Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Budget amd gaming comp - motherboard and overall questions

Tags:
  • Homebuilt
  • Gaming
  • Motherboards
  • Systems
  • Product
Last response: in Systems
Share
September 21, 2012 9:11:07 AM

Hi!

I'm planning to construc a new gaming computer for myself. My budget is tight so I decided to go for AMD now:
AMD Phenom II X4 955 3,2GHz 6MB Black Edition (AWHDZ955FBGIBOX)

Quite sure that will do well, but I'm having trouble picking the right motherboatd. I'll mention just in case
that I have Compucase 6920: http://shop.aktiscomputing.co.uk/compucase-6920-window-...
I'd like my mobo reliable, lasting years to come and with as less problems as possible.
(budget boundaries fairly flexible on motherboard mather)

My current PSU is EPS-650w: http://www.computeruniverse.net/en/products/90317048/in...
...and currently owning GPU, N550GTX-Ti-MD1GD5v2: http://us.msi.com/product/vga/N550GTX-Ti-MD1GD5v2.html
and hard drive 400GB


Since new mobo needs new type of RAM, I was thinking to go for Kingston DDR3 HyperX Blue PC3-12800 1600MHz 8GB
(KHX1600C9D3B1K2/8GX): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Plus a new 1TB HD would be usefull: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

So I'm seeking the wisdom an thoughts on motherboard and overall compatibility
TNX=)

More about : budget amd gaming comp motherboard questions

October 16, 2012 4:40:29 PM

I have managed to do some research on my own and come up with this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... as one possible outcome, but instead of 955 I was thinking x4 965 as they are incredibly cheap atm.

If there are any pos or cons you can tell me, please let me know, thank you.
a b B Homebuilt system
a b 4 Gaming
a b V Motherboard
October 16, 2012 10:07:27 PM

If you want, you can go for an Intel-based system. The new Pentium G860 is able to keep pace with a Phenom II X4 and is cheaper.

It also uses less power, which is nice since it seems your power supply is not of the utmost quality and playing it on the safe side is always.....safe.
Related resources
October 16, 2012 10:35:41 PM

that mobo is good, my bro got this one http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

little cheaper and its still am3+
the ram looks good the processor is great
the GPU is also great, you should have no problems with any games. and should max out any some might run at just below 60 (mainly BF3)

@Deemo13 the g860 is a dual core the phenom II x4 is a quad core while the intel one might have equal speed with 1 core the quad core is still better for muiltitasking sake and since newer games are being optimised for quad core + systems. i dont think its worth it just to save 20 bucks

EDIT: oops that is not the mobo i was thinking of, looks like it is a new version of it though, either mobo is good the ones just a bit cheaper

also your psu should be enough to power everything as long as it has an 8 pin CPU power connector and a 6pin GPU power connector (or 2 free 4 pin molex the 550ti comes with an adaptor)
a b B Homebuilt system
a b 4 Gaming
a b V Motherboard
October 16, 2012 10:45:10 PM

chairsgotoschool said:
that mobo is good, my bro got this one http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

little cheaper and its still am3+
the ram looks good the processor is great
the GPU is also great, you should have no problems with any games. and should max out any some might run at just below 60 (mainly BF3)

@Deemo13 the g860 is a dual core the phenom II x4 is a quad core while the intel one might have equal speed with 1 core the quad core is still better for muiltitasking sake and since newer games are being optimised for quad core + systems. i dont think its worth it just to save 20 bucks

EDIT: oops that is not the mobo i was thinking of, looks like it is a new version of it though, either mobo is good the ones just a bit cheaper

also your psu should be enough to power everything as long as it has an 8 pin CPU power connector and a 6pin GPU power connector (or 2 free 4 pin molex the 550ti comes with an adaptor)


Its not the number of cores that really matters. Look at the Phenom II X6. Most of the time it can't outperform the X4 in games. The Pentium is just built on newer architecture.

Now, I like the Phenom II. Its my second fastest system in my lineup right now. But I can't argue that it is quicker than the Pentium G860, no matter how much I love the Phenom II.





Not to say the 965 or the 955 are slow either. I have both, and they are both great. They are just showing age.
October 16, 2012 10:59:39 PM

Deemo13 said:
Its not the number of cores that really matters. Look at the Phenom II X6. Most of the time it can't outperform the X4 in games. The Pentium is just built on newer architecture.

Now, I like the Phenom II. Its my second fastest system in my lineup right now. But I can't argue that it is quicker than the Pentium G860, no matter how much I love the Phenom II.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/G/P/324601/original/StarCraftII.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/X/N/323915/original/Skyrim.png

Not to say the 965 or the 955 are slow either. I have both, and they are both great. They are just showing age.


i never said it was faster i said that its 4 cores it can do 2x as much as a dual core but not as fast. and since games (new) are being optimised for quad cores its the better option. it doesnt matter if its faster if it can only do 2 things that fast

also im not trusting those benchmarks. i have the fx 6100 and it runs skyrim maxed out (full res and AA) at 40-60+ fps not over clocked either those are fake benchmarks or its an old version of skyrim or some bottleneck in the system.
a b B Homebuilt system
a b 4 Gaming
a b V Motherboard
October 16, 2012 11:17:43 PM

Given these are the benchmarks of this website, I personally would trust them.

The Skyrim one might be off, I will agree with you, because even with my stock clocked 2500K, I was able to manage 60fps at full as well with my 6950.



According to this chart, they are honestly about the same, with the G860 pulling out just the edge.

"If the above chart presents any surprises, they'd be the dual-core Pentium G630 and G860, which perform incredibly well, matching up to AMD's former Phenom II X4 955 flagship. At $80 and $100 respectively, both Sandy Bridge-based Pentiums boldly snatch the budget gaming CPU recommendation from the Athlon II CPUs we’re used to seeing dominate this segment. Granted, AMD's lowest-priced models are starting to go extinct as the company's APUs gain prominence anyway."

"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."

"The biggest flaw with Intel's low-end offerings is that the Pentium family limits you to dual-core configurations. Our concern is that, outside of a game, you're going to find situations where the two cores hurt performance in other applications. Having said that, the Pentium G630- and G860-based machines were snappy throughout testing, and their lack of Hyper-Threading didn't negatively impact our experience."

Given, this article was written in like January, its all still pretty much the same. Given that the OP is building a computer for gaming and not for work oriented tasks, I can't help but recommend the G860.
October 17, 2012 12:03:31 AM

Deemo13 said:
Given these are the benchmarks of this website, I personally would trust them.

The Skyrim one might be off, I will agree with you, because even with my stock clocked 2500K, I was able to manage 60fps at full as well with my 6950.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/E/6/353022/original/average%20perf.png

According to this chart, they are honestly about the same, with the G860 pulling out just the edge.

"If the above chart presents any surprises, they'd be the dual-core Pentium G630 and G860, which perform incredibly well, matching up to AMD's former Phenom II X4 955 flagship. At $80 and $100 respectively, both Sandy Bridge-based Pentiums boldly snatch the budget gaming CPU recommendation from the Athlon II CPUs we’re used to seeing dominate this segment. Granted, AMD's lowest-priced models are starting to go extinct as the company's APUs gain prominence anyway."

"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."

"The biggest flaw with Intel's low-end offerings is that the Pentium family limits you to dual-core configurations. Our concern is that, outside of a game, you're going to find situations where the two cores hurt performance in other applications. Having said that, the Pentium G630- and G860-based machines were snappy throughout testing, and their lack of Hyper-Threading didn't negatively impact our experience."

Given, this article was written in like January, its all still pretty much the same. Given that the OP is building a computer for gaming and not for work oriented tasks, I can't help but recommend the G860.


i wouldnt trust those either like i said i have the 6100 and can say that it out preforms the x4 any day even if the x4 is overclocked

also im pretty sure it out preforms the i5 2400 like i said per core the intel ones are faster so if they were all single cores intel would win but since the pentiums are dual cores and the x4 is 4 its going to be better and the i5 vs the 6100 is the same thing a 4 against a 6 core the 6 will be able to do more

also since a triple core at 3.0ghz can max any game (besides BF3) it really doesnt matter what you get as long as it has 4 cores and 3.0 ghz if gaming is all you want windows goes at its fastest with a dual core the only thing bigger cpus are fixing are boot time but thats more of a HDD thing
a b B Homebuilt system
a b 4 Gaming
a b V Motherboard
October 17, 2012 12:11:26 AM

A 6 core doesn't do anything if the architecture is slow.

Take a Mitsubishi Lancer EVOIX for example. It makes like 280-300hp through a 4-cylinder motor.

But my friend's 350 Chevy V8 in his 72' Camaro can only put out 230hp or so.

It has more displacement sure, but its older architecture and doesnt run as efficiently or as quick. I'm pretty sure a FX6100 wouldn't be as quick as the i5-2400 as most of the AMD line cannot compete with the architecture of the Intel line.

And you even said yourself:

Quote:
since games (new) are being optimised for quad cores its the better option


This is why 6-cores like the Phenom II X6 and the 6100 as well as the 8100 don't game well.

Quote:
it really doesnt matter what you get as long as it has 4 cores and 3.0 ghz if gaming is all you want windows goes at its fastest with a dual core the only thing bigger cpus are fixing are boot time but thats more of a HDD thing


I very much disagree. Windows performance is not the quickest with a dual-core. And I'm pretty sure an Athlon II X4 @3.0GHz wouldn't have anything on even a Pentium G630.

Just like my previous chart said.
October 17, 2012 12:30:52 AM

Deemo13 said:
A 6 core doesn't do anything if the architecture is slow.

Take a Mitsubishi Lancer EVOIX for example. It makes like 280-300hp through a 4-cylinder motor.

But my friend's 350 Chevy V8 in his 72' Camaro can only put out 230hp or so.

It has more displacement sure, but its older architecture and doesnt run as efficiently or as quick. I'm pretty sure a FX6100 wouldn't be as quick as the i5-2400 as most of the AMD line cannot compete with the architecture of the Intel line.

And you even said yourself:

Quote:
since games (new) are being optimised for quad cores its the better option


This is why 6-cores like the Phenom II X6 and the 6100 as well as the 8100 don't game well.

Quote:
it really doesnt matter what you get as long as it has 4 cores and 3.0 ghz if gaming is all you want windows goes at its fastest with a dual core the only thing bigger cpus are fixing are boot time but thats more of a HDD thing


I very much disagree. Windows performance is not the quickest with a dual-core. And I'm pretty sure an Athlon II X4 @3.0GHz wouldn't have anything on even a Pentium G630.

Just like my previous chart said.


while windows may run faster with a better cpu it will be like 1 second for your browser to open, its not a big deal

and what i meant by games being optimised for quad cores (i said it 2 times) the first time i put quad cores or more adding more cores doesnt take away from the others so the x4 and x6 do run games the same but the x6 has more muiltitasking ability (unlike your crappy benchmark said)

and i will say this again more cores=more power ill put it like in cars. say you have a car that can go from 0-100 in 8 seconds but can only carry 5 tons but another car goes from 0-100 in 6 seconds but can carry 10 tons

speed being speed and carry weight being muiltitasking

a quad core will always be a better choice over a dual core FOR GAMING like in cars if you want a fast one you dont need it to pull a 10ton trailer you just want speed. if you want a car for a 10 ton trailer then you probably dont need it to go fast intel goes fast amd has more cores for the price and can do more

if your going for a cheap pc to do video rendering ans stuff like that then intel is by far the better choice because its much faster but like i said games only need a quad core at most and you could probably get away with a 2.5ghz quad
a b B Homebuilt system
a b 4 Gaming
a b V Motherboard
October 17, 2012 12:43:09 AM

I made my argument for the Intel processor. I'm going to let the OP decide.

For gaming, the Pentium is superior imo. For multitasking, sure a quad would be better. I'm not an Intel fanboy either. If you look at my builds in my configuration, I have a large mix of processors.

But the processor for gaming. And as far as that goes, the Tom's benchmarks show that the G860 is quicker in terms of that.

For having say alot of internet windows open or work-oriented purposes, then a quad would be nice. But at that point, I would rather recommend the newer architecture of the i3-22xx series, which has Hyper-Threading.

A quad core is not always the better choice for gaming.

October 17, 2012 12:48:28 AM

Deemo13 said:
I made my argument for the Intel processor. I'm going to let the OP decide.

For gaming, the Pentium is superior imo. For multitasking, sure a quad would be better. I'm not an Intel fanboy either. If you look at my builds in my configuration, I have a large mix of processors.

But the processor for gaming. And as far as that goes, the Tom's benchmarks show that the G860 is quicker in terms of that.

For having say alot of internet windows open or work-oriented purposes, then a quad would be nice. But at that point, I would rather recommend the newer architecture of the i3-22xx series, which has Hyper-Threading.

A quad core is not always the better choice for gaming.


i was a mega fanboy of amd (nothing but amd) then i started reading about intels stuff i agree intel is superior but then i though of a few things to max out the best games all you need is a phenom II x4 black edition and its only 100 bucks while the i5 can also do this its 100 bucks more

intel is better but when it comes to a budget gaming pc i have to recommend amd cause of the price and the x4 can play any game why spend more (especially when on a budget) if you dont have to
!