|
When using this resource, please read FragKrag's opening post. The Tech Support forum regulars have helped create countless of desktop systems without any compensation. The least you can do is provide all of the information required for them to help you properly. |
On November 28 2012 10:54 nolook wrote:
Asking for the 3rd time, maybe someone can reply...
Is phenom ii x4 not enough to play new games on ultra? If it is then what cpu/mobo/gpu should we get?
Thank you
i would say depending on the game, and what video card you have etc ... sorry its not so cut and dry.
but i can play sc2 on ultra with an amd phenom ii x6 ... if that helps.
|
Hate to bump an old post, but would something like this competently run Planetside 2? Never built a PC before.
What motherboard and GPU would you recommend if you don't plan to overclock?
Edit: I am fortunate enough to have a Micro Center near my house, but I would not be against buying online if the prices are better.
|
^ Yes, it would absolutely crush it. An i5 CPU is just the most powerful thing to practically buy for gaming, it's a bit absurd. An i3 will crush any game, and higher end mainstream CPUs like pentiums and athlon/phenom will do gaming quite well for a while.
|
On December 02 2012 12:41 Myrmidon wrote:
Yeah, that's compatible, would work.
The extra RAM won't make a difference unless you're really using close to the 4GB right now.
But is that CPU a Phenom II X2 555? Have you tried unlocking the CPU cores in BIOS (meaning, using the CPU cores on the chip that are nominally disabled)? If they unlock run stable, then that saves you some money and effort; no need to get the new CPU.
Yes it is the phenom II X2 555. You lost me with the unlocking CPU. I have no idea how to do any of that :S
|
On December 02 2012 16:08 TheeCrooKed wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 12:41 Myrmidon wrote:
Yeah, that's compatible, would work.
The extra RAM won't make a difference unless you're really using close to the 4GB right now.
But is that CPU a Phenom II X2 555? Have you tried unlocking the CPU cores in BIOS (meaning, using the CPU cores on the chip that are nominally disabled)? If they unlock run stable, then that saves you some money and effort; no need to get the new CPU. Yes it is the phenom II X2 555. You lost me with the unlocking CPU. I have no idea how to do any of that :S
The Phenom 555 is a Deneb processor. All the Phenom II's you see, they are all either "Thuban" or "Deneb". A Phenom 955 C2 revision and a Phenom 965 C2 revision are identical CPU's, AMD just slaps a different label on them and sell them for different prices, maybe because they are bastards, maybe because of how well they tested after they were made.
Most Phenom x2, x3 , and x4s XXX, are "Denebs", which is basically a quadcore CPU with a certain architecture and memory controller. One deneb might be sold as a phenom 955, the other a 965, the other a 555 dualcore, the other a tricore, et cetera, based on which way the wind is blowing in the AMD factory that day.
Your Phenom 555 is actually a Deneb quadcore CPU with 2 of the cores disabled. Sometimes, this happens because the CPu just didn't pass certain quality control testing and so they sell it as a dualcore and make money off it, instead of throwing it in the trash. Many times, it's labeled a dualcore because there is a huge demand for a dualcore phenom and they wouldn't be able to justify designing an entirely new chip just to meet this demand, so instead they take perfectly capable 3.7ghz 980s, and then disable 2 cores and underclock them and sell them as 3.2ghz dualcores.
They also charge more on their dualcores, and sell dualcores, specifically based on this information - they hype the possibility of unlocking extra cores. All you need to do, is go into your bios, and enable the extra cores, and then pray it works and 'unlocks' the extra cores. How exactly you do it is different based on your bios and motherboard, but a simple google search on your motherboard and how to unlock with it should tell you step by step how to do it. It's very straightforward and easy.
If it doesnt work, increase you voltage up a tiny bit, say to 1.4, and see if that helps unlock them.
That code name 'Callisto' for your CPU actually means something. it means "bullshit codename that just means deneb with 2 cores locked". Similarly, there are quadcore phenoms that are truly hexacore 'thuban's (basically, denebs with 6 cores and a slightly better memory controller), ie 'Zosma' or 960t, but they are more expensive, even though at stock they are identical to a deneb.
|
Anyways I put together my computer, I realize I got to change the power supply, mine is too old and I dont have 2 x 4 atx12v for the power.
Either way, it gives me an error code on the motherboard for my ram, which is a 16 gigabyte kingston blu x, khx1600c10d3b1k2 Anyone know why I'm getting an error, the card isn't in the mobo's manual for recommended cards, but if its dd3 and 1600 it should just work right?
my mobo is a pretty good, p8z77-v luxury asus .
|
On December 02 2012 16:06 Belial88 wrote:
^ Yes, it would absolutely crush it. An i5 CPU is just the most powerful thing to practically buy for gaming, it's a bit absurd. An i3 will crush any game, and higher end mainstream CPUs like pentiums and athlon/phenom will do gaming quite well for a while.
Yeah, that i5 3750k is $200+ and rated as 3.4Ghz, but the i3 3225 is rated at 3.3Ghz and about $70-$80 cheaper. The i3 seems a lot better for a budget, especially since I don't plan to overclock.
Would this be a good motherboard for it?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157303
|
On December 03 2012 03:03 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2012 16:06 Belial88 wrote:
^ Yes, it would absolutely crush it. An i5 CPU is just the most powerful thing to practically buy for gaming, it's a bit absurd. An i3 will crush any game, and higher end mainstream CPUs like pentiums and athlon/phenom will do gaming quite well for a while. Yeah, that i5 3750k is $200+ and rated as 3.4Ghz, but the i3 3225 is rated at 3.3Ghz and about $70-$80 cheaper. The i3 seems a lot better for a budget, especially since I don't plan to overclock. Would this be a good motherboard for it? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157303
Get the i3 3220 over 3225. Only difference is 10-15$ and an HD4000 instead of HD2500, which shouldn't matter to you, just fwiw, and yeah the 2500k is way worse for "budget" heh. Keep in mind i5's have turbo and more cache though, which makes a difference. I can vouch for an i3 3220 not quite being enough for the game on ultra when motherships and what not come into play.
|
Can anyone here give me any info on building a media centre PC?
I've built plenty of gaming rigs before but I know what I need from them, I'm a little unsure as to what would be excessive in a media center.
I basically need it to be able to play / stream 1080p content and thats it, no gaming or capture cards etc
Needs to be as quiet as possible and thats it.
Would an i5 suffice with integrated graphics? Maybe even an i3? It's just something that will be plugged into my TV to replace my laptop, which is now 5 years old and rather loud.
Are there any particular cases I should try to find or will any old media centre case do the trick? Is it worth getting a 3rd party fan to reduce noise?
I'm in the UK, the retailer I normally use is Novatech. Any advice would be appreciated, and my budget would be less than £1000, preferably a fair bit less as you can buy good ones pre built for that.
|
|
|
Hey, i had gotten PC parts recommended from TL a couple of years ago and it's working out great.
My brother's PC is pretty much dead and i was wondering if i could get help again.
He's looking to spend $800-$1500, he upgrades pretty much every 4+ years. He mostly uses it for gaming, he occasionally plays FPS games which i think its the most graphics intensive thing he does.
1920x1080 resolution as minimum (not quite sure what's considered standard these days) would be nice.
He already has a hard drive and an OS (Vista 32-bit), if he needs a newer/better OS by all means add it. Keyboard + Mouse is okay to list if you guys feel something is really good out there from experience but please don't include that in the price. No liquid cooling or overclocking anything.
It would be cool if i could things recommended from a couple of different price ranges within that budget.
Doesn't really matter where the parts are from (US).
|
You could cut the cost by using a regular HDD. No reason to use a SDD with an HTPC, you aren't loading up different programs all the time like games or levels, and you turning the pc on and off over and over.
|
On December 03 2012 07:52 xMiragex wrote:
Hey, i had gotten PC parts recommended from TL a couple of years ago and it's working out great.
My brother's PC is pretty much dead and i was wondering if i could get help again.
He's looking to spend $800-$1500, he upgrades pretty much every 4+ years. He mostly uses it for gaming, he occasionally plays FPS games which i think its the most graphics intensive thing he does.
1920x1080 resolution as minimum (not quite sure what's considered standard these days) would be nice.
He already has a hard drive and an OS (Vista 32-bit), if he needs a newer/better OS by all means add it. Keyboard + Mouse is okay to list if you guys feel something is really good out there from experience but please don't include that in the price. No liquid cooling or overclocking anything.
It would be cool if i could things recommended from a couple of different price ranges within that budget.
Doesn't really matter where the parts are from (US).
There's interesting discussions about 32bit vs 64bit. Apparently 32 bit overclocks better, but 64 bit is slightly better optimized and can take advantage of 4+ gb of ram (which isn't necessary for any gaming build, anyways). Vista is pretty terrible in the eyes of most people though, XP and 7 are both better according to general opinion.
If he's just gaming you could get a pentium or i3 and be more than okay, and then a decent GPU. Spending $800+ means you can get the absolute best possible gaming PC that is ridiculous overkill, though. A $500 system would play games just as well with barely a noticeable difference. Gaming doesn't require that much. it's streaming, photoshop, video editing, etc, that requires power these days.
|
5930 Posts
Windows 8 and Windows 7 64 bit is what you want. Probably Windows 8, unless you have some legacy software that you're certain won't work in Windows 8, since you can make it behave exactly like Windows 7 with startisback ($3 add on program). Don't bother with anything 32 bit and don't even bother with XP. There are a million reasons why you don't get XP, especially considering its as secure as a jail without bars and pretty much EOLed.
Gaming does need a lot depending on the games, quality settings, and resolution you play which is why the OP needs you to answer these questions completely. Buying desktops has ALWAYS been dependent on games alone and the type of FPS game is important here. Battlefield 3 is much different from Metro 2033 or CS:GO.
Also, no one can just generalize that so and so is overkill for gaming considering the days of dual core and 4GB of RAM being overkill are well and truly over. A lot of games are multicore aware, to the benefit of AMD processors, and companies like DICE are supporting 64 bit only in the very near future (like next year). Since we want to be esoteric here, there's also more to benchmarks than just framerates. Tech Report measures latency spikes, which helps dictate smooth stable gameplay.
You could cut the cost by using a regular HDD. No reason to use a SDD with an HTPC, you aren't loading up different programs all the time like games or levels, and you turning the pc on and off over and over.
I suspect the reason why he picked the SSD is because of noise, probably the most important thing of a HTPC.
|
I was just pointing out xp > vista. Of course w7/8 would be the way to go.
Of course you want a good CPU, but pc builders aren't going to be looking at dualcore AMD or celerons. They are going to be looking at dualcore Intels at least, or Quadcore AMD. Even athlon ii/phenom iis x4 will play any modern game smoothly.
And tech report also shows that any modern game will be fine on an athlon ii x4 or an i3.
Wow. Every processor down to the A8-3850 delivers 99% of all frames in 16.7 milliseconds or less. That adds up to a nearly uninterrupted stream of frames at 60 FPS.
Yes, we can still discern fine-grained differences between the CPUs with a really tight threshold, but there's really very little "badness" to be sifted out. Also, in a ray of light for AMD, the FX-8150 performs relatively well here. [BF3] is one of those cases, though, when nearly any modern CPU will do.
http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-gaming-performance-with-today-cpus/6
i5-3570k performance is 88 fps. Athlon II X4 is 83 fps. Both of these processors are a good 20-50fps above the minimum playable fps, depending on what you define as minimally playable, in BF3.
IMO, AMD > Intel at the sub-$100 range, but you have to overclock and/or stream to make it worthwhile, or be on a really tight budget and looking at sub-$100 for both CPU and GPU. Otherwise intel is better, but there's little reason to need more power than an i3 unless your a hardcore overclocker, have the money, and stream.
|
On December 03 2012 09:20 Belial88 wrote:
I was just pointing out xp > vista. Of course w7/8 would be the way to go.
Of course you want a good CPU, but pc builders aren't going to be looking at dualcore AMD or celerons. They are going to be looking at dualcore Intels at least, or Quadcore AMD. Even athlon ii/phenom iis x4 will play any modern game smoothly.
And tech report also shows that any modern game will be fine on an athlon ii x4 or an i3.
Normally this would be all well and good. But we're on a StarCraft 2 forum. And StarCraft 2 is one of the major exceptions. There are clear advantages to the faster per-core Intel processors, particularly for people who play team games. So the general rule does not apply here. SC2 performance, which most people posting on this forum care about, DOES depend heavily on which processor you get. And AMD processors will NOT provide as smooth an experience as faster per-core offerings.
|
5930 Posts
I was talking in general. Depending on the resolution and what you want to do, you get different hardware including CPU and GPU. I don't disagree BF3 is a fairly easy game to run but compared to Metro 2033 (which still slugs systems on high settings) and CS:GO (which doesn't need anything to run well), the part selection is quite different.
But what I really disagree with is your idea that Phenom IIs and i3s are enough for gaming. No they're not, a lot of games benefit significantly from single threaded performance and multiple cores. A significant number of games benefit from strong single threaded performance. Just about every game with a robust AI (like...all strategy games) and just about all simulation games (ARMA II especially) really do need a beefy CPU.
Certain applications also benefit from Intel instruction sets, such as Dolphin and Photoshop.
And about the whole AMD vs Intel thing, there is basically zero reason to bother with AMD even at those budgets. If you want to stream and literally have no money then sure AMD is fine but I think you're seriously overstating the cost of an Intel platform by only looking at the CPU prices.
How much is an AMD platform that is remotely decent? You've got the cheap CPU, yes, but if you want to get appreciable performance out of it, you're going to need a fairly decent motherboard and a CPU cooler. If the motherboard you get is fairly cheap, its probably going to be old; if its new, its not going to cost more than a rock bottom Intel motherboard.
So what's the cheapest acceptable AMD platform that doesn't depend on open box hardware or eBay you can get? You're saving what? $100? The cheapest quad core Ivy Bridge platform (CPU + motherboard) is basically $250 on Newegg, which isn't really anything at all. But there is a catch: a computer isn't just gaming performance.
The old AMD motherboard is going to be, comparatively, awful compared to the Intel motherboard. We're also not taking into account things like uEFI, I/O performance, power draw (= heat, noise). In every usability metric, AMD is not even remotely close so if you are able to wait a little while and save a little bit more money, you are getting a computer that Is just so much better. The thing I could even consider to be good from AMD is Trinity, where the GPU performance is good enough for a lot of people who just want to play indie games.
|
it's true SC2 is much more CPU dependent than most games, but it's a very old game by now.
And I don't think it's fair to say "AMD processors will not provide as smooth an experience as faster per core offerings", a Civic wont offer as good performance as a ferrari, doesnt mean it's a terrible car. The G860 is more comparable with the Phenom x4 in both price and performance, not an i3, price for price, Intel is not much better than Phenom.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/129
i3 is definitely better than a phenom x4, but is a nearly 50% price increase worth only 5fps more than a mildly overclocked Phenom? You put a very conservative 4ghz (c3 revision hits 4.0ghz minimum, 4.3 is generally the common max 24 hour prime95 stable, 4.5+ for gaming stable) on and the Phenom will outperform the i3, and even not, the Phenom is only 5fps behind, which is not going very noticeable.
phenom ii x4 is significantly better for streaming than anything intel up to $160+, and that's saying a lot at half the price. Many people here are worried about streaming performance as well as sc2 performance, and a pentium or athlon ii will run sc2 decently enough (obviously more power than those would be appreciated).
And with a very conservative 4ghz overclock, Phenom ii will be better for gaming and still be cheaper than i3.
How much is an AMD platform that is remotely decent? You've got the cheap CPU, yes, but if you want to get appreciable performance out of it, you're going to need a fairly decent motherboard and a CPU cooler. If the motherboard you get is fairly cheap, its probably going to be old; if its new, its not going to cost more than a rock bottom Intel motherboard.
Intel motherboards are much more expensive than AMD for similar set-up. At worst, you would just pay the same price as you would for an intel board due to paying for a better VRM, and at best you can put aftermarket cooling on your VRM for very cheap.
Phenom ii x4 c3 revisions run quite cool and low on TDP, so while VRM is definitely still important, you don't need to invest more than $30 in aftermarket cooling. The hyper 212+ is only $14.99 after shipping right now, and you could get by with an even less powerful cooler to get a decent overclock. I think if anything, leaving out motherboard prices is more favorable to intel than AMD, and I've discussed the increased cost of aftermarket cooling.
So what's the cheapest acceptable AMD platform that doesn't depend on open box hardware or eBay you can get? You're saving what? $100? The cheapest quad core Ivy Bridge platform (CPU + motherboard) is basically $250 on Newegg, which isn't really anything at all. But there is a catch: a computer isn't just gaming performance.
Well I've been basing what I say off Newegg prices, since you can find used/openbox/etc Intel parts for reduced prices too. But a used i3 is still going to be ~50% more expensive than a used phenom x4, for an apples to apples comparison.
I completely agree that i5 is the way to go, but not everyone has the money too, and there's little reason to get that much performance. Not everyone needs to play on everything maxed out, you can get a decent 720 stream with 30+ fps on an AM3 set-up, 60fps with phenom ii x4 overclocked, easily.
What do you need to stream sc2? Phenom x4 would very comfortably handle it. What would be an appreciable increase in performance? An i5, for over 3 times the cost, for less than a 50% increase in performance. both of them will stream and play sc2 just fine. A civic will get you cross country just as much as a sonata, it won't be as comfortable, but the civic won't struggle, and the sonata isn't going to totally crazy better.
Of course Intel is better, also at the same price points - Pentium is definitely better than Phenom x4. But it's just a small increase in everything, hardly noticeable. The Phenom x4, is significantly better in streaming, and if you overclock it, something many people enjoy doing in and of itself, it will be much better than intel for the price, hsf and $20 more in the motherboard included.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/338
An i5 2500k does not get more than 5 fps over a Phenom x4 that's barely overclocked/stock at 3.6ghz, in Metro 2033. Phenom, 955, i3, athlon ii, will play metro 2033, as demanding as the game is. It's the GPU with metro anyways.
I agree with what you said though - am3 only if you are on a budget and overlocking and/or streaming. Otherwise Intel is better. I don't agree that you should just save up and buy an i5 though. I think it would be better to buy a pentium, or i3, for gaming, and not everyone can just save up for an i5 build.
|
5930 Posts
So how much for a AMD system that overclocks well? I still haven't seen the actual price of the total system. I don't care about the CPU price, its irrelevant since you need a mainboard to use it. The total cost of the system is the important thing.
If you want to compare i3 systems for gaming, you've got $120 CPU and a $45 motherboard, which is $165 for a fairly respectable system with a fairly modern chipset, features, etc. If you want an i5, throw in a $60 bucks and get a similarly priced H77 motherboard.
How much is a quad core AMD processor with something like a Hyper 212 Evo and a decent mainboard (what is a decent mainboard to you?) for overclocking? You don't save all that much and instead you get a system that has significantly higher idle and peak power draw, much more heat, a shittier chipset, far slower boot speeds, worse speed/hibernate functionality, etc. The cost difference of the system is not as much as you think it is. Its less than one hundred bucks guaranteed, especially if you have a nearby Microcenter.
|
$30-45 for a new AM3 motherboard depending on quality. CPU for Phenom x4 is going to be about $80 new.
Hyper 212+ is $14.99. I don't think the Evo is worth it - it's just a lapped Hyper 212+. The 1-2*C difference is not worth the cost, and you can lap it yourself, and if you want to talk budget, the hyper 212+ is better because it comes with a better fan (both of them cool roughly the same at stock because the EVO comes with a slower or 'quieter', as it's bullshitted as, fan).
The evo goes for $19.99 though.
That's new, newegg. After shipping.
You could get a lower performing cooler for cheaper, that'd work for a good 24/7 overclock too.
So basically you are spending $14.99 after shipping more, and your probably saving money on a cheaper motherboard but we'll just assume they cost the same since your overclocking and either bought a higher quality motherboard or mosfet cooling.
An i3 CPU is a good $40 more, that's way more than the cost of a hyper 212+, and your getting similar performance, if not better, with the Phenom on a 4ghz overclock, and double the streaming performance.
Intel is definitely better all around, in regards to power draw, efficiency, and heat, but I don't think most gamers care about that. Phenom ii x4 is just superior at it's price point when overclocked/streaming, that's all.
On a side note, you could go balls out and get a Noctua NH-D14, the 3rd best air cooler in the world, or a Gamer Storm Assasin, the best cooler in the world, for under $50 used, or an H50 for under $35 used, and do an insane overclock and get way better play than an i3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
