Is theAMD A8 Series A8-7670K 3.6 GHz Quad-Core Processor - 4 MB - Socket FMm2 a good cpu

[_Edwin_63]

I heard that amd processors are better than intel im on a budget right now and trying to find a reasonable cpu. Currently i found the AMD A8 Series A8-7670K 3.6 GHz Quad-Core Processor - 4 MB - Socket FM2+. Im new to computers building but i read that the higher the numbers (like A8-7670k) the better the performance though im not sure if the values differ from amd and intel cores? The amd cpu cost $96 while the Intel Core i5-6500 3.2 GHz Quad-Core Processor cost $184 just about 2 times of that of the amd. And the Amd has higher numbers. Sorry if i sound stupid im just going by what i read but yeah i need help on basically getting more for my money.

 

[Barty1884]

There's a lot of factors. Number of cores, clock speed, efficiency etc.

Whether AMD are "better" than Intel can spark a never-ending debate though.

AMD fill the 'budget' space really well, but it depends on your needs/uses. Ultimately your specific needs will dictate the CPU that's right for you. If your budget can't meet the 'ideal' CPU, there will likely be more budget friendly options, but you may have to make some concessions.

 

[_Edwin_63]

So if i combined the Amd Cpu with a Zotac GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2GB gpu would i be able to achieve decent fps in games like rainbow seige fallout 4 bo3 ect without problems and if not could you link me a better cpu hopefully not over $120 though. I'll upgrade later but for right now im on a little tight on money.

 

[_Edwin_63]

Also if im better of getting intel would the difference in an i3 and an i5 impact preformance like the Intel Core i3-6100 3.7 GHz Dual-Core Processor - 3 MB - LGA1151 Socket it cost $112
While the Intel Core i5-6500 3.2 GHz Quad-Core Processor cost $194 and the numbers look close just the fact ones i3 and the others i5. Would the i5 be worth the about $80 difference?

 

[unreal9400]

Get the i3 6100 instead.
Not worth going for A8 7670K if you are not going to use its integrated GPU.
Combine the i3 6100 and GTX 750Ti and it will smoke the AMD A8 in every game that you play.

 

[Barty1884]

An i3-6100 would be the better option long-term. Initially, you'd get comparable FPS or even better. In time, when new sockets are released, you should be able to find an i5-6500 / 6600 / 6600K (or even an i7-6700/K) pretty cheap and replace the i3.

 

[gumbob3]

Get the Intel i3-6100 like everybody else says. With the A8, you are paying A LOT of money for the graphics built into the cpu. Yes, it is a quad core, and the i3 is only a dual core. The i3's cores are much more powerful though. Also, most games only use up to 2 cores anyway. And, with an i3, you can use DDR4 RAM (faster) instead of DDR3. Finally, go to pcpartpicker.com and enter your stuff there! It will help a lot! Hope I helped you out!! Quote this if you have any questions... -Ez

 

[Furry_VintageGamer]

Get the Intel i3-6100 like everybody else says. With the A8, you are paying A LOT of money for the graphics built into the cpu. Yes, it is a quad core, and the i3 is only a dual core. The i3's cores are much more powerful though. Also, most games only use up to 2 cores anyway. And, with an i3, you can use DDR4 RAM (faster) instead of DDR3. Finally, go to pcpartpicker.com and enter your stuff there! It will help a lot! Hope I helped you out!! Quote this if you have any questions... -Ez

I know its a bit late but I would like to say something most I3 supporters don't. Newer games won't even boot on a dual core, Fallout 4 won't, Grand theft auto 5 won't and the list is growing, what the OP should have done was get a AMD Athlon series like the 860K, I have the 880K and on Doom max settings with a 2K monitor and a GTX 1060 with Vulkan, I get over 150FPS. With the new API's like DirectX 12 and Vulkan coming out the number of cores matter more now, not how strong each core is. Which is what AMD was aiming for just took software years to catch up to how far ahead of the game AMD is.

 

[DSzymborski]

Get the Intel i3-6100 like everybody else says. With the A8, you are paying A LOT of money for the graphics built into the cpu. Yes, it is a quad core, and the i3 is only a dual core. The i3's cores are much more powerful though. Also, most games only use up to 2 cores anyway. And, with an i3, you can use DDR4 RAM (faster) instead of DDR3. Finally, go to pcpartpicker.com and enter your stuff there! It will help a lot! Hope I helped you out!! Quote this if you have any questions... -Ez

I know its a bit late but I would like to say something most I3 supporters don't. Newer games won't even boot on a dual core, Fallout 4 won't, Grand theft auto 5 won't and the list is growing, what the OP should have done was get a AMD Athlon series like the 860K, I have the 880K and on Doom max settings with a 2K monitor and a GTX 1060 with Vulkan, I get over 150FPS. With the new API's like DirectX 12 and Vulkan coming out the number of cores matter more now, not how strong each core is. Which is what AMD was aiming for just took software years to catch up to how far ahead of the game AMD is.

i3 "supporters" don't say that because it would be inaccurate. Fallout 4 not only starts on an i3, but even the older Haswell i3s run it as well as the FX CPUs do. Same goes for Far Cry 4 and GTA V (Haswell i3s tie with the 8350 rather than beat it in the latter).

And no, DX12 isn't a magical API - core strength is still extremely important. AMD *makes up* ground on DX12 games, but new i3s still beat it in games like Battlefield 1.

 

[gumbob3]

Get the Intel i3-6100 like everybody else says. With the A8, you are paying A LOT of money for the graphics built into the cpu. Yes, it is a quad core, and the i3 is only a dual core. The i3's cores are much more powerful though. Also, most games only use up to 2 cores anyway. And, with an i3, you can use DDR4 RAM (faster) instead of DDR3. Finally, go to pcpartpicker.com and enter your stuff there! It will help a lot! Hope I helped you out!! Quote this if you have any questions... -Ez

I know its a bit late but I would like to say something most I3 supporters don't. Newer games won't even boot on a dual core, Fallout 4 won't, Grand theft auto 5 won't and the list is growing, what the OP should have done was get a AMD Athlon series like the 860K, I have the 880K and on Doom max settings with a 2K monitor and a GTX 1060 with Vulkan, I get over 150FPS. With the new API's like DirectX 12 and Vulkan coming out the number of cores matter more now, not how strong each core is. Which is what AMD was aiming for just took software years to catch up to how far ahead of the game AMD is.

Do some research before submitting false information. You can play both of those games on an i3-6100