brian Smit
I'm a little confussed at the quad vrs. dual core and also memory specs any help would be great.
Thinking of a desktop
Answer
You won't be getting a new gaming computer for 500 bucks, but you can quite feasibly get a very good machine for 800 if you build it yourself, use AMD parts, don't go for top-of-the-line, and are willing to perhaps not run this year's games at absolutely completely maxed out settings.
About dual core and quad core: the cores in a processor are basically little processors by themselves. Since having two processors in a separate package on the motherboard is a bit problematic (mainly due to performance reasons), manufacturers started putting both processors in the same part.
Current games, assuming they support multiple cores at all, usually support only two cores. Especially if you're going for a cheaper gaming machine having a quad core processor is simply a waste of money and electricity. The CPU isn't really all that important in todays games anyway (the graphics card is much more important), so you can skimp on that a bit.
Memory is quite easy, it's just that there are a lot of acronyms involved. There are basically two forms of memory (for desktops): DDR2 and DDR3. DDR2 is being phased out, but it's still used in very low end machines and laptops. DDR3 is faster.
Along with the type of memory, there's the speed, expressed in megahertz. Faster memory works on slower machines, it will simply slow down to match the speed of the rest of the system. Slower memory doesn't speed up; the rest of the system slows down to match the speed of the memory.
For example, lets say you get a stick of memory marked 2 GB DDR3/1333. This means that it's a stick of memory of the DDR3 type, it's designed to run at 1333 megahertz, and it's 2 GB in size.
You won't be getting a new gaming computer for 500 bucks, but you can quite feasibly get a very good machine for 800 if you build it yourself, use AMD parts, don't go for top-of-the-line, and are willing to perhaps not run this year's games at absolutely completely maxed out settings.
About dual core and quad core: the cores in a processor are basically little processors by themselves. Since having two processors in a separate package on the motherboard is a bit problematic (mainly due to performance reasons), manufacturers started putting both processors in the same part.
Current games, assuming they support multiple cores at all, usually support only two cores. Especially if you're going for a cheaper gaming machine having a quad core processor is simply a waste of money and electricity. The CPU isn't really all that important in todays games anyway (the graphics card is much more important), so you can skimp on that a bit.
Memory is quite easy, it's just that there are a lot of acronyms involved. There are basically two forms of memory (for desktops): DDR2 and DDR3. DDR2 is being phased out, but it's still used in very low end machines and laptops. DDR3 is faster.
Along with the type of memory, there's the speed, expressed in megahertz. Faster memory works on slower machines, it will simply slow down to match the speed of the rest of the system. Slower memory doesn't speed up; the rest of the system slows down to match the speed of the memory.
For example, lets say you get a stick of memory marked 2 GB DDR3/1333. This means that it's a stick of memory of the DDR3 type, it's designed to run at 1333 megahertz, and it's 2 GB in size.
I am looking to build a gaming computer for about 500 to 600 dollars?
Noah
I am purchasing parts off of newegg and tigerdirect here is a list what do you think any advic
Motherboard: ASRock 970 EXTREME4 AM3+
CPU: AMD FX-8150 Zambezi 3.6GHz
RAM: G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3
HDD: Western Digital Caviar Black WD1002FAEX 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive
DVD: ASUS DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS Black SATA 24X DVD Burner - Bulk - OEM
Video Card (only item from tigerdirect): EVGA GeForce GTX 550 Ti 01G-P3-1556-KR Video Card - 1GB, GDDR5, PCI-Express 2.0(x16), 2x Dual-Link DVI-I, 1x Mini-HDMI,
No power supply yet please suggest a power supply
Answer
Intel is the ONLY price/performance solution, forget about AMD's watt sucking Bulldozers, read these links to find out why,
Performance Analysis
With the addition of numbers for the Intel Core i3-2100 and Core i5-2400 in some of our benchmarks, it's plain to see that even with a price cut, the FX-8120 struggles in most of our tests. In very multi-threaded tests such as Cinebench and WPrime, it just about manages to hold its own against the similarly-priced Intel Core i5-2400 - slightly ahead in WPrime, a little behind in Cinebench and noticeably faster than the cheaper Core i3-2100. The Core i5-3570K is much faster in both tests, but then it costs around £30 more.
Our image editing test was a real let down with the FX-8120. It came bottom of the graph, being trounced by a staggering 500 points by the Core i3-2100 - a CPU that costs just £90. Even the ageing AMD Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition was considerably faster while the similarly priced Intel Core i5-2400 was nearly twice as fast. Clearly, if you do any amount of photo editing, the AMD FX-8120 represents particularly poor value.
With eight cores at its disposal, you'd think the FX-8120 might stand a good chance in our video encoding test. Sadly this wasn't to be and its score of 2,150 was over 400 points short of the Core i5-2400. Thankfully for the FX-8120, the Core i3-2100 was noticeably slower, with its two physical and two virtual cores not able to keep up.
Everything started to fall away from the FX-8120 again in our multi-tasking test, where it was yet again at the bottom of the pile, coming 100 points short of the much cheaper Core i3-2100, while the Core i5-2400 was nearly 50% faster - pretty damning result. Overall, it was no surprise to see the FX-8120 rock bottom, bettered by the Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition and Core i3-2100 and trounced by the Core i5-2400.
Our game test lacks data for the two Sandy Bridge CPUs as we tested these some time ago, however, with the Intel Core i5-3570K retailing for just £30-40 more, it's clear from our results that the FX-8120 isn't a great buy for games either. The Intel CPU was 60 per cent faster in Arma II while costing around 30 per cent more - not a bad rate of return if you can afford the extra layout.
Conclusion,
Sadly, its more of the same bad news for AMD or anyone with a Socket AM3+ motherboard looking for a decent CPU for around the £150 mark. The FX-8120 just isn't a good choice when it comes to the kind of applications we run on our PCs. It's regularly outpaced by far cheaper Intel dual-core CPUs, while the similarly-priced Intel Core i5-2400 is significantly faster in many of our tests. It's not all bad news for AMD - before we get accused of being biased towards Intel, we have no qualms recommending the A8-3870K for those looking to build a budget gaming PC, while we also recommend many of its graphics cards.
As it stands, the FX-8120 will have to be a lot cheaper for it to be worth considering over an equivalently-priced Intel setup, while owners of the Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition can rest assured that there aren't any worthwhile upgrades yet.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2012/07/27/amd-fx-8120-review/8
Gaming CPU Hierarchy Chart
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html
Intel is the ONLY price/performance solution, forget about AMD's watt sucking Bulldozers, read these links to find out why,
Performance Analysis
With the addition of numbers for the Intel Core i3-2100 and Core i5-2400 in some of our benchmarks, it's plain to see that even with a price cut, the FX-8120 struggles in most of our tests. In very multi-threaded tests such as Cinebench and WPrime, it just about manages to hold its own against the similarly-priced Intel Core i5-2400 - slightly ahead in WPrime, a little behind in Cinebench and noticeably faster than the cheaper Core i3-2100. The Core i5-3570K is much faster in both tests, but then it costs around £30 more.
Our image editing test was a real let down with the FX-8120. It came bottom of the graph, being trounced by a staggering 500 points by the Core i3-2100 - a CPU that costs just £90. Even the ageing AMD Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition was considerably faster while the similarly priced Intel Core i5-2400 was nearly twice as fast. Clearly, if you do any amount of photo editing, the AMD FX-8120 represents particularly poor value.
With eight cores at its disposal, you'd think the FX-8120 might stand a good chance in our video encoding test. Sadly this wasn't to be and its score of 2,150 was over 400 points short of the Core i5-2400. Thankfully for the FX-8120, the Core i3-2100 was noticeably slower, with its two physical and two virtual cores not able to keep up.
Everything started to fall away from the FX-8120 again in our multi-tasking test, where it was yet again at the bottom of the pile, coming 100 points short of the much cheaper Core i3-2100, while the Core i5-2400 was nearly 50% faster - pretty damning result. Overall, it was no surprise to see the FX-8120 rock bottom, bettered by the Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition and Core i3-2100 and trounced by the Core i5-2400.
Our game test lacks data for the two Sandy Bridge CPUs as we tested these some time ago, however, with the Intel Core i5-3570K retailing for just £30-40 more, it's clear from our results that the FX-8120 isn't a great buy for games either. The Intel CPU was 60 per cent faster in Arma II while costing around 30 per cent more - not a bad rate of return if you can afford the extra layout.
Conclusion,
Sadly, its more of the same bad news for AMD or anyone with a Socket AM3+ motherboard looking for a decent CPU for around the £150 mark. The FX-8120 just isn't a good choice when it comes to the kind of applications we run on our PCs. It's regularly outpaced by far cheaper Intel dual-core CPUs, while the similarly-priced Intel Core i5-2400 is significantly faster in many of our tests. It's not all bad news for AMD - before we get accused of being biased towards Intel, we have no qualms recommending the A8-3870K for those looking to build a budget gaming PC, while we also recommend many of its graphics cards.
As it stands, the FX-8120 will have to be a lot cheaper for it to be worth considering over an equivalently-priced Intel setup, while owners of the Phenom II X6 1100T Black Edition can rest assured that there aren't any worthwhile upgrades yet.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2012/07/27/amd-fx-8120-review/8
Gaming CPU Hierarchy Chart
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Title Post: What is a good gaming computer for 500 dollars or less?
Rating: 100% based on 998 ratings. 5 user reviews.
Author: Unknown
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
Rating: 100% based on 998 ratings. 5 user reviews.
Author: Unknown
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment