Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Need help with CPU cooling choice

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 23, 2013 2:22:55 PM

What would be the better CPU cooler between the asetek 550LC and the Coolermaster 212plus

my processor is the AMD Athlon II X4 640 3.0GHz and the case im looking into is this onehttp://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... what would be the better cooler?

Its pre built those are my options within cost range i don't wanna build it myself due to time and other factors. they don't have the 212 evo just the plus.
I wont be overclocking or anything just running it standard to play games like diablo 3 and world of warcraft only.

And if any inquiring about where im buying from it's ironside computers.

More about : cpu cooling choice

a b à CPUs
March 23, 2013 2:34:44 PM

You should be fine with any 120w TDP aftermarket cooler If you don't overclock no worries.
Best Air cooler NH-D14 but you don't need your case got good ventilation you can even place two 120mm fan on top !

Edit: If not overclocking Take the stock cooler it comes with saves you money.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 23, 2013 3:55:52 PM

The case you picked is very nice!

As for the cooler, if you are not going to overclock, it is most likely you won´t need it, unless you live in a very hot location like myself.

Now, if you have to get one of those 2, I´d g with Cooler Master 212 Plus.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 157 à CPUs
March 23, 2013 5:47:38 PM

It's really your choice in the end, but that CPU is about THREE YEARS OLD. Surely there are similarly priced pre-built systems with better and cooler CPU's?

Some of the newer dual-core CPU's may be superior to this older quad-core.

Just FYI.
m
0
l
March 23, 2013 6:33:12 PM

photonboy said:
It's really your choice in the end, but that CPU is about THREE YEARS OLD. Surely there are similarly priced pre-built systems with better and cooler CPU's?

Some of the newer dual-core CPU's may be superior to this older quad-core.

Just FYI.

i know but the only newer one after that is the fx 4100 and its 17 higher and im kinda hitting budget with the 640 and stuff as is
m
0
l
a c 157 à CPUs
March 25, 2013 3:19:40 PM

gamerfan28 said:
photonboy said:
It's really your choice in the end, but that CPU is about THREE YEARS OLD. Surely there are similarly priced pre-built systems with better and cooler CPU's?

Some of the newer dual-core CPU's may be superior to this older quad-core.

Just FYI.

i know but the only newer one after that is the fx 4100 and its 17 higher and im kinda hitting budget with the 640 and stuff as is


Your choice, but $17 more for what I would assume is a much better CPU doesn't seem that much.
*The older CPU (640) is also going to run hotter thus the CPU fan will be noisier on the same cooling solution.
m
0
l
a c 157 à CPUs
March 25, 2013 3:32:22 PM

Question...

You linked to a $49 case but said you're buying a pre-built system. How does that work?

I'd be happy to look at pre-builts in your budget if you wish.
m
0
l
March 26, 2013 10:08:10 AM

photonboy said:
Question...

You linked to a $49 case but said you're buying a pre-built system. How does that work?

I'd be happy to look at pre-builts in your budget if you wish.


That is the case i selected from the place thats doing the build for me.

m
0
l
a c 738 à CPUs
March 26, 2013 12:28:13 PM

photonboy said:
It's really your choice in the end, but that CPU is about THREE YEARS OLD. Surely there are similarly priced pre-built systems with better and cooler CPU's?

Some of the newer dual-core CPU's may be superior to this older quad-core.

Just FYI.


Based on THG best gaming cpu for the money, you would have to pay nearly twice as much and get an i3 dual core. The 640 is at the bottom of the list though. If possible, I would try to step up to at least a 965 Phenom II and just use the stock cooler with it. Disregard the FX 4100 completely. Athlon II X4 is faster than a FX 4100. FX 4300, on the other hand, would be a nice option if available to you. Bulldozer based FX are best avoided kinda like the original Phenom was. Vishera/Piledriver base chips are much better.
m
0
l
a c 157 à CPUs
March 27, 2013 8:24:50 PM

CPU and Graphics Card:

Games like WOW and Diablo 3 aren't nearly as demanding as other games. Even the 640 CPU you mention is fine. Your real issue is the graphics card.

I'm not sure what options you have but I'd suggest an HD7770 for a budget build and for these games. Just keep in mind there are other games like Far Cry 3 which are more suited to a higher-end gaming rig.

You SHOULD be able to play WOW and Diablo 3 at the highest settings at 60FPS with an HD7770 and the 640 (though I'd still recommend a slightly better CPU if possible).
m
0
l
a c 157 à CPUs
March 27, 2013 10:57:34 PM

http://en.inpai.com.cn/doc/enshowcont.asp?id=7986&pagei...

*The 640, at least for these benchmarks provides a stronger benchmark than I would have thought. It's also noteworthy that their "newer" CPU's concentrated on increasing core count at the expense of single-core performance which really affected overall game scores. Put simply, MORE CORES isn't necessarily better (and apparently their new "six-core" CPU's aren't even six physical cores but more like hyper-threading). Sigh.

So I think the 640 is a fairly good budget CPU even though it's 3-years old but I have no time to confirm for other game titles.
m
0
l
a c 738 à CPUs
March 28, 2013 6:24:40 AM

photonboy said:
CPU and Graphics Card:

Games like WOW and Diablo 3 aren't nearly as demanding as other games. Even the 640 CPU you mention is fine. Your real issue is the graphics card.

I'm not sure what options you have but I'd suggest an HD7770 for a budget build and for these games. Just keep in mind there are other games like Far Cry 3 which are more suited to a higher-end gaming rig.

You SHOULD be able to play WOW and Diablo 3 at the highest settings at 60FPS with an HD7770 and the 640 (though I'd still recommend a slightly better CPU if possible).


Nope, since Mists of Pandaria came out, my system no longer runs WoW on ultra. I have to settle on good-high settings with shadows and SSAO turned off. I am not sure what Blizzard did to the graphics engine when MoP was released, but I took a huge FPS hit. I honestly feel there is a graphics memory issue going on in their coding but they are too arrogant to admit they f'd up. In old areas, I still do well. In new content, I have to settle for far lesser settings than I did in Cata. Granted I run a higher resolution of 2048 x 1152, but there is no reason I should have taken such a huge hit. I tried 1920x1080 and no improvement. At a lower resolution, you could crank the settings up some probably. I would suspect that combo would do well @ 1680 x 1050 on good settings.
m
0
l
a c 157 à CPUs
March 28, 2013 3:59:24 PM

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

WOW MOP is surprisingly CPU dependant, though the grouping would be closer with a lower-end graphics card.

Regardless of the benchmark results I still recommend tweaking to attain 60FPS if possible (assuming an HD7770 or better graphics card). It's better to have smooth gameplay without screen tearing than to have low frame rates, stutter and screen tearing but better visuals.
m
0
l
a c 738 à CPUs
March 28, 2013 4:56:08 PM

photonboy said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-rev...

WOW MOP is surprisingly CPU dependant, though the grouping would be closer with a lower-end graphics card.

Regardless of the benchmark results I still recommend tweaking to attain 60FPS if possible (assuming an HD7770 or better graphics card). It's better to have smooth gameplay without screen tearing than to have low frame rates, stutter and screen tearing but better visuals.


Yea, I am confident my issues are purely GPU related, considering I am running a 4.0ghz i5 3570k. I think it is mostly due to running out of video ram. 1gb I don't think is enough anymore.
m
0
l
!