cheap gaming pc

[jaime arvi]

hi guys, I just want to ask because i build an cheap pc gaming if this build was at least a decent one

mobo: A320M-s2h gigabyte
proc: a 7th gen AMD A10 9700
APU cooler. Deepcool captain 120 ex
RAM: unbuffered 4gb kingmax ( not planning to overclock) planning to add another 4gb RAM
SSD: 1TB WD blue
GPU: plaaning to get a msi gtx 1050ti 2gb or 4gb OC version\
PSU: huntkey gp550

is it a bottleneck for my processor. and i saw some review that huntkey PSU is untrustworthy product, a bit scared might as well damage my other components for low quality PSU, not so sure.

thanks guys.

 

[Finstar]

Yes, I agree with the 2400g suggestion but in order to do it he would need a completely new system. New motherboard (if he wants to overclock), APU, RAM, and he needs good fast RAM for the APU which is pretty expensive right now. He also needs another PSU. Finally the 2400g's graphics performance is more like a GTX 1030 not a 1050/1050ti. So in reality he will be spending more money to get less performance in games. The only times he may getting better performance is in CPU bound games where he may be experiencing heavy bottlenecking with his current configuration. On the other hand he is gaming at 720p where CPU bottlenecking is more severe so he may be getting better performance after all.

Overall the 2400g APU is miles ahead the A10 but in order to get there he needs to build a new system spending more money than he currently affords.

Didn't see any mention of this being built out of old parts.
The motherboard and cpu listed are both AM4 and i expect the memory to be DDR4 too.

 

[panathas]

Yes, I agree with the 2400g suggestion but in order to do it he would need a completely new system. New motherboard (if he wants to overclock), APU, RAM, and he needs good fast RAM for the APU which is pretty expensive right now. He also needs another PSU. Finally the 2400g's graphics performance is more like a GTX 1030 not a 1050/1050ti. So in reality he will be spending more money to get less performance in games. The only times he may getting better performance is in CPU bound games where he may be experiencing heavy bottlenecking with his current configuration. On the other hand he is gaming at 720p where CPU bottlenecking is more severe so he may be getting better performance after all.

Overall the 2400g APU is miles ahead the A10 but in order to get there he needs to build a new system spending more money than he currently affords.

Didn't see any mention of this being built out of old parts.
The motherboard and cpu listed are both AM4 and i expect the memory to be DDR4 too.

Yes, his motherboard already supports the 2400g but as he already said, he seems to want to have the overclocking capability which probably means another motherboard.

Also more importantly, he currently has a 4GB DDR4 RAM stick and he wants to buy another 4GB one but he didn't mention anything about his current RAM specs. He probably has one low speed (2400-2600 maybe?) 4GB stick but in order to realise all the graphics performance potential of the 2400g he should get high performance DDR4 RAM (3200+). That means, he can't use the DDR4 stick he already has and he probably needs to get 2 new 4GB sticks of 3200+ DDR4 which are somewhat expensive right now and he doesn't even know if his current motherboard (if he wants to save money by keeping it) will even work with such high speed RAM.

So if my assumptions are correct he needs a new overclocking motherboard, high speed DDR4 RAM, APU and on top of that a new good PSU (which he already needs it). So he should have a budget of 400-450$, which doesn't seem to be the case from what the OP has already told us.

 

[panathas]

It's a true quadcore, it has 2 modules with 2 cores each so yes, it IS a true 4 core.

Also I don't thing you should call each bulldozer module a true dual core part. If you read all the bulldozer reviews out there you'll come to the same conclusion. It's like calling true dual cores each single intel core i core (with hyperthreading) or each new AMD zen core (with SMT). There aren't and the same thing is happening with bulldozer. Finally look at your current CPU it is an 8-core model with SMT. It'd be ridiculous to call it a true 16-core CPU (it's just a 16 thread CPU).

 

[Finstar]

It's a true quadcore, it has 2 modules with 2 cores each so yes, it IS a true 4 core.

Also I don't thing you should call each bulldozer module a true dual core part. If you read all the bulldozer reviews out there you'll come to the same conclusion. It's like calling true dual cores each single intel core i core (with hyperthreading) or each new AMD zen core (with SMT). There aren't and the same thing is happening with bulldozer. Finally look at your current CPU it is an 8-core model with SMT. It'd be ridiculous to call it a true 16-core CPU (it's just a 16 thread CPU).

SMT on Ryzen is a completely different thing compared to modules on bulldozer.
https://youtu.be/PgejkSWzvNs

 

[panathas]

It's a true quadcore, it has 2 modules with 2 cores each so yes, it IS a true 4 core.

Also I don't thing you should call each bulldozer module a true dual core part. If you read all the bulldozer reviews out there you'll come to the same conclusion. It's like calling true dual cores each single intel core i core (with hyperthreading) or each new AMD zen core (with SMT). There aren't and the same thing is happening with bulldozer. Finally look at your current CPU it is an 8-core model with SMT. It'd be ridiculous to call it a true 16-core CPU (it's just a 16 thread CPU).

SMT on Ryzen is a completely different thing compared to modules on bulldozer.
https://youtu.be/PgejkSWzvNs

My friend we are getting out of topic but CMT (Bulldozer) & SMT (Zen) aren't as different as you may think.
From wikipedia:

Bulldozer core

Bulldozer introduced a "Clustered MultiThreading" (CMT) where some parts of the processor are shared between two threads and some parts are unique for each thread.

In terms of hardware complexity and functionality, the Bulldozer CMT module is equal to a dual-core processor in its integer power, and to either a single-core processor or a dual core in its floating-point power, depending on whether the code is saturated in floating point instructions in both threads running on the same CMT module, and whether the FPU is performing 128-bit or 256-bit floating point operations. The reason for this is that for each two integer cores, there is a floating-point unit consisting of a pair of 128-bit FMAC execution units.

CMT is a simpler but similar design philosophy to SMT; both designs try to utilize execution units efficiently; in either method, when two threads compete for some execution pipelines, there is a loss in performance in one or more of the threads. Due to dedicated integer cores, the Bulldozer family modules performed roughly like a dual core dual thread processor during sections of code that were either wholly integer or a mix of integer and floating point; yet, due to the SMT use of the shared floating point pipelines, the module would perform similarly to a single core dual thread SMT processor (SMT2) for a pair of threads saturated with floating point instructions. (Both of these last two comparisons make the assumption that the comparison processor possesses and equally wide and capable execution core, integer-wise and floating-point wise, respectively.)

 

[Finstar]

Bulldozer introduced a "Clustered MultiThreading" (CMT) where some parts of the processor are shared between two threads and some parts are unique for each thread.

In terms of hardware complexity and functionality, the Bulldozer CMT module is equal to a dual-core processor in its integer power

Does that not sound like a 2 cores/module to you?

I'll explain SMT vs modules simply:
SMT tries to split a core in 2 in a way that's efficient for the workload.
Bulldozer modules meanwhile try to split the workload in 2 in a way that's efficient for the 2 cores.

 

[panathas]

Does that not sound like a 2 cores/module to you?

I'll explain SMT vs modules simply:
SMT tries to split a core in 2 in a way that's efficient for the workload.
Bulldozer modules meanwhile try to split the workload in 2 in a way that's efficient for the 2 cores.

Yes, it is, but what I'm trying to say is that when you compare a true quad core CPU like an AMD Ryzen 3 1200 or an Intel core I3-8100 or even an older AMD Phenom quad core with a (2-module) bulldozer "quad" core CPU you'll find that the bulldozer CPU is missing a lot of parts that all the true quad core CPUs have.

Yes theoretically and on paper a 2-module bulldozer is a quad core CPU but in reality it is a marketing gimmick because it has so many shared resources that slow it down which also causes inconsistent performance. With some software it may behave like a quad core but there are instances where it may behave more like a dual core. I am really talking about it's performance here. Yes the AMD A10 is a quad core CPU but it doesn't perform like a true quad core CPU and even dual cores (with hyperthreading) or even an older quad core phenom beat it in performance. For me each bulldozer module is a dual handicapped core.

There was even a false advertising lawsuit when in November 2015 AMD was sued under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law for allegedly misrepresenting the specifications of Bulldozer chips. The class-action lawsuit, filed on 26 October in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, claims that the Bulldozer CPU (4-module FX part) does not have eight cores as advertised, but were effectively quad-core chips due to their module count. (From Wikipedia)

 

[dontlistentome]

Just curious, but does no one here really NOT have a problem with the OP pairing an apu with a dedicated gpu?

I wouldn't advise anyone to buy an APU if they are going to pair it with a discrete videocard. In that case what's the gain of buying an APU over a CPU?

If the idea is to get on the AM4 platform cheaply, and upgrade to Ryzen in the future, then I'd go with an Athlon X4 950. Basically the same thing without the integrated graphics. Should cost less, although that may or may not be the case in every country.

Also at least get a cheap EVGA instead of a Huntkey. One thing, in my experience buying a third party cooler for your CPU removes you from the 'low budget' side of things. When you are on a tight budget, gaming on 4gb ram and maybe a 1050, that money spent on the cooler will not contribute enough to increased performance to justify the cost. You'd be better off using the stock cooler and stock CPU speeds and using the money on a faster videocard. Alternatively, you'd also be better off using the money on a quality power supply. Spending money on a third party cooler but buying a Huntkey power supply? No, I wouldn't do that.

 

[jaime arvi]

Just curious, but does no one here really NOT have a problem with the OP pairing an apu with a dedicated gpu?

I wouldn't advise anyone to buy an APU if they are going to pair it with a discrete videocard. In that case what's the gain of buying an APU over a CPU?

If the idea is to get on the AM4 platform cheaply, and upgrade to Ryzen in the future, then I'd go with an Athlon X4 950. Basically the same thing without the integrated graphics. Should cost less, although that may or may not be the case in every country.

Also at least get a cheap EVGA instead of a Huntkey. One thing, in my experience buying a third party cooler for your CPU removes you from the 'low budget' side of things. When you are on a tight budget, gaming on 4gb ram and maybe a 1050, that money spent on the cooler will not contribute enough to increased performance to justify the cost. You'd be better off using the stock cooler and stock CPU speeds and using the money on a faster videocard. Alternatively, you'd also be better off using the money on a quality power supply. Spending money on a third party cooler but buying a Huntkey power supply? No, I wouldn't do that.

Actually when I purchased the cpu, corsair was not available at that time, I have no choice but to pick the huntkey , the purpose I pick the AM4 because I was planning to upgrade later with ryzen 5, maybe around 200 dollars here, then getting a gpu msi gtx 1050 ti.

 

[panathas]

Actually when I purchased the cpu, corsair was not available at that time, I have no choice but to pick the huntkey , the purpose I pick the AM4 because I was planning to upgrade later with ryzen 5, maybe around 200 dollars here, then getting a gpu msi gtx 1050 ti.

If that was your initial plan you can still follow it.

1) Get a better PSU.
2) Get the GPU you want without worrying about bottlenecking, since you'll later upgrade the CPU.
3) Finally get the Ryzen CPU of your choice.

You can add another 4GB DDR4 RAM between 2 and 3 or after 3.

It's not a bad plan and you can live without a graphics card at the moment, until GPU prices fall a little bit (they are sky high right now), or wait until new GPUs are introduced in 2-3 months. Also keep in mind that until you have the budget to get a graphics card, you can keep the Huntkey since your current system isn't stressing it at all. It's your choice and your budget. Good luck.

 

[budgetgamer12345]

1 Get a used graphics card and you can save ALOT!
2 Get 8GB ram NOW!
3 Don't overclock APU it makes your system glitchy and can crash.
4. Get used parts, this will become cheaper and powerful than this specs that you listed.

Those are my opinions and are 100% better.

 

[lakimens]

Just curious, but does no one here really NOT have a problem with the OP pairing an apu with a dedicated gpu?

I wouldn't advise anyone to buy an APU if they are going to pair it with a discrete videocard. In that case what's the gain of buying an APU over a CPU?

If the idea is to get on the AM4 platform cheaply, and upgrade to Ryzen in the future, then I'd go with an Athlon X4 950. Basically the same thing without the integrated graphics. Should cost less, although that may or may not be the case in every country.

Also at least get a cheap EVGA instead of a Huntkey. One thing, in my experience buying a third party cooler for your CPU removes you from the 'low budget' side of things. When you are on a tight budget, gaming on 4gb ram and maybe a 1050, that money spent on the cooler will not contribute enough to increased performance to justify the cost. You'd be better off using the stock cooler and stock CPU speeds and using the money on a faster videocard. Alternatively, you'd also be better off using the money on a quality power supply. Spending money on a third party cooler but buying a Huntkey power supply? No, I wouldn't do that.

Actually when I purchased the cpu, corsair was not available at that time, I have no choice but to pick the huntkey , the purpose I pick the AM4 because I was planning to upgrade later with ryzen 5, maybe around 200 dollars here, then getting a gpu msi gtx 1050 ti.

Good luck. You'll need it if you pick the Huntkey.

 

[jacobweaver800]

It's a true quadcore, it has 2 modules with 2 cores each so yes, it IS a true 4 core.

Also I don't thing you should call each bulldozer module a true dual core part. If you read all the bulldozer reviews out there you'll come to the same conclusion. It's like calling true dual cores each single intel core i core (with hyperthreading) or each new AMD zen core (with SMT). There aren't and the same thing is happening with bulldozer. Finally look at your current CPU it is an 8-core model with SMT. It'd be ridiculous to call it a true 16-core CPU (it's just a 16 thread CPU).

We aren't calling Threads cores, we know the difference. Each module has 2 physical cores there just sharing resources as someone above states before, Each module has 2 cores not 1 core and 2 threads (SMT).

 

[jacobweaver800]

1 Get a used graphics card and you can save ALOT!
2 Get 8GB ram NOW!
3 Don't overclock APU it makes your system glitchy and can crash.
4. Get used parts, this will become cheaper and powerful than this specs that you listed.

Those are my opinions and are 100% better.

Your opinion isn't 100% better than ours, I agree don't overclock an APU it can get glitchy, 8gb of ram is a great idea with an APU, but used parts aren't always best they can also have firmware or software issues causing them to be glitchy or be broken on arrival. Get 8gb's of ram if your budget allows and don't bother to overclock the APU your better off going with Ryzen if your APU isn't enough (after buying a GPU), as for the GPU you can go used but I wouldn't recommend it unless you see it working in games before buying it, or just look for a really good deal on a new one.

 

[jacobweaver800]

Just curious, but does no one here really NOT have a problem with the OP pairing an apu with a dedicated gpu?

I wouldn't advise anyone to buy an APU if they are going to pair it with a discrete videocard. In that case what's the gain of buying an APU over a CPU?

If the idea is to get on the AM4 platform cheaply, and upgrade to Ryzen in the future, then I'd go with an Athlon X4 950. Basically the same thing without the integrated graphics. Should cost less, although that may or may not be the case in every country.

Also at least get a cheap EVGA instead of a Huntkey. One thing, in my experience buying a third party cooler for your CPU removes you from the 'low budget' side of things. When you are on a tight budget, gaming on 4gb ram and maybe a 1050, that money spent on the cooler will not contribute enough to increased performance to justify the cost. You'd be better off using the stock cooler and stock CPU speeds and using the money on a faster videocard. Alternatively, you'd also be better off using the money on a quality power supply. Spending money on a third party cooler but buying a Huntkey power supply? No, I wouldn't do that.

Ok, I see where your coming from on the APU part, I don't recommend people to go and buy an APU just to pair it in crossfire with a discrete GPU, however if your looking to get into gaming and don't have the budget for a GPU yet APU's do a great job at that end of the spectrum, and later on down the line if you buy an AMD card you can run it paired with the APU for better performance in games that pair well with SLI and Crossfire. Also you can use the APU's built in GPU to test for a dead GPU if you don't have video out on the card.

 

[lakimens]

Every module had two cores. They were slow because two cores shared the resources that should only be given to one core. They shared everything.

 

[jacobweaver800]

Every module had two cores. They were slow because two cores shared the resources that should only be given to one core. They shared everything.

But, they made up for it by having( from what I was told) Faster and more cache per module.

 

[panathas]

Every module had two cores. They were slow because two cores shared the resources that should only be given to one core. They shared everything.

But, they made up for it by having( from what I was told) Faster and more cache per module.

My friend, each bulldozer module has 2 cores but they aren't 2 complete and independent cores. They share resources in order to shave silicon space. That allowed AMD to increase the total core count of each CPU they produced without increasing the production cost. However that doesn't mean that each module behaves like a true dual core module, as it should be. That's one of the main reasons that the bulldozer architecture failed. Instead or managing to increase the performance they did they opposite and on top of that, total power consumption skyrocketed. In the net you'll find countless stories about 8xxx FX users that managed to increase the overall performance of their CPU by disabling one core of each module, thus making their CPU a 4-core chip form an 8-core one. That said it isn't totally AMD's fault. They predicted that software will become more multithread which didn't happen soon enough. So in the end the bulldozer architecture performed well only in professional multithreaded applications.

As I can see it, it's like having 2 workstation systems sharing one Monitor. Yes you can count 2 PC systems in the room but you can't have 2 users working at the same time. The same thing is happening with each module. When various programs are trying to use both cores heavily, performance is dropping considerably.

I don't care about the total core count of each module but when someone, who doesn't know a lot about tech, buys a new system with a so called "quad core" CPU that doesn't behave like a true quad core CPU and it's even beaten in performance by other dual core chips (with hyperthreading), then does it really matter that he owns a "quad core" CPU system?

 

[lakimens]

Every module had two cores. They were slow because two cores shared the resources that should only be given to one core. They shared everything.

But, they made up for it by having( from what I was told) Faster and more cache per module.

Is that why an intel i5 of that year beats it? 4C vs 8C and Intel won the battle.
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-3570-vs-AMD-FX-8350/m793vs1489

 

[Finstar]

Every module had two cores. They were slow because two cores shared the resources that should only be given to one core. They shared everything.

But, they made up for it by having( from what I was told) Faster and more cache per module.

Is that why an intel i5 of that year beats it? 4C vs 8C and Intel won the battle.
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-3570-vs-AMD-FX-8350/m793vs1489

No. The FX loses simply because it's cores are pathetically slow, not because it's cores share resources with each other.

 

[lakimens]

Every module had two cores. They were slow because two cores shared the resources that should only be given to one core. They shared everything.

But, they made up for it by having( from what I was told) Faster and more cache per module.

Is that why an intel i5 of that year beats it? 4C vs 8C and Intel won the battle.
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-3570-vs-AMD-FX-8350/m793vs1489

No. The FX loses simply because it's cores are pathetically slow, not because it's cores share resources with each other.

I'm sure there are multiple things that contribute.

 

[panathas]

Every module had two cores. They were slow because two cores shared the resources that should only be given to one core. They shared everything.

But, they made up for it by having( from what I was told) Faster and more cache per module.

Is that why an intel i5 of that year beats it? 4C vs 8C and Intel won the battle.
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-3570-vs-AMD-FX-8350/m793vs1489

No. The FX loses simply because it's cores are pathetically slow, not because it's cores share resources with each other.

Yes, but one of the reasons that the bulldozer architecture was pathetically slow, is the design itself. Initially AMD predicted that each bulldozer module will reach 80% the performance level of a true dual core design. On the other hand each module was much smaller than competing dual core designs which allowed them to put more cores on each chip without increasing the production cost. In the end that plan backfired when the performance loss was greater than expected and on top of that power consumption skyrocketed. That also (including the larger lithography) prevented them from reaching higher clock speeds. So the bulldozer design ended up being a failure although it performed well enough in multithreaded applications but still its efficiency was horrible.