Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New build. looking for AM3 fanbois

Last response: in Systems
August 16, 2010 4:18:53 AM

I personally can't stand Intel... their builds from namebrands, or what any average "computer guy" can make of them. They're overpriced and they are not upgradeable past a 1 yr lifespan... that's my opinion and I'm stickin to it like a double barrel in zombieland. SO.... for all the AMD fans out there, what's the least expensive way to go about building an inexpensive quad core (unlocked) windows vista or 7 64 bit system.

The Idea I have in mind is to buy an AM3 mobo with ddr2 ram... but what does that limit so far as cache off the cpu (am I gonna run into bottlenecks under stress)
There's plenty out there that handle ddr2 with AM3 (not am2+) capability. Not going to overclock the cpu, and for the extra 120 bucks (that's for mobo and ddr3 instead) i'd go that route if it meant ease of use and compatibility. Any pro builders with an inexpensive solution? I see the 6 cores out now... are they ddr3 only? Phenom2 and athlon2 (meh am2+) are both comp with ddr2 800mhz just fine.

2nd part to this question.... Where can a guy get vista 64 bit or 7 64 bit without paying friggin 200 bucks for it. The only things I can get are 32 bit for 30 bucks cuz of a ripoff "student". I want it on disc... or at least partitioned on a drive so I can put it on disc lol.

I'd use Mint if I could all day, but I play online games (they don't work with WINE) WINE IS NOT AN EMULATOR

grrrrrrrr. damn microsoft and intel both to hell. Give us what we want and cut out the damn RAM HOGGING BS!

More about : build am3 fanbois

Best solution

August 16, 2010 4:36:53 AM

Ok dude, number one, chill out, no need to be cussing and all that. Kinda immature.

What I keep telling everyone, is if you have a microcenter near you, check this deal out.

You can get an AMD chip for normal price, then get a free board. Then the extra you would normally spend on a good board, go grab 4 gb of ddr3. So you could theoretically have an Athlon II x4 quad and 4 gb of ddr3 for 200 bucks with a board.

As far as Athlon II and Phenom II, I think they both have the memory controllers for ddr2 or ddr3. But for ddr2, you'll probably have to go with am2+, no real reason to at this point for a new build though.

For grabbing a copy of Windows, even a 32 bit version is an ok deal at 30 bucks.

However, if you are building a new computer, this should do what you want.

It's an OEM version, which is for system builders, so it's only 100 bucks. However, you don't get tech support from microsoft as since it's for builders, you are the tech support as the builder.

August 16, 2010 11:18:32 AM

aye, I'm going to stay away from 32 bit right now because of the ram limit/capabilities compared to 64. That is a sweet deal for a chip+mobo.

Heck, what's window's "tech" support anyhow lol. Anytime I've ever called them they just tell me it's a hardware issue, or a software issue and not the OS.

I noticed under the reviews that people are able to call up for a new activation code upon a rebuild "due to hardware failure" Does this mean I'd be able to call them up for another code and use it on a completely different computer after a rebuild if I "bend" the truth... i.e. a second new build.

Related resources
August 16, 2010 11:39:24 AM

Before you start giving people the wrong idea let me make something clear here.

Intel isn't overpriced. IMO i5 750s and i7 930s offer better value than 955s/965s and 1090Ts. At stock maybe amd might have the edge in bang for buck, but AMD CPUs are pushed closer to their limits at stock. 1090s are clocked much higher than a 930 at stock but a 930 can overclock much much higher than a 1090. Taking overclocking into account 930s and 750s don't have any competition form AMD in bang for buck terms.

And what are you whining about with upgradibility? If you ean you can only run a few intel CPUs on each of their sockets while bassically all new AMD CPUs run on the same socket(am3). Well there is a reason for that. Different CPUs are well different and have different purposes. What intel does is they make chipsets for their CPUs that correspond with what that CPU would be used for. For example x58 can make 64lanes available for GPUs meaning you can run up to 4 at full speed while with AMD the number remains at 1. ALso x58 uses tripple channel memory which is faster again corrseponding with the fast and powerful CPUs designed for x58.
August 16, 2010 12:19:31 PM

ok, intel's not overpriced... but if you want to upgrade a year old cpu you just need to change nearly everything everytime. :p  (hence making the build more expensive). I've also run into chip signature issues from OS' with intel when you change the cpu only (having to reinstall the OS) I've never had that issue with amd.
Other than some core i3 / i5 boards right now you'd most likely have to change the motherboard if you were to want to upgrade to an i7.

I stated amd fanbois (so this link wouldn't get searched as a thread on cooling systems :/ ) Intel people like their product just as much as you do, for the reasons you stated... and most amd fans like amd for the reasons you stated :/  People that bought an athlon2 lower end quad core a couple years ago can now upgrade the cpu only and have no issues whatsoever on the install. You're even able to use quad core cpus on some of the standard am2 boards. (not to their full potential) but if the mobo can support a 125w chip, it'll work and be better than the ancient single core athlon 64's that came in a lot of em. Intel doesn't allow for any of that with any of their systems that I've seen. I gave up on em quite a long time ago for that fact alone.

You're allowed to like whatever you want, and for good reason you do... but i posted the thread this way exactly because I don't want Intel guys jumpin in and tryin to tell me how much better it is to complicate a computer to the point that I don't understand it lol! You're bringing up overclocking too.... I'm not going to OC a brand new system lol. AMD definately clocks their cpu's higher so you don't need to OC :/  Why make a system unstable when you can just go buy a new cpu and plug it in? You proved my point right there. I dont want to have to buy a new motherboard every year lol.
August 16, 2010 2:32:38 PM

I'm not blaming you for liking AMD at all. But neither is better really. I never saw them as competition really. In my eyes AMD dominates everything up to the 955/965 exept maybe a little competition from some budget intel CPUs like the atom but then still amd has the bang for buck advantage. And Intel dominates everything from an i5 750 and above. Yes there is a 1090t but unless you're running 5+ threads exclusivly I think you're better of with an i7. And yeah intel doesn't really care about upgrading. I never minded because I'm more a fan of replacing the mobo aswell but then that's just me.

So about you're system can you fill in the template I linked so you can give is some more info ? All we really know is you want AMD and DDR2 lol.
August 16, 2010 5:44:22 PM

I disagree about the overpriced part. For example, the cheapest i3 processor seems to run about 115 bucks on newegg for a dual core. I can get an AMD Athlon II quad for less than that. Sorry, the value just isn't there for me. I remember when I wanted to upgrade back in the day, I had an old 200 mhz amd k6 chip. Wanted a new Pentium 2, and of course, at the time, it was like 200 bucks for a 400 mhz chip. No way. Went to best buy, and picked up a 450 mhz amd k6-2 for 100 bucks. Since that time, I've been sold.

Intel might be better now than they were, but honestly, for most people, unless you have money to burn, I could not recommend intel if you want the best deal. Because to me, the AMD chips will do everything most people will want/need, and their price is outstanding. Why pay more for a chip that may give you a marginal gain? Even if you want to talk upper end. Ok. 1000 bucks for intel's top of the line i7 980 x, and or 975 extreme editions? Give me a break.

Yes the AMD P2 1090T is not nearly as good in performance, but if I'm building a system, use the 1090T, I can use the money saved to get more ram, better video, more hard drive, etc. In the end you can come out with a more balanced system. Just my 2 cents.
August 16, 2010 5:52:08 PM

Somebody_007 said:
For example x58 can make 64lanes available for GPUs meaning you can run up to 4 at full speed while with AMD the number remains at 1.

Agree on posting in the New Build format.

Not sure what the above quote refers to, though. There are multiple boards that can run at least 2 GPUs at 16x/16x. The Crosshair IV and the Gigabyte UD5, for example.

The only Intel boards that I see that run 3 or 4 at 16x are all $400+. While it's nice that it's technically feasible, it's out of reach of the average consumer.
August 16, 2010 6:05:11 PM

coldsleep said:
Agree on posting in the New Build format.

Not sure what the above quote refers to, though. There are multiple boards that can run at least 2 GPUs at 16x/16x. The Crosshair IV and the Gigabyte UD5, for example.

The only Intel boards that I see that run 3 or 4 at 16x are all $400+. While it's nice that it's technically feasible, it's out of reach of the average consumer.

I feel kind of retarded now lol. Ok I was very very worng apperently. I though all 1156 and am3 boards were limited to 8x/8x. How wrong I was. Ok maybe you should just ignore my ignorant comments ;) 
August 26, 2010 1:00:38 AM

Best answer selected by JoshBaity.
August 26, 2010 1:08:03 AM

bought an NF750-g55 MSI board, phenom2 x4 965 with 2 gigs of ddr3 dual channel 1333mhz for a total of 365 with tax. Depending on where you go and what you do, keep in mind AMD does not yet support some of the latest ram (triple channel). It will work, but will result in super slow boots and shutdowns and other issues. (was told this by one of the builders at compusa).

Didn't have to reinstall OS or anything, though I plan on doing that soon enough for the upgrade to a 64bit but this was a DRASTIC improvement without losing any of my data.