Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Cheap amd build

Last response: in Systems
Share
January 2, 2012 6:46:23 PM

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=N82E168...
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=N82E168...

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.

More about : cheap amd build

a b B Homebuilt system
January 2, 2012 8:32:32 PM

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=N82E168...

Graphics: HIS H675FS1G Radeon HD 6750 $90
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

MoBo: ASRock 870 Extreme3 R2.0 $80
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

OCZ ModXStream Pro 500W $65
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

RAM: PNY Optima 8GB Desktop Memory Model MD8192KD3-1333 $35
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

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.

m
0
l
January 2, 2012 9:27:16 PM

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)
m
0
l
Related resources
January 2, 2012 9:50:39 PM

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.
m
0
l
January 2, 2012 10:44:11 PM

r0aringdrag0n said:
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=N82E168...

Graphics: HIS H675FS1G Radeon HD 6750 $90
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

MoBo: ASRock 870 Extreme3 R2.0 $80
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

OCZ ModXStream Pro 500W $65
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

RAM: PNY Optima 8GB Desktop Memory Model MD8192KD3-1333 $35
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

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.
m
0
l
January 2, 2012 11:34:01 PM

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=N82E168...

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
m
0
l
January 3, 2012 1:02:56 AM

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
m
0
l
January 3, 2012 1:08:51 AM

flashfir said:
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.
m
0
l
January 3, 2012 1:39:24 AM

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.
m
0
l
January 3, 2012 1:41:10 AM

kinggraves said:
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=N82E168...

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?
m
0
l
January 3, 2012 1:46:07 AM

Headspin_69 said:
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-overcloc...
Quote:
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-...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-overcloc...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu-cor...

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.
m
0
l
January 3, 2012 1:52:14 AM

2476182,11,770285 said:
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.
m
0
l
January 3, 2012 1:55:17 AM

2476182,11,770285 said:
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.
m
0
l
January 3, 2012 1:58:39 AM

promoman9 said:
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.

m
0
l
January 3, 2012 1:58:43 AM

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.
m
0
l
January 3, 2012 3:04:22 AM

Headspin_69 said:
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.

Quote:
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.
m
0
l
January 3, 2012 3:07:17 AM

2476261,16,770285 said:
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.
m
0
l
January 3, 2012 3:19:37 AM

Headspin_69 said:
2476261,16,770285 said:
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.
said:


It does not run like poop. Do some google research.
m
0
l
January 3, 2012 3:24:14 AM

flashfir said:
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.
m
0
l
January 3, 2012 3:26:06 AM

Headspin_69 said:
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
m
0
l
a c 136 B Homebuilt system
January 3, 2012 3:26:13 AM

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
m
0
l
January 3, 2012 3:29:27 AM

flashfir said:
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.
m
0
l
January 3, 2012 3:30:59 AM

flashfir said:
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.

Quote:
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. :sarcastic: 
m
0
l
January 3, 2012 3:41:39 AM

kinggraves said:
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. :sarcastic: 

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.
m
0
l
January 3, 2012 12:26:13 PM

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...
m
0
l
January 5, 2012 9:28:32 AM

Quote:
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...
[/quotemsg]

Headspin & Kinggraves are incorrect about the importance of quad cores over dual cores at this particular season in time.

I am not interested in making an Intel vs AMD debate. I am arguing not because I'm a fanboy, but because I think it is a simple fact that Intel offers better gaming performance in your price range. AMD used to hold the mid/lowbudget segment against intel but now with Sandy Bridge, Tomshardware and every other hardware review site has concluded that Sandy Bridge whoops AMDs butt in gaming. If any trolls are interested in contesting this, let's take a look at their recommended CPUs for gaming before and after the Sandy Bridge release. Please.
Take a look here:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1195152/low-budget-crossfire...
Quote:
The i3 won't overclock, but it'll beat an AMD setup at 4GHz easy in gaming. The i5 will easily handle everything you throw at it, and it'll overclock soooo well.

from Post #5, he's a forum moderator, and I trust the people perusing forums, on a whole, at overclock.net more than @ tomshardware.

---
To further prove I'm not interested in an Intel promotion over AMD war, I'm not an Intel fanboy, I'm running a 955x4 in my case and I JUST got into the hardware world since November last year but I've been reading non-stop tomshardware, jonnyguru, anandtech, hardwaresecrets, bit-tech, the like.

Cores unfortunately are not that great of a deal. Otherwise AMD would be punishing Intel hard but that's simply not reality in the world. They had hex cores and now octa cores way before Intel did and at MUCH cheaper prices than Intel's quad core offerings, not to mention Intel's hex core offerings, if they had any at that specific time.

For me, the 955 was the best CPU for gaming via Tomshardware's montly "Best CPU for Gaming" for 1 year ago.
---

Nuff about that trash.


---


What brand and what line is your PSU? Wattage 500w is GREAT, if it can put out 500w as it says it can. Also, if it's a decent PSU that can output 500w, it's likely that the efficiency isn't terrible. If you look up some articles about PSU efficiency, increasing efficiency from something that's not trash, would not be cost beneficial.

Want me to prove that you don't need more wattage? Take a peek.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1126863/real-world-power-usa...
http://www.overclock.net/t/1140534/psu-calc-final-relea...
~A power supply calculator. Not malware. Created by Phaedrus129, I think that's his name, a guy who I learned a lot from on that website. Very knowledgeable.
http://www.overclock.net/t/183810/faq-recommended-power...
~
Quote:
Now the question gets asked often enough so I thought I would address it in a basic sense right here; What PSU do I need for my system?

Well most *high end single GPU systems will only need a 500-550w unit. Most *high end dual GPU systems will need a 750-850w unit. Most *High End Triple & Quad GPU setups will be in the 1000-1500w category.

Simple systems like an Athlon II x4 & HD5770 would run on a solid 400-450w PSU.

There's no need to over buy in the PSU category as half the time you'll be wasting away that nice 80+ Badge by running a unit below 20% load at idle.

*High End qualifies as: Core i7 920 @ 4.4Ghz, GTX 580 with high air overclocks, 2 HDD, 1 SSD, 1 ODD, 5 x 120mm fans.


There's a few more very informative stickies in the power supply forum there.




All your reasons for going FM1 socket are a nogo. Here's the conclusion for Tomshardware's review on A8-3850, the highest perforaming Llano chip.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-a8-3850-llano,2...


$400? Means going to microcenter and nabbing one of their CPU/MOBO combos!
http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/46f4da69#/46f4da69/...
i5-2500k for $180? Almost impossible to find anywhere else! A lot of mobos have rebates, and even more so, $50 off if you buy with an i5-2500k!

I'll sift through their list of mobos that are eligible for discount and give you a short list which have the following characteristics that I talk about beneath here.
*edit: preliminary search, the asrock p67 extreme 4 gen3 looks like an EXTREMELY attractive option at $100 after combo savings and rebate, putting you at 180+100+tax meaning still got budget for a legitimate PSU if yours isn't a good one!

Once you tell me your PSU brand, we should google the reviews of it to see if the innards are any good and to see if it can put out voltage within spec it supposed to. http://www.overclock.net/t/738097/psu-review-database


About mobos:
These are some mobos that are cheap but have good VRM setups, good for overclocking (i3 can't overclock but an i5-2500k/i7-2600k can overclock to 4.4-5Ghz no problem ;) 
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Key things I look for in mobos:
VRM setup - what are they? They supply power to CPU. More "power phases" are better for having higher overclocks. MSI was and is known to have their VRMs CATCH ON FIRE.
http://www.overclock.net/t/943109/about-vrms-mosfets-mo...
I look for those blackboxes near the CPU area, if they're heatsinked, look for capacitors, look for at least a 6+2, preferably 8+2 phase. That biostar which is out of stock, has quality 4+2 phases I believe so people strongly recommend that board despite it not being 8+2.

PCI-E slots: At least x8/x8 for SLI/XFIRE if you're looking to in the future? NO NEED to buy this if your power supply can't support dual gpus. Single gpus are always better than dual if performance is the same. Driver issues, heat, etc is much more complicated, not to say don't do it. But if there's an easy option, pick it.
Spacing on PCI-E slots is important if you're going to do multi-gpu. Don't want none of your cards starved for air.

Known brand - Asus/ASRock/Gigabyte/Biostar are the most used boards that I'm aware of in the gaming/enthusiast community.
m
0
l
January 5, 2012 11:34:48 AM

flashfir said:
....


OP can ignore this

If you aren't interested in making a debate, you should stop debating.
Alright, well I've been building PCs for 10 years, and I can assure you that the present does not always indicate what the future holds. When dual cores came out, everything was single threaded, and people questioned why they would want dual core when the dual core clocks were slower. Where's the single cores now? They're gone, because in order to take advantage of the added power people had to start optimizing for more cores. This trend will continue, people aren't going to go "well, 2s enough, let's stop." Intel realizes this, that's why they have quad cores too. Their quad cores are just more expensive. Do you see them stopping at 2? Did you see them stop at 4?

You are entitled to your opinion, but the thing is, your opinion seems to be based only on other people's opinions. All you do is keep throwing out links. I have unfortunate news, those are just their opinions too, and their opinions frequently get based off other's opinions. Opinions can be flawed, biased, bribed, incompetent, they aren't "fact". Benchmarks are nice, but they aren't 100 percent "this is fact" either. When you learn about the scientific method, you will understand "benchmarks" are flawed because a large chart like Anandtech's did not test every single CPU under the exact same tests with the exact same conditions. Even if they did, some results could change the performance if they were then done under more favorable conditions. They could get bad chips, the user could get better chips. It's more of a basic reference, giving you an idea of performance. A lot of review based benchmarks aren't reliable either. Take that one you linked from Tom's for example, I read it already. I'm not saying their reviews are untrustworthy, I trust them to do fairly accurate testing. Thing is, they reviewed it right when it came out, most people did. It's known already that AMD is terrible at drivers, especially right away, so it's no surprise that Hybrid Crossfire failed in the review. The drivers for the 7xxx cards will be bad too right away. It has improved, although it's still a bit iffy at times. Hybrid Crossfire has always been iffy at times. You should find more recent info on games that are working like they should, it's nice when it does work. It still isn't that much of a boost however, a discrete 6790 or more is better, but it can offer people a slight improvement path down the road. I really don't know what you mean by saying what's been said about FM1 isn't true. I said before you did that FM1 will not be used in the future? As far as the performance issue, I'll look at benchmarks with you.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/399?vs=289
Sysmark has to be ignored, because Sysmark favors Intel. It's well known. Everything that's "close" should be ignored as well, because as I said, benchmarks are not 100 percent accurate. AMD does better on multithreaded tests like POVRAY/7Zip, while Intel does better on single thread tests like WinRAR. Intel does do better on games, but not by the massive margin you'd make it out to be. The A3850 is basically a Propus AII x4 635 with improvements, a $100 CPU, so for the price, i3 SHOULD do better, but it isn't like anything that won't do well on the Llano is going to fly on i3. This does of course ignore that Llanos now have unlocked models and i3 remains locked, so AMD is still better for low budget OCers. Sandy Bridge are good chips, but I can't recommend them until it's an i5. There are better choices than Llano for AMD as well if you aren't going to actually use the integrated graphics in some way. I will say though that at least Llano ALLOWS integrated graphics to be used in some way.

tl;dr - i5s are good, i3s are overrated.
m
0
l
January 5, 2012 11:48:44 AM

flashfir said:
Quote:
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...


Headspin & Kinggraves are incorrect about the importance of quad cores over dual cores at this particular season in time.

I am not interested in making an Intel vs AMD debate. I am arguing not because I'm a fanboy, but because I think it is a simple fact that Intel offers better gaming performance in your price range. AMD used to hold the mid/lowbudget segment against intel but now with Sandy Bridge, Tomshardware and every other hardware review site has concluded that Sandy Bridge whoops AMDs butt in gaming. If any trolls are interested in contesting this, let's take a look at their recommended CPUs for gaming before and after the Sandy Bridge release. Please.
Take a look here:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1195152/low-budget-crossfire...
Quote:
The i3 won't overclock, but it'll beat an AMD setup at 4GHz easy in gaming. The i5 will easily handle everything you throw at it, and it'll overclock soooo well.

from Post #5, he's a forum moderator, and I trust the people perusing forums, on a whole, at overclock.net more than @ tomshardware.

---
To further prove I'm not interested in an Intel promotion over AMD war, I'm not an Intel fanboy, I'm running a 955x4 in my case and I JUST got into the hardware world since November last year but I've been reading non-stop tomshardware, jonnyguru, anandtech, hardwaresecrets, bit-tech, the like.

Cores unfortunately are not that great of a deal. Otherwise AMD would be punishing Intel hard but that's simply not reality in the world. They had hex cores and now octa cores way before Intel did and at MUCH cheaper prices than Intel's quad core offerings, not to mention Intel's hex core offerings, if they had any at that specific time.

For me, the 955 was the best CPU for gaming via Tomshardware's montly "Best CPU for Gaming" for 1 year ago.
---

Nuff about that trash.


---


What brand and what line is your PSU? Wattage 500w is GREAT, if it can put out 500w as it says it can. Also, if it's a decent PSU that can output 500w, it's likely that the efficiency isn't terrible. If you look up some articles about PSU efficiency, increasing efficiency from something that's not trash, would not be cost beneficial.

Want me to prove that you don't need more wattage? Take a peek.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1126863/real-world-power-usa...
http://www.overclock.net/t/1140534/psu-calc-final-relea...
~A power supply calculator. Not malware. Created by Phaedrus129, I think that's his name, a guy who I learned a lot from on that website. Very knowledgeable.
http://www.overclock.net/t/183810/faq-recommended-power...
~
Quote:
Now the question gets asked often enough so I thought I would address it in a basic sense right here; What PSU do I need for my system?

Well most *high end single GPU systems will only need a 500-550w unit. Most *high end dual GPU systems will need a 750-850w unit. Most *High End Triple & Quad GPU setups will be in the 1000-1500w category.

Simple systems like an Athlon II x4 & HD5770 would run on a solid 400-450w PSU.

There's no need to over buy in the PSU category as half the time you'll be wasting away that nice 80+ Badge by running a unit below 20% load at idle.

*High End qualifies as: Core i7 920 @ 4.4Ghz, GTX 580 with high air overclocks, 2 HDD, 1 SSD, 1 ODD, 5 x 120mm fans.


There's a few more very informative stickies in the power supply forum there.




All your reasons for going FM1 socket are a nogo. Here's the conclusion for Tomshardware's review on A8-3850, the highest perforaming Llano chip.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-a8-3850-llano,2...


$400? Means going to microcenter and nabbing one of their CPU/MOBO combos!
http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/46f4da69#/46f4da69/...
i5-2500k for $180? Almost impossible to find anywhere else! A lot of mobos have rebates, and even more so, $50 off if you buy with an i5-2500k!

I'll sift through their list of mobos that are eligible for discount and give you a short list which have the following characteristics that I talk about beneath here.
*edit: preliminary search, the asrock p67 extreme 4 gen3 looks like an EXTREMELY attractive option at $100 after combo savings and rebate, putting you at 180+100+tax meaning still got budget for a legitimate PSU if yours isn't a good one!

Once you tell me your PSU brand, we should google the reviews of it to see if the innards are any good and to see if it can put out voltage within spec it supposed to. http://www.overclock.net/t/738097/psu-review-database


About mobos:
These are some mobos that are cheap but have good VRM setups, good for overclocking (i3 can't overclock but an i5-2500k/i7-2600k can overclock to 4.4-5Ghz no problem ;) 
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Key things I look for in mobos:
VRM setup - what are they? They supply power to CPU. More "power phases" are better for having higher overclocks. MSI was and is known to have their VRMs CATCH ON FIRE.
http://www.overclock.net/t/943109/about-vrms-mosfets-mo...
I look for those blackboxes near the CPU area, if they're heatsinked, look for capacitors, look for at least a 6+2, preferably 8+2 phase. That biostar which is out of stock, has quality 4+2 phases I believe so people strongly recommend that board despite it not being 8+2.

PCI-E slots: At least x8/x8 for SLI/XFIRE if you're looking to in the future? NO NEED to buy this if your power supply can't support dual gpus. Single gpus are always better than dual if performance is the same. Driver issues, heat, etc is much more complicated, not to say don't do it. But if there's an easy option, pick it.
Spacing on PCI-E slots is important if you're going to do multi-gpu. Don't want none of your cards starved for air.

Known brand - Asus/ASRock/Gigabyte/Biostar are the most used boards that I'm aware of in the gaming/enthusiast community.[/quotemsg]


first off... Nice.

Second. The power supply is a Xion 500w. It is like 4 years old if I recall correctly. It might be 3 years old.

It seems as though you have more of less convinced me to go the Intel Route. So with that in mind what do you think about:

i5 2500k from microcenter
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml...

ASRock Z68 PRO3-M LGA 1155 Intel Z68 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 Micro ATX Intel Motherboard
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
I like Asus/ASrock boards. Never had a gigabyte, but my experience with Biostar is not good. Personally I don't think they are built very well. The one I had starting losing its ports 6 months in and was completely dead in a year. I also doubt i'll be doing multiple GPU's, I doubt i'll be doing anything near that hardcore gaming.

G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10666) Desktop Memory Model F3-10666CL7D-4GBRH
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Galaxy 43GGS8HX3SPZ GeForce GT 430 (Fermi) 1GB 128-bit DDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready Video Card
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

~ 404 before rebate.

I'm going to have to sell the RAM i have since its 1.65v. I know it should still work with an Intel, but i know Intel doesn't recommened anything over 1.5v if I read correctly.

Probably going to wait until I get my taxes back so hopefully prices will go down. Would I need an after market cooler for OC'ing the 2500k or will the factory suffice for small increments of overclocking?
m
0
l
January 5, 2012 1:49:37 PM

If like what you say is true "For me, the 955 was the best CPU for gaming via Tomshardware's montly "Best CPU for Gaming" for 1 year ago." I don't see how a locked and overpriced dual core like i3 will just vastly overpower a 955 when the fact is the i3 does not over power a 955 and it never will because of quadcore architecture in the future the gap will become bigger in favor of the 955 until both CPUs become obsolete and at the end of the road for both CPUs 955 will be ahead.
m
0
l
January 5, 2012 1:53:22 PM

kinggraves said:
OP can ignore this

If you aren't interested in making a debate, you should stop debating.
Alright, well I've been building PCs for 10 years, and I can assure you that the present does not always indicate what the future holds. When dual cores came out, everything was single threaded, and people questioned why they would want dual core when the dual core clocks were slower. Where's the single cores now? They're gone, because in order to take advantage of the added power people had to start optimizing for more cores. This trend will continue, people aren't going to go "well, 2s enough, let's stop." Intel realizes this, that's why they have quad cores too. Their quad cores are just more expensive. Do you see them stopping at 2? Did you see them stop at 4?

You are entitled to your opinion, but the thing is, your opinion seems to be based only on other people's opinions. All you do is keep throwing out links. I have unfortunate news, those are just their opinions too, and their opinions frequently get based off other's opinions. Opinions can be flawed, biased, bribed, incompetent, they aren't "fact". Benchmarks are nice, but they aren't 100 percent "this is fact" either. When you learn about the scientific method, you will understand "benchmarks" are flawed because a large chart like Anandtech's did not test every single CPU under the exact same tests with the exact same conditions. Even if they did, some results could change the performance if they were then done under more favorable conditions. They could get bad chips, the user could get better chips. It's more of a basic reference, giving you an idea of performance. A lot of review based benchmarks aren't reliable either. Take that one you linked from Tom's for example, I read it already. I'm not saying their reviews are untrustworthy, I trust them to do fairly accurate testing. Thing is, they reviewed it right when it came out, most people did. It's known already that AMD is terrible at drivers, especially right away, so it's no surprise that Hybrid Crossfire failed in the review. The drivers for the 7xxx cards will be bad too right away. It has improved, although it's still a bit iffy at times. Hybrid Crossfire has always been iffy at times. You should find more recent info on games that are working like they should, it's nice when it does work. It still isn't that much of a boost however, a discrete 6790 or more is better, but it can offer people a slight improvement path down the road. I really don't know what you mean by saying what's been said about FM1 isn't true. I said before you did that FM1 will not be used in the future? As far as the performance issue, I'll look at benchmarks with you.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/399?vs=289
Sysmark has to be ignored, because Sysmark favors Intel. It's well known. Everything that's "close" should be ignored as well, because as I said, benchmarks are not 100 percent accurate. AMD does better on multithreaded tests like POVRAY/7Zip, while Intel does better on single thread tests like WinRAR. Intel does do better on games, but not by the massive margin you'd make it out to be. The A3850 is basically a Propus AII x4 635 with improvements, a $100 CPU, so for the price, i3 SHOULD do better, but it isn't like anything that won't do well on the Llano is going to fly on i3. This does of course ignore that Llanos now have unlocked models and i3 remains locked, so AMD is still better for low budget OCers. Sandy Bridge are good chips, but I can't recommend them until it's an i5. There are better choices than Llano for AMD as well if you aren't going to actually use the integrated graphics in some way. I will say though that at least Llano ALLOWS integrated graphics to be used in some way.

tl;dr - i5s are good, i3s are overrated.

I concur with everything you said but AMD/Radeon drivers are just fine it's just the Intel san boys that spread to much disinformation and I could just as easily turn the tables on Nvidia with my resent Nvidia driver whore story's.
m
0
l
January 5, 2012 6:16:46 PM

*EDIT: Asnwering your question, stock I believe people have said it was okay not for hitting the max of their chip but for a few hundred megahertz it was fine. However, budget coolers run for $10-$20 if you get them on sale which are totally worth it since they lower your temps by at least 5-20+C. I got my darkknight for $4AR for blackfriday. Budgetcoolers = Hyper 212+ Xigmatek Dark knight, & other coolers with that kind of performance/price.

BUT.
Yowzas. Forgot you needed a GPU in the mix. In that case, the i5-2500k can't really be a good deal within budget since the GT 430 will bottleneck your gaming performance big time. Need to shift more money over. Didn't know you needed RAM either. get 8gb of 1333 or 1600 if the price is the same.

I'm wondering what the other people in this thread are suggesting for $400.

It just really doesn't make sense to choose AMD's platform because
1. you're picking a phenom ii, which is not going to be updated. it'll be sufficient now but it'll age faster than LGA 1155 socket for sure.
2. am3+ platform to counteract mobo oudating: piledriver and future bulldozer updates are unknown. whereas we know what kind of performance an i5/i7 K series processors deliver, and we don't know if future am3+ updates to the bulldozer architecture will compete with the current Ivy/Sandy Bridge K series.

Rough idea for graphics card. At least get a 6850 for gaming right now. Any lower in this budget and I think you'd be bottlenecking your gaming FPS.

6850's run for about $105-$125 on good deals as of late
http://slickdeals.net/newsearch.php?forumchoice%5B%5D=9...
Meaning you got about $35 for 8gb of RAM, not expecting $30, 8gb 1600 cl9 1.5v ddr3 has been running for $35 but not sure if you can find that kind of deal right now. Newegg has 8gb 1333 for a TAD over $30 right now.

That leaves you about $240 for a processor and a mobo not to mention


P.S.
That power supply is getting a lil' old and I'm not sure if it's a quality unit. The review I did find on a Xion unit wasn't nice.
Jonnyguru on Xion's "PowerReal XON-700P14N"
http://www.jonnyguru.com/modules.php?name=NDReviews&op=...

Right now NCIX is having a sale, this looks like a pretty decent deal. OCZ ZS 550w (which will run pretty much any single gpu setup) Again, power supply links I provided earlier as general rules of thumb.
http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=62391&vpn=OCZ-ZS550W&m...
It does well on Jonnyguru's review on this line and this particular model
http://www.jonnyguru.com/modules.php?name=NDReviews&op=...

$35AR PSU + $35 RAM + $105-125 GPU = 195, leaving you 205 for CPU / MOBO. Hrm.
Anyone else have any opinions to add to the discussion?

Everyone is focused on NONONO you're wrong and don't suggest how OP spend his money specifically other than "get AMD".
Let's take it to da floor and look at parts -_-; Then we can compare hardware rather than "I say so".


$100 for i3 @ microcenter leaves $100 for an LGA 1155 mobo
Maybe this? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

i3-2100
ASRock P67 PRO3 (B3) (has good VRM setup, single GPU setup only)
8gb ddr3 1.5v, 1333 or 1600
OCZ ZS 550w
6850

$100+100+35+35+125 = 325+70=395. Pretty decent setup. Now lemme try AMD.

OMGOSH. 960t is CHEAP.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
$110.

MOBO: Gigabyte's 970 UD3 Am3+ board is my goto board for cheap budget gaming boards that don't compromise on quality.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
$110, or you can wait for price drop.
Pricing history: http://camelegg.com/product/N82E16813128519

that's $220 total, leaving you 180... $35psu, 35 ram... meaning 110 for graphics card, about a 6850.

The two builds I came up with are about equal in cost. 960t looks real attractive, capability of unlocking to a hexcore. Not that quad > hex that big of a deal. I doubt the other two in this thread will argue that 6 cores > 4 cores in gaming for the next few years...

OR WAIT. Microcenter has a deal http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/46f4da69#/46f4da69/...
lemme do that...

SDFSDF they have that mobo! I've been eying that mobo as an upgrade since I got an m4a77td when i didn't know jack about mobos and now I don't overclock because of that...

So. Buying that combo from microcenter

Phenom II 970x4/1055Tx6 + gigabyte's 970 ud3 am3+ = 130+109-40= 199. $20 cheaper than buying from newegg.
8gb ddr3 1.5v, 1333 or 1600
OCZ ZS 550w

Leaving you $130 for the GPU, still the same. Except now you can either pick a quad core unlocked multiplier or a









However, microcente'rs i5-2400 is an option... $30 cheaper than a 2500k and that won't bottleneck any sort of not-over-the-top graphics for quite some time.
m
0
l
January 5, 2012 6:44:23 PM

flashfir said:
*EDIT: Asnwering your question, stock I believe people have said it was okay not for hitting the max of their chip but for a few hundred megahertz it was fine. However, budget coolers run for $10-$20 if you get them on sale which are totally worth it since they lower your temps by at least 5-20+C. I got my darkknight for $4AR for blackfriday. Budgetcoolers = Hyper 212+ Xigmatek Dark knight, & other coolers with that kind of performance/price.

BUT.
Yowzas. Forgot you needed a GPU in the mix. In that case, the i5-2500k can't really be a good deal within budget since the GT 430 will bottleneck your gaming performance big time. Need to shift more money over. Didn't know you needed RAM either. get 8gb of 1333 or 1600 if the price is the same.

I'm wondering what the other people in this thread are suggesting for $400.

It just really doesn't make sense to choose AMD's platform because
1. you're picking a phenom ii, which is not going to be updated. it'll be sufficient now but it'll age faster than LGA 1155 socket for sure.
2. am3+ platform to counteract mobo oudating: piledriver and future bulldozer updates are unknown. whereas we know what kind of performance an i5/i7 K series processors deliver, and we don't know if future am3+ updates to the bulldozer architecture will compete with the current Ivy/Sandy Bridge K series.

Rough idea for graphics card. At least get a 6850 for gaming right now. Any lower in this budget and I think you'd be bottlenecking your gaming FPS.

6850's run for about $105-$125 on good deals as of late
http://slickdeals.net/newsearch.php?forumchoice%5B%5D=9...
Meaning you got about $35 for 8gb of RAM, not expecting $30, 8gb 1600 cl9 1.5v ddr3 has been running for $35 but not sure if you can find that kind of deal right now. Newegg has 8gb 1333 for a TAD over $30 right now.

That leaves you about $240 for a processor and a mobo not to mention


P.S.
That power supply is getting a lil' old and I'm not sure if it's a quality unit. The review I did find on a Xion unit wasn't nice.
Jonnyguru on Xion's "PowerReal XON-700P14N"
http://www.jonnyguru.com/modules.php?name=NDReviews&op=...

Right now NCIX is having a sale, this looks like a pretty decent deal. OCZ ZS 550w (which will run pretty much any single gpu setup) Again, power supply links I provided earlier as general rules of thumb.
http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=62391&vpn=OCZ-ZS550W&m...
It does well on Jonnyguru's review on this line and this particular model
http://www.jonnyguru.com/modules.php?name=NDReviews&op=...

$35AR PSU + $35 RAM + $105-125 GPU = 195, leaving you 205 for CPU / MOBO. Hrm.
Anyone else have any opinions to add to the discussion?

Everyone is focused on NONONO you're wrong and don't suggest how OP spend his money specifically other than "get AMD".
Let's take it to da floor and look at parts -_-; Then we can compare hardware rather than "I say so".


$100 for i3 @ microcenter leaves $100 for an LGA 1155 mobo
Maybe this? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

i3-2100
ASRock P67 PRO3 (B3) (has good VRM setup, single GPU setup only)
8gb ddr3 1.5v, 1333 or 1600
OCZ ZS 550w
6850

$100+100+35+35+125 = 325+70=395. Pretty decent setup. Now lemme try AMD.

OMGOSH. 960t is CHEAP.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
$110.

MOBO: Gigabyte's 970 UD3 Am3+ board is my goto board for cheap budget gaming boards that don't compromise on quality.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
$110, or you can wait for price drop.
Pricing history: http://camelegg.com/product/N82E16813128519

that's $220 total, leaving you 180... $35psu, 35 ram... meaning 110 for graphics card, about a 6850.

The two builds I came up with are about equal in cost. 960t looks real attractive, capability of unlocking to a hexcore. Not that quad > hex that big of a deal. I doubt the other two in this thread will argue that 6 cores > 4 cores in gaming for the next few years...

OR WAIT. Microcenter has a deal http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/46f4da69#/46f4da69/...
lemme do that...

SDFSDF they have that mobo! I've been eying that mobo as an upgrade since I got an m4a77td when i didn't know jack about mobos and now I don't overclock because of that...

So. Buying that combo from microcenter

Phenom II 970x4/1055Tx6 + gigabyte's 970 ud3 am3+ = 130+109-40= 199. $20 cheaper than buying from newegg.
8gb ddr3 1.5v, 1333 or 1600
OCZ ZS 550w

Leaving you $130 for the GPU, still the same. Except now you can either pick a quad core unlocked multiplier or a









However, microcente'rs i5-2400 is an option... $30 cheaper than a 2500k and that won't bottleneck any sort of not-over-the-top graphics for quite some time.

I think on a budget more cores = more value and future resilience.
m
0
l
January 5, 2012 6:53:40 PM

Oh here's a comment.

My argument that the Intel platform has more value/future resilience ASSUMES you will upgrade by the time the i3-2100 starts bottlenecking your GPU. When that happens? I don't think it will be CLOSEST within a year.

If you can't upgrade to a newer CPU later? (I don't know why you might not be able to, extreme budget constraints, foreseeable lack of money even within a few years) THEN the AMD platform is handsdown the one to get.

Intel holds its own in a hand to hand fight against AMD even in your price segment. Once you bring upgrades, which I'm banking on the fact that you can, it's like bringing an adult into a fight with a bully. No contest.
At that point it's worth building your platform around the fact that you can bring that adult into the fight later when your CPU is getting old. AGAIN. Dual cores is not bad for gaming. They might be when BF4 or The Witcher 3,4,5 comes out, that kind of generations. AGAIN, possibly NOT, depending on how demanding games are of PC hardware. Console hardware are anti-PC since they are 3-5 generations behind already.
m
0
l
January 5, 2012 7:11:28 PM

flashfir said:
Oh here's a comment.

My argument that the Intel platform has more value/future resilience ASSUMES you will upgrade by the time the i3-2100 starts bottlenecking your GPU. When that happens? I don't think it will be CLOSEST within a year.

If you can't upgrade to a newer CPU later? (I don't know why you might not be able to, extreme budget constraints, foreseeable lack of money even within a few years) THEN the AMD platform is handsdown the one to get.

Intel holds its own in a hand to hand fight against AMD even in your price segment. Once you bring upgrades, which I'm banking on the fact that you can, it's like bringing an adult into a fight with a bully. No contest.
At that point it's worth building your platform around the fact that you can bring that adult into the fight later when your CPU is getting old. AGAIN. Dual cores is not bad for gaming. They might be when BF4 or The Witcher 3,4,5 comes out, that kind of generations. AGAIN, possibly NOT, depending on how demanding games are of PC hardware. Console hardware are anti-PC since they are 3-5 generations behind already.

I have 955 and it will last longer than a dual core at any speed because 955 has more cores and cores are the way of the future just like how single core is now out dual core is next on the way out then when 955 is at end of the line as far as performance goes I can get BD 8150FX
m
0
l
January 5, 2012 7:56:27 PM

flashfir said:
Oh here's a comment.

My argument that the Intel platform has more value/future resilience ASSUMES you will upgrade by the time the i3-2100 starts bottlenecking your GPU. When that happens? I don't think it will be CLOSEST within a year.

If you can't upgrade to a newer CPU later? (I don't know why you might not be able to, extreme budget constraints, foreseeable lack of money even within a few years) THEN the AMD platform is handsdown the one to get.

Intel holds its own in a hand to hand fight against AMD even in your price segment. Once you bring upgrades, which I'm banking on the fact that you can, it's like bringing an adult into a fight with a bully. No contest.
At that point it's worth building your platform around the fact that you can bring that adult into the fight later when your CPU is getting old. AGAIN. Dual cores is not bad for gaming. They might be when BF4 or The Witcher 3,4,5 comes out, that kind of generations. AGAIN, possibly NOT, depending on how demanding games are of PC hardware. Console hardware are anti-PC since they are 3-5 generations behind already.


AMD has said AM3+ will continue to be supported through 2012 and end in 2013. Intel will also be done with 1155 in 2013.

http://www.erodov.com/forums/socket-1150-intel-haswell-...

Neither socket will be used after 2012.


An i5-2400 CPU would be nice, perhaps with h67 chipset since it won't OC anyway. RPG type games are usually more CPU than GPU heavy, so a cut in GPU could be alright for now, maybe a HD6770 which still gives decent power. Still would be hard to find enough deals to get it down under 400 and still allow for PSU/memory.
m
0
l
January 5, 2012 8:10:56 PM

kinggraves said:
AMD has said AM3+ will continue to be supported through 2012 and end in 2013. Intel will also be done with 1155 in 2013.

http://www.erodov.com/forums/socket-1150-intel-haswell-...

Neither socket will be used after 2012.


An i5-2400 CPU would be nice, perhaps with h67 chipset since it won't OC anyway. RPG type games are usually more CPU than GPU heavy, so a cut in GPU could be alright for now, maybe a HD6770 which still gives decent power. Still would be hard to find enough deals to get it down under 400 and still allow for PSU/memory.

OP would need to find used local deals on the RAM, PSU, HDD and CASE to get any kind of resemblance of a decent rig for $400. OP could find good deals at local computer repair shops that deal in lots of old and some newer still competent computer stuff.
m
0
l
January 5, 2012 8:18:27 PM

Headspin_69 said:
OP would need to find used local deals on the RAM, PSU, HDD and CASE to get any kind of resemblance of a decent rig for $400. OP could find good deals at local computer repair shops that deal in lots of old and some newer still competent computer stuff.


If you read the first post you'd see what he already has. Otherwise why aren't you pointing out the fact that I'm spending his entire budget on 3-4 parts. Ignoring hard drives. yea.
Quote:
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.


@Kinggraves: Who cares if there's support for the socket? Support for the socket means they'll be coming out with newer CPUs to put in that socket.

Even though LGA 1155 is dying, surely the OP wouldn't consider an i5-2500k/i7-2600k as "dying option" that he would choose bulldozer over. We simply don't know what kind of performance bulldozer has while an upgrade to a Sandy Bridge right now would guarantee him at least i7-2600k performance later down the line.

Everything you say is true. Just because what you say is true means that is the best choice. Take the facts and synthesize them in regards to gaming.

His usage:
Quote:
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.


A 6850 should Diablo III fine with the recommended requirements being a 4870, the 6850 is a tier above that.
m
0
l
January 5, 2012 8:26:54 PM

flashfir said:
If you read the first post you'd see what he already has. Otherwise why aren't you pointing out the fact that I'm spending his entire budget on 3-4 parts. Ignoring hard drives. yea.
Quote:
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.


@Kinggraves: Who cares if there's support for the socket? Support for the socket means they'll be coming out with newer CPUs to put in that socket.

Even though LGA 1155 is dying, surely the OP wouldn't consider an i5-2500k/i7-2600k as "dying option" that he would choose bulldozer over. We simply don't know what kind of performance bulldozer has while an upgrade to a Sandy Bridge right now would guarantee him at least i7-2600k performance later down the line.

Everything you say is true. Just because what you say is true means that is the best choice. Take the facts and synthesize them in regards to gaming.

His usage:
Quote:
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.


A 6850 should Diablo fine.

OP is asking to much for min budget.
m
0
l
January 5, 2012 8:54:28 PM

Headspin_69 said:
OP is asking to much for min budget.


Not really, it isn't a full build

i5-2400
$150 at microcenter.

H67 board
$90
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

PSU can probably still hold up a little while.

Leaves $160 for a video card, and memory if his current ones won't underclock.

m
0
l
January 5, 2012 9:58:20 PM

kinggraves said:
Not really, it isn't a full build

i5-2400
$150 at microcenter.

H67 board
$90
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

PSU can probably still hold up a little while.

Leaves $160 for a video card, and memory if his current ones won't underclock.


What do you think about him getting a cheaper processor and a better board that will allow for CPU overclocking later? Do you think that would be more economical in the long run?

Quote:
Well OP wants AMD

You treat him like he's the holy grail. Obey OP if he wants an Opteron as part of his build.
m
0
l
January 5, 2012 10:13:30 PM

flashfir said:
What do you think about him getting a cheaper processor and a better board that will allow for CPU overclocking later? Do you think that would be more economical in the long run?

Quote:
Well OP wants AMD

You treat him like he's the holy grail. Obey OP if he wants an Opteron as part of his build.

He has to live with his build not you or I.
m
0
l
January 5, 2012 10:15:29 PM

Headspin_69 said:
He has to live with his build not you or I.


You're not very helpful if you think "he has to live with his build" while you refuse to make it easier by providing him helpful advice from your knowledge.
m
0
l
January 5, 2012 10:41:54 PM

flashfir said:
You're not very helpful if you think "he has to live with his build" while you refuse to make it easier by providing him helpful advice from your knowledge.

I helped him already now it is you that need direction.
m
0
l
January 5, 2012 11:05:10 PM

wow you guys have given a ton of information. 400 is what I'm looking for for moon cup and gpu.I'll have to see if the patriot ram will work for an Intel CPU. I originally wanted AMD, hell I've used one for 7 or more years now with great success, but with all the reviews I have read since this post Intel seems the best way to go. I think I wouldn't want to mess around with a dual core (no offense flashfir) just so it will last longer. My budget is flexable so that is good. I think my PSU will work until it dies and then upgrade it is hard to justify replacing it when it still works. I was so psyched ti see bulldozer cores, but wow does it seem they have underwhelmed. Last question is nvidia or raedon gpu?
m
0
l
January 5, 2012 11:10:53 PM

promoman9 said:
wow you guys have given a ton of information. 400 is what I'm looking for for moon cup and gpu.I'll have to see if the patriot ram will work for an Intel CPU. I originally wanted AMD, hell I've used one for 7 or more years now with great success, but with all the reviews I have read since this post Intel seems the best way to go. I think I wouldn't want to mess around with a dual core (no offense flashfir) just so it will last longer. My budget is flexable so that is good. I think my PSU will work until it dies and then upgrade it is hard to justify replacing it when it still works. I was so psyched ti see bulldozer cores, but wow does it seem they have underwhelmed. Last question is nvidia or raedon gpu?

Well the question of Radeon or Nvidia is what do you want Radeon offers better value or Nvidia more status .
m
0
l
January 5, 2012 11:12:03 PM

flashfir said:
OP ignore this troll.

Take a look at this thread with him arguing with the hardware editor...
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/page-3087_56_150.html

Quite entertaining actually if you read it headspin_69's posts.

Wrong.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/338809-33-which-graph...


lol I want to choose this as best answer even though there is no computer advice. I mean I love AMD, always have. Hated Intel for years, but facts are facts. AMD Isn't bringing it like they used to and Intel has stepped their game up. Its hard to defend against things that just are so wrong. Lol
m
0
l
January 5, 2012 11:13:28 PM

I'm all good with either, I hear Radeon has issues withlinux which is a concern for me. I run linux 95% of the time.
m
0
l
January 5, 2012 11:16:36 PM

990x board ($130)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Kind of a higher end chipset but allows for Xfire/SLI x8 down the road. Decent price drop and a little extra rebate.

970 chipset ($90)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Cheaper chipset if you don't need the 8x crossfire/SLI

AMD 960t
($110 with HARDOCPX1X4A code)

I wouldn't go for the 6 core unlock, rather use the lower TDP to maybe get a better OC on the 4.

$200-240 so about the same, but going for OC would be better off with an aftermarket heatsink.
m
0
l
!