Jump to content



Photo

PC Hardware buying guide [Q1 2013]

official neowin buying guide pc hardware guide

  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#16 tsupersonic

tsupersonic

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 30-September 06
  • Location: USA
  • OS: Win. 8.1 Pro. x64/Mac OS X
  • Phone: iPhone 5S/Nexus 5

Posted 16 April 2012 - 16:52

It all depends what you want. The APU's are good for budget gaming, as they have the nicer integrated GPU. I think you should have left side be Intel, and right side be AMD CPU's (except after High End - where AMD just gets destroyed).


#17 Site Lab

Site Lab

    Professional Graphics Design

  • Joined: 23-August 11
  • Location: Manchester, England
  • OS: Windows 8 Consumer Preview

Posted 16 April 2012 - 17:19

Posted ImageSite Lab, on 16 April 2012 - 16:32, said:

[...]



I was waiting for you to show up :p

As CentralDogma, before me pointed out, from TomsHardware, AnandTech and Guru3D, I was able to conclude that overall, on average, Pentium is a better option. Sure, the APU gives a bit better gaming performance, but on average, as a whole, I think Pentium is a better option. I will review the APU from the source you have provided, and consider it in the next update.


Heehee, I have to put AMD into the argument. A good idea, would be like tsupersonic said is left hand side Intel, right hand side AMD. Then have an APU build. Therefore if someone wants an APU they can see the best option for that, and if someone wants to go AMD then they can as well. You could also do with a UK prices bit. (Newegg + Aria (www.aria.co.uk) is a good one.)

#18 Vice

Vice

    Bye!

  • Joined: 03-September 04

Posted 16 April 2012 - 17:25

Just wondering who decides what appears on these lists? Is there a committee or something?

#19 OP Muhammad Farrukh

Muhammad Farrukh

    The End is Nigh

  • Joined: 15-August 11

Posted 16 April 2012 - 17:27

Is there a committee or something?


Yup, there is :p

#20 Vice

Vice

    Bye!

  • Joined: 03-September 04

Posted 16 April 2012 - 18:37

Yup, there is :p


Details?

#21 OP Muhammad Farrukh

Muhammad Farrukh

    The End is Nigh

  • Joined: 15-August 11

Posted 17 April 2012 - 07:30

Details?


Its classified :p

Suggestions and criticism are welcome

#22 Vice

Vice

    Bye!

  • Joined: 03-September 04

Posted 17 April 2012 - 13:43

Well my main criticism would be these prices are for the united states only. And I think it's a bit silly to say its classified its a buying list not the NSA.

#23 OP Muhammad Farrukh

Muhammad Farrukh

    The End is Nigh

  • Joined: 15-August 11

Posted 17 April 2012 - 13:45

I will make sure to add the Euro and Pound next time.

#24 rajputwarrior

rajputwarrior

    olé olé olé olé

  • Joined: 20-June 04
  • Location: BC, CANADA

Posted 17 April 2012 - 14:55

just saying from experience... never buy asrock, never buy biostar. they are crap at best.

and for budget builds, AMD is better bang for you buck...

#25 Site Lab

Site Lab

    Professional Graphics Design

  • Joined: 23-August 11
  • Location: Manchester, England
  • OS: Windows 8 Consumer Preview

Posted 17 April 2012 - 17:04

and for budget builds, AMD is better bang for you buck...


No, no no we cannot be having this. The dual core i3 obviously beats all of the quad/hexa/eight core processors :p. It is also so much cheaper (even though the motherboards are more expenisve). *sarcasam*

#26 rajputwarrior

rajputwarrior

    olé olé olé olé

  • Joined: 20-June 04
  • Location: BC, CANADA

Posted 17 April 2012 - 17:13

No, no no we cannot be having this. The dual core i3 obviously beats all of the quad/hexa/eight core processors :p. It is also so much cheaper (even though the motherboards are more expenisve).


at least that way you are forced to get a good mobo, not the crap suggested in the OP.

#27 Site Lab

Site Lab

    Professional Graphics Design

  • Joined: 23-August 11
  • Location: Manchester, England
  • OS: Windows 8 Consumer Preview

Posted 17 April 2012 - 17:32

Here is my AMD + UK Price recomendations:

This is for the full machine, PSU + Case and the lot.


APU Build


£327.70 inc VAT + Free Delivery

Budget Build (General office work, internet browsing, flash games)


£209.67 inc VAT + Free Delivery

Mainstream (Medium settings, office work, photoshop.etc)


£388.04 inc VAT + Free Delivery

High-End (High settings, photoshop video rendering.etc)


£610.57 inc VAT + Free Delivery

Ultimate (Maximum settings, Video Rending, Extreme power!)


£1201.80 inc VAT + Free Delivery

This build could do with a lot of changes, for example the PSU costs nearly as much as the processor :o. I chose corsair because it is a reputable brand and 850W is more than enough juice for this :p

#28 CentralDogma

CentralDogma

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 29-February 08

Posted 17 April 2012 - 19:06

I haven’t looked over all your builds, Site Lab, but it seems like you’ve just thrown in AMD processors for the sake of it, regardless of their performance.

In your APU build by including a discrete graphics card, you’re negating any value you would get with the AMD 3870K. I’m not sure it would be able to outperform the Pentium G850 in the budget build which is cheaper($87 vs $139). We don’t have a low cost HTPC build, and that’s probably where an AMD APU would shine, using integrated graphics.

In your high end build, an Intel i3-2120 ($127) is going to outperform that FX-6100 ($149) according to that chart I posted on the last page. Hell, it looks like even the Pentium G850 will out perform at less than two thirds the price.

And, I don’t know how you can honestly recommend the AMD FX-8150, which is underpriced and outperformed by the Intel i5 2500K, for any build, much less an “extreme power, money be damned” build.

#29 Site Lab

Site Lab

    Professional Graphics Design

  • Joined: 23-August 11
  • Location: Manchester, England
  • OS: Windows 8 Consumer Preview

Posted 17 April 2012 - 21:23

but it seems like you’ve just thrown in AMD processors for the sake of it, regardless of their performance.


I haven't. There is reason why I have chosen each setup. These aren't meant to beat intel, but where they do they are quite good machines for the prices.

In your APU build by including a discrete graphics card, you’re negating any value you would get with the AMD 3870K. I’m not sure it would be able to outperform the Pentium G850 in the budget build which is cheaper($87 vs $139). We don’t have a low cost HTPC build, and that’s probably where an AMD APU would shine, using integrated graphics.



Ok, the reason i including a discrete graphics card with the APU is because of the crossfire performance when combining a 6670 and the intregated graphics in the GPU. Since I cannot find any benchmarks with the crossfire here in question, I turned to Youtube. For example here we have:

<- Battlefield 3 running on this setup with 40FPS on medium/high settings.

Infact, change that just found one.


Posted Image
60 FPS on Dirt 2 on medium, which is more than playable for the price of the system.

Here is Saints Row 3 running on the same setup ->

For the price, this is quite an excellent budget gaming system, this is why I chose this setup.


In your high end build, an Intel i3-2120 ($127) is going to outperform that FX-6100 ($149) according to that chart I posted on the last page. Hell, it looks like even the Pentium G850 will out perform at less than two thirds the price.



Here, the i3-2120 will probably beat the FX-6100. (If a Phenom X4 970 or X6 1090t was available, I would have chose that but I chose the next best thing due to reviews/ratings on ebuyer itself...).

According to PassMark benchmark scores, the FX-6100 scores 5,616 and the i3-2120 scores 4,200. Plus the FX-6100 has more cores than the i3. (Six cores vs Two)


However, lets look at what a similar system would cost on the same website:

Total price is now: £643.16 compared to £610.67. For £32.49 extra you are basically getting 4 less cores, a bit more performance in gaming and less performance in multi-tasking/other stuff.


And, I don’t know how you can honestly recommend the AMD FX-8150, which is underpriced and outperformed by the Intel i5 2500K, for any build, much less an “extreme power, money be damned” build.


Course the i5 2500k may be cheaper, but "money be damned" like you said :p

Anyway, the reason i recommended the FX-8150 in the AMD category is because it is the fastest AMD CPU available and actually offers more performance than the i5 2500k.

In passmark the FX-8150 scores 8244 whereas the i5-2500k scores 6743. Also, the FX-8150 has 8 cores compared to the 4 in the i5-2500k. (Not that will be much of an improvement for most applications).

In DIRT 3:

http://www.hardwares...php?image=39558

The FX-8150 offers 7 MORE FPS! (Such a MASSIVE improvement *sarcasam*)

http://www.hardwares...php?image=39556

In Cinebench 11.5 the FX-8150 comes closer to the i7-2600k (which is dearer than the FX-8150.)

In photoshop CS5 the FX-8150 takes less time than the i5-2500k:

Posted Image

However, in 3d Max the i5 does beat the FX-8150 by a small margin :(

Posted Image

Posted Image

IN Civilization the FX-8150 gains an additional 4 fps.

Posted Image

In Dirt 3 here, Il admit the i5-2500k is faster.

Posted Image

In Metro 2033 it is 0.5fps slower. (Not that much)

Posted Image

At 1920x1200 it is 2.5 slower.

Posted Image

In the Rage vt_benchmark the FX-8150 takes less time to transcode textures.

Posted Image

In multi-threaded benchmarks the FX-8150 beats the i5-2500k, however in single threaded the i5-2500k wins.

Posted Image

The single most important benchmark. ITS FASTER IN 7-ZIP THAN THE I5!!!!!

Posted Image

Renders faster.

Posted Image

Its faster in EXCEL as well.

Lets see at the price though:


Quote
With intel options of:

Intel Core i5 2500K 3.3GHz Socket 1155 6MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor £168.46


AND Asus SABERTOOTH P67 R3 P67 Socket 1155 8 Channel HD Audio ATX Motherboard £148.83

The price comes to: £13 dearer.

#30 CentralDogma

CentralDogma

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 29-February 08

Posted 18 April 2012 - 02:11

Ok, the reason i including a discrete graphics card with the APU is because of the crossfire performance when combining a 6670 and the intregated graphics in the GPU. Since I cannot find any benchmarks with the crossfire here in question, I turned to Youtube. For example here we have:

Battlefield 3 running on this setup with 40FPS on medium/high settings.

Infact, change that just found one.

60 FPS on Dirt 2 on medium, which is more than playable for the price of the system.

Here is Saints Row 3 running on the same setup ->

For the price, this is quite an excellent budget gaming system, this is why I chose this setup.

You're right, it's not easy to find a benchmark that pairs the AMD 3870K with discreate graphics against an Intel CPU with the same. If there were, these would be a lot clearer issue.

Here, the i3-2120 will probably beat the FX-6100. (If a Phenom X4 970 or X6 1090t was available, I would have chose that but I chose the next best thing due to reviews/ratings on ebuyer itself...).
According to PassMark benchmark scores, the FX-6100 scores 5,616 and the i3-2120 scores 4,200. Plus the FX-6100 has more cores than the i3. (Six cores vs Two)
However, lets look at what a similar system would cost on the same website:

Total price is now: £643.16 compared to £610.67. For £32.49 extra you are basically getting 4 less cores, a bit more performance in gaming and less performance in multi-tasking/other stuff.

The Asrock P67 EXTREME4 V3 is a bad deal (at least in comparison to the Gigabyte GA-970A-D3). If you go with the Asus P8Z68-V LX, you end up saving £16 and getting a better system.

Course the i5 2500k may be cheaper, but "money be damned" like you said :p

Anyway, the reason i recommended the FX-8150 in the AMD category is because it is the fastest AMD CPU available and actually offers more performance than the i5 2500k.










Lets see at the price though:


Quote

With intel options of:

Intel Core i5 2500K 3.3GHz Socket 1155 6MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor £168.46


AND Asus SABERTOOTH P67 R3 P67 Socket 1155 8 Channel HD Audio ATX Motherboard £148.83

The price comes to: £13 dearer.



Sure, if we're buying on value, you can make an argument against an i5 2500k. But if you're comparing performance (and this build is suppose to be the “extreme performance” machine) the i7 3930k (or any i7 for that matter) will win handily.


Plus the FX-6100 has more cores than the i3. (Six cores vs Two)





Also, the FX-8150 has 8 cores compared to the 4 in the i5-2500k. (Not that will be much of an improvement for most applications).



I'd just like to point this out since you've compared the number of cores. Much like it was a bad idea to compare MHz during the Pentium 4 days (when AMD was thoroughly out preforming them at a lower clock speed), so too is it to compare cores. They are two different architectures and your performance in the real world will vary as a result.


Secondly, AMDs Bulldozer“cores” are not cores in the traditional sense. A Bulldozer “module”, a pair of core, is what is a traditional core. Each “core” has it's own integer logic, L1 cache, and 128-bit floating point logic. However each pair of “cores” (one “module”) shares early pipeline stages (eg. fetch, decode), L2 cache, and 256-bit floating point logic. The result is something in between 2 traditional cores and 1 traditional core, that works well at integer heavy workloads and less so at floating point work. I hesitate to liken it to Hyperthreading because they are two wholly unrelated technologies.