|
|
|
are these specs any good
|
|
|
ganni666
Member
|
6. March 2012 @ 17:44 |
Link to this message
|
im gonna have a new pc, and im gonna use it for recent games also,
these are the specs
asus crosshair 3
AMD Phenom II x 4 965 3406.4 mhz RAM
4GB matched gaming RAM modules with heatsink upgradable to 16GB
Hard Disk 1.5 TB high speed cache (16mb)
ATI Raedon 6850
is it worth it?
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
Nephilim1955
Newbie
|
10. March 2012 @ 21:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
you cannot buy a PC that will run everything forever. so pick the games that you want to run right now, and buy the cheapest thing that will run them well. save money since you know you're going to have to upgrade or buy another one in a couple years if you want to stay current with games.
i have seen so many gamers put $2000 or more into a system and then in 2 years time they have to replace it anyway. better to stay on the cheaper end and buy upgrades/new systems more often.
|
|
smoggie66
Member
|
13. March 2012 @ 09:30 |
Link to this message
|
for a start id steer away from amd and go for intel i5 or i7 sandybridge and buy a decent board that can be upgradible for future most 1155 boards are ready for ivy bridge and some have pci/e 3 if you buy cheap all the time you could be replacing it a lot more sooner but realy it boils down to how much you can afford, and you pay for what you get in this game.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13. March 2012 @ 09:45
|
|
Nephilim1955
Newbie
|
13. March 2012 @ 18:28 |
Link to this message
|
So, Which is it, AMD or Intel for Gaming?
Well, in years long past, AMD reigned as king of the gaming computer world for a long, long, time, but that was then and times have since changed. Hang on though, this does not mean that Intel has overtaken the crown, but alas, they are now (almost) equals in the field of gaming. At least at the affordable price ranges. I?m not trying to tell you what you can and can?t afford, but in the price range of around $600 and up, Intel is actually the king of CPU benchmarks. Below that price range, AMD starts to catch up fast and things start to equal out a bit. Do I think it is ever worth it to spend more than $600 on a gaming computer CPU? No. In fact, I would never spend more than $300 on a gaming CPU, and I still consider that a little over the top. With all of this said, it is still easier to find faster Intel CPU?s simply because there are more Intel CPU?s available.
AMD or Intel, So Does it Really Matter in a Gaming Computer?
Will having a slightly faster processor make that much of a difference in your new gaming computer? Probably not. The best thing you can do to increase the performance of a gaming computer is to spend big on the video card(s). This is a little off topic, but if you?re on a budget, my best advice there is to spend big on a single card rather than buying two cheaper cards as you?ll generally be better off performance wise. Getting back on topic ? It is still wise to get the most CPU for your money though, so read on.
Well, we?ve figured out that Intel does dominate at the higher price range, but then AMD pretty much catches up at the more reasonable range. So, then how do you decide between AMD or Intel for gaming? My advice is to go to an online store like Tiger Direct or Newegg and read the product reviews on CPU?s and/or motherboards (whichever you choose to start with) and pick one that you feel had the most favorable reviews at the max of your price range. This is honestly what I do every time I start on a new build and it has never failed me, in fact, I do this with every part in my new builds.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
17. March 2012 @ 11:11 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Hang on though, this does not mean that Intel has overtaken the crown, but alas, they are now (almost) equals in the field of gaming. At least at the affordable price ranges.
No, they're not. They're really not. At all. Intel is better. Here's why, with facts:
Intel Core i5 2500K, $220
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115072
AMD FX-8150 $250
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103960
Stock Load Power Consumption:
i5 2500K - 107.9W
FX-8150 - 164.8W
Overclocked Load Power Consumption:
i5 2500K - 220W+
FX-8150 - 500W+
Not to mention 500W+ at load is only the CPU itself, not taking into account the rest of the system. This means that most PSUs currently being used, including mine which is fairly high-end, cannot handle this CPU properly when overclocked. This is ridiculous. No product like this has ever been released nor should it be.
Also consider that because of this, Intel CPUs overclock better and run cooler as well. Many Bulldozer CPUs have a major problem with overheating. AMD actually sell some of these CPUs with an included closed-loop liquid cooler. This is NOT neat, cool, interesting, or a good feature at all. It's a quick fix because their product puts out more heat than even the most powerful stock AMD coolers can handle. And AMD have produced some pretty impressive stock air coolers. This isn't even taking overclocking into account as AMD were only considering stock-speed users when they released this cooler. I am using an overclocked Phenom II and am currently using a closed liquid loop very similar to the one meant to cool Bulldozer CPUs at stock speeds.
Getting into speed, Bulldozer cores are actually about equivalent to Athlon II cores, ie slower than Phenom II by a considerable amount. What this means is that in any single, dual, or quad threaded application(Basically 90% of software available), a Phenom II will work out faster at the same clocks. This is especially a big deal if you don't plan to overclock as there are several Phenom II's at the same stock speeds or faster and 99% of them can be overclocked to those speeds easily if they aren't already.
What this means for Bulldozer vs Intel's SandyBridge is that only in a very few select games and programs will it be anywhere near as fast as a SandyBridge, much less an IvyBridge, which will be 30% faster and use 30% less power than even a SandyBridge. To add to this, Intels can overclock much higher, so even in situations that SHOULD be even, the Intel is faster because it can reach higher speeds.
Quote:
but in the price range of around $600 and up, Intel is actually the king of CPU benchmarks.
Quote:
Do I think it is ever worth it to spend more than $600 on a gaming computer CPU?
I don't know where you got this from but this is the most uneducated statement I have ever read in this forum in my 6 years of residence. Not only are Intel CPUs proportionately cheaper for the speed, they are literally cheaper as well. The two CPUs I lined up are the same clock speed, yet the Intel is cheaper, uses less power, is faster and runs cooler. So I have no clue where you get this comparison of "$600." This is a made-up number. There are currently NO consumer-grade AMD CPUs anywhere near $600. It's not a matter of who is better at a given range. Intel is just straight-up better because AMD doesn't have anything anywhere near as fast.
Quote:
My advice is to go to an online store like Tiger Direct or Newegg and read the product reviews on CPU?s and/or motherboards
It's been proven time and time again that most of the reviews on those sites are from people who don't realize what they are buying. There has especially been a rash of people voting down motherboards lately because they bought the wrong voltage of RAM to use in them. NEVER trust ANY reviews from these sites. I could take any random product on those sites and point out at least 50% of the total reviews where the customer simply didn't know what they were doing.
Please, I beg you. Stop giving advice without any actual knowledge on the subject matter or even a little reading. Everything you just said was wrong by statistical fact. Not only that, but you didn't seem to read the original post at all, which says he is planning to use a Phenom II X4 965, which is not comparable to an Intel in price, speed, or even general usage. They are two completely different generations of processors whose design phases occurred about 5 years apart and structural beginnings actually more like 10 years apart. So the comparison you were making didn't even vaguely apply to the CPU he specced out.
As far as actually buying a useful CPU, I wouldn't recommend a Bulldozer at all, for anything. If you want to get an AMD processor get a 1090/1100 Series X6 Hex Core. Per-core they are faster than a Bulldozer, use much less power, and are actually just as fast if not faster in fully multithreaded applications due to Bulldozer's weak cores.
NOW, if you're trying to build on the cheap, that X4 965 will serve you just fine. After about $200 Intel CPUs are better in every way, and below $200 Phenom II's are better than Bulldozers for general usage and gaming. Also consider that a Phenom II X6 1100T is actually cheaper and faster than the Bulldozer at a LOWER clock speed.
But even then, you really didn't answer the OP at all. You flew off on a tangent of misinformation. So sorry if I sound a bit aggressive, but I am, because there are too many people on this forum slinging misinformation around as fact. Learn before you even start thinking about trying to give advice to others. Actually, you didn't even write what you did write from your own knowledge.
http://www.gamingbuilds.com/341/amdorintelforgaming/
You plagiarized from another writer who gave a biased view to begin with and has repeatedly shown his lack of any sort of experience with PCs several times on that site. The whole site is a big laugh. Especially that bit about one expensive video card always being faster than two cheap ones. My HD6850s were $150 a piece, but together are FASTER than a single $300 HD6970.
To answer OP:
Quote:
im gonna have a new pc, and im gonna use it for recent games also,
these are the specs
asus crosshair 3
AMD Phenom II x 4 965 3406.4 mhz RAM
4GB matched gaming RAM modules with heatsink upgradable to 16GB
Hard Disk 1.5 TB high speed cache (16mb)
ATI Raedon 6850
is it worth it?
It's a nice system and it should be pretty fast. Are you looking to built it or is it pre-built? How much were you looking to pay? Personally wouldn't use an ASUS motherboard with a gun to my head. They have the highest failure rate I have ever seen. Particular model series being the ASUS Crosshair, Maximus Formula, and anything with an Nvidia chipset(650i, 680i, 750i, 780i included). If you can manage a slightly higher budget or even re-arrange how money is spent on that particular PC, much better systems can be built.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 17. March 2012 @ 11:37
|
|
-Jim-
Newbie
|
17. March 2012 @ 18:46 |
Link to this message
|
I too would go for Intel but I'm certainly not as negative on Asus MBs. (Even though I had to RMA twice on one of my prior Asus MBs before tossing it out after the warranty ran out. In between RMAs I bought an Asus P5N32-E Sli which has been fabulous. I also bought and built 2 other boxes with Gigabyte MBs and another for a Buddy with an EVGA X58 MB.
I put together a Gamer Box for my son from some great deals we got on Black Friday. It has an Asus P8X68V MB ( I was this close to a similar Gigabyte MB), Intel i5 2500 CPU, an OCZ 120 Sata Drive (of which we are using only 60 Gig for Intel® Smart Response Technology which requires the Intel Z68 Chipset => a marvelous combination)a Western Digital 1 TB 64Meg HD, 16 Gigs of DDR3 Ram, and a Gigabyte nVidia Ti560 Graphica card. The Ram is probably overkill but I may use a different HD for some video editing programs when he's not using the box, and besides I didn't want compatibility issues later => been there - done that. The Graphics card is also a bit weak but we got such a deal and upgrade was at least double what he paid. (Yup - his $$) He can upgrade the card when he gets another good deal and he has some more $$.
But so far it's been a rocket that's a rock solid Gamer. I'd certainly go in that direction again if I couldn't afford an X79 MB.
Regards,
Jim
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
17. March 2012 @ 19:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
17. March 2012 @ 20:48 |
Link to this message
|
Gigabyte boards are certainly one of the best brands but your major deciding factor will be chipsets. I simply don't trust ASUS' track record. I have serviced well over a hundred PCs in the last 5 or 6 years and roughly a quarter of them have been dead ASUS motherboards sometimes coming in for second or third replacements until the owners get miffed and switch brands...
I also have absolutely zero trust for Nvidia chipsets. AMD chipsets only for AMD, Intel chipsets only for Intel, it's a good rule to follow. Thankfully Nvidia chipsets have fallen out of favor. I could go on for days about those little atrocities. I trust Nvidia chipsets much less than I trust ASUS motherboards. At least ASUS boards have redeeming features.
The large majority of ASUS motherboards I have replaced being P5N series both 680i and 650i. I also know of people who have replaced Maximus Formula boards up to 6 times, each one not making the 6 month mark. ASUS products are bad quality to begin with, mix that with a bad quality chipset and you get something even worse.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 17. March 2012 @ 20:52
|
|
smoggie66
Member
|
17. March 2012 @ 22:21 |
Link to this message
|
my last computer had maximus formula rog x38 775 chipset i had it for 4 years and is still running strong round my sisters i now have asus p8p67 deluxe and never had a problem, i to have built computers since the 90's and had probs with both asus & gigbyte boards and 99% of the time its lower end boards with cheaper capacitors thats just my experience anyways.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
18. March 2012 @ 22:43 |
Link to this message
|
Why I won't tell somebody NOT to buy an ASUS board. Some people have had great luck with them but their past statistics leave me a bit wary. I will say the world overclock records are made on ASUS boards. Having a REAL chipset makes them a lot more reliable.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. March 2012 @ 22:47
|
|
