WHAT GAMES CAN I RUN

[Noahrocks14]

amd a-10 7800
12gb ram
2tb hdd
3.5-3.9ghz
intergrated r7 graphics card in cpu
windows 10

[OG Krisko]

hi

[Rove]

Publicado originalmente por Dan/Pepper:

Publicado originalmente por MCSwagGrid:

amd a-10 7800
12gb ram
2tb hdd
3.5-3.9ghz
intergrated r7 graphics card in cpu
windows 10

I'd throw a gtx 750ti in there. assuming this is a desktop?

if this is a laptop, the integrated graphics are even worse, since they operate on lower power with thermal restrictions. there's very few integrated graphics solutions that are decent, and the few that are (iris pro and 2 specific amd gcn ones) are crippled on laptops due to much lower wattage. the a10-8800p and fx-8800 laptop cpu's integrated look nice on paper, but then you notice they dont perform. its because none of the laptop makers use them at the higher 25-30watt mode, they opt for the lower 10-15 watt modes, which saves battery but cripples the performance. and this isnt something the user can flip a switch to change, not without the maker adressing it in a bios update (which none of them have)

if this is a desktop cpu, this was a terrible choice. amd's been lagging in terms of performance for so long their budget quad cores are outperformed in a cost to performance ration by intel's budget dual cores.

and to top it all intel's core i3-4160 (a much better choice) is $10-20 cheaper than the a10-8700, and performance better at single core, quad core, and multicore operations than the a10. and did I mention it's a dual core? (20% improvement on sc, 5% improvement on qc, 4% improvement on mc - source userbenchmarks.com)

Amd's cheap quad cores look like a good deal until you look at the performance for the price compared to intel's dual cores performance for the same price. they perform better than the quad cores at the same or typically lower price.

The A10-7800 is a desktop CPU. Also it's all about the integrated graphics and currently you can get a A10-7860K for less than a i3 sdo you are worng about prices.

The A10-7800 (or A10-7850K, 7860K, 7870K & 7890K) has far superior integrated graphics to standard Intel i3, i5 or even i7 models. Intel does have some Integrated graphics as good or better but they aren't available in standard desktops, either mobile only (thus no later upgrades possible and weak CPUs) or server chips. So AMD is where desktop Integrated graphics are at and they are also cheap, good value at low prices.

[Dan loeb]

Publicado originalmente por Rove:

Publicado originalmente por Dan/Pepper:

I'd throw a gtx 750ti in there. assuming this is a desktop?

if this is a laptop, the integrated graphics are even worse, since they operate on lower power with thermal restrictions. there's very few integrated graphics solutions that are decent, and the few that are (iris pro and 2 specific amd gcn ones) are crippled on laptops due to much lower wattage. the a10-8800p and fx-8800 laptop cpu's integrated look nice on paper, but then you notice they dont perform. its because none of the laptop makers use them at the higher 25-30watt mode, they opt for the lower 10-15 watt modes, which saves battery but cripples the performance. and this isnt something the user can flip a switch to change, not without the maker adressing it in a bios update (which none of them have)

if this is a desktop cpu, this was a terrible choice. amd's been lagging in terms of performance for so long their budget quad cores are outperformed in a cost to performance ration by intel's budget dual cores.

and to top it all intel's core i3-4160 (a much better choice) is $10-20 cheaper than the a10-8700, and performance better at single core, quad core, and multicore operations than the a10. and did I mention it's a dual core? (20% improvement on sc, 5% improvement on qc, 4% improvement on mc - source userbenchmarks.com)

Amd's cheap quad cores look like a good deal until you look at the performance for the price compared to intel's dual cores performance for the same price. they perform better than the quad cores at the same or typically lower price.

The A10-7800 is a desktop CPU. Also it's all about the integrated graphics and currently you can get a A10-7860K for less than a i3 sdo you are worng about prices.

The A10-7800 (or A10-7850K, 7860K, 7870K & 7890K) has far superior integrated graphics to standard Intel i3, i5 or even i7 models. Intel does have some Integrated graphics as good or better but they aren't available in standard desktops, either mobile only (thus no later upgrades possible and weak CPUs) or server chips. So AMD is where desktop Integrated graphics are at and they are also cheap, good value at low prices.

the i3 i listed is $118. the a10-7800 is $125. how was I wrong? also the a10-7860K is NOT the card at hand. But all in all, since you went down from $118 to $114, lets go down another $4, to the i3-6100 dual core at $110. which blows all of them out of the water.

71% improvement over the a10-7860K in terms of single core performance
31% improvement over the a10-7860K in terms of quad core performance
31% improvement over the a10-7860K in terms of quad core perfomance

but if you're looking for graphics power on the cheap, the 750ti/950 is the way to go for nvidia, or the r7 360 for amd.

NEVER integrated. not only are you suddenly going to have huge compatibility issues with tons of games and programs not even launch on intel hd / amd gcn integrated, but the performance for the added cost isnt justifiable to the massive performance for $100 added you get with the 750ti (goes on sale for $89-99 range near constantly) or the r7 360 (msrp is $99). instead of adding on a few bucks to the cpu price, opting for amd and thus losing a TON of performance you should focus on a nice cpu for the price, and an entry level dedicated card. because while it'll cost around $150 extra (intel mobos are typically around $20 more, also factor in getting a decent PSU (which you should have already done, but lets go for a $50 one instead of bottom bin $20 one, lets say a 500W evga that goes for $50) and you'll actually be able to max out pretty much every game that came out pre "next-gen", and for those console ports, you'll be able to run then on low settings. that's a much larger game library, much better performance, and the computer now has a longer lifespan of usability with regard to adjusting to changing needs in performance of new programs/games. $150 to make a computer last me potentially an extra 2 years, I would always do it.

or If i wanted to operate within the limit of $114 for cpu and gpu, long term be damned and still outdo the amd one:

pentium g3258 with safe (not dependant on memory speed/voltage) overclock to 4.2ghz (gives perfomance that can rival the devils canyon i7's, intel allowed this only in this card because it was an anniversary edition)
thats $69
and then get a used gtx 460 on ebay for $30-45 range. (3 currently for sale at those prices)

graphics performance is a good bit better, and cpu performance is ridiculously better.

[Rove]

I'm seeing the i3 as being a few dollars more here than either the A10-7800 or the A10-7860K:
http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/cpu/#s=25,11&sort=a7&page=1&k=26,30

AMD integrated graphics are beter. No competition here, Intel could but REFUSES to compete.

For a separate gaming CPU & GPU I'd go for a FX 6300, 8300 or 8320E and GPU.

For a low budget gaming CPU with a dedicated GPU I'd go for the $70~ Athlon 860K over any Intel PG model. Seriously 4 real cores and 4MB of cache vs 2 cores and less cache.

AMD even has a series of benchmarks on their website comparing the Athlon 860K to the PG 3258 and showing the Athlon winning every time. I believe it. I'd go Athlon for gaming. I'd go PG for a cash register or simple business computer and yes I'd use the crappy Intel HD graphics.

[Chomik]

Publicado originalmente por Rove:

I'm seeing the i3 as being a few dollars more here than either the A10-7800 or the A10-7860K:
http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/cpu/#s=25,11&sort=a7&page=1&k=26,30

AMD integrated graphics are beter. No competition here, Intel could but REFUSES to compete.

For a separate gaming CPU & GPU I'd go for a FX 6300, 8300 or 8320E and GPU.

For a low budget gaming CPU with a dedicated GPU I'd go for the $70~ Athlon 860K over any Intel PG model. Seriously 4 real cores and 4MB of cache vs 2 cores and less cache.

AMD even has a series of benchmarks on their website comparing the Athlon 860K to the PG 3258 and showing the Athlon winning every time. I believe it. I'd go Athlon for gaming. I'd go PG for a cash register or simple business computer and yes I'd use the crappy Intel HD graphics.

Benchmark on their site? Funny.

[Dan loeb]

Publicado originalmente por Rove:

I'm seeing the i3 as being a few dollars more here than either the A10-7800 or the A10-7860K:
http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/cpu/#s=25,11&sort=a7&page=1&k=26,30

AMD integrated graphics are beter. No competition here, Intel could but REFUSES to compete.

For a separate gaming CPU & GPU I'd go for a FX 6300, 8300 or 8320E and GPU.

For a low budget gaming CPU with a dedicated GPU I'd go for the $70~ Athlon 860K over any Intel PG model. Seriously 4 real cores and 4MB of cache vs 2 cores and less cache.

AMD even has a series of benchmarks on their website comparing the Athlon 860K to the PG 3258 and showing the Athlon winning every time. I believe it. I'd go Athlon for gaming. I'd go PG for a cash register or simple business computer and yes I'd use the crappy Intel HD graphics.

4 cores with worse performance on quad core operations than intel dual cores can do? that sends up huge red flags for me personally on how amd's gone to crap for innovation.

also, for the i3: http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/301762813155?item=301762813155&lgeo=1&vectorid=229466&rmvSB=true $110

if I had to do a budget build I'd seriously look at the g3258 first. even though it's a dual core with 3MB cache, the unlocked clock multiplier and safe overclock to 4.2-4.5ghz just on the stock fan it comes with and the fact that the performance scales up so rapidly, makes it a huge winner for budget builds.

also lets not forget the cheapest way to do a build these days, get a refurb pc with an 4th gen i5 and 8gb+ of ram, 1tb hd, etc for $200-400.

hell, the brand new asus m32ad goes for $450 on amazon and has a 6th gen i5-6400, 8gb ddr4, bluetooth, ac dual band wifi, 1tb hd,


Gateway DX4885-UR2F Desktop Intel i5-4440 3.1GHz 4GB 1TB WiFi Win 8.1 Mouse+KB
for $269 on ebay. throw in a second 4gb stick of ram, swap out the ugly case, new psu and gpu and you've got a very compitent gaming pc for $400-ish

you could even get an older 1st/2nd gen i7 which would still be better, and so much cheaper.
Intel Core i7-930 2.80 GHz Msi X58m Motherboard Custom Desktop PC Computer on ebay for $190. swap out psu, add a second hdd and 4gb ram stick, add a r7 360/750ti gpu, boom. even more compitent gaming pc for $350-ish


I got a 660ti gtx gpu on ebay for $38 (including shipping!), thats extremely rare, but it happens more than you think. people list computer components without knowing what they are. if you can identify that it's a nvidia 660ti reference card pulled from an oem by the photos, you've just made a crazy deal. (since they typically sell for $120-150 on ebay)

I sold it to a friend with a second 660ti I had got for $89 for him to sli, I made $120 net profit. this isn't a brag, it's a cationary tale that buying new components maybe less risk, but you'll get less for your money. if you're really about bang for buck, go with used/refurbs and rebuild them to what you want. thats what I did with a lenovo k450e. for $650 it came with an i7-4790, 128gb ssd, 1tb hdd, 12gb ddr3-1600, wireless ac+bluetooth 4, and the case it came in is a nice modern minimalist case I kept using. it came with a 750ti that I sold for $105, bought a 960. all in all, a 4790 i7 alone would cost me $270-ish, the mobo would add $80-120 more, if it didnt have wifi and bt, then usb/pci expansion cards would also add more, the ssd and hd's are good ones too. samsung 850 pro and wd blue. they didn't skimp on any of it when they first made it.

if I wanted to build a computer with a 4th/3rd gen i5 and 750ti gtx or equivalent amd for gpu today, It's entirely do-able within a $275 budget assuming you already have a monitor.

his cpu cost $100-130 depending on if it was on sale. the mobo's going to be another $50-80.
the ram adds $25-50, depending on make and if sale, and the psu adds $25-$40 unless he went with a modular or high efficiency one. hd adds $35-60, depending on make and sales.

and let's assume he goes with a bottom of the barrel case, for $15. assuming he got an absolute steal of a sale (the lowest price listed above) on each of those, thats $250. plus shipping. thats already $275 easy. his performance isn't going to cut it for the near future, let alone right now. I don't mean to be mean/snide/elitist, but if you're doing a budget build you can get MUCH farther with used/refurb as a base. you can resell the components you replaced for a nice chunk of pocket cash too. it just baffles me that people do AMD for cheap quad cores these days when intel's budget dual cores are on equal footing in terms of performance with quad core, at the same or commonly less cost.

[Dan loeb]

also the i3's do two threads per core.

Publicado originalmente por Rove:

I'm seeing the i3 as being a few dollars more here than either the A10-7800 or the A10-7860K:
http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/cpu/#s=25,11&sort=a7&page=1&k=26,30

AMD integrated graphics are beter. No competition here, Intel could but REFUSES to compete.

For a separate gaming CPU & GPU I'd go for a FX 6300, 8300 or 8320E and GPU.

For a low budget gaming CPU with a dedicated GPU I'd go for the $70~ Athlon 860K over any Intel PG model. Seriously 4 real cores and 4MB of cache vs 2 cores and less cache.

AMD even has a series of benchmarks on their website comparing the Athlon 860K to the PG 3258 and showing the Athlon winning every time. I believe it. I'd go Athlon for gaming. I'd go PG for a cash register or simple business computer and yes I'd use the crappy Intel HD graphics.

There's no upgrade path for the 860K. with a haswell mobo and g3258 you can go forward to the 4th gen dual core (but quad threaded) i3's, quad core i5's, or quad core, octa threaded i7's. if you're using a FM2 socket mobo, the 860K is probably the best you'll get. and that'll be a pain in the but when the best isn't enough if you decide you want more out of your system. a simple upgrade becomes a costly PITA. also if you're referencing what I think you are, its worth noting the g3258 overclocks much smoother. the 860K has a pretty fast drop-off for overclocking in comparison, I've seen people do liquid nitrogen cooling (very unsafely, I might add) on a g3258 and get it up to 5.4ghz-6ghz range.

[vadim]

Publicado originalmente por Rove:

For a low budget gaming CPU with a dedicated GPU I'd go for the $70~ Athlon 860K over any Intel PG model. Seriously 4 real cores and 4MB of cache vs 2 cores and less cache.

Sorry, but in reality Athlon has only 2 physical cores with CMT (4 logical) and much worse cache subsystem.

[Moontiz]

cool