Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

$800 BF3 Build

Last response: in Systems
Share
September 10, 2012 3:50:56 AM

Well, I'm just looking for the best rig that can play BF3 and Skyrim (w/ mods) on high settings on a 1080p HDTV.

I do not need an OS or monitor. $800 is the absolute max I can put in this build. I'm looking for upgrade-ability as I'll be able to buy a few upgrades sometime in January/February...possibly even sooner.

If I can get similar performance for much less, that would be awesome. I know it's difficult; but I'd greatly appreciate any info I can get. I really want to get into PC gaming, but as many of you know, money is tight these days.

My parts preference is an Intel CPU. And I do not live within driving distance of a microcenter. That's out of the question; I do, however, live in the US.

I am willing to give overclocking a try. If you need anymore info, just ask.

More about : 800 bf3 build

September 10, 2012 4:51:45 AM

Is this going to be an HTPC or is it going to be an mATX tower or an ATX tower?
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 4:56:26 AM

Meh, not really a HTPC. Strictly gaming and preferably an ATX tower. Would love to be able to build this around either the Antec 1100 or HAF 912 case.

If you have a better case recommendation, go for it. I love to hear other people's thoughts on these sort of things.
m
0
l
Related resources
September 10, 2012 5:06:50 AM

ASRock Z77 Pro4 ATX Intel Motherboard
$109.99


OCZ Agility 3 AGT3-25SAT3-60G 2.5" MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
FREE WITH THE MOBO!!!!


SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition 11199-00-20G Video Card
$259.99


Rosewill Blackbone Black Computer Case
$39.99


G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10666) Desktop Memory
$38.99


Intel Core i5-3470 3.2GHz (3.6GHz Turbo Boost) LGA 1155 Quad-Core Desktop Processor
$199.99


CORSAIR Builder Series CX600 V2 600W Power Supply
$69.99


Western Digital Caviar Blue 500GB 3.5" SATA 6.0Gb/s Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive
$69.99


Grand Total: $788.93

The PSU and CPU have discounts with promo codes
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 5:11:25 AM

For $800 your going to want to make sure to properly balance your system. Don't spend too much on a case. Make sure you have balance the CPU and Graphics.

My quick recommend:
- Asrock Z77 Pro 3 (about $100)
- HD7850, HD7870 or GTX660Ti (budget permitting)
- Intel CPU (up to i5-3570K budget permitting)
- 8GB DDR3 RAM
- $60 case (with front USB3 support)

I find the NCIX Canada site is well organized. Even if you don't buy there it's easy to navigate and research as parts are listed properly (i.e. heatsinks organized by socket). Motherboards organized by socket. Can reorder by PRICE etc.

I don't have time to research parts now but I hope this helps a bit.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 5:18:12 AM

For BF3 MP, a six-core AMD CPU can keep up with the quad core i5s. There's no good reason to not go for an FX-6100 and a higher end graphics card such as the Radeon 7950 instead of a Radeon 7870.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 5:31:03 AM

songorocosongo said:
ASRock Z77 Pro4 ATX Intel Motherboard
$109.99


OCZ Agility 3 AGT3-25SAT3-60G 2.5" MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
FREE WITH THE MOBO!!!!


SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition 11199-00-20G Video Card
$259.99


Rosewill Blackbone Black Computer Case
$39.99


G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10666) Desktop Memory
$38.99


Intel Core i5-3470 3.2GHz (3.6GHz Turbo Boost) LGA 1155 Quad-Core Desktop Processor
$199.99


CORSAIR Builder Series CX600 V2 600W Power Supply
$69.99


Western Digital Caviar Blue 500GB 3.5" SATA 6.0Gb/s Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive
$69.99


Grand Total: $788.93

The PSU and CPU have discounts with promo codes


Looks about right! Some comments:

1) The GTX660Ti is $300 and would put you over budget, however you can also get the ASUS version with Borderlands 2 included for that price ($60 value). If you want Borderlands 2 this is the card to buy.

2) Please provide LINK to that motherboard/SSD combo. $109 for that board with the SSD included? Hard to believe, but truly awesome if true.

3) I prefer THIS CASE (front USB3, cable management, one or two fans included):
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=67322&vpn=ON...

4) *investigate the difference between the i5-3570K and the slightly cheaper CPU's and see how they compare. "K" means unlocked so can overclock. The i5-3450 is about $40 cheaper but it's locked and I'm unsure of how it performs.

Nothing wrong with your build, some of it's a matter of taste.

*It's better for gaming to pair the i5-3450 with a GTX660Ti than to get the i5-3570K and an HD7870. HOWEVER, for $40 more you get an unlocked CPU which when overclocked might perform up to 40% higher than an i5-3450 at stock which might benefit you in a couple years if you decide to UPGRADE your graphics but keep everything else.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 5:34:33 AM

blazorthon said:
For BF3 MP, a six-core AMD CPU can keep up with the quad core i5s. There's no good reason to not go for an FX-6100 and a higher end graphics card such as the Radeon 7950 instead of a Radeon 7870.

Hm, not too fond of AMD CPUs. But I guess beggars can't be choosers. Any benchmarks you can give me or perhaps some youtube vids?

Quote:
ASRock Z77 Pro4 ATX Intel Motherboard
$109.99


OCZ Agility 3 AGT3-25SAT3-60G 2.5" MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
FREE WITH THE MOBO!!!!


I usually don't like OCZ products, but I can't argue with a free SSD. :D 

Feel free to keep pouring in the ideas. Got about a week or two before I finalize the build. I know this is way too difficult to judge given the time frame, but I'm too excited. This is gonna be a huge upgrade from my Xbox 360.

A few more things to take into consideration with this build...I do not care about front USB 3.0 support or having a quiet gaming rig. Just as long as the thing doesn't screech at me, I'm good. I'll be using a turtle beach headset for most of my gaming sessions anyhow. Also, an SSD isn't required, but would be nice to have. This will be a strictly gaming PC. I've thought about sacrificing media storage for a 128gb SSD. I could just use my laptop to store my media files (music, movies, etc.).
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 5:38:12 AM

photonboy said:
Looks about right! Some comments:

1) The GTX660Ti is $300 and would put you over budget, however you can also get the ASUS version with Borderlands 2 included for that price ($60 value). If you want Borderlands 2 this is the card to buy.

2) Please provide LINK to that motherboard/SSD combo. $109 for that board with the SSD included? Hard to believe, but truly awesome if true.

3) I prefer THIS CASE (front USB3, cable management, one or two fans included):
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=67322&vpn=ON...

4) *investigate the difference between the i5-3570K and the slightly cheaper CPU's and see how they compare. "K" means unlocked so can overclock. The i5-3450 is about $40 cheaper but it's locked and I'm unsure of how it performs.

Nothing wrong with your build, some of it's a matter of taste.

*It's better for gaming to pair the i5-3450 with a GTX660Ti than to get the i5-3570K and an HD7870. HOWEVER, for $40 more you get an unlocked CPU which when overclocked might perform up to 40% higher than an i5-3450 at stock which might benefit you in a couple years if you decide to UPGRADE your graphics but keep everything else.


If you're an overclocker, then the 660 Ti won't be able to come close to the 7950 in most games even without heavy AA. The 3450 can be overclocked to almost 4GHz with Turbo frequency adjustments and a little bit of BLCK overclocking is also considerable.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 5:38:26 AM

DeusAres said:
Hm, not too fond of AMD CPUs. But I guess beggars can't be choosers. Any benchmarks you can give me or perhaps some youtube vids?


I'd have to look, but I guarantee that BF3 can effectively use six threads, two for the game engine and four for the multipleyer processing and the AMD six core CPUs can keep up with the Intel quad core CPUs even when you don't touch AMD's CPU/NB frequency (controls L3 cache). Increasing the CPU/NB frequency significantly would actually let them beat Intel's i5s.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 5:43:26 AM

blazorthon said:
For BF3 MP, a six-core AMD CPU can keep up with the quad core i5s. There's no good reason to not go for an FX-6100 and a higher end graphics card such as the Radeon 7950 instead of a Radeon 7870.


That's something to consider.

The FX-6100 is fairly cheap (about $130). It doesn't perform as well as the more expensive CPU's, but then you could take the difference in price and invest more in the graphics as you mentioned.

As I mentioned before somewhere, it's about BALANCE and the bottleneck would lean towards the graphics card.

If it was me, I'd probably still get the i5-3570K and the best graphics card I could get with the remaining budget thus allowing the extra CPU power to prevent a bottleneck in two years with a better graphics card rather than being stuck with the lower performing CPU and needing to upgrade my entire system.

There's no RIGHT answer. I just thought I'd lay out the options.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 5:47:36 AM

DeusAres said:
Meh, not really a HTPC. Strictly gaming and preferably an ATX tower. Would love to be able to build this around either the Antec 1100 or HAF 912 case.

If you have a better case recommendation, go for it. I love to hear other people's thoughts on these sort of things.


Both cases are good choices. I'd recommend the 1100 because it can house XL-ATX motherboards should you decide to do a multi-GPU setup.

Quote:
For BF3 MP, a six-core AMD CPU can keep up with the quad core i5s. There's no good reason to not go for an FX-6100 and a higher end graphics card such as the Radeon 7950 instead of a Radeon 7870.


Where? Show me those benchmarks, I'm not really buying it.

Quote:
ASRock Z77 Pro4 ATX Intel Motherboard
$109.99



OCZ Agility 3 AGT3-25SAT3-60G 2.5" MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
FREE WITH THE MOBO!!!!


That is not a good deal - the Agility 3 is a terrible SSD and OCZ has a history of unreliable firmware updates.

Try this:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: Intel Core i5-3570K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($229.99 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($30.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: ASRock Z77 Pro4 ATX LGA1155 Motherboard ($117.86 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ares Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($41.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($88.98 @ Newegg)
Video Card: Sapphire Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition 2GB Video Card ($281.97 @ Newegg)
Case: Antec Eleven Hundred ATX Full Tower Case ($109.98 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Corsair 650W 80 PLUS Bronze Certified ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply ($69.99 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: LG GH24NS90 DVD/CD Writer ($22.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $994.73
(Prices include shipping and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2012-09-10 01:46 EDT-0400)
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 5:48:47 AM

Quote:
1) The GTX660Ti is $300 and would put you over budget, however you can also get the ASUS version with Borderlands 2 included for that price ($60 value). If you want Borderlands 2 this is the card to buy.


Yeah but most benchmarks paint the 660TI closer to the 7870, and the 7950 is significantly better for $10 more.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 5:51:06 AM



BF3 is the only game that I'm aware of that effectively uses six threads right now. Two for the game engine and up to four for the multi-player aspect of the game. Sorry about the benchmark not being in English, it'sdifficult to find BF3 MP benchmarks. Green is average FPS and red is minimum FPS.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 6:01:05 AM

blazorthon said:
For BF3 MP, a six-core AMD CPU can keep up with the quad core i5s. There's no good reason to not go for an FX-6100 and a higher end graphics card such as the Radeon 7950 instead of a Radeon 7870.


the key word here is CAN.... can it? or is some situations can it? yes bf3 will use more then 4 threads and probably up to 8 threads but that still doesnt change the fact that bulldozer and amd cpus in general are ***. especially in bf3.

blazorthon said:
I'd have to look, but I guarantee that BF3 can effectively use six threads, two for the game engine and four for the multipleyer processing and the AMD six core CPUs can keep up with the Intel quad core CPUs even when you don't touch AMD's CPU/NB frequency (controls L3 cache). Increasing the CPU/NB frequency significantly would actually let them beat Intel's i5s.


again it can use them but there are diminishing returns BIG TIME intel 4 core > amd any core. will always be that way.

blazorthon said:
http://www.sweclockers.com/image/diagram/2506?k=142b45af179c625ccd8f53fea7385155

BF3 is the only game that I'm aware of that effectively uses six threads right now. Two for the game engine and up to four for the multi-player aspect of the game. Sorry about the benchmark not being in English, it'sdifficult to find BF3 MP benchmarks.


i dont know if i like this bench or not. first who plays at 1080p on medium....? not this Poster he will be playing on at least high if not ultra....

OP search the web about BF3 MP bottleneck issues and you will find that most of them have AMD cpu's. bf3 is the new crysis for a reason.

m
0
l
September 10, 2012 6:04:39 AM

cbrunnem said:
the key word here is CAN.... can it? or is some situations can it? yes bf3 will use more then 4 threads and probably up to 8 threads but that still doesnt change the fact that bulldozer and amd cpus in general are ***. especially in bf3.



again it can use them but there are diminishing returns BIG TIME intel 4 core > amd any core. will always be that way.



i dont know if i like this bench or not. first who plays at 1080p on medium....? not this Poster he will be playing on at least high if not ultra....

OP search the web about BF3 MP bottleneck issues and you will find that most of them have AMD cpu's. bf3 is the new crysis for a reason.


Increasing the graphics doesn't increase the CPU load... The test is on medium to make the CPU bottle-neck more pronounced. On Ultra, the six/eight core AMD CPUs will be even closer, especially with a single GPU card that lack's CF higher CPU overhead that the Radeon 6990 has.

Even the FX-8120 beats the i5s in eight threaded performance, so just stop right there. That BF3 uses up to six threads is what keeps the i5s from losing significantly in the multi-player benchmarks.

Diminishing returns? Just WTF do you mean by that?

Bottle-neck issues with AMD CPUs are from four or fewer cores. Six and eight can handle BF3 greatly.

EDIT: Also, take an FX-81xx CPU, disable one core per module or cutting down the P states and priority of the second core of each module, give the L3 cache a significant overclock by increasing the CPU/NB frequency, it now has near SB/IB performance per core per Hz of CPU frequency and has higher headroom to make up for the still slight loss in per Hz performance.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 6:08:06 AM

cbrunnem said:
the key word here is CAN.... can it? or is some situations can it? yes bf3 will use more then 4 threads and probably up to 8 threads but that still doesnt change the fact that bulldozer and amd cpus in general are ***. especially in bf3.


Yeah I'm having a hard time comprehending that as well - just because it *CAN* in some cases use more than four threads, still doesn't make it a good CPU. I 'd still go Intel over FX any day of the week.

Quote:
Bottle-neck issues with AMD CPUs are from four or fewer cores. Six and eight can handle BF3 greatly.


But that just proves that four solid cores are better than 8 crappy ones. Still doesn't help the case at all.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 6:13:40 AM

g-unit1111 said:
Yeah I'm having a hard time comprehending that as well - just because it *CAN* in some cases use more than four threads, still doesn't make it a good CPU. I 'd still go Intel over FX any day of the week.

Quote:
Bottle-neck issues with AMD CPUs are from four or fewer cores. Six and eight can handle BF3 greatly.


But that just proves that four solid cores are better than 8 crappy ones. Still doesn't help the case at all.


BF3 MP uses six threads. It is a good CPU that keeps up with the i5s in this game and if OP wants to build a machine oriented around this game, then getting a cheaper FX-6100 and a faster Radeon 7950 is better than an i5 with a Radeon 7870.

EDIT: Where is your proof of this? In eight-threaded work, the FX-81xx CPUs beat the i5s. In six-threaded work, the FX-61xx/62xx and FX-81xx CPUs keep up with the i5s. You people asked for a benchmark, so I gave one. Are you going to deny it just because it shows that I'm right?
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 6:22:47 AM

blazorthon said:
BF3 MP uses six threads. It is a good CPU that keeps up with the i5s in this game and if OP wants to build a machine oriented around this game, then getting a cheaper FX-6100 and a faster Radeon 7950 is better than an i5 with a Radeon 7870.

EDIT: Where is your proof of this? In eight-threaded work, the FX-81xx CPUs beat the i5s. In six-threaded work, the FX-61xx/62xx and FX-81xx CPUs keep up with the i5s.



I don't think that's anything that can really be proven. It's been debated endlessly here and I'm usually on the Intel side because I've used far more Intel CPUs than AMD or anything else.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 6:25:37 AM

g-unit1111 said:
I don't think that's anything that can really be proven. It's been debated endlessly here and I'm usually on the Intel side because I've used far more Intel CPUs than AMD or anything else.


The benchmarks say otherwise. You're usually on Intel's side just because you've used more Intel CPUs? That seems like an extremely biased way of taking sides. I'm not taking sides, I'm simply saying what's what.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 6:41:54 AM

blazorthon said:
The benchmarks say otherwise. You're usually on Intel's side just because you've used more Intel CPUs? That seems like an extremely biased way of taking sides. I'm not taking sides, I'm simply saying what's what.


Yeah I guess I am a bit biased. :lol: 

But the benchmarks usually show Intel beating AMD by a few points on just about every test, there's a few rare instances where AMD edges out - at least that I've seen in the last couple of years.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 6:44:08 AM

g-unit1111 said:
Yeah I guess I am a bit biased. :lol: 

But the benchmarks usually show Intel beating AMD by a few points on just about every test, there's a few rare instances where AMD edges out - at least that I've seen in the last couple of years.


It depends greatly on the situation. Most games aren't as well-threaded as BF3 MP, so AMD suffers when the game eats up CPU performance and you don't take action to do something proper with the AMD CPUs such as overclocking, overclocking the CPU/NB frequency, and in the case of the FX-6xxx and 8xxx CPUs, also altering the core configuration like I said earlier.

Most gaming benchmarks don't account for any of this except maybe CPU frequency overclocking (AMD has no one to blame but themselves for not having full-speed L3 cache and proper core configurations on their FX CPUs by default, but still), so AMD is often seen as greatly under-performing where they should be. AMD has very competitive performance if you know how to use their CPUs, but mot people don't. Oh well, that's what AMD gets for being lazy asses and not doing this themselves or at least marketing it so that people know what to do.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 5:10:42 PM

I would like to have upgrade-ability and longevity in this build. I'll have another $800+ to spend on upgrades sometime in January/February...perhaps even sooner. Also, $800 is the absolute max I will be able to put in this build right now. It cannot exceed it. If it's by one or two dollars that's cool but not $50+

$100 for a 6 core CPU is pretty awesome, but I'd rather not have to alter any of the advanced settings. I'm mainly looking at getting an i5, setting the multiplier to 42 and leaving the voltages on auto.

Option 1: I would go the AMD route, the only problem is I plan on upgrading in a couple of months. If I upgrade, I'm gonna have to replace the motherboard as well. I figure if I can get a compatible mobo now and perhaps throw in an i3, I could then upgrade the CPU in a couple months or so without having to worry about getting another mobo.

Option 2: I've also considered going for the i5 w/ compatible z77 mobo, cheap out on the GPU a bit, and then upgrade in the upcoming months.

Option 3: I could just save my cash until I get the other $800+ or so and then combine it to build one awesome PC. That'll give me time for price drops, black friday, new years deals, etc. The only problem with this option is...I feel the cash is gonna end up dwindling away on stupid stuff for my xbox.

Thanks for all the information. I'm gonna take some time to absorb all this and give it some thought.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 5:18:56 PM

You don't need to alter any settings, those were only comments about the FX CPUx that could also be acted on. At stock settings, you can simply raise it's frequency to 4.2GHz or a little higher just like you would with the i5 and it'll run about as well as an i5 in BF3 MP, just at a much lower price and probably somewhat higher power consumption.

You don't need to upgrade the motherboard anytime soon for AMD. AMD will continue using the same AM3+ socket for one to three more generations (with significant improvements in each generation too). AMD's AM4 CPUs are also probably going to support the AM3+ socket too, so it probably has even more generations that support the AM3+ socket. That's a better upgrade path than LGA 1155 offers because Ivy Bridge won't hold out against AMD for several generations and Intel's next series (Haswell) will use a new socket, the LGA 1150 socket, that is incompatible with the LGA 1155 socket.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 5:32:54 PM

Good to know. Good points actually.

I also plan on rendering gameplay videos for youtube. I'm thinking the 6 core would excel here. Any thoughts?

Also, would it be in my best interest to go with a 128gb SSD now and then grab a media drive when I get the cash? I only plan on gaming with this rig for now. The youtube vids can wait until I get a larger media drive to store them on. I could use my laptop as my media (music/video) drive for now. I figure a SSD would be beneficial with loading the BF3 maps and Skyrim. Thoughts?
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 6:17:24 PM

DeusAres said:
Good to know. Good points actually.

I also plan on rendering gameplay videos for youtube. I'm thinking the 6 core would excel here. Any thoughts?

Also, would it be in my best interest to go with a 128gb SSD now and then grab a media drive when I get the cash? I only plan on gaming with this rig for now. The youtube vids can wait until I get a larger media drive to store them on. I could use my laptop as my media (music/video) drive for now. I figure a SSD would be beneficial with loading the BF3 maps and Skyrim. Thoughts?


It would work in Rendering great, but the i5s probably wouldn't be too different in rendering performance unless you use some of the tricks that I mentioned on the FX CPUs, specifically the CPU/NB frequency overclocking. With their stock configuration on all but CPU frequency, i5s and AMD's six-core CPUs are fairly close in highly threaded performance. Both options would work greatly, I'm just so adamant about the AMD option here because of your tight budget and because you want to do things that work excellently on AMD's six-core CPUs.

As for the SSD, if you don't mind using the laptop drive for storage and it can do this good enough for you, then I'd recommend getting an SSD, but don't get an SSD if you need more capacity. Although it's an extreme luxory to have, it is still a luxory, not a necessity. It wolud help in loading a lot, but if you need more capacity, then you should go for what you need. If your laptop's hard drive is plenty, then I'd go for the SSD option and get another hard drive when necessary, but if the laptop drive is not high enough capacity, then skip the SSD if you can't wait long enough to buy a new hard drive after buying the SSD.

Also, if you really can't fit a decent capacity SSD (90GB-128GB IMO), then you could at least settle for a caching system with a much smaller SSD or a hybrid hard drive that has a tiny SSD built in for caching. It'd be a decent compromise for SSD-like read performance and hard drive capacity. It wouldn't be as fast as an SSD for reads even with cached data and would probably not be much faster at all than a regular hard drive for writing data, but it would have enough capacity for you while having good read speed that is at least similar to a low-end SSD for the data that gets cached.

Honestly, my opinion goes for the get SSD now option, but I think that this is definitely a very opinionated choice that depends on what you think would be best for what you want to do.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 6:42:11 PM

blazorthon said:
Increasing the graphics doesn't increase the CPU load... The test is on medium to make the CPU bottle-neck more pronounced. On Ultra, the six/eight core AMD CPUs will be even closer, especially with a single GPU card that lack's CF higher CPU overhead that the Radeon 6990 has.

Even the FX-8120 beats the i5s in eight threaded performance, so just stop right there. That BF3 uses up to six threads is what keeps the i5s from losing significantly in the multi-player benchmarks.

Diminishing returns? Just WTF do you mean by that?

Bottle-neck issues with AMD CPUs are from four or fewer cores. Six and eight can handle BF3 greatly.

EDIT: Also, take an FX-81xx CPU, disable one core per module or cutting down the P states and priority of the second core of each module, give the L3 cache a significant overclock by increasing the CPU/NB frequency, it now has near SB/IB performance per core per Hz of CPU frequency and has higher headroom to make up for the still slight loss in per Hz performance.


increasing the strength of the graphics card means that the cpu has to be stronger in order to keep up.

the discussion is going no where though because you obviously do not understand how things are coded. for example, just because bf3 can use more then 4 cores does not mean that every core is being used a lot. past the first two-three cores each core is used less and less but by your theory a 100 core cpu would be like god if bf3 could use 100 cores.

blazorthon said:
BF3 MP uses six threads. It is a good CPU that keeps up with the i5s in this game and if OP wants to build a machine oriented around this game, then getting a cheaper FX-6100 and a faster Radeon 7950 is better than an i5 with a Radeon 7870.

EDIT: Where is your proof of this? In eight-threaded work, the FX-81xx CPUs beat the i5s. In six-threaded work, the FX-61xx/62xx and FX-81xx CPUs keep up with the i5s. You people asked for a benchmark, so I gave one. Are you going to deny it just because it shows that I'm right?


my proof is in cpu usage from when i play bf3. i use 55-60% cpu usage with just 1 6950 and about 75% cpu usage with 2 6950's. so considering that i have a 2600k and that amd cpus are far behind intel ones, they would bottleneck the cores that are being taxed 100% all the time. i.e. the first 2 or 3 cores.

blazorthon said:
The benchmarks say otherwise. You're usually on Intel's side just because you've used more Intel CPUs? That seems like an extremely biased way of taking sides. I'm not taking sides, I'm simply saying what's what.


you are saying uneducated things.

blazorthon said:
It depends greatly on the situation. Most games aren't as well-threaded as BF3 MP, so AMD suffers when the game eats up CPU performance and you don't take action to do something proper with the AMD CPUs such as overclocking, overclocking the CPU/NB frequency, and in the case of the FX-6xxx and 8xxx CPUs, also altering the core configuration like I said earlier.

Most gaming benchmarks don't account for any of this except maybe CPU frequency overclocking (AMD has no one to blame but themselves for not having full-speed L3 cache and proper core configurations on their FX CPUs by default, but still), so AMD is often seen as greatly under-performing where they should be. AMD has very competitive performance if you know how to use their CPUs, but mot people don't. Oh well, that's what AMD gets for being lazy asses and not doing this themselves or at least marketing it so that people know what to do.


just cause bf3 is multithreaded past 3 cores and can use probably up to 8 does not mean that it can use all 8 well. there are diminishing returns on how much each extra core will help. regardless of how many cores you have the first 2-3 cores will be used the most heavily then the game will start off loading smaller tasks to the other cores.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 6:49:35 PM

BF3 is made in a way that it will recognize and utlize as many cores it is given.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 6:50:10 PM

cbrunnem said:
increasing the strength of the graphics card means that the cpu has to be stronger in order to keep up.

the discussion is going no where though because you obviously do not understand how things are coded. for example, just because bf3 can use more then 4 cores does not mean that every core is being used a lot. past the first two-three cores each core is used less and less but by your theory a 100 core cpu would be like god if bf3 could use 100 cores.



my proof is in cpu usage from when i play bf3. i use 55-60% cpu usage with just 1 6950 and about 75% cpu usage with 2 6950's. so considering that i have a 2600k and that amd cpus are far behind intel ones, they would bottleneck the cores that are being taxed 100% all the time. i.e. the first 2 or 3 cores.



you are saying uneducated things.



just cause bf3 is multithreaded past 3 cores and can use probably up to 8 does not mean that it can use all 8 well. there are diminishing returns on how much each extra core will help. regardless of how many cores you have the first 2-3 cores will be used the most heavily then the game will start off loading smaller tasks to the other cores.


BF3 can use 6 threads and it can use them all effectively. Don't start that AMD is behind crap just from hype, actually learn about the situation yourself. The FX-6100 would be at much higher utilization than your i7 is in the same situation, but performance wouldn't be too different. The i7 is at what it is at because BF3 only uses six threads, not eight.

It jumps to 75% in CF because CF has a higher CPU overhead than no CF. A single GPU card with the same performance would still have about the same CPU utilization as a single 6950 if you increased graphics settings to have similar FPS because the bottle-neck is moved from the CPU to the graphics. Your proof only shows that what I'm saying is correct, so thanks for more evidence. You also show that you don't know how computers work if you think that increasing the graphics performance always means that you need a better CPU.

I'll give examples to explain how it works.

Let's say that a CPU can get up to 80FPS and another can get up to 100FPS, regardless of the cores/performance per cores/ and anything else. That's what performance they can get up to. If you double the graphics performance and increase the graphics performance so that the FPS that the two graphics configurations can get stays about the same, the CPU load still stays the same unless you also increase CPU-bottle-necking features. Increasing AA, texture quality, resolution (with the same aspect ratio), and such do not increase the CPU load. Increasing CPU physics quality, changing the resolution aspect ratio, and some other things impact the CPU load, but the FX-6100 has similar six-threaded performance to the i5s' quad threaded performance and is slightly behind the i7s due to their having Hyper-Threading Technology.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 6:52:36 PM

samueljerri said:
After reading all your posts, I can clearly see you are in fact, a AMD Fan-boy. Please, even though BF3 can *effectively* use 6 cores, that doesn't mean its better. Heck, overclocking on Intel based CPUs is much better than AMD anyday.

In fact, the i5 and i7 are the top end CPUs, AMD is more low range for budget limited people. The OP wants a build that can last for years. Intel has the edge over AMD in respect to gaming, for applications, AMD wins. Also, if the OP wants to save money on power, then Intel is the way to go (compared to AMDs 125w CPUs).

However, getting a AMD GPU is the way to go if getting a Intel based computer, not only are they cheaper, but can overclock and perform as well as their superiors.

Getting an SSD is not necessary. I have a 1 TB 7200 RPM HDD and I get 6 second boot ups. Will shaving off 2 seconds make a difference? Also, using the WEI, I have never seen a SDD or even a SDD+HDD Raid 0 HDD 7200 RPM setup get the full 7.9. My HDD is at 5.9 yet it performs extremely well.

Instead of the SDD, upgrade either your GPU, CPU, HDD, or Case.

I have a NZXT Switch 810 and usually get temperatures around 30 idle, and 40-50 gaming. Which is extermely well considering my rig is Air Cooled.


I am not an AMD fanboy. I am someone who doesn't care about hype, just what the CPUs can do. I know what they can do and how the games work with them. What I've said is all correct whether you like it or not. You're just going by hype rather than raw facts and that's not a good way to go about this.

I didn't say that OP needs an SSD. I said that I recommend one if OP can reasonably fit one into the budget because it is beneficial to many things. The FX-6100 uses similar amounts of power to the SB i5s and is a 95W CPU.

Also, AMD doesn't win in maximum application performance. Intel's six-core i7s win at that because nothing from AMD can keep up except maybe some 16 core Opterons.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 6:54:12 PM

blazorthon said:
It would work in Rendering great, but the i5s probably wouldn't be too different in rendering performance unless you use some of the tricks that I mentioned on the FX CPUs, specifically the CPU/NB frequency overclocking. With their stock configuration on all but CPU frequency, i5s and AMD's six-core CPUs are fairly close in highly threaded performance. Both options would work greatly, I'm just so adamant about the AMD option here because of your tight budget and because you want to do things that work excellently on AMD's six-core CPUs.

As for the SSD, if you don't mind using the laptop drive for storage and it can do this good enough for you, then I'd recommend getting an SSD, but don't get an SSD if you need more capacity. Although it's an extreme luxory to have, it is still a luxory, not a necessity. It wolud help in loading a lot, but if you need more capacity, then you should go for what you need. If your laptop's hard drive is plenty, then I'd go for the SSD option and get another hard drive when necessary, but if the laptop drive is not high enough capacity, then skip the SSD if you can't wait long enough to buy a new hard drive after buying the SSD.

Also, if you really can't fit a decent capacity SSD (90GB-128GB IMO), then you could at least settle for a caching system with a much smaller SSD or a hybrid hard drive that has a tiny SSD built in for caching. It'd be a decent compromise for SSD-like read performance and hard drive capacity. It wouldn't be as fast as an SSD for reads even with cached data and would probably not be much faster at all than a regular hard drive for writing data, but it would have enough capacity for you while having good read speed that is at least similar to a low-end SSD for the data that gets cached.

Honestly, my opinion goes for the get SSD now option, but I think that this is definitely a very opinionated choice that depends on what you think would be best for what you want to do.



After reading all your posts, I can clearly see you are in fact, a AMD Fan-boy. Please, even though BF3 can *effectively* use 6 cores, that doesn't mean its better. Heck, overclocking on Intel based CPUs is much better than AMD anyday.

In fact, the i5 and i7 are the top end CPUs, AMD is more low range for budget limited people. The OP wants a build that can last for years. Intel has the edge over AMD in respect to gaming, for applications, AMD wins. Also, if the OP wants to save money on power, then Intel is the way to go (compared to AMDs 125w CPUs).

However, getting a AMD GPU is the way to go if getting a Intel based computer, not only are they cheaper, but can overclock and perform as well as their superiors.

Getting an SSD is not necessary. I have a 1 TB 7200 RPM HDD and I get 6 second boot ups. Will shaving off 2 seconds make a difference? Also, using the WEI, I have never seen a SDD or even a SDD+HDD Raid 0 HDD 7200 RPM setup get the full 7.9. My HDD is at 5.9 yet it performs extremely well.

Instead of the SDD, upgrade either your GPU, CPU, HDD, or Case.

I have a NZXT Switch 810 and usually get temperatures around 30 idle, and 40-50 gaming. Which is extermely well considering my rig is Air Cooled.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 7:04:38 PM

blazorthon said:
I am not an AMD fanboy. I am someone who doesn't care about hype, just what the CPUs can do. I know what they can do and how the games work with them. What I've said is all correct whether you like it or not. You're just going by hype rather than raw facts and that's not a good way to go about this.

I didn't say that OP needs an SSD. I said that I recommend one if OP can reasonably fit one into the budget because it is beneficial to many things. The FX-6100 uses similar amounts of power to the SB i5s and is a 95W CPU.

Also, AMD doesn't win in maximum application performance. Intel's six-core i7s win at that because nothing from AMD can keep up except maybe some 16 core Opterons.



I respect your opinion, you made some good points.

Its all up to OP to decide whether or not he wants Intel or AMD.

Though, I would recommend Ivy Bridge over AMD anyday (come on AMD, make some new processors!)

In retrospect;

Intel will give OP more, dependability, in the near future.

AMD is cheaper, but has less performance in games (close, but no cigar)

For $300, you can pick yourself up a good i5 and a ASRock mb.

m
0
l
September 10, 2012 7:16:30 PM

Wow, lots of info to take in lol.

One more question....if I were to go with the FX 6100, would it be considered an upgrade if I were to change the CPU and mobo to an i5 3570k based rig in the near future?

I also do not plan on upgrading to haswell for quite sometime. Sandy bridge and ivy bridge will more than meet my needs for now.

One more thing to consider, I plan on playing quite a bit of Skyrim on this rig as well. From what I understand, Skyrim is fairly CPU intensive and can benefit from an i5.

I'll probably just stick with a conventional HDD and add in a decent SSD later. Any suggestions for a HDD/SSD hybrid?

Here's a list I've compiled thus far; I just need a suggestion for a hybrid drive. Any other suggestions are more than welcome as well...

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: AMD FX-6100 3.3GHz 6-Core Processor ($109.99 @ NCIX US)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($27.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: MSI 970A-G46 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($74.99 @ NCIX US)
Memory: G.Skill Ares Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($41.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($74.99 @ NCIX US)
Video Card: Gigabyte Radeon HD 7870 2GB Video Card ($247.55 @ Newegg)
Case: Antec Eleven Hundred ATX Full Tower Case ($89.99 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: Antec 620W 80 PLUS Certified ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply ($47.99 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: Asus DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS DVD/CD Writer ($19.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $735.47
(Prices include shipping and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2012-09-10 15:15 EDT-0400)

[Edit]

The Radeon HD 7950 is also still an option. Just trying to get a basic build going and then add from there.

Also, what's the difference between the FX 6100 and the FX 6200...or perhaps, should I look into getting a Phenom II?
m
0
l

Best solution

September 10, 2012 7:17:29 PM

samueljerri said:
I respect your opinion, you made some good points.

Its all up to OP to decide whether or not he wants Intel or AMD.

Though, I would recommend Ivy Bridge over AMD anyday (come on AMD, make some new processors!)

In retrospect;

Intel will give OP more, dependability, in the near future.

AMD is cheaper, but has less performance in games (close, but no cigar)

For $300, you can pick yourself up a good i5 and a ASRock mb.


AMD would be the better option in this case. I will not and have no intention of appearing to make OP's decision. It is OP's choice to buy what OP wants to buy. However, I will make the best recommendations possible and I have done so and given my reasoning for it. I was even asked for a benchmark and I gave one and more. If anyone still has doubts, that's their business, but it seems like people just don't want to stop believing in the hype for no good reason.

For BF3 MP, AMD's six core CPUs are as good as AMD's quad core CPUs when you don't modify the core configuration nor the L3 cache and are better when you do modify the L3 cache and core configuration. For games other than BF3, you have to do more because BF3 MP is the only game that is well-threaded enough to effectively use the six core CPUs. AMD's six and eight core FX CPUs can then be further modified to act like triple/quad core CPUs with multi-threading instead of the true 6/8 core CPUs that they are for increased lightly threaded performance optimization to compete with even the K edition i5s and i7s from Intel.

However, BF3 doesn't need any such optimization for AMD's six and eight core CPUs to keep pace with Intel's more expensive quad core CPUs, so if OP wants to primarily play BF3, then it works out greatly. Most games aren't CPU-bottle-necked enough for even lower end CPUs such as the Phenom II x4s and the i3s to not get great performance and those that are are, are not so much that a 4+GHz FX CPU can't handle them.

What Intel truly offers is a more simplified and sometimes more power efficient (although not always) platform, not necessarily a higher performance platform.
Share
September 10, 2012 7:20:02 PM

DeusAres said:
Wow, lots of info to take in lol.

One more question....if I were to go with the FX 6100, would it be considered an upgrade if I were to change the CPU and mobo to an i5 3570k based rig in the near future?

I also do not plan on upgrading to haswell for quite sometime. Sandy bridge and ivy bridge will more than meet my needs for now.

One more thing to consider, I plan on playing quite a bit of Skyrim on this rig as well. From what I understand, Skyrim is fairly CPU intensive and can benefit from an i5.

I'll probably just stick with a conventional HDD and add in a decent SSD later. Any suggestions for a HDD/SSD hybrid?

Here's a list I've compiled thus far; I just need a suggestion for a hybrid drive. Any other suggestions are more than welcome as well...

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: AMD FX-6100 3.3GHz 6-Core Processor ($109.99 @ NCIX US)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($27.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: MSI 970A-G46 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($74.99 @ NCIX US)
Memory: G.Skill Ares Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($41.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($74.99 @ NCIX US)
Video Card: Gigabyte Radeon HD 7870 2GB Video Card ($247.55 @ Newegg)
Case: Antec Eleven Hundred ATX Full Tower Case ($89.99 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: Antec 620W 80 PLUS Certified ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply ($47.99 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: Asus DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS DVD/CD Writer ($19.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $735.47
(Prices include shipping and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2012-09-10 15:15 EDT-0400)


Going from an FX-6100 to an i5 would not be an upgrade unless it is a Haswell i5 or better. By the time that an FX-6100 is no longer enough for gaming (not any time soon), Haswell would probably not even be the latest Intel micro-architecture for CPUs around anyway and it'd be more like AMD's Excavator against Intel's Skylake. Too little info is known about them so far to say what will be better (if at all) for what job anyway.

Skyrim shouldn't have any trouble with a highly clocked FX-6100. Significant improvements have been made in Skyrim's CPU needs.

The only hybrid drive that I'm aware of that is matured as a product is Seagate's Momentous XT line. I've heard of others and maybe there are some right now, but I'm not familiar with any others.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 7:29:23 PM

blazorthon said:
Going from an FX-6100 to an i5 would not be an upgrade unless it is a Haswell i5 or better. By the time that an FX-6100 is no longer enough for gaming (not any time soon), Haswell would probably not even be the latest Intel micro-architecture for CPUs around anyway and it'd be more like AMD's Excavator against Intel's Skylake. Too little info is known about them so far to say what will be better (if at all) for what job anyway.

Skyrim shouldn't have any trouble with a highly clocked FX-6100. Significant improvements have been made in Skyrim's CPU needs.

The only hybrid drive that I'm aware of that is matured as a product is Seagate's Momentous XT line. I've heard of others and maybe there are some right now, but I'm not familiar with any others.


Hm, I guess in my situation I would need to base alot of this from personal experience. I think I may go with a FX 6100 or something similar for now, and then I can decide for myself once I get it up and running.

How difficult would it be to modify the CPU/NB frequencies or whatever those other settings you mentioned? Are there youtube tutorials and what not out there? Also, how easy is it to maneuver through the BIOS on an AMD based mobo?

Any AMD motherboard suggestions? I'm not too familiar with AMD motherboards. Which would be a good option? Thoughts on the MSI board I chose?

I greatly appreciate all the information you guys have given thus far. You guys have truly been helpful. Thank you.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 7:35:31 PM

DeusAres said:
Hm, I guess in my situation I would need to base alot of this from personal experience. I think I may go with a FX 6100 or something similar for now, and then I can decide for myself once I get it up and running.

How difficult would it be to modify the CPU/NB frequencies or whatever those other settings you mentioned? Are there youtube tutorials and what not out there? Also, how easy is it to maneuver through the BIOS on an AMD based mobo?

Any AMD motherboard suggestions? I'm not too familiar with AMD motherboards. Which would be a good option? Thoughts on the MSI board I chose?

I greatly appreciate all the information you guys have given thus far. You guys have truly been helpful. Thank you.


Changing the CPU/NB frequency is as easy as changing the CPU frequency and is done in the exact same way, with a multiplier that is multiplied by the BLCK/FSB to get the L3 cache frequency.

EDIT: Just in case you were wondering, changing the core configuration is not as simple as the CPU frequency and the CPU/NB frequency. That takes a little more work with PS Check instead of mere BIOS settings.

About the motherboard, it's good for a budget board, but it probably wouldn't do well as an extreme overclocking board. Considering the extra room in your budget, maybe you'd be better off with a better ad somewhat more expensive board such as one of these:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

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

If you want to keep the board for long and do CF/SLI in the future, the dual PCIe 2.0 x16 slots that these two boards offer will be as good as dual PCIe 3.0 x8 slots that Z77 boards offer for PCIe bandwidth. That's not very important and doesn't matter at all for you right now, but it might in the future if you do CF/SLI with much faster cards than a 7870.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 8:13:42 PM

Awesome! After researching a bit more, I've come to this build...for now...

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: AMD FX-6100 3.3GHz 6-Core Processor ($109.99 @ NCIX US)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($27.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: ASRock 970 Extreme3 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($89.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ares Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($41.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Momentus XT 500GB 2.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($76.49 @ Amazon)
Video Card: Gigabyte Radeon HD 7870 2GB Video Card ($247.55 @ Newegg)
Case: Antec Eleven Hundred ATX Full Tower Case ($89.99 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: Antec 620W 80 PLUS Certified ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply ($47.99 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: Asus DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS DVD/CD Writer ($19.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $751.96
(Prices include shipping and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2012-09-10 16:08 EDT-0400)

I have to buy a couple extra intake fans for the Antec case; that's why I didn't go for the HD 7950 or a better motherboard. I feel this is good enough for my needs for right now. It'll be a huge jump from this laptop...

Is the Seagate Momentus compatible with my motherboard? It only has Sata 6GB/s ports listed? Is Sata 6GB/s backwards compatible with the Seagate drive? Or how would that work?

HP Pavilion dv7-6175us Notebook
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

One final question and I believe I'm finished here...how difficult is it to sell PC parts? Best place to sell them without the vendor I'm selling them through charging me an arm and a leg?
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 8:26:08 PM

SATA 6Gb/s is backwards compatible with SATA 3Gb/s and it should be even compatible with SATA 1.5Gb/s, although some of the older implementations of SATA did have compatibility issues. However, this is another of the Momentous XT line that is SATA 6Gb/s capable at the same price and capacity, so you could go for this one instead anyway:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I usually sell parts on ebay.

Your motherboard choice is a good motherboard, but it doesn't have 32 PCIe 2.0 lanes for graphics like my two suggestions do. If you don't care about that, then no problem, but it might help future-proofing if you ever do a high-end upgrade to CF/SLI with higher end cards than a Radeon 7870.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 8:32:24 PM

Here's the "final" build...

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: AMD FX-6100 3.3GHz 6-Core Processor ($109.99 @ NCIX US)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($27.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: ASRock 970 Extreme3 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($89.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ares Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($41.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Momentus XT 500GB 2.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($76.49 @ Amazon)
Video Card: Gigabyte Radeon HD 7870 2GB Video Card ($247.55 @ Newegg)
Case: Antec Eleven Hundred ATX Full Tower Case ($89.99 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: Antec 620W 80 PLUS Certified ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply ($47.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $731.97
(Prices include shipping and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2012-09-10 16:38 EDT-0400)

Thanks guys. I'd give everyone the best answer if I could, but I think blazorthon earned this one.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 8:33:27 PM

blazorthon said:
SATA 6Gb/s is backwards compatible with SATA 3Gb/s and it should be even compatible with SATA 1.5Gb/s, although some of the older implementations of SATA did have compatibility issues. However, this is another of the Momentous XT line that is SATA 6Gb/s capable at the same price and capacity, so you could go for this one instead anyway:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I usually sell parts on ebay.

Your motherboard choice is a good motherboard, but it doesn't have 32 PCIe 2.0 lanes for graphics like my two suggestions do. If you don't care about that, then no problem, but it might help future-proofing if you ever do a high-end upgrade to CF/SLI with higher end cards than a Radeon 7870.


I won't have any need for Crossfire/SLI; I usually like to stick with a single card solution. Thanks for the concern, though. :) 
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 8:33:53 PM

Best answer selected by DeusAres.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 8:35:48 PM

Glad to help.

One last thing. The FX-6200 has a higher base frequency than the 6100, but it doesn't actually overclock any better at all, so if you're going to overclock a little more, the 6100 is the better option because it's the same CPU for a lower price. The 6200 simply has higher stock voltage and CPU frequency settings.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 8:37:25 PM

blazorthon said:
Glad to help.

One last thing. The FX-6200 has a higher base frequency than the 6100, but it doesn't actually overclock any better at all, so if you're going to overclock a little more, the 6100 is the better option because it's the same CPU for a lower price. The 6200 simply has higher stock voltage and CPU frequency settings.



Well, that's good to know. Back to the FX 6100 it is, lol. Need to save some cash anyways. If I can find the FX 6200 for the exact same price as the 6100, then I'll grab it.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 8:43:23 PM

DeusAres said:
Well, that's good to know. Back to the FX 6100 it is, lol. Need to save some cash anyways. If I can find the FX 6200 for the exact same price as the 6100, then I'll grab it.


Good luck with everything :) 
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 8:50:11 PM

Op you have been so badly brain washed that its sad on blazs part. He is so badly wrong when it comes to amds performance in bf3 that nothing will convince him otherwise. I will tell you this right now though. A 3570k will get you better average and minimum fps then any amd cpu.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 8:58:26 PM

cbrunnem said:
Op you have been so badly brain washed that its sad on blazs part. He is so badly wrong when it comes to amds performance in bf3 that nothing will convince him otherwise. I will tell you this right now though. A 3570k will get you better average and minimum fps then any amd cpu.


While this may be true to an extent, I've researched benchmarks and watched a few youtube vids on the FX 6100. It does pretty much everything I want for much less than the i5. 5-10 fps doesn't warrant a $100+ premium...especially when the minimum fps stays above 30. I can always upgrade in the future if I need to. I just need something better than this laptop I have.

Thank you for your concern.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 9:06:32 PM

cbrunnem said:
Op you have been so badly brain washed that its sad on blazs part. He is so badly wrong when it comes to amds performance in bf3 that nothing will convince him otherwise. I will tell you this right now though. A 3570k will get you better average and minimum fps then any amd cpu.


The benchmarks clearly show that I'm correct no matter how you look at them. If you can't offer proof of your claims as I've offered proof, then you have nothing but hype backing you up and that's worse than having nothing.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 9:43:45 PM

blazorthon said:
The benchmarks clearly show that I'm correct no matter how you look at them. If you can't offer proof of your claims as I've offered proof, then you have nothing but hype backing you up and that's worse than having nothing.

YOUR OWN BENCH SHOWS THAT A 8150 IS SLOWER THEN AN I5? i dont understand how you can say any amd cpu will get the same performance. i understand as you increase the graphics more emphasis will be on the gpu and not as much on the cpu but bf3 MP is a different beast. the cpu will and always will be just as important if not more then the gpu.
m
0
l
September 10, 2012 9:51:19 PM

If you're concerned about it that much, feel free to send donations my way. I'll gladly throw an i5 in my build. :lol: 

I don't have the money for the i5 right now. The 6100 will get the job done. It'll be a huge improvement over this...

HP Pavilion dv7-6175us Notebook
m
0
l
!