Given the same price would a 3.8Ghz dual core or a 2.05Ghz quad core CPU be optimal for gaming?

Given the same price would a 3.8Ghz dual core or a 2.05Ghz quad core CPU be optimal for gaming?

Going for a budget setup for shit like Civ/XCOM/ETC.

Other urls found in this thread:

boingboing.net/2016/06/15/intel-x86-processors-ship-with.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Wait for zen

Don't go AM1. The 5350 is useless for gay men.

Hurr.

Just buy an used intel chip.

>8 months is a long time

this, goy
what are you, poor? shell out some shekels
for your health
boingboing.net/2016/06/15/intel-x86-processors-ship-with.html

when did you get here from Sup Forums?
we've known about this shit for months and have threads about it like once a week or so, AMD also loads the same shit into their chips as well

Are you retarded? Intel doesn't earn any money on used processor. Go back to Sup Forums you mentally retarded fuckface.

>buttblasted goy-boy
intel just works better :^)

>budget setup for shit like Civ
top kek
i wouldn't be surprised intel just pays them to fuck up performance

>implying intel plays dirty
oh boy, goy; you know nothing you bastid :^)

Intel iGPUs are pure trash, especially on the low end. If he's not buying a discrete GPU, that's a bad idea.

it's good for the price

>$199
wow

So for the same price I should go for Athlon 5350 over an A4-7300?

Or you could spend $5 more on an a8 7600

Gaming will always benefit more from single-threaded performance, but cpu's are also rarely the bottleneck.

>5$
more like 35. not saying the a8 is not the smarter choice but when your budget pushes you to consider a 5350, adding 35 on top might not be so easy.

well made multithreaded games are rare, a faster dual core should serve you better for general gaming.

but civ should work better on a quad than a dual core.

even intel jumps in the 4 threads by adding ht to dual cores even when it hurts them to do so (at least that was the case a bit back when disabling ht on cpus improved performance even on threaded workloads; cant comment on current ht tho' but i suspect its the same, ht helps general computing but hurts gaming)

If he can afford the 5350 with a dgpu, then the a8 is better with the igpu.

the dual core will serve you better in general gaming, well optimized games like civ tho can handle quad cores.

get the dualy.

depends on the dgpu

if it's below r7 250, yes, if it's better than that, no

I'm currently thinking about a 6100 poorfag build. Would I still be able to run Firefox to look up guides or watch som videos in the background during the loading screens or could it crash?

>we've known about this shit for months and have threads about it like once a week or so

Dude, the thing is more than 5 years old. At least inform yourself before bragging.

shut up, i am using an am1 and its fine, i can play the new tomb raider at 50 fps on medium

no, you seem to have the impression real cpu threads are a limit. no.

at any given time a windows pc runs 500+ threads and a single core/single thread cpu has no issue with that, the threads will switch based on priority demand, etc.

6100 is a good cpu, intel nailed it this gen with the i3's

No.

He'll be held back so hard by the cpu. A6 7400k or g3258 would be better if he doesn't need 4 cores and wants to Max cpu performance on a super tight budget.

7650k would be much better though, with the igpu. How difficult to save up $30 more?

>How difficult to save up $30 more?

depends, 30$ for someone who makes 3000$ a year is not 30$ for someone who makes 60000$

>how difficult to save up 576$ more?

at low end, depending on resolution, the gpu will bottleneck you more than the cpu unless you play tom's style at 800x600.
strictly speaking the best thing to do at that price range is to get used c2q q9xx or 771 e5xx xeons.

also the 250 is the breakpoint because the igp on a 18 is almost a 250. heck, I think amd recommended a 240 for hybrid xfire at first (probably to stress the igp less).
so rather than get a weak gpu, get the apu.
if the gpu is stronger, get the the weak cpu; the gpu will drag it up to a point.
evidently if you go into the high midrange, it will really show the bottleneck and a better cpu is advised.

just look at an immensely more powerful cpu cant get double fps over a 5350 because the gpu wont let it.

Some games straight up REFUSE to run on dual-core systems these days. Get the quad.

Dual core, most games aren't optimized for more than 2.

Decide yourselves

For budget
AMD>Intel
For expensive
Intel>AMD

Then get a dual core g3258. Garbage ports like gta5 might crash on non quad cores but most games are single thread heavy.

Coupled it with a gtx 950 for a friend. He gets 340+ fps in league. 400 dollar pc.

Which

>bottlenecking the fuck out of a 750 Ti
>good

No you can't, poorfag.

Terrible fucking advice from a clueless retard. GTA V is a great PC port. The fact that you'd imply that a port is bad for using multi-threading well shows what a fucking retard you are, although recommending the G3258 in 2016 did that already. Almost everything that's been released in the past couple of years outright requires four threads. Some won't even launch with less, whilst the rest run like shit.

>muh 300fps in league
Fucking kill yourself.

good for the price fucker, not good

find a better pick inside 40$ that isnt an used xeon/c2d/q

wait for AM4

Would a 6100 bottleneck a 480?

Use a FX 8350

depends how well threaded the software is. if its something that really uses 4 threads, it will but most just have a heavy main thread and some others that do little work.

>Those tears
Salty but sweet.

>A socket change a year keeps the goyim in fear

I've been lurking Sup Forums but it seems Sup Forums has the superior memes.

/bread