Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Rate Please! Cheap AMD Based Build

Last response: in Systems
Share
January 8, 2012 2:40:41 AM

Hello people of Tom's Hardware Community. I'm trying to build a decent-powered (non-gaming based, but gaming possible) computer that will last at least the next 4 years around $600 USD and would like your insight. My current hardware selection is listed below:

Approximate Purchase Date: ~Feb 2012

Budget Range: 0-600 USD (Few over is okay) [Shipping included]

System Usage from Most to Least Important: Photo Editing, Entertainment, Casual Use

Parts Not Required: Monitor, DVD Burner/Reader, Peripherals, OS (I'm thinking dual boot Ubuntu and Win7)

Preferred Website(s) for Parts: Newegg or Amazon are preferred

Country: Nevada, USA

Parts Preferences: AMD X6 1090T, AM3+ Motherboard

Overclocking: Yes, but in the future.

SLI or Crossfire: No.

Additional Comments: I wanted a cheap and powerful CPU and AMD does the best in providing those. I settled on the 1090T over the Sandy Bridge because I wanted a motherboard that I would not have to replace because the newer, faster CPUs used a non-LGA 1155 socket. AM3+ with a AM3 6-core CPU seems the best "future upgrade" choice. The GPU is "eh" because I just need something that gets the job done.

------------------------------------------------
Processor $182.30
AMD Phenom II X6 1090T

Motherboard $109.99
Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3: Capable of Overclocking

RAM $39.99
G. Skill 8GB (2X4)

Case $49.99
Rosewill Challenger

Hard Drive $84.99
Seagate Barracuda SATA III, 7200 RPM, 500GB

Video Card $37.99
ASUS ATI Radeon

Power Supply $44.99
Antec 380W, 80 Plus Bronze

Your input is much appreciated. Thank you!
January 8, 2012 3:09:09 AM

Seems like a nice budget build. For me the graphics card is inadequate but it appears for your uses it will be ok. Plus there should be a decent upgrade path with that mobo. Can't think of anything I would change--unless you think you may want a stronger video card down the road, then I would opt for a 500W PSU.

But for you current needs it looks pretty good.
m
0
l
January 8, 2012 3:17:57 AM

get a sandy bridge if you get something with a 6 series chipset like all sandys they are upgradable to the next ivy bridge processors. it will eat your amd for breakfast, thats before you even overclock it, i dont know whether a 1090t overclocked will keep up with a 2500k at stock speeds. spend an extra 50 buck and get a 2500k and you can get motherboards for similar price (p67 are slightly cheaper than the z68) it will use a *** load less power and wont need as much cooling either. you cant expect amd to use that same socket forever,im pretty sure they have to change it in the next gen or 2. im in australia i got my 2500k for $230 and a gigabyte p67a ud3p b3 for $106 2 weeks ago. in all honesty that video card is a miserable excuse for a video card if your just gonna get that just run onboard its not alot better than intel hd 3000 graphics inside the 2500k, get something like this (you could prob find cheaper i didnt really look
http://www.amazon.com/ASRock-LGA1155-Z68-Motherboard-PR...
http://www.amazon.com/Intel-BOX80623I52500K-Core-i5-250...
$134 for the mobo $230 for the cpu and dont get ur vid card save $38 will cost you an extra $34 buck, it will be the best 34 bucks you ever spent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the socket 2011 change your thinking about is for the workstation class or people with to much money gear sandybridge-e and thats wont be alot better unless you have the software to exploit it. i used to love amd dont get me wrong but they dont even have the budget figures to support them these days the i3's smash the top amd cpus in alot of circumstances
m
0
l
Related resources
January 8, 2012 3:32:38 AM

jasont78 said:
get a sandy bridge if you get something with a 6 series chipset like all sandys they are upgradable to the next ivy bridge processors. it will eat your amd for breakfast, thats before you even overclock it, i dont know whether a 1090t overclocked will keep up with a 2500k at stock speeds. spend an extra 50 buck and get a 2500k and you can get motherboards for similar price (p67 are slightly cheaper than the z68) it will use a *** load less power and wont need as much cooling either. you cant expect amd to use that same socket forever,im pretty sure they have to change it in the next gen or 2. im in australia i got my 2500k for $230 and a gigabyte p67a ud3p b3 for $106 2 weeks ago. in all honesty that video card is a miserable excuse for a video card if your just gonna get that just run onboard its not alot better than intel hd 3000 graphics inside the 2500k, get something like this (you could prob find cheaper i didnt really look
http://www.amazon.com/ASRock-LGA1155-Z68-Motherboard-PR...
http://www.amazon.com/Intel-BOX80623I52500K-Core-i5-250...
$134 for the mobo $230 for the cpu and dont get ur vid card save $38 will cost you an extra $34 buck, it will be the best 34 bucks you ever spent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the socket 2011 change your thinking about is for the workstation class or people with to much money gear sandybridge-e and thats wont be alot better unless you have the software to exploit it. i used to love amd dont get me wrong but they dont even have the budget figures to support them these days the i3's smash the top amd cpus in alot of circumstances


I've seen the Sandy Bridge argument everywhere. It's the "now CPU," but in a year or so there will be a new CPU to upgrade to. I'm hoping with AMD (if they can get their act together) will unleash a great AM3+ CPU in the next few years. For that, I will have the motherboard and just swap out the CPUs and upgrade from that. If not, then I have a 6-core processor for the next few years with which I can take advantage of multi-threading apps. I appreciate the input though. Believe me, if I had the money I wouldn't even look at AMD right now. As of right now, AMD is the most economically and power feasible.

buzznut said:
Seems like a nice budget build. For me the graphics card is inadequate but it appears for your uses it will be ok. Plus there should be a decent upgrade path with that mobo. Can't think of anything I would change--unless you think you may want a stronger video card down the road, then I would opt for a 500W PSU.

But for you current needs it looks pretty good.


Thank you. I might get a stronger video card around 50$ instead (lots of negative comments about the GPU from other posts). The power is always changeable, but the 380W 80 Plus should suffice according to the Newegg PSU calculator and the recommended calculator on this website. I'm looking at this AsRock Motherboard, but is it better than the one I have posted? (If it is, I could cut the money from my mobo and put it into my GPU).
m
0
l
January 8, 2012 3:41:44 AM

Both AMD and Intel have said their current sockets (1155 and AM3+) will not be used for 2013 CPUs. Neither is really an upgrade path. As far as this year's processors, Ivy will likely not be a huge improvement over Sandy Bridge, but still has the better high end processors. Even if AMD releases new CPUs for AM3+. BD seems to be working out poorly so there's no certainty the newer AM3+ chips will be any better.

Also a 6450 is pretty much useless for anything besides HD video, and Intel's integrated is useless for....anything. You'd have to budget with a cheaper CPU and better GPU.

Edit: Actually I somehow read this to be a gaming build.

Look into AMD Llano. The A8 3850 gives you enough graphics to play games on low.
m
0
l

Best solution

January 8, 2012 3:52:47 AM

Thank you. I might get a stronger video card around 50$ instead (lots of negative comments about the GPU from other posts). The power is always changeable, but the 380W 80 Plus should suffice according to the Newegg PSU calculator and the recommended calculator on this website. I'm looking at this AsRock Motherboard, but is it better than the one I have posted? (If it is, I could cut the money from my mobo and put it into my GPU).[/quotemsg]

The Asrock board is cheaper but seems to be about the same. In your position, I'd be tempted to go with Asrock. They have had some good success with their extreme 3 and extreme 4 lines. I like it.

The GPU would be good for HTPC purposes. Its a low profile card, silent, and doesn't need very much power. Which sounds pretty ideal for your situation. If gaming were a goal, you could opt for a $80 card like the HD 5670 without making any changes to the power supply. The 5670 will be suitable for gaming at 1080p, but with some lowered details on some graphics intensive games like BF3. At least it wouldn't hold you system back whatever you decide to do with your machine.
Share
January 8, 2012 3:53:00 AM

kinggraves said:
Both AMD and Intel have said their current sockets (1155 and AM3+) will not be used for 2013 CPUs. Neither is really an upgrade path. As far as this year's processors, Ivy will likely not be a huge improvement over Sandy Bridge, but still has the better high end processors. Even if AMD releases new CPUs for AM3+. BD seems to be working out poorly so there's no certainty the newer AM3+ chips will be any better.

Also a 6450 is pretty much useless for anything besides HD video, and Intel's integrated is useless for....anything. You'd have to budget with a cheaper CPU and better GPU.

Edit: Actually I somehow read this to be a gaming build.

Look into AMD Llano. The A8 3850 gives you enough graphics to play games on low.


Thanks for the response. I did not know about AMD's response on the AM3+ socket. I read somewhere that they were sticking to the AM3+ socket.

I looked into the A8, but I didn't like it as much as the X6 1090T.

Nonetheless, gaming would be decent on the 1090T, no?
m
0
l
January 8, 2012 4:01:11 AM

There is really no reason to build an AMD system right now. I'm looking at a laptop for my wife (that's capable of some basic gaming when we travel out of town), and AMD is the smarter buy there because of the better onboard graphics, but if you're building a system with a discrete card, get a Sandy Bridge. They're faster, more efficient, and cooler at the same price of AMDs they're going up against. Intel is dominating the desktop segment right now for good reason. They are making much better chips for that market. Don't think you're getting a good deal by spending more to get less.
m
0
l
January 8, 2012 4:03:26 AM

Best answer selected by Cybernetic.
n
n
buzznut said:
Thank you. I might get a stronger video card around 50$ instead (lots of negative comments about the GPU from other posts). The power is always changeable, but the 380W 80 Plus should suffice according to the Newegg PSU calculator and the recommended calculator on this website. I'm looking at this AsRock Motherboard, but is it better than the one I have posted? (If it is, I could cut the money from my mobo and put it into my GPU).
n
nThe Asrock board is cheaper but seems to be about the same. In your position, I'd be tempted to go with Asrock. They have had some good success with their extreme 3 and extreme 4 lines. I like it.
n
nThe GPU would be good for HTPC purposes. Its a low profile card, silent, and doesn't need very much power. Which sounds pretty ideal for your situation. If gaming were a goal, you could opt for a $80 card like the HD 5670 without making any changes to the power supply. The 5670 will be suitable for gaming at 1080p, but with some lowered details on some graphics intensive games like BF3. At least it wouldn't hold you system back whatever you decide to do with your machine.

n
nI really like your advice, man. Thank you. I will go with the AsRock now. That should leave me some room to up my GPU. It's not just this post that I found helpful, but the previous as well. Thanks again for confirming and advising my build.
m
0
l
January 8, 2012 4:38:51 AM

Cybernetic said:
Thanks for the response. I did not know about AMD's response on the AM3+ socket. I read somewhere that they were sticking to the AM3+ socket.

I looked into the A8, but I didn't like it as much as the X6 1090T.

Nonetheless, gaming would be decent on the 1090T, no?

Gaming is still very good on a 1090T however may I suggest to you a Phenom II Deneb Chip in the range of x4 955 because they are cheap fast and good gamers and they still offer up quad cores which is all you need for games right now.
m
0
l
January 8, 2012 4:52:14 AM

Cybernetic said:
Best answer selected by Cybernetic.
n
n
n
nI really like your advice, man. Thank you. I will go with the AsRock now. That should leave me some room to up my GPU. It's not just this post that I found helpful, but the previous as well. Thanks again for confirming and advising my build.

n
nNP. Post back if you need help with assembly or other problems.
m
0
l
January 8, 2012 5:08:55 AM

The Hexacore will game just as well as the other CPUs from AMD. As you say, the 6 cores will serve you well over the next couple of years. I think its a fine choice given the CPUs currently available.

The main quad core I am recommending from AMD right now is the $125 960T Zosma. It is essentially the same CPU as the 1090T with 2 cores locked. Most folks are attempting to unlock those cores after purchasing, so for $60 more you get all six cores and the peace of mind knowing that they'll be stable w/o having to unlock anything. Plus the 1090T is easy to overclock if you have any interest in that.

m
0
l
January 8, 2012 5:29:47 AM

hapkido said:
There is really no reason to build an AMD system right now. I'm looking at a laptop for my wife (that's capable of some basic gaming when we travel out of town), and AMD is the smarter buy there because of the better onboard graphics, but if you're building a system with a discrete card, get a Sandy Bridge. They're faster, more efficient, and cooler at the same price of AMDs they're going up against. Intel is dominating the desktop segment right now for good reason. They are making much better chips for that market. Don't think you're getting a good deal by spending more to get less.


I've seen the Sandy Bridge argument everywhere. It's the "now CPU," but in a year or so there will be a new CPU to upgrade to. I'm hoping with AMD (if they can get their act together) will unleash a great AM3+ CPU in the next few years. For that, I will have the motherboard and just swap out the CPUs and upgrade from that. If not, then I have a 6-core processor for the next few years with which I can take advantage of multi-threading apps. I appreciate the input though. Believe me, if I had the money I wouldn't even look at AMD right now. As of right now, AMD is the most economically and power feasible.

Red Team FTW said:
Gaming is still very good on a 1090T however may I suggest to you a Phenom II Deneb Chip in the range of x4 955 because they are cheap fast and good gamers and they still offer up quad cores which is all you need for games right now.


I was initially looking at that one. Very good processor for people looking for a AMD Quad-Core. I'm pretty much set on the X6 right now.

buzznut said:
The Hexacore will game just as well as the other CPUs from AMD. As you say, the 6 cores will serve you well over the next couple of years. I think its a fine choice given the CPUs currently available.

The main quad core I am recommending from AMD right now is the $125 960T Zosma. It is essentially the same CPU as the 1090T with 2 cores locked. Most folks are attempting to unlock those cores after purchasing, so for $60 more you get all six cores and the peace of mind knowing that they'll be stable w/o having to unlock anything. Plus the 1090T is easy to overclock if you have any interest in that.


I didn't know that! Cool info!
m
0
l
January 8, 2012 6:01:33 AM

hapkido said:
There is really no reason to build an AMD system right now. I'm looking at a laptop for my wife (that's capable of some basic gaming when we travel out of town), and AMD is the smarter buy there because of the better onboard graphics, but if you're building a system with a discrete card, get a Sandy Bridge. They're faster, more efficient, and cooler at the same price of AMDs they're going up against. Intel is dominating the desktop segment right now for good reason. They are making much better chips for that market. Don't think you're getting a good deal by spending more to get less.


Intel has always dominated and it's not for good reason. They have bigger facilities, more money to spend, long term business contracts, and more name recognition. SB chips do outperform AII/PII chips for the wattage, and they well should since they're on a smaller process and newer architecture. As far as AMD's new chips, well no doubt Bulldozer hasn't proven to be so great. Llano is kind of a different story. i3 uses 65w, Llano A8 uses 100w, but only about 65ish for the CPU section when the GPU is disabled. And performance:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/399?vs=289

Ignoring Intel favored Sysmark, it performs pretty close except for single thread favored apps and somewhat in games. If you exclude the price of a discrete GPU, it's actually cheaper than i3 as well. It's pretty pointless if you intend on a discrete GPU above 6670, but the integrated one does a lot better than people assume out of integrated.

That's kind of the point. A lot of people don't really need a discrete GPU. AMD's solution would satisfy most consumers needs of 1080p video, basic CPU usage, and "light" gaming better than Intel's integrated solution. It's just not there for them. Uninformed consumers will see 5 intels and one AMD on the shelf, recognize Intel, and buy it.
m
0
l
January 8, 2012 8:01:19 AM

i think the amd solution isnt the right one and the dude saying he can play bf3 with a little lowered detail on a 5670 is dreaming more like lowest resolution and textures available to get clean play online with 64 players going at it. as you stated above you suggested non gaming maybe in future get the intel use the onboard gfx and get a gfx card the day ya wanna start playing there are to many gfx compromises you either wanna play or not. end of the day its your money and u have to live with it
m
0
l
January 8, 2012 10:07:05 AM

jasont78 said:
i think the amd solution isnt the right one and the dude saying he can play bf3 with a little lowered detail on a 5670 is dreaming more like lowest resolution and textures available to get clean play online with 64 players going at it. as you stated above you suggested non gaming maybe in future get the intel use the onboard gfx and get a gfx card the day ya wanna start playing there are to many gfx compromises you either wanna play or not. end of the day its your money and u have to live with it


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx5zLX1XbdQ&feature=rela...

bf3 on 1280x800, medium (no AA/AF) on an A8 integrated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIYnfaL0IX4&feature=rela...

bf3(64 player) on 1080p, medium (no AA/AF) on A8/6670 Xfire

At the end of the day, it's your money, you live with it.
m
0
l
January 8, 2012 11:26:21 PM




Ummm, did you guys read where the OP said he wasn't interested in gaming? It was everyone else who suggested he couldn't game with that rig, in his first post he mentioned that gaming wasn't a concern.
m
0
l
!