1. #1

    AMD Gaming Machine

    Hey all! So I've built my own high end gaming system for around $1300 and now my friends wants me to build a system for him but he has alot lower budget. I've never used or have knowledge of AMD's stuff but browsing on newegg, they seem to be alot cheaper cpu-wise and gpu-wise. I was thinking of using this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103996 cpu because of the price, quad core, and good speed (I will not be overclocking his system, just stock heatsink and fan). The other alternative I was looking at was http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103911 . I'm not familiar with ATI's naming scheme, but I was thinking a gtx 560 ti equivalent for ATI. I can figure out the power supply, case, ram etc later but I need to know which would be a better deal for a budget gaming system for him. He would mostly be playing battlefield 3 and skyrim, and I'm like 90% sure he would be on a 1600x900 monitor resolution (maybe 1080p, but haven't figured it out yet). Thanks!

    He hasn't told me specifically his budget, but around 400-600 dollars

    Edit: Ram/Bus speed wouldn't need to be higher than 1333 MHz, thanks!
    Last edited by Uncle Julian; 2012-04-23 at 09:55 PM.

  2. #2
    I am Murloc! Cyanotical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Co
    Posts
    5,034
    well, for $30 more you can get teh 4.2 Ghz CPU, which comes pre overclocked and factory stable

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...09&Tpk=fx-4170

    the equivilant to the 560ti would probably be the HD7770:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814121559

    otherwise, you will need a decent AM3+ board (not the cheapest, but not the most expensive), 8Gb of DDR3 RAM, and a 500W powersupply

    i7-4790K | Z97 Class. | 8GB DDR3-2133 | GTX-690 Quad SLI | RAIDR | 512GB Samsung 830 | AX1200 | FT02
    Dell U2711 | Ducky Shine3 YoS | Steelseries Sensei Wireless | Xonar Essence One | KRK RP8G2s

  3. #3
    Grunt Smurvis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Greenville, NC
    Posts
    13
    I can't speak much for that one, but I got an FX-8120 and was not happy with it. I did a lot of research and it seems that Intel is much better than AMD according to pretty much everyone. A higher price AMD processor was equal to an Intel processor about 3 gens back. I'm very displeased with my current rig and will be getting an Intel board and processor as soon as I can afford to switch.

    It doesn't sound like he's playing much WoW, but I know AMD is terrible for WoW cause all those extra cores just don't matter. Some of the more tech savvy people can probably explain it much better than I am right now, but it just seemed that AMD underperformed for almost every game out next to a similiar priced Intel from what I was reading.


    Edit:
    Oh, and this isn't a fanboy issue of AMD vs Intel. I don't build computers and don't really care for brand loyalty. But the guy building my rig was an AMD fan and pretty much everyone I know afterwards was telling me how AMD has fallen off and hasn't been a competitive choice for a couple years now. Maybe that Zambezi chipset will help? But it sounds like the Sandy Bridge stuff is still waaaay better for roughly the same price.
    Last edited by Smurvis; 2012-04-23 at 10:01 PM.

  4. #4
    Interesting, ok then what if I build a system around a sandy bridge i3? Is that capable of those games decently?

  5. #5
    forget about amd CPUs for gaming purposes. it's like trying to foresee the future with a calculator.
    sandy/ivy bridge is the way to go, even if it's one of the lower-end models, they're still superior to amd CPUs in this sector.

    as for an amd GPU a fitting counterpart to the 560ti would be something between the hd6870 or even a hd6950.
    the latter would even fit the 1080p-needs.

    edit:
    oops...i'm living in the past GPU-wise >.<
    Last edited by Flaim; 2012-04-23 at 10:06 PM.

  6. #6
    Don't get the FX-4xxx or 6xxx sereis it is worth the extra cash for the 8xxx series.

    That being said here is a caparison of the i3 vs the 8150, http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=289 scroll down to World of Warcraft. That is a Dual Core i3 2100 keeping up with an 8 Core AMD. WoW is heavily Intel Optimized.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Smurvis View Post
    I can't speak much for that one, but I got an FX-8120 and was not happy with it. I did a lot of research and it seems that Intel is much better than AMD according to pretty much everyone. A higher price AMD processor was equal to an Intel processor about 3 gens back. I'm very displeased with my current rig and will be getting an Intel board and processor as soon as I can afford to switch.

    It doesn't sound like he's playing much WoW, but I know AMD is terrible for WoW cause all those extra cores just don't matter. Some of the more tech savvy people can probably explain it much better than I am right now, but it just seemed that AMD underperformed for almost every game out next to a similiar priced Intel from what I was reading.
    The AMD FX 8120 is far from a bad CPU, however for it's price at launch, the Intel alternatives were better performers for gaming. I think it depends on need though, for multithreaded applications, the AMD FX 8120 will be better then the slightly more expensive i5 2500k in that regard, however it will not be as good for gaming. Bearing in mind that most of these differences are not huge enough to be noticed by the average consumer and your hardware as a whole really makeup system performance. So realistically, you could spend 220 bucks on an i5 2500k which will game well, or you can spend 195 on a FX-8120 that will not game as well, but for video encoding and things like that, will beat out the i5 2500k.

    I think one of the biggest problems with the FX series is that it was priced so high but still fell short against Intel at it's release, however now that they are considerably cheaper, the price to performance ratio is a little more balanced in my opinion.

    Also, don't touch anything marked Athlon with a 10 foot pole. Either go for the Phenom II X4 or FX chips, the latter being considerably better then the former.

  8. #8
    You're all drifting off topic! ahaha, this is strictly for, and i mean STRICTLY for battlefield 3, and skyrim. No video encoding, no multi-threaded stuff. I dont need an extra 400 mhz for 30 bucks, like a serious low budget gaming pc, and nothing else. Thanks

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Julian View Post
    You're all drifting off topic! ahaha, this is strictly for, and i mean STRICTLY for battlefield 3, and skyrim. No video encoding, no multi-threaded stuff. I dont need an extra 400 mhz for 30 bucks, like a serious low budget gaming pc, and nothing else. Thanks
    Then it's i3-2100, 4GB of RAM, H61 motherboard and the most expensive graphics card you can fit in.


    Quote Originally Posted by coldfiredragon View Post
    WoW is heavily Intel Optimized.
    Correction: Intel is heavily single-thread optimized. There are no CPU optimizations in WoW.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    most of these differences are not huge enough to be noticed by the average consumer
    In WoW it is, and this is a WoW fansite. In 25-man raids you see about 50% higher framerate with i5-2500K than FX-8150.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    FX-8120 that will not game as well, but for video encoding and things like that, will beat out the i5 2500k.
    Cinebench is widely considered to be the most accurate multithread benchmark, and in it i5-2500K and FX-8150 are nearly even. Not even in video encoding the FX series are better.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    Also, don't touch anything marked Athlon with a 10 foot pole.
    Athlon II x4 645 is actually pretty good for CPU upgrade on compatible motherboard, but not so much when building new.
    Last edited by vesseblah; 2012-04-23 at 10:31 PM.
    Never going to log into this garbage forum again as long as calling obvious troll obvious troll is the easiest way to get banned.
    Trolling should be.

  10. #10
    I am Murloc! Cyanotical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Co
    Posts
    5,034
    the FX quad core is more then enough for gaming, and at nearly 1/2 the price of a 2500k it is a good CPU, certainly better then the i3, which is compared to a Liano APU, not a Bulldozer CPU

    the 2500k is better, and there is no way around it, but if you are on a tight budget, the FX-4100 series is a better choice then an i3

    i7-4790K | Z97 Class. | 8GB DDR3-2133 | GTX-690 Quad SLI | RAIDR | 512GB Samsung 830 | AX1200 | FT02
    Dell U2711 | Ducky Shine3 YoS | Steelseries Sensei Wireless | Xonar Essence One | KRK RP8G2s

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyanotical View Post
    but if you are on a tight budget, the FX-4100 series is a better choice then an i3
    Depends entirely on what games... BF3 has small advantage from quad core, but in Blizzard games i3 runs laps around FX's.
    Never going to log into this garbage forum again as long as calling obvious troll obvious troll is the easiest way to get banned.
    Trolling should be.

  12. #12
    Bloodsail Admiral Romandix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    1,042
    Depends entirely on what games... BF3 has small advantage from quad core, but in Blizzard games i3 runs laps around FX's.
    Think the OP has stated it was for BF3 only in which case i am in agreement with Cyanotical.
    The great Friedrich Nietzsche once said, Shit happens deal with it.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by vesseblah View Post
    Then it's i3-2100, 4GB of RAM, H61 motherboard and the most expensive graphics card you can fit in.




    Correction: Intel is heavily single-thread optimized. There are no CPU optimizations in WoW.



    In WoW it is, and this is a WoW fansite. In 25-man raids you see about 50% higher framerate with i5-2500K than FX-8150.

    Cinebench is widely considered to be the most accurate multithread benchmark, and in it i5-2500K and FX-8150 are nearly even. Not even in video encoding the FX series are better.

    Athlon II x4 645 is actually pretty good for CPU upgrade on compatible motherboard, but not so much when building new.
    Anandtech's comparison of the 8150 and the i3 2100 may show frame rates, but once you get beyond 60 FPS, that kind of thing means absolutely jack squat. Frame rates also take into account graphics performance as much as CPU performance, if your graphics card can't handle the game, then something needs an upgrade. I got 60 FPS in 25 man raids with a 1055T and a 6870 GPU on max settings and that performance was just fine for me.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    Anandtech's comparison of the 8150 and the i3 2100 may show frame rates, but once you get beyond 60 FPS, that kind of thing means absolutely jack squat. Frame rates also take into account graphics performance as much as CPU performance, if your graphics card can't handle the game, then something needs an upgrade. I got 60 FPS in 25 man raids with a 1055T and a 6870 GPU on max settings and that performance was just fine for me.
    Except that when you push settings higher and use modern 1920x1080 monitor the relative difference between the processors past 60fps means quite a lot. Of course the game wont run at 100fps in 25-man raids at "high" graphics @ 1920x1080, but still an i5-2500K (35-40fps even on Ultraxion) does around 50% higher framerate under those conditions than anything from AMD (20-25fps on Ultraxion) which is pretty damn significant difference in playability.

    Which gets me to second point... You really do not have 60fps on max settings with 1055T unless you're using some crappy 1280x1024 monitor from last century. Or your max settings are max settings except for shadows and particle density and multisampling and and and...


    Quote Originally Posted by Romandix View Post
    Think the OP has stated it was for BF3 only in which case i am in agreement with Cyanotical.
    Yes, the OP did mention BF3 and Skyrim only. But since this is a WoW fansite, not mentioning the performance differences in Blizzard games is irresponsible and stupid.
    Never going to log into this garbage forum again as long as calling obvious troll obvious troll is the easiest way to get banned.
    Trolling should be.

  15. #15
    Legendary! Evil Inside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Down Under
    Posts
    6,922
    Quote Originally Posted by vesseblah View Post
    Yes, the OP did mention BF3 and Skyrim only. But since this is a WoW fansite, not mentioning the performance differences in Blizzard games is irresponsible and stupid.
    Regardless, he's looking for a computer that can run skyrim and bf3, not wow. Since both the former are heavy graphics users its pretty pointless to compare them to wow, yes wow is at times graphics intensive but its not the same.. That said, I run a 1090T and get 60-70fps on max settings in bf3 AND skyrim and I have no problems whatsoever with my amd cpu outside wow which is irrelevant right here.
    Last edited by Evil Inside; 2012-04-24 at 07:49 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •