Budget Gaming Rig: Good or Bad?

Okedokey

Okedokey

Well-Known Member
Even with OC, most of the AMD range falls behind the i3 and they all are behind the i5. Poor form.

AMD has been firmly on the back foot since Intel released its Core microarchitecture in 2006. The venerable AMD64 architecture may have ruled the roost in its day, but AMD has yet to come up with a winning answer to any of Intel’s recent top-end CPUs.

Intel’s Sandy Bridge architecture has only compounded AMD’s position too. Not only is Intel winning the overall and clock-for-clock performance ratings, but the Core i5-2500K is also one of the most power-efficient CPUs we’ve seen. The competition isn’t likely to become any easier for AMD either, as Intel’s Ivy Bridge CPUs, with their Tri-Gate 3D transistors, look set to extend these performance improvements further in 2012.
Click to expand...
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/07/13/amd-phenom-ii-x4-980-black-edition/1
 
P

pc_fanatic

Member
jonnyp11

jonnyp11

New Member
bigfellla said:
LOL look in the mirror mate, there is not a single AMD cpu that beats intel at the moment at any price point. Thats not fanboyism, its fact.
Click to expand...

it took me a whle to find this, but on passmark.com, the athlon x2 255 beats the celeron dual-core e3500, ha, amd wins this battle, but they get nuked in the war :(
 
2048Megabytes

2048Megabytes

Active Member
bigfellla said:
this disagrees with you http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Celeron+E3500+@+2.70GHz but yeah, they're both the same price and both rubbish.
Click to expand...

The Athlon II 255 and the Celeron E3500 are not rubbish. For the latest really demanding games they may not measure up, but for older games like GT Racing 2 it would work fine. I would hardly call the Athlon II 255 and Celeron E3500 rubbish. If I were building a powerful gaming machine I would not want to put any dual-core processor at the heart of the system.

Now, the system I am typing this on right now with at someone else's house has processor that really lacks. I would call this Pentium 4 (2.8 gigahertz) rubbish. The Athlon II 255 is four times more powerful than this processor. But they also paid $0 for this computer they have now.
 
O

old_school

New Member
Save your self some cash on DDR3 use DDR2 instead. about the same performance and alot cheaper. Use the savings for a better motherboard and I don;t know where your getting these others parts but never herd of their brands. Like this for example "APEVIA X-Plorer2 Case w/ Side Window-Blue" what brand is this? But its a case so I guess its not really important. Things to cheap out on are external crap like cases, power supplies etc. Important stuff is CPU, Motherboard, Hard Drive, Memory (recomend DDR2) and Video. These are the parts that determine performance. I have a old P3 machine that can still outperform my wifes brand new dual core laptop. How is it possiable? Well tweak the hell out of the OS and buy good parts internally.
 
mihir

mihir

VIP Member
old_school said:
Save your self some cash on DDR3 use DDR2 instead. about the same performance and alot cheaper. Use the savings for a better motherboard and I don;t know where your getting these others parts but never herd of their brands. Like this for example "APEVIA X-Plorer2 Case w/ Side Window-Blue" what brand is this? But its a case so I guess its not really important. Things to cheap out on are external crap like cases, power supplies etc. Important stuff is CPU, Motherboard, Hard Drive, Memory (recomend DDR2) and Video. These are the parts that determine performance. I have a old P3 machine that can still outperform my wifes brand new dual core laptop. How is it possiable? Well tweak the hell out of the OS and buy good parts internally.
Click to expand...

WTH

You are confusing and mis-informing the members.
None of the above statement is a fact nor true.

Please do not provide wrong information.

I would advice the OP not to take the above post seriously.

And DO NOT get a crappy PSU
 
Last edited:
jonnyp11

jonnyp11

New Member
especially since ddr2 is incompattible, and expensive hdd will perform almost the same as a cheaper one, just don't go down to anything 5400rpm and you'll be fine normally, and how have not heard of apevia and the other brands, you litteraly have to have been in a cave for the last couple years to be saying the stuff you did.
 
P

pc_fanatic

Member
old_school said:
Save your self some cash on DDR3 use DDR2 instead. about the same performance and alot cheaper. Use the savings for a better motherboard and I don;t know where your getting these others parts but never herd of their brands. Like this for example "APEVIA X-Plorer2 Case w/ Side Window-Blue" what brand is this? But its a case so I guess its not really important. Things to cheap out on are external crap like cases, power supplies etc. Important stuff is CPU, Motherboard, Hard Drive, Memory (recomend DDR2) and Video. These are the parts that determine performance. I have a old P3 machine that can still outperform my wifes brand new dual core laptop. How is it possiable? Well tweak the hell out of the OS and buy good parts internally.
Click to expand...

DDR3 actually costs the pretty much the same as DDR2. The reason is DDR2 is becoming obsolete and thus becoming harder to obtain. Also, all the recent and future proof mobos use ddr3, not ddr2.
 
P

pc_fanatic

Member
jonnyp11 said:
not to mantion most mobo's don't support ddr2
Click to expand...

^+1 Unless its old, obsolete, or out of production, its gonna be DDR3 compatible. I don't know why they didn't make RAM sitcks backwards compatible. Why did they change the slots so it won't fit? Must be because the new mobos just don't get along technically with the old stuff.
 
2048Megabytes

2048Megabytes

Active Member
The reason why new motherboards do not fit old memory is the following: Double Data Rate 3 is a refined version of DDR2 memory. DDR2 memory can in theory run at speeds of up to around 8500 megabytes per second (but in reality data transfer rate will be about half that). DDR3 data transfer rate is now over twice that. I do not know about you, but I would gladly take RAM that transfers data twice as fast. Faster data transfer rate means a better performing computer.

Edit: Old DDR2 technology had its limits and that is why new motherboards are not using old DDR2.
 
Last edited:
P

pc_fanatic

Member
Okay what HD should I get:

1TB WD Cav. Blue 32mb - People say it makes loud screechy noise.

1TB WD Cav. Black 64mb - Supposedly loudest and hottest. People say price not worth the incremental performance gain. Priciest

640GB WD Cav. Blue 16mb - Excellent reviews. Supposedly no noise, low heat, highly reliable. 320 gb platters compared to 500 gb for other two.

Or something else instead?
 
jonnyp11

jonnyp11

New Member
yes to seagate, no to better, but like the same thing with different name, and i think it's reviewed better too.
 
Aastii

Aastii

VIP Member
jonnyp11 said:
try the western digital barracuda 1tb which is 6gb/s and basically the same as the wd caviar blue 1tb.
Click to expand...

It isn't 6GB/s. That is purely marketing. It is saying it is compatible with SATA 6, which all SATA devices are, however it won't use the full bandwidth, it won't even use the full bandwidth of SATA 3. The only drives which actually need the increased bandwidth are the newer mid-high range, and higher-end SSD's. They have a throughput greater than 3.0 Gb/s, so would be bottlenecked by a SATA 3 port.

I would take a SeaGate if it is a .12 or .13 drive, they are pretty decent, however given the price of 1TB drive, a Samsung F3 is your best choice

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152185

will give you the best performance for a relatively low price
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top