Best CPU/Mobo combo for Gaming/Vid <$300?

[pcsavvy]

OP

I think youre coming at this at the angle of going from Zero->CPU/Mobo when that's not the case.

I am coming from a budgeting standpoint. You mentioned you had less than $300 for a cpu and m/b combined. I was saying at that price point AMD is the best BUY not the best part if you wanted to have 4 or more cores, be able to O/C, ability to game (lower settings?), video, and any other computing job. Don't kid yourself as programmers get more up to speed more and more games, software, programs, OS'es will need more cores to work more efficiently. Also, how many programs will be running at the same time as one games or do office work or stream videos? In real world performance, in my mind, Intel and AMD are about the same in day to day computing. I am not interested in getting the highest number of fps or whatever, just that I can have a system that will do what I need it to at the budget level that I have, reliably. Rarely does anyone nowadays have only one program running at one time. Benchmarks, fenchmarks...

 

[24601]

OP

I am coming from a budgeting standpoint. You mentioned you had less than $300 for a cpu and m/b combined. I was saying at that price point AMD is the best BUY not the best part if you wanted to have 4 or more cores, be able to O/C, ability to game (lower settings?), video, and any other computing job. Don't kid yourself as programmers get more up to speed more and more games, software, programs, OS'es will need more cores to work more efficiently. Also, how many programs will be running at the same time as one games or do office work or stream videos? In real world performance, in my mind, Intel and AMD are about the same in day to day computing. I am not interested in getting the highest number of fps or whatever, just that I can have a system that will do what I need it to at the budget level that I have, reliably. Rarely does anyone nowadays have only one program running at one time. Benchmarks, fenchmarks...

If you don't care about your performance, go get an Atom netbook.
It'll run Crysis. Technically.

 

[ViRGE]

Take it down a notch, guys. And more importantly, leave the hostility at the door. This is a help thread, and if you can't be polite and helpful then you aren't needed in here.
-ViRGE

 

[pcsavvy]

Thanks Virge...

 

[icanhascpu2]

OP

I am coming from a budgeting standpoint. You mentioned you had less than $300 for a cpu and m/b combined. I was saying at that price point AMD is the best BUY not the best part if you wanted to have 4 or more cores, be able to O/C, ability to game (lower settings?), video, and any other computing job. Don't kid yourself as programmers get more up to speed more and more games, software, programs, OS'es will need more cores to work more efficiently. Also, how many programs will be running at the same time as one games or do office work or stream videos? In real world performance, in my mind, Intel and AMD are about the same in day to day computing. I am not interested in getting the highest number of fps or whatever, just that I can have a system that will do what I need it to at the budget level that I have, reliably. Rarely does anyone nowadays have only one program running at one time. Benchmarks, fenchmarks...

But it *isnt* the best buy for 4 core. For more than four cores, yes. Not at four. Thats the whole point.

Dont kid myself? The only kidding myself ive been doing is thinking games would magically start being 6-8 threaded. They arnt and wont be for years. Im not going to sit waiting for that, that would be the definition of a pointless buy.

I dont really care if ~youre~ not interested in getting good frame-rates in games, this isnt your thread, and its not ~your~ money Im spending.

Youve gone from making some good points to disregarding facts (benchmarks, something in large part the entire site was based off of if you forgot) and making wildly broad and inaccurate assertions like Intel and AMD being about the same in day to day computing. Yeah, alright. I'll just ignore the years of experience and evidence on this site alone that says that aint true (AMD kicks ass in some areas clearly, and Intel in others, this isnt debatable) and spend $300 for word processing.

 

[icanhascpu2]

If you don't care about your performance, go get an Atom netbook.
It'll run Crysis. Technically.

Lol Seriously! I dont know what point he was trying to make.

Anyway, thanks all the people for pointing me in the right directions.

 

[pcsavvy]

To me day to day computing--everyday stuff not gaming.

For a gamer or general interest, benchmarks are helpful in guiding one's decision in getting the best bang for the buck, which is best for gaming vs general computing vs video editing, etc. I look at benchmarks as a general guide but I put more weight on actual usage reviews.

The decision whether to buy Intel vs AMD comes down to one's budget, expectations, usage, and performance vs total cost.

I am not trying to say to anyone on this site you must buy AMD, my position is if you have a limited budget, then AMD is more wallet friendly. But if you have a higher budget than go Intel which is less wallet friendly.
There is an $70-80 difference between AMD FX and Intel cpu's alone when you factor in the ability to o/c and have 4 cores.

It is all about options.

 

[Torn Mind]

There's two ways to go about deciding on parts. You can look at budget first and then performance later. Or you can start with performance first and then "cut" down to the budget.

He's already been burned once by AMD. No need to ask him to touch the stove twice; you have shown that you have not paid attention to that little fact. And he's willing to sacrifice timeliness and wait for sales so the products actually do fall into his budget, go to Micro Center, or buy used(at the For Sale/For Trade or elsewhere).

And he can always sacrifice overclocking if need be and STILL wind up with a superior part than the Phenom II that he has now.

 

[icanhascpu2]

To me day to day computing--everyday stuff not gaming.

For a gamer or general interest, benchmarks are helpful in guiding one's decision in getting the best bang for the buck, which is best for gaming vs general computing vs video editing, etc. I look at benchmarks as a general guide but I put more weight on actual usage reviews.

The decision whether to buy Intel vs AMD comes down to one's budget, expectations, usage, and performance vs total cost.

I am not trying to say to anyone on this site you must buy AMD, my position is if you have a limited budget, then AMD is more wallet friendly. But if you have a higher budget than go Intel which is less wallet friendly.
There is an $70-80 difference between AMD FX and Intel cpu's alone when you factor in the ability to o/c and have 4 cores.

It is all about options.

I do not think that's a wise way to go about it. I too look at user reviews, but only after looking at benchmarks. Why? Because no amount of "This CPU is sooo cool and overclocks niceee" reviews are going to make framerates go higher on an inferior architecture. There are tons of people happy with AMD. I was one of them, but happiness and good reviews and saving $25~ between FX/i5 don't power high framerates in CPU intensive games; what Im lacking more than anything else.

Intel isnt 'less wallet friendly' when its the only obvious option at a certain level for certain needs, as there is nothing to base it against.

There's two ways to go about deciding on parts. You can look at budget first and then performance later. Or you can start with performance first and then "cut" down to the budget.

He's already been burned once by AMD. No need to ask him to touch the stove twice; you have shown that you have not paid attention to that little fact. And he's willing to sacrifice timeliness and wait for sales so the products actually do fall into his budget, go to Micro Center, or buy used(at the For Sale/For Trade or elsewhere).

And he can always sacrifice overclocking if need be and STILL wind up with a superior part than the Phenom II that he has now.

Yes this is my thoughts on the matter. FX (and certainly not anything less) simply isnt an option from the dozen+ in depth reviews ive looked through. Its just the Phenom II with twice the cores that wont be of (much) use to me 95% of the time. :/

 

[AnonymouseUser]

If you had just changed your thread title, this thread would have been finished in less than 30 replies.

Best New/Used Overclockable Intel CPU/Mobo combo for Gaming/Vid <$300?

Based on the actual title and specifics laid out in the OP, AMD is the only choice, and that's why this thread won't die.

 

[icanhascpu2]

Yeah, but it's been pretty clear from the start that overclocking was desired, so I've been under the impression that a better HSF would be needed. Again, not to argue, and for those with a Microcenter nearby, I salute you, but the price point and goal are rather difficult for most of us without that resource to achieve, hence my interest.

tential already said it, but OC is desired, but it isnt a priority. Just an option for the future when I get a AM cooler. I dont have to have everything all at once. Even without the Microcenter I have found a few options to do this under 300.

Desired, but I don't think it's a priority if you're spending $300.

Mobo
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157314
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157302
---
CPU
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007SZ0E1K/...SIN=B007SZ0E1K

$220+$75=$295

If you want to add a CPU cooler afterwards,

http://www.amazon.com/Cooler-Master-.../dp/B005O65JXI

Search around if you want for lower prices, but that's it.

Non OC CPU
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-3.html

Thanks for these links Ill look through them
edit: Bookmarking that cooler, several have mentioned it in my searches now and good reviews. Seems like a good value. The mobos Ill prob go Z75 for the 7x gen. Depending if I end up with 2500K I may go Z6x, but im not sure? 7x would have better futureproofing, and my mobos usually last through 2 CPU cycles..

He needs a Z77 mobo at least, he wants to overclock. So unless you scrape the bottom of the barrel, it's a touch over $300 for just the two parts without the cooler that is necessary to achieve any meaningful gains.

Why would I need a min of Z77? Do the Z75s not offer the same in regards to that? Ive seen a few on both angles well under $100 that were not 'bottom of the barrel', and the many dozen reviews would disagree with you on the lack of overclockability.

I dont 100% understand what is 'bottom of the barrel' about this mobo for instance: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157304 and I'll almost certainly be able to find it 5-10$ cheaper if I wait/look around a few weeks.

 

[pcsavvy]

AnonymouseUser

If you had just changed your thread title, this thread would have been finished in less than 30 replies.


Quote:
Best New/Used Overclockable Intel CPU/Mobo combo for Gaming/Vid <$300?
Based on the actual title and specifics laid out in the OP, AMD is the only choice, and that's why this thread won't die.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[icanhascpu2]

If you had just changed your thread title, this thread would have been finished in less than 30 replies.



Based on the actual title and specifics laid out in the OP, AMD is the only choice, and that's why this thread won't die.

I dont need it to "die". I need people to actually bother to read (and several actually have, thanks again dudes for being literate). If you dont want to read, then thats fine, if you have no real want to put effort into relevant feedback then thats fine too. Just dont post? Im not looking for Intel. Im looking for the best deal for what I want it to do under $300. Through this thread it has become very clear that AMD doesn't currently have that, but it does not mean they will never or someone has relevant information that may sway me.

Im not going to limit myself from brands just because you are having a fit with the idea 'your' brand isnt doing so well at this price thus far. I dont CARE about brands. It could be Hello-Kitty purple pink CPU with glitter technology and if it was the best for what I want Id be looking at it.

You keep saying AMD is the only choice but you provide no evidence to support that in the least, and *everything* im seeing in reviews and benchmarks on both angles points away from AMD for me here. You say its the only choice yet all the information in this thread alone proves that it is not, and it makes your statement look ignorant and stubborn because you're not backing anything up.

 

[crashtech]

Why would I need a min of Z77? Do the Z75s not offer the same in regards to that? Ive seen a few on both angles well under $100 that were not 'bottom of the barrel', and the many dozen reviews would disagree with you on the lack of overclockability.

I dont 100% understand what is 'bottom of the barrel' about this mobo for instance: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157304 and I'll almost certainly be able to find it 5-10$ cheaper if I wait/look around a few weeks.

I've heard that Z75 boards are fine. The only knock against them is that the Z77 counterpart boards that far more users have experience with are usually just $10 more. So it's a "go with what you know" thing. Get the Z75 if it suits you.

 

[codyray10]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2326185

 

[24601]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2326185

Perfect CPU price. Snap it up quickly .

 

[AnonymouseUser]

You say its the only choice yet all the information in this thread alone proves that it is not, and it makes your statement look ignorant and stubborn because you're not backing anything up.

Looking at the thread title and OP, when purchasing NEW, AMD is the only choice that fits your criteria.

New CPU + New Mobo + Has to overclock + Less than $300 + Best for gaming

AMD has plenty of Overclockable options from their current lineup, from both the FX lineup and the APU lineup, though the 8320 and/or 8350 would be best for gaming.

Intel has nothing sub $300 NEW, unless you have a Micro Center within a 30 minute drive. The closest option costwise was posted early in the thread:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboD...=Combo.1325555

$340, I failed you

Again, your thread title and original post leaves no option for Intel when considering NEW hardware. You then say silly things like "I dont CARE about brands" when clearly you do.

 

[tential]

Looking at the thread title and OP, when purchasing NEW, AMD is the only choice that fits your criteria.

New CPU + New Mobo + Has to overclock + Less than $300 + Best for gaming

AMD has plenty of Overclockable options from their current lineup, from both the FX lineup and the APU lineup, though the 8320 and/or 8350 would be best for gaming.

Intel has nothing sub $300 NEW, unless you have a Micro Center within a 30 minute drive. The closest option costwise was posted early in the thread:



Again, your thread title and original post leaves no option for Intel when considering NEW hardware. You then say silly things like "I dont CARE about brands" when clearly you do.

Considering I just showed him a new intel option with quad core AMD isn't the ONLY option.

OP, if you want the best/newest you can get, my option is the best. You already quoted it here.

If you want to look at some other options go ahead. Realize buying used Sandy Bridge CPUs isn't the safest thing as people over clocked the living hell out of it. Go only knows how long it will last. Buying AMD as you already know will not give you the performance you desired.

Good luck though OP, you have all the options listed in this thread already. Read benchmarks, you'll see mine is the best choice (other people said it too).

Also, realize games aren't CPU bound. Having a 5 Ghz CPU won't boost your performance all that much. Hence what those graphs on that other page were trying to show that you ignored lol. Probably want to go back and read those graphs as well as the review associated with them.

Good luck.

 

[Torn Mind]

Some people overclock because it gives them a thrill just doing it. Others do it because they just want more performance. For the latter, that means that one must take into consideration how much extra performance you're getting via overclocking compared to other CPUs. If we are to be strict about budget, then the sacrifice he should make is to sacrifice overclocking and still get a non-K i5 because the performance is better than if you go with a $120 chip and try to just match i5 performance at maybe ~4.8-5.0 GHz.

If the point of pointing out icanhascpu2's budget is to needlessly and incessantly remind him he has to sacrifice something due to that budget, sacrificing performance is the last thing to axe because you can't afford it.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Considering I just showed him a new intel option with quad core AMD isn't the ONLY option.

The $303 combo you mentioned does not include a motherboard capable of BIOS/UEFI overclocking.

Comes with a nice utility to manage fans and overclocking in windows, which is nice for me because Im too lazy to go into the bios to manage stuff.

Pros: Great board for not overclocking.
Boots quickly
Nice BIOS

Does not have overclocking capability, but for the price I paid($79) I wasn't planning on overclocking. It does have software for an overclock, but I don't think it will be fully functional.

I do have to wonder, though, since budget is limited and Intel outperforms AMD @ gaming even without overclocking, why make overclocking a priority?

 

[nyker96]

I actually was going thru similar decision just 2 weeks ago, thinking about an upgrade from amd x4. basically my options were:
2500k (150) + z68/z77 used board (50) = 200
3570k (180) + z77/z8x board (80-120) = 270-300
haswell+new 1150 board = 350 buying in combo

factors I considered:
1) OC potential for haswell is low, plus high heat problem,
2) performance for 3570k is similar to 2500k plus I need more money for board
3) another factor is that for haswell I'd have to get a new PSU as well. adding to the total cost.

ended up with this combo:
2500k w/ TZ68k+ board. totally about $195. saving the rest for a SSD upgrade in the future. In fact just got both today, set it to 4,2ghz at stock volts, running like a champ, typing on it right now. gonna run occt+p95 overnight.

I'd say if u just need something for gaming, anything above 2500k generation will do just fine, might as well save your cash for future g-card upgrade cause for games, that's where you should put your money.

 

[AtenRa]

I currently own a PhenomII 965BE that is capable of 4Ghz on stock air if I need it to do that, so there is a bar set that I need at least to be pushed 50% higher. From all of the information I have gathered, going from that to a 6300 or 6350 would make no sense at all. Even going from that to a FX8350 would be a bad choice as the vast (95%+) majority of my time will not be spent in anything that's able to utilize more than 4 cores anyway plus core for core the FX is basically the same as my current Phenom. So all the FX would have is a better overclock. I might hit 4.8 in it if Im lucky. So that would be 20% (as the rest of the cores would do little good to me). Not worth it, not even close.

I dont know if the same happens with MineCraft but in SC2 the FX is faster than Phenom, SC2 only uses 2 or 3 cores.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2306253

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Well OP, if you can swing $320...