09-16-2014 01:41 PM
295 12345 ...
tools
  1. 05Paris's Avatar
    I think your first question was Intel vs AMD...I had been a big AMD guy for 15-20 yrs but the last few years Intel closed the gap with three things you can't get with AMD: i3-i5-i7 processors. I could care less about the i3 but the technology built in the i5 and i7 processors are game changers:
    1) Quick Sync Video with increased speed of downloads, create, edit and sharing
    2) Hyper Threading technology which allows simultaneously performing multi-tasks within the core
    3) Turbo Boost technology allows power only when you need it
    4) WiDi, Wireless Display, allows wirelessly streaming content from your PC to your TV in full 1080p while continuing to consume content or creating content of your own.
    02-26-2014 11:46 PM
  2. Jarip's Avatar
    Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: February 2014 - Best Gaming CPUs For The Money, February Updates

    At around 90, AMD's A10-5700 isn't a particularly compelling gaming processor. But imagine if it was 35 cheaper and included an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. That isn't a dream any longer. At last, the Athlon X4 750K is available. Selling for roughly 55, this is the cheapest enthusiast-friendly CPU you'll find. And while its lack of L3 cache hurts in games, we at least like knowing that its 100 W thermal ceiling isn't divided between x86 cores and graphics.

    The FX-6300 fares well in gaming tests, presumably thanks to better multi-core utilization and optimization for AMD's architecture over time. While Intel's Core i3-4130 offers more potential, you won't be able to tell the difference most of the time. On the other hand, the FX-6300 costs less, sports an unlocked clock multiplier, and features six integer cores that unquestionably benefit performance in threaded desktop applications.
    02-27-2014 12:24 AM
  3. abhishyam2007's Avatar
    I just saw this post and thought to ask.
    I have a 5yo laptop, amd turion x2 + ati radeon hd32xx. I am gonna buy a new laptop in a month or 2. I have options of an amd a10+8GB RAM +1GB amd radeon hd 7670 /OR/ Intel i3 haswell + 4GB ram + 1gb hd 7670.
    Which of the two should be better? I am gonna use it for another 4-5 years. And I am a student, so less of typing and more of gaming. Medium settings are good for me. And i am gonna start with games like cod mw2/3, BF3, which my current laptop wont play. Help pls! Thanks.
    02-27-2014 12:33 AM
  4. Angry_Mushroom's Avatar
    Go for an Intel i3 or i5 processor. Their energy usage is really quite low, and their performance tends to slam anything AMD can come up with. I'd say well worth the price for the future proofing. As for the graphics... The new Nvidia 750/Ti cards are beastly. Maxwell has truly pulled something unique in the electronics world.

    If you do go for AMD... go for their A-series processors. From what I've been able to see AMD has no future road map for their FX series.
    02-27-2014 01:01 AM
  5. Jarip's Avatar
    I just saw this post and thought to ask.
    I have a 5yo laptop, amd turion x2 + ati radeon hd32xx. I am gonna buy a new laptop in a month or 2. I have options of an amd a10+8GB RAM +1GB amd radeon hd 7670 /OR/ Intel i3 haswell + 4GB ram + 1gb hd 7670.
    Which of the two should be better? I am gonna use it for another 4-5 years. And I am a student, so less of typing and more of gaming. Medium settings are good for me. And i am gonna start with games like cod mw2/3, BF3, which my current laptop wont play. Help pls! Thanks.
    You did not mention which A10 (exact model) ? - is it the latest one (kaveri) ? - but I would go for Intel i3 Haswell + 4 Gb + AMD Radeo HD7670 in any case ...
    Last edited by Jarip; 02-27-2014 at 02:58 AM.
    02-27-2014 01:07 AM
  6. csd_images's Avatar
    I'll throw in this, AMD has a better longevity when it comes to motherboards. Intel tends to shift sockets with every generation but AMD you can generally drop in a new processor if the old one doesn't meet your requirements.

    Also there is another elephant in the room. AMD's Mantle and TrueAudio technology is designed to relieve the stress off of the CPU when gaming, and this has been borne out by the benchmarks. Considering that most of the major game engines have or will have Mantle in the coming months AMD will become a more compelling choice. Overall AMD tends to be better in multi-tasking and GPGPU work, whilst Intel is better for IPC and single-threaded tasks.

    Win 7/8 have been optimised for the 'strange' architecture that AMD introduced which helps matters but Intel still dominate high end and mostly in the mid-range if you want pure performance.

    Minimum RAM I'd say for any computer is 8Gb these days especially if you use memory hog apps like Chrome and there is games coming onto the market that will take advantage of the RAM (64Bit aware).
    02-27-2014 01:16 AM
  7. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    The problem with bothering with Mantle right now is that not a lot actually supports it. I think that Thief and Battlefield 4 do, but I don't know what (if anything) else does. The games the OP (and subsequent laptop-seeker) posted are not Mantle games, so Mantle won't be there to help them, at least in the short-term.

    As for board longevity, ehh. We're talking about keeping a desktop for 3-4 years. Neither AMD nor Intel will likely be on the same socket then. Even if AMD's next APU DID support the board the OP got now, it would likely be a sub-optimal backwards compatibility. As it stands, AMD is still playing with FM2+ for their APUs, I think, and I imagine it won't be the current socket in 3-4 years. Plus, AMD's not really messing with the FX line at all right now, and the AM3+ socket it uses is in need of an upgrade for the next FX release (if we ever see one), so AMD's current socket state isn't really any better than Intel's.
    02-27-2014 02:17 AM
  8. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    Go for an Intel i3 or i5 processor. Their energy usage is really quite low, and their performance tends to slam anything AMD can come up with. I'd say well worth the price for the future proofing. As for the graphics... The new Nvidia 750/Ti cards are beastly. Maxwell has truly pulled something unique in the electronics world.

    If you do go for AMD... go for their A-series processors. From what I've been able to see AMD has no future road map for their FX series.
    I don't see what you consider the big deal about the 750 Ti to be. It's a $160-170 GPU that competes with the AMD R7 GPUs, and it doesn't even beat them. The good Maxwell stuff is the GTX 800 line, and we don't know when that's coming. The 750 and 750 Ti are low-end cards that are in no way more-special than an R7 260X or R7 265, so I'm just lost as to what the "something unique" Nvidia is bringing would be.
    02-27-2014 02:23 AM
  9. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: February 2014 - Best Gaming CPUs For The Money, February Updates

    At around 90, AMD's A10-5700 isn't a particularly compelling gaming processor. But imagine if it was 35 cheaper and included an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. That isn't a dream any longer. At last, the Athlon X4 750K is available. Selling for roughly 55, this is the cheapest enthusiast-friendly CPU you'll find. And while its lack of L3 cache hurts in games, we at least like knowing that its 100 W thermal ceiling isn't divided between x86 cores and graphics.

    The FX-6300 fares well in gaming tests, presumably thanks to better multi-core utilization and optimization for AMD's architecture over time. While Intel's Core i3-4130 offers more potential, you won't be able to tell the difference most of the time. On the other hand, the FX-6300 costs less, sports an unlocked clock multiplier, and features six integer cores that unquestionably benefit performance in threaded desktop applications.
    1. The Athlons are APUs without the GPUs. The GPUs are what the APUs are desirable for; the CPUs are basically junk. On top of that, these are the Piledriver CPUs, so the Athlon's a year old, and it was crap when it was new.
    2. The i3 is $5/5 Euros more. However, it will basically win every test against the FX-6300. Legitimate gains for no legitimate price hike.
    02-27-2014 02:27 AM
  10. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    I just saw this post and thought to ask.
    I have a 5yo laptop, amd turion x2 + ati radeon hd32xx. I am gonna buy a new laptop in a month or 2. I have options of an amd a10+8GB RAM +1GB amd radeon hd 7670 /OR/ Intel i3 haswell + 4GB ram + 1gb hd 7670.
    Which of the two should be better? I am gonna use it for another 4-5 years. And I am a student, so less of typing and more of gaming. Medium settings are good for me. And i am gonna start with games like cod mw2/3, BF3, which my current laptop wont play. Help pls! Thanks.
    You should link the actual laptops you are considering. I'd say it's a 90% likelihood you'd want the Intel one, since it has a dedicated GPU (not relying on the junk Intel graphics for gaming). however, I'll offer a word of warning: Never EXPECT 5 years out of a laptop. Expect 2, then be thankful for anything more. I've owned one laptop in my life, and it lasted just over a year, and I never want to own another one as a result. It seems I can't go 6 months without someone I know having a laptop issue (bad charger pin, bad battery, bad WiFi card, bad HDD have all occurred). That's just a heads-up with laptops, expect problems.
    02-27-2014 02:29 AM
  11. Jan Tomsic's Avatar
    Why would you even consider a green drive in the first place? The blues are faster, more reliable, and cheaper, so why get the green? Also, 4 GB is fine for some, but it's definitely not fine for all. I upgraded my RAM in 2012 because I was hitting the 4-GB ceiling on my desktop. RAM's cheap, so going with 8 GB usually doesn't cost much. Oh, and 1333 RAM is bottom-of-the-barrel, not sure why you would waste your time with it.

    Beyond that, I can't read the list because it's in another language and isn't appearing to have the brands on the parts every time. I have no idea what the case or PSU brands/models are, so I can't say if they're worth a darn.

    Oh, and when we're talking about nearly-max graphics and a longevity of 3-4 years, Intel's graphics aren't going to cut it. Maybe on the lowest settings, but it's sketchy for more than a short-term fix.
    1) I'd consider WD Green because it's big and cheap. If you read my post (which you obviously didn't, otherwise you wouldn't be asking this question), you would see that I'm recommending two options: 1. WD Blue 500GB and 2. WD Green 1TB + Crucial 120GB SSD

    2) This is a supposed to be a budget PC, again, if you read my post, I'm explaining my choice for single 4GB RAM: you MAY not need more, but IF you do, it's very easy to upgrade later. 1333 or 1600, whatever, the difference in performance is maybe 5%. If you want faster and more RAM, it's 86,53 for Crucial Ballistix 1866MHz, 2x4GB. Final price in this case: 458.
    I don't think 1866MHz RAM is really going to improve any performance considering we're running a core-i3 here.

    3) The list is super easy to read (there's pictures and all), all the brands are appeared, but let me translate it for you:
    - chassis fan Arctic Cooling F12, 120m - 7,83
    - RAM Corsair DDR3 4GB 1333 MHz - 42,14
    - CPU Intel Core- i3 4130 - 107,54
    - PSU LC Power Silent LC5550 V2.2 550W - 43,94
    - motherboard Asus H81M-K, 1150 - 48,91
    - HDD WD Green 1TB, 7200rpm, 64MB, SATA3 - 60,80
    - SSD Crucial M500, 120GB, SATA3 - 77,44
    - chassis: the cheapest one (Spire CoolBox 503, w/o PSU, black) - 25,62

    Total cost: 414,22, and it should be less in Germany/Austria.
    OP says his budget is around 400, 500 tops. I made a configuration for 415, of course, you can make a better one for more money, but this is what 400 will get you.
    You can get WD Blue instead of Green+SSD and it saves you 75 that you can invest in more RAM and discreet GPU. Then you can get any GPU for <120 and still be under 500 (but not even close to 400 anymore).
    02-27-2014 03:30 AM
  12. Jarip's Avatar
    I agree with the above ... just make it with i3-4130 and SSD ... and later, it is pretty easy to upgrade even with just entry-level GPU (and maybe more RAM and with a bigger HDD for all data, depending on your true needs) ...
    02-27-2014 03:41 AM
  13. QwarkDreams's Avatar
    Okay, now you've lost me, guys.
    I want to build a DESKTOP, so laptops don't bother me at all (also they aren't really that upgrade-friendly, except for RAM and maybe HDD).
    My priorities are a tight budget and long term satisfaction in regards of a) not having to upgrade every few months and b) being able to upgrade without needing to replace the whole system (e.g. new CPU but the motherboard doesn't support it, or wanting to get a cheap GPU but in the meantime all the APUs are way better).

    At this point I will most likely settle for/need:

    APU (capable of handling games (e.g. Diablo3) on mid-high settings (upgrading later to a seperate GPU)
    4GB RAM (upgrading later to 8GB)
    Motherboard with 6 USB ports on backside (mouse/keyboard, 2x ext. HDD, printer)
    new OS (Win7 or 8)
    new Case (shouldn't look too cheap, since I'm going to have it for several years, e.g. I like the BitFenix Prodigy since they look modern but not like "look! I that's my uber-badass gaming pc lolz 1337!"^^)
    new HDD (maybe I upgrade later to an SSD for OS and most used programs and keep the HDD for all other programs)
    PSU (keeping in mind it should have enough wattage for a later added GPU)

    I don't think I forgot something (I'll reuse the optical drive from my current desktop).
    02-27-2014 04:30 AM
  14. falconrap's Avatar
    Games don't multi-thread heavily. That's the main reason Intel win, because their per-core quality is superior to AMD's, and most games don't get threaded heavily to hurt an i3. I have a 5850 as well myself, not sure why you even mentioned a 290X when it costs $700, or more than his whole budget. Even a 270X would serve him well for a few years, given he isn't doing 1080p, maxing games out, and isn't aiming for games like Battlefield 4 or The Division, where the graphics get crazy.
    First, you just made my point. He doesn't need the firepower to run a top end FPS at high res, full details. Which is why he doesn't need an Intel processor. I can run these games just fine with my 955, so a modern AMD processor will be just fine, which is the whole point. I mentioned the 290X as something one could save up for and get in the future if one's gaming needs changed. Let me put it to you another way...the Xbox One and PS4 both use AMD APU's, and they are game consoles. The reality is, although Intel is faster in single threaded benchmarks, all one needs to do is go to Anandtech's bench, look at the game comparisons of say an i3 530 and see that in games like Starcraft 2 an A8 is playable and often beats the i3. I really don't get the Intel hard-on from some people, but your GPU is going to be the limiting factor. An AMD APU WILL be playable for the types of games he plays for years, and can be cheaply upgraded in the future by either swapping out the APU or crossfiring with a $100 AMD GPU.

    The everyday experience I have had on my AMD PC's versus the Intel's I use at work, show me that there isn't a noticeable difference except that the AMD systems seem to handle multi-tasking better, but that's highly subjective. So why buy Intel again? Especially given Intel's past? And, one of the best things, that AMD systems tend to be easier and cheaper to upgrade, since they aren't changing to incompatible sockets every other year?
    02-27-2014 05:08 AM
  15. Jan Tomsic's Avatar
    Well you're quite demanding. A nice case will set you back 50+. Go hunt for a cheap nice case yourself, cheap cases really vary by availability across countries and stores.
    all new MoBos should have 6+ USB ports.
    You need OS too? That's another 80, and you're over your budget bigtime.
    So now we have: 75 for the case, 80 for Windows 8.1.
    245 remaining.
    4GB RAM ~ 40 (cheapest one will do, 1333~1600MHz)
    HDD ~ 60 (WD blue)
    PSU ~ 50 (you should be able to get some 500~600W LC power for this price)
    remaining: 94
    AMD Fusion A6 5400K Black Edition: 45
    AsRock FM2A75M-HD+: 45
    and it leaves you with 4 for a cheap fan.

    It will run diablo 3 on low, and it's inside 400 budget.
    APU has a decent graphics, but crappy CPU. Upgradeability is poor for this configuration because the CPU is the bottleneck and you're going to have to swap a whole MoBo to fit a new one.

    My advice: save some more money, and buy an i5 configuration for ~600. It will serve you far longer then any 400 build you build now.
    The problem with cheap builds is, that they are outdated before you even buy it, so you'll have to replace everything except HDD and RAM in 2 years to run anything better, and then you're going to buy another 400 build and in the end spend more then you would on a 600 i5 that will easily last you 5yrs.
    02-27-2014 05:24 AM
  16. Jarip's Avatar
    Well, YOUR budget is too tight (laugh) ...

    Well, here is some info i3-4130 vs. Pentium G3420 (both Haswell):

    Intel Pentium G3420 vs Core i3 4130

    Here is some info Pentium G3420 vs. AMD A6 6400K:

    Intel Pentium G3420 vs AMD A6 6400K

    Your motherboard could be based on Intel H81 chipset, like Gigabyte H81M-D2V Intel H81 (Socket 1150) Micro ATX

    ... and your near future update would be an entry level GPU (not decided until it is time to do it) ... :)
    02-27-2014 08:40 AM
  17. radmanvr's Avatar
    My next PC will have a budget of $4,000. My last one only had a budget of $500 its been good to me for the past 3 or 4 years. My next one will definitely be built for 7+ years
    02-27-2014 09:03 AM
  18. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    1) I'd consider WD Green because it's big and cheap. If you read my post (which you obviously didn't, otherwise you wouldn't be asking this question), you would see that I'm recommending two options: 1. WD Blue 500GB and 2. WD Green 1TB + Crucial 120GB SSD

    2) This is a supposed to be a budget PC, again, if you read my post, I'm explaining my choice for single 4GB RAM: you MAY not need more, but IF you do, it's very easy to upgrade later. 1333 or 1600, whatever, the difference in performance is maybe 5%. If you want faster and more RAM, it's 86,53 € for Crucial Ballistix 1866MHz, 2x4GB. Final price in this case: 458€.
    I don't think 1866MHz RAM is really going to improve any performance considering we're running a core-i3 here.

    3) The list is super easy to read (there's pictures and all), all the brands are appeared, but let me translate it for you:
    - chassis fan Arctic Cooling F12, 120m - 7,83€
    - RAM Corsair DDR3 4GB 1333 MHz - 42,14€
    - CPU Intel Core- i3 4130 - 107,54€
    - PSU LC Power Silent LC5550 V2.2 550W - 43,94€
    - motherboard Asus H81M-K, 1150 - 48,91€
    - HDD WD Green 1TB, 7200rpm, 64MB, SATA3 - 60,80€
    - SSD Crucial M500, 120GB, SATA3 - 77,44€
    - chassis: the cheapest one (Spire CoolBox 503, w/o PSU, black) - 25,62€

    Total cost: 414,22€, and it should be less in Germany/Austria.
    OP says his budget is around 400€, 500 tops. I made a configuration for 415€, of course, you can make a better one for more money, but this is what 400€ will get you.
    You can get WD Blue instead of Green+SSD and it saves you 75€ that you can invest in more RAM and discreet GPU. Then you can get any GPU for <120€ and still be under 500€ (but not even close to 400 anymore).
    1. Except I did read your post. My point is that Green drives aren't cheaper than their Blue counterparts. The 1-TB Green is $65. You said 500-GB Blue or 1-TB Green+120-GB SSD. I misread that as (Blue or Green) + SSD, which is my mistake. Regardless, there's no real reason to pick Green over Blue, unless you're super-eco-friendly or something. The 1-TB Green and Blue drives are the exact same price. IF you went the 1-TB+SSD route, the Blue is the same price as the Green, so no reason to not just go Blue.

    2. Agreed, the RAM's not a BIG jump for each step, but with a budget, a bunch of little steps can be a meaningful difference. I was also recommending just getting it to 1600 MHz, which is essentially the standard or recommending RAM nowadays (even on a budget, I never see 1333 RAM suggested). And part of the suggestion to not go 1333 MHz is that if he ends up needing more, it's better to upgrade on 1600 than 1333. Plus, if he takes the APU route, it was shown that Kaveri scales pretty well with faster RAM. Going from 1333 to 1600 was an increase of around 5 FPS, in most tests.

    3. Finally, thanks for the list. I didn't know the case and PSU brands, so I wasn't able to tell what in the product description was branding and what wasn't. Cases aren't a huge deal in these instances, but I'll say that I'm always scared of skimping on a PSU. That brand LC is a European-only distributor, so I know nothing of their quality. On top of that, I didn't see an 80+ rating for the PSU in the description, and that bothers me as well. I'd probably recommend a known brand like Sea Sonic/Corsair, but if you personally know that LC works, I defer to you on that.
    02-27-2014 11:14 AM
  19. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    My next PC will have a budget of $4,000. My last one only had a budget of $500 its been good to me for the past 3 or 4 years. My next one will definitely be built for 7+ years
    Good luck on that. There's almost no logical way to hit $4,000 on a rational PC purchase, haha. Granted, I DID manage to go to one of those custom building sites and get one up to $11,000+.
    02-27-2014 11:15 AM
  20. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    First, you just made my point. He doesn't need the firepower to run a top end FPS at high res, full details. Which is why he doesn't need an Intel processor. I can run these games just fine with my 955, so a modern AMD processor will be just fine, which is the whole point. I mentioned the 290X as something one could save up for and get in the future if one's gaming needs changed. Let me put it to you another way...the Xbox One and PS4 both use AMD APU's, and they are game consoles. The reality is, although Intel is faster in single threaded benchmarks, all one needs to do is go to Anandtech's bench, look at the game comparisons of say an i3 530 and see that in games like Starcraft 2 an A8 is playable and often beats the i3. I really don't get the Intel hard-on from some people, but your GPU is going to be the limiting factor. An AMD APU WILL be playable for the types of games he plays for years, and can be cheaply upgraded in the future by either swapping out the APU or crossfiring with a $100 AMD GPU.

    The everyday experience I have had on my AMD PC's versus the Intel's I use at work, show me that there isn't a noticeable difference except that the AMD systems seem to handle multi-tasking better, but that's highly subjective. So why buy Intel again? Especially given Intel's past? And, one of the best things, that AMD systems tend to be easier and cheaper to upgrade, since they aren't changing to incompatible sockets every other year?
    Ok, we need to get something straight here: Yes, games can run on AMD CPUs. However, it's at a point where AMD really doesn't have a pricing advantage over Intel in the CPU market. The FX-6300 can work, but the i3-4130 is $5 more and has better single-core performance, which is important for present-day games. There are instances the FX-6300 would win out, but in this case, it's AMD who is in the dead socket with AM3+. If he went with the i3, he could get an H81 board and upgrade to a Haswell i5 in a year or two, if he desired. Sadly, AMD hasn't released a gaming CPU since 2012, and that's the problem I have with picking them. They've said that there will be no SteamRoller FX CPU, meaning nothing in the FX market for at least another year.

    As for your A8 thing, I don't get what you're talking about. You're saying that a modern-day APU can beat the CPU of a 2010 i3, and that matters why? Yeah, the AMD stuff will do the job, but right now, AMD's not competing in the gaming market (more in the HTPC market), beyond the super low-end with the new APUs. You use your work as an exmaple, but what you do at work is not indicative of what someone does at home, which the OP is saying is playing games. Games just aren't highly-threaded yet, though some games are getting to the point with it. By the time the extra cores are needed regularly, the OP could save up the money to go to the i5, which would certainly topple the FX processor.
    02-27-2014 11:28 AM
  21. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    Okay, now you've lost me, guys.
    I want to build a DESKTOP, so laptops don't bother me at all (also they aren't really that upgrade-friendly, except for RAM and maybe HDD).
    My priorities are a tight budget and long term satisfaction in regards of a) not having to upgrade every few months and b) being able to upgrade without needing to replace the whole system (e.g. new CPU but the motherboard doesn't support it, or wanting to get a cheap GPU but in the meantime all the APUs are way better).

    At this point I will most likely settle for/need:

    APU (capable of handling games (e.g. Diablo3) on mid-high settings (upgrading later to a seperate GPU)
    4GB RAM (upgrading later to 8GB)
    Motherboard with 6 USB ports on backside (mouse/keyboard, 2x ext. HDD, printer)
    new OS (Win7 or 8)
    new Case (shouldn't look too cheap, since I'm going to have it for several years, e.g. I like the BitFenix Prodigy since they look modern but not like "look! I that's my uber-badass gaming pc lolz 1337!"^^)
    new HDD (maybe I upgrade later to an SSD for OS and most used programs and keep the HDD for all other programs)
    PSU (keeping in mind it should have enough wattage for a later added GPU)

    I don't think I forgot something (I'll reuse the optical drive from my current desktop).
    Just so you know what you're getting into with an APU, take a look at this: AnandTech Portal | AMD Kaveri Review: A8-7600 and A10-7850K Tested

    That page and the following one are the Kaveri APU (the newest one offered) gaming benchmarks. You're probably going to want to look at the second graph for each game, since it's medium graphics at 1680x1050. Hit the "Average FPS" button, and you'll get an idea of what some modern games are doing on the APUs. You'd almost certainly want the A10-7850K, which is the 95W option on the R7 graph (not to dumb it down too much, just not sure if you ever read benchmarks).

    BioShock Infinite isn't considered a top-end game, yet on those medium settings, the A10 only averages 25 FPS. Tomb Raider is also under 25 FPS, though just barely. F1 2013 gets over 50 FPS, so it's a game that would work. Sleeping Dogs is just under 30 FPS. Company of Heroes 2 is under 20 FPS.

    I'm not trying to burst anyone's bubble, but we're talking run-of-the-mill games, and they're not hitting 30 FPS, let alone 60 FPS, which is the ideal number to look for. Like I've said before, the APUs are desired for their GPUs, not their junk CPUs. Inside of 2 years, you're going to be struggling on medium settings, I imagine (if you get newer games). If you upgrade to a dedicated GPU later, make sure you get something that is compatible with the APU, because AMD's supposed to have it to where you can have a low-level CrossFire between an Rx GPU and the APU's R7 graphics. Not sure what the rules on which AMD GPUs will work with it right now, though.
    02-27-2014 11:39 AM
  22. Jan Tomsic's Avatar
    1. Except I did read your post. My point is that Green drives aren't cheaper than their Blue counterparts. The 1-TB Green is $65. You said 500-GB Blue or 1-TB Green+120-GB SSD. I misread that as (Blue or Green) + SSD, which is my mistake. Regardless, there's no real reason to pick Green over Blue, unless you're super-eco-friendly or something. The 1-TB Green and Blue drives are the exact same price. IF you went the 1-TB+SSD route, the Blue is the same price as the Green, so no reason to not just go Blue.

    2. Agreed, the RAM's not a BIG jump for each step, but with a budget, a bunch of little steps can be a meaningful difference. I was also recommending just getting it to 1600 MHz, which is essentially the standard or recommending RAM nowadays (even on a budget, I never see 1333 RAM suggested). And part of the suggestion to not go 1333 MHz is that if he ends up needing more, it's better to upgrade on 1600 than 1333. Plus, if he takes the APU route, it was shown that Kaveri scales pretty well with faster RAM. Going from 1333 to 1600 was an increase of around 5 FPS, in most tests.

    3. Finally, thanks for the list. I didn't know the case and PSU brands, so I wasn't able to tell what in the product description was branding and what wasn't. Cases aren't a huge deal in these instances, but I'll say that I'm always scared of skimping on a PSU. That brand LC is a European-only distributor, so I know nothing of their quality. On top of that, I didn't see an 80+ rating for the PSU in the description, and that bothers me as well. I'd probably recommend a known brand like Sea Sonic/Corsair, but if you personally know that LC works, I defer to you on that.
    1) on the website where I was looking, 1TB green cost the same as 500GB blue, if you get 1TB blue for that price, even better. I'd get green to store lots of movies, and music. Drive speed is pretty irrelevant in that case, and because it's slow, I'd combine it with SSD.

    2) I checked again, 1600 or 1333 is about the same price, as he was on a super tight budget, I went for the cheapest one. Of course, the faster the better, but I wouldn't go the 2000MHz+ route and spend 1/4 of the budget on RAM. Since he wants an expensive case and this budget needs to also include Windows, we're even tighter.

    3) I rewrote it, no problem. LC power is one of most common budget PSUs, at least in Slovenia. If a store sells PSUs, they most probably sell LC power. They used to be crap, but I think they improved, even the price for better models can compete with corsair, antec etc. It's probably 80+ bronze though, I wouldn't count on anything more (rather less). I payed about 130€ for my 800W 80+ gold Super Flower. Again, I'd go for all those things in a 600€ build, but 400€, you want to squeeze as much performance as possible and ignore other factors. Sea Sonic for example, I've never heard of :)
    I bought a super sketchy brand (super flower), but all the tests and reviews were good about it, it cost quite a lot too, but it was the cheapest 80+ gold 800W PSU, and it'd modular and everything, it's serving me well.

    I really lost track on AMD though, I do have a E-450 laptop, (intel atom comparable, but with radeon built in), but I'm all for intel (i7 in my desktop, and if I got a new laptop I would only really look at i5 and i7 builds), then again, I don't much about less then i5 intels either.

    I don't have much else to add to the topic, the budget is super tight, unless OP increases it or sacrifices chassis or something, there isn't much more for me to add. If OP want's a 600€ build, I'll be happy to help.
    02-27-2014 12:31 PM
  23. QwarkDreams's Avatar
    Seeing all the talk about single thread and multi-core. What is the real every day use of it? Does it really matter how many cores my cpu/apu has when I don't do video rendering or stuff like that?
    02-27-2014 01:31 PM
  24. Jan Tomsic's Avatar
    Seeing all the talk about single thread and multi-core. What is the real every day use of it? Does it really matter how many cores my cpu/apu has when I don't do video rendering or stuff like that?
    Well yes it does, for games especially (MOST new games are optimized for multiple cores)
    Imagine the CPU like a highway, single core means it has one lane, and multi core means it has more, so more cars can drive at the same time. Now if you have a particularly slow truck, it will still take time to finish, but at least other lanes are free for other cars. Higher range intel CPUs are hyper threaded, which means that each core can process two threads at the same time, this is like taking the truck on one lane, split the load between two faster trucks and off it goes (except trucks are always the same, and lanes are fast/slow, if you get my reference)
    You are never running just one program at a time, you browse the web, listen to music, torrents are downloading in the background, skydrive is syncing, outlook is checking for email and lots of other (system) processes. On a multi core/threaded CPU it means that it can perform more tasks at the same time, even it individual tasks are single-threaded. And if an individual task is multithreaded (encoding video for example, the encoder could 'split' the video in half, and each core would perform this half, which means half the time. If you have 4 cores, only 1/4th time.)
    This is all very illustrated. Read more about it on wikipedia, you could learn more there, and more accurately. Interesting stuff.
    02-27-2014 02:05 PM
  25. Keith Wallace's Avatar
    Yeah, but the difference is almost splitting hairs when we're talking i3 vs. A-10. The i3 has 2 full cores and the Hyper Threading to give it 4 threads. All of AMD's CPUs (be they APUs or FX CPUs) have "modules," not true cores. It's almost like Hyper Threading at a physical level, instead of the virtual level Intel's Hyper Threading works at. The simplest way to put it is that a core has two major parts, a floating point core and an integer core. And AMD processor that claims to have 4 cores is actually 4 integer cores and 2 floating point cores. They're not full cores. Instead of it being 4 full cores, you've got 4 pseudo-cores, which is where the term "module" comes in.

    But you really don't need to worry about all of the technical stuff for this. Games are usually optimized for multiple cores, but the thing is, "multiple" seems to usually mean "two." Not a lot of games make full use of tri- and quad-core processors. Diablo 3 likely only makes use of 2 cores, considering that's the case with WoW (if I remember correctly). In the future, developers will certainly write games to properly use 4 cores, and that's why I suggested the idea of getting an i3-4130 now, then maybe stepping up to an i5-4430 or i5-4570 in a year or two, when it becomes beneficial. I'd consider having to get a new CPU preferable to the AMD APU route of needing a new CPU, GPU, and board.
    02-27-2014 02:34 PM
295 12345 ...

Similar Threads

  1. WP VS IOS VS Android through the years evolution
    By abarzabar in forum Phone Wars
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-03-2014, 12:58 PM
  2. Metrotube vs MyTube (feature comparison)
    By anon5351951 in forum Applications
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 03-01-2014, 03:04 PM
  3. 928 vs Icon - Image Quality Comparison
    By JudgeHolden in forum Nokia Lumia Icon
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 02-26-2014, 10:37 AM
  4. 1020 bands vs 920 bands - SUPER confused
    By MikesChevelle in forum Nokia Lumia 1020
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-25-2014, 06:58 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD