Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Bang for your Buck

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Computer
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 30, 2010 8:20:36 AM

So I'm building a computer for gaming. I will be using it for programming and what not, but it's not video encoding or what not so I don't think I'll need a work station. So I'm basically looking for the best bang for my buck. I designed my computer and it came out to be a little more than I wanted to spend. Probably because I picked out a high-end i7 and some really fast memory, plus a high-end single gpu.

Anyways, so I was just looking up some random recommended system requirements for games like Crysis. I don't mind running them at Medium or High settings as long as it plays extremely smooth.

Now, down to the knitty gritty. I know that AMD does a good job keeping up with Intel in the overclocking/speed department, though I heard if I was doing more than gaming with my computer, which I do, I should go with Intel. At the same time I heard 3 Cores can be beneficial but I won't need anymore than 2 Cores for a gaming computer.

So basically I'm thinking if I get rid of the single GPU set-up and go with an SLI cheaper GeForce card set-up and then switch down to a good Duo core. I should be fine. What's everyone's thoughts on this? SLI or Single Radeon? Intel or AMD processor? Duo, Tri, or Quad core?

EDIT

To add further onto this issue. I've read a lot about the caches included on the CPUs. I understand how it works. How each core has an L1 and L2 Cache and then the processor as a whole has an L3 Cache, and then you have RAM. Though...if a bigger cache means a slower read speed, what's the benefit in having a larger cache? Seeing as with Intel it really comes down to either a Core 2 Duo or an i5 processor for Duo cores.

More about : bang buck

a b à CPUs
July 30, 2010 8:29:37 AM

Budget?
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 131 à CPUs
July 30, 2010 8:33:43 AM

At the same time I heard 3 Cores can be beneficial but I won't need anymore than 2 Cores for a gaming computer.
That advice is soo early 2009:p 
Most modern games can use up to 3 CPU cores. Older games like Crysis cannot use more than 2. If you are building a Crysis rig, a dual core is your friend.
For example, Modern Warefare uses 2 cores max, But MW2 can use 3 cores, no more though.
Few games can use 4+ cores but they do exist like Dragon age, GTA4, Flight simulator X...

Bang/buck in my opinion is in the lower end. The Athlon IIx3 or x4 along with a radeon 5770. The 5830 does not really perform at its price and anything higher is overpriced for performance.
If you can find a decently priced GTX260 though, go for it as long as you don't need or want DX11.
In the higher end, I view them as overpriced but the GTX260 1GB is good for its price, as is the 5850.
I'm not a fan of the multi-GPU route. horrible price/performance due to how it scales. The best I have seen is two GTX460s scaling to 190% of one GTX460. But, only in games that can utilize SLI/crossfire. Don't get me wrong though, the list of games is huge but I still avoid it. I guess maybe because I also had a nasty encounter with a GTX295 that started stuttering in cod4 with a high framerate. This was 2 months ago with the latest drivers.

system requirements for games like Crysis. I don't mind running them at Medium or High settings as long as it plays extremely smooth.
Need to know your monitor resolution dude. I can play crysis on medium settings smooth at 1280x720 with my 3 year old radeon 3870. Smooth is also relative here. For this example, I am talking 50FPS minimum. So you need to tell us what you consider smooth also.
m
0
l
July 30, 2010 8:40:52 AM

Yeah as for my budget, I don't really have one. I'll pay what it takes to get a good computer, but I want to make sure it's a quality overclock capable computer rather than a mainstream wannabe. I'm not trying to be HP or Dell over here. My bad on the old advice, the resolution I would be looking for would be 1650 x 1080, it's the native resolution of my monitor. DX11 is really just...not efficient as of yet from what I understand. Of course no one in computing is on the same page when it comes to releasing technology. I would be saying around 50 to 60 FPS would be ideal.

I also don't like Radeon, I know they're fast, but I'm a GeForce guy. I definitely share the view of going with a good i5 processor.
m
0
l
July 30, 2010 9:21:38 AM

I'm such a noob at this. So I chose to go with the Intel Core i5-760 as I can get it cheap enough like previously mentioned, plus it's got twice the amount of L3 cache that the 2 Core version for the same price does. The only part that's unclear to me is the supported memory. I'm going to want to run triple-channel DDR3 6GB. This processor supports up to 24 MB and DDR3 1333Mhz memory. Though it says it supports Two Channel. Will this affect the effectiveness of my memory if my motherboard can handle the memory?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 30, 2010 1:20:11 PM

The i5 processors are "socket 1156", which only support dual channel DDR3. If you want to use tri-channel 6Gb kits then you need to go for "socket 1366" motherboards, and you are limited to core i7 processors, of only the 9## series (the i7 870's and such are also socket 1156). Having said that the 1366 motherboards are much better for SLI or Crossfire (they support both), and if you can find a cheap i7920 D0 stepping version, then you get some serious overclocking potential for <$.
m
0
l
!
rector