This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

First PC Build for $500-700

#2160secondAssasinPosted 6/2/2012 1:57:29 PM
yea, minimum fps and thus overall smoothness suffer.
---
"There is nothing new under EA." - Fony
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2363251
#22KingsofroninPosted 6/2/2012 1:57:46 PM
Rainbow_Dashing posted...
Snuckie7 posted...
Do yourself a favor and don't get a AMD FX cpu. They are terrible for gaming.


x_stevey_x posted...
get the i3


Can you guys tell me why? I've tried finding benchmarks and it seems like the FX does better. Is there something specific about FXs that make them worse for gaming? I did supply a link to the benchmark test, that I thought would be reliable...


I already told you once to get the phenom x4 instead of the bulldozer. The bulldozer is better at things like photoshop and video editing, but lacks PER CORE speeds that gaming requires.
---
Now Playing: Diablo III (PC), League of Legends (PC), Final Fantasy XIV(PC) and Saints Row III (PC) [PC ONLY 4EVER]
#23MaKhaosPosted 6/2/2012 2:05:36 PM(edited)
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=434
An i3 2100 can compete with FX-8150 especially in gaming. Bulldozer is a server aimed CPU.

From RPS:
"As for that competition, the great hope was that AMDís all-new Bulldozer CPUs (sold as AMD ĎFXí branded processors) would force Intel to stop sand bagging. Unfortunately, Bulldozer turned out to be completely awful as a high performance desktop processor. The per-core performance of the fastest eight-core versions of Bulldozer (actually, it doesnít have eight real cores, but thatís a story for another day) is horrendous. Just as bad, Bulldozer often isnít even that much faster than AMDís old six-core Phenoms in highly threaded software. But then AMDís focus for the Bulldozer architecture was always more server PCs than gaming rigs."

"Do not under any circumstances be tempted by one of the new AMD FX processors. Smooth gaming demands strong per-core performance and thatís the FXís weakest point."

The same pricepoint range:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-3.html
"Intel's Sandy Bridge microarchitechture is undeniably fast."

FX-4170 would be more on par the 1st generation tier of Intel if anything. Making Sandy Bridge and Ivy so much better. Bulldozer is for servers. Bulldozer is a step backwards from Phenom II in terms of gaming. So then again I'd still take Intel's 1st generation ones over Bulldozer because the architecture from Intel is so much better than FX.
#24Rainbow_Dashing(Topic Creator)Posted 6/2/2012 2:06:39 PM(edited)
DiehardFFv2 posted...
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=88

This isn't a perfect comparison, but it shows the point well enough. It's an i3 2100 vs the 955 BE which actually performs better than the fx 4100. So you have a weaker intel and a stronger AMD than a straight up i3 2120 vs fx4100 and the i3 still pulls ahead when it comes to gaming and most tasks that aren't multi-threaded. An i3 on a Z77 board would allow you to upgrade to a 2500k or 3570k in the future both of which laugh at anything AMD fields now and in the forseeable future.


Alright that makes a lot of sense now, thank you I appreciate that.

Snuckie7 posted...
You need to look at actual ingame benchmarks, not synthetic passmark scores. The reason why fx processors are bad for gaming is because they have terrible performance per core, which is very apparent in game benchmarks.


Yeah, I just saw that in the previous link.

Kingsofronin posted...
I already told you once to get the phenom x4 instead of the bulldozer. The bulldozer is better at things like photoshop and video editing, but lacks PER CORE speeds that gaming requires.


I see that now, I just would like some information before I make a choice, just stating something usually isn't enough for me. But now I saw the example.

MaKhaos posted...
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=434
An i3 2100 can compete with FX-8150 especially in gaming. Bulldozer is a server aimed CPU.

From RPS:
"As for that competition, the great hope was that AMDís all-new Bulldozer CPUs (sold as AMD ĎFXí branded processors) would force Intel to stop sand bagging. Unfortunately, Bulldozer turned out to be completely awful as a high performance desktop processor. The per-core performance of the fastest eight-core versions of Bulldozer (actually, it doesnít have eight real cores, but thatís a story for another day) is horrendous. Just as bad, Bulldozer often isnít even that much faster than AMDís old six-core Phenoms in highly threaded software. But then AMDís focus for the Bulldozer architecture was always more server PCs than gaming rigs."

"Do not under any circumstances be tempted by one of the new AMD FX processors. Smooth gaming demands strong per-core performance and thatís the FXís weakest point."

The same pricepoint range:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-3.html
"Intel's Sandy Bridge microarchitechture is undeniably fast."

FX-4170 would be more on par the 1st generation tier of Intel if anything. Making Sandy Bridge and Ivy so much better. Bulldozer is for servers. Bulldozer is a step backwards from Phenom II in terms of gaming.


And now I'm convinced. Give me some time to make a new set up. That I can hopefully make cheaper!
#25GipFacePosted 6/2/2012 2:23:46 PM(edited)
lolol using Anand Bench

How about using a real comparison article?
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-2100-gaming-benchmark,3136.html

This is why I told you to downgrade the CPU to an fx-4100: because the i3's extra horsepower is mostly irrelevant when you look at those gaming graphs. And even then, you can OC the FX-4100 to 4.5ghz.

But okay, you can listen to Intel fanboy noobs with <1000 karma and waste your money. Yes, the Intel chips are better, but you don't need one for your budget system. I am trying to give you the best GPU possible along with an SSD while downgrading the rest of the parts to serviceable level in order to hit your $650 target.
#2660secondAssasinPosted 6/2/2012 2:39:01 PM(edited)
so i3 2100 (a dual core with 5mb less cache) is equal or better in gaming and consumes less power? was that the point? from the same link Gipface posted:

correction: 8 1/2MB less cache.

Today, Intel's LGA 1155 platform remains the best bet for a gaming rig. And not only for its budget-oriented performance, which is great, but also for its potential. Start with a cheap Core i3 and an inexpensive discrete GPU. Then, upgrade later to an Ivy Bridge-based chip and a faster graphics card without imposing any sort of bottleneck. SLI and CrossFire are both viable with a fast-enough CPU (even splitting PCI Express connectivity between two x8 slots), and the $180 Core i5-2400 is a gaming beast that AMD's overclocked processors cannot touch.

AMD simply cannot counter those advantages right now. We must look to the Piledriver architecture and hope that our current assessment can be reevaluated later this year.


http://media.bestofmicro.com/Z/Q/326582/original/Skyrim%20B%206990.png
http://media.bestofmicro.com/Z/I/326574/original/SC2%206950.png

oh and you should check out some SSD transfer speeds while you're at it. intel simply has a superior chipset with some actual life left in it and a clear upgrade path. it's a whole package. cpu, memory read/write speed, sata transfer rate etc.
---
"There is nothing new under EA." - Fony
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2363251
#27DiehardFFv2Posted 6/2/2012 2:37:38 PM
From: GipFace | #025
But okay, you can listen to Intel fanboy noobs with <1000 karma


Bwahahahaha, this alone invalidates anything you've said or might say ever again. Karma is highly irrelevant. Sorry we haven't spent every day of the last eleven years of our life coming to GameFAQs like you have.
---
i5 3570k @4.2 GHz / Asrock Z77 Extreme4 / 8GB G.Skill Sniper 1866 / MSI GTX 560 / Corsair Force GT 120GB / Seagate Barracuda 2TB
#28Rainbow_Dashing(Topic Creator)Posted 6/2/2012 2:49:08 PM(edited)
GipFace posted...
lolol using Anand Bench

How about using a real comparison article?
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-2100-gaming-benchmark,3136.html

This is why I told you to downgrade the CPU to an fx-4100: because the i3's extra horsepower is mostly irrelevant when you look at those gaming graphs. And even then, you can OC the FX-4100 to 4.5ghz.

But okay, you can listen to Intel fanboy noobs with <1000 karma and waste your money. Yes, the Intel chips are better, but you don't need one for your budget system. I am trying to give you the best GPU possible along with an SSD while downgrading the rest of the parts to serviceable level in order to hit your $650 target.


According to that link the intel is better. It's only about a 10 dollar difference if I want to make sure I have something that is reliable, and combining it with a motherboard that I can upgrade, I can get something that is even better. I think I'm going with the i3 2120.
#29GipFacePosted 6/2/2012 2:57:37 PM(edited)
60secondAssasin: That Skyrim graph is silly because neither line is acceptable; it has 8X FSAA turned on; switching to 2X FSAA would improve the framerate greatly. Also, SC2 is CPU-bound; he could get even better performance by getting a poor GPU. Then he'd be in trouble for every game that focuses on GPU performance. But thanks for using 2 graphs out of over 20 to try to make a point. The rest have the fx-4100 (at stock) and the i3 tied.

DiehardFFv2: lololol you'd pay $20 to take my account if you had the opportunity.

But okay, take the i3 if you think you'll want to upgrade later. I was operating on the assumption that you'd run this budget system to the ground.
#30x_stevey_xPosted 6/2/2012 2:55:20 PM
GipFace posted...
lolol using Anand Bench

How about using a real comparison article?
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-2100-gaming-benchmark,3136.html

This is why I told you to downgrade the CPU to an fx-4100: because the i3's extra horsepower is mostly irrelevant when you look at those gaming graphs. And even then, you can OC the FX-4100 to 4.5ghz.

But okay, you can listen to Intel fanboy noobs with <1000 karma and waste your money. Yes, the Intel chips are better, but you don't need one for your budget system. I am trying to give you the best GPU possible along with an SSD while downgrading the rest of the parts to serviceable level in order to hit your $650 target.


all that article shows is that in any setup where the gpu willb e the bottleneck then the fx will be equal to the i3... uhh no ****