Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Will this gaming build be relatively future proof?

Last response: in Systems
Share
November 8, 2012 12:39:17 PM

I'm planning on buying all of the components for a new pc and a friend of mine is going to help me build it. With my current PC, which has a 9800GT i can't really play BF3 well, so I think it's finally time to ugrade.

Here's what I was thinking:

Case -Cooler Master HAF-922
CPU -AMD FX 6200 (6 x 3.8 GHZ)
CPU Heatsink -XIGMATEK PRIME Heatsink & Fan
Memory -Corsair Vengeance 8GB XMS3 PC3-12800 1600MHz (2x4GB)
Graphics Card -ATI Radeon HD 7950 - 3 GB - (XFX) - (PCI-E)
Motherboard -Gigabyte 970A-DS3 (AMD 970)
Power Supply -Corsair 750W PSU - Low Noise
Hard Drive #1 -1 TB Seagate (1000 GB) SATA-III HDD 7200 RPM 64MB
Hard Drive #2 -120GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD SATA-III, Read 525MB/s, Write 500MB/s - Silent
Optical Drive -Samsung 24x DVD/CD Re-Writer/Reader - Black - (SATA)


This is all within my budget but I just wanted some more experienced advice as to whether or not it will be able to play high end games well further into the future.

Thanks in advance. stuartv94[at]gmail.com
a b B Homebuilt system
November 8, 2012 12:50:47 PM

Hi.
For me, seems fine for another two-three years at least, maybe even more.
Also, nice build.
a b B Homebuilt system
November 8, 2012 1:03:25 PM

I'd recommend getting a different SSD. Agility 3 is one of the slowest SATA 6Gb/s SSDs available and also one of the least reliable. Something such as Samsung 830, Vertex 4, Plextor M5S, and a few other such SSDs would have a lower chance of failure while also being faster.
Related resources
November 8, 2012 1:06:10 PM

it would be better if you do an AMD FM2 build or an intel 1155 build... AM3+ era ended with the phenoms.. the preceding processors for that socket was and is currently peppered with debates about its high power consumption and a relatively "discouraging" performance.. Other things listed in your list is good :) 
November 8, 2012 1:09:17 PM

it won't play all games on all high, but if you just casually game or don't need more than medium settings on some games, then you should be fine for a few years.

Also, as a side note, AMD's architecture is nothing compared to Intel's Sandy or Ivy bridge architecture. And having a 6 core cpu does not mean that games will run faster than a 4 core CPU. Actually, nearly all games require faster cores, as opposed to more of them. I always recommend Intel i5's or i7's for gaming. But, with 6 core's you will at least be able to run adobe software suites well and VirtualBox VM's
November 8, 2012 1:18:24 PM

Thanks for all the replies. From most of the replies I got that the CPU should be changed. What processor would you recommend?
a b B Homebuilt system
November 8, 2012 1:25:41 PM

ittimjones said:
it won't play all games on all high, but if you just casually game or don't need more than medium settings on some games, then you should be fine for a few years.

Also, as a side note, AMD's architecture is nothing compared to Intel's Sandy or Ivy bridge architecture. And having a 6 core cpu does not mean that games will run faster than a 4 core CPU. Actually, nearly all games require faster cores, as opposed to more of them. I always recommend Intel i5's or i7's for gaming. But, with 6 core's you will at least be able to run adobe software suites well and VirtualBox VM's


Actually, that's not entirely correct. Piledriver is a able to be more power efficient architecture than even Sandy/Ivy Bridge, at least compared to its competition. Trinity proves this quite effectively. Vishera shows up worse because it's L3 cache is very power inefficient and it has inferior binning, but that's not the CPU architecture, that's the cache and binning.

It doesn't matter than the FX-6xxx CPUs don't play games faster than Intel's quads because Intel's quads are a lot more expensive.
November 8, 2012 1:31:16 PM

AyePal said:
Thanks for all the replies. From most of the replies I got that the CPU should be changed. What processor would you recommend?


depends on your budget..

i3-3220 and a10 5800k are said to be par with each other based on performance and pricing. but if you go to a higher price bracket, intel processors are deemed more efficient and powerful performance-wise. :) 
November 8, 2012 1:33:09 PM

najirion said:
depends on your budget..

i3-3220 and a10 5800k are said to be par with each other based on performance and pricing. but if you go to a higher price bracket, intel processors are deemed more efficient and powerful performance-wise. :) 


I was thinking about getting the i5 2550k. However, others are saying to me that the 3570k out performs it.
a b B Homebuilt system
November 8, 2012 1:36:56 PM

The i5-2550K can overclock slightly better, but the i5-3570K is the better buy. It's more power efficient and is indistinguishably close in addition to winning in stock performance.
November 8, 2012 1:40:54 PM

+1 to switching to an intel i5.
November 8, 2012 1:58:50 PM

AyePal said:
I was thinking about getting the i5 2550k. However, others are saying to me that the 3570k out performs it.


truthfulness of that statement will depend on your usage :) 
using stock clocks, the 3570k is better due to lower power consumption, better ram module support of higher speeds and better integrated graphics (even though this wouldn't be a factor to consider, it is worth mentioning that it is one of it's advantages over the other).

However, experts say that the average different between i5-2500k and i5-3570k is around 5%. I bet the gap would even be closer with i5-2550k. Check out the price difference of both processors. If i5-2550k is significantly cheaper then better go with it.

In terms of overclocking, i5-2550k would defeat i5-3570k since it has a poor overclocking headroom due to heat issues. Based on real experience, I was able to OC my i5-2500k to 4.8Ghz using corsair H50 while a friend of mine was having problems breaching the 4.5Ghz level in this i5-3570k when he was actually using a Corsair H100 which is a better cooler. You might consider overclocking later so if you do, you would be better off with a sandy i5-2550k :) 
a b B Homebuilt system
November 8, 2012 2:10:19 PM

4.5GHz on Ivy is ~= to 4.8GHz on Sandy in performance. With the same cooler, Ivy could get a little lower, but it would most certainly not be a noticeable loss.
a b B Homebuilt system
November 8, 2012 2:55:18 PM

First of all, "future-proof" is a myth. You can, however, build in some "future-resistance." IMHO, this is done by selecting high quality components that will last, and that have performance a notch or two higher than what you need right now.
While your build is no doubt superior to the "average" PC out there, I believe it has some serious shortcomings with respect to your stated goal. Some of these have been mentioned.
1. An AMD CPU is not the way to go, especially if the games you [want to] play include CPU-intense titles like MMOs and multi-player BF3. I would suggest an i5-3330 as your baseline. If you know you want to overclock (you need not feel compelled to do so), get an i5-3570K.
2. If you're not concerned about overclocking, get a B75 or H77 board. If you want to overclock, and/or want features like SRT and Virtu, get a Z77 board. Get Asus or Gigabyte for quality and/or overclocking, or ASRock on a budget to still get quality components but an occasional anomaly or less OC. I'd avoid MSI, especially for overclocking, as some of their boards use weak VRMs that pop under load.
3. 8GB of RAM should be viable for at least a few years. RAM speed and latency don't make huge differences, but DDR3-1600 seems to be the sweet spot. Make sure it runs on 1.5V or less.
4. Avoid Sandforce SSDs with the possible exception of Intel; especially avoid OCZ versions, due to reliability issues. Speed of an SSD in a gamer should not be a concern; the slowest SSD blows the doors off even a fast HDD.
Edit: ...and 5: The HD7950 should last a good long time at 1920x1080, especially if you are willing to lower settings (likely only slightly) in next year's or future games. Personally, I expect my HD7870 to last for at least a few years.
a b B Homebuilt system
November 8, 2012 3:00:05 PM

Onus said:
First of all, "future-proof" is a myth. You can, however, build in some "future-resistance." IMHO, this is done by selecting high quality components that will last, and that have performance a notch or two higher than what you need right now.
While your build is no doubt superior to the "average" PC out there, I believe it has some serious shortcomings with respect to your stated goal. Some of these have been mentioned.
1. An AMD CPU is not the way to go, especially if the games you [want to] play include CPU-intense titles like MMOs and multi-player BF3. I would suggest an i5-3330 as your baseline. If you know you want to overclock (you need not feel compelled to do so), get an i5-3570K.
2. If you're not concerned about overclocking, get a B75 or H77 board. If you want to overclock, and/or want features like SRT and Virtu, get a Z77 board. Get Asus or Gigabyte for quality and/or overclocking, or ASRock on a budget to still get quality components but an occasional anomaly or less OC. I'd avoid MSI, especially for overclocking, as some of their boards use weak VRMs that pop under load.
3. 8GB of RAM should be viable for at least a few years. RAM speed and latency don't make huge differences, but DDR3-1600 seems to be the sweet spot. Make sure it runs on 1.5V or less.
4. Avoid Sandforce SSDs with the possible exception of Intel; especially avoid OCZ versions, due to reliability issues. Speed of an SSD in a gamer should not be a concern; the slowest SSD blows the doors off even a fast HDD.


BF3 likes pretty much as many cores as you throw at it. It's one of the most CPU intensive games that favors AMD's CPUs because of how well-threaded it is. Future-resistance most certainly does like AMD because newer games are getting more and more well-threaded (such as BF3, Metro 2033, Borderlands 2, and more), letting AMD catch farther and farther up.
November 8, 2012 3:06:04 PM

If I was gonna spend the money to make a gaming computer that will last a few years, I would go with an i5 over an AMD.
a b B Homebuilt system
November 8, 2012 3:07:22 PM

blazorthon said:
...newer games are getting more and more well-threaded (such as BF3, Metro 2033, Borderlands 2, and more), letting AMD catch farther and farther up.

Catching up is fine, but why not start out ahead at the outset though?
An AMD system won't be a bad build, but an Intel system will be better, and will NOT cost more. Especially if you throw power and heat (therefor fan noise) into the equation, Intel remains the way to go. I'll happily change that tune when Steamroller gets here if it's better, but Faildozer taught the lesson that as far as AMD performance goes, don't believe it unless/until you see it.
!