Hey guys, i just wanted to know if this build I'm about to do in 2 weeks will be good enough for gaming. My budget is $ 770 and i want to play games on my 48 inch HDTV.I'm getting a AMD FX 4100 with a Radeon HD 6850, NO overclocking will be done on this build or two GPUs.I'm getting the FX 4100 because it's cheap and fast and later this year i want to upgrade to the new fixed versions of the AMD Bulldozer CPU's AMD will release later this year.
Like always I read and then I think, and then post a lot because I like to look at the whole picture and seem to know a bit more about the long view which in it's self isn't important for what your looking for now, just some options and some projections.
You might be better off with the older 4 core AMD cpus like the 955 or better than the 4 core FX. Even though I hope AMD will stay around for all our sakes that line is just not worth it, get the prev. AMD version if you want with a newer motherboard so you can still take that upgrade path but trying to run many games on max or at the 1080P res that your tv will run, I got the same setup and it is a bit nicer but bumping down to 720P doesn't really hurt anything, it will take a better video card if your going to run it at 1080P. The video card your looking at does ok but your better off with the 6900 series and depending on what types of games you run I'd go with the 2gb ones if you like Skyrim or any large map game. They need the extra memory and you will be able to run most games at a good setting, just not the highest but really when you start playing the games the eye candy gets lost in the action of the game so you won't really miss much. It really only matters if you take screen saves and look close that you really notice it anyway.
There is nothing wrong with the FX cpus that will cause any real problems running software, it just won't do it as fast as some other cpus. But your looking at running games and the video card will make a lot bigger difference than the cpu will so it's not a real problem one way or the other for the most part but there is still some games that may make more use of the cpu than others. This is why I would consider the prev. AMD 4 cores. They are cheap and perform just fine for what your trying to do, Just go around and check this out and make up your own mind. That is the best I can really offer. If you want to learn anything at all about amd cpu's start at amdzone.com and use their links to reviews. It's a good starting point. There are some sites that are def. biased one way or the other, I gave up on Anands long ago, they are def intel biased to a point that is a bad joke to even see.
Even the 8 core BD's need software to catch up with them and right now while they do ok, got one on one of my systems, runs most games on ultra high with a 6970 but they are way to different to work to it's full potential with current software. The people that got the 8120's or 8150's are pretty happy with them. They have their good points and their bad ones, they are not made to work well on a single core which is too bad. But they do have future potential that I've only seen 2 sites run with this one. Do some searching for testing on win 8 beta's and you'll see what I mean about current win 7 software limits and that is just one part of the FX's current drawbacks because current software isn't designed to be compiled to work as well with it yet. Any real new hardware takes time which most sites just don't seem to point out or take a wide view approach to testing them. They have about 10% more potental once the software and OS are up to speed, it's nice to get a cpu that upgrades it's self over time. At least with current Intel and older AMD you get what you see and no more. I just wish better time was taken with them and better review work done. It takes more time than sites want to spend on them. And taking one side over the other in any context can be silly or normal. We all do it with EVERYTHING.
A glaring example was when the first AMD Athlon 64's came out and still used that stupid Intel rated speed grade.
In it's case it was actually underrated but everyone and most hardware sites were still stuck in the MHZ mode and so loved the Pentium4 even though it was for the most part crap. When put with the very expensive Rambus it was fast at only a couple of memory dependent apps.
AMD came out with a 64 bit chip that took a while to be used to it's potential. Too bad Microsoft took too much time putting out a home 64bit os and gave Intel who tied Dell and other large computer makers to it's cpus and really didn't care if they lost the lawsuit because they won the R&D war because they kept AMD from getting the money needed to really design their next gen. cpus, it slowed them down which was all Intel needed to do and it worked great. They said at the time 64bit wasn't needed while they took AMD's lead and improve upon it and the same with programs to run on it. So Intel won the war and by the great way sites are doing their best to bash AMD we may only see one viable cpu in a few years and won't that be great. To see again $1,000+ Intel cpus with some crap Celeron's put back out because they will be able to sell them at seemly lower prices with castrated performance. This current cpu picture will not last if things keep going they way they are. It's not so much that there are AMD fanboys as there are that know what a intel only world will be like. I've seen it back in the 286 days and I know how intel will play it once AMD is so far out of the picture to not want to see that happen.
Anyone that does is a total moron which again brings me back to wonder why anyone would insult someone that wants to run a AMD cpu because it's because of them that the closeminded can afford the intel cpu and then stupidly bash the person that made it possible? The world is one crazy place huh? I just love to laugh at this kind of stuff. But then again, I'll get a good laugh watching everyone moan and groan at the huge price hikes we are already starting to see from Intel and their upgrade pace will slow to a crawl because they will have no need to innovate if there isn't anyone to give a reason. It won't hurt their sales one bit. They are the only ones really left, Alpha, IBM and Motorola are out of the picture and it's just ARM chips they have to deal with. Big deal.
I just hope IBM can work with AMD more and help them get past their R&D problems, that is their only real hope now. And our's as well!!!
Anyway, it will run software just fine. It won't be a speed demon but your building on a budget and I would assume you know this and so you won't be running new games at their highest settings. You would have to pretty much spend your entire budget on just the video card to make that happen. Then a higher end power supply, and a nice case to keep it cool and there goes 1500.00 if you want to run games maxed.
You will be able to run games at a good setting and run any software made with a AMD cpu.
If your only really worried about running memory intensive software does Intel make any real noticeable gains, they are faster in other areas but not that much to be really noticed. I've seen enough of both to not be taken in by the hype.
In games it's video cards that will make the most gains per dollar, In flat out number crunching like audio/video then Intel kills AMD. But for home systems it's not as big a difference as benchmark numbers make it out to be. Because they can be faster or slower in 80% of the scores and make such a big difference in memory intensive programs to screw it's overall use performance your going to see at a home system.
It also gets a little fuzzy on picking which actual video card unless you do a lot of looking around as well sorry to say.
You can't really go by a lot of the benchmark testing done on video cards on most sites either because they use overclocked systems that give misleading data.
It's a shame and I am very disappointed that this is done but you have to watch out for this garbage, It looks cooler but at least some sites are more realistic if you look for them.
I mean who in their right mind would benchmark a video card on a 4.5ghz cpu that might give 3% of the computing world data they can use? It doesn't change it all that much but when you want to know if you can stay over 30fps it's useless. You end up buying the wrong video card with those tests.
If your looking for AMD data check out Amdzone.com. They will give you lots of links to get as much useful info on AMD cpus as your going to get. And stay way from the larger sites, they have been suspect because their ad money was and still may be tied with Intel. That is only a guess as this time as you don't at least see their ads plastered all over the screen like they used to be.
But their reviews sure shout it out. This site has been pretty good, at least they showed software that was optimized for the new cpu and give honest reviews for the most part but stay away from Anands . I've never seen such total bias and poor testing done on AMD's cpus. That site is a bad joke.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram