Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

$500 max on a new rig.. what do you think.

Last response: in Systems
Share
February 8, 2012 9:47:54 PM

hey everyone building a new rig when my taxes come in. $500 max have a local micro center so all parts are coming from there. just so i can't take something back if need be.
here goes..
phenom x6 1045t $130
biostar A780L3G am3 mobo $10 w/purchase of cpu
diamond hd6770 $ 100 $80 w/mir
8gb kingston hyperx ddr3 1333 $30
500gb sata hdd $70
600 watt thermaltake tr2 psu $55 45 w/mir
dvd rw drive $18
tx-606 micro case $22= $415 plus taxes and any goodies for the case i buy
=$500
What do you think? any suggestions or does it look good?
running windows 7 ultimate 64 bit if it matters
thanks for the help.

More about : 500 max rig

a b B Homebuilt system
February 8, 2012 10:00:42 PM

I can't comment on the AMD build, but...

Unless you need the multi language support, WIN 7 Professional 64 bit should be fine.

And...

If you don't need the XP Mode...

WIN 7 Home Premium 64 bit should be fine.

No sense buying something that you don't need :) 
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 10:04:33 PM

i already have the windows 7 ultimate. i don't need an os
m
0
l
Related resources
a b B Homebuilt system
February 8, 2012 10:06:57 PM

Ahh well then...

Ultimate is an excellent choice! :D 
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 10:17:38 PM

how come you cant comment on the build. are you strickly intel i guess
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
February 8, 2012 10:19:59 PM

I have never used AMD :( 
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
February 8, 2012 10:32:40 PM

What is the main purpose for this machine? If it's gaming then get an Intel system. Games can't use 6 cores and most can't use more than one or two so the huge lightly threaded performance advantage of Intel over AMD really shows in gaming.

If this is a productivity/professional application machine then you made the right choice because Intel can't perform similarly there without a much higher budget. AMD's many cores advantage work out well in applications that can make use of many threads. The Phenom II x6s beat i5s in such situations. Intel's i7s and better can beat Phenom II x6s in highly threaded workloads.

If this is a gaming computer then I also recommend a somewhat more powerful video card, the 6770 is great for 720p and similar resolution gaming, but it's not so great at higher resolutions. The 6790/6850 would be a better card for you if you want to game at higher resolutions.
m
0
l
February 8, 2012 11:08:02 PM

how come games these days then are recommending quad cores and x6's if they can't use more than 1 or 2 cores
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
February 8, 2012 11:34:07 PM

Games recommend quad cores because then there are leftover cores for other work so that the cores being used by the game can devote all of their performance to the game.

No one with an understanding of current technology should recommend the 6 cores over a quad core CPU. Quad core Phenom IIs always outperform hex-core Phenom IIs, the same is true for the Intel quads vs. same architecture hex-core CPUs. This is because the quad core chips can have higher clock frequencies than the chips with more cores since more cores uses more power.

A quad core i5 at 3.3GHz has a 95w TDP, the 6 core i7-3930K has a 3.2GHz clock frequency and has a 130w TDP. They would perform similarly at stock because of the 3930K's increased cache and RAM bandwidth, but overclock them with the same cooler and the i5-2500K will win because it will hit higher clock frequencies, allowing it's cores to run faster than the 3930K's cores.
m
0
l
February 9, 2012 12:53:37 AM

see just when i think i know something about computer's someone shoots me down. lol i guess i just always thought that if i have a six core processor that it would divide the work between the six cores thus taking the 100% workload off of a single core or dual core or even a quad when i'm gaming more cores the better i thought. i am not an over clocker at all and don't plan on being one. so does that matter at all? i guess i just don't get it.
m
0
l
a b B Homebuilt system
February 9, 2012 3:17:55 AM

If you're not an overclocker then you'd be much better off with Intel. Without an overclock, AMD's CPUs just don't stack up against Intel anymore.

Cores don't split workload. It's actually much more complex than that. Software must be programmed to specifically use multiple cores. Games tend to be based on older game engines and as a result can't use more cores than were common when the game's base technologies were made.

We just last year got experimental game updates that may enable much better multi-core support, but they're still experimental and most games don't have anything like them.

Even dual core Pentiums and i3s are better gaming CPUs than anything AMD has at stock clock frequencies, although the highest clocked Phenom IIs might beat the Pentiums. If games start to use more threads/cores then a reverse trend may start up due to AMD's excessive core counts, but even the 8 core Bulldozer chips can't beat an i7 in highly multi-threaded workloads.
m
0
l
!