Researching building 1st computer. Need help w/ specifics
0
Pick a budget first, then get the parts.
Also I don't think most people sell their case and psu when they upgrade.
Also I don't think most people sell their case and psu when they upgrade.
0
I don't think making an extremely good desktop would cost much more than $2000, assuming you get the parts from Newegg
0
I see a lot of Intel suggestions here but the next line of AMD cpus are coming out soon, I predict that they will be the choice of many games for the future of gaming, now im not here to argue just to state what i know. Many games are direct console ports, and games made for PC often utilize more than one core, Intel has a strong single core going for it, but the Next gen FX series already has a 15% boost per core, and a 50% increase in multicore performance, and they are about to release their last CPU in the FX line up, the pile driver. Now the piledriver will have 16 core option, but 8 cores will be enough. The next gen consoles use the 8 core FX CPUs, and when a game is ported it will also utilize our computers 8 core CPUs, once games start to use all 8 cores effectively the Intel CPU line will fall back to business computing only, because the AMD will give better performance with a cheaper price. Now i run an old first gen FX-4100, there isnt much i cant max on this thing, and the overclock to 4.5 was pretty easy. The First gen Fx-8100 CPU rivaled the old i5 2500k chips on Intel side in raw performance, now two Generations later they are rivaling some of the upper end newer chips, now the cores alone are not as strong as Intel cores BUT the multi-thread of the games of the future will utilize at LEAST 8 cores, making the FX the better choice for the future of gaming. Now some will say "No games use more than one core" Well thats because they are mostly console ports, but now that the consoles are using 8 cores, so will our new PC games, multicore games are not hard to make like everyone believes, its hard to CHANGE a game to multicore, but if you start with the idea of multicore from the ground up then it is just as easy as devving a game. What im saying here is in a few months AMD will surpass Intel because AMD was improving technology and biding their time while Intel stood on top, AMD didn't walk to the top they hitched a ride with the net GEN consoles. I HIGHLY recommend getting an FX-AMD Cpu at this time, a few years ago i would have said Intel but now its on the verge of being outdated technology. You see AMD said they where done competing with Intel before making the FX lineup, if Intel had nobody to compete with then it drains the motivation to innovate and create, thats what AMD did but they did it in the background, not much attention was paid to them till BOOM you have a huge backing from some VERY INFLUENTIAL companies. These companies are not wrong i can assure you, and even if they are the games will still be optimized for 8 core performance and people with the FX chips will be very happy. Now i have tried to not include many opinions in this and tried to stick to facts. Final verdict in bold for those who don't want to read the wall of text, right now FX AMD is the smart choice. (And it works well with SLI or crossfire)
[Also i can back all this up with degrees if need be, so you know im not a random idiot, and if you PM me i would LOVE to help you get a rig up and running stable, nothing better than a sexy PC coming on for the first time with all the fans! :P]
[Also i can back all this up with degrees if need be, so you know im not a random idiot, and if you PM me i would LOVE to help you get a rig up and running stable, nothing better than a sexy PC coming on for the first time with all the fans! :P]
0
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
japman19 wrote...
I see a lot of Intel suggestions here but the next line of AMD cpus are coming out soon, I predict that they will be the choice of many games for the future of gaming, now im not here to argue just to state what i know. Many games are direct console ports, and games made for PC often utilize more than one core, Intel has a strong single core going for it, but the Next gen FX series already has a 15% boost per core, and a 50% increase in multicore performance, and they are about to release their last CPU in the FX line up, the pile driver. Now the piledriver will have 16 core option, but 8 cores will be enough. The next gen consoles use the 8 core FX CPUs, and when a game is ported it will also utilize our computers 8 core CPUs, once games start to use all 8 cores effectively the Intel CPU line will fall back to business computing only, because the AMD will give better performance with a cheaper price. Now i run an old first gen FX-4100, there isnt much i cant max on this thing, and the overclock to 4.5 was pretty easy. The First gen Fx-8100 CPU rivaled the old i5 2500k chips on Intel side in raw performance, now two Generations later they are rivaling some of the upper end newer chips, now the cores alone are not as strong as Intel cores BUT the multi-thread of the games of the future will utilize at LEAST 8 cores, making the FX the better choice for the future of gaming. Now some will say "No games use more than one core" Well thats because they are mostly console ports, but now that the consoles are using 8 cores, so will our new PC games, multicore games are not hard to make like everyone believes, its hard to CHANGE a game to multicore, but if you start with the idea of multicore from the ground up then it is just as easy as devving a game. What im saying here is in a few months AMD will surpass Intel because AMD was improving technology and biding their time while Intel stood on top, AMD didn't walk to the top they hitched a ride with the net GEN consoles. I HIGHLY recommend getting an FX-AMD Cpu at this time, a few years ago i would have said Intel but now its on the verge of being outdated technology. You see AMD said they where done competing with Intel before making the FX lineup, if Intel had nobody to compete with then it drains the motivation to innovate and create, thats what AMD did but they did it in the background, not much attention was paid to them till BOOM you have a huge backing from some VERY INFLUENTIAL companies. These companies are not wrong i can assure you, and even if they are the games will still be optimized for 8 core performance and people with the FX chips will be very happy. Now i have tried to not include many opinions in this and tried to stick to facts. Final verdict in bold for those who don't want to read the wall of text, right now FX AMD is the smart choice. (And it works well with SLI or crossfire)[Also i can back all this up with degrees if need be, so you know im not a random idiot, and if you PM me i would LOVE to help you get a rig up and running stable, nothing better than a sexy PC coming on for the first time with all the fans! :P]
Nope. Your argument has some merit, but even John Carmack doesn't think AMD is gonna beat Intel in raw performance, even with developers optimizing more for the AMD architecture vs. Intel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uooh0Y9fC_M&feature=player_embedded
Also, your comments about AMD CPUs outperforming their Intel counterparts in the same price bracket is hogwash... not for gaming. The myriad tests done by Tom's Hardware doesn't support your claim:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-6.html
Yes, AMD is a better choice on the lower-end of things, but in the higher-end range, Intel beats it hands down.
