Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
New PC
I built a new comp for myself in january and I used a lot of the post from here and got some great advice. My new computer runs great but my son is now very jealous and doesnt want to play my old one( which Im really not surprised.)
Anyway me and sergeant major wifey decided to spend some money and build him a new comp as well. This time my budget is a lot smaller was hoping to get something that could run most new games for around 700$ thats not counting anything elses but the system. Any suggestions on what to get ? Figured I would go amd instead of intel this time but im more then open to advice.
THanks in advance for any help
Comments
I will throw together an idea or two. Someone else maybe able to do better. But I am bored lol.
I assume you have Monitor, Mouse, KB ect? maybe an OS liscence already?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827136236
www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148541
www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139028
www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116986
www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161384
www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130591
www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136769
www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811154109
www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827136236
$631.91 after $30 in mail in rebates.
I think I hit everything. Windows 7 OS included. May not be too much of a beast but It should be a decent gaming rig with room to grow. Hopefully quizzical will stop in and give you some ideas. His advice is always a welcome addition
Thats a cheap but functional case and no aftermarket cpu cooling. If you have $700 to spend maybe drop a few $ on cpu cooling and maybe a better case. Tho that case should do the trick i would imagine unless you plan on multi GPU, OC, ect where you may need better airflow.
Anyways just an idea for a build. i am no expert but I have built my own for goin on 8+ years now. And havent fried one yet
( knocks on wood ) 
Good luck
Some decent picks there, but there are some problems. First, you're missing a processor. You linked the optical drive twice, so I'm guessing that one of those was meant to be the processor.
Next, the case doesn't have any fans. Spending $30 on a case might seem like a bargain, but once you add $20 in fans, you end up spending $50 on a really low end case. $50 should get you something nicer than that.
Anyway, I'll come up with something shortly.
Doh didnt notice i forgot to link the processor.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103940
Thats the one I had picked out. Missed the case not having any fans either =/. Guess thats the reason for it being cheap. just something I threw together in a couple of minutes for him.
Case:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811147060
CPU Fan:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103075
With the items I linked above ( new case, linked the processor and a cpu fan)
Total $688 with $30 mail in rebates= $658 after rebates.
Here you go:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.817142
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131767
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811147144
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.827833
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116986
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827151244
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161389
That comes to $696, including shipping and before rebates. Do realize that the power supply has both a promo code and a mail-in rebate.
That processor doesn't come with a heatsink, and by the time you add one, it's not a good deal anymore.
Yeah I saw that, but it was the cheapest am3 I saw on newegg
Nice find on the Zambezi + Ram combo deal.
I am gonna be building a new comp here soon. Wife finishes up school in a few months. Gonna hit you up Quizzical for some ideas then=)
If i was you I would reuse every part of the old machine i could ...which i do when I build my machines
Reuse:
Hard drive
OS
CD, DVD,
Monitor, mouse, keyboard,
Case, power supply, fans
Really when building a new system all you really need to replace is the Motherboard, CPU, Ram, and probably the vid card.
Doing it this way will save a some money and you might be able to get a better vid card with the savings.
Or you could take the sergeant major wifey out for a nice dinner ...bet she would love that. Comp under budget and a fine meal to boot which she didn't have to cook.
AMD Phenum II x4 3.6Ghz 975 black edition
8 gig Ram
Nvidia GeForce GTX 760
That motherboard is out of stock.
I would get the
ASRock 970 EXTREME4
10 dollars more and is probably a better board.
If you must stay under 700 at all costs this is a good one.
GIGABYTE GA-970A-D3 AM3+ AMD 970 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard
If you can squeeze another 30 dollars into the build I would get
XIGMATEK LOKI SD963 92mm HYPRO Bearing CPU Cooler
It would allow you to really push the FX clocks. Especially if you add another fan to it. And if you plan on upgrading the CPU in the future it will come in handy.
You are seriously deluded if you think I3 is better than FX-4100.
FX 4100 beats I3 in just about every real world situation there is.
I3 overclocks like crap, you's be lucky to hit 3.5ghz, FX can hit 4.5 fairly easy and has more cores.
Go actually look at the benchmarks. Even on stock clocks I3 gets beat pretty badly.
And why would you reccomend socket 1155? it's being phased out and is stuck at 4 cores. Take a look at SMT improvments for Win8 already 10% boost on WoW which is a pretty worst case scenario for SMT and gaming.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-23.html
FX 4100 beats I3 in just about every real world situation there is.
I3 overclocks like crap, you's be lucky to hit 3.5ghz, FX can hit 4.5 fairly easy and has more cores.
Go actually look at the benchmarks. Even on stock clocks I3 gets beat pretty badly.
And why would you reccomend socket 1155? it's being phased out and is stuck at 4 cores. Take a look at SMT improvments for Win8 already 10% boost on WoW which is a pretty worst case scenario for SMT and gaming.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-23.html
While I don't think the SMT improvements are pertinent, mainly because developers still haven't figured out how to effectively use 4 cores, I do agree that the FX is better than the i3. Intel keeps a premium price, even on their lower bin parts, and when you compare their performance - it doesn't keep up.
The Windows 8 Tom's Hardware benchmarks don't really show much: Yes, the scheduling on a Bulldozer can be improved. Yes, you can see some real world benefit. Yes, the Core i5 is still considerably faster, even with the Bulldozer improvements, and still represents a great performance per dollar ratio.
The top tier i5 represents the best that Intel has to offer: Better performance, and more importantly, as good performance per dollar as the AMD alternative. The i7's don't really offer this (as they present little to no real-world performance increase). Anything lower from Intel doesn't really offer this, as AMD is competitive with them in performance, and often for less money.
The i3 just isn't really competitive. You pay $120 for a i3 2100, which is a dual core CPU (with hyperthreading), which is just competitive with the $110 FX-4100, a full quad core with a lot of overclock potential.
You said quite a few things in those two lines, but all of them are wrong.
1) APUs aren't for gaming desktops. You want a discrete video card.
2) While a Sandy Bridge Core i3 will tend to beat an FX-4100 in single-threaded performance with both at stock speeds, it falls behind if you overclock (since the Core i3 can't be overclocked) or can use several cores. The processor itself is more expensive, and requires a more expensive motherboard unless you want a gimpy H61 or H67 motherboard that will cripple the higher end processors if you ever wanted to upgrade.
3) The industry moved to DirectX 10 way back in 2006, so DirectX 9.0c video cards are very old by now, and all but the low end is off the market. Even if you prioritize DirectX 9.0c performance, the video cards that are the best at it on a price/performance basis are DirectX 11 (or 11.1).
4) It will cost more for a prebuild computer than to build your own that is comparable. But you're correct that the premade is cheaper if you meant "cheap" in terms of quality, not price.
5) PCI Express 3.0 is irrelevant for gaming. The only motherboards that support it properly are Sandy Bridge-E, and way out of the price range of the original poster. (If you wanted a $2000 gaming computer, then maybe you think about Sandy Bridge-E. And then still decide against it.)
LGA 1155 has about as much life left in it as Socket AM3+, which is the main alternative. LGA 1155 gets Ivy Bridge, AM3+ gets Vishera, and then after that, both are probably done. LGA 2011 probably won't last much longer than the alternatives, either. Moving to DDR4 will require new sockets for everything, anyway. And Socket FM1 doesn't have an upgrade path at all, as Trinity uses a different socket.
If anything Blizzard will cater to AMD since they already work together. Bulldozer already supports FMA4, and Piledriver will support FMA3.
IMO AM3 has quite a bit more longevity than 1155 with Piledriver 8 cores and Win8 SMT around the corner.
AMD's graphics division works with a lot of game companies (Nvidia does this, too), but their processor division really doesn't, other than to say, make your game engine scale to as many cores as you can. FMA4 support would be done at a compiler level, not specifically coded into the game by game designers.
Video cards have supported FMA for a long time, so it's not obvious that games will get much benefit from having it on a processor. Graphical computations do use FMA very extensively, but that's done on the video card, not the processor.
Your problem is you're using AMD products... Intel and Nvidia you can still get very decent stuff that can do FAR more then AMD ever wished for the same price. Try finding budget i3's and a GTX 560 fermi or something along those lines even if you need to go back to the GTX 400 series.
A very important side note. When it comes to PC components, you get what you pay for! If you want cheap, then expect to replace that machine within a year if you have hope of properly playing any newer things that come out. Always buy hardware that can be further upgraded, never buy hardware that you max out the first time you use it. Doing so will only cripple yourself and your wallet in the future. Leaving room for improvement will allow you to save loads of money and make upgrades much easier and quicker.
You're wildly wrong on both counts, but for very different reasons. Let's take this one step at a time.
First, Intel versus AMD on the processor. A Core i5 2500K is a significantly better gaming processor than anything AMD has to offer. It's also about $230, and doesn't fit a $700 budget unless you're going to cut back severely elsewhere. But you said Core i3, so let's have a look.
First, the AMD competitor:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103996
4 cores, 3.6 GHz base, up to 3.8 GHz with turbo, fully unlocked for easy overclocking, the top bin has turbo up to 4.2 GHz so 3.6 GHz leaves a lot of overclocking headroom, and it's $110.
Intel has used the Core i3 brand name both for Clarkdale and Sandy Bridge. Sandy Bridge is much better, so let's ignore Clarkdale and see what we've got.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007671%20600005584%20600095611&IsNodeId=1&name=Sandy%20Bridge
Core i3 Sandy Bridge starts at $125 and goes up from there. So we're more expensive than the AMD alternative to begin with, and still on a tight budget. Let's take the cheapest one, to try to keep the budget comparison from getting out of hand.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115078
Two cores, 3.1 GHz, and cannot be overclocked because of the locked multiplier. So basically, it loses to the FX-4100 on all counts in the specs, and still costs more. Not looking good for Intel.
But wait, Sandy Bridge has better IPC, right? So yes, the Core i3-2100 will win if it's a single-threaded comparison at stock speeds. Push four cores or overclock and the FX-4100 will win. So in situations where performance matters, the FX-4100 will probably win. And it's also cheaper.
But wait. That's not the whole story. You don't buy a processor by itself. You need a motherboard to plug it into. AMD and Intel both offer a variety of chipsets, so let's take the cheapest one that doesn't have any features binned off and has the 16 PCI Express lanes suitable for a modern video card. That would be the AMD 970 and Intel Z68 chipsets, respectively. And let's check what motherboards cost.
There are a lot of different motherboards offered, so let's check the cheapest ATX motherboard from each of the major brands.
AsRock:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157280
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157279
AMD is cheaper by $12.
MSI:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130608
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130621
AMD is cheaper by $21 if you ignore rebates, and $36 if you don't.
Gigabyte:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128521
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128538
AMD is cheaper by $20.
Asus:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131757
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131781
Asus' bottom of the line is out of stock on the AMD side, but the next one up is still cheaper by $10 and for a significantly better motherboard. 8 power phases for the AMD board should allow for a huge overclock, too.
But wait. What if you want two PCI Express slots both wired for x16 bandwidth simultaneously, in case you want to go CrossFire or SLI in the future?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157281
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157269
Yeah, I'm going to make you click this time. Just stating the difference doesn't do it justice.
So why are the AMD motherboards so much cheaper? Think it's an industry-wide conspiracy to gouge Intel users? Or do you think Intel charges more for their chipsets and motherboard manufacturers merely pass the costs on to consumers? Well, that and Intel doesn't offer a high end chipset for LGA 1155, so motherboard manufacturers have to use an expensive MUX chip if they want x16/x16 bandwidth.
Now, you could save money on the Intel side by going with a piece of junk H61 motherboard. That limits your upgrade path, however, as if you get a faster processor in the future, the chipset won't let it perform nearly as well as it should. If you want to go that route, you can get a piece of junk motherboard with Socket AM3+, too.
So the AMD processor isn't just better. Once you buy a motherboard, it's also cheaper by upwards of $30.
-----
So let's talk about video cards. Both sides are competitive in the $200-$300 price segment, so let's ignore that. Besides, that's out of the budget of the original poster.
So let's start from the top:
AMD card:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20600286767%20600286740&IsNodeId=1&name=Radeon%20HD%207970
Nvidia equivalent:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&N=-1&isNodeId=1&Description=GeForce+GTX+690&x=26&y=14
Now, you can complain that the AMD card is out of stock, but they'll be back. The Nvidia card was cancelled, and the replacement GPU is maybe 7 months away if all goes well. Which it probably won't.
Next step down:
AMD card:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20600286767%20600286739&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=20
Nvidia equivalent:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&N=-1&isNodeId=1&Description=GeForce+GTX+680&x=11&y=10
Oops. The Nvidia card isn't out yet. At best, it could launch in about a month and a half. Or it could be much later than that. And this time, the AMD card is in stock. So let's go back a generation to give the nearest Nvidia equivalent.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20600094002%20600085533%20600286741&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=20
The AMD card is faster, uses less power, has a better feature set, and is a lot cheaper. Well then, let's be nice to Nvidia and pretend that the difference between 1.5 GB and 3 GB doesn't matter:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20600094002%20600085533&IsNodeId=1&name=GeForce%20GTX%20580%20%28Fermi%29
Nope, the AMD card is still cheaper. And now it has double the video memory, too.
Let's go down another step.
AMD card:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20600083901%20600095874&IsNodeId=1&name=Radeon%20HD%206970
Nvidia equivalent:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20600094002%20600095515&IsNodeId=1&name=GeForce%20GTX%20570%20%28Fermi%29
This time, they're about the same price. But the AMD card is significantly faster, uses less power, and has a better feature set.
The next step down puts us into the $200-$300 price range, so let's skip that for reasons explained earlier.
The top cards below that:
AMD card:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20600083901%20600083829&IsNodeId=1&name=Radeon%20HD%206870
Nvidia equivalent:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20600094002%20600158457&IsNodeId=1&name=GeForce%20GTX%20560%20%28Fermi%29
AMD is perhaps a hair faster here, but it's very close. AMD will also use less power. And look, AMD is significantly cheaper, too.
Okay, another step down:
AMD card:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20600083901%20600083830&IsNodeId=1&name=Radeon%20HD%206850
Nvidia equivalent:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20600007323%20600007801&IsNodeId=1&name=256-bit
AMD is still a hair faster, but a lot cheaper. And AMD still has lower power consumption.
Next we get to some crippled chip cards:
AMD card:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20600083901%20600142352&IsNodeId=1&name=Radeon%20HD%206790
Nvidia equivalent:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20600007323%20600007806&IsNodeId=1&name=192-bit
Nvidia never sent that card in for any reviews that I saw. My guess is that the Nvidia card is a bit faster this time, but we really don't know. We do know, however, that the AMD cards are significantly cheaper. And the AMD cards have more usable video memory, as Nvidia oddly mismatches the memory channels, which will cripple memory bandwidth. Maybe that's why they never sent the card in for a review anywhere.
Another step down:
AMD card:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20600083901%20600150232&IsNodeId=1&name=Radeon%20HD%206770#
Nvidia equivalent:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20600094002%20600122953&IsNodeId=1&name=GeForce%20GTX%20550%20Ti%20%28Fermi%29
You can ignore the cheap cards from Sapphire, Gigabyte, and Asus on the AMD side, as they're all underclocked. But the PowerColor and XFX cards are not. This time, Nvidia is a hair faster, but quite a bit more expensive, and will use a lot more power. And AMD is still quite a bit cheaper.
Next step down:
AMD card:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20600083901%20600150231%20600007797&IsNodeId=1&name=GDDR5
Nvidia equivalent:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20600082239&IsNodeId=1&name=GeForce%20GTS%20400%20series
This time, Nvidia is a hair faster, and they're about the same price. What's that, an Nvidia win? Well no. The problem is that the Radeon HD 6750 is considerably slower than the 6770, but not at all cheaper. The solution is, don't buy a 6750. Compare the GeForce GTS 450 to the 6770 and it loses badly on performance without saving power or being cheaper.
Another step down:
AMD card:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709+600083901+600144219+600007797&QksAutoSuggestion=&ShowDeactivatedMark=False&Configurator=&IsNodeId=1&Subcategory=48&description=&hisInDesc=&Ntk=&CFG=&SpeTabStoreType=&AdvancedSearch=1&srchInDesc=
Nvidia equivalent:
Oh, right, there isn't one. The AMD card isn't a good value for the money, but it wins by default here.
One more step down:
AMD card:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709+600083901+600144219+600007793&QksAutoSuggestion=&ShowDeactivatedMark=False&Configurator=&IsNodeId=1&Subcategory=48&description=&hisInDesc=&Ntk=&CFG=&SpeTabStoreType=&AdvancedSearch=1&srchInDesc=
Nvidia equivalent:
Again, there isn't one. I dare say if you can't afford $57 after rebate, then you can't afford a gaming system. The GF108, GF118, and GF119 based cards are all significantly slower than a Radeon HD 6670, even if it's a DDR3 version.
That's absolutely brutal for Nvidia. It would look a little rosier if you included the $200-$300 price range, as Nvidia is at least competitive there.
And it's about to get worse for Nvidia, as AMD's Pitcairn and Cape Verde chips are launching soon. Nvidia may or may not catch up when Kepler arrives. But we could be waiting a while. In the meantime, AMD is winning in a landslide.