• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Budget Gaming PC!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
LuluTheMonk said:
Genuine curiosity here, for this $600 build, what would you recommend from AMD that would outperform the proposed builds in this thread from Intel for less or equivalent money?
Click to expand...

They're trolling.

<--- Biggest AMD fanboy in the world

It only makes sense to buy AMD if you need a lot of cores cheaply, and gaming does not need lots of cores. That's it. The graphics card he's got is as much AMD as he needs in a budget gaming build. Sandy Bridge runs laps around Thuban.

For a budget video encoding build, it's still hard to recommend Phenom II X6 when a quad-core SB Xeon with HT enabled (works in LGA1155 boards) is only $230.

For an office build, buy a cheap AMD dual-core.
 
mrSHEiK124 said:
They're trolling.

<--- Biggest AMD fanboy in the world

It only makes sense to buy AMD if you need a lot of cores cheaply, and gaming does not need lots of cores. That's it. The graphics card he's got is as much AMD as he needs in a budget gaming build. Sandy Bridge runs laps around Thuban.

For a budget video encoding build, it's still hard to recommend Phenom II X6 when a quad-core SB Xeon with HT enabled (works in LGA1155 boards) is only $230.

For an office build, buy a cheap AMD dual-core.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting I'm trolling? I am simply proving (over and over again) that the OP's 1st selection is probably one of the best for his budget... how exactly is that trolling?
 
AMD is for a 400 dollar budget. AMD is falling behind and when Blldozer comes out, Ivy bridge will comeout so they will fall back behind.
you seem like A HUGE AMD FANBOY to me
 
T_Yamamoto said:
AMD is for a 400 dollar budget. AMD is falling behind and when Blldozer comes out, Ivy bridge will comeout so they will fall back behind.
you seem like A HUGE AMD FANBOY to me
Click to expand...

If this is directed at me, you haven't been reading my posts... Given you didn't quote anyone, and I was the last to respond... well... I think you're missing something.
 
LuluTheMonk said:
Genuine curiosity here, for this $600 build, what would you recommend from AMD that would outperform the proposed builds in this thread from Intel for less or equivalent money?
Click to expand...


Again, the issue is not simply performance, but BUDGET. I run across this all time online with Intel owners who buy an expensive cpu and cheap gpu and then complain in a couple of years about how expensive it is to upgrade their Intel system. Duh! Their really fast Intel cpu is now outdated, their graphics card was maybe crap to begin with, and Intel changes sockets faster then hooker can jump from one bed to the next.

For the price range given I'd recommend a phenom II 955 and an aftermarket cooler with a 900 chipset mobo. Overclocked to at least 3.4 ghz that's fast enough to play any game on the market today with very acceptable frame rates, and can be upgraded easily to a bulldozer in a couple of years for an even faster cpu with twice the cores that can be overclocked using the same aftermarket cooler. That way you don't necessarily save much money now, but you save money in the long run.

If you want to save more money for something like a better graphics card right now, then for about $60.oo you can buy an AM3+ mobo that is compatible with bulldozer. The drawback is that it might only be able to use 6 of the 8 bulldozer cores and the mobo isn't likely to last ten years. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch and the question is always what are you willing to trade for something else unless you have no real spending limits.
 
wuliheron said:
More red herrings, but at least in the form of a question this time. A rhetorical one perhaps, but its a step forward.

A) I never complained about people suggesting a better processor. I complained using about misleading comparisons of processors to promote the idea Intel is better for budget systems.

B) As for proof, do a quick google search for budget gaming pc fool.
Click to expand...

You said yourself the i3 is budget for Intel...The OP said budget build, he didnt say AMD build!....
Just because the OP wants budget, doesnt mean he wants the cheapest, and as already pointed out, the i3 is a better chip than the equivalent AMD...
 
wuliheron said:
First comparing processors made of for overclocking at stock speeds
Click to expand...

Okay let me stop you there. There is no such thing as a CPU MADE for overclocking. If that were the case AMD would have only to up the core clock and charge a bit more. They are NOT guaranteeing you an OC, if they were it would be... STOCK settings. For all you know you will get a dud that wont do a single Mhz over stock speeds and your cpu "made" for overclocking is now going to sit at stock speeds for it's entire life. My point is, why get a chip that will use more power, give off more heat, make your fans run more, and possibly not OC at all...when you can just buy an intel for little or no hit on your budget that will perform the same run cooler with less power and have a bigger upgrade path?
 
SolMiester said:
You said yourself the i3 is budget for Intel...The OP said budget build, he didnt say AMD build!....
Just because the OP wants budget, doesnt mean he wants the cheapest, and as already pointed out, the i3 is a better chip than the equivalent AMD...
Click to expand...


Its a better cpu if you want instant gratification on a budget. If you want something with more upgrade potential on a budget I'd get an AMD. If you want more eyecandy or to invest more money into something else like an SSD then again, AMD is a better bet. I've said this all along and all I keep getting is so many Intel fanboys arguing that NO! Intel is the budget chip of choice in all situations. Ya'll really need to get out more often.
 
Wuliheron,
AMD makes great chips for encoding and that sort of thing, bu in real life applications and gaming, intel does one hell of a good job. if he was going to go 500 dollar editing build, i would recommend AMD for that, but this is for real life stuff, web surfing, etc, so AMD isnt the way to go.
Can we stop this flamewar? Wuliheron, youre out numbered here.

imagesCAGM47P7_You_mad_Bro-s221x228-193948-580.jpg
 
mnewsham said:
Okay let me stop you there. There is no such thing as a CPU MADE for overclocking. If that were the case AMD would have only to up the core clock and charge a bit more. They are NOT guaranteeing you an OC, if they were it would be... STOCK settings. For all you know you will get a dud that wont do a single Mhz over stock speeds and your cpu "made" for overclocking is now going to sit at stock speeds for it's entire life. My point is, why get a chip that will use more power, give off more heat, make your fans run more, and possibly not OC at all...when you can just buy an intel for little or no hit on your budget that will perform the same run cooler with less power and have a bigger upgrade path?
Click to expand...


Bullshit. AMD is famous for designing and even sorting their chips according to their overclocking potential. In the case of their black edition chips they even unlock the multiplier to make overclocking easier. Only someone totally unfamiliar with overclocking would even suggest for a moment that it doesn't make any difference.

As for why get a chip that uses more power, we are discussing budget concerns for gaming rigs. You might as well ask why buy a race car that uses more gas.
 
T_Yamamoto said:
Wuliheron,
AMD makes great chips for encoding and that sort of thing, bu in real life applications and gaming, intel does one hell of a good job. if he was going to go 500 dollar editing build, i would recommend AMD for that, but this is for real life stuff, web surfing, etc, so AMD isnt the way to go.
Can we stop this flamewar? Wuliheron, youre out numbered here.
Click to expand...

Outnumbered by the 80% of people who buy Intel? What a surprise. A one hundred difference between your estimate and mine for what is still worthwhile for a budget AMD rig? What a surprise! Perhaps next you'd like to tell us how to suck eggs?
 
mvbighead said:
Are you suggesting I'm trolling? I am simply proving (over and over again) that the OP's 1st selection is probably one of the best for his budget... how exactly is that trolling?
Click to expand...

Reading the rest of his post, I'm pretty sure he was referring to wuliheron, not you. Wuliheron has a long and noble history of making claims and then trying his damndest to avoid backing them up. Don't sweat it too much.
 
T_Yamamoto said:
This person mgiht not want to over clock at this moment.
what has become standard now is that AMD is lagging behind.
v v Click on in v v
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+suck+eggs
Click to expand...


I've already said if they don't want to overclock they should buy Intel. Perhaps you need to read through the thread or clean the wax out of your ears.

As for AMD lagging behind, Intel has controlled 80% of the market forever, has twice the research budget, and has been successfully sued for billions for acting like the eight hundred pound gorilla. AMD doesn't specialize in budget systems because that's all they are good at and Intel doesn't tolerate them because they like AMD, the law requires Intel have some significant competition or they will be broken up into so many smaller companies to prevent them becoming a total monopoly.
 
mfenn said:
Reading the rest of his post, I'm pretty sure he was referring to wuliheron, not you. Wuliheron has a long and noble history of making claims and then trying his damndest to avoid backing them up. Don't sweat it too much.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and you've admitted to saying whatever promotes the website rather then what is what is in the best interest of the individual.
 
wuliheron said:
You should go into politics.

Like I said, you should go into politics. If you want proof that means you have to actually listen to what other people have to say. I know, it sounds crazy, but that's how it works.

More fanboy rhetoric. Must be a tea party member.
Click to expand...

If this isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.
 
I bothered to look at lotion22's user profile. 1 post. Last time he logged in was yesterday night, before the topic turned into this mess. I can only wonder what he'll think when he gets back.

"But... but... I only wanted help!"

He'll and up buying a DELL or a Wii/XBOX/PS3 only to never have ask again about a budget gaming build on a internet forum. 😀

That said, I'm a huge, huge AMD fan. My first ever PC was a K6-II, and my favorite one to date was an Athlon XP 3200 + Abit AN7 combo. But I went Intel on my last couple builds and did not regret it at all. As for the upgradeability, this is one of the rare times in which Intel may have the upper hand. Ivy Bridge will be S1155 compatible, only a BIOS flash needed. Socket AM3+, on the other hand, may be a one hit wonder as Trinity will need a new socket for the integrated graphics.

As for the OP, I think that Intel is the best choice for his budget. If cheaper or in need of heavy multithreading in a budget, AMD.
 
Patrese said:
I bothered to look at lotion22's user profile. 1 post. Last time he logged in was yesterday night, before the topic turned into this mess. I can only wonder what he'll think when he gets back.

"But... but... I only wanted help!"

He'll and up buying a DELL or a Wii/XBOX/PS3 only to never have ask again about a budget gaming build on a internet forum. 😀

That said, I'm a huge, huge AMD fan. My first ever PC was a K6-II, and my favorite one to date was an Athlon XP 3200 + Abit AN7 combo. But I went Intel on my last couple builds and did not regret it at all. As for the upgradeability, this is one of the rare times in which Intel may have the upper hand. Ivy Bridge will be S1155 compatible, only a BIOS flash needed. Socket AM3+, on the other hand, may be a one hit wonder as Trinity will need a new socket for the integrated graphics.

As for the OP, I think that Intel is the best choice for his budget. If cheaper or in need of heavy multithreading in a budget, AMD.
Click to expand...

Too true. 😀 Luckily, he can just take my build from post #11 and not have to get too far into the mudslinging.
 
mfenn said:
Wow, that is twisted. Got any more out of context references for me?

EDIT: Here's the whole thread. Anyone who's interested can read it and draw their own conclusions.
Click to expand...

Nothing out of context about it. You clearly stated that promoting this website was more important to you then providing people with the most accurate and detailed information possible. You pump out simple formulaic builds for people the way a factory worker assembles parts and criticize anyone who disagrees with your approach. It obviously works for you and I guess it helps promote the website, but don't think that makes you somehow God-like and above criticism.
 
Patrese said:
I bothered to look at lotion22's user profile. 1 post. Last time he logged in was yesterday night, before the topic turned into this mess. I can only wonder what he'll think when he gets back.

"But... but... I only wanted help!"
Click to expand...

Roger that....

My recomendation to OP: ignore the discussion on AMD versus Intel; look at the concrete suggestions you've received; use www.anandtech.com/bench to compare the recommended CPUs; consider your interest in overclocking; and, finally, make a selection.

For what it's worth, I think you got it pretty much correct from the start.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top