good pc for world of warcraft

[Resa]

Athalon II quad is apparantly, a really bad processor.

Its s budget processor with no L3 cache. Its ALSO the "best sub-$100 quad core processor on the market. Compare that with Intel's cheapest i5 quad-core processor, the i5-750, which currently retails at $199."
(http://www.anandtech.com/show/3714/a...essor-updates-)

It may not be great, but when you're on a 700euro budget to replace the entire system, its doable, especially since that computer's already at 698.90euro.

OP may not be in England, which means additional fees for shipping, taxes, and duties if he were to order from the website you posted.

I know what thats like - ordering parts in Canada is absolute hell. Order from newegg/newegg.ca, and you pay additional taxes, duties, shipping fees. Order from NCIX (out in BC), the prices are more expensive, but there are no duties, you pay less taxes, and its MUCH less in shipping fees.

[Cilraaz]

Its s budget processor with no L3 cache. Its ALSO the "best sub-$100 quad core processor on the market. Compare that with Intel's cheapest i5 quad-core processor, the i5-750, which currently retails at $199."
(http://www.anandtech.com/show/3714/a...essor-updates-)

While I love Anand and his website, that has got to be one of the dumbest quotes I've seen. Yes, compare an Athlon II to an i5 750 in price. There's a difference. Now compare an Athlon II to an i5 750 in performance. Yep, big difference (Source). The only point to the quote is that Intel doesn't produce a sub-$100 quad core CPU. That can be said on its own without trying to draw a non-existent comparison to AMD. A true comparison would be the i5 750 ($200) vs a Phenom II x4 955/965 ($160/$180) (Source 1/Source 2).

In the first source link, the i5 750 outperformed the Athlon II in almost every gaming related test. It was 50% better at WoW framerate. In the second and third source links, the i5 750 was comparable or better than the Phenom II's in every gaming test, including 24% better WoW framerate than the Phenom II x4 965 BE.

The Athlon II x4 635 isn't a bad budget processor, but I wouldn't really suggest someone upgrade to it at this point. I'd much prefer suggesting that someone save money and get either a Phenom II x4 or an i5/i7.

[edit: Also, the quote completely ignores the i3 530, which currently retails for $125.]

[Warchief94]

While I love Anand and his website, that has got to be one of the dumbest quotes I've seen. Yes, compare an Athlon II to an i5 750 in price. There's a difference. Now compare an Athlon II to an i5 750 in performance. Yep, big difference (Source). The only point to the quote is that Intel doesn't produce a sub-$100 quad core CPU. That can be said on its own without trying to draw a non-existent comparison to AMD. A true comparison would be the i5 750 ($200) vs a Phenom II x4 955/965 ($160/$180) (Source 1/Source 2).

In the first source link, the i5 750 outperformed the Athlon II in almost every gaming related test. It was 50% better at WoW framerate. In the second and third source links, the i5 750 was comparable or better than the Phenom II's in every gaming test, including 24% better WoW framerate than the Phenom II x4 965 BE.

The Athlon II x4 635 isn't a bad budget processor, but I wouldn't really suggest someone upgrade to it at this point. I'd much prefer suggesting that someone save money and get either a Phenom II x4 or an i5/i7.

[edit: Also, the quote completely ignores the i3 530, which currently retails for $125.]

Pretty much what ive heard, also, ive heard the i7 is not performing to its highest function atm, in comparison to the differences between the i3 and the i5, can you shed any light on that, as im thinking about buying an I5 for christmas.

[Cilraaz]

Pretty much what ive heard, also, ive heard the i7 is not performing to its highest function atm, in comparison to the differences between the i3 and the i5, can you shed any light on that, as im thinking about buying an I5 for christmas.

The i7 doesn't perform too much better than the i5 in most applications, as its hyperthreading isn't really used in a lot of games/apps (not many games/apps run more than 4 threads large enough to eat a core). Also, triple channel memory doesn't provide much more than a benchmarking bonus at this point. Triple channel is hardly noticeable in real world scenarios. Both core/thread usage and benefits from triple channel memory will likely change in the future.

[Rivehn]

Grab the Phenom II x4 955 its like 150 bucks on newegg probably the best choice you will ever make.

[Jiran]

i3 530 can be had for under $100 now.

[Cilraaz]

i3 530 can be had for under $100 now.

Probably, if you shop around. I just grabbed the current price from NewEgg.

[Warchief94]

speaking of the i3/5/7, do they come as both dual and quad cores? Was just looking on my local stores website, and either they are wrong, or there are dual cores :P

[Jiran]

Probably, if you shop around. I just grabbed the current price from NewEgg.

Yep, if you shop around. Frys was doing $104. i3 530 + a junky Gigabyte H55 motherboard combo for the 4th of july specials.

---------- Post added 2010-07-06 at 09:35 PM ----------

speaking of the i3/5/7, do they come as both dual and quad cores? Was just looking on my local stores website, and either they are wrong, or there are dual cores :P

i3's are all dual cores.
Low end i5's are dual cores.
mid-higher end i5's are quad cores.
i7's are quad and hex core.

Whats funny is, the bottom barrel i3's are competing with the Phenom II X4's

[Warchief94]

Yep, if you shop around. Frys was doing $104. i3 530 + a junky Gigabyte H55 motherboard combo for the 4th of july specials.

---------- Post added 2010-07-06 at 09:35 PM ----------



i3's are all dual cores.
Low end i5's are dual cores.
mid-higher end i5's are quad cores.
i7's are quad and hex core.

Whats funny is, the bottom barrel i3's are competing with the Phenom II X4's

Well im thinking of getting an i5 QUAD at some point in the near future, what kind of milage do you think id get out of one of these?

[Jiran]

Well im thinking of getting an i5 QUAD at some point in the near future, what kind of milage do you think id get out of one of these?

The 1156 socket is already at end of life, Intel only released it to grab the regular consumer market as a stop gap. Sandy Bridge (1155) is coming next year. But thats not to say you still won't get 3 years out of an i5 750. Thing is, more and more games/apps are coming out optimized for quad core. Next year theres a big lineup queued for hex core.

Just realize, that in 3-4 years you'll just need new hardware again, which isnt a bad thing though since thats about average life for a cpu generation.

---------- Post added 2010-07-06 at 10:16 PM ----------

The i7 doesn't perform too much better than the i5 in most applications, as its hyperthreading isn't really used in a lot of games/apps (not many games/apps run more than 4 threads large enough to eat a core). Also, triple channel memory doesn't provide much more than a benchmarking bonus at this point. Triple channel is hardly noticeable in real world scenarios. Both core/thread usage and benefits from triple channel memory will likely change in the future.

Not 100% true. A lot of the more intensive games do in fact take advantage of HT. WoW does not, but you knew this. The i7 shines in APB, Metro, AVP, BFBC2 vs the i5.

[vesseblah]

Whats funny is, the bottom barrel i3's are competing with the Phenom II X4's

AMD is not currently competing on performance CPU market, only for budget builders. When you start putting things in order by price/performance ratio of mobo+cpu instead of just performance order, there's whole lot more competition than i3's. Especially motherboards for Intel CPU's are ridiculously expensive. Most of the people on this planet are interested in "what do I get for my money?".

[Jiran]

AMD is not currently competing on performance CPU market, only for budget builders. When you start putting things in order by price/performance ratio of mobo+cpu instead of just performance order, there's whole lot more competition than i3's. Especially motherboards for Intel CPU's are ridiculously expensive. Most of the people on this planet are interested in "what do I get for my money?".

I'm going to agree with you, and disagree with you.

AMD is trying to capture as much business as they can, and they do that successfully with price point.

I disagree with you in the sense that, they are trying to go after aspects of the performance market with their black edition processors, which fail, even in price comparison for performance.

[Cilraaz]

Not 100% true. A lot of the more intensive games do in fact take advantage of HT. WoW does not, but you knew this. The i7 shines in APB, Metro, AVP, BFBC2 vs the i5.

I keep hearing about APB being a system hog. I didn't see that, though. Perhaps it's just a system drag after the tutorial? I was running at full framerate with full graphics through the tutorial (didn't want to burn through the 5 free hours they gave me, and the tutorial didn't seem to bite into that time). BFBC2 wasn't too bad on my system either.

In any case, there are far more games on the market that won't fully utilize an i7 9xx than there are games that will fully utilize one. I wasn't trying to claim that no game would.

[vesseblah]

I disagree with you in the sense that, they are trying to go after aspects of the performance market with their black edition processors, which fail, even in price comparison for performance.

No, Black Edition processors are nowhere near performance series, those are aimed for enthusiasts who like tinkering and overclocking. BE's are sold with 'license to OC'. Intel's i7 980X is an example of performance processor where you pay double price for small real-world gain compared to bit slower models.

AMD is not currently selling anything on performance range really after Intel finally got their shit together with the memory bus mess of early Cores and have again technological edge... They have nothing that comes close in raw performance. For now.

[Jiran]

I keep hearing about APB being a system hog. I didn't see that, though. Perhaps it's just a system drag after the tutorial? I was running at full framerate with full graphics through the tutorial (didn't want to burn through the 5 free hours they gave me, and the tutorial didn't seem to bite into that time). BFBC2 wasn't too bad on my system either.

In any case, there are far more games on the market that won't fully utilize an i7 9xx than there are games that will fully utilize one. I wasn't trying to claim that no game would.

and I agree with you. Today we don't see a whole lot, tomorrow we will, as thats where development is going. A lot of gaming studios are forgoing the direct console DX9 ports, and developing 4-6 core apps, with ht and dx11.

---------- Post added 2010-07-06 at 11:13 PM ----------

No, Black Edition processors are nowhere near performance series, those are aimed for enthusiasts who like tinkering and overclocking. BE's are sold with 'license to OC'. Intel's i7 980X is an example of performance processor where you pay double price for small real-world gain compared to bit slower models.

AMD is not currently selling anything on performance range really after Intel finally got their shit together with the memory bus mess of early Cores and have again technological edge... They have nothing that comes close in raw performance. For now.

You're not 100% accurate.. Intel's extreme lineup is the same exact thing as the AMD BE's. Unlocked multipliers. You keep the bclk the same, just up the multi to OC them, instead of just upping the bclk on the regular chips.

Difference is, AMD's performance lineup, doesn't even compare with intel's standard line.

[Enola]

I keep hearing about APB being a system hog. I didn't see that, though. Perhaps it's just a system drag after the tutorial? I was running at full framerate with full graphics through the tutorial (didn't want to burn through the 5 free hours they gave me, and the tutorial didn't seem to bite into that time). BFBC2 wasn't too bad on my system either.

In any case, there are far more games on the market that won't fully utilize an i7 9xx than there are games that will fully utilize one. I wasn't trying to claim that no game would.

I haven't tried the game after beta, and wont, got tired enough of it during beta.
Its worse outside of the tutorial district a bit, specially on Waterfront district, what I found it to be is a huge memory hog, to make it easy to see, high quality textures are blocked if you don't have a 64bit OS, the main problem I was having trough the beta was stuttering specially when driving, i7 owners had exactly the same problem though.
Aside from that was with everything completely maxed holding 40fps+ puling AA down a bit would allow 50+ 60, Vsync on.

So imo unless you have a 120hz monitor, going from a PII965 with a good graphics card to a i7-9!!, wont make much of a difference, not to those with a budget in mind, were the i5 makes much more sense.

Processors bottlenecking the performance are being noticed mainly in high end crossfire/sli configurations, if you go for a high end graphic card setup you certainly should know what you are buying and will not go budget on the CPU, if you aren't it isn't a major problem.

---------- Post added 2010-07-07 at 12:38 AM ----------

and I agree with you. Today we don't see a whole lot, tomorrow we will, as thats where development is going. A lot of gaming studios are forgoing the direct console DX9 ports, and developing 4-6 core apps, with ht and dx11.

---------- Post added 2010-07-06 at 11:13 PM ----------



You're not 100% accurate.. Intel's extreme lineup is the same exact thing as the AMD BE's. Unlocked multipliers. You keep the bclk the same, just up the multi to OC them, instead of just upping the bclk on the regular chips.

Difference is, AMD's performance lineup, doesn't even compare with intel's standard line.

Hum, personally I don't look to this on that way, names performance, racing, eco, etc mean crap nothing, what matters is maximizing obtainable performance within each one respective budget, any kind of bran loyalism is purely stupid.

[Jiran]

I am brand loyal. To whoever makes the best product. This time around it is not amd/ati.

[Warchief94]

I am brand loyal. To whoever makes the best product. This time around it is not amd/ati.

AMD indeed, Intel has just completey WTFPWNED them with the new I technology, ATI however, are still in my opinion, doing better than Nvidea.

[vesseblah]

You're not 100% accurate.. Intel's extreme lineup is the same exact thing as the AMD BE's. Unlocked multipliers. You keep the bclk the same, just up the multi to OC them, instead of just upping the bclk on the regular chips.

Nope, you're wrong there. In i7 Extreme Editions the difference in addition to unlocked multipliers is significantly faster internal bus speed as well as 32nm process + extra cores in the 980X. Very different from the standard i7 and it comes at nearly double price of similar non-EE speed model. AMD BE's have only unlocked multiplier and price is directly proportional to the stock speeds.

Intel is coming with 'just' unlocked CPU's soon which will be direct competition to BE's, but today it's not even in the same ballpark. EE has always been 'performance for those with more money than sense' while BE is 'license to OC'.