Originally posted by Zebbakei I have a 8320fx and I can play any game out there with maxed settings so I'm not sure why you would think it's not a gaming cpu.
Because intel gets better bang for the buck when it comes to gaming and there is still room for later upgrade of your CPU. With AMD, you are top of the line already.
Originally posted by Cramit845 Although right now, I feel like the AMD makes more sense on the price point
It doesn't, it is your bias only. You were leaning towards AMD before you posted here
AMD is simply not a gaming CPU.
In all actuality I've been leaning more Intel than AMD because historically I'm an "intel guy" more than an AMD guy. It's been the thought of possibly upgrading again in 2-3 years that makes me think going with a cheaper setup might be more beneficial after reading everyone's posts.
The intel seems like I would have to go into a higher price range or have to settle for lower end components in other areas to keep the price down. In that case it makes me feel like I don't have the money to make an intel system that would be worthwhile for what I'm doing.
No decision on my part yet, so if you feel Intel is the right way to go, can you offer a system closer to the $800 price point that includes an intel cpu that overall would be better than an AMD build? I'm feeling like I just don't have enough funds to make an intel system worth it, right or wrong in your opinion?
I have a 8320fx and I can play any game out there with maxed settings so I'm not sure why you would think it's not a gaming cpu.
Because intel gets better bang for the buck when it comes to gaming and there is still room for later upgrade of your CPU. With AMD, you are top of the line already.
Those cores are useless for gaming.
Following what you're saying, AMD 8 cores have untapped performance, which I agree too, but games are increasingly utilizing multiple cores as even consoles are 8 core now. An 8 core AMD should be solid for 5-7 years, especially if/when all games can utilize all 8 cores.
Originally posted by Cramit845 Although right now, I feel like the AMD makes more sense on the price point
It doesn't, it is your bias only. You were leaning towards AMD before you posted here
AMD is simply not a gaming CPU.
In all actuality I've been leaning more Intel than AMD because historically I'm an "intel guy" more than an AMD guy. It's been the thought of possibly upgrading again in 2-3 years that makes me think going with a cheaper setup might be more beneficial after reading everyone's posts.
The intel seems like I would have to go into a higher price range or have to settle for lower end components in other areas to keep the price down. In that case it makes me feel like I don't have the money to make an intel system that would be worthwhile for what I'm doing.
No decision on my part yet, so if you feel Intel is the right way to go, can you offer a system closer to the $800 price point that includes an intel cpu that overall would be better than an AMD build? I'm feeling like I just don't have enough funds to make an intel system worth it, right or wrong in your opinion?
He did a few posts up. An intel build that is so bad only he thinks its actually a good idea. While the rest of the posters disagree and therefore must be wrong.
Originally posted by Zebbakei Following what you're saying, AMD 8 cores have untapped performance, which I agree too, but games are increasingly utilizing multiple cores as even consoles are 8 core now. An 8 core AMD should be solid for 5-7 years, especially if/when all games can utilize all 8 cores.
We can hear that since release of PS3(using 8 core platfrom) in 2006
CPU load distribution does not scale the way you think.
More cores are great for multitasking but do not help much with load of single app where utilization of CPU load is limited.
Originally posted by Cramit845 Although right now, I feel like the AMD makes more sense on the price point
It doesn't, it is your bias only. You were leaning towards AMD before you posted here
AMD is simply not a gaming CPU.
In all actuality I've been leaning more Intel than AMD because historically I'm an "intel guy" more than an AMD guy. It's been the thought of possibly upgrading again in 2-3 years that makes me think going with a cheaper setup might be more beneficial after reading everyone's posts.
The intel seems like I would have to go into a higher price range or have to settle for lower end components in other areas to keep the price down. In that case it makes me feel like I don't have the money to make an intel system that would be worthwhile for what I'm doing.
No decision on my part yet, so if you feel Intel is the right way to go, can you offer a system closer to the $800 price point that includes an intel cpu that overall would be better than an AMD build? I'm feeling like I just don't have enough funds to make an intel system worth it, right or wrong in your opinion?
He did a few posts up. An intel build that is so bad only he thinks its actually a good idea. While the rest of the posters disagree and therefore must be wrong.
Ok, my bad, didn't realize it was his. So after looking at that post I do have some concerns. Like one poster said, a single RAM module doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I would go more towards a dual channel setup myself. Not to mention, if I did go with a motherboard with the newer chipset, it would be most likely a mute point because it wouldn't have the DDR4 on there, so I would end up replacing it in a couple years anyway for that functionality.
Although I haven't done to much research on DDR4 yet (HW for this weekend) so whether or not I will definitely be upgrading in that time frame is till not a definite, but not ruling it out just yet till I get that understanding. My other question would be CPU choice, is there a reason for this specific CPU or is it purely at the right price point? Otherwise the price is attractive to be sure.
If I could build my system again, I would downgrade from the 8320 to a 6300 or a 6350fx. The 8320(mine at least) generates a crap ton of heat and I can't get an OC over 4ghz that won't peg out at 70c and crash. It may just be the cooler I chose tho, a shadow rock 2.
Originally posted by Cramit845 In all actuality I've been leaning more Intel than AMD because historically I'm an "intel guy" more than an AMD guy.
Well, if I read your OP, you talk about AMD/ATI all the time, in later posts you were concerned more about AMD rather than whether you are getting right thing for you money and when you say:
Originally posted by Cramit845 I've been hoping someone would give a suggestion on a AMD build.
However, it was just my impression/observation.
One thing I would recommend to you is to check price of FX-8350. 130 USD posted by N1kthequick seems to be way low compared to what I found on pricepicker or elsewhere.
As I said above, intel provides far better gaming performance unless you OC your FX and keep attention to your heat management(you will likely want/need cooler) and power consumption. And in that case, you can just go with i5. i5-4460 goes for 190 USD.
So no, it does not make much sense price wise.
As I pointed out, if you are concerned about later upgrade, intel is the only way to go since you will have entire new line of CPUs(Q2 2015) to put into your board. With AMD you are at top of the line already.
I did posted a solid build you can tweak around, it a base line setup with enough room for adjustments while keeping your price point.
as you can see games which makes use of multiple core the amd 8350 can beat i5 .basically amd has weaker cores but more cores .
tbh this debate amd vs intel is a waste because BOTH easily handle any game out there.
the few it does poorly on like planetside 2 has long been proven to be due to poor optimization on soe part for amd and since then has been fixed mostly.
pick either cpu and that will do you fine for some years.focus instead on a nice gpu .
strangely its a wonder people do not talk about good psu instead.loads of rubbish ones out there frying computers.people are so focused on amd vs intel when both are quality chipset and then dump a cheap psu in there .
if you can spare the cash or get a good deal get a seasonic .even an older model one which they are trying to clear stock will be a excellent choice.
Originally posted by Zebbakei If I could build my system again, I would downgrade from the 8320 to a 6300 or a 6350fx. The 8320(mine at least) generates a crap ton of heat and I can't get an OC over 4ghz that won't peg out at 70c and crash. It may just be the cooler I chose tho, a shadow rock 2.
Heat is likely one of my major issues with AMD and why I usually do not recommend any builds based on their chips since I am not expecting averyone being savvy, concerned, knowledgeable and willing enough to deal with it. One might run into unpleasant issues there.
If I take all that into account, I simply see no reason recommending AMD unless you need specifically more cores or you truly know what you are doing.
In all actuality I've been leaning more Intel than AMD because historically I'm an "intel guy" more than an AMD guy.
Well, if I read your OP, you talk about AMD/ATI all the time, in later posts you were concerned more about AMD rather than whether you are getting right thing for you money and when you say:
Originally posted by Cramit845
I've been hoping someone would give a suggestion on a AMD build.
However, it was just my impression/observation.
One thing I would recommend to you is to check price of FX-8350. 130 USD posted by N1kthequick seems to be way low compared to what I found on pricepicker or elsewhere.
As I said above, intel provides far better gaming performance unless you OC your FX and keep attention to your heat management(you will likely want/need cooler) and power consumption. And in that case, you can just go with i5. i5-4460 goes for 190 USD.
So no, it does not make much sense price wise.
As I pointed out, if you are concerned about later upgrade, intel is the only way to go since you will have entire new line of CPUs(Q2 2015) to put into your board. With AMD you are at top of the line already.
I did posted a solid build you can tweak around, it a base line setup with enough room for adjustments while keeping your price point.
Ahh I understand your point, yea I've been asking about AMD because I feel less comfortable with their equipment. So I was looking for more information on theirs, where as the Intel I have a bit more familiarity. Maybe not as much as I should, hence why I asked about your CPU choice, but I'm a bit more familiar with the Intel stuff in general. That's all.
Again is there a reason for the 4460 choice or is it based on price point primarily? I'm just wondering if there is a large difference in performance when held up to the 4690 or other i5 models. Does anyone else have a preference on the intel i5's or a cheaper i7 that still holds performance? (Making a lot of HW and research for myself this weekend LOL)
If I could build my system again, I would downgrade from the 8320 to a 6300 or a 6350fx. The 8320(mine at least) generates a crap ton of heat and I can't get an OC over 4ghz that won't peg out at 70c and crash. It may just be the cooler I chose tho, a shadow rock 2.
Heat is likely one of my major issues with AMD and why I usually do not recommend any builds based on their chips since I am not expecting averyone being savvy, concerned, knowledgeable and willing enough to deal with it. One might run into unpleasant issues there.
If I take all that into account, I simply see no reason recommending AMD unless you need specifically more cores or you truly know what you are doing.
using a stock cooler is never a good idea if OCing anyhow.if you not overclocking the heat generated by the amd is not a problem at all.
if you are ocing while the amd heats faster then intel you really should not be using a stock cooler anyhow for safety reason on neither.
cooler can be bought for £30 which are better then stock cooler .
as you can see games which makes use of multiple core the amd 8350 can beat i5 .basically amd has weaker cores but more cores .
tbh this debate amd vs intel is a waste because BOTH easily handle any game out there.
the few it does poorly on like planetside 2 has long been proven to be due to poor optimization on soe part for amd and since then has been fixed mostly.
pick either cpu and that will do you fine for some years.focus instead on a nice gpu .
strangely its a wonder people do not talk about good psu instead.loads of rubbish ones out there frying computers.people are so focused on amd vs intel when both are quality chipset and then dump a cheap psu in there .
if you can spare the cash or get a good deal get a seasonic .even an older model one which they are trying to clear stock will be a excellent choice.
This is a good point. The GPU's are probably the most important in a gaming rig next to a CPU. I haven't really looked at them but seeing a lot of folks suggesting ATI from what I've read, if I'm getting the models right. Any manufacturer/model suggestions?
Like I've said, I've been running ATI for a couple years now, which is ok. I always hear the Nvidia & ATI debate is another big one, any preferences on the posters here one or the other or even just model/manufacturer suggestions.
(Lol, apparently I love to research cause I just keep throwing more on top!)
Originally posted by Cramit845 Ahh I understand your point, yea I've been asking about AMD because I feel less comfortable with their equipment. So I was looking for more information on theirs, where as the Intel I have a bit more familiarity. Maybe not as much as I should, hence why I asked about your CPU choice, but I'm a bit more familiar with the Intel stuff in general. That's all. Again is there a reason for the 4460 choice or is it based on price point primarily? I'm just wondering if there is a large difference in performance when held up to the 4690 or other i5 models. Does anyone else have a preference on the intel i5's or a cheaper i7 that still holds performance? (Making a lot of HW and research for myself this weekend LOL)
Point taken.
4460 is the cheapest i5 you can get and you want i5 because it got 4 cores and it is already faster in games than any AMD. Thus better price per performance, and within same price point.
Truth to be said, games do not need as much CPU power so you will likely won't notice the difference anyway. Most load is done on your GPU. The exception are RTS.
You could say that there is not much point in getting any faster CPU past 4460 since the performance is already more then sufficient and any further gain minimal.
Originally posted by Cramit845 This is a good point. The GPU's are probably the most important in a gaming rig next to a CPU. I haven't really looked at them but seeing a lot of folks suggesting ATI from what I've read, if I'm getting the models right. Any manufacturer/model suggestions? Like I've said, I've been running ATI for a couple years now, which is ok. I always hear the Nvidia & ATI debate is another big one, any preferences on the posters here one or the other or even just model/manufacturer suggestions.(Lol, apparently I love to research cause I just keep throwing more on top!)
Unless you go for top of the line VGA, AMD provides much better price per performance. But you get older cards with lot of heat.
OP wants to keep in BUDGET, and get the most VALUE.
He needs an ak47 style rig that can compete with the big boys at budget price and last.
AMD is often better for overclocking and tweaking. However doing such often requires extra fans/coolers, and a stronger power source which means more money and more things possibly going wrong.
INTEL, forget your misconceptions about intel being just a family cpu. It is reliable, affordable, and fast. I also believe it has less conflicts.
The i5 4460 is a good model cpu at 3.2g's, and i5's are often core for midrange rigs (i hate saying rigs)
The radeon 280/290x and gtx750ti are amazing value for money and trouble shooting is easy for them considering they are so popular. also these cards don't require extra power or cooling than what you get on your barebones.
dual channel, with 8gb ddr3 stick, brand doesn't really matter although get it from a source with a reliable return policy. You need room to upgrade since this rig is going to last you 2 years at least
hard drive, get a 1tb hard drive with SSD cache (it allocates physical memory for your most used programs) You can open and close WOW repeatedly, like it was minesweeper.
if you can find a deal on your base pc with a newer version of windows than you already have, get it. Some may say windows 7 runs better than 8 for games but I think just fancy talk.
This is not the best setup, but I hope its something in line with what OP wants.
OP there are certain people, a lot actually that you can trust in this section. They'll suggest a build that is not complete junk. If someone posts a build and it has one fucking ram module... You should ignore them from that point on. The people who won't steer you into a bad purchase are in this thread. They've helped a lot of people including me.never seen a person come back complaining over the years. It is your money do want you want but if I'm spending this kind of money and someone claiming to help does something stupid as mentioned with what looks like other problems with their suggestion. Mods should ban him from this section imo because it can cost someone a decent amount of money. I don't add much with this post but its infuriating to see such horrible advice when someone might actually spend money on.
Originally posted by Hulluck OP there are certain people, a lot actually that you can trust in this section. They'll suggest a build that is not complete junk. If someone posts a build and it has one fucking ram module... You should ignore them from that point on. The people who won't steer you into a bad purchase are in this thread. They've helped a lot of people including me.never seen a person come back complaining over the years. It is your money do want you want but if I'm spending this kind of money and someone claiming to help does something stupid as mentioned with what looks like other problems with their suggestion. Mods should ban him from this section imo because it can cost someone a decent amount of money. I don't add much with this post but its infuriating to see such horrible advice when someone might actually spend money on.
Why not educate yourself instead of accepting some dogmas..?
You are giving absolute bad advice to someone who is looking to spend money on a purchase. You half assed your build suggestion so badly it wouldnt surprise me if you just looked at price alone. You didn't even notice that you picked out a single ram module instead of a pair. Generally people don't like to make purchase and then go back make more purchases to correct a problem. It looked like you also just suggested the most bottom tier mb that you could. Yet you defend it with poor reasoning. You drowned out reputable posters here. Why don't you piss off before you cost someone a lot of money on junk, seriously. Dude its not funny. Your advice is going to cost someone a decent amount of money. Stop.
Originally posted by Hulluck You didn't even notice that you picked out a single ram module instead of a pair.
It wasn't an oversight, nor error.
Originally posted by Gdemami It is not better, it does not matter. It has no impact on performance and since the board supports only 2 slots, it is reasonable to leave 1 available for later upgrade...
For gaming or just regular use, it has no practical bearing on performance. Read the link above.
As for intel chipset, yes I went with the "bottom line" since I want to present a best performance/value basis.
When it comes to intel chipsets, there is no difference in performance, what you pay is features - more memory slots, SATA ports, PCI-E slots, overclocking tools, SSD power savings etc. All those are just a luxury and not needed for core functionality.
You want some of them? Pay the extra but there is no need to pay for something you do not intend to use.
Originally posted by Hulluck OP there are certain people, a lot actually that you can trust in this section.
Quizzical and Ridelynn are especially trustworthy. When someone disagrees with either of them, he's very likely wrong.
...That includes the times I've disagreed with Quizzical in some of the threads.
I would agree with that but I also know there's more than just them. That said i hate to guess how much time Quizzical has spent helping people over the years get solid builds. But its not just him there is other regulars in those threads giving just as good advice options. You are in a lot of these threads. Lot of people are giving healthy debate options thoughts.
Most people who post here asking for help have limited budgets and no one likes spending extra to correct a mistake because of bad advice. This is the second topic that i have read where this guy says some absurd stuff with bad reasoning. Only this time trying to get someone to buy something. Most people that I know do not want to spend extra money to sort out errors or problems from bad advice. Whatever. This guy seems to be trolling or something I don't know and it might cost someone.
Late edit but whatever. Didn't change post just adding that its even stupidier that he purposely went with 1 stick instead of two. Intentionally did this. Whatever.. Who wants to take advantage of dual channel ram. Lets nit be absurd here. Its a pricey over rated luxury..
Because I like to educate myself when it's possible - I did go and read that article.
It was interesting.
He has a bunch of synthetic benchmarks - ok, we expect some disparity in there, and I won't really try to relate them to real world performance because they aren't really that meaningful (even though they do strongly point to the benefits of higher RAM bandwidth that dual channel offers).
But he only has 1 gaming benchmark - and for part of the benchmark, he benchmarked the loading time... from the hard drive. That would make for a great SSD vs HDD comparison, but it shows next to nothing for Single vs Dual channel RAM (unless he had the game loaded in a RAM disk beforehand, and eliminated Windows automatic disk caching as a variable).
RAM was purged between all tests. No active memory management programs were present outside of the default, clean Windows installation.
Except that a clean Windows installation has a very good memory management/disk caching algorithm (SuperFetch, which has largely replaced the old Vista ReadyBoost), which can greatly affect these tests. And how exactly did he purge the RAM? Common sense would say "reboot", but he doesn't exactly say, and SuperFetch is smart and can start pre-caching from previous sessions (across cold boots) the moment Windows is finished booting, based on previous activity.
Like I said, easily within normal system fluctuations. I also tested Skyrim's load time with several high-fidelity mods loaded, which should have theoretically hammered RAM and I/O for file retrieval, but saw effectively zero advantage between dual- and single-channel performance.
Yeah... ok. It probably did hammer I/O for file retrieval. That hammers disk I/O, which is orders of magnitude slower than any RAM, and lo and behold, since the disk remained constant between the two tests, the results stayed constant.
Bad benchmarks don't really illustrate the issue. The synthetics do a pretty good job of showing just exactly what the cost of saving money on the motherboard chipset is.
And the conflicting advice (not that I agree or disagree with the bulletpoints here, but just trying to make sure I include them all), to summarize: I don't like AMD CPUs even though they aree much less expensive because they are )older tech )hotter )harder to manage case airflow )more finicky to overclock But I like AMD GPUs because they are less expensive, even though they are )older tech )hotter )harder to manage case airflow )more finicky to overclock
I'm utterly confused. I obviously don't get it. Can you please explain this to me one more time, how the lower binned i5 in a crappy motherboard is better overall? ANd do make sure to go back into Hyperthreading vs Multithreading vs tash scheduling vs PCI timers vs whatever else got drug into this discussion - because I feel as though I have been drug around in circles, and - I am just trying to make sense of all of this and want to make sure I have it all straight...
Comments
Because intel gets better bang for the buck when it comes to gaming and there is still room for later upgrade of your CPU. With AMD, you are top of the line already.
Those cores are useless for gaming.
In all actuality I've been leaning more Intel than AMD because historically I'm an "intel guy" more than an AMD guy. It's been the thought of possibly upgrading again in 2-3 years that makes me think going with a cheaper setup might be more beneficial after reading everyone's posts.
The intel seems like I would have to go into a higher price range or have to settle for lower end components in other areas to keep the price down. In that case it makes me feel like I don't have the money to make an intel system that would be worthwhile for what I'm doing.
No decision on my part yet, so if you feel Intel is the right way to go, can you offer a system closer to the $800 price point that includes an intel cpu that overall would be better than an AMD build? I'm feeling like I just don't have enough funds to make an intel system worth it, right or wrong in your opinion?
Following what you're saying, AMD 8 cores have untapped performance, which I agree too, but games are increasingly utilizing multiple cores as even consoles are 8 core now. An 8 core AMD should be solid for 5-7 years, especially if/when all games can utilize all 8 cores.
He did a few posts up. An intel build that is so bad only he thinks its actually a good idea. While the rest of the posters disagree and therefore must be wrong.
We can hear that since release of PS3(using 8 core platfrom) in 2006
CPU load distribution does not scale the way you think.
More cores are great for multitasking but do not help much with load of single app where utilization of CPU load is limited.
Also, there is Ahmdal's law.
Ok, my bad, didn't realize it was his. So after looking at that post I do have some concerns. Like one poster said, a single RAM module doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I would go more towards a dual channel setup myself. Not to mention, if I did go with a motherboard with the newer chipset, it would be most likely a mute point because it wouldn't have the DDR4 on there, so I would end up replacing it in a couple years anyway for that functionality.
Although I haven't done to much research on DDR4 yet (HW for this weekend) so whether or not I will definitely be upgrading in that time frame is till not a definite, but not ruling it out just yet till I get that understanding. My other question would be CPU choice, is there a reason for this specific CPU or is it purely at the right price point? Otherwise the price is attractive to be sure.
Well, if I read your OP, you talk about AMD/ATI all the time, in later posts you were concerned more about AMD rather than whether you are getting right thing for you money and when you say:
However, it was just my impression/observation.
One thing I would recommend to you is to check price of FX-8350. 130 USD posted by N1kthequick seems to be way low compared to what I found on pricepicker or elsewhere.
As I said above, intel provides far better gaming performance unless you OC your FX and keep attention to your heat management(you will likely want/need cooler) and power consumption. And in that case, you can just go with i5. i5-4460 goes for 190 USD.
So no, it does not make much sense price wise.
As I pointed out, if you are concerned about later upgrade, intel is the only way to go since you will have entire new line of CPUs(Q2 2015) to put into your board. With AMD you are at top of the line already.
I did posted a solid build you can tweak around, it a base line setup with enough room for adjustments while keeping your price point.
totally wrong
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Battlefield_4-test-bf4_proz_2.jpg
as you can see games which makes use of multiple core the amd 8350 can beat i5 .basically amd has weaker cores but more cores .
tbh this debate amd vs intel is a waste because BOTH easily handle any game out there.
the few it does poorly on like planetside 2 has long been proven to be due to poor optimization on soe part for amd and since then has been fixed mostly.
pick either cpu and that will do you fine for some years.focus instead on a nice gpu .
strangely its a wonder people do not talk about good psu instead.loads of rubbish ones out there frying computers.people are so focused on amd vs intel when both are quality chipset and then dump a cheap psu in there .
if you can spare the cash or get a good deal get a seasonic .even an older model one which they are trying to clear stock will be a excellent choice.
Heat is likely one of my major issues with AMD and why I usually do not recommend any builds based on their chips since I am not expecting averyone being savvy, concerned, knowledgeable and willing enough to deal with it. One might run into unpleasant issues there.
If I take all that into account, I simply see no reason recommending AMD unless you need specifically more cores or you truly know what you are doing.
Ahh I understand your point, yea I've been asking about AMD because I feel less comfortable with their equipment. So I was looking for more information on theirs, where as the Intel I have a bit more familiarity. Maybe not as much as I should, hence why I asked about your CPU choice, but I'm a bit more familiar with the Intel stuff in general. That's all.
Again is there a reason for the 4460 choice or is it based on price point primarily? I'm just wondering if there is a large difference in performance when held up to the 4690 or other i5 models. Does anyone else have a preference on the intel i5's or a cheaper i7 that still holds performance? (Making a lot of HW and research for myself this weekend LOL)
using a stock cooler is never a good idea if OCing anyhow.if you not overclocking the heat generated by the amd is not a problem at all.
if you are ocing while the amd heats faster then intel you really should not be using a stock cooler anyhow for safety reason on neither.
cooler can be bought for £30 which are better then stock cooler .
This is a good point. The GPU's are probably the most important in a gaming rig next to a CPU. I haven't really looked at them but seeing a lot of folks suggesting ATI from what I've read, if I'm getting the models right. Any manufacturer/model suggestions?
Like I've said, I've been running ATI for a couple years now, which is ok. I always hear the Nvidia & ATI debate is another big one, any preferences on the posters here one or the other or even just model/manufacturer suggestions.
(Lol, apparently I love to research cause I just keep throwing more on top!)
Point taken.
4460 is the cheapest i5 you can get and you want i5 because it got 4 cores and it is already faster in games than any AMD. Thus better price per performance, and within same price point.
Truth to be said, games do not need as much CPU power so you will likely won't notice the difference anyway. Most load is done on your GPU. The exception are RTS.
You could say that there is not much point in getting any faster CPU past 4460 since the performance is already more then sufficient and any further gain minimal.
It is not wrong, unless you believe that the extra heat and consumption you need to deal with are worthy those 2 FPS...
Unless you go for top of the line VGA, AMD provides much better price per performance. But you get older cards with lot of heat.
While performance summary results only, the is a nice large list of CPUs tested:
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/test-of-cpu-for-gaming-30-cpus-compared.200132/
OP wants to keep in BUDGET, and get the most VALUE.
He needs an ak47 style rig that can compete with the big boys at budget price and last.
AMD is often better for overclocking and tweaking. However doing such often requires extra fans/coolers, and a stronger power source which means more money and more things possibly going wrong.
INTEL, forget your misconceptions about intel being just a family cpu. It is reliable, affordable, and fast. I also believe it has less conflicts.
The i5 4460 is a good model cpu at 3.2g's, and i5's are often core for midrange rigs (i hate saying rigs)
The radeon 280/290x and gtx750ti are amazing value for money and trouble shooting is easy for them considering they are so popular. also these cards don't require extra power or cooling than what you get on your barebones.
dual channel, with 8gb ddr3 stick, brand doesn't really matter although get it from a source with a reliable return policy. You need room to upgrade since this rig is going to last you 2 years at least
hard drive, get a 1tb hard drive with SSD cache (it allocates physical memory for your most used programs) You can open and close WOW repeatedly, like it was minesweeper.
if you can find a deal on your base pc with a newer version of windows than you already have, get it. Some may say windows 7 runs better than 8 for games but I think just fancy talk.
This is not the best setup, but I hope its something in line with what OP wants.
Watch Led Zeppelin, Darkfall Tribute
Watch Johnny Cash, Darkfall Tribute
Why not educate yourself instead of accepting some dogmas..?
http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/1349-ram-how-dual-channel-works-vs-single-channel#!/ccomment-page=1
You half assed your build suggestion so badly it wouldnt surprise me if you just looked at price alone. You didn't even notice that you picked out a single ram module instead of a pair. Generally people don't like to make purchase and then go back make more purchases to correct a problem. It looked like you also just suggested the most bottom tier mb that you could. Yet you defend it with poor reasoning. You drowned out reputable posters here. Why don't you piss off before you cost someone a lot of money on junk, seriously. Dude its not funny. Your advice is going to cost someone a decent amount of money. Stop.
It wasn't an oversight, nor error.
For gaming or just regular use, it has no practical bearing on performance. Read the link above.
As for intel chipset, yes I went with the "bottom line" since I want to present a best performance/value basis.
When it comes to intel chipsets, there is no difference in performance, what you pay is features - more memory slots, SATA ports, PCI-E slots, overclocking tools, SSD power savings etc. All those are just a luxury and not needed for core functionality.
You want some of them? Pay the extra but there is no need to pay for something you do not intend to use.
Quizzical and Ridelynn are especially trustworthy. When someone disagrees with either of them, he's very likely wrong.
...That includes the times I've disagreed with Quizzical in some of the threads.
I would agree with that but I also know there's more than just them. That said i hate to guess how much time Quizzical has spent helping people over the years get solid builds. But its not just him there is other regulars in those threads giving just as good advice options. You are in a lot of these threads. Lot of people are giving healthy debate options thoughts.
Most people who post here asking for help have limited budgets and no one likes spending extra to correct a mistake because of bad advice. This is the second topic that i have read where this guy says some absurd stuff with bad reasoning. Only this time trying to get someone to buy something. Most people that I know do not want to spend extra money to sort out errors or problems from bad advice. Whatever. This guy seems to be trolling or something I don't know and it might cost someone.
Late edit but whatever. Didn't change post just adding that its even stupidier that he purposely went with 1 stick instead of two. Intentionally did this. Whatever.. Who wants to take advantage of dual channel ram. Lets nit be absurd here. Its a pricey over rated luxury..
Because I like to educate myself when it's possible - I did go and read that article.
It was interesting.
He has a bunch of synthetic benchmarks - ok, we expect some disparity in there, and I won't really try to relate them to real world performance because they aren't really that meaningful (even though they do strongly point to the benefits of higher RAM bandwidth that dual channel offers).
But he only has 1 gaming benchmark - and for part of the benchmark, he benchmarked the loading time... from the hard drive. That would make for a great SSD vs HDD comparison, but it shows next to nothing for Single vs Dual channel RAM (unless he had the game loaded in a RAM disk beforehand, and eliminated Windows automatic disk caching as a variable).
RAM was purged between all tests. No active memory management programs were present outside of the default, clean Windows installation.
Except that a clean Windows installation has a very good memory management/disk caching algorithm (SuperFetch, which has largely replaced the old Vista ReadyBoost), which can greatly affect these tests. And how exactly did he purge the RAM? Common sense would say "reboot", but he doesn't exactly say, and SuperFetch is smart and can start pre-caching from previous sessions (across cold boots) the moment Windows is finished booting, based on previous activity.
Like I said, easily within normal system fluctuations. I also tested Skyrim's load time with several high-fidelity mods loaded, which should have theoretically hammered RAM and I/O for file retrieval, but saw effectively zero advantage between dual- and single-channel performance.
Yeah... ok. It probably did hammer I/O for file retrieval. That hammers disk I/O, which is orders of magnitude slower than any RAM, and lo and behold, since the disk remained constant between the two tests, the results stayed constant.
Bad benchmarks don't really illustrate the issue. The synthetics do a pretty good job of showing just exactly what the cost of saving money on the motherboard chipset is.
And the conflicting advice (not that I agree or disagree with the bulletpoints here, but just trying to make sure I include them all), to summarize:
I don't like AMD CPUs even though they aree much less expensive because they are )older tech )hotter )harder to manage case airflow )more finicky to overclock
But I like AMD GPUs because they are less expensive, even though they are )older tech )hotter )harder to manage case airflow )more finicky to overclock
I'm utterly confused. I obviously don't get it. Can you please explain this to me one more time, how the lower binned i5 in a crappy motherboard is better overall? ANd do make sure to go back into Hyperthreading vs Multithreading vs tash scheduling vs PCI timers vs whatever else got drug into this discussion - because I feel as though I have been drug around in circles, and - I am just trying to make sense of all of this and want to make sure I have it all straight...