Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

New BUDGET Build!!!

Last response: in Systems
Share
September 21, 2012 8:01:07 AM

Hellow.
I am building a new GAMING computer (or rig or build ugh :pt1cable:  ) That I want to use it for ATLEAST 5 years gaming, school-work and video-editing multitasking and MAYBE 3D stuff. I want it under 630$ WITHOUT THE GRAPHICS CARD. Like a 630$ without graphics card because I don't have enough money now. I will be saving and getting it later (Gigabyte 7950 open for suggestions too :D !) I want to go for the Intel i5 but umm... its four cores. I know its enough and it's faster and its better for gaming. But I really don't know. This isn't my money, This IS my first year of high school. (Grade 7) so I don't have options lol i am under control of my father. So I want something good and would stay with me. Does this build seem OK? I am open to suggestions but really, 630$ is HUGELY already over my budget(100$ over :sweat:  ). And I don't live in the US. I am in the middle east... So yeah all bad :(  . So here goes!

CPU: FX-8150 or 8120 (Whats better for overclocking? And I haven't overclocked before :??:  )
Motherboard: AsRock 990FX Extreme3 (Will be Cross-firing in the future)
Case: Cougar Challenger Orange (Not open for debate :kaola:  I live this thing)
DVD: LG DVD Burner Black SATA Model
HDD: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200RPM
RAM: Kingston 12GB (3x4GB) 240-Pin
PSU: RoseWill xTreme RX850


I am gonna get these later as I get more money:

CPU Cooler: ThermalTake Water2.0 Performer
GPU: Radeon 7950 Gigabyte


All are open for debate! Thanks!!

More about : budget build

September 21, 2012 8:33:32 AM

Intel is much better when gaming and doing these editing and all. and the FX is terrible (to me, atleast. Intel has better performing hardware and Im pretty sure the FX has very slow core by core performance.) Get the i5 3570K and Asrock Extreme4 mobo

You dont want Kingston if your going Intel route. Too much voltage. Corsair or G.Skill is your best bet.

A PSU from Corsair, XFX, Seasonic and PC&P will be much more reliable.

I dont really know how youre going to do 3D work when your in 7th Grade, since Im pretty sure you need special software for that. :lol:  Beats me. Im in 7th Grade and starting programming :kaola: 

Lastly, dont expect 5 years from ANY computer. Most it will play modern games at high is about 2-3 years. Intel will replace Ivy with Haswell next year, AMD Phenoms with Piledriver (I think.) and new video cards come out each year which are bound to perform better than todays GPUs.
September 21, 2012 9:10:59 AM

Nw333 said:
Intel is much better when gaming and doing these editing and all. and the FX is terrible (to me, atleast. Intel has better performing hardware and Im pretty sure the FX has very slow core by core performance.) Get the i5 3570K and Asrock Extreme4 mobo

You dont want Kingston if your going Intel route. Too much voltage. Corsair or G.Skill is your best bet.

A PSU from Corsair, XFX, Seasonic and PC&P will be much more reliable.

I dont really know how youre going to do 3D work when your in 7th Grade, since Im pretty sure you need special software for that. :lol:  Beats me. Im in 7th Grade and starting programming :kaola: 

Lastly, dont expect 5 years from ANY computer. Most it will play modern games at high is about 2-3 years. Intel will replace Ivy with Haswell next year, AMD Phenoms with Piledriver (I think.) and new video cards come out each year which are bound to perform better than todays GPUs.



Oh man, someone says the FX series is terrible, while using a 660 ti, that's funny.

Agreed, intel is better, but I feel that I've made this argument many times on these forums already. Is it worth the price? Because there is roughly a $40(USA) difference between the fx-8150 and the i5 3xxxk, its hard to say which one I would go with. While the AMD chip has potential with windows 8, I personally haven't used it enough to form an opinion. Next, if you are comfortable with it, spacing the load on different modules on an fx-8150 can drastically improve performance, why AMD doesn't do this stock from the factory, is beyond me.

Is electricity cost an issue for you? If so, the 77w intel may be better suited for you rather than the 125w fx. However, due to the fact that you mention that you plan to crossfire/sli later on, I have a hunch that power costs are not of much concern to you.
Related resources
September 21, 2012 9:11:54 AM

Nw333 said:
Intel is much better when gaming and doing these editing and all. and the FX is terrible (to me, atleast. Intel has better performing hardware and Im pretty sure the FX has very slow core by core performance.) Get the i5 3570K and Asrock Extreme4 mobo

You dont want Kingston if your going Intel route. Too much voltage. Corsair or G.Skill is your best bet.

A PSU from Corsair, XFX, Seasonic and PC&P will be much more reliable.

I dont really know how youre going to do 3D work when your in 7th Grade, since Im pretty sure you need special software for that. :lol:  Beats me. Im in 7th Grade and starting programming :kaola: 

Lastly, dont expect 5 years from ANY computer. Most it will play modern games at high is about 2-3 years. Intel will replace Ivy with Haswell next year, AMD Phenoms with Piledriver (I think.) and new video cards come out each year which are bound to perform better than todays GPUs.


Yeah but i like to Multitask alot. Like assign four cores to a game. And for other to Vegas xD. But look here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kd4dvLJQP4
Not much of a difference :D !
And the stupid consoles are NOW gonna get replaced.... 6 years ahead. I wanna go AMD because 8 cores wont get outdated in 5 years. Maybe four will... not sure. Thats why, i WILL add another 7950.... but i really dont wanna replace my CPU. Say i got an i5 NOW.... when four gets outdated.. I THINK i will go maybe i7 (or i9 xD) which will cost me DOUBLE the AMD for MAX 20% performance. I dont its worth it. :) 
September 21, 2012 9:23:11 AM

Quote:
I love budget builds. Never enough money is there. I've done several so I know how it is. I am impressed that you are so young and building a pc, good for you and have fun.
Intel is the way to go and you can find a processor that costs the same as an FX chip that will outperform it. That processor is already dated because even their replacement will be slower than intel's unfortunately.
I suggest a Seasonic psu stongly. You won't need 850 watts. Go more around 600, the workstation I am typing on right now has a 520w Seasonic and its very powerful. You also won't need three sticks of ram as a mainstream board uses two or four. I don't see a motherboard but I suggest the ASRock Extreme 4 for intel cpus.
Good luck buddy!



He says he wants to crossfire. So he will need a 700w power supply or better, with at least 53A on the +12V rail. You did make a good point though, triple channel memory for this build is a mistake, get a dual channel kit.
September 21, 2012 9:26:37 AM

Quote:
I love budget builds. Never enough money is there. I've done several so I know how it is. I am impressed that you are so young and building a pc, good for you and have fun.
Intel is the way to go and you can find a processor that costs the same as an FX chip that will outperform it. That processor is already dated because even their replacement will be slower than intel's unfortunately.
I suggest a Seasonic psu stongly. You won't need 850 watts. Go more around 600, the workstation I am typing on right now has a 520w Seasonic and its very powerful. You also won't need three sticks of ram as a mainstream board uses two or four. I don't see a motherboard but I suggest the ASRock Extreme 4 for intel cpus.
Good luck buddy!

You know I wanna crossfire eh? :p  and I dont wanna get cought with my pants down like I am now. I have a core 2 duo and i cant play NFS: The Run and bf3 thanks to my SHITTY dual core. SO i dont want that to happen again. If you wont think games will make a difference with more cores later on.. i go Intel all day. I just dont want that to happen. And as I said. Multitasking is something I really LOVE. I know i make it seem like the FX is the only option.. But with its price with its cores... Well I dont know. Should I wait for Piledriver then?!
September 21, 2012 9:27:46 AM

abraham_mammogram said:
He says he wants to crossfire. So he will need a 700w power supply or better, with at least 53A on the +12V rail. You did make a good point though, triple channel memory for this build is a mistake, get a dual channel kit.

You recommend a 2 sticks of 8GB or 4 sticks or 4 GB???
September 21, 2012 9:30:46 AM

xeon e3-1230 v2 with some cheap b75 based motherboard should be very good.
September 21, 2012 9:32:56 AM

ProVisionOman said:
You recommend a 2 sticks of 8GB or 4 sticks or 4 GB???



eh, I don't know. I still think 16gb is quite alot, unless you are doing a lot of photo editing. I would say pick whichever set you can find cheaper..
September 21, 2012 9:46:49 AM

farensabri said:
xeon e3-1230 v2 with some cheap b75 based motherboard should be very good.

Dont act stupid. I wanna FUTURE PROOF IT! It is BARELY now proof.
September 21, 2012 9:49:18 AM

Depends on MB.
Some MB only have dual channel support, that's 2 slots. So going 2 sticks is optimal there.

I also vote on i5 over fx. Performance wise the fx is like 2 tiers behind. The i3s beat it...
September 21, 2012 10:36:24 AM

abraham_mammogram said:
Oh man, someone says the FX series is terrible, while using a 660 ti, that's funny.


The 660Ti competes with the 7950, dont see how its terrible. Also gives me atleast 50FPS, 1080p BF3 on Ultra, for $100 less than a 670 >.> How is that terrible? You tell me.
September 21, 2012 11:03:28 AM

Like everyone else has said, the 8 core is a little much for what you get. I would go with the intel i5 2500K for an extra 30 dollars, or if not, you could just go with the newest sandy bridge version for the same price as the 8150. Now, no hate to the AMD, I have an AMD CPU myself. (The 6100) But, I think that the 8150 is a little too expensive. Another thing you can do is get the 6100 or 6150, and save some for a better GPU.

i5 2500K: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


FX 6100: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...



Edit:

Where it says "or if not, you could just go with the newest sandy bridge version for the same price as the 8150." I meant the most basic version. I think thats the 2310.
September 22, 2012 3:33:37 AM

Nw333 said:
The 660Ti competes with the 7950, dont see how its terrible. Also gives me atleast 50FPS, 1080p BF3 on Ultra, for $100 less than a 670 >.> How is that terrible? You tell me.



192 bit memory interface.

I also got my 670 for $320. It's not that hard to get a good deal on computer hardware if you know how to look for it.

edit: and no, the 660 ti doesn't compete with the 7950, it competes with the 7870.
September 22, 2012 4:19:05 AM

abraham_mammogram said:
192 bit memory interface.

I also got my 670 for $320. It's not that hard to get a good deal on computer hardware if you know how to look for it.

edit: and no, the 660 ti doesn't compete with the 7950, it competes with the 7870.


Well, if it had the same 256 bit memory interface, it wouldve been a 670.

I live in the PH, its hard to find deals here.
September 22, 2012 4:26:04 AM

Nw333 said:
Well, if it had the same 256 bit memory interface, it wouldve been a 670.

I live in the PH, its hard to find deals here.



well yeah, when you also enable the missing ROP. But that's the point I was making, the memory interface limits an otherwise extremely capable card.
September 22, 2012 4:33:20 AM

abraham_mammogram said:
well yeah, when you also enable the missing ROP. But that's the point I was making, the memory interface limits an otherwise extremely capable card.


Thats nVidias way of crippling cards, I guess. Lower the memory interface or the shaders or whatever. Eh, as long as it gives me good performance ingame, Im fine with it.
September 22, 2012 11:56:30 AM

OK thanks all!! Will be going with a i5... BUT! 2500k or 2550k or 3570k?!
September 23, 2012 5:08:41 AM

2550K? lol. :D 

3570K, definitely. I know it OCs hotter, but why not get the latest and greatest?
September 23, 2012 2:44:25 PM

Nw333 said:
2550K? lol. :D 

3570K, definitely. I know it OCs hotter, but why not get the latest and greatest?

OH CMON! The 2550k just doesnt have the intergrated graphics. It does... But disabled. LOL! Its more expensive too :ouch: 
September 24, 2012 10:20:47 AM

Well, I really dont know why your bothering with integrated graphics when your getting a discrete video card. :lol: 

Sandy Bridge (2xxx) will probably be obsolete soon since Haswell will come out. Im assuming the Ivy (3xxx) will stay for atleast 1 year more since it is newer. Keep in mind this is just an assumption.
September 24, 2012 12:06:52 PM

Nw333 said:
Well, I really dont know why your bothering with integrated graphics when your getting a discrete video card. :lol: 

Sandy Bridge (2xxx) will probably be obsolete soon since Haswell will come out. Im assuming the Ivy (3xxx) will stay for atleast 1 year more since it is newer. Keep in mind this is just an assumption.


Yeah, and BTW. I want a processor that will last atleast 5 years. Yeah! i5 3570k or FX? I know FX doesnt have PCI-e 3 D: But its still 8 cores (Oh well 4 modules :p ). What do you recommend?!
September 24, 2012 12:17:10 PM

i5 3570K > FX. You wont find a CPU that would last you 5 years, especially now since Haswell is coming out next year. There is no such thing as future-proofing, Im telling you now. (Even the 2011 processors wont last you 3 years.) At most, expect maybe 3 years tops for this build. Technology is always improving. :) 
September 24, 2012 1:04:03 PM

Nw333 said:
i5 3570K > FX. You wont find a CPU that would last you 5 years, especially now since Haswell is coming out next year. There is no such thing as future-proofing, Im telling you now. (Even the 2011 processors wont last you 3 years.) At most, expect maybe 3 years tops for this build. Technology is always improving. :) 

But I will be adding another 7950 :D 
September 24, 2012 1:57:17 PM

Still 3 years tops. :)  7xx series from nVidia come out late 2013, I think. The 8xxx cards are bound to come out probably early 2013. Just guessing here, no confirmed date of release yet.
September 24, 2012 6:39:09 PM

Nw333 said:
Still 3 years tops. :)  7xx series from nVidia come out late 2013, I think. The 8xxx cards are bound to come out probably early 2013. Just guessing here, no confirmed date of release yet.

I changed!! I am going i7 3820. BAYUM! I can now upgrade thanks to the 2011 socket. And my friend is an enthusaist with a workstation. He has a 3960x... So if i can OUTDATED.. well 6 core PWOER HERE I COMME AHHHAAHHA! Thanks anyways! :D 
September 24, 2012 9:27:50 PM

You wont see a difference between a 3770K and 3820. All you will upgrade to is the 3930X which you cant avoid getting older. Nothing wrong with an old build, just that it might not play everything or do everything modern. You actually wont even use 4 cores when playing, so 6 cores is unnecesary and a waste. (Games probably use 2 cores max.)
September 25, 2012 1:52:17 PM

Nw333 said:
You wont see a difference between a 3770K and 3820. All you will upgrade to is the 3930X which you cant avoid getting older. Nothing wrong with an old build, just that it might not play everything or do everything modern. You actually wont even use 4 cores when playing, so 6 cores is unnecesary and a waste. (Games probably use 2 cores max.)

Well... That STUPID INTERNET DUDES is called future-proofing. HAH :kaola: 
September 25, 2012 2:04:30 PM

Thats what you call Wasting Money, if I so recall. Do what you want with your money, just dont come crying back how your computer is so slow after 2-3 years of use, even if you bought the most high-end parts now, compared to PCs in 2-3 years of similar budget.

You will never get anything now if all you do is plan for the future. If anything, all you will get is a big whole in your pocket in a hopeless effort to future-proof.
September 25, 2012 5:22:00 PM

Nw333 said:
Thats what you call Wasting Money, if I so recall. Do what you want with your money, just dont come crying back how your computer is so slow after 2-3 years of use, even if you bought the most high-end parts now, compared to PCs in 2-3 years of similar budget.

You will never get anything now if all you do is plan for the future. If anything, all you will get is a big whole in your pocket in a hopeless effort to future-proof.

Yeah but you see... I cannot upgrade in 2-3 years time you see. My father restricts me to every 5 years. So if I can get second hand 6 core processor after its a common thing (like now as quad cores) I would be set for maybe 4 years! And to be behind all the rich in 2016 for only one year behind (as i am now lol with a core 2 duo) I should be fine unless I turn spoiled (Please not ;D)
Thanks!!
September 26, 2012 1:16:49 AM

Second hand computer parts isnt a good idea. You have no idea of how much load, repairs, etc. it has been through. By the way, when 6 cores are the norm, 8-core processors will probably be out, just an assumption.

Im telling you now, you will not see any performance boost with a 3930x compared to the 3770K as the extra two cores on the 3930x arent even being used. You'd be set for four years anyway if all you do is gaming, even if you get the i5. 3930x is used for servers, not gaming rigs. Same goes with all the 2011 socket procs.
September 26, 2012 11:03:38 AM

Nw333 said:
Second hand computer parts isnt a good idea. You have no idea of how much load, repairs, etc. it has been through. By the way, when 6 cores are the norm, 8-core processors will probably be out, just an assumption.

Im telling you now, you will not see any performance boost with a 3930x compared to the 3770K as the extra two cores on the 3930x arent even being used. You'd be set for four years anyway if all you do is gaming, even if you get the i5. 3930x is used for servers, not gaming rigs. Same goes with all the 2011 socket procs.


But the good thing that's its my TEACHER'S computer. Heh!
September 26, 2012 11:12:47 AM

Are you home-schooled or something? Why would a teacher want to use a gaming computer? If anything, all hes going to do is search google, show powerpoints, word documents, etc. and make powerpoints, etc.

Post what we actually need to know, not who is going to use it. Will not be of any help.

We arent going to get to anywhere like this.
September 26, 2012 5:27:49 PM

Nw333 said:
Are you home-schooled or something? Why would a teacher want to use a gaming computer? If anything, all hes going to do is search google, show powerpoints, word documents, etc. and make powerpoints, etc.

Post what we actually need to know, not who is going to use it. Will not be of any help.

We arent going to get to anywhere like this.

Ok, So as you can see.. Do you have any improvements or anything to add on this build or its as good as its gonna get:
CPU: i7 3820 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
CPU Cooler: ThermalTake Water2.0 Performer
Motherboard: ASRock X79 EXTREME4 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Video Card: Gigabyte Radeon HD 7950
Case: Cougar Challenger Orange http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
DVD: DVD
HDD: Seagate Barracuda 1.5TB 7200RPM http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
RAM: CORSAIR XMS3 16GB DDR3 1600 4x4GB http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
PSU: XFX Core Edition PRO850W http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
September 26, 2012 9:36:32 PM

Once again, you will NOT see any performance gains from the 3820, even the 3930x, compared to the 3770K. The 3770K is unlocked for a reason. I also dont suggest building a gaming rig on the 2011 socket. You dont need the extra features you get, and its very expensive since they are ment for servers.

Get Corsair Vengeance RAM, the low profile ones. They perform better than XMS3.



September 28, 2012 4:04:55 AM

Ok, say I went with the 3770k ad when 4 cores starts to get a problem... And its not enough I have to change MOTHERBOARD AND CPU because Haswell is on the 1150 socket while if I go 2011 I can go 3930k or my "friend's" 3960x because he has a workstation and he likes to upgrade.
September 28, 2012 4:10:49 AM

And also.. You say 4 cores is enough and all... But the reason I am buying a new PC is because my Core2Duo is bad for gaming. I cant run BF3... I cant even run MW3 at 1080p!! So yeah...
September 28, 2012 4:12:29 AM

Nw333 said:
Once again, you will NOT see any performance gains from the 3820, even the 3930x, compared to the 3770K. The 3770K is unlocked for a reason. I also dont suggest building a gaming rig on the 2011 socket. You dont need the extra features you get, and its very expensive since they are ment for servers.

Get Corsair Vengeance RAM, the low profile ones. They perform better than XMS3.

And yes.. Is it a good idea to overclock RAM??
September 28, 2012 4:39:37 AM

Couple of things missed. First off buying a new cpu (one of the newest lines sandy/ivy or fx) does not mean they will not work in 5 years (unless you happen to fry yours for some odd reason). And they will still game. My athlon 64 x2 4400+ toledo still plays the latest games although i've personally never tried to go above the lowest settings (eye candy does not matter to me the fun of a game does).

Second off 4 cores will not be obsolete in 5 years. Why not? Since the release of dual cores few games (until recently) utilized them. And almost no games now make full use of quad cores.

Thirdly game companies try to make their products as widely accessible as possible. Meaning they try to keep the system specs low. This is why my old amd dual core is still able to play almost any game (i've not met one yet i could not play but i mainly play mmorpgs or rpgs).

And yes intel does give better performance in games. And you can find countless benchmarks and such that show case the fps gains of an intel chip when gaming. And of course intel will have the best cpu as amd is no longer trying to compete with intel at the high end market. The biggest baddest amd chip was designed to compete with an i5 2500.

If fps gains are your top priority then intel is the way to go.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...

Just to show that at the $125 value the 4170 is a comparable choice for a gaming cpu as a i3 3220. And amd has 2 more cpu releases this year 1 in October and 1 in December. So some of the other fx chips may drop in price soon making them an even better value. And who knows amd may actually have a diamond in the rough in one of their new cpu releases.

Would i recommend an amd cpu over an intel for gaming specifically? No but there are some amd cpu's that are a pretty good value and game well (note i am not saying better). And some of these chips do well in other types of builds where gaming is not the sole focus. But in gaming the gpu has more to do with over all performance gains over the cpu (provided there is no bottle neck).
September 28, 2012 5:36:34 AM

2753946,38,1411134 said:
Ok, say I went with the 3770k ad when 4 cores starts to get a problem... And its not enough I have to change MOTHERBOARD AND CPU because Haswell is on the 1150 socket while if I go 2011 I can go 3930k or my "friend's" 3960x because he has a workstation and he likes to upgrade.[/quotemsg
my face hurts from all the *facepalms
September 28, 2012 8:17:20 AM

computernoob29 said:
2753946,38,1411134 said:
Ok, say I went with the 3770k ad when 4 cores starts to get a problem... And its not enough I have to change MOTHERBOARD AND CPU because Haswell is on the 1150 socket while if I go 2011 I can go 3930k or my "friend's" 3960x because he has a workstation and he likes to upgrade.[/quotemsg
my face hurts from all the *facepalms
said:

Lol. :lol: 
September 28, 2012 8:21:31 AM

@zolton; correct, although there will be more demanding games out there by that time and im sure the OP will try them, unless he plans on playing the same games for 5 years :p 

My laptop, (running on an old pentium at like 2.8GHz) still plays Dota2 on low, with like 20FPS. Thats okay for me. :D  (for an oooooold laptop, atleast. Was purchased in like 2007 or so)
September 28, 2012 12:55:04 PM

Stop mocking me please? Havent you seen my AGE in the first post? So i guess it isnt wrong for me to know get your "MASTER-MIND THINKING" I just want to save as much money without much sacrifice in quality. If i spend more now and less later I guess will be better because I dont know maybe i cant spend less now more later because of life (That's why its a bitch lol). What i mean that if i buy an x79 platform I have an IVB-E easy upgrade path which should perform same as Haswell like SNB-E is now which is performing nearly same as Ivy Bridge. Thanks guys!
September 28, 2012 1:00:36 PM

zolton33 said:
Couple of things missed. First off buying a new cpu (one of the newest lines sandy/ivy or fx) does not mean they will not work in 5 years (unless you happen to fry yours for some odd reason). And they will still game. My athlon 64 x2 4400+ toledo still plays the latest games although i've personally never tried to go above the lowest settings (eye candy does not matter to me the fun of a game does).

Second off 4 cores will not be obsolete in 5 years. Why not? Since the release of dual cores few games (until recently) utilized them. And almost no games now make full use of quad cores.

Thirdly game companies try to make their products as widely accessible as possible. Meaning they try to keep the system specs low. This is why my old amd dual core is still able to play almost any game (i've not met one yet i could not play but i mainly play mmorpgs or rpgs).

And yes intel does give better performance in games. And you can find countless benchmarks and such that show case the fps gains of an intel chip when gaming. And of course intel will have the best cpu as amd is no longer trying to compete with intel at the high end market. The biggest baddest amd chip was designed to compete with an i5 2500.

If fps gains are your top priority then intel is the way to go.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...

Just to show that at the $125 value the 4170 is a comparable choice for a gaming cpu as a i3 3220. And amd has 2 more cpu releases this year 1 in October and 1 in December. So some of the other fx chips may drop in price soon making them an even better value. And who knows amd may actually have a diamond in the rough in one of their new cpu releases.

Would i recommend an amd cpu over an intel for gaming specifically? No but there are some amd cpu's that are a pretty good value and game well (note i am not saying better). And some of these chips do well in other types of builds where gaming is not the sole focus. But in gaming the gpu has more to do with over all performance gains over the cpu (provided there is no bottle neck).


Yes.. but you see the frostbite engine (2.0 or 1.5) is utilizing a nice amount of cores and so is Civilization V. And you see the difference of the Core2Quad and say the i5? Its amazing really. Just keep that in mind that the technology is moving faster now and it will continue. Before 4GB RAM was top of the line extreme. Now its barely holding up for 3D and workstations. Now even 16Gb isnt called as high end. 32GB is. :D 
September 28, 2012 1:01:19 PM

I know that with the same money now I can get a better anything really later.. But it would be more money spent and I don't earn my own money. And this saved up money is from 3 years. I cant wait 2-4 more! LOL!
September 28, 2012 1:54:14 PM

ProVisionOman said:
Yes.. but you see the frostbite engine (2.0 or 1.5) is utilizing a nice amount of cores and so is Civilization V. And you see the difference of the Core2Quad and say the i5? Its amazing really. Just keep that in mind that the technology is moving faster now and it will continue. Before 4GB RAM was top of the line extreme. Now its barely holding up for 3D and workstations. Now even 16Gb isnt called as high end. 32GB is. :D 



Noticing a difference does not mean they are utilizing 4 cores. When dual cores first came out you needed to update the cpu software for most games since they were only use to 1 core. In everquest 2 as an example i had to install software that made it easier for the game to utilize the cores. Imagine just trying to walk forwards 1 step towards some docks and ending up in the ocean. And the longer you played the more faster the cpu would run. Games now can handle the extra cores but back then duals were not as common.

And right now quads are not as common as duals. Although in 5 years that may change. But if game makers tried to make system requirements of a quad core and they are not as common place as a dual cores such as now how much return investment do you think they would make? They try to make games utilizing the most common place cores from both intel and amd and try not to raise system requirements to high to fast to allow for more pc's to be able to play it. And hence creating more customers for their product.

An i3 2100 can game quite well and it is only a dual core. An i5 2500k is a quad and it games circles around most setups. While having a quad core will give you better fps the gpu is far more important for gaming as that is what most games utilize. So if doing a build you will get a much better fps with a high end gpu and a cheaper cpu then if you bought an expensive cpu and a cheap gpu. Only concern to be worried about is if the cpu and gpu will bottle neck each other or not.

And you may think the technology is moving fast and it is on the pc component side of things. But games are crawling along as they have done so for years. An example using a console as a marker would be to look at a systems launch titles and then compare them to games made toward the end of the consoles life. The graphics as well as game play are as different as night and day. Right now games are utilizing dual cores a lot more. But many of the dual core system requirements are really old dual cores technology wise.

And windows xp is the most common used os although windows 7 is catching up. Windows xp 32 bit utilizes a max of 4 gigs of ram. And the sweet spot for games on windows 7 is 8 gigs. Putting more then 8 gigs in your system will not help out in games and will hurt your fps more. Work stations require a lot more multitasking and so the 16 gigs setup would help them in that. Same as having cpu's with more then 4 cores would also help out with high multitasking. Games do not do a lot of multitasking so it will not help in gaming to use more then 8. Right now the highest system requirement game i could find had a max of 4 gigs and still utilized an old dual core cpu setup. Now keep in mind that from the launch of windows xp people could use 4 gigs of ram. Now look at the date of release for xp and see how many years it has been since then.
September 28, 2012 5:56:48 PM

zolton33 said:
Noticing a difference does not mean they are utilizing 4 cores. When dual cores first came out you needed to update the cpu software for most games since they were only use to 1 core. In everquest 2 as an example i had to install software that made it easier for the game to utilize the cores. Imagine just trying to walk forwards 1 step towards some docks and ending up in the ocean. And the longer you played the more faster the cpu would run. Games now can handle the extra cores but back then duals were not as common.

And right now quads are not as common as duals. Although in 5 years that may change. But if game makers tried to make system requirements of a quad core and they are not as common place as a dual cores such as now how much return investment do you think they would make? They try to make games utilizing the most common place cores from both intel and amd and try not to raise system requirements to high to fast to allow for more pc's to be able to play it. And hence creating more customers for their product.

An i3 2100 can game quite well and it is only a dual core. An i5 2500k is a quad and it games circles around most setups. While having a quad core will give you better fps the gpu is far more important for gaming as that is what most games utilize. So if doing a build you will get a much better fps with a high end gpu and a cheaper cpu then if you bought an expensive cpu and a cheap gpu. Only concern to be worried about is if the cpu and gpu will bottle neck each other or not.

And you may think the technology is moving fast and it is on the pc component side of things. But games are crawling along as they have done so for years. An example using a console as a marker would be to look at a systems launch titles and then compare them to games made toward the end of the consoles life. The graphics as well as game play are as different as night and day. Right now games are utilizing dual cores a lot more. But many of the dual core system requirements are really old dual cores technology wise.

And windows xp is the most common used os although windows 7 is catching up. Windows xp 32 bit utilizes a max of 4 gigs of ram. And the sweet spot for games on windows 7 is 8 gigs. Putting more then 8 gigs in your system will not help out in games and will hurt your fps more. Work stations require a lot more multitasking and so the 16 gigs setup would help them in that. Same as having cpu's with more then 4 cores would also help out with high multitasking. Games do not do a lot of multitasking so it will not help in gaming to use more then 8. Right now the highest system requirement game i could find had a max of 4 gigs and still utilized an old dual core cpu setup. Now keep in mind that from the launch of windows xp people could use 4 gigs of ram. Now look at the date of release for xp and see how many years it has been since then.


Well I totally agree... But the new consoles will be out and... umm well i think they will use more than two cores and maybe four?? I Just dont know.. Just keep in mind.. I am buying this build and LATER buying the GPU so I can get a 7950 not a 7770 if I buy know with these specs. Thanks!!! And yes.. I have another post can you help me with please? http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/348750-28-which-case.

THANKS!!!
September 29, 2012 1:06:50 AM

Consoles will never beat PCs. If gaming companies find out a way to utilize all four cores or so in a console, chances are, they will be doing the same with the PC. More units, a bigger map, etc. in PC games dont hurt. :D 

@zolton, more RAM doesnt mean you will hurt your FPS more lol. (Maybe sometimes, but its quite rare.)
September 29, 2012 1:23:36 AM

ProVisionOman said:

I want it under 630$ WITHOUT THE GRAPHICS CARD. Like a 630$ without graphics card because I don't have enough money now.


So you said you had 630$ for the PC, now after reading the posts you say you want an Intel six core processor. You realize they are 600$? Your budget is 630$, CPU is 600$. You will be able to afford the CPU and a stick of RAM maybe?
!