$650 AMD Gaming PC

[axew]

Hello, i m planing on getting a new PC for gaming.
Parts i don't need are monitor, keyboard, mouse and the OS.
I m buying from a local store. I want to go with the AMD route.

My monitor resolution is 1440x900. I will OC the CPU.
This is what i m considering at the moment:

MSI 970A-G46
AMD FX-6100, 14MB Black Edition 32nm
Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO
DDR3 8GB (2x4) 1600MHz
hdd 1tb caviar green
Powercolor™ HD 6870 1GB GDDR5 256 bit (is powercolor a good brand?)
DVD Multi Writer 22XDVD/12xDVD-RAM/2MB
Thermaltake Commander MS-I
Chieftec 600W (I know i Should be getting a Seasonic/Antec/XFX/Corsair PSU but those brands don't sell in my country)

Is this build ok??
Can i reach 4.4-4.6GHz OC with that cooler??

 

[chulex67]

Theres really No Reason To go Amd Right now. You get better performance with an Intel G850 than with a Fx-6100 even if you overclock the amd cpu it would be on par with the low 80 usd G850 in gaming.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-4.html

The Build You Posted Is Really Nice, I think you Can Reach Your Desired Overclock Mark with that cpu cooler is really good. Powercolor is a Good Brand they always have the Cheapest Cards with Amd and Are Really Solid. 6870 Is like Super Overkill for your Monitor Resolution you will max Everything. Good Luck. =D

 

[Outlander_04]

By all means go with AMD
Benchmarks based around impossible builds using $500 graphics cards tell you nothing about how a computer costing a total of $650 will perform .

Power color are a decent enough brand . The stock cooler for the 6870 is a little noisy , and some other brands may be quieter.

I could not agree more on the chieftec psu . Only consider psu's that are 80+ rated . If it has a small red voltage switch on the back its not a suitable unit

 

[chulex67]

So You are Saying that a Fx-6100 is better than the G850 when it comes to gaming....??

You pay Double for the Amd cpu and get no gain in performance.. yeah a nice.. Benchmarks using 500 usd cards let you know if the cpu bottlenecks the Gpu.

Good luck.

 

[Wisecracker]

A PhenomII 965BE or 960T may save you some money.

That you could put toward an HD7850 [:lutfij:4]

At your resolution a HD6870 is fine, but if you are going to a higher resolution in the next few years, the HD7850 will move around well with you in the future.

 

[mitunchidamparam]

go with the FX 6100, those benchmarks dont show the way the processor is used, the FX chip will run many apps at the same time and have a considerable FPS, but the other intel chips will drop in FPS with many apps , because they have less core,
What I am saying is totally logical and prove me wrong.
Going with the AMD will save u money on mobo and CPU

 

[axew]

I think i'l go with Phenom II 965. Is HD 7850 better than GTX 560Ti?
My monitor is 1440x900 but my TV is 50" with 2560x1600. I plan on gaming on my TV sometimes and it would be nice if i can turn the res up to 1600p without loosing too much frames.

 

[adgjlsfhk]

If the 7850 is about as good as a 560 ti. I would get whichever was cheaper. I also would recommend going with intel. AM3+ is not going anywhere and I would only suggest AMD's apus that are based on FM1 or (soon) FM2.

 

[zooted]

Yes the 7850 is better. The are pretty similar in low resolution. But at 2560x1600 the 7850 is similar to the gtx 570.

 

[axew]

i5 are out of my budget, i want an OCable Quad Core CPU.
Also how about a HD 6850 Crossfire? I can get 2x Powercolor HD 6850 for 40$ more than HD 7850, is it worth the extra money??

 

[Wisecracker]

Stick with the HD7850 -- it will OC like a beast (to near HD7870 levels) and has great compute/OpenCL headroom.

If the 7850 is about as good as a 560 ti. I would get whichever was cheaper. I also would recommend going with intel. AM3+ is not going anywhere and I would only suggest AMD's apus that are based on FM1 or (soon) FM2.

AMD is supporting AM3+ through at least 2014 with Bulldozer-Piledriver-Steamroller-Excavator. I wouldn't expect backward-capability with all 970-chipsets since OEMs simply will not update their BIOSes, but an AM3 CPU should work in any future motherboard in the line.

 

[adgjlsfhk]

AMD is supporting AM3+ through 2014, however, the socket is not improving, and as a result, AMD is stuck with more and more outdated slots. AM3+ is getting a little faster due to extra cores and higher clocks, but those changes do not affect gamers nearly as much as architecture changes or a better chipset. Also, if you want a sandy vs Fx comparison using cheap graphics here it is.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120.html

 

[adgjlsfhk]

By the way, you only need to look at the first and last pages for a summary of performance.

 

[Wisecracker]

Are you on drugs?

6 x SATA 6Gb/s and USB3 not good enough for you? What are these **magic slots** and features you are looking for, partner?

Let's go to the scoreboard, Jim ...

Now, that's Intel domination over AMD . . . .

 

[adgjlsfhk]

I can't get the image to work, but here are overall results
http://media.bestofmicro.com/X/F/323907/original/Averages.png
Some specifics
http://media.bestofmicro.com/X/N/323915/original/Skyrim.png
http://media.bestofmicro.com/X/G/323908/original/Battlefield3.png
http://media.bestofmicro.com/X/I/323910/original/JustCause2.png
http://media.bestofmicro.com/G/P/324601/original/StarCraftII.png
http://media.bestofmicro.com/G/O/324600/original/OC_StarCraftII.png
And yes, I am on allergy medication.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

The 79850 is usually on par with the 560ti, but the thing to remember is that it runs way cooler. also, intel may perform better, but only on super-low resolutions. I recently switched from a core i3-2130 to a fx-4100, and the performance is somewhat better, despite fx's "terrible benchmarks". and, it's fun to tinker with an fx or fusion and try to push the core speed as high as possible, while undervolting. as for me: fx-4100 at 4.1 GHZ with only 1.15 volt. see a sandy bridge do that.

 

[adgjlsfhk]

How expensive was your cooler? Also how much noise?