want to buy amd but afraid of high temp

[thephenom1157]

hi everyone,
i'm building a secondary pc for gaming , not new games but i talk about 2013,2012 and older
like cod black ops 2 , sleeping dogs, Assassin creed black flag ....etc
just looking to medium to high setting , dont care about details
and have very limited budget (about 220$ for cpu , mobo and ram , so intel wont work for me , so i thinking to go for APU series
specifically A8 6600k with HD 8570D , this is my 1st time to use amd , i always use nvidia and intel , i read alot about people complain about high temp cpu of amd , so i need to know if this is true , cuz i cant afford buy new one if something happened due to high temp
2nd question , is that cpu and HD 8570D can handle the games i mentioned above? with 4g ram , i play on 1280x1024 with medium to high setting ,
sorry for long speech and thank you

 

[EagleDesignInc]

The new AMD processors produce lots of heat, most likely you will need a water cooling system to go along with the CPU...
Corsair and a fill others make decent liquid cooling

 

[Epsilon_0EVP]

AMD CPU's do tend to run hotter. However, they still operate perfectly fine, and they have all the modern safeties to avoid overheating and damaging themselves. If you run them stock with no overclocking, there should be no worry of damage, and you may even be able to get some overclocking in with workable temperatures.

However, the 8570D will probably only be able to handle those games at lower settings and 720p. I'd recommend trying to go with a 860K and a low end discrete card instead. You don't get much of an upgrade path, but it should work much better than the iGPU for a similar price.

 

[mrt3]

amd apu dont get heated as the FX, still if you afraid of buying APU then just buy aftermarket cooler like Cooler Master Hyper 212 evo for lowest possible temperatures
you can run those games on your described apu with medium and low sating at playable FPS

 

[Epsilon_0EVP]

The new AMD processors produce lots of heat, most likely you will need a water cooling system to go along with the CPU...
Corsair and a fill others make decent liquid cooling

That's only true for the 9590 and other high-end enthusiast CPU's, which have an extreme factory overclock. We're talking about APU's here, where the issue is non-existent and definitely does not require liquid-cooling

 

[nucolos]

They are usually hotter than intel cpu's because they use older arquitecture, wich means that produces more heat and consumes more power but that doesnt mean its a bad cpu or anything less, you will be fine. My main concern is the actual choice you make, with an apu you need very high speed ram in order to get decent fps and graphics. So maybe you could look into the intel g3258 with an h97 mobo and cheap ram. And in that case, any gpu you choose will be better.

 

[thephenom1157]

thank you all , i wont do any overclocking, the problem i dont have 760k in my area , just APU a4 a6 a8 a10 and FX 4000,6000,8000,9000
so i my only choice is fx 4300 or a8 6600k but fx will need external card , i was thinking in r7 250 or gt 640 both same price ,
can i get a new gpu in the future with a8 6600k? , like i may save some money and get anew card in next afew months , like r7 260x ?

 

[thephenom1157]

They are usually hotter than intel cpu's because they use older arquitecture, wich means that produces more heat and consumes more power but that doesnt mean its a bad cpu or anything less, you will be fine. My main concern is the actual choice you make, with an apu you need very high speed ram in order to get decent fps and graphics. So maybe you could look into the intel g3258 with an h97 mobo and cheap ram. And in that case, any gpu you choose will be better.

pentium g3258 with gt 640 and 4g ram , can handle the games i mentioned?

 

[Epsilon_0EVP]

I would not recommend the G3258 so much anymore because games are starting to come out that do not support dual-core CPU's. That being said, since this machine is for playing older games, it might work better in this case, so it is a valid option to consider as well.

If you must pick from those AMD CPU's, you can go with one of the APU's, but you'd waste money on the iGPU since I'd still put a graphics card on the system. Maybe going for a FX-4300 would be better, since then at least you can later upgrade to an 8350 at most, so you still have some options, and you don't pay for an iGPU you won't really use.

As for graphics cards, look for the GT 730. There is a version of it that has the same GPU as the GT 640, but it should be cheaper. I still wouldn't expect to run the games at 60fps, but it should work decently at low-medium settings at 1280x1024.

 

[martinch]

That A8 6600K has a TDP of 100W, so it should produce an amount of heat somewhere between a Haswell i5 (84W) and any of the X79/X99 chips (130-140W). The stock cooler would be fine for normal use - after all, AMD are warranting that the chip will be fine under normal use with the stock cooler for 3 years. If you're concerned, you can always buy an aftermarket cooler, like the Hyper 212 cooler mentioned by a previous poster.

FYI, I had an Athlon X2 4600 (90W), which was used with the stock cooler for 8 years, and I never had a problem with it.

 

[mrt3]

thank you all , i wont do any overclocking, the problem i dont have 760k in my area , just APU a4 a6 a8 a10 and FX 4000,6000,8000,9000
so i my only choice is fx 4300 or a8 6600k but fx will need external card , i was thinking in r7 250 or gt 640 both same price ,
can i get a new gpu in the future with a8 6600k? , like i may save some money and get anew card in next afew months , like r7 260x ?

you can get that gpu in future with apu but if you compromise now and get fx6300 with it os buy them together later so you wont regret in future

 

[mrt3]

They are usually hotter than intel cpu's because they use older arquitecture, wich means that produces more heat and consumes more power but that doesnt mean its a bad cpu or anything less, you will be fine. My main concern is the actual choice you make, with an apu you need very high speed ram in order to get decent fps and graphics. So maybe you could look into the intel g3258 with an h97 mobo and cheap ram. And in that case, any gpu you choose will be better.

pentium g3258 with gt 640 and 4g ram , can handle the games i mentioned?

it can handle those games but with a powerful gpu

 

[thephenom1157]

is theres difference between pentium g3258 and i3 4000 series? , i know i3 has hyper threading but its useless in games ,
i talk about gaming is they both equal

 

[Epsilon_0EVP]

is theres difference between pentium g3258 and i3 4000 series? , i know i3 has hyper threading but its useless in games ,
i talk about gaming is they both equal

The hyperthreading is not useless anymore. Since it offer 4 logical threads, games see it as a quad core. Thus, it will be compatible with games that require quad-core CPU's, while the G3258 will not.

 

[mrt3]

is theres difference between pentium g3258 and i3 4000 series? , i know i3 has hyper threading but its useless in games ,
i talk about gaming is they both equal

for gaming pentium g3258 is better(as per single core performance) but you need a quad core cpu to play this genration games
get a better cpu like core i5

 

[Epsilon_0EVP]

is theres difference between pentium g3258 and i3 4000 series? , i know i3 has hyper threading but its useless in games ,
i talk about gaming is they both equal

for gaming pentium g3258 is better(as per single core performance) but you need a quad core cpu to play this genration games
get a better cpu like core i5

The G3258 only beats the i3 if you overclock, though. Otherwise, they have the same architecture, so they would be about equal in non-threaded games, and the i3 would win in threaded games. Even overclocked, the Pentium might lose in well-threaded games.

I would still recommend the i3 out of those two anyway because, as you say, quad-core is the new minimum for gaming.

 

[mrt3]

is theres difference between pentium g3258 and i3 4000 series? , i know i3 has hyper threading but its useless in games ,
i talk about gaming is they both equal

for gaming pentium g3258 is better(as per single core performance) but you need a quad core cpu to play this genration games
get a better cpu like core i5

The G3258 only beats the i3 if you overclock, though. Otherwise, they have the same architecture, so they would be about equal in non-threaded games, and the i3 would win in threaded games. Even overclocked, the Pentium might lose in well-threaded games.

I would still recommend the i3 out of those two anyway because, as you say, quad-core is the new minimum for gaming.

really, I dont got your logic, core i3 is HT where one core=2 so in single core performance core i3 loses(increase your knowledge) it may perform better in multi core operations but not in gaming as we know core i5 performs better in gaming than core i7 because core i7 is HT(Hyper threaded)

 

[Epsilon_0EVP]

is theres difference between pentium g3258 and i3 4000 series? , i know i3 has hyper threading but its useless in games ,
i talk about gaming is they both equal

for gaming pentium g3258 is better(as per single core performance) but you need a quad core cpu to play this genration games
get a better cpu like core i5

The G3258 only beats the i3 if you overclock, though. Otherwise, they have the same architecture, so they would be about equal in non-threaded games, and the i3 would win in threaded games. Even overclocked, the Pentium might lose in well-threaded games.

I would still recommend the i3 out of those two anyway because, as you say, quad-core is the new minimum for gaming.

really, I dont got your logic, core i3 is HT where one core=2 so in single core performance core i3 loses(increase your knowledge) it may perform better in multi core operations but not in gaming as we know core i5 performs better in gaming than core i7 because core i7 is HT(Hyper threaded)

Where did you learn that? Hyper-threading has essentially no overhead, so a CPU with hyper-threading acts very similar to a CPU with twice the number of physical cores. Just look at all the benchmarks Tom's makes for both single-threaded and multi-threaded applications: i7's and i5's of the same generation perform almost identically in single-threaded programs, while the i7 destroys in multi-threaded applications. Hyper-threading does not noticeably reduce single-core performance.

 

[mrt3]

is theres difference between pentium g3258 and i3 4000 series? , i know i3 has hyper threading but its useless in games ,
i talk about gaming is they both equal

for gaming pentium g3258 is better(as per single core performance) but you need a quad core cpu to play this genration games
get a better cpu like core i5

The G3258 only beats the i3 if you overclock, though. Otherwise, they have the same architecture, so they would be about equal in non-threaded games, and the i3 would win in threaded games. Even overclocked, the Pentium might lose in well-threaded games.

I would still recommend the i3 out of those two anyway because, as you say, quad-core is the new minimum for gaming.

really, I dont got your logic, core i3 is HT where one core=2 so in single core performance core i3 loses(increase your knowledge) it may perform better in multi core operations but not in gaming as we know core i5 performs better in gaming than core i7 because core i7 is HT(Hyper threaded)

Where did you learn that? Hyper-threading has essentially no overhead, so a CPU with hyper-threading acts very similar to a CPU with twice the number of physical cores. Just look at all the benchmarks Tom's makes for both single-threaded and multi-threaded applications: i7's and i5's of the same generation perform almost identically in single-threaded programs, while the i7 destroys in multi-threaded applications. Hyper-threading does not noticeably reduce single-core performance.

dont you read the last comment, "it may perform better in multi core operations but not in gaming" and hyper threated cpu have noticeably reduced single core performance, I used the example of i5 and i7 to explain not to compare them, other wise i7 have more powerful single core performance than i5 as it have different and more powerful architecture than i5 but HT ruined its single core performance

 

[Epsilon_0EVP]

dont you read the last comment, "it may perform better in multi core operations but not in gaming" and hyper threated cpu have noticeably reduced single core performance, I used the example of i5 and i7 to explain not to compare them, other wise i7 have more powerful single core performance than i5 as it have different and more powerful architecture than i5 but HT ruined its single core performance

Please do explain this graph, then. It comes from the Tom's Hardware Q4 SBM. The $1600 machine uses a 4790K@4GHz (with Hyperthreading) while the $1100 machine uses a 4690K@3.5GHz (no Hyperthreading). The i7 clearly beats the i5 in the iTunes and Lame encoding tests, which are single-threaded, by a margin that is perfectly explained by the difference in clock rates. They both also use very similar 2133MHz RAM, if that is to be questioned. Hyper-threading does not significantly affect single-core performance.

 

[mrt3]

dont you read the last comment, "it may perform better in multi core operations but not in gaming" and hyper threated cpu have noticeably reduced single core performance, I used the example of i5 and i7 to explain not to compare them, other wise i7 have more powerful single core performance than i5 as it have different and more powerful architecture than i5 but HT ruined its single core performance

Please do explain this graph, then. It comes from the Tom's Hardware Q4 SBM. The $1600 machine uses a 4790K@4GHz (with Hyperthreading) while the $1100 machine uses a 4690K@3.5GHz (no Hyperthreading). The i7 clearly beats the i5 in the iTunes and Lame encoding tests, which are single-threaded, by a margin that is perfectly explained by the difference in clock rates. They both also use very similar 2133MHz RAM, if that is to be questioned. Hyper-threading does not significantly affect single-core performance.

really 😀 "The i7 clearly beats the i5 in the iTunes and Lame encoding tests, which are single-threaded"😀 on top right of graph we can see the multi threaded clearly

 

[Epsilon_0EVP]

dont you read the last comment, "it may perform better in multi core operations but not in gaming" and hyper threated cpu have noticeably reduced single core performance, I used the example of i5 and i7 to explain not to compare them, other wise i7 have more powerful single core performance than i5 as it have different and more powerful architecture than i5 but HT ruined its single core performance

Please do explain this graph, then. It comes from the Tom's Hardware Q4 SBM. The $1600 machine uses a 4790K@4GHz (with Hyperthreading) while the $1100 machine uses a 4690K@3.5GHz (no Hyperthreading). The i7 clearly beats the i5 in the iTunes and Lame encoding tests, which are single-threaded, by a margin that is perfectly explained by the difference in clock rates. They both also use very similar 2133MHz RAM, if that is to be questioned. Hyper-threading does not significantly affect single-core performance.

really 😀 "The i7 clearly beats the i5 in the iTunes and Lame encoding tests, which are single-threaded"😀 on top right of graph we can see the multi threaded clearly

It's top-left, first off. Tom's clearly had a typo; they're known to re-use graph headers. If you look at the write-up of each of the articles (like here in the first paragraph) they explicitly mention that iTunes and Lame are single-threaded.

 

[mrt3]

dont you read the last comment, "it may perform better in multi core operations but not in gaming" and hyper threated cpu have noticeably reduced single core performance, I used the example of i5 and i7 to explain not to compare them, other wise i7 have more powerful single core performance than i5 as it have different and more powerful architecture than i5 but HT ruined its single core performance

Please do explain this graph, then. It comes from the Tom's Hardware Q4 SBM. The $1600 machine uses a 4790K@4GHz (with Hyperthreading) while the $1100 machine uses a 4690K@3.5GHz (no Hyperthreading). The i7 clearly beats the i5 in the iTunes and Lame encoding tests, which are single-threaded, by a margin that is perfectly explained by the difference in clock rates. They both also use very similar 2133MHz RAM, if that is to be questioned. Hyper-threading does not significantly affect single-core performance.

really 😀 "The i7 clearly beats the i5 in the iTunes and Lame encoding tests, which are single-threaded"😀 on top right of graph we can see the multi threaded clearly

It's top-left, first off. Tom's clearly had a typo; they're known to re-use graph headers. If you look at the write-up of each of the articles (like here in the first paragraph) they explicitly mention that iTunes and Lame are single-threaded.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/mainstream-enthusiast-pc-build,4023-6.html

both of them are i5
and the top right was a joke 😛

 

[Epsilon_0EVP]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/mainstream-enthusiast-pc-build,4023-6.html

both of them are i5
and the top right was a joke 😛

That's not the comparison I pulled that from. This is. Your's is comparing the Q4 2014 machine with the Q3 2014 machine of the same tier.

 

[mrt3]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/mainstream-enthusiast-pc-build,4023-6.html

both of them are i5
and the top right was a joke 😛

That's not the comparison I pulled that from. This is. Your's is comparing the Q4 2014 machine with the Q3 2014 machine of the same tier.

according to the specs, the builds not only have different cpu but also they have different hardware too. so please confirm before posting anything and please dont expect any answer by my side as i'm singing off.