Computer purchasing advice

[Spike88]

After my girlfriend dropped my laptop and I had to do some percussive maintenance to get the fan running again, I decided it's time to finally get a new computer. Ideally I'd like a laptop for portability, but the price is too damn high. So I've decided on finally putting together a desktop.

I've had a Cooler Master HAF932 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119160) for about two years now, without actually putting anything inside of it(save dust). So the case is settled, but I don't know what else to get. I'm looking at a budget of about $600(including monitor) although could probably go up a tad more depending on how much tax money I have left over after buying essentials. I already have speakers, a mouse and a keyboard. If push comes to shove I might be able to buy a screen off a friend for cheap.

Ideally I'd like something with 2.0ghz or higher 4 core processor, with 8 gigs of ram, DVD+RW drive, 1TB HDD, decent graphics card, and an HDMI port.

I need recommendations for:
CPU+ Heat sink
GPU
RAM
Sound Card
Network Card
Mother Board
PSU
Monitor
HDD
DVD drive

So basically everything.

As for cooling, the case comes with several fans. I'll have to check tomorrow exactly how many actually came with mine.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Percussive maintenance - brilliant :up:

[antikristuseke]

I am a bit too lazy to look into prices myself at the moment, but you can get a good rough idea here
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/budget-gaming-do-it-yourself-computer,3364.html

[Spike88]

I am a bit too lazy to look into prices myself at the moment, but you can get a good rough idea here
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/budget-gaming-do-it-yourself-computer,3364.html

Thanks for the article.


I made a hypothetical Intel wishlist to get a general idea on price.
It has:
LG 24X DVD Burner - Bare Drive Black SATA Model GH24NS95 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16827136259)

Seagate Barracuda ST31000524AS 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16822148697)

Acer G205HVbd Black 20" 5ms Widescreen LCD Monitor (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16824009314)

EVGA 01G-P4-2650-KR GeForce GTX 650 1GB 128-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready Video Card (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16814130827)

COOLER MASTER eXtreme Power Plus RS500-PCARD3-US 500W ATX12V v2.3 Power Supply (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16817171031)

Kingston HyperX XMP Blu Red Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16820104339)

ASUS P8B75-V LGA 1155 Intel B75 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16813131835)

Intel Core i5-3350P Ivy Bridge 3.1GHz (3.3GHz Turbo) LGA 1155 69W Quad-Core (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16819116782)

For a total of $682.92.

Any thoughts or comments?

Also, Is it better to get 4x2GB or 2x4GB's for ram? The Mobo I selected has 4 ram slots.

[Arclight]

I prefer only using 2 RAM modules, less strain on the memory controller but nowadays it's a pointless thing. No practical difference. As long as the modules match it's all good.


Bump the card to a x60. Twice the price for more then twice the performance.

[Spike88]

Bump the card to a x60. Twice the price for more then twice the performance.

It's already $82 over the budget I set, If I bump to a x60 it'll push it farther. Plus I still need to buy a table to put it on and a chair. :haha:

[Arclight]

Well, no offense, but you're skimping on the 1 thing that makes it a gaming system.

All the RAM and CPU cores in the world won't change the fact a 650 is a low-budget card. You can halve the RAM and get a fast dual-core without sacrificing gaming performance in most cases; it's that card that defines performance.

[Spike88]

Well, no offense, but you're skimping on the 1 thing that makes it a gaming system.

All the RAM and CPU cores in the world won't change the fact a 650 is a low-budget card. You can halve the RAM and get a fast dual-core without sacrificing gaming performance in most cases; it's that card that defines performance.

I don't see how that is offensive. :O:


I've put together a hypothetical AMD machine too, but have come into a road block, apparently AMD mobo's only support PCIe 2.

I could put a Geforce 560 in there, which according this site:
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html
Is in between the 650 and 660.

The CPU I have chosen now is 3,000 "marks" stronger than the i5, and $50 cheaper. If I could find something closer to the i5 I selected for a lot cheaper, I could get a better card. But I have to ask if getting an AMD is worth it. The fact it only supports PCIe 2 seems like a major draw back.

In reality, I only want something to play a couple indie games(that aren't too demanding) CoH2, RTW2 and maybe Skyrim. I'll also probably upgrade the system in a year to two years. Upgrading is a lot easier once you have some of the components.

[Arclight]

Got a 660 on PCI-e 2 here, no bottlenecks that I'm aware off. PCI-e 3 shouldn't even factor into your decision at this point.


Er, AMD is tricky at the moment. For games, as far as I know, it's single-threaded performance that counts. And that's exactly what the latest FX line-up (Bulldozer was terrible, Piledriver improves a bit) are not particularly good at. That said, most games aren't particularly CPU-intensive. You will definitely run into a CPU bottleneck when you have a GTX 680 or such, but I can't say whether or not that's also the case with a 560/660.


I just... I've already moved from a 460 to 660. The 460 was alright but not spectacular due to trouble with the new manufacturing process (it had part of its core locked and was underclocked). That "old" 460 outperforms a 650 by a fair margin.

I don't think you would be too impressed by the performance on that thing. It'll run Skyrim all right, CoH2 medium prolly but with RTW2 you'll already be cranking it most of the way down. It has no legs.

[Spike88]

Got a 660 on PCI-e 2 here, no bottlenecks that I'm aware off. PCI-e 3 shouldn't even factor into your decision at this point.


Er, AMD is tricky at the moment. For games, as far as I know, it's single-threaded performance that counts. And that's exactly what the latest FX line-up (Bulldozer was terrible, Piledriver improves a bit) are not particularly good at. That said, most games aren't particularly CPU-intensive. You will definitely run into a CPU bottleneck when you have a GTX 680 or such, but I can't say whether or not that's also the case with a 560/660.


I just... I've already moved from a 460 to 660. The 460 was alright but not spectacular due to trouble with the new manufacturing process (it had part of its core locked and was underclocked). That "old" 460 outperforms a 650 by a fair margin.

I don't think you would be too impressed by the performance on that thing. It'll run Skyrim all right, CoH2 medium prolly but with RTW2 you'll already be cranking it most of the way down. It has no legs.


Ah, apparently PCIe 3.0 cards do work in PCIe 2 slots. Who would've thought. I was looking at the FX-6300 Vishera 3.5ghz Six Core.

This whole thing is too damn complicated. :shifty:

[HundertzehnGustav]

The prices i see are pretty wild.
But i can not relate, since i am in Yurep.

It seems to be a well balanced mid to upper PC to me - and tailored to your needs.

looked over the list, and also thought The G-Card could be a better one..

Your choices are wise so far.

[the_tyrant]

What is your budget?

I have a stupidly overpowered configuration here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=198851

[GT182]

Spike, if you have a Tiger Direct store near you head ove there. The guys on the floor will give you an hand on putting together a really good desktop.

I have the same case as you and it's the best I've ever bought.... even better than the Thermaltake XaserIII I bought a few years ago.

[V13dweller]

Try the AMD Phenom II, they are much more powerfull than an i5, and they are just as effective as a. I7.
Like everything intel makes, they charge way to much for it.
My Phenom II x6 3.4 ghz plays games like sh5 without breaking a sweat (not literally)
And you can pick one up for around 100-250 Australian dollars.

[Arclight]

Sandy or Ivy Bridge i5 absolutely crushes Phenom II. Generally that won't make much difference since most games are limited by the GPU, but where the CPU is the bottleneck it isn't even a contest.

[V13dweller]

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/259122-28-phenom-intel-take-price-performance-account This page can help Intel fanbois. Just saying. http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/272094-28-hate-guys We also have to take into account the price range, and the fact the Phenom II is three years old now. And AMD has newer processors to take on Intel's new ones. http://media.bestofmicro.com/W/M/369238/original/AVPVeryHiCPUBottleneck2013.png Look at these figures, the difference is marginal. This is what most people want to see, in Battlefield 3 http://media.bestofmicro.com/W/U/369246/original/BF3UltraCPUBottleneck2013.png

[Arclight]

... Fanboi? You don't think I might kinda know what I'm on about? Citing cherry-picked sources here isn't going to help you convince anyone.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=146

I'll stand by my previous statement of it depending on the game. A lot of times it won't really matter; once you hit a comfortable framerate it doesn't really matter if it's 60 or 120. But to say Phenom II can get even close to Sandy or Ivy Bridge, strictly CPU performance wise, is outright nonsense.

[V13dweller]

There is no point going on, we all know this will go nowhere. (Just like politics)

There is enough Biased information wherever you go.
Unless Toms Hardware is not a reputable source, then I don't know then.

More Information, of the I7 Vs the Phenom II.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/W/I/369234/original/3DMarkPerformanceCPUBottleneck2013.png

This picture shows the difference is marginal.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/W/L/369237/original/AVPHiCPUBottleneck2013.png

This image shows my point once again.

Here are some more of the I7 against AMD's latest FX 8350.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/L/F/367539/original/metro-high-amd-oc-1920.png

Here is intel's I7

http://media.bestofmicro.com/L/I/367542/original/metro-high-intel-1920.png

Here are the 3D benchmark tests.
http://media.bestofmicro.com/W/I/369234/original/3DMarkPerformanceCPUBottleneck2013.png

These differences only make a very small impact on your gaming experience.
And the cost differences of these is much larger then the gap in their gaming performance.
The cost gap is usually 200-250 Dollars in most Australian Retailers.


I am not trying to change your opinion, because that is not what we are here for, but these figures are to show that these Processors are very, very close when it comes to performance and if you want to pay that extra $200, so be it.

[Arclight]

These differences only make a very small impact on your gaming experience.
That's pretty much what I've been saying, with the noted exception that CPU-bound games will see a big difference. For pretty much everything but gaming, an i5 can be anything between 10-60% faster depending on the application. Single core performance is much higher than Phenom II.

This is what you were saying:
Try the AMD Phenom II, they are much more powerfull than an i5, and they are just as effective as a. I7.
Which is blatantly false.


You're right, this isn't going anywhere. I feel that it is through no fault of mine though.

[V13dweller]

From all reviews I have read, Multi threaded applications (Like Sh5) run better on the AMD Phenom II x6, because they utilise all six cores.

This one from CPU-World.com shows that the Un-overclocked Phenom II runs Slightly better. http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/372/AMD_Phenom_II_X6_1100T_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-2400.html

My AMD Phenom II X6 runs at 4 Ghz like a breeze, no problems, the doesn't even need to spin up for more demanding games, like Sh5, Crysis 3.

The Phenom II (Tested by me) can run Crysis 3 at 90-150 FPS solid and they core's ave not even got over 50%.

[Arclight]

... You've really lost the plot now, mate. Games are notoriously hard (or excessively expensive) to multi-thread. Single-core performance is still preferable over core count, let alone back in 2010.

Since you seem to appreciate Tom's; http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/349680-28-choosing-processor-multithreaded-computing-hard-core-gamer

Note the thread title. See how he points out he's not a "hard-core" gamer in a thread about multi-threading? That's because he knows games don't thread well and he wants to point out it is not a concern for that system. Topics like that where this is not specified always get the same response I gave you: single-core performance is more relevant to gaming.

[V13dweller]

I just use my Nvidia card to enable multi threading for any of my games, and Bam, Core load is balanced perfectly, took my SH5 core load from core 1 from about 40% and balanced it across all my cores perfectly.

And as the previous images I have linked you before, they only show a slight difference in gaming performance.
All my games seem to support Multicore, because all the load is balanced across all my cores, and this allows me to achieve very high frame rates on all my games.
I run Sh5 at Max Video setting and with 45 mods and my cores have the load balanced perfectly, I am able to use Time compression over 2000.
I have never had lag in any game I play.
The most my processor has ever got to is 45% on all cores, no core runs higher then others.

My GPU is the only thing that limits how effective my CPU is.
My Gpu can be working 50% and more while my CPU is just plodding along at at 20% average.

And I would not be here debating this if I had "Lost the Plot" My Friend.
This thread is about purchasing advice, not about maliciously defending your preferred Processor manufacturer.

[Arclight]

Let's get something straight: I'm not defending Intel. At no point did I say Intel is better than AMD, while you stated "Like everything Intel makes, they charge way too much for it.". So who exactly is "maliciously defending" their "preferred Processor manufacturer" here?

I have given you a straight up, all-round comparison between a i5 2500K and a AMD Phenom II X6 1090T. The AMD has a 2 core advantage there, and the i5 comes out with a clear lead. You flat out ignored it.

I gave you facts about game engines. You ignored them.

I don't much care what your experiences are with AMD; we covered that with acknowledging that a better CPU doesn't necessarily translate to better gaming, except where the game is CPU-bound. The fact is your statements contradict reality, and that's why I'm debating this: I can't stand misinformation, and I know from experience there's an awful lot of it floating around.

[V13dweller]

I'd like you to go over that again, I took all of this into account, I did not "Ignore it" I read over this multiple times.

I have given you all my comparisons.

I have told you how my Machine works, I have taken all this into account, would you like me to show you a picture that shows my performance in these games that I have previously discussed?

Want me to find a spare i5 and put this to the test against my current processor?

I have done these tests myself, I know what I am talking about.

And you showed the 1090T.

I use the 1100T and as I said, I run games like Crysis 3 on max video settings with a solid average of 130 FPS, do you use an i5? because I'd like to see you get an i5 to that.

My friend's i7-2760QM in his Gaming laptop runs a game Red Orchestra 2 at an average or 50-60 FPS.

And as the previous source showed, the i7 desktop processor's performance is only SLIGHTLY better then the AMD.

From what I gather, your not even looking at my sources, or your not taking any of these facts into the next posts you create.

I do not have time to go over this every day to give you these facts that I have already supplied but have not been taken into account.

I strongly recommend you re-read (If you have not done so already) these sources my friend.

I do believe that that your attitude towards me, and this subject is nonsensical, but mostly to me.

[Gunsilnger]

Look at my sig, then copycat it! LOL I love my PC! My setup falls around your price range, but I already had a monitor(I just use my 42" LCD TV). Although I will be upgrading to a dual Video card setup, the single 610 with 1 Gig works great, I can run Call of Duty MW3 and BF3 with full graphics and options :cool:.

Check Microcenter for prices. They've got some killer deals.

Good luck!

[HunterICX]

I have done these tests myself, I know what I am talking about.

got any hard evidence to back that up some graphs of your own regarding CPU load, clock speeds, temps, in game settings, external graphic settings, FPS benchmark charts the whole works.
if you're such a tester and you know what you talk aobut it shouldn't be so hard.

And you showed the 1090T.

I use the 1100T and as I said, I run games like Crysis 3 on max video settings with a solid average of 130 FPS, do you use an i5? because I'd like to see you get an i5 to that.now that's curious because most PC's I've seen with the Phemon II x6 1100T average an 40-50FPS cores running at 40-60% clocked at 3.7ghz to 4.0ghz high settings (not maxed out)

even the FX8350 clocked at 4.6GHZ maxed out at 1080p resolution squeezes perhaps an average of 20 and without the games filters (AA/AF) 32fps in crysis 3, and let's throw in some Far Cry 3 for a bonus and crossfire GPU results.

Benchmarks
AMD 8350 - HD7970
Crysis 3 - Stock Clock


1080p - Max - 20.00
1080p - No Filters - 32.20
1080p - Crossfire - Max - 35.68
1080p - Crossfire - No Filters - 54.20



1440p - Max - 13.48
1440p - No filters - 21.96
1440p - Crossfire - Max - 22.88
1440p - Crossfire - No Filters - 39.04



Crysis 3 - CPU @ 4.6GHz


1080p - Max - 20.00 (identical result, but separate bench)
1080p - No Filters - 32.36
1080p - Crossfire - Max - 36.04
1080p - Crossfire - No Filters - 56.76



1440p - Max - 13.28
1440p - No Filters - 22.12
1440p - Crossfire - Max - 23.52
1440p - Crossfire - No Filters - 39.52




Far Cry 3 - Stock Clock


1080p - Max - 34.28
1080p - No Filters - 47.92
1080p - Crossfire - Max - 45.92
1080p - Crossfire - No Filters - 47.20



1440p - Max - 24.32
1440p - No Filters - 41.92
1440p - Crossfire - Max - 40.80
1440p - Crossfire - No Filters - 46.56



Far Cry 3 - CPU @ 4.6GHz


1080p - Max - 36.44
1080p - No Filters - 55.24
1080p - Crossfire - Max - 53.12
1080p - Crossfire - No Filters - 56.40



1440p - Max - 25.52
1440p - No Filters - 44.20
1440p - Crossfire - Max - 42.08
1440p - Crossfire - No Filters - 59.24


or take this lovely chart for example.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/O/M/375430/original/Crysis3-CPU.png
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performance-benchmark-gaming,3451-8.html

130FPS Average? maxed out? Cores not breaking a sweat? ehm...I don't think so unless you can bring forth what I asked above.

My friend's i7-2760QM in his Gaming laptop runs a game Red Orchestra 2 at an average or 50-60 FPS.just stop right there.... now you're just losing the plot.

HunterICX

[Beardmoresam]

I'm building a setup right now:
AMD A10 5800k (which I intend to overclock) has brilliant built in graphics
ASUS F2A55-M LE
2x 8GB RAM at 1.6 GHz (may go higher on the speed)
Cooler master 440 case
SATA 500GB HDD (may add another 500GB HDD or a SSD)
HD TV for a screen

[V13dweller]

As my previous data shows, I was comparing the Phenom II to the processor of 2010's standard, the 37xx not the 39xx, not the latest top of the line equipment.
And your showing equipment of post 2010 standards, and this is voiding the validity of what some of my data shows, now just settle down and look at the data I show you, and see it as it is, not just how you want to see it.
And I know the odds's are stacked against me so I will just discontinue this debate while I am still ahead, please get the expected silliness and expected insults and/or rude remarks out of the way.
Since all of my data has been shot down without any of it taken into consideration.:nope:

Also, if you have difficulty viewing and seeing information from links.

http://i1281.photobucket.com/albums/a507/V13dweller/3DMarkPerformanceCPUBottleneck2013_zps8635913f.png (http://s1281.photobucket.com/user/V13dweller/media/3DMarkPerformanceCPUBottleneck2013_zps8635913f.png .html)
Not too much difference.:hmm2:

http://i1281.photobucket.com/albums/a507/V13dweller/AVPHiCPUBottleneck2013_zpsdeb98eba.png (http://s1281.photobucket.com/user/V13dweller/media/AVPHiCPUBottleneck2013_zpsdeb98eba.png.html)
Not much difference at all.
:hmph:
I will also have a screenshot taken at a later date of the FPS counter showing you the results you don't want to see.

Relating to my friends i7, It was a comparison from is LAPTOP processor to other i5's.
And the i7 does outperform the i5 under most circumstances even though it is a laptop core.

I'm sorry I have a different opinion to the rest of the community even if it is supported by facts.
If having a different view is not allowed here, I will associate myself somewhere else.:nope:

[Oberon]

Spike, here's my advice.

Don't ask for advice.

[DragonRider]

Its a good job Toms Hardware is around or else some people would not know what there opium is because they wont listen to anyone who is actually using the program or hardware. its all down to what Tom says the guy must be making a killing on kickbacks. :haha:

[DragonRider]

I'm building a setup right now:
AMD A10 5800k (which I intend to overclock) has brilliant built in graphics
ASUS F2A55-M LE
2x 8GB RAM at 1.6 GHz (may go higher on the speed)
Cooler master 440 case
SATA 500GB HDD (may add another 500GB HDD or a SSD)
HD TV for a screen

Its best to use a SSD drive as your C: drive. just save system files on it.
Then use a SATA drive to store all other files on.
you wont believe the speed the SSD runs load or even installs at and a 128Gb SSD drive should hold all your system files although if your feeling flush with money a 256 SSD would be a killer :up:

Just waiting for a Tom quote saying Blah blah blah:hmmm:

[Herr-Berbunch]

Can't we just agree that Intel is better for some games, and AMD is better for some games? :hmmm:

[DragonRider]

Can't we just agree that Intel is better for some games, and AMD is better for some games? :hmmm:

So many other things help or slow things down what works for one fails on another just read the posts on this forum to see that just go with what works for you :up:

[Arclight]

Can't we just agree that Intel is better for some games, and AMD is better for some games? :hmmm:
Mm it's not really about Intel vs AMD. The point I've been trying to make is that while not all games benefit from a really fast CPU, the notion that the Phenom II is more powerful than i5/i7 is false, which was the original argument. It just twisted in all kinds of funky ways after that.

V13 has shown that in a lot of games the i5/i7 offers no real advantage, which I agreed with from the start. But that's not the point of argument.


-
V13, I looked at your sources, multiple times now. Problem is they are not really relevant. A thread from Dec 2009 isn't particularly accurate for the situation nowadays, which is the situation Spike would be dealing with if he build a system today. While I agree that AMD generally offers better bang for the buck, the notion that Phenom II is more powerful than i5/i7 is simply nonsense. It will eke out a win in the most heavily threaded applications since it has more cores, but other than that it lags behind.

Your other sources are not particularly comprehensive: 3DMark, while great for benchmarking fanatics, is a synthetic benchmark that does not represent actual game performance. Actual performance varies greatly from game to game, some favoring Intel architecture and others AMD, and yet others showing no preference at all since they don't rely much on CPU performance. The charts you showed for AvP and Metro are not relevant (to the point of Phenom II being more powerful than i5/i7) since neither are CPU bound. Games that are truly CPU bound will favor core speed over count, which puts the advantage at Intel.

Some even contradict your point. For example this one: http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/372/AMD_Phenom_II_X6_1100T_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-2400.html

It clearly notes that the i5 has higher single-threaded performance, which is exactly what matters in gaming. The advantage they show in that case is 31%, which I would consider non-trivial. Again I should note that this means little for a lot of games, but the point stands. It is you missing points like that, while I explained that it's single-thread performance that matters for gaming, that makes me think you're not really objectively looking at my sources or posts (or even the ones you use yourself).

The last graphs you showed in response to Hunter are from the Piledriver chips, the latest in AMD's line-up, 2 generations beyond Phenom II. While Bulldozer actually regressed single-thread performance, Piledriver managed to close the gap with Intel, but remains a fair bit slower in that regard.


I feel you're misinterpreting data, which I think stems from not being familiar with the actual technology, basing arguments on yours and others experiences; experiences are always arguable.

Yes, I prefer Intel. The reason for that is because this is strictly a gaming system: I only really care about single-threaded performance for this system. I don't mind paying the premium because I believe it saves me money down the line. With higher single-threaded performance this i5 will stay relevant a bit longer than the Phenom II and FX (Bulldozer at the time) for gaming. This doesn't come from hearsay and opinion but from reading in-depth articles (http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083). I have no loyalty towards them; when the rumors surfaced about them doing away with sockets my first thought was to switch to AMD. If they drop the ball I drop them, simple as that.

And yes, I do have a beef with you. If you play the fanboi card right off the bat my patience goes right out the window.


Lastly, consider this: http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=gaming+cpu

Pick any result. They all come to the same conclusion.

[Dowly]

http://ncowie.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/clap.gif

[V13dweller]

I'm not sure if im allowed to post two side by side 1920x1080 screenshots side by side, so here is my Crysis 3 result with all settings on high, no AA 8times anisotropic filtering and full screen 1920x1080.

And please, look at the FPS and the CPU usage.

http://puu.sh/2HjHN.png

I used a link, not an IMG code because two side by side 1920x1080 images would probably get me into trouble.

If you also look closly into that picture, you will see that the processor is running at 38 degrees.
And this picture was taken using fraps (recording two monitors in 1080).

[DragonRider]

I like the way you placed the shortcuts on the desk and shelves :haha:

[Beardmoresam]

I would say that the only time you need to worry about the differences between Intel and AMD is when you program or do other maths intensive things like using engineering software. This is particularly true for the old AMDs. Intel rules in that field as it is more stable and built to support that kind of thing.

For gaming however, I prefer AMD simply because you get the same umph for a lot less price and not only that, you get integrated graphics that compete with Nvidia cards. Also if you know what you can turn off or reduce in the graphics settings that are not actually visible to the human eye, you can save your self a lot of pain.

[V13dweller]

If you do want some very good value, I recommend the AMD A-10 5800 series, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113280
These are a quite powerful, and these have a rather good on board GPU.
The AMD A-10 5800's have a clock of 3.7 Ghz and a 7660 on board GPU with 800 Mhz graphics clock, I have seen these play most games on medium (Using the on board GPU)
Some Gaming Laptops have these Quad Core A-10's and a HD 7970 and these can play most games on Ultra.
The A-10's built in graphics card allows for the use of games albeit nothing too intense, without the need of a separate GPU.
The A-10's GPU supersedes the Intel HD series by a massive margin, but the Intel HD series is not meant for gaming, but the 7660D is more than capable of performing.
I am still comfortable with my Phenom II, with the 7970 Ghz these perform brilliantly, even better with Crossfire.
My friends who use Phenom II are also very please with the value and performance.

[Arclight]

7660D is still an integrated GPU though. It's going to struggle on higher resolutions, like the nowadays fairly typical 1920x1080. The GT650 he listed before will outperform it pretty substantially.

[Sailor Steve]

If you do want some very good value, I recommend the AMD A-10 5800 series,
I've been looking at this one (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113286)

I really don't understand what's what. Can you tell me how they compare?

[V13dweller]

The A-10 series are not really gaming CPU but it does the job quite well.
And the integrated GPU allows for light gaming without a separate subsystem, and this little GPU packs quite a punch with it's 800 Mhz clock.
The A-10 also comes off the shelf at 3.7 Ghz and you can Turbo it to 4.2 Ghz if you feel the need.

Also, if your looking for a Gaming Laptop, you can pick up a MSI gaming laptop with using the A-10 and a 7970, you can get one for about $1000 AUD.
At this link http://shop.amd.com/us/All/Detail/Notebook/9S7-16FK11-021?SearchFacets=category%3ANotebook#Reviews
This GPU also multitasks very well and provides good performance and it's price is very reasonable.
This computer has been received very well from it's customers and they claim to be able to play games perfectly well on ultra.
And they A-10 is able to play games at 1920x1080 using it's built in GPU as long as the games you play are not hardcore games.
I trust that Spike will not be a hardcore gamer if he uses this processor.

[Sailor Steve]

I can already do all the light gaming I can handle. The reason I'm looking for new stuff is that I'm sick of playing at the bottom of the barrel.

A laptop is also the very last thing I want. I'm also planning on not spending more than half the price you listed. I guess I just live in a different world.

[V13dweller]

The price of performance. :hmm2:

[Arclight]

That's always the problem. People ask for advice on what to buy, you give them advice, they tell you it's too expensive. :yep:

But Steve, what are you looking to play? Trinity would struggle a bit with the latest games on full-HD resolutions, but if we're talking about running something like SH5 or earlier it should be a very cost-effective solution.

The CPU you listed is a normal one: that A-10 series has a GPU alongside the CPU, on the same chip. The benefit is a smaller package, which can be made cheaper. But due to size restrictions neither part is really top of the line. It's a good solution for a small form factor PC or affordable gaming laptop, though it falls short compared to more expensive, separate components.

[HunterICX]

A laptop is also the very last thing I want. I'm also planning on not spending more than half the price you listed. I guess I just live in a different world.

Yes when it comes to Price-Performance you really want to avoid Gaming Laptops they're just too expensive if you want something that can run some of the games of today decently.

Perhaps this article may be of interest to you?
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pc-gaming-overclock-build-a-pc,3443.html

And you're not living in a different world as that article shows for a decent gaming rig you don't need to waste that much, you just need to know what to get that delivers a nice bang for the buck and that article might give you some ideas.

HunterICX

[V13dweller]

Intel gave NVidia quite a smack, when they announced their IRIS GPU/CPU, it has a 1400 Mhz GPU on board, but the CPU is the slower part, unlike the A-10. But IRIS has a much bigger price tag.
Most NVidia card go to about 900 Mhz on average.

You can't seem to have both a good CPU and a good GPU at the same time.

[Sailor Steve]

That's always the problem. People ask for advice on what to buy, you give them advice, they tell you it's too expensive. :yep:
I didn't ask advice on what to buy. I asked what the differences were between the two systems. What I got sounded to me like a sales pitch, to which I always respond badly. Sorry about that.

But Steve, what are you looking to play? Trinity would struggle a bit with the latest games on full-HD resolutions, but if we're talking about running something like SH5 or earlier it should be a very cost-effective solution.
I'm planning on a computer that will last me the rest of my life, running Rise Of Flight and Over Flanders Fields with all the stops out.

The CPU you listed is a normal one: that A-10 series has a GPU alongside the CPU, on the same chip. The benefit is a smaller package, which can be made cheaper. But due to size restrictions neither part is really top of the line. It's a good solution for a small form factor PC or affordable gaming laptop, though it falls short compared to more expensive, separate components.
I understand that. On the other hand I have a pair of 5770s in crossfire mode that were gifted to me, and I don't mind buying a better card down the road. I just wondered what the differences are, and I still don't know.

[HunterICX]

I understand that. On the other hand I have a pair of 5770s in crossfire mode that were gifted to me, and I don't mind buying a better card down the road. I just wondered what the differences are, and I still don't know.

The difference between your 5770's and that CPU with the intergrated GPU or a better card?
imo if you go for something better I would stick with stand alone GPU's instead of these CPU/GPU's who's price seems attractive but won't do if you wish to enjoy RoF and other games with everything on full.

Also the two 5770's in crossfire mode is a nice gift, I would suggest if you're building a new system to first try those see how they deal with Over Flanders fields and RoF and if the results are not satisfactory you can always consider getting a better card down the road.

Though regarding Crossfire mode as with Nvidia's SLI that the set up may, may not or give a little performance increase as it depends on the setup and the game that does or does not take benefit from it. For casual gaming it's not really worth the trouble it brings and your better of getting just a single card but a good one.

HunterICX

[Arclight]

Ack, it can get really complicated with multi-GPU. Basically, the higher total GPU horsepower the more single-core performance starts to matter, along with PCI-E bandwidth. Luckily we're not talking about Crossfiring absolute top-end cards here.

Long story short, the lack of L3 cache on the A-10 hurts gaming performance. If you're going to combine an AMD with a discrete GPU, then don't get Trinity. A FX-4xxx or FX-6xxx will serve you better.

Considering that, I'd say that CPU should be a good mate for Crossfired 5770s.


* the actual difference lies in design. The lack of L3 cache is a notable design decision. What it comes down to is that Trinity was designed as a one-stop solution for the mainstream market. It is not intended to compete in the high-end market, and it doesn't.

(with gaming being as demanding as it is, I feel it is definitely high-end. I don't really believe in "affordable" gaming because you end up making too many concessions)

[Sailor Steve]

Thanks. I think I'm starting to understand a little more. Of course that means looking at more and different options, and I may decide to go with something different altogether. It will be some time before anything happens anyway.

[V13dweller]

If you want to build a PC that would last for a very long time, I would recommend an FX8350 eight core, it has very high clock rate (Required for modern games) And it can process large amounts of data and has a generous amount of Level 2 and level 3 cache.

GPU wise, the HD 7970 would last a long time aswell, because it has a very high Engine clock and memory clock.

The next APU is coming out later this year, the new version of the A10 (Kaveri) It will massively out perform the current APU (Richland) and the Richland succeeds the Trinity by quite a margin.

[antikristuseke]

(with gaming being as demanding as it is, I feel it is definitely high-end. I don't really believe in "affordable" gaming because you end up making too many concessions)

Depends on what you concider to be affordable I suppose, build my computer on a fairly tight budget last year, total ran me about 550 euros, probably a bit less,
Phenom II 965
4x4gb gSkill 1333 9-9-9-24 ram
asus m5a97 pro mobo
wd 500 gb hdd (addeed another 500 later and have an ssd coming soon)
msi twinfrozr gtx 660 2gb
520W coolermaster(IIRC) psu
and a gigabyte mid tower case with 3 fans to aid cooling

This thing plays pretty much everything at 1920x1080 with everything turned up and given its relative performance really, really cheap.

[Arclight]

The same thing costs around €650,- here, without the case. And I saved some cash at that, with that shop not offering the m5a97 PRO and opting for the blue edition instead of black on the HD.

Add in some desirables like a 2nd HD and a separate soundcard and it climbs another 100,- easily. Then maybe you need a complete system with monitor, mouse and keyboard; another 300,- perhaps. More capable CPU cooler? Another 50,-.

Keeping consoles in mind as a gaming solution, and you quickly spend twice as much on a desktop.


At any rate, it isn't as expensive as it used to be, and getting cheaper all the time. :yep:

[antikristuseke]

To get a decent price you have to shop arround though, i picked all those specific components because they were on sale at the time, there are other manufacturers out there who offer pretty much the same thing in the same price range, if their happens to be on sale somewhere tat is what to grab, that and the socet is fairly future proof, could slot in an fx-8350 at any time should i need more cpu grunt or any other future AMD offering on the same socet with a very likely bios update.

As far as consoles go, sure the system is cheaper, but it is also far more limited in its applications, the only thing they have going for them are exclusives which will die off eventually as they are unlikely to be economically viable for much longer especially since the upcoming generation consoles have moved closer to x86

[Arclight]

I just brought up consoles with regard to affordability. Spending 600,- on a capable desktop is a good price and relatively affordable. But from the perspective of (current) consoles, PC gaming is still a much larger investment.


What I meant was that for a lot of people the idea of spending 200,- on a graphics card alone seems expensive. But as you've shown with the system you've listed, you can build the rest around that and end up with a reasonably affordable desktop that is very capable.

Going lower than the 660 or equivalent (200,- price bracket, basically) to save money is what ends up handicapping a lot of systems people intend to game on. Especially if you plan to replace a discrete card with an on-board or on-die solution.

[antikristuseke]

Can't argue with any of that, when it comes to modern pc gaming, GPU is the main factor, sure the processor and ram does matter, but without the graphics crunching power, you are up a certain creek sans paddle.