Decent Gaming Rig < $700

[zmatt]

AMD's upcoming "Fusion" software,

Just some housekeeping. But Fusion IS NOT software. its a hardware platform due out in 2009 to first be used on laptops. If you are going to be a fanboy then please know what you are mindlessly supporting.

 

[Kyonu]

No, you didn't scare me away. I have a life, you know.

And currently Fusion is software based on hardware, not the other way around. You can download Fusion Beta currently, but it only works on AMD/ATI hardware. I'm not a fanboy, I just specific testing, and find AMD processor currently working better for a better price. I don't want to start a flamewar, so please don't try the insults.

My personal experience with Intel processors has... Well, been Las Vegas. Not the casino's, but the heat. I tested with an e8400 and e8500, and on stock-clocks, they were running, on stock cooling units, around 43-68°c on idle/load. With the 8450 I tested, it was at 28-37°. On stock cooler. Im not going to upgrade the cooler, when the stock cooler is efficient enough. and its a lot simpler putting the AMD fan on. :|

The e8400 is a really nice processor, and it doesn't get much hotter than 68° (I have never exceeded it thus far), but it still costs 170 bucks~. I have tested and performed far better on an 8450 (nearly 10%), and it only costs 100 bucks. It's a money saver, for performance that isn't any lower. Again, that's what I tested on virtually the same platforms (X48 and 790FX). The main difference is, the e8400 and the entire Core2 series overclock extremely well, when you don't need to do that. After a certain point, you max out what it can perform on programs, and everything after that is wasted. Video cards are what you want to make more powerful.

And, lastly, for under 700 dollars, you cannot get anything better with Intel. Under 800, maybe, but under 700? I just couldn't do it, and couldn't find anything that would give me the same performance. =\ It's not worth spending 100 more dollars for a Name, when most of my clients will not see a performance difference at all.

Remember, I'm looking at this from a cost-effective point of view, for people who are near computer illiterate. If Intel will make their Core2Quad's (Low-end version) for ~$100 like what they said they can do (but won't, because don't have to), then yeah, Intel would have the better option. But I'm a business man, currently. :laughing:


If you guys can show me a cheaper platform (or the same price? This one was 698 bucks after shipping), then ****, I'll love to pick it. But Core2's are still to expensive. The cheapest I could make, was with an e7200 Core2Duo, and the price was 80 dollars more.

So, please, if you're so sure it's the best, cost-effective way to go; show me something under 700.

 

[zmatt]

I built my machine for a bit over $700 and it beats most AMDs. e7200, TP45, HD4850 4 gigs of ram.


From the heat thing sounds like you either didn't use thermal paste, or you didn't apply the HSF correctly, a lot of people do it. Those pushpins are **** on earth to use.


You can't beat Intel for cost effective and I can prove it with numbers.
AnandTech: AMD's Phenom X4 9950, 9350e and 9150e: Lower Prices, Voltage Tricks and Strange Behavior

Bam! Your personal experience with unbalanced machines and conjecture do not stand to reviews conducted but legit publications.

Newegg.com - Intel Pentium E5200 Wolfdale 2.5GHz 2MB L2 Cache LGA 775 65W Dual-Core Processor - Processors - Desktops

the e5200 is faster and cheaper and lower power than your 8450.

Its a known fact that AMD chips have a higher TDP than Intel's, therefore they run hot. If you got higher temps on an Intel then that means you did something wrong.

You can argue all you want man but its a loosing battle.

 

[veg1992]

losing battle?

I'm sure he was comparing an older Athlon to a Pentium 4.. or A64 to a PD (both P4 and PD sucks like crap though)

 

[zmatt]

Yeah, the current line up is a no contest.

 

[wolfeyes89]

Official AMD fanboy here, and let me tell you something all that these people are saying is true. AMD is loosing the war to Intel as of now, but that does not mean that you dont have the choice to purchase an AMD Proc.

I have a system with an AMD 9850 and two 4870s in cross. IT runs beautifully and can take anything I throw at it and for the price it was a pretty good choice. I know the Q6600 would have been a better choice but I bought peace of mind, and I really dont care about benchmarks. So in my opinion just buy what you want, not what other people tell you to buy.

Now before anyone starts flaming me, I own a sager 9262 with a 9650 and an Nvidia 9800M GTX, I may be a fanboy in the desktop department. But when it comes to lappys Intel has the crown hands down. My Q9650 feels as fast as my 9850 if not faster. My 9800 GTX seems to be like 3 notches below my 4870's.

So while I may be a fanboy I'm not stupid. The morale of it all is too just buy what you want.

 

[Kyonu]

Well, zmatt, I like that review you posted, but all those performances are too close together to tell a difference. Expecially in games under Crysis (I doubt they will be playing that anyways; the gameplay isn't that fun...), the FPS are maybe 5-20 FPS difference, above 100. The human eye can't even see that. =\ The e5200 is a decent choice, but many machines that I've played with/seen with an e5200 have had an overheating processor. Thermal grease is an easy utility, and I do seat the HSF on there properly. I know my temperatures when I see them, and I know a correct install when I see it.

Not only that, my "losing battle" isn't versus CPU performance, it's versus an entire-computer build with price/performance under 700 dollars. I could really careless which processor is -faster- down to the hairline, I want to see what you guys can come up with that beats my setup (regardless of memory, since that's still a whichaway), for Intel. It has to be upgradable to 2 video cards, and supports 1066 memory. So, swing away.

Mr. AMD Fanboy: I know the differences between processors, just when I build them, I have only ever had on AMD overheat compared to Intel; that was an old Ahtlon 3200+, back in the day. My current 9850BE is running at max 37°C on the stock cooler, and I have it clocked at 3.2Ghz.

Also, vernon1992, please read my post. I specifically stated which processors I were comparing; not assume what I didn't say.

 

[Nagasama]

i agree with wolfeyes, buy what you want. BUT...dont come on and tell me things that i know are not true. i have owned numerous AMD processors, and the architecture of them vs. the chips you are comparing do not have the significant design differences to substantiate your claims.

No, you didn't scare me away. I have a life, you know.

lol.. ok. i dont.

ith an e8400 and e8500, and on stock-clocks, they were running, on stock cooling units, around 43-68°c on idle/load. .

bull****. my quad clocked at 3.75 runs cooler than that. granted, im not using a stock cooler.

My current 9850BE is running at max 37°C on the stock cooler, and I have it clocked at 3.2Ghz.

dude, if you are going to come on here and blow smoke up our ***, show some proof. cos i dont buy that your 9850 is LOADING close to the same IDLE temp as my 9450 at that clock on a STOCK cooler. lol.
what cpu voltage are you using? cos i use 1.25V, and i have a xigmatek 1283. and i dont think a 9850 will do 3.2 on less voltage than that. i had to put over 1.35V to my 5000BE to get it to 3.2, so you are telling me your quad does it less than that?

 

[zmatt]

Not only that but 3.2ghz is at the top end at what the Phenoms can OC to on avergae without some serious work.

We have been over this ad nauseum. Even Apok acknowledges the OC speeds, although he still wont admit Intel is better.

Your only making enemies by saying stuff like that.

 

[Ethan_Kaizer]

Hmm... This is the most heated thread I've seen so far on these forums!

I may not know as much as the other guys that have posted, but I have a case with 1 fan on it, a hot GPU, a not great motherboard, and an intel Core 2 Duo 4600 (2.4ghz) on stock cooling. It idles at about 28c, and never goes higher than 38 on full load. If I was able to (had a motherboard that could), I could overclock this thing well over 3 ghz with stock cooling. My friend has an AMD 5600+, with a better motherboard, similar specs otherwise, and my intel blows the top off of his, while I have 64 bit Vista, and he has 32 bit.

Now if you're saying that you have all this experience with intels and they always overheat, obviously you don't pick good cases, or you don't put the heatsinks on properly.

The architecture of intels just seems to dominate that of AMD, and most games only use up to dual core, so three cores doesn't do much in terms of gaming, nor will companies ever spend time making a game to work best with three cores. If anything, they'll spend time and money for quad core support, in which core 2 quads absolutely destroy phenoms.

And as far as "Fusion software" goes, I'll believe "simple overclocking" when I see it. Overclocking takes time and caution to do it right and safely. With "one click overclocking", I'm going to predict a lot of AMD computers' only use will be as smoke machines

After a certain point, you max out what it can perform on programs, and everything after that is wasted. Video cards are what you want to make more powerful.

I do kinda agree with that.