Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Questions on a new build

Last response: in Systems
Share
August 17, 2012 8:34:08 PM

Ive spent hours looking through forums and researching cpus and gpus and ive come to the point that since my pc will be a budget one i am going to go with a amd cpu and gpu on the other hand im not sure, but anyways i just want to know what amd cpu is the best for gaming im looking to play bf3 on ultra with a decent amount of fps at least more then 40. My budget is about $800 give or take i am willing to spend an extra 25 or 50 if its worth it. I might get into over clocking but not at the start. My cpu budget is around 200 i know some good amd cpus are under it. I would like to put more to the gpu if it will improve performance http://img.tomshardware.com/forum/uk/icones/smile.gif

I will choose the other components later, and i was thinking the gtx 560 ti or 570 or maybe the 580 and i havent looked into the amd radeon ones so if any of those are cheaper or the same for better throw them at me. Thanks for reading and i am only willing to get an intel cpu if they're really good for their price.

More about : questions build

August 17, 2012 11:22:05 PM

I'd say start here:

Best gaming CPU for the money: $100-$200

Best gaming GPU for the money

As far as Intel vs AMD CPUs, I think that Intel has been offering stronger options lately, and the i5 series is ideal for anyone who is building a sub-$1000 gaming machine. I used to be more of an AMD fan before the i[357] came out...

As far as the CPU to GPU ratio goes, it depends on which games you are playing. Games like Skyrim are CPU-limited, while most other games tend to be GPU-limited.

Since you mentioned BF3, I'll go off of this guide :

This page shows that the CPU has minimal effect on the CPU

I suggest perusing the rest of that article to help decide which graphics card is your bag of chips
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2012 12:56:52 AM

here in the new build section of the forum, everyone knows a bit of everything. if you are looking for the expertise of a specific component, you can look in those sections (look there if you want EVERY detail of the component). all you have to do is sit back and read through the posts

here you just have to state

what your budget is
where are you (country)
are you going to overclock
are you going to SLI/crossfire
and other things that we might need to consider when we recommend components

then we build you a rig.
Related resources
August 18, 2012 1:12:14 AM

Screw amd cpus

CPU: Intel Core i5-3570K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($189.99 @ Microcenter)
Motherboard: Asus P8Z77-V LK ATX LGA1155 Motherboard ($129.93 @ NCIX US)
Memory: Crucial Ballistix sport 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($35.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 500GB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($59.99 @ Newegg)
Video Card: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 660 Ti 2GB Video Card ($307.55 @ Newegg)
Case: Zalman Z11 ATX Mid Tower Case ($39.98 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: Corsair 600W ATX12V Power Supply ($69.99 @ NCIX US)
Total: $833.42

i am sure you can find 33$ somewhere
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2012 1:17:40 AM

Yea, for $800, you're really limiting yourself by not getting an Intel CPU. Also, get the MSI Power Edition of the 660Ti. Only $310, IIRC.
August 18, 2012 1:18:26 AM

obsama1 said:
Yea, for $800, you're really limiting yourself by not getting an Intel CPU. Also, get the MSI Power Edition of the 660Ti. Only $310, IIRC.


They're both the same, lol
August 18, 2012 2:43:28 AM

Thanks guys just curious though are amd cpus really that bad?
August 18, 2012 2:55:35 AM

ebsbyers said:
Thanks guys just curious though are amd cpus really that bad?


Yes, they suck, a 80$ Dual Core Intel Pentium G850 has more gaming performance than a 200$ Eight Core FX-8150
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2012 3:16:20 AM

No they don't. I love Intel, but saying AMD sucks is the mark of a fanboy. Their APU's are good, and their Phenoms are good, cheap quad-cores for those on a budget.
August 18, 2012 3:36:36 AM

obsama1 said:
No they don't. I love Intel, but saying AMD sucks is the mark of a fanboy. Their APU's are good, and their Phenoms are good, cheap quad-cores for those on a budget.


i am not a fanboy, i am pointing out facts, their CPUs SUCK compared to intels and you know you can't deny it.
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2012 3:47:01 AM

Their FX series is pretty bad, but their Phenoms are pretty good. I hope Piledriver improves the single-threaded performance.
August 18, 2012 5:31:03 AM

A fanboy doesn't accept the fact that AMD is not bad at everything. The APUs and Phenoms are good, especially with the 965 BE cheaper than the i3-2120.
August 18, 2012 10:58:49 AM

Well i did see a phenom quad for $110 how would that do with a gtx 660? Bad or ok?

Best solution

August 18, 2012 12:13:51 PM
Share

obsama1 said:
No they don't. I love Intel, but saying AMD sucks is the mark of a fanboy. Their APU's are good, and their Phenoms are good, cheap quad-cores for those on a budget.


Saying AMD sucks for gaming without providing backup when challenged is the mark of a fanboy.

In the comparison of sub-$200 CPUs from a gaming perspective, Intel's offerings blow those of AMD out of the water:



To quote that article, since many people tend to be too lazy to click through:

Quote:
With the sub-$100 Pentiums performing so well, Intel's $125 Core i3-2100 easily beats more expensive Phenom II and FX models. And the $190 Core i5-2400 dominates the sub-$200 landscape without challenge, really. As such, we're almost-shockingly left without an AMD CPU to recommend at any price point.

While it’s true that AMD’s multiplier-unlocked models appeal to tweak-happy power users, the company's overclocked game performance manages to either hang close to or fall just behind Intel's stock Core i3-2100. Pumping up voltage, multipliers, and, consequently, power usage seems like a futile exercise just to keep pace with an efficient $125 budget-oriented chip running at its default settings.


I try to not be a fanboy, but Intel does make it difficult...

EDIT: more reading if you are so inclined, as far as BF3 performance goes:

In a nutshell, single-player is almost entirely GPU-limited. Multiplayer, as you get on to 32- or 64-player servers, tends to shift towards CPU-limited. Thus I strongly recommend aqualipt's build, if you can shell out the extra $33

Quote:

CPU: Intel Core i5-3570K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($189.99 @ Microcenter)
Motherboard: Asus P8Z77-V LK ATX LGA1155 Motherboard ($129.93 @ NCIX US)
Memory: Crucial Ballistix sport 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($35.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 500GB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($59.99 @ Newegg)
Video Card: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 660 Ti 2GB Video Card ($307.55 @ Newegg)
Case: Zalman Z11 ATX Mid Tower Case ($39.98 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: Corsair 600W ATX12V Power Supply ($69.99 @ NCIX US)
Total: $833.42


Supporting evidence in the BF3 page of the sub-200 gaming CPU article and the BF3 mega-review. In a nutshell, you need something as good as or better than the GTX 580 to play BF3 on ultra settings at 1080P

a b à CPUs
August 18, 2012 12:24:50 PM

in real life, you dont see too much of a difference but there is. like someone can tell major differences between 40 and 45fps. 20 and 30 maybe but they are all playable in the graphs
August 18, 2012 1:32:38 PM

Best answer selected by Ebsbyers.
August 18, 2012 1:32:40 PM

Well i will see if i can get some of these parts in store and what i cant ill get on newegg, thanks everyone!!
August 18, 2012 1:41:44 PM

one more thing, should i go with a more expensive gpu or get a gtx 560 ti then get another later?
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2012 2:09:14 PM

might want to upgrade your cpu first.
August 18, 2012 3:48:03 PM

What cpu?
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2012 4:06:32 PM

whoops wrong post
August 18, 2012 4:53:51 PM

Lol
August 18, 2012 8:53:00 PM

That motherboard works in x8/x8 mode, so I would err on the side of a single card for now.
August 18, 2012 11:15:15 PM

Whats the best sli mobo for phenoms
a b à CPUs
August 19, 2012 2:10:47 AM

Better to get a single card then SLI. For example, a GTX 670 instead of 2x 560 Ti's. More powerful, uses less power, and SLI/CF are buggy sometimes.
August 19, 2012 12:04:40 PM

Ahh ok i thought about the $660
August 19, 2012 5:49:07 PM

I mean the gtx 660 is that decent? For bf3 on ultra?
a b à CPUs
August 19, 2012 5:52:56 PM

Yes, pretty decent, but the 7870 is just as good as the 660 Ti. Actually, the 660Ti beats the 7870 in BF3, but in every other game, 660Ti is bested by the 7870. And if you can wait, AMD might drop the prices on them.
August 19, 2012 6:27:34 PM

Alright ill check out the amd one
a b à CPUs
August 19, 2012 6:44:34 PM

ive seen a 660ti beat a 7950 but in bf3
a b à CPUs
August 19, 2012 7:08:01 PM

BF3 runs a lot better on Nvidia cards than AMD ones. Even though it's an AMD Gaming Evolved title.
August 19, 2012 9:50:29 PM

Alright well what setting can a 660 ti play bf3 on? With how much fps?
a b à CPUs
August 19, 2012 9:54:36 PM

Ultra at about 56FPS at 1050p with 16AF and 4x AA.
In comparison, the 7870 get 49FPS at the same settings.
The 7950 gets 52FPS at the same settings.

At 1080p, the 660Ti get 50FPS, 7870 gets 44, 7950 gets 47. Very playable. But, 7870 and 7950 can OC very well, so if you OC them, they'd be similar to the 660Ti.
August 19, 2012 10:04:03 PM

Is the online multiplayer fps the same?
a b à CPUs
August 19, 2012 10:04:34 PM

no. it usually goes down depending on how many players you have on the map and how good your internet is
a b à CPUs
August 20, 2012 2:12:36 AM

A 64 player map can bring any card to its knees.
August 20, 2012 4:24:12 AM

obsama1 said:
A 64 player map can bring any card to its knees.


The following article does somewhat show the effects of CPU and GPU limiting. In a nutshell, it showed that the GPU is a fairly limiting factor for mp maps while running at ultra settings, but the CPU does play a role when the GPU isn't maxed out. The i5 keeps the minimum above 40, which the Phenom II X4 fails to do.

(written in swedish, but google chrome's translate features work wonders for the text) (In the images, medelavarde is mean, and lagsta varde means minimum)
August 20, 2012 11:21:50 AM

Well i suppose i could try to get a 2500k ill have to see and well my internet download speed is about 150 kbps and i set he Qos to gamer, is that fast enough?
a b à CPUs
August 20, 2012 12:09:35 PM

kilo bits or bytes. if its kilobits, its really slowww
a b à CPUs
August 20, 2012 2:36:59 PM

oh ok. thats reasonable
August 20, 2012 2:37:00 PM

No its bytes
August 20, 2012 4:13:42 PM

Do you know how much kbps bf3 uses online
August 20, 2012 4:32:50 PM

ebsbyers said:
Do you know how much kbps bf3 uses online


The speed is the last thing you should worry about, you should only worry about your PING... go here: http://www.pingtest.net/ if your connection exceeds 70ms your pc is not good for online gaming.

Edit: try with multiple servers, not just one.
August 20, 2012 11:15:27 PM

my laptop said 55ms what happens when my brother gets on xbox bf3 or another online game that makes it lag is that cause of my speed then?
August 20, 2012 11:31:19 PM

My pc or connection?
a b à CPUs
August 20, 2012 11:59:23 PM

your connection is ok.
August 21, 2012 12:12:37 AM

ebsbyers said:
my laptop said 55ms what happens when my brother gets on xbox bf3 or another online game that makes it lag is that cause of my speed then?



looool, are you serious? are you really asking why a console lags in a "heavy" game?.... shot answer? because it sucks :D 

no seriously....jokes aside, i have a PS3 hooked up to my TV in the living room and even tough i only use it for watching movies i wanted to try the BF3 demo on it and even tough my connection is perfect it still lagged
a b à CPUs
August 21, 2012 12:16:16 AM

theres no point of buying a blu-ray player when there is a ps3. thats about what most pc guys use it for.
August 21, 2012 1:15:09 AM

No im asking what is the reason it lags when several of my family members are online at the same time?
!