Gaming build - AMD vs Intel ?
Tags:
- New Build
-
Gaming
-
AMD
- Corsair
-
Intel
-
Systems
Last response: in Systems
Toinooo
July 2, 2009 6:14:32 PM
I'm trying to choose a rig with as main purpose gaming. I Came up with 2 setups. One amd, one intel.
So my problem is: what build to choose? + modifications?
Intel
Intel® Core i7-920
Corsair CMPSU-850TX 850Watt
Antec Nine Hundred II Midi tower
Samsung SH-S222A DVD-Writer
GigaByte GA-EX58-UD4P Motherboard
Corsair DIMM 6 GB DDR3-1333 Tri-Kit
Western Digital WD5002ABYS 500 GB x 2
XFX HD4890 XXX
AMD
AMD Phenom II X4 955 Boxed, OPGA, "Deneb"
Corsair CMPSU-850TX 850Watt
Antec Nine Hundred II Midi tower
Samsung SH-S222A DVD-Writer
Asus M4A79T Deluxe Motherboard
Corsair DIMM 4 GB DDR3-1333 Kit
Western Digital WD5002ABYS 500 GB x 2
XFX HD4890 XXX
Please don't start a flamewar Intel is better then AMD and yaddi yaddi..
I just want to know were I get the most bang for my buck
Again: purpose --> gaming,music,video..
So my problem is: what build to choose? + modifications?
Intel
Intel® Core i7-920
Corsair CMPSU-850TX 850Watt
Antec Nine Hundred II Midi tower
Samsung SH-S222A DVD-Writer
GigaByte GA-EX58-UD4P Motherboard
Corsair DIMM 6 GB DDR3-1333 Tri-Kit
Western Digital WD5002ABYS 500 GB x 2
XFX HD4890 XXX
AMD
AMD Phenom II X4 955 Boxed, OPGA, "Deneb"
Corsair CMPSU-850TX 850Watt
Antec Nine Hundred II Midi tower
Samsung SH-S222A DVD-Writer
Asus M4A79T Deluxe Motherboard
Corsair DIMM 4 GB DDR3-1333 Kit
Western Digital WD5002ABYS 500 GB x 2
XFX HD4890 XXX
Please don't start a flamewar Intel is better then AMD and yaddi yaddi..
I just want to know were I get the most bang for my buck
Again: purpose --> gaming,music,video..
More about : gaming build amd intel
Lee-m
July 2, 2009 7:01:18 PM
Related resources
- AMD vs Intel Gaming Build - Forum
- AMD vs intel gaming build - Forum
- $1600 Gaming Pc budget build, AMD vs Intel, gtx 770 - Forum
- AMD vs Intel Gaming Build - Forum
- AMD vs Intel build... which to get for gaming - Forum
Helloworld_98
July 2, 2009 7:24:11 PM
Toinooo
July 2, 2009 10:11:14 PM
meatwad53186
July 2, 2009 10:51:06 PM
Both of those look pretty solid so it's really down to your personal opinion on it. The only thing I'm going to say is, I'm just throwing it out there, but Asus just released the Crosshair III Formula, which costs about the same as the M4A79T Deluxe, but has some slightly different features, and depending on which features you want you can choose between those two boards.
With that budget, I think the i7 920 build is better.
Also, you are getting 6gb, not 4. You could lower the price difference by using 4gb and a cheaper X58 motherboard on the i7 build.
For both builds, a cheaper corsair unit will suffice.
Consider a oem cooler up front. Your cpu will run cooler and quieter under load.
It will improve your OC capabilities.
Also, you are getting 6gb, not 4. You could lower the price difference by using 4gb and a cheaper X58 motherboard on the i7 build.
For both builds, a cheaper corsair unit will suffice.
Consider a oem cooler up front. Your cpu will run cooler and quieter under load.
It will improve your OC capabilities.
xaira
July 3, 2009 12:37:19 AM
the amd build is obviously cheaper, but noone knows what kind of socket next gen amd cpus will have, but the upcomming intel six cores will drop right into current 1366 sockets (with bios update), also if im not mistaken, the x58 board supports sli and cf, whereas am3 boards only support cf so it is according to if ur willing to pay xtra for future upgradability and etc, if ur udget minded, amd, if u look for any xcuse to spend on ur pc, i7
smithereen
July 3, 2009 12:49:33 AM
In a single gfx card gaming computer i7 offers questionable benefits ... unless you count the extra cost as a benefit that is
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=355...
These benches were done with a single GTX 280
The i7 only takes a significant lead in gaming when you have a couple of high end gfx cards so whether its worth buying is about Having an etra $160 for the extra cost of cpu/mb'ram ....and another $200 for a second 4890
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=355...
These benches were done with a single GTX 280
The i7 only takes a significant lead in gaming when you have a couple of high end gfx cards so whether its worth buying is about Having an etra $160 for the extra cost of cpu/mb'ram ....and another $200 for a second 4890
JD45093
July 3, 2009 4:41:18 AM
smithereen
July 3, 2009 6:18:05 AM
Hey, single GTX 280 benchies aren't exactly reliable - remember this article?
smithereen said:
Hey, single GTX 280 benchies aren't exactly reliable - remember this article?Well theres this one where the 955 and i7 are paired with a single GTX260
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/phenom2_955/8.h...
and the i7 comes out looking hopeless
or the benches with a single 4870 in the link you gave where the Phenom 940 was marginally ahead of the i7 playing farcry 2 at 1920 x 1200
And predictably its only in the multi gpu [ 4870 X2 ] set up that i7 shows any advantage
So if your budget includes two top end gfx cards or a 4870 X2 or GTX 295 then it might also be worth paying for an i7 rig .
Which leaves the other 97% of us better off buying a Phenom
Outlander_04 said:
Well theres this one where the 955 and i7 are paired with a single GTX260http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/phenom2_955/8.h...
and the i7 comes out looking hopeless
or the benches with a single 4870 in the link you gave where the Phenom 940 was marginally ahead of the i7 playing farcry 2 at 1920 x 1200
And predictably its only in the multi gpu [ 4870 X2 ] set up that i7 shows any advantage
So if your budget includes two top end gfx cards or a 4870 X2 or GTX 295 then it might also be worth paying for an i7 rig .
Which leaves the other 97% of us better off buying a Phenom
Now let's do this by the number shall we ?
1) you linked one game, check out the rest of the pages on that link. Especially the "conclusion".
2) That AMD 955 was over clocked unlike the i7 920. Do you know what happens outlander when the i7 is over clocked? It destroys anything AMD including that 955 which is a poor over clocking cpu btw.
3) D0 stepping i7's are hitting 4.0 - 4.4 on air and they are doing it on a regular basis.
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/phenom2_955/17....
"the Phenom II 955 outperformed the previous top AMD processor, the Phenom II X4 940, as well as the Intel Q9450 in most of the tests. While still not as fast as the Intel Core i7 920 processor, the Phenom II X4 955 is a well put together CPU that allows fast computing using the latest components on the market
On the overclocking front, which OCC is all about, the Phenom II X4 955 lagged behind the Phenom II 940. No matter how much voltage I gave it, or how many adjustments I made, the CPU just did not want to budge. I attempted to suicide the voltage, and still the stability would not set in. With the Phenom II 940, I was able to get almost a 1GHz increase on air alone; however, with the Phenom II 955, the system would lock up with anything over 18.5x205Mhz."
now lets do it by the number shall we
I have read the whole article and what it shows is that the i7 is the most powerful processor family available . Phenom isnt massively behind but it is behind .
But what the numbers also show is that with a single GPU computer Phenom produces the same or better frame rates than i7 and it has less variation between minimum and maximum fps which almost every one who has reviewed it has preferred .
Of the two builds listed by the OP one is cheaper and will have the same or better fps in games
HINT : its not the i7 build .
Only a fanboy would spend more to get the same or less
WOW the i7 wasnt clocked in the article I linked . It was a review of the Phenom 955 so maybe they decided to work with that cpu for the purposes of the article . Maybe if they had oc'ed the i7 it would have been able to match a stock phenom? .
As usual your advice is based on smoke . You only have one opinion " i7 for everyone " so its not actually an opinion based on sound examination of the OP's question , nor is it a reasoned debate of the issues
Its just fanboy ranting .
I have read the whole article and what it shows is that the i7 is the most powerful processor family available . Phenom isnt massively behind but it is behind .
But what the numbers also show is that with a single GPU computer Phenom produces the same or better frame rates than i7 and it has less variation between minimum and maximum fps which almost every one who has reviewed it has preferred .
Of the two builds listed by the OP one is cheaper and will have the same or better fps in games
HINT : its not the i7 build .
Only a fanboy would spend more to get the same or less
WOW the i7 wasnt clocked in the article I linked . It was a review of the Phenom 955 so maybe they decided to work with that cpu for the purposes of the article . Maybe if they had oc'ed the i7 it would have been able to match a stock phenom? .
As usual your advice is based on smoke . You only have one opinion " i7 for everyone " so its not actually an opinion based on sound examination of the OP's question , nor is it a reasoned debate of the issues
Its just fanboy ranting .
atomicWAR
July 3, 2009 12:12:49 PM
i have a few differant rigs right now though admittingly not an i7 is in the mix...couple of core2quads. one 3ghz w/ OC paired with 3 3870's gpu's 2 via x2 model other one 3.6 ghz (can do 4ghz fine too as i water cool all my systems)has 3 evga FTW 285gtx's and phenom 2 940 @3.4-3.6ghz oc running 3 3870's gpu again 2 via x2 model card.
If your sticking with one card and not looking to CF down the range...get the amd system. Since your looking at the BE processor i would encourage you to OC to 3.6-3.8ghz since its as simple as a small bump in multiplier and maybe voltage (cpu dependant...some are better then others) i love amd but in multi card setups for 4000 series amd/ati or 200 series for nvidia video cards...phenoms unless very heavily over clocked can't keep up as well as a core 2 and especially i7 where scaling is almost perfect least to 3 gpu's...
The i7 system should have more longevity and can also be over clocked fairly easy as well despite the locked multiplier. I am not a fan of playing with bus speeds unless its to link and sync ram in a core 2. An i7 over clock of the 920 requires just that though its not syncing the ram. u can get a small bump in cpu frequency if u jump from 4.8 to 6.4 GT on the i7's bus with minimal hassle. again scaling in multi card setups is as good as it gets....period.
What i see from your build you looking for a good mid level system. Strong enough to game but not taking any crowns in benchmarks. i would go with the amd system for three reasons if i were u. First your running a single card, second bang for your buck and third amd has been much better then intel about future processors being compatible with older chipsets. Giving you some room to upgrade later should your needs require more horse power. (say a move to direct X 11 card, CF or both) assuming of course that when those cpu's come out they are better equiped in bandwidth for multicard setups.
Ulitmately there are no easy answers depending how thoroughly you want to "think" your system out. At face value though....AMD seems to be your best ticket.
If your sticking with one card and not looking to CF down the range...get the amd system. Since your looking at the BE processor i would encourage you to OC to 3.6-3.8ghz since its as simple as a small bump in multiplier and maybe voltage (cpu dependant...some are better then others) i love amd but in multi card setups for 4000 series amd/ati or 200 series for nvidia video cards...phenoms unless very heavily over clocked can't keep up as well as a core 2 and especially i7 where scaling is almost perfect least to 3 gpu's...
The i7 system should have more longevity and can also be over clocked fairly easy as well despite the locked multiplier. I am not a fan of playing with bus speeds unless its to link and sync ram in a core 2. An i7 over clock of the 920 requires just that though its not syncing the ram. u can get a small bump in cpu frequency if u jump from 4.8 to 6.4 GT on the i7's bus with minimal hassle. again scaling in multi card setups is as good as it gets....period.
What i see from your build you looking for a good mid level system. Strong enough to game but not taking any crowns in benchmarks. i would go with the amd system for three reasons if i were u. First your running a single card, second bang for your buck and third amd has been much better then intel about future processors being compatible with older chipsets. Giving you some room to upgrade later should your needs require more horse power. (say a move to direct X 11 card, CF or both) assuming of course that when those cpu's come out they are better equiped in bandwidth for multicard setups.
Ulitmately there are no easy answers depending how thoroughly you want to "think" your system out. At face value though....AMD seems to be your best ticket.
atomicWAR
July 3, 2009 12:38:37 PM
21697
3DMarks UntitledFeb 22, 2009 08:52 CST
CPU:Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Extreme CPU X9650 @ 3.00GHz (actualy 4ghz)
GPU:NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 (tri-sli)
OS:Microsoft Windows Vista
Benchmark Settings: Default
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19380
3DMarks
Favorite UntitledFeb 26, 2009 23:40 CST
CPU:AMD Processor model unknown (phenom II 940 @3.4ghz)
GPU:ATI Radeon HD 3870 X2 (ie 1 x2, 1 3870 tri fire)
OS:Microsoft Windows Vista
Benchmark Settings: Default
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i find numbers help so heres my high end and low end. you'll see the preformance's close but not equal. so question is which u want to pay for... a premuim for few more FPS or points in a benchmark or less for close but slightly inferior performance. keep in mind had i tri-fired a few 4890's on the phenom the numbers would be even closer. If i had a i7 in there at 3.4 or higher it would easily smoke both those systems running the same graphix cards. i7 shines in multi card. my cpu's do a lot of damage but still lack the polish and brute bandwidth the i7 has.
3DMarks UntitledFeb 22, 2009 08:52 CST
CPU:Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Extreme CPU X9650 @ 3.00GHz (actualy 4ghz)
GPU:NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 (tri-sli)
OS:Microsoft Windows Vista
Benchmark Settings: Default
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19380
3DMarks
Favorite UntitledFeb 26, 2009 23:40 CST
CPU:AMD Processor model unknown (phenom II 940 @3.4ghz)
GPU:ATI Radeon HD 3870 X2 (ie 1 x2, 1 3870 tri fire)
OS:Microsoft Windows Vista
Benchmark Settings: Default
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i find numbers help so heres my high end and low end. you'll see the preformance's close but not equal. so question is which u want to pay for... a premuim for few more FPS or points in a benchmark or less for close but slightly inferior performance. keep in mind had i tri-fired a few 4890's on the phenom the numbers would be even closer. If i had a i7 in there at 3.4 or higher it would easily smoke both those systems running the same graphix cards. i7 shines in multi card. my cpu's do a lot of damage but still lack the polish and brute bandwidth the i7 has.
Some more thoughts:
1) The OP will be using a 4890 card at an unknown resolution.
Some of the benchmarks mentioned earlier were using lesser cards like a GTX260. In those cases, it takes less cpu power to drive the card to saturation, making the difference in cpu power less noticeable. If the op will be using a high resolution, like 2560x1600, then the vga card is all important. If, on the other hand, a resolution like 1680 is used, then it takes a more capable cpu to drive the card to saturation.
2) The actual price difference is $108 based on newegg prices. This is a small percentage of the total rig.
With this budget, does it make sense to go cheap for such a small difference?
3) Comparisons of the amd 955 and intel 920 at stock may be close. But, the 920 can be overclocked easily to 965 speeds and beyond.
The amd 955 is already near it's limit with only modest oc capabilities.
4) the i7 build gets you 6gb of ram, while the amd build is only 4gb.
5) There are new vga cards coming by the end of the year. I presume that they will be stronger and cheaper than the cards they replace. It seems wise to me to be able to be prepared to fully utilize one of them in a gaming computer.
For the difference, I see the i7 as a no brainer.
1) The OP will be using a 4890 card at an unknown resolution.
Some of the benchmarks mentioned earlier were using lesser cards like a GTX260. In those cases, it takes less cpu power to drive the card to saturation, making the difference in cpu power less noticeable. If the op will be using a high resolution, like 2560x1600, then the vga card is all important. If, on the other hand, a resolution like 1680 is used, then it takes a more capable cpu to drive the card to saturation.
2) The actual price difference is $108 based on newegg prices. This is a small percentage of the total rig.
With this budget, does it make sense to go cheap for such a small difference?
3) Comparisons of the amd 955 and intel 920 at stock may be close. But, the 920 can be overclocked easily to 965 speeds and beyond.
The amd 955 is already near it's limit with only modest oc capabilities.
4) the i7 build gets you 6gb of ram, while the amd build is only 4gb.
5) There are new vga cards coming by the end of the year. I presume that they will be stronger and cheaper than the cards they replace. It seems wise to me to be able to be prepared to fully utilize one of them in a gaming computer.
For the difference, I see the i7 as a no brainer.
smithereen
July 3, 2009 5:06:14 PM
The 955 is not a "poor overclocker', Overclocker's Club got a poor sample.
These guys got it to over 3.9GHz under warranted voltages. Anandtech was right around there too, I believe.
These guys got it to over 3.9GHz under warranted voltages. Anandtech was right around there too, I believe.
Toinooo
July 3, 2009 6:34:54 PM
atomicWAR
July 3, 2009 7:22:52 PM
glad we can help but to be clear intel is horrible (though some might claim questionallby better during socket 775 days) about socket compatiblity in terms to CPU upgrades. keep in mind we have the i5 socket enroute for what is now i7 low end preformance. So u may not have a CPU upgrade in a years time thats not already out now or at the least very expensive. if i5 is to take over the mid range as intel plans premuim processors may be all X58 chipsets support.....ie $1g CPU's
either way your getting a pretty rad rig. congrats and enjoy!
either way your getting a pretty rad rig. congrats and enjoy!
http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=584 <--- d0 stepping i7 920. Stock clock 2.66GHz | over clocked 4.41GHz on air cooling. That's 2.66GHz - 4.41GHz. Game over boys.
Don't forget : X58 mobo = SLI and Crossfire all on an Intel chip. No having to worry about using a buggy Nvidea chipset in order to run SLI on an X58 board.
Don't forget : X58 mobo = SLI and Crossfire all on an Intel chip. No having to worry about using a buggy Nvidea chipset in order to run SLI on an X58 board.
Why_Me said:
http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=584 <--- d0 stepping i7 920. Stock clock 2.66GHz | over clocked 4.41GHz on air cooling. That's 2.66GHz - 4.41GHz. Game over boys.Don't forget : X58 mobo = SLI and Crossfire all on an Intel chip. No having to worry about using a buggy Nvidea chipset in order to run SLI on an X58 board.
Im not a boy . I am a man .
But if you want a contest to post meaningless links then
http://valid.canardpc.com/records.php
OMG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the highest overclock of an i7 is ONLY 6061.09 MHz !!!!!!!!!!!
thats absolute rubbish compared to the Phenom X4 955 which can do .......
...........
...........
..........
is the suspense getting you yet ?
............
...........
wow an amazing 7127.85 MHz
or 17.6 % FASTER than the i7
wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It must be better according to your logic
game over fanboy ?
Klon0pin
July 4, 2009 4:24:42 AM
I had the opportunity to play Crysis Warhead on a make shift "Dragon Platform" AMD build with the processor youre looking at (clocked @ 3.3 ghz on a 16?? X 1050 22" monitor) with a 4870x2 and it was playable, but I'd keep my i7 system anyday. I know I can't base a CPUs whole performance off of 20 min playing with it but an i7 is the best you can get for the money today.
And what does a 7.1 ghz max clean room LN2 overclock have to do with the op's proposed home build? He doesn't mention overclocking competition champion in his list of planned uses for his system.
When intel is at the top of their game I'll buy from them when amd is I'll buy from them.
And what does a 7.1 ghz max clean room LN2 overclock have to do with the op's proposed home build? He doesn't mention overclocking competition champion in his list of planned uses for his system.
When intel is at the top of their game I'll buy from them when amd is I'll buy from them.
Klon0pin said:
And what does a 7.1 ghz max clean room LN2 overclock have to do with the op's proposed home build? He doesn't mention overclocking competition champion in his list of planned uses for his system.
When intel is at the top of their game I'll buy from them when amd is I'll buy from them.
I agree with you . When intel is best bang for buck I buy from them , when AMD is best bang for buck I buy from them
I disagree with you that i7 is the best you can get for the money since the gfx performance of the OP's 2 builds will be identical
and what does someone hitting 4.4 gig on an i7 have to do with anything the OP posted or asked? He isnt even getting an aftermarket heatsink/fan so overclocking is not a priority .
Did you forget to mention that or were you just taking a cheap shot?
Mandydeth
July 12, 2009 3:52:01 PM
I must admit this was a little TLDR for me, but I can't understand why you would want to spend the money on an i7 when for gaming purposes, any high-end dual core processor would serve you fine.
Quad cores are more for multi-tasking and rendering/encoding as opposed to gaming.
I'd rather take the money and put it into a better video card.
Quad cores are more for multi-tasking and rendering/encoding as opposed to gaming.
I'd rather take the money and put it into a better video card.
xtc28
July 12, 2009 5:31:29 PM
JDogg
August 4, 2009 8:09:46 AM
Outlander_04 said:
Im not a boy . I am a man . But if you want a contest to post meaningless links then
http://valid.canardpc.com/records.php
OMG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the highest overclock of an i7 is ONLY 6061.09 MHz !!!!!!!!!!!
thats absolute rubbish compared to the Phenom X4 955 which can do .......
...........
...........
..........
is the suspense getting you yet ?
............
...........
wow an amazing 7127.85 MHz
or 17.6 % FASTER than the i7
wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It must be better according to your logic
game over fanboy ?
I'm pretty sure that was done with either water cooling, or probably liquid nitrogen, the i7's are overclocked to 4.0+ on air, and are used all the time, not for an hour as a suicide shot, just my 2 cents.
sub mesa
August 4, 2009 12:15:55 PM
xtc28
August 4, 2009 4:49:09 PM
Helloworld_98
August 4, 2009 6:00:12 PM
Jascomputerguy
August 4, 2009 6:01:08 PM
I would go for the AMD but if the price difference isnt to great then I would go intel the only reason I say this is because the intle i7 is faster because it runs on ddr3 instead of ddr2 but both systems are great and will do anything that you want them to do it is really up to you if you would raher sacrifice some more money for a little performance or just go with the cheaper system!
xtc28
August 4, 2009 6:26:49 PM
xaira
August 4, 2009 7:13:17 PM
xtc28
August 4, 2009 8:20:28 PM
xaira
August 4, 2009 8:22:57 PM
xtc28
August 4, 2009 8:27:06 PM
xtc28
August 4, 2009 8:34:24 PM
Jascomputerguy said:
I would go for the AMD but if the price difference isnt to great then I would go intel the only reason I say this is because the intle i7 is faster because it runs on ddr3 instead of ddr2 but both systems are great and will do anything that you want them to do it is really up to you if you would raher sacrifice some more money for a little performance or just go with the cheaper system!Im sorry but this is wrong! The re4ason i7 is faster is a multitude of reasons not just DDR3. If that were the only reason than you would see AMD PII 955's beating i7's, ALL PII's have a DDR3 controller and a DDR2 controller on the CPU DIE. As for i7 being faster one reason is becuase of turbo mode, another is Hyper threading and still another is transistor achitecture. A vey small difference can be seen with using triple Channel DDR3(Intel) over Dual channel DDR3(AMD) and then even a little bit more more improvement can be seen with using DDR3 over DDR2 but not much discernable difference to our perspective.
Related resources
- SolvedIntel vs AMD: Building My First Gaming PC Forum
- SolvedFirst Gaming build - ~$2000 budget AMD vs Intel Forum
- Solvedwhich amd build vs intel gaming Forum
- SolvedAMD vs Intel ~$600 Gaming Build Forum
- Solved$1200 gameing build (intel vs amd) Forum
- SolvedAMD vs Intel Gaming Build advise? Forum
- which Gaming pc for 1250$ should i build? AMD fx 8350 VS. INTEL i5 4670k Forum
- SolvedPls help me choose between two cheap gaming builds (amd vs intel) Forum
- Intel vs AMD: Building My First Gaming PC Forum
- Intel option vs. AMD option for a budget gaming build Forum
- Budget Gaming System - AMD Build vs Intel - Help choose better parts Forum
- What build should i choose for gaming??? AMD VS. INTEL Forum
- First ever build: AMD vs Intel for Gaming +olater CAD use Forum
- Intel gaming build [i3 2100, HD 5850] - Vs my AMD one[Athlon II 640, . Forum
- Intel vs. AMD for a Gaming Build Forum
- More resources
Read discussions in other Systems categories
!
. I'd recommend getting an aftermarket cooler if you plan to overclock.