Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Getting Windows 7 for first gaming pc

Last response: in Windows 7
Share
August 4, 2014 8:48:12 AM

I'm going to start building my first gaming PC. However, I am unsure about whether to get Win 7 OEM or retail. Also, I am unsure about whether to get Win 7 on Amazon as a couple of the customer reviews say that they got pirated copies. So, what do I do?

More about : windows gaming

Best solution

a b 4 Gaming
August 4, 2014 9:02:23 AM

Hello, OEM is the pick for any gaming PC, its not the norm though.
Amazon giving pirated copies, the reviews themselves are looking suspicious to me. You can get Windows 7 from Amazon no doubt they can't give you a pirated one-you can sue them on this! Answer: Get OEM from Amazon-if that's the cheapest you find. Amazon isn't a small business that makes money from selling pirated copies, lol.
Share
a b 4 Gaming
August 5, 2014 2:14:12 AM

The main difference between an OEM and retail version of Windows is that the OEM version is tied to the motherboard. If you replace the motherboard for a different model, you technically should buy a new copy of Windows. In reality, you can activate Windows online several times.

The problem may arise when the online activation doesn't work and you have to call Microsoft's automated telephone service. At this point, you may be denied an activation code at Microsoft's discretion.

The other difference is that OEM versions of Windows aren't entitled to free technical support from Microsoft.

With both versions you still receive patches and updates, and gaming performance is exactly the same.

As far as buying from Amazon goes, make sure the item is sold and dispatched by Amazon and not a third-party. That way, you're guaranteed to get a legitimate copy.
m
0
l
Related resources
August 5, 2014 2:46:40 AM

So is it worth getting Win 7 oem or should I do the safe option and buy a retail version from a shop. What would you choose out of the two?

I don't know if I would upgrade my motherboard in future but I was told that my motherboard would bottleneck my graphic card ( mobo M5A87L-M/USB3, gpu: R9 270x)
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
August 5, 2014 3:22:09 AM

It depends on user experience, my experience with Microsoft has been smooth so far, so I'd buy an OEM version. Changing MoBo didn't void my copy of Windows, I just needed an online re-activation code and it all went fine.

Motherboard doesn't bottleneck a card, processor does, if it's not powerful enough.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
August 5, 2014 3:22:22 AM

Whether you should go for the retail or OEM version is entirely up to you. There's nothing wrong with the OEM version and I'd wager that most people on Tom's Hardware have it, just think about what's important to you.

Your motherboard is perfectly fine and certainly won't bottleneck an R9 270X. The processor may do, depending on which one you have.
m
0
l
August 5, 2014 5:37:15 AM

I going to get fx 6300 and was also told that the cpu will bottleneck the gpu when I asked on this forum, but I know for a fact that it won't bottleneck it.

m
0
l
August 5, 2014 5:41:56 AM

MeteorsRaining said:
It depends on user experience, my experience with Microsoft has been smooth so far, so I'd buy an OEM version. Changing MoBo didn't void my copy of Windows, I just needed an online re-activation code and it all went fine.

Motherboard doesn't bottleneck a card, processor does, if it's not powerful enough.


I didn't know that you can re-activate the code if you change the mobo. Suppose I could upgrade in future after all :) 

Also, I going to have a fx 6300 with th r9 270x, so I think it is powerful enough
m
0
l
August 5, 2014 5:47:00 AM

Both solutions were helpful, but I accidentally clicked MeteorsRaining as the best solution lol
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
August 5, 2014 6:16:45 AM

Nanoshade said:
I going to get fx 6300 and was also told that the cpu will bottleneck the gpu when I asked on this forum, but I know for a fact that it won't bottleneck it.



The FX-6300 isn't the best processor around and I'd encourage you to switch to an i3 (or an i5 if you can afford it). The R9 270X will be just fine with either choice though.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
August 5, 2014 6:27:03 AM

bicycle_repair_man said:
Nanoshade said:
I going to get fx 6300 and was also told that the cpu will bottleneck the gpu when I asked on this forum, but I know for a fact that it won't bottleneck it.



The FX-6300 isn't the best processor around and I'd encourage you to switch to an i3 (or an i5 if you can afford it). The R9 270X will be just fine with either choice though.


I guess the price range in which he is looking for a processor is deservingly AMD. I know AMD's single core is not as good as i-core's, but at that price range ($115-140), either he'll get a good dual core i3, or he'll have to add atleast $50 to get a good i5 like i5-3550. Both of them aren't as good as compared to the FX 6300. A 6 core 3.5 GHz vs i3-4330 3.5 GHz dual core for same price is a no brainer.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
August 5, 2014 6:46:11 AM

MeteorsRaining said:
bicycle_repair_man said:
Nanoshade said:
I going to get fx 6300 and was also told that the cpu will bottleneck the gpu when I asked on this forum, but I know for a fact that it won't bottleneck it.



The FX-6300 isn't the best processor around and I'd encourage you to switch to an i3 (or an i5 if you can afford it). The R9 270X will be just fine with either choice though.


I guess the price range in which he is looking for a processor is deservingly AMD. I know AMD's single core is not as good as i-core's, but at that price range ($115-140), either he'll get a good dual core i3, or he'll have to add atleast $50 to get a good i5 like i5-3550. Both of them aren't as good as compared to the FX 6300. A 6 core 3.5 GHz vs i3-4330 3.5 GHz dual core for same price is a no brainer.


I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree; an i5 will outperform an FX-6300 in just about every area.

In gaming terms, an i3 is easily comparable to an FX-6300. Contrary to popular belief, the FX is not a six-core processor. Yes, it has six cores, but it only has three FPUs, so only three cores can be used simultaneously. The six-core processor is, in reality, a tri-core. When you compare that to a dual-core and hyper-threaded i3 which has much stronger per-core performance, the gap between the two isn't very wide at all.

There's also the upgrade path to consider. The AM3+ socket has been around for a long time and AMD haven't released any new processors on that platform for over a year. Sure, you can upgrade to an 8350, but this was released back in 2012.

Believe me, I'm not an Intel fanboy, but it's hard to recommend AMD processors these days.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
August 5, 2014 6:52:32 AM

bicycle_repair_man said:
MeteorsRaining said:
bicycle_repair_man said:
Nanoshade said:
I going to get fx 6300 and was also told that the cpu will bottleneck the gpu when I asked on this forum, but I know for a fact that it won't bottleneck it.



The FX-6300 isn't the best processor around and I'd encourage you to switch to an i3 (or an i5 if you can afford it). The R9 270X will be just fine with either choice though.


I guess the price range in which he is looking for a processor is deservingly AMD. I know AMD's single core is not as good as i-core's, but at that price range ($115-140), either he'll get a good dual core i3, or he'll have to add atleast $50 to get a good i5 like i5-3550. Both of them aren't as good as compared to the FX 6300. A 6 core 3.5 GHz vs i3-4330 3.5 GHz dual core for same price is a no brainer.


I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree; an i5 will outperform an FX-6300 in just about every area.

In gaming terms, an i3 is easily comparable to an FX-6300. Contrary to popular belief, the FX is not a six-core processor. Yes, it has six cores, but it only has three FPUs, so only three cores can be used simultaneously. The six-core processor is, in reality, a tri-core. When you compare that to a dual-core and hyper-threaded i3 which has much stronger per-core performance, the gap between the two isn't very wide at all.

There's also the upgrade path to consider. The AM3+ socket has been around for a long time and AMD haven't released any new processors on that platform for over a year. Sure, you can upgrade to an 8350, but this was released back in 2012.

Believe me, I'm not an Intel fanboy, but it's hard to recommend AMD processors these days.


I agree to those aspects but if his budget is unchanged will you still favor an i3 over the 6300?
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
August 5, 2014 7:05:26 AM

MeteorsRaining said:
bicycle_repair_man said:
MeteorsRaining said:
bicycle_repair_man said:
Nanoshade said:
I going to get fx 6300 and was also told that the cpu will bottleneck the gpu when I asked on this forum, but I know for a fact that it won't bottleneck it.



The FX-6300 isn't the best processor around and I'd encourage you to switch to an i3 (or an i5 if you can afford it). The R9 270X will be just fine with either choice though.


I guess the price range in which he is looking for a processor is deservingly AMD. I know AMD's single core is not as good as i-core's, but at that price range ($115-140), either he'll get a good dual core i3, or he'll have to add atleast $50 to get a good i5 like i5-3550. Both of them aren't as good as compared to the FX 6300. A 6 core 3.5 GHz vs i3-4330 3.5 GHz dual core for same price is a no brainer.


I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree; an i5 will outperform an FX-6300 in just about every area.

In gaming terms, an i3 is easily comparable to an FX-6300. Contrary to popular belief, the FX is not a six-core processor. Yes, it has six cores, but it only has three FPUs, so only three cores can be used simultaneously. The six-core processor is, in reality, a tri-core. When you compare that to a dual-core and hyper-threaded i3 which has much stronger per-core performance, the gap between the two isn't very wide at all.

There's also the upgrade path to consider. The AM3+ socket has been around for a long time and AMD haven't released any new processors on that platform for over a year. Sure, you can upgrade to an 8350, but this was released back in 2012.

Believe me, I'm not an Intel fanboy, but it's hard to recommend AMD processors these days.


I agree to those aspects but if his budget is unchanged will you still favor an i3 over the 6300?


Absolutely.

In fact, my recommendation to the OP is to save your money and go straight to an i5. If you want to start building this PC now, go for the i3.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
August 5, 2014 7:14:21 AM

I'm not nesting the quotes anymore lol.
I agree with the first advice. Its best to save up for now and get the killer i5 4690k, no doubt.
But I certainly won't advice getting an i3 over fx 6300. Even if i3 is better in single core and the FX 6300 has tri-core working at any given time, I would advice him to get the AMD. That's just because FX has the raw power which i3 won't give in that price range, we all know it, upgrading the budget by $20 now will solve this issue, then I'll recommend a 4th gen i3.
But yes the best would be to save up for an i5.
m
0
l
August 5, 2014 8:45:36 AM

I'm a bit confused to what processor to get now. should I stick to what I already planned to get or should I get an i3 4130 with a asus H81M-E mobo. It is most unlikely that I will get an i5 in the near future.

I heard that the fx-6300 can handle games(I think games like crysis) better than an i3
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
August 5, 2014 9:00:16 AM

Nanoshade said:
I'm a bit confused to what processor to get now. should I stick to what I already planned to get or should I get an i3 4130 with a asus H81M-E mobo. It is most unlikely that I will get an i5 in the near future.

I heard that the fx-6300 can handle games(I think games like crysis) better than an i3


As long as game requirements don't exceed 3.2GHz recommended (eg: Watch Dogs), you can play them on high settings at good FPS of around 50-60 or maybe even more. BF4 will run better as it utilizes more cores. You will run Watch Dogs no doubt, but on Normal settings at maybe 40+ FPS. I can't suppose exactly what will be the result.
But I am certain the i3 won't be able to compete in parallel core intensive games like BF4.
m
0
l
August 5, 2014 9:20:17 AM

I heard that watch dogs was a poorly optimized game for pc. I'll settle for the fx 6300 since I already planned on getting it and it can run new games like bf4 more better than the i3 like you said.

Apparently you can't overclock an i3 like you can with a fx-6300, not too sure if that is true.

But, once again thanks you two for help me out

m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
August 5, 2014 9:30:07 AM

Yes almost sure on that, BF4 runs better on more cores at same speed.
The i3 can be overclocked but not by much, no real difference in performance, but I'm not an expert in that field.
And mention not! :D 
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
August 6, 2014 12:41:49 AM

For BF4, particularly multiplayer, the FX-6300 would be the better processor. BF4 is a multi-core optimised game, whereas most others are fine with dual-core.

Like you said, Watch Dogs is a poorly optimised game so performance won't be great on any build, but patches will fix that.

If you have no intention of upgrading, then the FX-6300 makes more sense. Like you said, it's also unlocked, which is a nice feature.

Enjoy your build.
m
0
l
August 6, 2014 2:46:51 AM

Thanks and I will :) 
m
0
l
!