Looking for a good enough CPU to play BF3

[Ishaan Singh]

I am in the process of building a gaming intensive PC. I have already got the graphic card(HD7850) but now I am not left with much money and my options are only limited to:

Intel Core i3 3220

AMD A8 5600k

AMD Phenom II

I do not have much idea about the CPU, I did research a lot but they only got me more confused about the whole AMD vs Intel thing. I understand Intel has a better upgrade path, but having a better upgrade path doesn't equal getting upgraded. i5, i7 are expensive processors and I don't really see me upgrading my CPU for at least 18-24 months. I have also read that BF3 in multiplayer mode performs much much better with quad cores. So, which one should I buy? I won't play BF3 only(of course!). Besides gaming, I watch movies and do contest programming, nothing heavy like video editing, etc.

Note: I am open to all kinds of suggestions (even the FXs) provided they cost < $140.

 

[JD88]

Is there a reason why you are limited to those three? What about the AMD FX line?

If you have to chose between three, get the i3. It will be quite a bit better for BF3.

 

[13thmonkey]

BF3 really likes quads though especially on multiplayer...

 

[Kingbob]

If I were you I'd spend $10 more and get a FX-4300.
Its a 4 core that clocks at 4GHz. It will definately last you a year or two.

 

[akshayghai29785]

i agrees with JD88 for an i3

 

[Ishaan Singh]

Is there a reason why you are limited to those three? What about the AMD FX line?

If you have to chose between three, get the i3. It will be quite a bit better for BF3.

Like I said I researched a lot and read a lot negative about the FX series, that's why I didn't mention it. However, if you think I am wrong of my opinion, I'd be happy to change it. The only important factor is the cost, and it should be below $140. Thanks.

 

[JD88]

Could you list the rest of the specs for you build and what your exact budget is for the CPU and motherboard?

Also, what country are you from and from what retailers are you able to buy?

We might be able to find a way to squeeze something a little better into your budget.

 

[Ishaan Singh]

Could you list the rest of the specs for you build and what your exact budget is for the CPU and motherboard?

Also, what country are you from and from what retailers are you able to buy?

We might be able to find a way to squeeze something a little better into your budget.

This is the configuration I settled on:
Intel Core i3 3220
AMD Radeon HD 7850
Gigabyte B75 (micro-ATX)
4 GB DDR3 Gskills/Corsair 1600MHz
WD 500 GB Caviar Blue
Cooler Master Elite 344
Corsair VS450
Logitech G100 combo
Belkin Surge Protectors (I know this isn't really relevant but still, it does cut my budget a little)

My budget is around INR 32-33k ($600) or rather was, as I have purchased HD7850 for 14k. INR = Indian Rupees.

 

[JD88]

That build looks fine. It shouldn't have any problem with BF3.

 

[cmi86]

That build looks fine. It shouldn't have any problem with BF3.

Until he jumps on a 64 player map and hes at 35 fps, just saying.

 

[13thmonkey]

That build looks fine. It shouldn't have any problem with BF3.

Until he jumps on a 64 player map and hes at 35 fps, just saying.

agreed.

 

[JD88]

Perhaps, but none of those other CPUs offer a better alternative. Unless he can up his budget to include an i5, that's going to be the best he can do.

 

[Etnos]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV2Voo5h3eU

I would buy a FX-6300 its the best value chip there is out there.

 

[JD88]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV2Voo5h3eU

I would buy a FX-6300 its the best value chip there is out there.

I disagree. First, that benchmark only shows a small part of BF3 single player which is very light on the CPU. The 6100 would choke in multiplayer at stock clock speeds.

The FX 6300 is slightly better, and even more so since AMD lowered the prices. However, it still needs to be overclocked for best performance and that means shelling out an extra $30 for a CPU cooler. That's putting it dangerously close to i5 3350P range which crushes it in just about everything.

 

[Etnos]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV2Voo5h3eU

I would buy a FX-6300 its the best value chip there is out there.

I disagree. First, that benchmark only shows a small part of BF3 single player which is very light on the CPU. The 6100 would choke in multiplayer at stock clock speeds.

The FX 6300 is slightly better, and even more so since AMD lowered the prices. However, it still needs to be overclocked for best performance and that means shelling out an extra $30 for a CPU cooler. That's putting it dangerously close to i5 3350P range which crushes it in just about everything.

mm not sure both seem crappy anyway... He should better hunt for a mid range i5 on sale IMO.

The 3550 would work wonders with that system.

 

[cmi86]

Op you are somewhat correct in your perception of the FX chips, the first generation chips at least. The first gen chips were power hogs with a bad IPC, worse rescource allocation and windows issues with scheduling. They left a lot to be desired and AMD realized this and made huge improvements to the 2nd generation FX chips. A 20% higher IPC, 15% increase in efficiency, massive improvements in resource allocation and the scheduling conflicts were resolved in windows. My FX-6300 chews up everything I throw at it without batting an eyelash. I player 64 player maps in BF3 at 60+ FPS while streaming and downloading without missing a beat. Plust the FX is faster than the i3 at every thing else as well, overclock it and its more like an i5 than an i3. All of this power for the same price as an i3, why go intel at this price point ? I'm not brand humping what i use i'm speaking the truth.

 

[JD88]

Op you are somewhat correct in your perception of the FX chips, the first generation chips at least. The first gen chips were power hogs with a bad IPC, worse rescource allocation and windows issues with scheduling. They left a lot to be desired and AMD realized this and made huge improvements to the 2nd generation FX chips. A 20% higher IPC, 15% increase in efficiency, massive improvements in resource allocation and the scheduling conflicts were resolved in windows. My FX-6300 chews up everything I throw at it without batting an eyelash. I player 64 player maps in BF3 at 60+ FPS while streaming and downloading without missing a beat. Plust the FX is faster than the i3 at every thing else as well, overclock it and its more like an i5 than an i3. All of this power for the same price as an i3, why go intel at this price point ? I'm not brand humping what i use i'm speaking the truth.

This is a bit exaggerated. The improvements from Bulldozer to Piledriver were about 15%, however, about half of that was simply increased clock speed. The IPC improvement was more along the lines of 7-8%.

Even at 4.5 GHz, the 6300 would have a hard time keeping up with even the lower end i5's in anything other than the most heavily threaded applications. In gaming, they get stomped. Also, the cost difference really isn't that much after you factor in the need for an aftermarket cooling solution.

Save your money and get an i5.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-frame-rate-performance,3427-9.html

 

[hasteone]

I am in the process of building a gaming intensive PC. I have already got the graphic card(HD7850) but now I am not left with much money and my options are only limited to:

Intel Core i3 3220

AMD A8 5600k

AMD Phenom II

I do not have much idea about the CPU, I did research a lot but they only got me more confused about the whole AMD vs Intel thing. I understand Intel has a better upgrade path, but having a better upgrade path doesn't equal getting upgraded. i5, i7 are expensive processors and I don't really see me upgrading my CPU for at least 18-24 months. I have also read that BF3 in multiplayer mode performs much much better with quad cores. So, which one should I buy? I won't play BF3 only(of course!). Besides gaming, I watch movies and do contest programming, nothing heavy like video editing, etc.

Note: I am open to all kinds of suggestions (even the FXs) provided they cost < $140.

FX-6300 is good for bf3.

 

[cmi86]

Op you are somewhat correct in your perception of the FX chips, the first generation chips at least. The first gen chips were power hogs with a bad IPC, worse rescource allocation and windows issues with scheduling. They left a lot to be desired and AMD realized this and made huge improvements to the 2nd generation FX chips. A 20% higher IPC, 15% increase in efficiency, massive improvements in resource allocation and the scheduling conflicts were resolved in windows. My FX-6300 chews up everything I throw at it without batting an eyelash. I player 64 player maps in BF3 at 60+ FPS while streaming and downloading without missing a beat. Plust the FX is faster than the i3 at every thing else as well, overclock it and its more like an i5 than an i3. All of this power for the same price as an i3, why go intel at this price point ? I'm not brand humping what i use i'm speaking the truth.

This is a bit exaggerated. The improvements from Bulldozer to Piledriver were about 15%, however, about half of that was simply increased clock speed. The IPC improvement was more along the lines of 7-8%.

Even at 4.5 GHz, the 6300 would have a hard time keeping up with even the lower end i5's in anything other than the most heavily threaded applications. In gaming, they get stomped. Also, the cost difference really isn't that much after you factor in the need for an aftermarket cooling solution.

Save your money and get an i5.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-frame-rate-performance,3427-9.html

Idk I run a 6300 and I have yet to see below 60 FPS yet, seems to work just fine for me.