MK809III Quad-Core Android 4.2 Mini PC TV Stick
Click here to post a comment for MK809III Quad-Core Android 4.2 Mini PC TV Stick on our message forum
SSJBillClinton
Only AMD cpu I'd consider is an 8350, it performs about the same as any Intel processor in games from what I've seen.
Sort of wrong forum section btw.
XBEAST
Both will work. Intel will work better in games. Situation may or may not change after next-gen consoles are released.
eclap
Incorrect. It all depends on the game, in some games Intel will have a fair advantage. That being said, a fx 8320 is a great cpu for your money
CPC_RedDawn
It will work fine. If your on a budget go with AMD 8320 or 8350 and use the extra cash for a better GPU. Games these days rely more on the GPU than they do the CPU. Take my rig for example, I am still on the x58 platform with an i7 960 D0 @ 4.2GHz this was released in 2009 and there has been nothing released that I have seen that would warrant an upgrade as I mainly use my PC for gaming. Though since I have had this CPU I have upgraded my GPU from 4870x2 >> GTX480 >> x2 7970 Xfire >> Downgraded to single 7970 due to frame rating issues when using Xfire.
The GPU is much much more important. I would go with an 8350 get a decent cooler like a H80i or Noctua NH-D14 (if your case can hold it) and then get a decent motherboard for overclocking it. There are tons of guides on how to do this.
Then for GPU, I too would go with a single AMD offering as their drivers have improved excellently in the past 6 months and you could get a never settle deal netting you some great games. A 7870 or 7850 would do the trick, if you go 7870 make sure its the Tahiti LE version as you get more cores and better overclocking too.
Couple all this with 8GB DDR3 memory AT LEAST 1600MHz and your laughing.
SSJBillClinton
Ah right, there were a couple of games I saw where Intel had a huge advantage like Natural Selection 2, but there didn't really seem to be that many to warrant spending extra on an Intel CPU if you're using your PC for just games.
yasamoka
The Intel vs. AMD CPU is a tired subject. Benchmarks are all over the web demonstrating the differences. Games that rely on fast cores get better results on Intel (e.g. Skyrim). Games that use multi-core well enough end up close or the same (if it's a GPU bottleneck). Games like Crysis 3 show the FX8320/50's potential when a game uses all cores efficiently.
Running multi-GPU, AMD CPUs are more prone to bottleneck sooner than the Intel ones.
After the consoles hit, we're more likely to see AMD's CPUs receive a performance boost.
However, the Intel CPUs are still faster. Plain and simple.
You'll hear arguments from Intel elitists who wouldn't utter the name "AMD" and AMD owners trying to protect what they bought, so often the facts get lost. You'll also hear advice from knowledgeable people on the subject, try to stick with that advice.
And most importantly, look at the numbers. They're EVERYWHERE!
panogr
it works fine for me 😉 there will be no problem with this configuration.
Pill Monster
f sfdsfdsfsfesf
Pill Monster
Yeah Yasamoka pretty much summed it up.
Also agree with Eclap the 8320 is cheaper than 8350 and will overclock just the same.
Otherwise 2500K or 3570K are good Intel options imo....
yasamoka
I agree.
---TK---
unless you are going multi gpu, buy a 8320 and oc the hell out of it. if you have any aspirations of sli or xfire, most definately go with an intel cpu
Fox2232
Guys, I hate this again. What matters is monitor frequency target here.
Because AMD has lower single thread performance it needs higher overclocks to allow most games to produce 120fps.
If target is 60fps, then even nicely priced A10-6800k will not keep you down. I guess that with your GPU you are not targeting more than 60fps anyway.
AMD have better performance/price, but intel delivers considerably higher performance per clock which comes at premium prices.
There are games out there like GW2 which can utilize 4 threads no problem, where you get better results from same clocked i5 vs A10-6800k. But that i5 which will get you to those clocks will cost you 40~50% more.
Here you can see how much you can gain for what kind of money on CPU (consider proper MB price too):
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/radeon_hd_7970_cpu_scaling_performance_review,1.html
Somewhere is test which included even Intel Pentium G840 and it did very well considering it's price.
If needed I'll look for it.
Pill Monster
Interesting read.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen
Mraz
I agree, very interesting indeed.
Especially the part which left me surprised with 650ti and Crysis 3...
Weecka
I lol'ed.
The parts about CPU and RAM were fine, but when i started reading about the GPU's, it was like "has he got brain".
As for GPU i feel like AMD's HD7970 is probably best money/price card in high end GPU range (comes from an nVidia user.... i know) and 760 is the best price/performance in the mid-end. But some people (including myself ) don't care about best bargain, they want best performance and don't want to play CRYSIS 3 on Medium with FXAA (lol) on a 650ti.
Pill Monster
^I think you both misunderstood....the GTX 650 recommendation was for a budget GPU.
He went on to add this: I agree on the 7950 but 660Ti should be changed to 670.
Btw I hate articles that read "according to our sources" like the tabloids do.
Makes me think they don't actually have any sources.
XBEAST
^ In that case 7950 should be changed to 7970, the 670's competitor.
Though in £200-£230 range it's 760 vs 7950 Boost.
Pill Monster
What do u mean? The 7950 runs Crysis3 fine why would it need changing? I only said 670 because of the bigger bus and bandwidth.
Performance wise 7950 competes with 670 not 660Ti. 7970 competes with 680, it's been that way since the end of last year.
XBEAST
7950 competes with 660 Ti, 7950 Boost with 760, 7970 with 670, 7970 GHz with 680.
Fox2232
I do not see any serious competition to HD7950, since it's HW with best performance/price ratio.
Same goes for GTX770 in it's price range. It's bit better than HD7970 GHz and GTX680 since it's next iteration of same silicon.
But HD7970 GHz comes few percent cheaper while GTX680 is 10% more expensive.
GTX680 has no competition on nVidia nor AMD side, it's as overpriced as ever. For GTX680 to be competitive it would have to be cheaper than GTX770.
I understand that prices may differ in different parts of world, so you may not be as much wrong as it looks like.
