Cheap amd build

[promoman9]

Approximate Purchase Date: Next Couple Months (As I can Afford)

Budget Range: 350-400 before rebates

System Usage from Most to Least Important: General Usage (internet surfing, word processing, listening to music, watching movies (possible streaming to television)), Mild Gaming (Diablo III when/if it comes out), possibly setting up a server on this machine for use with my other electronic devices.

Parts Not Required: Keyboard, Mouse, Harddrives (all SATA, 80gb,120gb, 1tb), RAM (Patriot Sector 9 2000mhz 8gb), Case, DVD-ROM, CD-ROM, floppy (novelty) Speakers, Screen, Power Supply (Its roughly 4years old 650watt. I have no idea what the make and model is. I'm waiting for it to go up at this point) I currently use windows XP with a Ubuntu dual boot. Thinking of upgrading to windows 7 and Ubuntu Server edition.

Preferred Website(s) for Parts: newegg.com, tigerdirect.com, amazon and even microcenter if its chearper after taxes.

Country: USA - Maryland

Parts Preferences: AMD (old habits die hard)

Overclocking: Maybe

SLI or Crossfire: Maybe

Monitor Resolution: 1280x1024; might run it to a 50" Plasma as well

Additional Comments:
In looking around my choices for CPUs are:

AMD A8-3850 Llano 2.9GHz Socket FM1 100W Quad-Core Desktop APU with DirectX 11 Graphic AMD Radeon HD 6550D AD3850WNGXBOX
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103942
or
AMD Phenom II X4 975 Black Edition Deneb 3.6GHz Socket AM3 125W Quad-Core Desktop Processor HDZ975FBGMBOX
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103923

I'm not sure where to start with the MBs and GPU's for these CPUs so any insight would be great.

I am currently using a dual core Athlon 4600+ so either is going to be a bump in speed, but I don't need it to be lightening fast. I just want something that will run the games I end up playing as well as it can be done for the cheap price.

 

[r0aringdrag0n]

Ok, there is a major problem...you need another RAM...the 2000mhz RAM isn't supported by most motherboards, and the motherboards that do support 2000mhz RAM cost too much...

CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 960T $125
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103995

Graphics: HIS H675FS1G Radeon HD 6750 $90
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161395

MoBo: ASRock 870 Extreme3 R2.0 $80
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157272

OCZ ModXStream Pro 500W $65
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817341016

RAM: PNY Optima 8GB Desktop Memory Model MD8192KD3-1333 $35
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820178333

Should come to $395...The graphics card is optional for mild gaming, it has good 1920x1080 performance. The Phenom II x4 960T is only 95W CPU, so it should save you some some in the long run. The ASRock board allows for CF and SLI in the future, the OCZ powersupply because unreliable PSUs can damage your computer (better be safe than sorry)...and the RAM because you can't use the Patriot memory.

 

[jamie_1318]

Scratch getting different RAM you can always use it at a slower clock rate it assuming you already have it.
For everything you have listed the above build should do just fine though. (other than the RAM you don't need new RAM)

 

[promoman9]

Yeah i was just planning on using the RAM at a lower clock speed. I got it a such a good deal I was willing to take the hit because I can't get it at a lower price at a lower clock speed. From what I see i like the looks of that power supply. I bought mine many years ago (5 maybe) but it hasn't missed a beat yet. That being said I'm pretty sure a new one is due. Now is the 960t that much better than the Llano combined with a 6550 graphics card? Perhaps for what I'm going for it is better, I don't mind if I'm not getting a huge bump performance wise in most areas as long as the games I end up playing preform as well as possible.

 

[Headspin_69]

Ok, there is a major problem...you need another RAM...the 2000mhz RAM isn't supported by most motherboards, and the motherboards that do support 2000mhz RAM cost too much...

CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 960T $125
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103995

Graphics: HIS H675FS1G Radeon HD 6750 $90
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161395

MoBo: ASRock 870 Extreme3 R2.0 $80
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157272

OCZ ModXStream Pro 500W $65
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817341016

RAM: PNY Optima 8GB Desktop Memory Model MD8192KD3-1333 $35
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820178333

Should come to $395...The graphics card is optional for mild gaming, it has good 1920x1080 performance. The Phenom II x4 960T is only 95W CPU, so it should save you some some in the long run. The ASRock board allows for CF and SLI in the future, the OCZ powersupply because unreliable PSUs can damage your computer (better be safe than sorry)...and the RAM because you can't use the Patriot memory.

Funny how when the better Phenom II 955s supply starts to dry up everyone starts to recommend 960T and hails it as great when Deneb 955 is better.

 

[kinggraves]

Going for the A8 will give you decent integrated graphics to start with and can crossfire with a cheap 6670 discrete later on for acceptable mid-high level quality. If you feel you might want to go for a high end discrete graphics set up, a normal CPU like the one above would be better. If you go with an A8, i'd recommend the overclockable K version and a CPU cooler.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819106001

The 960t would be a slightly stronger CPU and might handle the server tasks better, but the A8 would give you more modern motherboard options compared to the 870 motherboards

 

[flashfir]

Honestly I would go with an i3-2100 build with an h67 mobo. The sandy bridge i3 trumps amd phenoms on almost all gaming benchmarks at a good price. With a phenom II you'll need a half decent mobo along with an aftermarket heats ink to overclock otherwise you won't be getting the value close to the i3 via overclocking.

Interesting how an i3 can hold its own against an overclocked phenom/thuban in gaming fps eh?

I make gaming builds for my friends and I shop around a lot online and research, I wouldn't recommend amd unfortunately unless those extra cores will be be faster, which is only in video and encoding and the likes. Games are what all my builds have been for.

P.S.
Do you live near a microcenter by chance? That sir would change things dramatically

 

[Headspin_69]

Honestly I would go with an i3-2100 build with an h67 mobo. The sandy bridge i3 trumps amd phenoms on almost all gaming benchmarks at a good price. With a phenom II you'll need a half decent mobo along with an aftermarket heats ink to overclock otherwise you won't be getting the value close to the i3 via overclocking.

Interesting how an i3 can hold its own against an overclocked phenom/thuban in gaming fps eh?

I make gaming builds for my friends and I shop around a lot online and research, I wouldn't recommend amd unfortunately unless those extra cores will be be faster, which is only in video and encoding and the likes. Games are what all my builds have been for.

P.S.
Do you live near a microcenter by chance? That sir would change things dramatically

It trumps nothing as far as Overclocked phenom IIs go in gaming plus dual cores suck at gaming and can even run some games at all.

 

[promoman9]

flashier: I live close enough to a microcenter. There is one around 2 hrs away but I'm up in the area every month or so. Only issue I have is 6%sales tax. Kills deals on more expensive things. I know they have the I5-2500k for cheap, but wondering if that will keep me out of my price range.

I am also trying to keep things somewhat future proof which is much more difficult with Intel. Is AMD still planning on using the fm1 socket for trinity? I had read that a few months back.

 

[promoman9]

Going for the A8 will give you decent integrated graphics to start with and can crossfire with a cheap 6670 discrete later on for acceptable mid-high level quality. If you feel you might want to go for a high end discrete graphics set up, a normal CPU like the one above would be better. If you go with an A8, i'd recommend the overclockable K version and a CPU cooler.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819106001

The 960t would be a slightly stronger CPU and might handle the server tasks better, but the A8 would give you more modern motherboard options compared to the 870 motherboards

stoopid question bit would the six core bulldozer be worth considering with a more modern board?

 

[flashfir]

It trumps nothing as far as Overclocked phenom IIs go in gaming plus dual cores suck at gaming and can even run some games at all.

You are wrong, in your assertions. I maybe was a little too strong, the i3-2100 is an evenly matched option for him! Not a hands down but I certainly would say it's really 50/50.

1.
"It trumps nothing as far as Phenom IIs"
How high are you going on overclocking? Hitting above the 4GHZ mark on Phenom II's like the 955 are a hit or miss. They happen they might not. You can get up to 4.0ghz pretty much on an aftermarket heatsink such as the Hyper 212+ but above that is no guarantee.

Here's a benchmark of a 965 vs an i3.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/102?vs=289
3.4ghz Phenom II vs 3.1ghz i3-2100

Scroll to the gaming FPS tests which are at the latter end of the webpage. Obviously the i3-2100 has an edge.

Similarly the i3-2100 is recommended over the 955 in Tomshardware's Best CPU for gaming guides...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-overclocking,3077-3.html

The real competition for the Phenom II X4 955 BE is Intel's Sandy Bridge-based Core i3-2100. Intel's budget-oriented processor can out-game the Phenom II X4. But AMD's CPU is a good entertainment-oriented option better suited to multitasking, thanks to its quad-core architecture. Since this list is focused on game performance, the Phenom II X4 955's price is too close to the superior Core i3-2100 to take a full recommendation. It does deserve an honorable mention for those looking to upgrade an aging Socket AM2+ or AM3 system, though.

So it does potentially trump Phenom II's. At his price point, overclocking his processor will require OP to purchase more expensive HSF & mobos (if he wants to be sure he's hitting his particular chip's maximum frequency).


2. Dual cores suck at gaming and can (sic) [I think you mean CAN'T] run some games at all.

Clearly you are ignorant here. Read up ANY article on the Sandy Bridge's i3's on gaming and you will see you're clearly WRONG. They don't suck at gaming unless they are old architecture. Which Sandy Bridge is not.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/07/01/intel-core-i3-2100-review/1
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-overclocking,3077-3.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu-core-i3-2100-phenom-ii-x6-1075t,2859-10.html

Both your points are wrong sire. I should have qualified it the fact that an overclocked phenom ii can potentially beat an i3-2100 but at this price point, it isn't a clear decision.

Here's a Phenom II 980 vs an i3-2100
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/362?vs=289

It does win marginally but that won't be a noticeable difference with much higher power usage and such.

 

[Headspin_69]

You are wrong, in your assertions. I maybe was a little too strong, the i3-2100 is an evenly matched option for him! Not a hands down but I certainly would say it's really 50/50.

Sorry but allot new games use more than 2 cores and sure in the old ones the core i3 may hold its own but that is only when they are old games that use only two cores.

 

[Headspin_69]

You are wrong, in your assertions. I maybe was a little too strong, the i3-2100 is an evenly matched option for him! Not a hands down but I certainly would say it's really 50/50. Quad core is the way it is going that being said a slightly slower quad AMD is still going to be better than a slightly faster dual core.

 

[kinggraves]

flashier: I live close enough to a microcenter. There is one around 2 hrs away but I'm up in the area every month or so. Only issue I have is 6%sales tax. Kills deals on more expensive things. I know they have the I5-2500k for cheap, but wondering if that will keep me out of my price range.

I am also trying to keep things somewhat future proof which is much more difficult with Intel. Is AMD still planning on using the fm1 socket for trinity? I had read that a few months back.

Early samples make it seem that Trinity will not fit an FM1, even though the amount of pins on the chip is actually one less (2 pins are in different spots so it would not fit) so likely no. Intel Socket 1155 is "compatible" with this year's chips but next year is not guaranteed. AM3+ is also supposed to be compatible for this year but will be discontinued in 2013. So nothing right now is really "futureproof". (FM2 later this year might last awhile though)

AM3+ chips are a bit more long term on 9xx series boards since they tend to have SATA3/USB3, but I can't give a definite answer on Bulldozer since present performance isn't much better than PIIs outside of heavy threading. It may or may not be better in the future but definitely has serious issues so I'd stick with the PIIs.

As far as Intel, I'd take AMD over an i3 and overclock. i3s are locked and dual core, more things will use quad cores in the future. The i5 2500k is great but hard to do on a budget since you need to get one of the higher end overclocking boards.

 

[Headspin_69]

Old games that only use 2 cores will run better on an Intel core i3 however it is the new games that Phenom II x4 will do better in that actually use 4 cores and some games need 4 cores to run decent.

 

[flashfir]

Old games that only use 2 cores will run better on an Intel core i3 however it is the new games that Phenom II x4 will do better in that actually use 4 cores and some games need 4 cores to run decent.

If you look at games that fully utilize 4 cores you will see that most games are not able to fully utilize 4 cores. The order of complexity it takes to write code that utilizes the parallel processing power of different cores goes up dramatically the more parallel processing units you add. Hence many games even "NEW" games as compared to "OLD" games don't see quite the performance difference. I have a friend who has an i3-2100 and he has NO problems with the same games vs my 955. Yes I have 2 more cores than he does.

4 cores is better than 2 cores, EVERYTHING ELSE being equal. Clock for clock sandy bridge is faster than AMD's offerings. 3.1 ghz =/= 3.1ghz on K10 Stars architecture (phenoms & thubans if you dunno) vs Sandy Bridge architecture.

Quad core is the way it is going that being said a slightly slower quad AMD is still going to be better than a slightly faster dual core.

WRONG. Check out my links that I linked that you did not click on.

A HIGHER clocked quad core LOSES to a LOWER clocked DUAL core.
WHY? Because Intel's new 32nm process is so much faster than AMD's aging 45nm stars architecture. Better DESIGN.

I am done. You are either trolling or you actually don't know very much about computer hardware and how they relate to games.

PromoMan9: Don't go FM1 because:
1
FM1 socket is not the way to go for a build because it does not have a future upgrade path.
2
Nor will it tide you over with performance that can play games proficiently for the pricepoint.
Even a CPU with a cheaper dedicated graphics for the same price will provide better gaming performance.



$400 for new CPU/MOBO & GPU & PSU correct? Everything else you already have? Even though you said you didn't know, what is your current PSU? Find out.

 

[Headspin_69]

If you look at games that fully utilize 4 cores you will see that most games are not able to fully utilize 4 cores. The order of complexity it takes to write code that utilizes the parallel processing power of different cores goes up dramatically the more parallel processing units you add. Hence many games even "NEW" games as compared to "OLD" games don't see quite the performance difference. I have a friend who has an i3-2100 and he has NO problems with the same games vs my 955. Yes I have 2 more cores than he does.

Some games just want more course to run nice like BF3 it runs like poop on a dual core.

 

[flashfir]

If you look at games that fully utilize 4 cores you will see that most games are not able to fully utilize 4 cores. The order of complexity it takes to write code that utilizes the parallel processing power of different cores goes up dramatically the more parallel processing units you add. Hence many games even "NEW" games as compared to "OLD" games don't see quite the performance difference. I have a friend who has an i3-2100 and he has NO problems with the same games vs my 955. Yes I have 2 more cores than he does.

Some games just want more course to run nice like BF3 it runs like poop on a dual core.

It does not run like poop. Do some google research.

 

[Headspin_69]

It does not run like poop. Do some google research.

I did the research BF3 likes more cores and will max out even an Intel 6 / 8 cores runs like poop on any dual core same with The Witcher 2 and as well all RTS games love more cores ever try and run FSX on a dual POOP LOL.

 

[flashfir]

I did the research BF3 likes more cores and will max out even an Intel 6 / 8 cores runs like poop on any dual core same with The Witcher 2 and as well all RTS games love more cores ever try and run FSX on a dual POOP LOL.

Nice job making stuff up troll

i3-2100 is on the same tier as quad cores at stock speeds. You have to have a significant overclock to have any measurable difference in FPS. Games are not unplayable aka running like poop. They get good FPS. Intel's hex-octa core offerings are in the thousands of dollars... You're starting to pull random information out of your butt when you mentioned that. They will max out on Sandy Bridge's quad cores... aka i5-2500k, chip of choice at a high enough price point.

kthxbai

 

[Outlander_04]

Get the A8 3850
its the same cores as the Zosma and phenom with very small improvements , and less cache .
Its also 32 nm so uses less power [per clock] and includes decent graphics .

Bords are FM1 and the chipset with all the features is A75 . Get a board with HDMI as well as a DVI for the monitor and connect both .

You will be able to run the 2000 Mhz RAM . But maybe not at that speed . Llano by default runs at 1866 MHz. You may have to manually set timings

 

[Headspin_69]

Nice job making stuff up troll

i3-2100 is on the same tier as quad cores at stock speeds. You have to have a significant overclock to have any measurable difference in FPS. Games are not unplayable aka running like poop. They get good FPS. Intel's hex-octa core offerings are in the thousands of dollars... You're starting to pull random information out of your butt when you mentioned that. They will max out on Sandy Bridge's quad cores... aka i5-2500k, chip of choice at a high enough price point.

kthxbai

Yes its faster per core but it cant make up for the cores it does not have when new games like BF3 are coded to run on 4 cores or more.

 

[kinggraves]

If you look at games that fully utilize 4 cores you will see that most games are not able to fully utilize 4 cores. The order of complexity it takes to write code that utilizes the parallel processing power of different cores goes up dramatically the more parallel processing units you add. Hence many games even "NEW" games as compared to "OLD" games don't see quite the performance difference. I have a friend who has an i3-2100 and he has NO problems with the same games vs my 955. Yes I have 2 more cores than he does.

4 cores is better than 2 cores, EVERYTHING ELSE being equal. Clock for clock sandy bridge is faster than AMD's offerings. 3.1 ghz =/= 3.1ghz on K10 Stars architecture (phenoms & thubans if you dunno) vs Sandy Bridge architecture.

Quad core is the way it is going that being said a slightly slower quad AMD is still going to be better than a slightly faster dual core.

WRONG. Check out my links that I linked that you did not click on.

A HIGHER clocked quad core LOSES to a LOWER clocked DUAL core.
WHY? Because Intel's new 32nm process is so much faster than AMD's aging 45nm stars architecture. Better DESIGN.

I am done. You are either trolling or you actually don't know very much about computer hardware and how they relate to games.

PromoMan9: Don't go FM1 because:
1
FM1 socket is not the way to go for a build because it does not have a future upgrade path.
2
Nor will it tide you over with performance that can play games proficiently for the pricepoint.
Even a CPU with a cheaper dedicated graphics for the same price will provide better gaming performance.



$400 for new CPU/MOBO & GPU & PSU correct? Everything else you already have? Even though you said you didn't know, what is your current PSU? Find out.

Phenom II is K10.5, the original Phenoms were K10. But anyway, saying 4 cores doesn't matter vs 2 is like saying someone only needs a single thread years ago so there's no need for dual cores. Multicore is the way that you're going to see improvements in speed, so if they want to write powerful and optimized code, they'd better get used to writing for more cores. Today's games were started years ago, so why would they be set for quad cores? Sandy Bridge processes better than K10.5, which makes sense since it's newer, but we don't really have to compare it clock for clock because one OCs and one doesn't and the OCed PII will outperform.

BTW your claim about the 2100 + discrete is kind of silly. a 2100 is only 20 dollars less than A8, you wouldn't even get a discrete at that price, and equal graphics push it higher. This does of course ignore the fact the new A8s overclock now too and not using a discrete is a better thermal/power consideration. It also ignores hybrid crossfire.

Sorry to OP since your thread has become today's AMD/Intel discussion.

 

[Headspin_69]

Phenom II is K10.5, the original Phenoms were K10. But anyway, saying 4 cores doesn't matter vs 2 is like saying someone only needs a single thread years ago so there's no need for dual cores. Multicore is the way that you're going to see improvements in speed, so if they want to write powerful and optimized code, they'd better get used to writing for more cores. Today's games were started years ago, so why would they be set for quad cores? Sandy Bridge processes better than K10.5, which makes sense since it's newer, but we don't really have to compare it clock for clock because one OCs and one doesn't and the OCed PII will outperform.

BTW your claim about the 2100 + discrete is kind of silly. a 2100 is only 20 dollars less than A8, you wouldn't even get a discrete at that price, and equal graphics push it higher. This does of course ignore the fact the new A8s overclock now too and not using a discrete is a better thermal/power consideration. It also ignores hybrid crossfire.

Sorry to OP since your thread has become today's AMD/Intel discussion.

Thanx for making it more clear because it is fairly obvious that this dual core troll has never played the games that just do not and will not run smooth on any dual core chip like The Witcher 2 and in the near future all the games people want to play will be coded for more cores quad have finally taken off and Hexa is starting to gain ground and even XBOX has a triple core CPU @ 3.2ghz LOL.

 

[promoman9]

PromoMan9: Don't go FM1 because:
1
FM1 socket is not the way to go for a build because it does not have a future upgrade path.
2
Nor will it tide you over with performance that can play games proficiently for the pricepoint.
Even a CPU with a cheaper dedicated graphics for the same price will provide better gaming performance.



$400 for new CPU/MOBO & GPU & PSU correct? Everything else you already have? Even though you said you didn't know, what is your current PSU? Find out.[/quotemsg]

I tried to look last night, I will attempt again tonight (had my kids all over me, not the ideal time to open a computer up) I did discover its a 500watt. I thought it was a 650watt. I probably need a new one for energy efficiency anyway. One issue I know that might come up is the RAM i have is 1.65v and not 1.5v that the Sandy Bridge chips "need".

It is very interesting to get back into the intel/amd debate. Haven't been keeping up with it over the past 4 or so months. Its kind of disappointing that neither are really setting themselves up with the same sockets for the future. That is something I'm really going to have to take into consideration. I was starting to lean towards an unlocked A8 and discrete graphics for now, but it might be more worth my money to wait a few months and see what else will come out. Especially since the game I really want hasn't been released yet...