to Intel or Zen. Price / performance will play a major role so I'll probably be getting second gen Zen.

 

[Redneck5439]

Not arguing that Intel has superior single core performance, everyone knows that it does. As everyone knows that Sandy Bridge processors are still very capable gamers which is why my FX 8370 @ 5.05Ghz is also a very capable gamer.

As far as no one on Haswell is upgrading to Skylake.... do you even bother reading the threads on this forum? It is loaded with threads of people jumping ship from Haswell to Skylake. Is it a necessary upgrade? No, but the Intel faithful see a new arch and they need that new arch, even if they don't "need" that new arch. And that is my point exactly - a lot of Intel guys upgrade every other generation and its totally not needed. A Sandy Bridge processor is still a very capable gaming PC today. Piledriver never really caught up, but overclocked the FX 8370 can match the single core performance of Sandy Bridge which makes it a totally capable gaming pc today.

While it is true that you will always get better performance with an Intel of some kind AMD is still a very good processor line and capable of doing anything most users require. Anything above an FX 6300 can game at levels better than the mainstream console systems (with proper GPUs) which is what 85-90% of the population games on. If you need a computer for heavily multi-threaded applications only an i7 will beat an FX 8 core and the cost of i7 rigs is more than an 8 core AMD rig.

AMD rigs don't win many performance or performance / watt battles, but they still have great performance / cost. I am running Fallout 4 on Ultra settings 1080p and getting a constant 60FPS+, and that game is known to be badly coded. I won't have any trouble gaming on this computer for the next 2+ years at which time I'll have the choice of upgrading to second generation Zen or Intel. Not bad at all for the aged Piledriver arch.

 

[shadismad]

It sounds like I reignited a fire... lol. I paid $2400 for an AMD rig that I assembled myself. I dont regret $1 of it. If anyone has a problem with that, blow the engineers at either manufacturer of your choosing.

 

[Redneck5439]

Well what can I say? You are now using a broad brush to paint people wishing to move on to the benefits of the skylake platform (NVMe etc) as merely the 'intel faithful' (idiots).
Whos use of a pc will be where you started; talking about the benefits of an 8 core a.m.d. system.
(At the more work station level).
It isnt games,there is hardly any difference and just visiting this site will confirm that.
You started at how great your machine was for value prof work and I showed you it was not great value.
Now you say it doesnt matter because 'it will do' for gaming.
Which is exactly the point I made about my brother in law you took issue with.
(it will 'DO' when you build it but not by much).
Any way you boil it down, your machine does not maintain its value for money.
You must be delusional talking about 2nd generation Zen,let alone the assumption you will not have any trouble gaming for 2+ years with it.
The population use of consoles is irelevent.
PS4's were out of date tech wise before they were even released (by a record margin).
Games released for consoles will have to be neutered even further than they were in the past.
Do not rely on games running on a ploy station 4 as a sign your gaming pc is still good.
My point was and still is, an FX system is a poorer value system for either prof or leisure use over all.
They DONT have great performance / cost,unless you are incredibly short sighted.
You can say yours 'does' for you all you want.I've been there.
Insinuating I have no knowledge of the subject matter written on this site will not help your argument.
(I have 10 times your best answers and a >10% higher ratio even tho I am a 'gas bag').
Stop protesting so much,you really are just coming across as a bad case of buyers remorse.

No I'm not trying to call people moving on to Skylake idiots- you yourself said that you wouldn't recommend someone on Haswell to be upgrading to Skylake I merely pointed out that there are a lot of people who are moving on even though it isn't much of a jump in performance and really not necessary, and in your own words "a waste of money".

You can say what you want about the FX 8370 as a work station computer, but I build computer systems as a side business, have tested them and will believe what I've seen with my own eyes over anything that is posted by someone who I don't even know their qualifications. I have tested i5s from Sandy Bride to Skylake and none of them video edit or render as fast as my FX 8370. Skylake comes the closest but still gets beaten in heavily multi-threaded applications. Yes i7 platforms will out perform my FX 8370 in video editing and heavily multi-threaded applications (depending on the model quite handily). However the FX 8 core processors aren't even in the same price bracket as the i7 computers. Its like saying see my Ford Mustang is faster than your Ford Taurus. Totally different price segments yet Intel guys still have to boast about it. I don't think anyone would take someone boasting about his Mustang out drag racing a Taurus seriously they would look at him like to total douche, but someone posting benchmarks of their i7 that could easily run twice the cost of a FX 8370 and boasting about that is some kind of computer expert right???

What I am saying is that as a workstation computer it will outperform the Intel processors in its price segment (ie i5s) as it has better multi-threading capabilities than an i5. No one ever expects a processor that is half the cost of an i7 to outperform an i7 its not even in the same class / price bracket. In gaming Intel hold the edge as they have for a very long time. All that I was saying is my FX 8370 is able to obtain the same single core performance levels as Sandy Bridge which is still recognized as a good gaming processor. Therefore saying it has the same single core performance it is also a good gaming processor, especially as games get more multi-threaded and convert to DX12 over the limitations of DX11. Again not saying I can game better than Skylake or even Ivy Bridge, just saying that when I do game I have no problems.

I use my computer primarily as a workstation computer and in that role I get better performance than i5s and it comes in cheaper than an i7 build (especially considering I would have to switch motherboards and scrap a Sabertooth 990FX which is just foolish at this time). While I'm not saying it is more powerful than Intel's best offerings it is more powerful in certain segments than mid range Intel processors and is cheaper Again living in the USA where I can go pick up a FX 8370E tomorrow for $140 and a 970 gaming motherboard for $70 making a workstation computer for the same cost as just buying the i5 3770K alone. If I were to buy a i5 4690K it would be more than the FX 8370E and motherboard and neither one is going to have the multi-threaded performance needed for a workstation computer that is going to be doing heavy rendering and video editing. Now how am I wrong that a brand new FX 8370E workstation build is a bad value???

The OP in this dated thread was simply stating that AMD processors aren't as weak or as bad as a lot of fanboys try to make them out to be. The OP was totally right then, and is totally right now. It all depends what you need to get out of your computer and how much money your willing to spend to get it. For someone who just doesn't have the budget for an i7 build as a workstation the FX 8370(E) is a great value and a great option, even more so when overclocked.

 

[Redneck5439]

You may wish to read what you have posted here again tomorrow Redkneck.
No harm done but the sneaky visit to the pub is actually showing.
You could invite me next time.. ;#}

Again going by the numbers single core performance is nearly equal to Sandy Bridge when overclocked to 5.05Ghz what that means is it is very capable in gaming, and will be even more so when games transition to DX12. Again for gaming purposes yes it is beaten in performance by Intel, however is still more than capable of running all the latest AAA titles @ 1080p 60FPS. As stated too game development can only push so hard as all AAA titles have to be produced for console systems (PS4 ect) as 90% of the gaming world uses consoles. If you remember towards the end of the PS3 games were being choked really badly so they could still run on the old consoles and the PC ports were not all that great overall because of it. As a gaming rig it will last through the lifespan of the current console systems, at the end of which I will be upgrading to either Zen or Intel.

As a workstation PC I have already illustrated to death that the Intel processors (i5s) in the same price segment as the FX 8 core are outperformed by the FX 8370(E), especially when overclocked (and 90% of all people who buy an AMD system overclock them). While any i7 from Ivy Bridge on will perform better you are also going to be paying a premium for that performance as the processors will be at least double the cost. I illustrated how here in the USA a i5 3570K is $209:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007SZ0EJW/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1?pf_rd_p=1944687742&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B007SZ0E1K&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=132JKQPSSQFQ2M8J4CKY

and I can go down tomorrow and buy a FX 8370E for $140

http://www.microcenter.com/search/search_results.aspx?Ntt=FX+8370E

and really good overclockable motherboard for $70

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128651&cm_re=GIGABYTE_GA-970A-UD3P_%28rev._1.0%29_AM3%2b%2fAM3_AMD_970_SATA_6Gb%2fs_USB_3.0_ATX_AMD_Motherboard-_-13-128-651-_-Product&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-Skimlinks-_-na-_-na-_-na&AID=12087162&PID=3736271&SID=skim83512X1540009Xadb9cd0f4037192c8afcab725570ed5b&utm_medium=affiliates&utm_source=afc-Skimlinks

So for the same price as a i5 3570K I can get both the FX 8370E and quality motherboard. Now if I were to rank the multi-core performance of the i5 3570K against the FX 8370E what processor would score better? Therefore as a workstation computer (at the same clock speeds) being used for rendering and video editing which one would be better? The FX 8370E will typically overclock to around 5Ghz and at 5Ghz is a very good multi-tasking computer that when running heavily multi-threaded applications will outperform an i5. So I ask you again how is that a bad value??? Of course you can just throw childish insults about but you can't argue with prices and cost / performance. If someone needs a workstation computer something that can run heavily multi-threaded applications most of the day and then be able to load up and enjoy a game at night the FX 8370(E) is a great option and a great value.

 

[delaro]

If you compare software that makes use of all the FX "Highly Overclocked' cores vs a I5-4690K then yes the FX-6XXX and FX-8XXX line look really good. If your looking at gaming "DX9,10" Then 2-3cores are used and the FX will Struggle vs even a I5-2500 non K. Core vs Core we know the difference. I would like to see how a FX-8XXX in DX12 will fair to.

I still play games with older API's, mostly MMORPG's and you notice a large difference running any FX chip vs a I5. I own a I5-4690K @4.5ghz, i7 3930K @4.8ghz and FX-8350 @4.8ghz "Wont run stable any higher".

GW2 WVW, Rift Raids and Open World Events, WoW 25 Man Raids, EQII Raids, Neverwinter Raids all see a big leap between a FX and I5. I also use SolidWorks and 3dStudio Max, the FX sits between the I5 and I7 in rendering large projects. The FX chips are a good investment if your wanting to save money, they do quite well when you can make use of all those cores, but gaming with anything that used Gamebyro.. well it's not quite as good.

 

[Redneck5439]

If you compare software that makes use of all the FX "Highly Overclocked' cores vs a I5-4690K then yes the FX-6XXX and FX-8XXX line look really good. If your looking at gaming "DX9,10" Then 2-3cores are used and the FX will Struggle vs even a I5-2500 non K. Core vs Core we know the difference. I would like to see how a FX-8XXX in DX12 will fair to.

I still play games with older API's, mostly MMORPG's and you notice a large difference running any FX chip vs a I5. I own a I5-4690K @4.5ghz, i7 3930K @4.8ghz and FX-8350 @4.8ghz "Wont run stable any higher".

GW2 WVW, Rift Raids and Open World Events, WoW 25 Man Raids, EQII Raids, Neverwinter Raids all see a big leap between a FX and I5. I also use SolidWorks and 3dStudio Max, the FX sits between the I5 and I7 in rendering large projects. The FX chips are a good investment if your wanting to save money, they do quite well when you can make use of all those cores, but gaming with anything that used Gamebyro.. well it's not quite as good.

+1 agree with everything you just said. I'm not trying to imply in any way that even at 5.05Ghz my FX 8370 is better than or even equal to i5s Ivy Bridge plus. In gaming Intel rules the roost, there is actually no debate there. That is not to say that FX processors can't still run all the same games (DX9, 10 games are rough but I still load up Empire Total War with Darth Mod and have no issues with everything set to ultra) its just Intel will run them better with higher FPS.

As a workstation the FX 8 core processors are much better that i5s, and that is all I was saying. The problem is there are a lot of true hardcore Intel fanboys that simply can't admit that an AMD system can do anything better than their vaunted i5. The truth is rendering, video editing, streaming some games, ect.. will all have better performance on an FX 8 core than an i5.

 

[Redneck5439]

I do not agree with this statement;
' As stated too game development can only push so hard as all AAA titles have to be produced for console systems (PS4 ect) as 90% of the gaming world uses consoles. If you remember towards the end of the PS3 games were being choked really badly so they could still run on the old consoles and the PC ports were not all that great overall because of it. '
PC games ran fine. Console games were crap cos the consoles were crap,it didnt worry most pc users.
I expect many of the available AAA pc games ae unavailable for console , and thats just tough tit.
I tire of people still spending £400 on one of these things with games at £40 a throw.
I have no sympathy the game is a watered down version full of video cut scenes.
Oh. and I have not a clue why you are posting prices of 3 year out of date cpu's on amazon. Everybody knows the re sellers who hold on to this guff charge fortunes for it when it is out of date. (Perhaps you were unaware?)
Manipulating price comparisons by choosing out of production stock is pretty infantile and so obvious its an insult to everybody's intelligence. So I will leave this convo now,your just taking the Mick.

If you remember towards the end of the PS3 reign games both in console and the poor PC ports were lacking in graphical detail and lacking in content. Developers were cutting corners wherever they could so that the games would still be playable on the aged console systems then those scaled down games were made into poorly, cheaply coded PC ports. The reason is clear 90% of their sales are for consoles why would they waste time and money making a quality PC port when the vast majority of their money comes from console sales? PC ports of AAA titles are more of an afterthought to most studios. When the first games developed for the PS4 and Xbone released both the PC gaming community and console gaming community were raving about the hugely improved graphic detail in the games, and better content in those games. A large portion of PC gamers had to go out and upgrade their GPUs right away as the new games were too much for their current GPUs that had been handling the ports from the Xbox 360 and PS3 just fine. That all happened when games were developed for the new console systems with much better hardware than the way outdated Xbox 360, PS3. Games are not produced to run on PCs. Games are produced for consoles and ported to PCs, or were you unaware of that?

I was posting that link as the outdated i5 3550 is an aged older processor and one of the cheapest intel processors you can get yet is still more expensive that the FX 8370E and motherboard combo. The prices for that processor are also the same on newegg so its not just Amazon:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIAA0S3NT5244&cm_re=i5_3570k-_-9SIAA0S3NT5244-_-Product

The prices only go up as you get onto Haswell, or maybe you weren't aware of that. If you go to get a Hawell i5 the prices go up

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=i5+4690&N=-1&isNodeId=1
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117372

Again overpriced i5s that are more than the FX 8370E and motherboard combo that when utilized as a workstation are outperformed by the FX 8370E. Really the i5s are only as good as what the users are buying them for. If all the user wants is a glorified console that only gets turned on to play video games then they are a perfect fit. If you need your computer for real productivity and are going for the best performance / cost the i5 isn't going to cut it and the i7 is in a whole different price range. If you need a workstation computer for productivity the FX 8370E can't be beat for performance / cost and is a much better value than the i5s it will outperform. The icing on the cake is that the FX 8370E workstation can still play all the latest AAA titles at the end of the day.

Again i5s are better gaming CPUs, no one will deny that. But you and other Intel guys find it impossible to admit that the i5 can be outperformed by FX 8 core processors in anything. By denying the FX 8370E makes a better workstation computer for heavily multi-threaded tasks you only drive home that Intel guys simply can't accept the truth and when smacked in the face with the truth will run around in circles quoting i7 performance (that no one is talking about as it is twice the cost of an FX 8 core putting it in a different price segment) or go an a complete rant about performance per watt that again is a nice feature but is such a small difference in operating costs that its a non-factor. The simple fact is that in heavily multi-threaded workstation tasks the FX 8370E outperforms Intel's vaunted i5s. But a true Intel fanboy could never admit that, even though he knows it to be true so feel free to leave the conversation rather than admit you were wrong.

 

[thehutti]

Wow I like how a simple question about an A10 7850K can start a big discussion of AMD vs Intel CPUs, price comparations to consoles and so on......

Back to the thread topic: The A10 7850K is a slow CPU compared to other high end CPUs on the market, but if it will create a bottleneck depends on the game itself. Of course you can never get the absolute performance out of your GTX960 with it, but if the Game primarily uses the GPU and not the CPU then you will have no Problem at all (maybe 1-10fps less). There is only a bottleneck if the game uses a lot of CPU performance and the GPU has to wait for the CPU to finish. For example games like "Cities Skylines" that are very CPU dependend will cause problems for your system. Here you would increase your overall fps by a big margin if you choose a better CPU. Games like BF4 use less CPU and more GPU power so you can play them without a problem because your A10 is able to handle that little CPU work just fine.

 

[Redneck5439]

I do not agree with this statement;
' As stated too game development can only push so hard as all AAA titles have to be produced for console systems (PS4 ect) as 90% of the gaming world uses consoles. If you remember towards the end of the PS3 games were being choked really badly so they could still run on the old consoles and the PC ports were not all that great overall because of it. '
PC games ran fine. Console games were crap cos the consoles were crap,it didnt worry most pc users.
I expect many of the available AAA pc games ae unavailable for console , and thats just tough tit.
I tire of people still spending £400 on one of these things with games at £40 a throw.
I have no sympathy the game is a watered down version full of video cut scenes.
Oh. and I have not a clue why you are posting prices of 3 year out of date cpu's on amazon. Everybody knows the re sellers who hold on to this guff charge fortunes for it when it is out of date. (Perhaps you were unaware?)
Manipulating price comparisons by choosing out of production stock is pretty infantile and so obvious its an insult to everybody's intelligence. So I will leave this convo now,your just taking the Mick.
Pathetically, actually.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117563&cm_re=i5_6500-_-19-117-563-_-Product

The i5 6500 is a very nice processor, but if we are talking about cost here on top of motherboard and processor it also requires DDR4 RAM. If you building a new build then going to be about the same cost for DDR3 and DDR4 but if your upgrading a build will add on extra cost as you can't reuse your DDR3 RAM. That processor is $6 cheaper than the FX 8370E and motherboard combo. Skylake i5s do have better multi-tasking capabilities but the FX 8370E build is still cheaper and is overclockable. The FX 8370E @ 5Ghz is going to get a Cinebench R15 score of ~800. The i5 6500 has a Cinebench R15 score of ~565 while this is an improvement over Haswell the FX 8370E having the ability to overclock is going to again be the better workstation choice for heavily multi-threaded applications. The i5 6600K is really the only i5 processor that is going to be able to do heavily multi-threaded workloads as well as and maybe even a little better than the FX 8370E if it is overclocked- at stock the i5 6600K has a Cinebench score of ~600. However at its $250 price tag it would be better to just get an i7 4790 (which I can get for the same price as the i5 6600K) for a workstation computer and is again in a totally different price segment that the FX 8370E.

Again, in the same price segment there is nothing that can come close to the multi-threaded performance of the FX 8370E. The FX 8370E is $140 its not impressive that the $250 i5 6600K might be able to outperform it but only if its overclocked. The FX 8370E is in the price segment of i5 processors through lower end Skylake i5s that it still outperforms in heavily multi-threaded workstation applications. The $250 price tag of the i5 6600K puts it in a different price segment along with i7 processors and it is the only i5 that might outperform it if the 6600K is overclocked. The only thing pathetic here is your unwillingness to look at price segments when comparing processors and can't admit that the FX 8370E is a good workstation capable of outperforming all i5s with the possible exception of the i7 priced 6600K.