# Budget Gaming Rig: Good or Bad?



## pc_fanatic

Here's my build:

AMD Athlon II 64 X4 645 Quad-Core 3.1GHz Processor AM3

AMD STANDARD COOLING FAN

Asus M4A78LT-M Socket AM3/ AMD 760G/ A&V&GbE/ MATX Motherboard

4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 1333MHz (PC3 10600) Dual Channel

Hitachi / WD 1TB 7200 RPM 32MB CACHE SATA 3.0Gb/s

24X DUAL LAYER DVD-RW W/LIGHTSCRIBE

ATI Radeon HD 3000 FULL HD 1080p 512MB DVI/HDTV PCI-Express Video Card (Onboard)

REALTEK 8-CHANNEL DIGITAL SOUND ONBOARD

REALTEK 10/100/1000 Gigabit Network Card (onboard)

APEVIA X-Plorer2 Case w/ Side Window-Blue

(2X) OKIA 80MM CASE COOLER

hec X ORION 585 WATT POWER SUPPLY (MEDIUM LOAD)

GeForce 460 SE Video Card (dedicated)

GRAND TOTAL: 548$ All prebuilt, must add dedicated card myself.

QUESTION 1: Are all the parts of good quality? 
QUESTION 2 Will everything work well together? (ex: mobo and gpu etc.)
QUESTION 3: Is the PSU large enough and of good enough quality for my rig?
QUESTION 4: Is it a good deal?

I think its a very good deal for a prebuilt but I want other opinions, thanks. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*****EDIT: changed mobo to Asus M4N68T-M, case to BCC VOYAGER MID-TOWER ATX, HDD to WD 1TB 7200 RPM 32MB CACHE SATA 6.0Gb/s, and PSU to Corsair CMPSU-500CXV2 Builder Series™ CX500 Power Supply - 500W, 80 Plus, 120mm Fan, Single +12V Rail, Active PFC*****
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Grand Total: $537


----------



## Quickpaw

never go with a hitachi hard drive. go with a western digital caviar black or a similar seagate hdd.

if you're able to, i'd switch to a modular power supply in a better brand
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817371016 check this one out maybe?

without checking myself, i figure if its a prebuilt machine then it should all be compatible out of the box. its not that bad a deal, you may find better value in a custom build though.


----------



## StrangleHold

Outdated chipset on the motherboard.

The case and power supply and harddrive are pretty much junk.


----------



## pc_fanatic

Thanks for the reply. I know hitachi sucks but if you notice my drive says hitachi/ WD so I guess I can choose western digital instead. All the other psu's were too expensive. Is this one bad or something? What do you mean modular?


----------



## StrangleHold

Hec X are junk. Stick with Corsair/XFX/Silverstone/Antec/PC P&C/Seasonic


----------



## jonnyp11

that gpu won't get you very far, but further than me so yeah.


----------



## Casey

Like all said above, get a better PSU and HDD, and yes, I would try to get an updated motherboard, it looks a bit dated. And honestly if you have the money just go ahead and get a 560 or a 560ti, or just go ATI/Radeon and grab a 6850-6870. Anywhere in there. It would be worth the money.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

If you want some more options on power supply manufacturers pick from any of the following:

Good Quality Power Supplies
Antec, Channelwell, Corsair, Delta, Enermax, PC Power & Cooling, SeaSonic, Silverstone, XFX, and Zalman

Okay Quality Power Supplies
OCZ, Sparkle Power, Thermaltake, XClio


----------



## pc_fanatic

jonnyp11 said:


> that gpu won't get you very far, but further than me so yeah.


How will it not get me far? My x1900 crossfire that I have right now runs crysis on medium and this new card is WAY better.


----------



## StrangleHold

Dont know where your getting the hardware. But look for a AM3+ 970 chipset board.


----------



## Okedokey

Also consider a i3 system, 550W Corsair PSU, 4GB ddr3 ram, lga1155 motherboard and wd 250gb hdd,  nice and cheap and powerful.


----------



## pc_fanatic

*New Build*

What do you think of this?

Intel Core i3 Processor i3-2100 3.1GHz 3MB DUAL CORE

INTEL STANDARD PROCESSOR COOLING FAN

Asus P8H67-M LE B3 REV 3.0 LGA1155/ Intel H67/ DDR3/ SATA3&USB3.0/ A&GbE/ MATX Motherboard

8GB Patriot DDR3 1333mhz dual channeled

GTX 460 1GB 

SEAGATE / WD 1TB 7200 RPM 32MB CACHE SATA 6.0Gb/s

24X DUAL LAYER DVD-RW W/LIGHTSCRIBE

INTEL HD 2000/3000 1GB HDMI/DVI/VGA 1080p PCI-EXPRESS VIDEO (ONBOARD)

REALTEK 8-CHANNEL DIGITAL SOUND ONBOARD

REALTEK 10/100/1000 Gigabit Network Card (onboard)

Rosewill Blackbone Black Steel / Plastic ATX Mid Tower Computer Case

ANTEC 650W HIGH PERFORMANCE SLI/CROSSFIRE POWER SUPPLY

All for $710


----------



## 2048Megabytes

In my opinion I would take a Phenom II 840 or a Phenom II 945 Quad-Core Processor over an Intel i3 2100 Dual-Core.

AMD Phenom II X4 840 (3.2 gigahertz) Quad-Core Processor - $105
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...re=Phenom_II_processor-_-19-103-921-_-Product


----------



## pc_fanatic

2048Megabytes said:


> In my opinion I would take a Phenom II 840 or a Phenom II 945 Quad-Core Processor over an Intel i3 2100 Dual-Core.
> 
> AMD Phenom II X4 840 (3.2 gigahertz) Quad-Core Processor - $105
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...re=Phenom_II_processor-_-19-103-921-_-Product



I was considering that at first. 2 extra physical cores beat 2 hyper threaded cores all day long. Plus true quads are better for non-gaming multitasking. Should I pay more for am3+ board or will am3 be okay?


----------



## 2048Megabytes

Definitely get the Socket AM3+ board.  You can upgrade to Socket AM3+ processors in the future when they get released.


----------



## pc_fanatic

Changed my mind I'm sticking with intel. Benchmarks prove that i3-2100 destroys quad phenoms in terms of gaming but it worse for video editing and stuff. Plus when ivy bridges come out sandy's will become cheaper. On the 1155 socket I can go all the up to i7 k's, plenty of upgrade room.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

I would wait until August 20th before buying anything in my opinion.  Who knows how powerful Socket AM3+ is going to be?


----------



## Okedokey

sandy bridge will demolish amd, no worries there, and if you want to wait, then get LGA2011 Sandybridge E, which will smash bulldozer no doubt at all.  Also sandy bridge ocs like no ones business.


----------



## Aastii

bigfellla said:


> sandy bridge will demolish amd, no worries there, and if you want to wait, then get LGA2011 Sandybridge E, which will smash bulldozer no doubt at all.  Also sandy bridge ocs like no ones business.



Have you personally used an AM3+ chip to know this, or just guesswork?

There is no credible evidence to say bulldozer will be any better or worse than Sandy Bridge at this point


----------



## Okedokey

Aastii said:


> Have you personally used an AM3+ chip to know this, or just guesswork?
> 
> There is no credible evidence to say bulldozer will be any better or worse than Sandy Bridge at this point



Have you?  No, so its speculation obviously, don't need to be a genius to work that out.  Just going on past performances with multiple generations. Not convinced this will be the savior for AMD, plus sandy bridge E is coming out so its a pointless release unless its super good.  Also, the sandy's are pretty awesome mate.  But as i said, I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is are you? Even if in some insane overclock specific scenario the Bullsh*t chip is better, the LGA2011 will come out and trounce it - my *prediction*, but a valid one.  But you're right, only time will tell....  back to war hey mate ?


----------



## Aastii

I agreed with you that it is speculation when I said there is no credible evidence 

And all of the "recent" AMD chips have been K8, or tweaks there of, but pretty much the same, just with some stuff added and changed. As bulldozer is an entire new architecture, you can't really compare it to previous gens because it is nothing like previous gens.

I agree the Sandy Bridge chips are awesome at the moment, but people thought the Core 2 chips were awesome, which at the time they were, but look at what we have now. The same goes for Nahelem, people were amazed when SB came out and a chip that was clocked lower could outperform a chip that cost substantially more. Things change, technology advances, and what was ground breaking and amazing won't be at the next release. I'm not going to say it will be any better or worse until I know at release, all I will say is I am hopeful, but not confident until I see results


----------



## 2048Megabytes

bigfellla said:


> But you're right, only time will tell....  back to war hey mate ?



Back to war.  That is funny.


----------



## QwertyMusicMan

I also need to know if my setup will work, and what else (wires, etc) I need

GPU
http://www.amazon.com/VisionTek-Rad...f=sr_1_14?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1310691007&sr=1-14

Mobo
http://www.amazon.com/Gigabyte-Sock...4IB6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1310694754&sr=8-1

RAM
http://www.amazon.com/Crucial-CT2KI...-SODIMM/dp/tech-data/B001MX5YWI/ref=de_a_smtd

Case
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811156245

Processor
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103886

DVD Drive
http://www.amazon.com/Lite-LightScribe-Layer-Drive-IHAS424-98/dp/B002SIMPXM/ref=pd_bxgy_e_text_b

Hard Drive
http://www.amazon.com/Barracuda-3-5...-ST1000DL002/dp/B004XVMB0E/ref=dp_ob_title_ce

Power Unit
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...roogle-_-Power+Supplies-_-Rosewill-_-17182039

Win 7 64-bit
http://www.amazon.com/Windows-Premi...PT3I/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1310767786&sr=8-1

and my pair of headphones


Thanks!


----------



## StrangleHold

bigfellla said:


> Also consider a i3 system


 
Junk. Dont you still have to put gas in those to get them to start. Think they (might) still have a pull start, but maybe the new models have electric start.

The last AMD I bought, came with the Budweiser girls for the weekend.


----------



## Aastii

No they won't, the memory is for a notebook, not a desktop. If you can find an extra $18, I would change out some parts and get:

mobo: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128521

CPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103808

Memory: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231190

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

PSU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817256061

Video Card: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102940

Case: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811146061

DVD drive: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827151233

Copy of Windows

Totals out, after rebates, to ~$619


----------



## jonnyp11

why not an i3 at that price, i mean it is faster and all, pretty sure it has been mentioned multiple times, and i can't tell if strangle is being sarcastic for or against the i3


----------



## Aastii

jonnyp11 said:


> why not an i3 at that price, i mean it is faster and all, pretty sure it has been mentioned multiple times, and i can't tell if strangle is being sarcastic for or against the i3



because you can get a 955 for about the same, and it has more power. You still have upgrade paths if you get an AM3+ mobo, because you can go bulldozer later down the line, so it is better now, and still good for later too


----------



## QwertyMusicMan

Aastii said:


> No they won't, the memory is for a notebook, not a desktop. If you can find an extra $18, I would change out some parts and get:
> 
> mobo: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128521
> 
> CPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103808
> 
> Memory: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231190
> 
> HDD: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152185
> 
> PSU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817256061
> 
> Video Card: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102940
> 
> Case: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811146061
> 
> DVD drive: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827151233
> 
> Copy of Windows
> 
> Totals out, after rebates, to ~$619



Ok... as I'm new to this whole thing, 
1) why the new Mobo, it's twice as expensive
2) I need 8GB/6GB of memory, as I'm doing other stuff that requires 6 or 8 to run well, in addition to gaming
3) Other PSU has more watts and is less expensive, so why the new one
4) I assume new case would need more $$ for the water and fans
5) Any way to bring the price down?
6) Is it even worth getting this set-up? Will it run games on higher settings well?

Thanks!


----------



## Aastii

QwertyMusicMan said:


> Ok... as I'm new to this whole thing,
> 1) why the new Mobo, it's twice as expensive
> 2) I need 8GB/6GB of memory, as I'm doing other stuff that requires 6 or 8 to run well, in addition to gaming
> 3) Other PSU has more watts and is less expensive, so why the new one
> 4) I assume new case would need more $$ for the water and fans
> 5) Any way to bring the price down?
> 6) Is it even worth getting this set-up? Will it run games on higher settings well?
> 
> Thanks!



1) several reasons:

1. It is more upgradable. The board I linked has 4 DIMM slots as opposed to the 2 on the one you put. This means that although you have enough memory now, when you want to upgrade later you will have to get rid of all of your memory to upgrade. It also means the total maximum capacity is less.

2. Look at the PCIe slot on the board you picked, and the location of the SATA ports. A graphics card with a 2-slot cooler is going to be obstructing one, if not two of your SATA ports, meaning in reality, after you have your hard drive and DVD drive in there, you have no extra expansion slots should you later wish to add another hard drive or optical drive.

3. The one you picked does not have AM3+ support. Again, this makes for much better upgradablitity (real word? ), because when this system doesn't quite cut it any more, you are stuck, you would have to get a new CPU AND  new motherboard, rather than just getting a new Bulldozer (AMD's new line of processors) chip, which will work on AM3+ boards, but not AM3

4. Chipset. The chipset of the board I picked will give you better performance than the one you picked.

2) I doubt you need more than 4GB. I frequently sit with at least 2 games open, TeamSpeak, Google Chrome with at least 10+ tabs, several files/folders, Xfire, Steam, all open at the time, and not rarely another program, be it an FTP client, Photoshop, calculator, whatever, and on 4GB, have yet to see my system go over 75% memory usage.

3) Wattage is not everything. The one I linked is of a much higher quality. You can get 700W PSU's for $20, when you can also get 700W PSU's for $100. The reason why is obvious - quality. The $20 PSU will be less efficient, less reliable and will not actually be able to output 700W, because of the distribution of power.

The components which use the most power, your CPU and video card, take power from the 12V rail of your PSU. Lower end units will not have most of the Amps on the 12V rail, but instead on the 5V and 3.3V rails. This means the manufacturers can claim they have a high wattage power supply, when really, it is no good because the system can't use that power. All that will end up happening is you will overload your already poor power supply.

4) What water? And it already has decent airflow. If you wanted, you could get another fan to draw air in from the front, but it isn't essential to do so

5) Yes, but bare in mind you will also take a performance hit. If you need to cut some corners to save some money:

Change the CPU to: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103871

Change the hard drive to: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136769

Change the memory to: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820211364

6) I would take this set up over what you have now, however if there is an option to save up a little more, even just $50, you could improve the system further. With a $650 budget, you could change your video card to:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130570

which would greatly improve gaming performance.

Without that though, and just using the set up I put above, you will be playing every single game out now and in the near future without any problems


----------



## jonnyp11

getting a cheap mobo or psu is the most common mistake, these 2 thing are the most likely to screw you over, especially if you get acheap psu cuz it is more likely to fry your system, and btw go to newegg and look in the current email special and there is a nice 90 buck ocz modxstreme for 55 or 65 with a 20 buck mir, but still obly 500watts i think, and as for the comment on watts, most low ends combine the 5 and 12 volt rails to get that number but the 12 volt is the only one that matters really, and there's also 8gb's of corsair vengance for 60 right now so i'd get those if you want more, and this will not be maxing out much mainstreme games but will play pretty dang well


----------



## Okedokey

Aastii said:


> because you can get a 955 for about the same, and it has more power. You still have upgrade paths if you get an AM3+ mobo, because you can go bulldozer later down the line, so it is better now, and still good for later too



The 955 seems significantly slower in most benchmarks ive seen http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=289

Also the upgrade potential is as you have stated here unknown, yet the upgrade potential of the LG1155 is explosive (e.g. Core i7 2600K).

I know where my money would go.


----------



## jonnyp11

technecally the upgrade potential of the 955 on a am3+ is explosive if bulldozer is any good, but we don't know yet so don't go off on that stuff


----------



## jonnyp11

and i was going to point out how much better the i3 2100 was on the benches at anandtech bothe 1v1 benches and gaming benches, but i noticed then with the exact same setup supposedly the 2500k was beating the 2600k on the same game res mobo ram and all by almost a full frame a second, so something's funky with their stuff


----------



## Aastii

bigfellla said:


> The 955 seems significantly slower in most benchmarks ive seen http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=289
> 
> Also the upgrade potential is as you have stated here unknown, yet the upgrade potential of the LG1155 is explosive (e.g. Core i7 2600K).
> 
> I know where my money would go.





jonnyp11 said:


> and i was going to point out how much better the i3 2100 was on the benches at anandtech bothe 1v1 benches and gaming benches, but i noticed then with the exact same setup supposedly the 2500k was beating the 2600k on the same game res mobo ram and all by almost a full frame a second, so something's funky with their stuff



This.

Though I have seen that the i3 is a lot quicker in synthetic benches (no surprises there) and gaming that only takes advantage of 1 or 2 cores (like Crysis), you go into multi-threaded gaming, which most newer games are, and the 955 has the edge.

However, with that said, the i3, when overclocked, will beat the 955 when overclocked, however I wouldn't get a chip based on overclocking potential.

Regarding the performance of Bulldozer, it is indeed an unknown, however I have no doubt that it will be significantly quicker than the Phenom II's are, otherwise AMD may as well say "we have scrapped it", it would be much less embarrassing than releasing a dud chip. With that in mind, that would make it quicker than the i3 is. Quicker than the 2700k? Who knows, but if it isn't, it will also be cheaper, yet still plenty to play any game.

If I was building a system right now, I would take a 2500k, however for a budget system, I would take a 955 every time


----------



## 2048Megabytes

Aastii, would not it be better to go with DDR3 1600 or DDR3 1866 RAM for a Socket AM3+ upgrade?  DDR3 1333 would hold back the full potential of a Socket AM3+ system.


----------



## jonnyp11

well really that only shows in benches and barely there from what i've seen


----------



## StrangleHold

2048Megabytes said:


> Aastii, would not it be better to go with DDR3 1600 or DDR3 1866 RAM for a Socket AM3+ upgrade? DDR3 1333 would hold back the full potential of a Socket AM3+ system.


 
DDR3 1600 would be better then 1333, plus just being a few bucks more is a bonus. But if you can get a (good deal) on 1866 would be the best bet.


----------



## Okedokey

StrangleHold said:


> Junk. Dont you still have to put gas in those to get them to start. Think they (might) still have a pull start, but maybe the new models have electric start.



Hardly, its faster than a Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and about equivalent to Phenom II X4 Black Edition 975 so this doesn't even make sense.  The i3 2100 still smashes everything in its price range.  



Aastii said:


> This.
> 
> Though I have seen that the i3 is a lot quicker in synthetic benches (no surprises there) and gaming that only takes advantage of 1 or 2 cores (like Crysis), you go into multi-threaded gaming, which most newer games are, and the 955 has the edge.
> 
> However, with that said, the i3, when overclocked, will beat the 955 when overclocked, however I wouldn't get a chip based on overclocking potential.



This backs thaat up.  The rest of that post was speculation or reference to a chip outside the price range of a budget system.  Also, very few games utilise all available cores, so the i3 is plenty at the moment.  If it wasn't the case, the full 8 core (HT) available on the 2600K would make it better than a 2500K.  The 2600K over time will prove to be the best CPU for LGA1155, particularly when all 8 'threads' can be processed and the higher l3 cache.



StrangleHold said:


> DDR3 1600 would be better then 1333, plus just being a few bucks more is a bonus. But if you can get a (good deal) on 1866 would be the best bet.



DDR3 is much less dependant on frequency in all the benchies unless you want to seriously oc, in which case the i3 would smash anything AMD has to offer as shown here http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu-core-i5-2500k-amd-e350,2843-6.html

All i know is the upgrade potential for the lga1155 is the fastest processor you can buy, not the case in the amd, plus i still think the i3 is better value than anything amd has on offer.


----------



## StrangleHold

bigfellla said:


> Hardly, its faster than a Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and about equivalent to Phenom II X4 Black Edition 975 so this doesn't even make sense. The i3 2100 still smashes everything in its price range.


 
LMAO


----------



## Okedokey

Stacks up pretty well here, and these are not synthetic

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/20

So stop doing this






This is the the Core 2 Duo vs. A64 X2 all over again. Will Bulldozer be another Phenom, a day late and a dollar short? Proabably, because a mere month or two stands between Bulldozer and LGA2011 releases, so the BD will need to be dam good.  TLB bug anyone? As a PC enthusiast I really want to see competition to keep prices in check, but as it currently stands, there is no competition at that price point.  The only thing that annoys me is the constant Intel socket change bs, but hey, i cant see the 2600K being bottlenecked anytime soon.


----------



## StrangleHold

Just pullin your chain man

Doesnt really matter to me. Either way would not make a diifference between the 2100 and the 955 as long as they get a AM3+ board. Only a benchmark could only tell the difference. Both have good upgrade paths. Upgrade paths as of right now, sure the 2100 has it beat. Nobody knows how good Zambezi will be. But if Zambezi turns out to be as fast or even close clock for clock and a killer overclocker, plus they are all unlocked. You might be pulling fingers.


----------



## Okedokey

Agreed mate, and thats the point isn't it.  You could get an AMD chip now (which is slower) in the hope that in a few months you upgrade again (making the cost double), and only to find out that the i3 is still faster.  OR, you can wait for the release of LGA2011 and get the low end chip.  Either way, the OPs best interest for this purpose (budget gaming) is the i3 2100 or the i5 2500K.  Really no argument.


----------



## jonnyp11

yes, he'll find the i3 faster when the cheapest bulldozer is meant to compete with the i5 at the price of 190, that will be beaten by the 125 buck i3 2100


----------



## StrangleHold

jonnyp11 said:


> yes, he'll find the i3 faster when the cheapest bulldozer is meant to compete with the i5 at the price of 190, that will be beaten by the 125 buck i3 2100


 
Zambezi isnt going to compete with the i3 series at all. The Zambezi 8000/6000 and 4000 series are to match up against the line up of Intels i5 and i7 series. The A8 series are against the i3


----------



## wolfeking

in that case, if the A8 is any foresight, Zambezi will kick butt.


----------



## jonnyp11

StrangleHold said:


> Zambezi isnt going to compete with the i3 series at all. The Zambezi 8000/6000 and 4000 series are to match up against the line up of Intels i5 and i7 series. The A8 series are against the i3



Did you read what i said? i was sarcastically saying that the i3 2100 would compete with the 4000 series price 65 bucks higher (supposedly) that is meant to be competing with the i5, not what you said.


----------



## jonnyp11

as for wolfe, the a8 has nothing to do with bulldozer, it is a slightly tweaked athlon ii with an integrated gpu in there.


----------



## wolfeking

I said foresight. do you not know what that means. You can have foresight with two unconnected things.  Foresight, as i know it, is looking at one thing a company makes, and guessing what the rest will be like. 
Basically, if the A8 is to compete with i3-2100, and outperforms it, and Zambezi is to compete with the i5 and i7, then it too will (by guessing) outperform them.


----------



## jonnyp11

actually it doesn't, you probably found the 1 bench were the i3 is beaten. And i know what foresight is and all, but bulldozer will kill anything out by amd now, anything by intel is a different matter though, since they massacred amd basically.


----------



## wolfeking

actually not.


----------



## StrangleHold

jonnyp11 said:


> actually it doesn't, you probably found the 1 bench were the i3 is beaten. And i know what foresight is and all, but bulldozer will kill anything out by amd now, anything by intel is a different matter though, since they massacred amd basically.


 
For Gaming using the onboard GPU the A8 kicks the i3 butt and equals or even beats the i5/i7. But the i beats it in CPU performance. So you can see where its going when AMD APU gets better cores.


----------



## jonnyp11

yeah, i know the apu is beast, but the graphics benches are the only place, he posted pics showing a bench where the a8 killed the i3, only graphics based benches will show that, and we were talking about the more powerful processor, the i3 is more powerful for a processor, a8 is more powerful for gpu


----------



## QwertyMusicMan

Aastii said:


> 1) several reasons:
> 
> 1. It is more upgradable. The board I linked has 4 DIMM slots as opposed to the 2 on the one you put. This means that although you have enough memory now, when you want to upgrade later you will have to get rid of all of your memory to upgrade. It also means the total maximum capacity is less.
> 
> 2. Look at the PCIe slot on the board you picked, and the location of the SATA ports. A graphics card with a 2-slot cooler is going to be obstructing one, if not two of your SATA ports, meaning in reality, after you have your hard drive and DVD drive in there, you have no extra expansion slots should you later wish to add another hard drive or optical drive.
> 
> 3. The one you picked does not have AM3+ support. Again, this makes for much better upgradablitity (real word? ), because when this system doesn't quite cut it any more, you are stuck, you would have to get a new CPU AND  new motherboard, rather than just getting a new Bulldozer (AMD's new line of processors) chip, which will work on AM3+ boards, but not AM3
> 
> 4. Chipset. The chipset of the board I picked will give you better performance than the one you picked.
> 
> 2) I doubt you need more than 4GB. I frequently sit with at least 2 games open, TeamSpeak, Google Chrome with at least 10+ tabs, several files/folders, Xfire, Steam, all open at the time, and not rarely another program, be it an FTP client, Photoshop, calculator, whatever, and on 4GB, have yet to see my system go over 75% memory usage.
> 
> 3) Wattage is not everything. The one I linked is of a much higher quality. You can get 700W PSU's for $20, when you can also get 700W PSU's for $100. The reason why is obvious - quality. The $20 PSU will be less efficient, less reliable and will not actually be able to output 700W, because of the distribution of power.
> 
> The components which use the most power, your CPU and video card, take power from the 12V rail of your PSU. Lower end units will not have most of the Amps on the 12V rail, but instead on the 5V and 3.3V rails. This means the manufacturers can claim they have a high wattage power supply, when really, it is no good because the system can't use that power. All that will end up happening is you will overload your already poor power supply.
> 
> 4) What water? And it already has decent airflow. If you wanted, you could get another fan to draw air in from the front, but it isn't essential to do so
> 
> 5) Yes, but bare in mind you will also take a performance hit. If you need to cut some corners to save some money:
> 
> Change the CPU to: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103871
> 
> Change the hard drive to: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136769
> 
> Change the memory to: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820211364
> 
> 6) I would take this set up over what you have now, however if there is an option to save up a little more, even just $50, you could improve the system further. With a $650 budget, you could change your video card to:
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130570
> 
> which would greatly improve gaming performance.
> 
> Without that though, and just using the set up I put above, you will be playing every single game out now and in the near future without any problems




So you would highly recommend the new processor and video card?
The new case has good ventilation, and will fit everything?
I'm really most interested in Battlefield 3, and do you think that this setup would run it well? To clarify, can this setup run most games on higher settings, period?


----------



## jonnyp11

you might be able to play bf3 on 1024x768 with low settings, and hat's probably be pushing it.


----------



## Okedokey

wolfeking said:


> in that case, if the A8 is any foresight, Zambezi will kick butt.



Posting graphics based benchies is a waste of time.  Also, if you are suggesting buying a AM+3 chip now and upgrading later to BD, then you are better off getting an i5 2500K, which is not going to be bottlenecked any time soon and would be cheaper overall.


----------



## pc_fanatic

bigfellla said:


> Posting graphics based benchies is a waste of time.  Also, if you are suggesting buying a AM+3 chip now and upgrading later to BD, then you are better off getting an i5 2500K, which is not going to be bottlenecked any time soon and would be cheaper overall.



Exactly why I was going with intel. With amd's bulldozer who knows if will be any good? Intel however, always delivers gaming performance. When you consider the gaming benchmarks intel actually provides more bang for buck. Lower end i3 or i5 is plenty. Most people get cpus that are complete overkill. They should've spent the extra money on better gpu instead.


----------



## wolfeking

pc_fanatic said:


> Intel however, *always* delivers gaming performance.


that is just plain BS. I know we are talking in this thread about desktops, but an i3-380 can easily be out performed by a AMD. Especially when both are paired with the same GPU.


----------



## pc_fanatic

I've made up my mind and I'm going with intel. I just can't go with AMD knowing that I'm paying the same but getting less performance. Thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread.


----------



## QwertyMusicMan

jonnyp11 said:


> you might be able to play bf3 on 1024x768 with low settings, and hat's probably be pushing it.



What limits my current setup, and how could I change it for the better? How much money would it cost, total, with the new setup that you suggest?

Thanks!


----------



## jonnyp11

to get maxed out settings on games today it costs about 1k, to get maxed out settings in a game like bf3 today, it would be closer to 1.5-2k, to max something out is extremely expensive, and rediuculous, maxed out would also mean like 1080i es, which i see no need for unless on a tv like my 65" hdtv, otherwise the amount of detail realy won't be noticed too much, and won't make the game bad or anything, i play on a 17" monitor on 1024x768 most of the time and it looks fine to me, once it's on 1280x1024 i can't tell a diffence, then again it is most likely the monitor, but it doesn't need to be any sharper to me.


----------



## QwertyMusicMan

jonnyp11 said:


> to get maxed out settings on games today it costs about 1k, to get maxed out settings in a game like bf3 today, it would be closer to 1.5-2k, to max something out is extremely expensive, and rediuculous, maxed out would also mean like 1080i es, which i see no need for unless on a tv like my 65" hdtv, otherwise the amount of detail realy won't be noticed too much, and won't make the game bad or anything, i play on a 17" monitor on 1024x768 most of the time and it looks fine to me, once it's on 1280x1024 i can't tell a diffence, then again it is most likely the monitor, but it doesn't need to be any sharper to me.



Well, how much $$ would it cost to play bf3 well?


----------



## jonnyp11

really it would be best to wait and get a better gpu then, or crossfire or sli the one you have/get, and remember, battlefield 3 is actually pc optimized, so it'll be like the next crysis, not the second, the first, just maybe not as unrunnable as it was, in other words, only the top of the line systems, as in 2k or more, will be maxing at 60+ constant fps, for good settings you'll probably be fine with the new gpu or multiple gpu's like i said b4


----------



## Aastii

jonnyp11 said:


> you might be able to play bf3 on 1024x768 with low settings, and hat's probably be pushing it.





pc_fanatic said:


> Exactly why I was going with intel. With amd's bulldozer who knows if will be any good? Intel however, always delivers gaming performance. When you consider the gaming benchmarks intel actually provides more bang for buck. Lower end i3 or i5 is plenty. Most people get cpus that are complete overkill. They should've spent the extra money on better gpu instead.





jonnyp11 said:


> to get maxed out settings on games today it costs about 1k, to get maxed out settings in a game like bf3 today, it would be closer to 1.5-2k, to max something out is extremely expensive, and rediuculous, maxed out would also mean like 1080i es, which i see no need for unless on a tv like my 65" hdtv, otherwise the amount of detail realy won't be noticed too much, and won't make the game bad or anything, i play on a 17" monitor on 1024x768 most of the time and it looks fine to me, once it's on 1280x1024 i can't tell a diffence, then again it is most likely the monitor, but it doesn't need to be any sharper to me.



I'm sorry, but there is a lot that needs clearing up.

Firstly, the specs for BF3 have not been released, but even so, I would put every last penny I have that your speculation is extremely far out. Yes, Frostbyte 2 has more going on that the Frostbyte engine did, but you have to remember two things:

1. It is a lot better optimized than Frosbyte was

2. Although the game is designed for Pc, the engine must be able to play the game on your now very outdated consoles.

These two together would mean when looking at specs, you can make a good guess that it would be close to the required specs for Bad Company 2. Max settings may rquire more, but not even close to your ridiculous 1.5-2k guess. By doing that, DICE would lose a hell of a lot of money because people simply wouldn't be able to play it. They would be cutting down their potential customers by a massive amount.

Secondly, an i3 is not plenty, it would be bottlenecked by even a mid range card, because it is only dual core. Yes, per core, clock for clock it blows the AM3 chips away, however most games, including BF3, are multi-threaded, meaning even with that extra power per core, it still loses out because of those 2 fewer cores over the Phenom II x4's. BF3 especially, because it doesn't have Physx, has a lot of physics rendering going on on the CPU. 

All of your destruction, all of your balistics, they are all being processed on the CPU, on a multi-threaded engine.

This is true for most game engines now, however they only utilise 3, because of game ports from consoles that are restricted to the tri core CPU in the Xbox 360. Even so, a tri or quad core will turmp a dual core, because it is able to simultaneously process data on that extra core.

Thirdly, I spent a hell of a lot less than $1k on my system (if you convert prices), but I still have yet to find a game that I can't max out. Granted, I am still playing on 1280x1024, however I still sit here with games on max settings on a system that, if you bought it now, would probably only cost around $400-500 at the absolute most (if you swapped the case and PSU out).

Fourthly, what was said about "Intel is better than AMD for gaming" in benches, yes, in real world, no. As I mentioned before, I am still gaming at full settings on every single game, whilst running an AMD Phenom II x3 720. What was said about people go overkill on the CPU is sort of correct (even though you went the complete wrong way about it and put in incorrect, fantasy information). I think we can all agree here that my CPU is a hell of a lot less powerfull than an Intel 2500k is, but the evidence is there that it is still enough.

If I unlock it and overclock it so I have a 965, then go and play on my TV at 1080p, it is not my CPU holding me back, but my graphics card. My CPU is more than capable of playing every game out, even on HD.

This brings me to my 5th point which is more relevant to the thread and answers a question that has been passed over completely, and had completely wrong information thrown about afterwards:

The build I put will play BF3. On full settings? I can't say for certain until specs come out, but honestly I doubt it, because of the graphics card, not because of anything else in the build. You would need (I am guessing) a 6950/560Ti or better, so add another ~$150 onto the original budget


----------



## pc_fanatic

Aastii said:


> Fourthly, what was said about "Intel is better than AMD for gaming" in benches, yes, in real world, no. As I mentioned before, I am still gaming at full settings on every single game, whilst running an AMD Phenom II x3 720. What was said about people go overkill on the CPU is sort of correct (even though you went the complete wrong way about it and put in incorrect, fantasy information). I think we can all agree here that my CPU is a hell of a lot less powerfull than an Intel 2500k is, but the evidence is there that it is still enough.



Consider this an i5-2300 and a phenom ii x4 975 cost the same (around 180) but the i5 wins in terms of performance. This is based on REAL benches not synthetic. Intel vs AMD tests that are done measuring FPS in real world games prove that the amd's got smoked at the SAME price point.



Aastii said:


> Secondly, an i3 is not plenty, it would be bottlenecked by even a mid range card, because it is only dual core. Yes, per core, clock for clock it blows the AM3 chips away, however most games, including BF3, are multi-threaded, meaning even with that extra power per core, it still loses out because of those 2 fewer cores over the Phenom II x4's. BF3 especially, because it doesn't have Physx, has a lot of physics rendering going on on the CPU.
> 
> All of your destruction, all of your balistics, they are all being processed on the CPU, on a multi-threaded engine.
> 
> This is true for most game engines now, however they only utilise 3, because of game ports from consoles that are restricted to the tri core CPU in the Xbox 360. Even so, a tri or quad core will turmp a dual core, because it is able to simultaneously process data on that extra core.



But why buy i5 now when prices may drop later? If the prices won't change much then i have no problem getting quad core intels.


----------



## amd64

I must be the only one in the world that thinks the SB 2500K is just OK.
So much fluff everywhere. I was looking for it to amaze me and I see no difference in actual use to a 15-750 or oc'd 450 x3 all other things the same. My 2500K is two weeks fresh and its nice- but in my use- intense business use and video-photo-shop etc I'm seeing no advantage. I can't be the only one. Benchmarks say its a giant killer. Reality says it feels like the rest and at times stumbles a bit on simple things???????












Aastii said:


> I agreed with you that it is speculation when I said there is no credible evidence
> 
> And all of the "recent" AMD chips have been K8, or tweaks there of, but pretty much the same, just with some stuff added and changed. As bulldozer is an entire new architecture, you can't really compare it to previous gens because it is nothing like previous gens.
> 
> I agree the Sandy Bridge chips are awesome at the moment, but people thought the Core 2 chips were awesome, which at the time they were, but look at what we have now. The same goes for Nahelem, people were amazed when SB came out and a chip that was clocked lower could outperform a chip that cost substantially more. Things change, technology advances, and what was ground breaking and amazing won't be at the next release. I'm not going to say it will be any better or worse until I know at release, all I will say is I am hopeful, but not confident until I see results


----------



## pc_fanatic

*Questions*

Okay i got some more questions now:

1) Can i really save a lot of money by OCing an AMD rather than buying an intel? 

2) Is it even worth saving money by going AMD considering that they run hotter and louder especially when OCed.

3) Is a GTX 460 overkill for 1280 x 768 resolution considering that I will be using full AA, AF, and max settings on demanding games?


----------



## jonnyp11

if you overclock the fan has to work harder/faster, making more noise, if you wanna overclock more the .2-.4ghz then you NEED a new fan or you'll end up needing a new processor, and louder doesn't necessarily mean loud, just means it will be louder than the normal which will be almost silent, and a nice case generally has some form of noise buffering, or you can get some noise cancelling foam, but idk how much that stuff is.


----------



## pc_fanatic

jonnyp11 said:


> if you overclock the fan has to work harder/faster, making more noise, if you wanna overclock more the .2-.4ghz then you NEED a new fan or you'll end up needing a new processor, and louder doesn't necessarily mean loud, just means it will be louder than the normal which will be almost silent, and a nice case generally has some form of noise buffering, or you can get some noise cancelling foam, but idk how much that stuff is.



Is overclocking an AMD worth it over buying an intel?


----------



## jonnyp11

no cuz overclocking an intel will pull it even further ahead.


----------



## pc_fanatic

jonnyp11 said:


> no cuz overclocking an intel will pull it even further ahead.



True but you have to get a p67 mobo and k series CPU, lotta cash. And honestly I think an intel setup like that (with i5) is over kill.


----------



## wolfeking

pc_fanatic said:


> Is overclocking an AMD worth it over buying an intel?


If all you are doing is gaming, then you could save money on the processor with AMD and get a better GPU. Overclocked, the AMD is fine in gaming. And, despite what some say, I still hold that a quad core AMD will be better at multitasking than a dual core SB.


----------



## pc_fanatic

wolfeking said:


> If all you are doing is gaming, then you could save money on the processor with AMD and get a better GPU. Overclocked, the AMD is fine in gaming. And, despite what some say, I still hold that a quad core AMD will be better at multitasking than a dual core SB.



Right on, physical cores beat hyper threaded for multitasking. Although for gaming intel may have the advantage, I believe AMD shall suffice.


----------



## Okedokey

Then why is the i3 faster than a x6 amd?


----------



## wolfeking

only in games. 
Look at it this way, I can run games all day long on my i3, but on a multi-threaded application, like image compiling, my quad core AMD 2.0ghz is a lot faster than my hyperthreaded dual core Intel. we're talking like a 45 second difference using the same program and the same picture. Same RAM and resolution. Only difference is the # of cores.


----------



## Okedokey

LoL, how often do people do that?  Secondly, i don't agree anyway - as this shows you're wrong.  And thirdly the OP wants a gaming rig, so whats your point?  WOW, you found one example where (may be) the AMD chip is better - but it is irrelevant as the OP is looking for gaming rig on a budget, in which case the i3 and p67 is the best choice.


----------



## wolfeking

I wasnt talking about a 980 vs a 2100. 
I was referring to Phenom II x4 @ 2.0ghz, and i3-380m.


----------



## Okedokey

WHAT HAS THAT GOT TO DO WITH IT?  Secondly the difference between those two is miniscule  even with the pheonom's 4 cores - just showing how inefficient that cpu is.  If you want to discuss this further, start a new thread however:

The OP is building a desktop computer, for gaming.  Best option within a tight budget, i3 + P67 period.


----------



## wolfeking

there is no dealing with an intel fanboy.


----------



## Okedokey

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.


----------



## wolfeking

thats at stock.


----------



## Okedokey

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.


 http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/07/13/amd-phenom-ii-x4-980-black-edition/1


----------



## pc_fanatic

bigfellla said:


> Even with OC, most of the AMD range falls behind the i3 and they all are behind the i5.  Poor form.
> 
> http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/07/13/amd-phenom-ii-x4-980-black-edition/1



This is what I keep reading on the net and hearing from tech savvy people too, it must be true. I got the i5-2500 with an intel h67 mobo both for around 200 bucks (cousin works at intel ). With this I'll be able to keep up with latest games for much longer than with AMD.


----------



## jonnyp11

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.



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


----------



## Okedokey

jonnyp11 said:


> 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



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.


----------



## jonnyp11

how does that dissagree, it scored 16--, look up the athlon x2 250 and its score is 17--


----------



## 2048Megabytes

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.



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.


----------



## jonnyp11

i wish i had either of those two since i'm on a oem with a pentium dual-core e2210 2.2ghz


----------



## old_school

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

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.



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*


----------



## jonnyp11

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.


----------



## pc_fanatic

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.



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.


----------



## wolfeking

DDR3 is faster and cheaper than DDR2.


----------



## jonnyp11

not to mantion most mobo's don't support ddr2


----------



## pc_fanatic

jonnyp11 said:


> not to mantion most mobo's don't support ddr2



^+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

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.


----------



## pc_fanatic

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

try the western digital barracuda 1tb which is 6gb/s and basically the same as the wd caviar blue 1tb.


----------



## pc_fanatic

jonnyp11 said:


> try the western digital barracuda 1tb which is 6gb/s and basically the same as the wd caviar blue 1tb.



You mean Seagate Barracuda, are you saying its better?


----------



## jonnyp11

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


----------



## Aastii

jonnyp11 said:


> try the western digital barracuda 1tb which is 6gb/s and basically the same as the wd caviar blue 1tb.



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


----------



## Okedokey

+1


----------



## pc_fanatic

*Ordered the rest*

Antec Earthwatts 650

G.SKILL Ripjaws 8GB (2 sticks) DDR3 1333

Rosewill Challenger Black Gaming ATX Mid Tower

XFX Radeon HD 6870 

Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB 7200rpm 3.0gb/s

HP 24X Multi DVD writer

HP 23", 3ms, 300cd/m2, widescreen w/speakers 

For $596 (3-day ship + rush proc.)

Together with my i5-2500 and intel mobo its $796

Now the anxious wait begins...

I got the HDD b4 i even read Aastii's post, you obviously knew what your were talking about.


----------



## pc_fanatic

The parts came, just put it together today and it worked great. BUT THEN i decided to put it into hibernate and i won't turn on again!!! I tried everything unplugging, flipping the psu switch off and on, using a different cable. What could have gone wrong? I didn't even get to play one bloody game, I thoroughly HATE my life right now. Can anyone help? I checked internal cables aswell.


----------



## Aastii

When in hibernate, you don't just wiggle the mouse or push a button, you have to press the power button again (which should be flashing on and off), then it will restart and take you to the Windows login screen to select your profile.

Try holding the button for a few seconds and see if it works. If holding the button down does not work, then after holding it down, press it once and wait for a minute

If this isn't working, turn the power off at the switch on the PSU and unplug the cable, then wait ~15 secs for power to drain. 

Look at your motherboard manual for the CMOS jumper reset. If you can't find it, post your motherboard manufacturer/model and I'll point you to it. There will be 3 pins covered by a little cap. You want to take the little cap off the jumper and move it to the other two pins (the middle will still be populated, but if the left was covered, now the right will) and leave it there for a couple of seconds, then you want to take it off again and put it back to the original position.

Plug everything back in and try again.


----------



## Okedokey

he has multiple posts on this mate.


----------



## Aastii

bigfellla said:


> he has multiple posts on this mate.



This is the original, so unless OP states he would rather us help in the problem thread rather than here, or if the others get more relevant responses I will use this one. Also the fact this was the first I saw thanks to a spammer bumping it 

@OP, please try to keep everything to a single thread in future. That does not mean only ever have one thread, it could mean just use this thread for issues with your computer (though that could become confusing), or now that you have got help with building your system, create a new thread for issues but leave this one alone, keeping everything to the new thread specific to the problem or question


----------



## pc_fanatic

Sorry about the multiple threads. Lets move the discussion to "Hibernate killed new computer (FML)".


----------

