The New AMD Building Thread

Nah the XPS aren't any better price-wise. Thanks a lot for those links - I was currently looking on ebuyer but scan seems to be cheaper. Do you buy from both?

I think I will go with less RAM, more than 4GB seems slightly excessive for my needs at the moment plus I can upgrade later. In terms of gaming, how capable is the graphics card? Not that it is a big deal for me, but obviously a consideration. Presumably 512mb is enough.

Also, I know this is an AMD thread, but personally would you recommend AMD over Intel? In terms of cores and actual realised performance on a day to day basis, would a faster clocking dual core be a better choice, or ideally a quad core for longevity's sake?

 

Yeah ebuyer and Scan are the two sites I use most often. The HD5670 is generally considered a low-end card, it can handle any modern title, just about. You would get a great deal more out of upgrading to an HD5750 or better yet HD5770, and it would work fine with the rest of the components, but it would squeeze the budget a bit.

Given your budget, I would actually recommend AMD over Intel. It's not often I say it, but you simply don't get the same deal with Intel stuff at this price range, as you can only get dual core CPUs. Unless you plan to upgrade the system in the not too distant future, I'd say having a Quad core is more futureproof.

 

Okay sure - thanks for the advice. Out of interest on the mobo description:

But 1600MHz isn't listed?

Just curious, presumably it is compatible though, as I don't see why it shouldnt be if it supports above and below!

I think I will stick with your suggested graphics card spec as like I say gaming isn't a big deal personally - more performance and multi-taking. To that end, this is a superior processor, but is it £70 superior? If not the 2.9Ghz spec, above the one you suggested?

http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/AMD-Phenom-II-X4-965-Black-Edition-S-AM3-34GHz-8MB-Cache-125W-Retail

 

Yes, 1600mhz memory works in such boards, there are some strange official specs pages going around.
The X4 965 is a powerful CPU but in truth, if you're spending that much, you may as well go a little bit further and get an Intel Core i5. I'm never that confident to use relatively inexpensive boards with 125W CPUs, so I'd want to run a higher end board with it, and that means the X4 doesn't come out much cheaper than an i5 system, which is the superior option.

 

This is what I'm looking at in light of your comment RE the i5:

Intel Core i5 750 2.66GHz 8MB
Gigabyte GA-P55-US3L P55 Socket 1156
OCZ 4GB DDR3 1333MHz
Western Digital 500GB SATAII 7200RPM 16MB
XFX 9800GT 512MB DDR3
Coolermaster Elite 330/eXtreme Power 460W PSU

What do you think?

 

There's no real reason to buy a 9800GT, the HD5670 is a lot more efficient, no slower, and works out slightly cheaper.
The coolermaster basic PSU and primitive case is also a potential worry. Stick with a proper PSU and Case as I recommended, even if the case is only something like an NZXT Beta, it's still a lot better than the Elite 330.

 

Okay sure, thanks again!

 

Sam,
There is a Phenom IIx4 820. It's 2.8GHz, L2 Cache=4x512, L3 cache=6MB. That's the specs AMD gives for it. It's also a black Edition.

Best Regards,
Russ

 

I stand corrected. There is obviously an 820, in addition to the 920 I am familiar with. I assumed the 800 series stopped at 810.

 

I did wonder but nonetheless I have gone with the i5 - as that's an Intel I best not discuss it too much or risk being shot!

Oh and I chose the HD5670 in the end, I have always preferred ATI anyway on completely unsubstantiated grounds!

 

Ripper,
I'm the one who started this thread, and I don't see you as being out of line with the discussion you've been having here, so no one is going to shoot you. I thought everyone handled the whole discussion very professionally and without bias. That you've decided to go with an Intel instead of an AMD, to suit your needs is immaterial. Good luck with your Intel build.

Best Regards,
Russ

 

Will,
I'm sure you found the benchmarks to be almost identical to before, with the multiplier set to 11x for the HT Link frequency. Drop the NB frequency multiplier to 11 and your memory bandwidth takes a big hit though.

Best Regards,
Russ

 

I think if everyone can offer an unbiased view, then Intel vs AMD discussion is just fine. But we have to keep a mature perspective on it. They're just expensive electronic toys really

Sure some bias is going to leak through no matter who it is or what the discussion is. But never forget that everyone picked their favorite brand for a reason, even if you don't understand that reason

 

LOL! It may run smooth on XP, but 7/vista is slightly finicky about overclocking. If you're smooth on vista/7, then you KNOW you have a good overclock LOL! But mine would probably be smooth as well. From what I've read, 4.0Ghz is a cake walk on these processors It's when you shoot for 4.1+ that they become somewhat challenging

Thanks for that estuansis. I will look at intel users differently now. You just empowered me with empathy LOL! That's no joke. I meant that...

While every intel I've ever witnessed was less than usable, that doesn't mean that every intel is worthless I'm just unlucky like that. I think AMD chose me...

 

Estuansis,
Let's be honest here. No one has experience with everything. Not even Computer repair people. Everybody has their favorites, but this discussion was a good one. nobody pushed too hard, and it stayed simple. My hat's off to all that participated in it. We all helped someone accomplish something to help them in their quest to build a new computer, and he made his own decision based on the information we gave him. No one pushed hard in either direction.

Best Regards,
Russ

 

Well that's exactly the kind of discussion I joined this forum to have. I could give screw-all what the better product is. Computing is about the individual experience, not the the market price of a certain product or who has the best gear

My case in point: my actual experience with Intel has been nothing but bliss. I loved both of my Core 2 Duos and am currently quite happy with my OCd Q6600. I chose AMD due to my own foolish brand loyalty, because the 940 was really a side-grade for all intents and purposes. I just happen to like AMD in practical application better than Intel. There's way more room for tweaking and the OCing is more "satisfying" for me. But when I actually used an Intel chipset board after my 680i was such a disappointment, I found myself impressed with the stability and sheer number crunching that Intels can offer.

I've been accused of being an AMD fanboy... lol, okay, you just believe that ;P

 

I got no beefs with intel Quad core, although I bought mine a couple years back when AMD was having difficulties

 

Amd is the first to produce a TRUE quad core. Intel produced a quad that had 2 dual cores on one dye. Rather impressive if you ask me. Not really exploding here. Just illustrating a difference.
And now they're BOTH making 6 core/12 core processors Can't wait to play with those beasts!

 

I'm never too quick to get the newest tech. I'd rather wait until it becomes mainstream and I can make my purchase based on predictable results. Am I excited? Yes. Am I excited about the entire platform switch and large purchase needed? Not in the least. I'll be happy with this chip I think for a while.

When I see benefits that can be seen in my own situations, that's when I'll upgrade. As of currently I play pretty much everything maxed. And the stuff I don't play maxed has a video bottleneck, not CPU.

 

What's more interesting still than the fact that Intel's Quad was a 'copy paste' of their dual core, is that the Core 2 architecture was a regression to redeveloping the old Pentium 3 architecture, and not the flawed Netburst architecture of Pentium 4. This is why with outdated BIOSes, new Core 2 chips show up as Pentium 3s in Windows.
Jeff: I used to update when I felt it necessary, which used to mean I didn't upgrade that often. As I have been able to use more advanced stuff however, in particular the 2560x1600 resolution, I find myself upgrading very often to keep pace with the continuing climb of demand from PC games. The fact still stands though that my system's graphics cards and secondary hard disk are close to two years old.