Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

AMD VS Intel, CPU, GPU & MB suggestions

Cramit845Cramit845 Member UncommonPosts: 395

   I've been an avid gamer since the early 90's  I've been building my own PC's since the mid-90's.  This holiday season I am considering purchasing a new rig or at least the main components of a new rig.  (IE motherboard, CPU, Power Supply, Hard Drives, GPU)  I've already started looking on different sites and finding it a bit hard to make a decision.  A little back round information, I'm an IT specialist professionally and an avid gamer.  Even though with my professional life as it is, I don't keep up on gaming hardware all that much.  At this point I probably know more about server hardware than gaming hardware.  I'm currently running:

Intel Core 2 Duo 2.3GHZ

4GB DDR2

ATI Radeon 7770 GHZ edition

250 GB SATA

80 GB SATA

 

    Now this isn't the greatest nor the worst I've seen.  (Was still running a P4 up until OCT 2013)  However I'm trying to figure out which way to go with some of the hardware components.  I know AMD typically is less expensive and runs a bit hotter but I haven't had any experience with their equipment other than GPU's, since the K6 266 days.  (I ran that in the 90's)  Typically I've been running Intel CPU/MB with a ATI/AMD GPU. 

    I'm interested in finding what some of the readers here use for their PC's and what other avid gamers would recommend for someone looking into updating some components.  Is AMD worthwhile for CPU/MB?  Is the price difference and performance worth not going I5 or I7 which is what I'm currently thinking.  Also is ATI still worthwhile as a GPU?  Have had issues in the past and considering using a Nvidia GPU since I've only run one once in the past.  Are the Nvidia GPU's really that much better?  What models of CPU, GPU, MB do people use and have current success with?

     Other than these hardware questions, my only other thoughts are, depending on price, what would be worth upgrading now and what would folks consider be ok to leave.  At this point I want to get a CPU, MB, RAM, & Power Supply minimum and a GPU, hard drive, and sound card if I can swing it.  My current price range is $800-$1000 if anyone needs that.  So what do you guys think and recommend?  What are your preferences and experiences?

   

*Edit* - Some things I forgot.  I use my PC as an all around PC.  Web surfing, email and all the standard stuff.  I do have a youtube channel although haven't done much with it since it taxes my pc so much, so some video editing should be expected.  Primarily it is my gaming rig.  Currently playing WoD and experiencing some longer initial load times.  I have current access to EQ:Landmark but with a dual core, it's pretty terrible. (Below system requirements, lot of lag, messed up colors and overall stuttering) I'm hoping to play Albion Online, Black Desert, EQ:Next to name a few.  Not to mention would love to see the extra performance on current games like WoD, maybe even ESO.  So this is a PC I would like to future proof the best I can for the next ~3 years or so.  Even if that means buying parts at different times. (IE. buy CPU/MB/PS/RAM in winter and rest in summer)

«13456711

Comments

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910
    I have nearly the same setup as you, so I don't have any suggestions, but I will be watching this thread with interest. :-)

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • herculeshercules Member UncommonPosts: 4,919

    good lord p4 in 2013 lol.

    one i build last year was

    amd 8350

    16gb

    asus sabretooth 990

    radeon 280x

    now it becomes a preference  if you wanna use a i5 or i7 or amd 8350.i can tell you all run fine

    i went bit overboard with the motherboard but i always used a budget one and decided for the heck of it use a  nice one this one time.

    also do not cheapen out on power supply best to buy a good older model one then rubbish newer model one.

     

  • Cramit845Cramit845 Member UncommonPosts: 395
    Originally posted by hercules

    good lord p4 in 2013 lol.

    one i build last year was

    amd 8350

    16gb

    asus sabretooth 990

    radeon 280x

    now it becomes a preference  if you wanna use a i5 or i7 or amd 8350.i can tell you all run fine

    i went bit overboard with the motherboard but i always used a budget one and decided for the heck of it use a  nice one this one time.

    also do not cheapen out on power supply best to buy a good older model one then rubbish newer model one.

     

      Lol yea, I hadn't upgraded in a LLLOOONNNGGG time other than GPU & RAM.  Just as an interesting fact, that P4 was the foundation of the rig I built right before Vanilla Wow released.....

     

      When it comes to the AMD's, I do find it hard to wrap my head around the "8" cores.  I guess I just don't get how AMD makes a 8 core chip and Intel makes 4 core chips and they perform about the same from what I've heard.  Can you speak to this at all Hercules? 

       I know the chip I decide on will pretty much decide the MB I use (at least for what chips their for, Intel or AMD) however I typically feel more comfortable with Intel, having a nice $ savings would be great also.  So finding it really hard to decide.  Is it heat still a factor with the AMD's these days?  I heard about that back in the day, although with 8 cores, I would think heat is still an issue, but pure guesstimation on my part. 

  • VrikaVrika Member EpicPosts: 5,845
    Originally posted by Cramit845

      When it comes to the AMD's, I do find it hard to wrap my head around the "8" cores.  I guess I just don't get how AMD makes a 8 core chip and Intel makes 4 core chips and they perform about the same from what I've heard.  

    AMD's 8 core chip might be faster than Intel's 4 core in theory, but the issue is, games aren't able to effectively distribute their processing load to that many cores. If the game demands that a single thread (assigned always to just a single core) must do 25% of CPU jobs, then it doesn't matter how many other cores you have the rest can do max. 75%, and if you've got more than 4 cores total they'll just sit idle while waiting for the core that one core that has to do 25% of processing jobs.

    Games are slowly getting better and better to utilize more and more cores. At the moment they can use 2 cores really well, many of the modern games can use 4 cores well enough, but after that very few games can use the added cores effectively and increasing the number of cores will increase the game performance only a little.

    At the moment Intel's single core speed is superior to AMDs, whereas AMD seems to be really good at placing many cores into a processor cheaply.

    If you want really cheap gaming processor, AMD's processors are probably the best because at cheap prices Intel offers only i3 which has 2 cores. Games can use more than that.

    If you're willing to pay a bit more, Intel i5 with 4 cores will be better for gaming than anything that AMD can offer, because its cores are much faster than AMD's and there are enough cores that only few games could use more effectively.

    Intel i7 offers a little more gaming performance than i5, but not that much because very few games can really utilize that many cores. It's not a bad purchase if you have money to burn, it's the best performance you can get and in future it's likely games will be able to use its extra cores even better. But at the moment it's not really worth it and i5 offers much more performance per dollar.

     
  • Cramit845Cramit845 Member UncommonPosts: 395
    Originally posted by Vrika
    Originally posted by Cramit845

      When it comes to the AMD's, I do find it hard to wrap my head around the "8" cores.  I guess I just don't get how AMD makes a 8 core chip and Intel makes 4 core chips and they perform about the same from what I've heard.  

    AMD's 8 core chip might be faster than Intel's 4 core in theory, but the issue is, games aren't able to effectively distribute their processing load to that many cores. If the game demands that a single thread (assigned always to just a single core) must do 25% of CPU jobs, then it doesn't matter how many other cores you have the rest can do max. 75%, and if you've got more than 4 cores total they'll just sit idle while waiting for the core that one core that has to do 25% of processing jobs.

    Games are slowly getting better and better to utilize more and more cores. At the moment they can use 2 cores really well, many of the modern games can use 4 cores well enough, but after that very few games can use the added cores effectively and increasing the number of cores will increase the game performance only a little.

    At the moment Intel's single core speed is superior to AMDs, whereas AMD seems to be really good at placing many cores into a processor cheaply.

    If you want really cheap gaming processor, AMD's processors are probably the best because at cheap prices Intel offers only i3 which has 2 cores. Games can use more than that.

    If you're willing to pay a bit more, Intel i5 with 4 cores will be better for gaming than anything that AMD can offer, because its cores are much faster than AMD's and there are enough cores that only few games could use more effectively.

    Intel i7 offers a little more gaming performance than i5, but not that much because very few games can really utilize that many cores. It's not a bad purchase if you have money to burn, it's the best performance you can get and in future it's likely games will be able to use its extra cores even better. But at the moment it's not really worth it and i5 offers much more performance per dollar.

      Well thanks for that explanation, that helps a lot.  I knew that Intel single core was definitely better but I wasn't completely sure how that all stacked up in the long run.  So I figure, that unless price becomes an issue I will stick with what I'm personally comfortable with, which is an intel i5 or i7.  I've heard good things about the i5-4460 in recent reviews/threads on CPU's.  Does anyone have an opinion?  Is there an i7 I should be looking at that is worth the extra money? 

       As I stated, future proofing is a concern, to an extent.  Although looking at my past, it may be the one thing I really look towards with not replacing my pc for so long, but that's something for me to figure out.  I wonder if the i7 would be worth the extra investment in terms of "future proofing" the pc for a couple years, thoughts?

  • RecklooseReckloose Member UncommonPosts: 39
    Originally posted by Cramit845
    Originally posted by Vrika
    Originally posted by Cramit845

      When it comes to the AMD's, I do find it hard to wrap my head around the "8" cores.  I guess I just don't get how AMD makes a 8 core chip and Intel makes 4 core chips and they perform about the same from what I've heard.  

    AMD's 8 core chip might be faster than Intel's 4 core in theory, but the issue is, games aren't able to effectively distribute their processing load to that many cores. If the game demands that a single thread (assigned always to just a single core) must do 25% of CPU jobs, then it doesn't matter how many other cores you have the rest can do max. 75%, and if you've got more than 4 cores total they'll just sit idle while waiting for the core that one core that has to do 25% of processing jobs.

    Games are slowly getting better and better to utilize more and more cores. At the moment they can use 2 cores really well, many of the modern games can use 4 cores well enough, but after that very few games can use the added cores effectively and increasing the number of cores will increase the game performance only a little.

    At the moment Intel's single core speed is superior to AMDs, whereas AMD seems to be really good at placing many cores into a processor cheaply.

    If you want really cheap gaming processor, AMD's processors are probably the best because at cheap prices Intel offers only i3 which has 2 cores. Games can use more than that.

    If you're willing to pay a bit more, Intel i5 with 4 cores will be better for gaming than anything that AMD can offer, because its cores are much faster than AMD's and there are enough cores that only few games could use more effectively.

    Intel i7 offers a little more gaming performance than i5, but not that much because very few games can really utilize that many cores. It's not a bad purchase if you have money to burn, it's the best performance you can get and in future it's likely games will be able to use its extra cores even better. But at the moment it's not really worth it and i5 offers much more performance per dollar.

      Well thanks for that explanation, that helps a lot.  I knew that Intel single core was definitely better but I wasn't completely sure how that all stacked up in the long run.  So I figure, that unless price becomes an issue I will stick with what I'm personally comfortable with, which is an intel i5 or i7.  I've heard good things about the i5-4460 in recent reviews/threads on CPU's.  Does anyone have an opinion?  Is there an i7 I should be looking at that is worth the extra money? 

       As I stated, future proofing is a concern, to an extent.  Although looking at my past, it may be the one thing I really look towards with not replacing my pc for so long, but that's something for me to figure out.  I wonder if the i7 would be worth the extra investment in terms of "future proofing" the pc for a couple years, thoughts?

    Just to add to the cores thing, Intel uses hyperthreading, which essentially doubles the cores. So 4 physical cores, becomes 8 virtual cores. I haven't actually encountered any particular scenario where physical cores are superior to the virtual cores, but other than my home systems, a lot of my experience in virtual cores is within ESX clusters (which seem not to care at all, one way or another).

    Oh, and with the virtual core thing, Intel tends to play odd marketing things with this. So, when in doubt, look up the processor on Intel Ark to get the full specs (it lists exactly how many physical cores).

    For i5 vs. i7, for the most part, there's not a massive difference in performance. I use an i7 in my rig, because of SWTOR, since swtor's engine is ridiculously dependant on processor cycles for performance. But, if you're not addicted to lightsabers and must play horribly coded engines, then it's probably not worth it.

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 7,764
    I just spent the past month reading up on CPU and benchmarks to pick what set up I wanted for my new gaming rig. If you have the money to spend Intel is the way to go, top end AMD and top end Intel side by side and Intel normally wins. If you dont have the money to spend you can get a good AMD CPU for not as big of a hit on your pocket book. In the end I went with "4.0 GHz Intel Core i7-4790k" I have to say I love it. Its a real hog. 

     



  • PerramasPerramas Member UncommonPosts: 83

    You should check this site out and ask more questions over there. You can use the PC builder to see what parts work together and it will find you some of the best prices for each part.

    http://pcpartpicker.com/

    FUncom putting the FU in fun since 1993.

  • Cramit845Cramit845 Member UncommonPosts: 395
    Originally posted by Reckloose
    Originally posted by Cramit845
    Originally posted by Vrika
    Originally posted by Cramit845

      When it comes to the AMD's, I do find it hard to wrap my head around the "8" cores.  I guess I just don't get how AMD makes a 8 core chip and Intel makes 4 core chips and they perform about the same from what I've heard.  

    AMD's 8 core chip might be faster than Intel's 4 core in theory, but the issue is, games aren't able to effectively distribute their processing load to that many cores. If the game demands that a single thread (assigned always to just a single core) must do 25% of CPU jobs, then it doesn't matter how many other cores you have the rest can do max. 75%, and if you've got more than 4 cores total they'll just sit idle while waiting for the core that one core that has to do 25% of processing jobs.

    Games are slowly getting better and better to utilize more and more cores. At the moment they can use 2 cores really well, many of the modern games can use 4 cores well enough, but after that very few games can use the added cores effectively and increasing the number of cores will increase the game performance only a little.

    At the moment Intel's single core speed is superior to AMDs, whereas AMD seems to be really good at placing many cores into a processor cheaply.

    If you want really cheap gaming processor, AMD's processors are probably the best because at cheap prices Intel offers only i3 which has 2 cores. Games can use more than that.

    If you're willing to pay a bit more, Intel i5 with 4 cores will be better for gaming than anything that AMD can offer, because its cores are much faster than AMD's and there are enough cores that only few games could use more effectively.

    Intel i7 offers a little more gaming performance than i5, but not that much because very few games can really utilize that many cores. It's not a bad purchase if you have money to burn, it's the best performance you can get and in future it's likely games will be able to use its extra cores even better. But at the moment it's not really worth it and i5 offers much more performance per dollar.

      Well thanks for that explanation, that helps a lot.  I knew that Intel single core was definitely better but I wasn't completely sure how that all stacked up in the long run.  So I figure, that unless price becomes an issue I will stick with what I'm personally comfortable with, which is an intel i5 or i7.  I've heard good things about the i5-4460 in recent reviews/threads on CPU's.  Does anyone have an opinion?  Is there an i7 I should be looking at that is worth the extra money? 

       As I stated, future proofing is a concern, to an extent.  Although looking at my past, it may be the one thing I really look towards with not replacing my pc for so long, but that's something for me to figure out.  I wonder if the i7 would be worth the extra investment in terms of "future proofing" the pc for a couple years, thoughts?

    Just to add to the cores thing, Intel uses hyperthreading, which essentially doubles the cores. So 4 physical cores, becomes 8 virtual cores. I haven't actually encountered any particular scenario where physical cores are superior to the virtual cores, but other than my home systems, a lot of my experience in virtual cores is within ESX clusters (which seem not to care at all, one way or another).

    Oh, and with the virtual core thing, Intel tends to play odd marketing things with this. So, when in doubt, look up the processor on Intel Ark to get the full specs (it lists exactly how many physical cores).

    For i5 vs. i7, for the most part, there's not a massive difference in performance. I use an i7 in my rig, because of SWTOR, since swtor's engine is ridiculously dependant on processor cycles for performance. But, if you're not addicted to lightsabers and must play horribly coded engines, then it's probably not worth it.

      Yea, at my last job I did a lot of ESXi systems for VMware and I noticed some what of the same thing.  Although it was mainly for small-medium businesses, so usually only one host ESXi server, but I know where your coming from.

      I've been looking for a bit and have been gravitating towards the i5, but as I said, when I think of future proofing, it makes me wanna pony up the extra bucks for an i7, just have to figure out which one makes sense.

    There is also another thread in the hardware section on here, "i3 vs i5 ....is it worth it" is the name of the thread, and there is a great discussion/argument on AMD's, i5, i3, n a bit about i7.  A ton of information on virtual cores and what not.  I just got done reading it and I would suggest reading it if I were you.  You have to take it all with a grain of salt, cause I cant look at the linked videos to see how truthful it all is, but it is a great read and helped my understanding a bit more from my base understanding of it all.

  • Cramit845Cramit845 Member UncommonPosts: 395
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle
    I just spent the past month reading up on CPU and benchmarks to pick what set up I wanted for my new gaming rig. If you have the money to spend Intel is the way to go, top end AMD and top end Intel side by side and Intel normally wins. If you dont have the money to spend you can get a good AMD CPU for not as big of a hit on your pocket book. In the end I went with "4.0 GHz Intel Core i7-4790k" I have to say I love it. Its a real hog. 

     

      Well thanks for the model.  I will take a look cause I am hoping to look at some actual models folks are using or suggest that are out now to get a better feel.  I've gotten the same feeling, which is Intel is still top dog and since I am ok with i5 price than it doesn't seem AMD has much to offer that's better performance or price wise compared too that.

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 7,764
    Originally posted by Cramit845
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle
    I just spent the past month reading up on CPU and benchmarks to pick what set up I wanted for my new gaming rig. If you have the money to spend Intel is the way to go, top end AMD and top end Intel side by side and Intel normally wins. If you dont have the money to spend you can get a good AMD CPU for not as big of a hit on your pocket book. In the end I went with "4.0 GHz Intel Core i7-4790k" I have to say I love it. Its a real hog. 

     

      Well thanks for the model.  I will take a look cause I am hoping to look at some actual models folks are using or suggest that are out now to get a better feel.  I've gotten the same feeling, which is Intel is still top dog and since I am ok with i5 price than it doesn't seem AMD has much to offer that's better performance or price wise compared too that.

    Ya the turbo on that CPU pumps it to 4.4 GHz. Click HERE for the benchmarks.



  • FranconsteinFranconstein Member UncommonPosts: 99

    Both as an avid gamer, a game designer and a computer science engineer, I can tell you that AMD has always given me the best performance on every front (for gaming and for development). I will concede, however, that the latest GPU battle is being won by nVidia with their exclusivity in many titles; but, as is to be expected, the advantage is mostly irrelevant and doesn't justify the price difference.

    CPU: I wouldn't recommend 8 cores. It's mostly useless, generates more heat, and are more expensive. If you ever find a game that uses 100% of a 4-core 3+ GHz processor, then that game is poorly coded. Right now, however, I have never encountered such a game. Running on a AMD FX 4300 @ 3.8 GHz. I do not recommend overclocking unless you have: a) a Black Edition or similar (factory OC) or b) a very good case with above average fans / watercooling.

     

    RAM: The more, the merrier. I'd get 4 sticks of 4 GB if I were you, but 2 work just fine as well. I run several programs at the same time, and even have 2 games open at most times (depending on the games), and have never gotten all 8 GB used at one point (except when I make a programming mistake). 1666 MHz are the standard, 2133 if you want (and can afford) and extra edge. I trust Kingston's HyperX here.

     

    GPU: Running an ATI Radeon HD 290x; never had an issue so far, but for almost the same price you can get a GTX 780, and not have to worry about the subterfuge war between companies.

     

    Motherboard: any high-end would do. Different specifications at that point won't grant you even a 2% difference. I'm running a Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5, but that's a personal prefence.

     

    Hard Drive: This is the real bottleneck as far as I can tell. Getting a 128 GB SSD for the OS and the current game your playing is a must if you want performance. Also, if you have Google Fiber as ISP, you will need an SSD to be able to fully use the bandwidth provided.

     

    PSU: Most people overreact at this stage. Since the average gamer can't / won't actually measure output, they buy the "recommended" PSUs, which are mostly overkill. I'm running with a 600W Thermaltake, and I've never topped it.

     

    I haven't checked current prices for these products mentioned, but I'd be glad to help you out through whichever website you prefere (I've had no issues with newegg.com). PM me if you need more info, benchmarks, or just random questions. 

     

    Cheers and happy hunting!

    “There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.” - Ernest Hemingway

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 7,764
    Originally posted by Franconstein

    Both as an avid gamer, a game designer and a computer science engineer, I can tell you that AMD has always given me the best performance on every front (for gaming and for development). I will concede, however, that the latest GPU battle is being won by nVidia with their exclusivity in many titles; but, as is to be expected, the advantage is mostly irrelevant and doesn't justify the price difference.

    CPU: I wouldn't recommend 8 cores. It's mostly useless, generates more heat, and are more expensive. If you ever find a game that uses 100% of a 4-core 3+ GHz processor, then that game is poorly coded. Right now, however, I have never encountered such a game. Running on a AMD FX 4300 @ 3.8 GHz. I do not recommend overclocking unless you have: a) a Black Edition or similar (factory OC) or b) a very good case with above average fans / watercooling.

     

    RAM: The more, the merrier. I'd get 4 sticks of 4 GB if I were you, but 2 work just fine as well. I run several programs at the same time, and even have 2 games open at most times (depending on the games), and have never gotten all 8 GB used at one point (except when I make a programming mistake). 1666 MHz are the standard, 2133 if you want (and can afford) and extra edge. I trust Kingston's HyperX here.

     

    GPU: Running an ATI Radeon HD 290x; never had an issue so far, but for almost the same price you can get a GTX 780, and not have to worry about the subterfuge war between companies.

     

    Motherboard: any high-end would do. Different specifications at that point won't grant you even a 2% difference. I'm running a Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5, but that's a personal prefence.

     

    Hard Drive: This is the real bottleneck as far as I can tell. Getting a 128 GB SSD for the OS and the current game your playing is a must if you want performance. Also, if you have Google Fiber as ISP, you will need an SSD to be able to fully use the bandwidth provided.

     

    PSU: Most people overreact at this stage. Since the average gamer can't / won't actually measure output, they buy the "recommended" PSUs, which are mostly overkill. I'm running with a 600W Thermaltake, and I've never topped it.

     

    I haven't checked current prices for these products mentioned, but I'd be glad to help you out through whichever website you prefere (I've had no issues with newegg.com). PM me if you need more info, benchmarks, or just random questions. 

     

    Cheers and happy hunting!

    Spot on, RAM and bus speed are king as well. Faster the bus the better. I use the same video card and I have to say for the price you cant go wrong. Make sure if you get that video card you get a case it can fit in, its a monster lol.

    EDIT: When you buy a power supply make sure you pick a 80 PLUS silver or higher rated one. 



  • jdnewelljdnewell Member UncommonPosts: 2,237

    On a budget of $800 - $1000 I would go with an AMD and spend the savings elsewhere in the PC. AMD performance for normal users is solid.

    Intel is the "better" cpu overall, but most people will not use or need the full potential they offer. If you have some specific software where you just need an intel then get one. If gaming, browsing,streaming, MS Office, ect. will be the main use then get an AMD cpu and throw the savings towards a better GPU IMO.

    If you were spending $1000 plus then an intel would be my choice as you would not have to cut corners elsewhere.

     

    Price differences.

    AMD 6300 $110 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113286

    Intel i5 3570k $229 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116504

    Plus you will generally spend a good $20-30 more on a motherboard for intel. The $140 you save can probably be better spent elsewhere in the system on a $800-1000 budget.

    Just my opinion

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 7,764
    Originally posted by jdnewell

    On a budget of $800 - $1000 I would go with an AMD and spend the savings elsewhere in the PC. AMD performance for normal users is solid.

    Intel is the "better" cpu overall, but most people will not use or need the full potential they offer. If you have some specific software where you just need an intel then get one. If gaming, browsing,streaming, MS Office, ect. will be the main use then get an AMD cpu and throw the savings towards a better GPU IMO.

    If you were spending $1000 plus then an intel would be my choice as you would not have to cut corners elsewhere.

    This is so true, if you have the money get an Intel i7, if you need to save money to get a GPU worth using go AMD. If you can afford both, Ooo Mama!!!!!



  • PerramasPerramas Member UncommonPosts: 83
    One advantage AMD FX has over the I5 is the ability to stream and play at the same time. Of course the I7 destroys that advantage and then some.

    FUncom putting the FU in fun since 1993.

  • Cramit845Cramit845 Member UncommonPosts: 395

       Wow thanks for all the responses guys, giving a lot of great information.  This is the conundrum that I am in right now.  With this amount of money I was hoping to get a great CPU/MB/RAM/GPU/PS that will future proof the system, minus maybe a RAM upgrade for a couple years.

     

      Would it be worth spending the extra money on say an I7/MB/RAM/PS now and then save up for "O SH*T!!!" GPU later on, say around summer time or do you guys think buying everything now is a better bet?  My current video card isn't great and isn't horrible but with the games I'm expecting to play in the next couple months (WoD and Albion Online) I doubt needing a better GPU now will help me all that much.

       However, I also know that in my experience, after making a large PC component purchase, sometimes its best just to get the best of everything you can at the same time rather than do it a couple parts at a time.  Any opinion's on this?

     

      Any AMD processors comparable with the high end i5's or i7's that anyone could suggest that I look at?  Just not sure where to start when it comes to series and models.

     

    *Edit* - One other thought here.  My price range expectations per part if this helps.

    $100 - $150: Motherboard

    $200 - $350: CPU

    $50 - $100: RAM

    $50 - $100: Power Supply

    $200 - $350: GPU

            At these price ranges, if my memory recalls from www.newegg.com (my typical part supplier) is what I'm willing to spend per part.  With something like this, I'd be hitting $1050 at spending the most on each part.  Obviously I would like to get it down from there, but I figure this could be an easy start and any extra savings I can get would go towards a SSD of some size for OS and primary game.  If anyone knows of any parts in this price range that they would recommend, I would love to hear so I can check it out.

  • FranconsteinFranconstein Member UncommonPosts: 99

    Well, considering that next year we're getting all the new 20nm technology (DDR4 RAM, I'm looking at you!), there's no point on going big budget right now. 20nm obliterates current technology, and the stuff you'll be able to get for the same price in 2016 will be mind-boggling in comparison. I'd say go for the cheapest build now (but with quailty parts), and then worry about this again in 2 years.

     

    Cheers!

    “There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.” - Ernest Hemingway

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 6,834

    The rule of thumb I use:

    Budget system ($500-600 US) - AMD APU (A10 7850s), no discrete GPU
    Budget system ($600-800 US) - AMD FX6300/6350 (6300 is only like $10-20 more than the 4-core 4300 series, still around $50-75 less than the 8-core 8300 series)
    Mid-line system ($800-1200 US) - Z97-based Core i5 4690 (K is optional)
    High-end system ($1200+) - Z97-based Core i5 4690K or i7 4790K (i7 doesn't have any gaming benefit over the i5, but can give some performance boosts in programs like video encoding or compression, and at this budget range there's no reason to not get the K edition).
    Very high end system (multiple GPUs - $1500+) - X99-based Core i7 5820/5930, or with no budget limit 5960 - The X99 has better tri-quad GPU capacity based on better PCIe lane support than the Z97.

    Right now, apart from some really good deals, these are the only 4 or 5 CPUs I even really recommend looking at, and it's largely just a function of your budget.

    A10 7850 APU for systems that want to game at the lowest possible entry price point
    FX6300 in budget systems with a discrete GPU
    Z97 i5 4690(K optional) for most mid-tier systems with a discrete GPU
    Z97 i7 4790K for single/dual GPU upper-tier systems
    X99 2011v3 for very high end tri/quad GPU systems

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 7,764
    Originally posted by Franconstein

    Well, considering that next year we're getting all the new 20nm technology (DDR4 RAM, I'm looking at you!), there's no point on going big budget right now. 20nm obliterates current technology, and the stuff you'll be able to get for the same price in 2016 will be mind-boggling in comparison. I'd say go for the cheapest build now (but with quailty parts), and then worry about this again in 2 years.

     

    Cheers!

    Is that not the cycle we have every year?



  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,111

    You should be thinking replacement rather than upgrade.  You really need a new CPU, and that will require a new motherboard.  The new motherboard will take DDR3, so that means new memory.  A new motherboard also necessitates a new OS license.  Your hard drives are probably old enough as to be a considerable risk to fail.  Your power supply is probably a relic of another era, and could easily be a danger to fry things if you hook it up to a modern gaming rig.  At that point, you've replaced enough that you might as well just buy a new computer.

    Your case might be functional enough, but will surely lack some modern amenities such as an SSD mounting bracket or front USB 3.0 ports.  The video card is still decent enough, though you've got the budget for something much better.  The optical drive is probably still fine if it still works, as they haven't changed that much since your current computer was brand new.  But that doesn't leave a lot of things to keep if you want to go the upgrade route.

    If you're ready to buy parts and put it together now, I could pick out parts for you.  I'd advise against buying parts that go inside a case piecemeal if you're going to replace basically everything anyway.

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,111
    Originally posted by Franconstein

    Well, considering that next year we're getting all the new 20nm technology (DDR4 RAM, I'm looking at you!), there's no point on going big budget right now. 20nm obliterates current technology, and the stuff you'll be able to get for the same price in 2016 will be mind-boggling in comparison. I'd say go for the cheapest build now (but with quailty parts), and then worry about this again in 2 years.

     

    Cheers!

    There's always something new coming, but there's probably nothing critically important coming in the near future.  There's a good chance that the Core i7-4790K that you can buy today will still be the fastest gaming CPU on the market a year from now.  Nvidia just recently launched new top end GPU cards.  It's not clear whether AMD will be able to meaningfully beat them in the near future, and even if so, it's not at all clear how soon.  There's a huge difference between waiting a week versus waiting 8 months.

    The primary advantage of DDR4 memory is reduced power consumption.  That's a big deal in laptops and data centers, but not in desktops.  The extra memory bandwidth doesn't matter in desktops, either, unless you're going to feed integrated graphics from it.

    It's not at all clear whether there will be any 20 nm parts that matter for desktops.  That Nvidia launched the GTX 970/980 so recently tells me that they're not moving to a new process node imminently.  AMD might, but it's not clear that there is any 20 nm process node appropriate to high-power video cards.

    Die shrinks don't even matter anymore for desktop CPUs, unless you believe that eight cores isn't enough and we need more die shrinks so that we can have more cores.  Intel does have some products available on their troubled 14 nm process node, but the fastest of them has a max turbo boost of a meager 2.9 GHz.  AMD, meanwhile, is staying on 28 nm with next year's Carrizo.

    The only reason die shrinks matter for DRAM or NAND flash is that you can get more capacity.  For for NAND, never mind 20 nm; Crucial will sell you SSDs with NAND made on a 16 nm process node today.

    Really, though, die shrinks are starting to hit a wall as their traditional radiation source just can't etch small enough features very well.  EUV will probably fix that for some years, but it's not ready just yet.

  • ThorqemadaThorqemada Member UncommonPosts: 1,282

    If you have an ATI/AMD GPU you will love the Omega Catalyst that does improve the Minimum Frames on many games by a significant amount (often speaking of 20% to 30%) if you use a potent Multicore CPU (my FX8350 does amazing well as Intel does).


    Driver Download:
    http://support.amd.com/en-us/download

    "Torquemada... do not implore him for compassion. Torquemada... do not beg him for forgiveness. Torquemada... do not ask him for mercy. Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!"

    MWO Music Video - What does the Mech say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF6HYNqCDLI
    Johnny Cash - The Man Comes Around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0x2iwK0BKM

  • LazyDazedLazyDazed Member UncommonPosts: 148

    I would suggest you go to Tom's hardware and post you are looking for a PC build with a $1000 price range and name all the components you will need. The guys there are really up to speed on what are top tier components and components that work well together, for $1000 you can build a very nice Intel machine with good quality components. I am sure there are many people here that are very knowledgeable but I there are a lot of wanna-be's that don't have anywhere near the knowledge and experience as the guys at Tom's.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/

  • bamwallabamwalla Member UncommonPosts: 194

    i built a machine on a budget just a year or so ago.  It was built around the Silverstone SG09, which really limited what I could do but I like the SFF case.  Plus it's the best case I have ever built with.   Anyways, I went with an AMD fx 6300 and Radeon 7870, 8 gb ram.  I think I only had 2 choices for mobo being ITX plus AMD.  I can give you specifics but it only really matters if you want to go SFF.  I should have and may still with a good sale, gone with an SSD.  But really the only thing holding me back is my crappy internet and this 7200 rpm HD.  But like I said, this was a budget build and an SSD wasn't in that budget.  

     

    pcpartpicker rocks

     

    edit: OH i run games at max, or near max and I have never had issues with heat.  But I don't OC either

Sign In or Register to comment.