Plaayer Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 So my brother is wants a new PC. He currently runs some prebuilt Dell with some Core2Duo and a 7600GS in it. He likes gaming more now, so he came to me about configuring (and probably building later) a PC for him. Also, his friend came to me with the same proposal. I planned both builds to be <$800 each after shipping and tax, but less would be better. They will probably be bought and built maybe.... mid-Feb. Here's my brother's build. http://pcpartpicker.com/p/vXST There's a problem though. I can't decide if an FX-4300/FX-6100 (since they're the same price) would be better than the i3-3220 in the build. He'll be playing a lot of newer games like AC3, BF3, Farcry 3, etc. as well as some Source based games as well as some general things on the PC like web browsing, watching movies, etc. Here's my friends build. http://pcpartpicker.com/p/vXW3 The only difference between the two builds is the CPU. My brother's friend will be playing pretty much the same games, except he'll be doing video/photo editing. He never said how much video/photo editing he does, so a 3570K is more than enough. Please comment/suggest on the builds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuzzleR Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) Alright, so I highly recommend an SSD for your friends build since you mentioned editing and what not, as for your brothers, stay with the i3. The bulldozer CPUs absolutely suck, and the 3220 gets better benchmark scores in gaming than the FX6100. But if you're completely in need of a cheaper way, go for the AMD CPUs (and find another mobo ofc). Other than that, I think it's all good. Good luck Edit: oh yeah, on amazon/new egg you can get a seagate barracuda 2tb for 10$ more than the 1tb. Good deal IMO. Edited January 17, 2013 by BuzzleR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcwillzz Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Avoid the FX series processors and get him a tried-and-true AMD Phenom II x4 or x6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wookiefister Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Never ever get an FX processor as mcwillzz said if you are gonna do AMD go with a Phenom II Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Short Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Why get a "tried and true phenom II" when the second gen fx (6300) beats most stock clocked phenom's... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcwillzz Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Shortkid, you answered your own question... STOCK clocked, the phenoms are little overclocking beasts with more powerful cores that the fx series, the new architecture just isnt as good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youthedog Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Why get a "tried and true phenom II" when the second gen fx (6300) beats most stock clocked phenom's... I'm still wondering why they all say don't get AMD, especially FX. Isn't it amazing what research can tell you? amd 8350 comes in at 9229 http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8350+Eight-Core&id=1780 intel 3570k at 7144 http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-3570K+%40+3.40GHz&id=828 amd 6300 at 6587 http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-6300+Six-Core&id=1781 intel 2550k at 6584 http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-2550K+%40+3.40GHz&id=813 Even after each are overclocked, AMD still outperforms intel. As for the 4100/4300 vs 6100/6300, get the extra $20 and get the 6300, with a 660 he'll be fine on games. I have a 6300 and a 7870 and can get high fps on new games on max res with max settings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Short Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Shortkid, you answered your own question... STOCK clocked, the phenoms are little overclocking beasts with more powerful cores that the fx series, the new architecture just isnt as good Funny you say that, FX can get to 4.5 ghz with minimal tweaking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magic Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Does someone wanna teach me how to do this to my processor? I have the 6100 and i'm always looking to improve my computer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philosopher Daniel Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 (edited) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwcSzRmxtuw Don't overclock it too far in your first go, do little by little, constantly checking temps and system stability every time. Edited January 28, 2013 by Philosopher Daniel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
^TheRumor^ Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 (edited) Funny you say that, FX can get to 4.5 ghz with minimal tweaking. Yet they still have trouble keeping up with a stock clocked IB. AMD will always have flawed architecture, Intel will always be top dog. Benchies Edited January 29, 2013 by ^TheRumor^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philosopher Daniel Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Yet they still have trouble keeping up with a stock clocked IB. AMD will always have flawed architecture, Intel will always be top dog. Benchies Funny, i don't see any of the processors i have in those lists i7 930 and FX-8120 are the ones in my desktop(s) tbh i feel the FX-8120 is faster in pretty much any game i throw at it, makes sense considering i7 930 was released back in 2010 though.. Expected considering the 8120 has a bigger L1 and L2 cache. inb4 techtard i'm 14 guys, don't get mad @ me you should see some kids at my school, can't even open task manager, or navigate to program files. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enigma# Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 If you're itching for an overall build, you can get away with either. http://www.tomshardw...rks,3314-3.html A quick scope tells me that both perform neck and neck on some benchmarks, at some multimedia benchies AMD does win by a decent hold, otherwise Intel leads the way with some productivity benchmarks. That being said, the AMD build will probably draw a bit more power. There is a debate whether this difference in power is justifiable for your performance gains so take that as a grain of salt. Do your research! In my opinion, most microprocessors are more than capable of handling everyday tasks like loading the OS, basic programs etc... However, the actual subjective performance stems from not just the processor but also the hard drive/solid state drive, the PCH (if you're Intel driven) or 'chipset' and also how the buses are interconnected. The objective performance mostly stems from (once again, in my opinion) IPCs for power house users (see instructions per cycle) or FPS (games etc... for gamers). Your bandwidth is just as important but eh, HyperTransport is faster than QPI/DMI (depends on the implementation) however Intel has shown again and again that their IPC is better than AMD's. (That being said this doesn't hold true for all) At the end of the day, if you have a constraint and $$$, narrow your focus down on what you will do more often --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To address this 'subjective' issue the poster above decided to throw up, please keep in mind that you're talking about two different chipsets in different transitions of technologies. Let's bring this picture back an architecture, the whole bigger L1/L2 cache thing is subjective once again... Back then when Intel and AMD started really putting emphasis on L1/L2 cache increases, the difference in performance these two different microprocessors gained were different. Some in favour in AMD but mostly in favour of Intel. http://www.anandtech.com/show/1066/5 Coming from NetBurst to Core architecture, it's interesting to see that Intel's implementation of L1/L2 cache (but not only that) hold its ground with less L1 cache than the AMD. http://www.anandtech...oduct/47?vs=434 Speaking of subjectivity, AMD at FX GAmeExperience did a little test: http://www.legitrevi...article/1838/1/ Although I agree with the results (and can partially confirm what the poster above says), the question really becomes... is what you do going to take advantage of Intel's superiority or are you better off buying something else (i.e. AMD)? http://www.legitrevi...article/1838/1/ At the end of the day, AMD and Intel have strengths and weaknesses. It's a matter of how you utilise the processor and its platform. It's why this comparison between X58 chipset (2008) vs the newer 970 chipset (2011) lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BranHorse Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 More ghz = more power right? I really need to make a overclocking guide so you guys don't do something you'll regret. Also please don't say that any chip can get to any ghz with ease. This is false. You can get a chip that will run at 5ghz on air and you can get the same chip from the same batch that wont run 3.8. If you are overlocking to get the same performance as another chip then you are making a gamble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.