PC Processors

[raphaelr]

I'm planning to upgrade my old Athlon X4 system and wanted to know whether I should go for 2600 or 3400G. It's a work computer so there is no gaming involved but I do have a triple monitor setup. Should I go for 3400G with its Vega graphics or should I go for 2600 with 6 core. Would 2600 support a triple monitor setup?

Other components

Gigabyte B450M Gaming motherboard (It has 3 monitor outputs)

16GB RAM

Cooler Master Thunder 450w PSU

and an older Radeon GPU  (Will get rid of this if I go for 3400G)

[dacq]

You can do either. A 2600 has more cores so is likely better for you. You can also get a PCIe USB-C card from www.ebay.com and plug in a Thunderbolt 3 cable and use a Thunderbolt-3 adapter for your screen.

[pokester]

If you already have a GPU I too would say the 2600. The integrated graphics are not that strong on the 3400G but only you can decide what is best for you. If you think you will ever go to a GPU on that board again you will have less potential conflicts avoid the integrated graphics and a GPU, of an APU by sticking with a separate CPU and GPU.

[raphaelr]

Thanks for the response.

I'm leaning towards 2600 as well but if I go with 2600 and B450M motherboard, would I be able to connect my 3 monitors with the 3 outputs in the motherboard or do I need to use my GPU for that. My current GPU only supports 2 monitors.

[jamesx380fx]

The 2600 doesnt have an integrated GPU so you have to use your GPU as the primary display output.

For three displays to work at the same time you either have to use DisplayPort (Most modern GPUs have atleast 3 next to the HDMI these days) or Buy a decent DisplayPort to HDMI splitter. 

Most HDMI to HDMI splitters dont support daisy chaining mutliple displays (can only output the same screen from the source) Hence why you may have to either Only use DisplayPort or find a decent DisplayPort to HDMI splitter if you want to use more than 2 monitors for extending your desktop screen, though you Can still use HDMI+DVI (Two monitors) without problems.

[raphaelr]

OK. In that case, I think I'll go with 3400G.  I presume since it has an integrated GPU it should be able to support 3 outputs as long as the motherboard supports it. Is that correct?

[jamesx380fx]

No, even if you go with the 3400G your still gonna have to use a DP to HDMI splitter of some kind if you want multi display options to work on more than 2 monitors. Which means you probably will end up buying a GPU in the end anyway cause most AM4 boards dont have a DisplayPort on it, only HDMI.

Here is an example of a DisplayPort to HDMI splitter i was talking about. There are Also allot of DisplayPort to DisplayPort splitters out there but if you have a modern GPU, then that GPU probably has 3 DP ports on it anyway, so you wont be needing a splitter if your using three Monitors that uses DisplayPort cables.

There is also another thing you can do though (Also more expensive) and this is only if you dont plan to do any gaming on all three monitors, and that is to buy a board that has atleast 3 PCI-E slots for a GPU, then buy two of the cheapest small form factor PCI-E graphics card you can get and install driver on them all, Each GPU installed will be recognized by windows as a seprate display out, so each monitor you plug into each GPU can be used by windows for extending your display, dont really reccomend this method, but if you have the extra hardware lying around anyway, this is something that you can do.

[pokester]

While the motherboard has ports the are only active if you have an APU, so yes you are stuck with the limitations of the GPU you have if you don't want to get a different one. Make sure you can't drive more because i think some display ports can be split to drive more than one. Contact your GPU's maker to be sure. They should know the exact specs.

[pokester]

Oh I should add that some of the older DVI ports could be split into 2 as well.

[hardcoregames_]

For an APU the 3400G is adequate for basic use. Avoid the 1000 and 2000 processors which are now obsolete.

[pokester]

I don't believe the new generation is anything more than faster and on a smaller die size than the previous at the same hierarchy points they replace. They all support the same things processor wise, at least anything that would likely matter. A 2600 hundred is not obsolete just a year older. It is also faster and has more cores than the 3400G. Only the OP can decide if if fits the needs or not. I would suggest the OP makes sure that the B450 the OP has can drive 3 monitors before deciding on the APU as that is something the OP has said they want to do. From my experience with APU's is that if you want longevity out or your system then steer clear of them. If just seems they either receive lesser support at an earlier point than their CPU counter parts or are moved into legacy status all together much quicker. A cpu separate from an APU doesn't suffer from driver conflicts when the APU's architecture isn't supported. A CPU can often be relevant for many, many years with GPU, and other component upgrades. Also I am not sure if the OP ever checked to see if the GPU already possesed can drive the monitors as he wishes. Many of them can with the right display port or dvi splitters. 

[hardcoregames_]

AMD has stopping manufacturing of 1000 and 2000 series processors. Their focus is on 3000 series processors for now.

3000 series processors will run on all updated motherboards except the A320 which was not widely sold worldwide as compare to the B350 which was popular in the µATX and ATX formats. MSI and Gigabyte versions of the µATX boards were very popular in the under $80 market. 

None of the motherboards I have seen for AMD APU have DisplayPort.

[pokester]

Well of course when the next generation comes out they fulfill whatever contract they have for fabrication and shift all future manufacturing to the current chip. None of that, especially because they share the same socket still makes any of them obsolete. 

[hardcoregames_]

Intel does the same thing and redesigns their processors regularly. AMD and Intel both compete so that nobody becomes complacent.

In reality Intel has largely ceded desktops to AMD while they focus on the lucrative server market.

Last year's server SSD finds its way into this years consumer SSD. Intel has crushed the SSD sector with the lowest cost M.2 products in their 660p series and soon the 665p series will pressure the sector again.

I am pondering a larger capacity SSD and the 665p look like the ticket to lower costs.