Best value AMD setup?

[SickBeast]

IMO the best value from AMD right now is the 32nm Socket FM1 Llano. Drop that into a Crossfire/SLI motherboard and you would have a very nice gaming setup, particularly if it can hit 4.4ghz. These CPUs seem to be going for a little over $100.

The Phenom II X6 is also a good option, but the 6 cores aren't very useful for gaming. Prices have dropped to around $150 for the CPU which is pretty good.

An Intel 2500K is still the best bet if you're looking for something high end.

I would recommend an i3 if they could be overclocked. Intel doesn't really offer anything useful for gaming for under $200.

 

[sm625]

Best "Value" AMD CPU? Probably the OEM Phenom 2 830 deal this week from Microcenter. $50 for a 2.8ghz Deneb. It should overclock to somewhere in the mid 3ghz range. Of course, you need to already have a cooler, because it doesn't come with one. Microcenter is also selling an AM3 mobo for $30 after MIR.

Now, that being said, I bought the 830, because I had an AM2+ setup that needed a CPU. If I was building new today, and especially if I'd already dropped significant money on a GPU and RAM, I'd go for a 2500K setup.

That doesn't make any sense. If you can really get an AMD quad and oc it to 3.5-3.8 ghz then how can you justify spending literally 250% more for only 30% more performance? (and probably only 10% more in games)

 

[lsquare]

I have a 2500k and love it. I actually replaced a 955BE with it. That said, it really isn't twice as good as the 955, and I'm much more often limited by my GPU than by the CPU. My single 6950 2GB would probably net similar results in most games with my old 955. I got a good deal selling my old setup in a box for a friend, so took the chance to go 2500k.

I'd say that 2500k and above pay off when you're matching it with very high end GPUs and multi-GPU setups, as that exposes much more limitations of CPUs. But for a single-midrange GPU like my 6950, the 2500k is mostly overkill.

I think I disagree with you for the reason that this build will last me at most 6 months. Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be any logical reasons for me to go with SB at this stage of the game when an AMD setup will be more than capable of meeting my needs. I don't ever intend to go with multi-GPU setups given that not all games scale on a linear basis. There's also the issue of micro-stuttering. I do upgrade on an annual basis.

 

[lsquare]

It is the latest non AM3+.

If you want to overclock make sure you get a black edition CPU and then switch to this motherboard.

The main thing to look for in an overclocking AM3 motherboard is to check and see if it has the 8 pin CPU power hookup.

So let me get this straight. An AM3+ board will accept the 955 as well as any Bulldozer base processors right? If it's not that much more, I mind as well go with that board so that my youngest brother can eventually upgrade to a bulldozer in the future should it ever make sense. I see no reason to go with bulldozer at this point in time.

The board that you listed is a bit of an overkill. I don't need an onboard GPU. Any cheaper solutions that will overclock as well, support bulldozer, play well with 4 DIMMs, contain USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gbits/sec?

 

[lsquare]

IMO the best value from AMD right now is the 32nm Socket FM1 Llano. Drop that into a Crossfire/SLI motherboard and you would have a very nice gaming setup, particularly if it can hit 4.4ghz. These CPUs seem to be going for a little over $100.

The Phenom II X6 is also a good option, but the 6 cores aren't very useful for gaming. Prices have dropped to around $150 for the CPU which is pretty good.

An Intel 2500K is still the best bet if you're looking for something high end.

I would recommend an i3 if they could be overclocked. Intel doesn't really offer anything useful for gaming for under $200.

Llano builds seem to be more for the lower end of the market. It's much slower than the X4 let alone even compete with an X6.

I think at this stage of the game it'll either be an X4 955 or an X6 1055T. I still can't figure out which one is the better value.

 

[maniac5999]

That doesn't make any sense. If you can really get an AMD quad and oc it to 3.5-3.8 ghz then how can you justify spending literally 250% more for only 30% more performance? (and probably only 10% more in games)

Let me expand. "Value" is a combination of 2 things. It is mostly performance/price, but to another extent, it is how well a given product stacks up against other products that cost the same.

While the 830 as a CPU is likely to get into the 3.5-3.7range, it is a locked CPU at 2.8ghz with a 1.35v max voltage. You would need a board that can increase the HT clock (or BCLK, whatever you want to call it) into the upper 200s in order to get there, and given the voltage limitations, you'd need good, clean power delivery too. with a cheap board, 3.2-3.5 is a much more appropriate expectation.

Now, the compounding issue is that a computer is only as fast as it's slowest part. The OP already has a top of the line video card, and 16GB of nice RAM, so the CPU could easily be the bottleneck. 4.7ghz is quite reasonable for a 2500k. On a cheap board, 3.5ghz is great for the 830. Given that clock for clock a SB processor is about 50% faster than a P2, that makes the 2500K about twice as fast as the 830 at max OC.

Granted, the difference between $100 (830+mobo) and $300(2500k+mobo) is 300%, however, once you add in the fact that the OP already spent about $350 on GPU+RAM, the difference between $450, and $650 is only about 30% for the system.

 

[infoiltrator]

There is a CPU comparison function under "BENCH" on the Anandtech website and gaming ratings on TomsHardware.
Basically an I3 2100 games as well as an AMD 955 overclocked or not. An $80-90 Motherboard does very well.
For serious multithread applications an AMD 1055T (or a 1090T) overclocked are better than 955.
An Intel I5 2400 outperforms both without overclocking in both applications, gaming or business (yes they are that good, and yes always chose AMD before.
I say that on a Biostar TH67B motherboard that cost $75 shipped and a I5 2400 I got for $180 shipped. A Gigabyte would cost GA Z68M D2H is $113 shipped before $10 MIR.

iF YOU HAD an AMD board a PII X4/X6 would make sense. If you feel you WANT AMD thats fine.
If you want the best choice for you or the future owner, Intel is better.

For an AMD office rig the 1090T or 1100T will run cooler and use less power than the 1035T. Gaming the X4 are the best choice, and a 970/980 are factory tweaked 955s that will run cooler but overclock no higher (1035T/1100T are the same).

OK That said if you go AMD look for combo deals.

 

[lsquare]

There is a CPU comparison function under "BENCH" on the Anandtech website and gaming ratings on TomsHardware.
Basically an I3 2100 games as well as an AMD 955 overclocked or not. An $80-90 Motherboard does very well.
For serious multithread applications an AMD 1055T (or a 1090T) overclocked are better than 955.
An Intel I5 2400 outperforms both without overclocking in both applications, gaming or business (yes they are that good, and yes always chose AMD before.
I say that on a Biostar TH67B motherboard that cost $75 shipped and a I5 2400 I got for $180 shipped. A Gigabyte would cost GA Z68M D2H is $113 shipped before $10 MIR.

iF YOU HAD an AMD board a PII X4/X6 would make sense. If you feel you WANT AMD thats fine.
If you want the best choice for you or the future owner, Intel is better.

For an AMD office rig the 1090T or 1100T will run cooler and use less power than the 1035T. Gaming the X4 are the best choice, and a 970/980 are factory tweaked 955s that will run cooler but overclock no higher (1035T/1100T are the same).

OK That said if you go AMD look for combo deals.

I wouldn't be able to overclock the i3 so that's pretty much a non-starter. If I get a 955 BE, it as a reasonably good chance at overclocking to 4ghz or higher.