• 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.

Is AMD still undefeated in budget builds?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
frozentundra123456 said:
40% more for an Intel system of similar performance is absurd. The CPU itself isn't even 40% more, much less the entire system cost. There are specific price ranges for certain applications that amd offers good value, but it certainly isn't the undefeated budget build.
Click to expand...


Actually depends on where he lives in the world Frozen; if he's in India he very well could be right on the money.......UK Intel does tend to be slightly more ave than in the States.....😉

Not everyone has a MC near them....😉
 
What? $800 isn't low budget, that's in the upper mid range (if you build them yourself). For the past 10 years I haven't spent more than $650 CDN for a complete PC build (in exception of my i7 system). Now you can spend barely $500 if you build an FM2+ system (say an Athlon X4 760K with GTX750Ti or A10 7850K paired with R7 250, 2TB Seagate SSHD, 8GB ram and a 550W PSU).
 
um 800 bucks does not get you much if you are needing everything and want quality parts. I would call 800 bucks a lower mid range build at best.
 
Many seem to be confusing upgrading vs a complete build.

Also what "mid" vs "low" end is is pretty subjective.
 
A low end PC is abut $500-600. Some smart people 🙄. Anyways, getting back to the OP, my fav budget CPU is the Athon X4-760K.
 
Nobody ever checks what they can find on e-bay.

With the slower rate of advancement in processors, these older boxes are not necessarily junk anymore.

For example :

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dell-Precis...0904520591?pt=Desktop_PCs&hash=item48635a7f8f

Dell Precision Workstation T5500
2x Intel Xeon Quadcore E5630 2.53ghz
18GB RAM
146GB SAS Hard Drive
DVD
Nvidia Quadro NVS295 Dual Display Port Video Card - 1 DVI > Display Port Dongle Included


That's 2 hyperthreaded Quad core i7-920 generation processors - 8 cores and 16 threads.
18GB of RAM (triple channel). The chassis can take either SAS or SATA drives.
And they are built like tanks, with 875W power supplies.

$499 "buy it now"



Or for just a bit more :

http://www.ebay.com/itm/DELL-PRECIS...1028093472?pt=Desktop_PCs&hash=item2ece354620

Dell Precision T5500
Dual 6-core Xeons (12 Cores / 24 threads)
24GB RAM
2x 400GB 7.2K SATA drives

$729
 
toyota said:
/\
plus shipping
plus buying an OS
plus buying mouse and keyboard
Click to expand...


Well yeah, but i don't generally see mouse / keyboard in the system builds, or tax, or shipping, nor OS


Besides :

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dell-Precis...1219625157?pt=Desktop_PCs&hash=item27dd7c24c5

2x QC Xeon / 12GB RAM / 1 TB / Win 7 Pro
FX-1800 Quadro
Brand new mouse and keyboard

That Quadro would probably beat any iGPU from AMD. No match for anything beyond a GTX 270 or so though.

$539 + shipping
 
nicuwork said:
there are still poor people....but these are not the ones
there are much poor people who can't afford a hand calculator.

snobs...we're all people...if god love you all sons of bitches why can't you even care for others?

benchmarking is not a life
Click to expand...

What?
 
nicuwork said:
snobs...i build much less expensive pc for kids

gtx 660 150 euro
i3 / q9xxx 100 euro
4gb ram 50 euro
good psu 40 euro
mb 50 euro
the rest is cheap...total 500 and can play the newest games at 1080 res on high/ultra about 40-70 fps

there are still poor people....but these are not the ones
there are much poor people who can't afford a hand calculator.

snobs...we're all people...if god love you all sons of bitches why can't you even care for others?

benchmarking is not a life
Click to expand...

Sorry, I was focused on cutting my bacon wrapped fillet mignon and eating my fois gras. What were you saying?
 
pantsaregood said:
An i3 isn't going to phase a 4.5 GHz FX-6300.
Click to expand...

Tom's has an interesting article which shows what the new Haswell i3s can achieve, and they didn't even use Mantle. I'm guessing performance with an AMD card and Mantle would be even greater.


P.S. I'd love to use more examples from the Anandtech Bench, but there seems to be a dearth of newer CPUs. Someone over there needs to volunteer for some benchmarking duty...
 
Yes the Haswell i3's are actually pretty good, and aren't overly expensive like the Sandy and Ivy i3's were at launch.

Tomshardware should have an archive of benchmarks laying around.
 
kyrax12 said:
I keep hearing recommendations for Intel processors, but they are pretty expensive compared to the fx 6300.
Click to expand...

When Haswell I3's are outperforming most AMD CPU's, then the answer is definitely NO AMD is not still undefeated in budget builds.
 
The one case in which it makes sense to buy an AMD CPU is for a gaming rig on a budget.

FX-8320 + GTX 780 ($660) is a whole lot better for most games than a 4770K + GTX 770 ($640)

The total cost is about the same for both, so if you're building a rig for games and don't plan to go multi GPU down the road, I could see the reasoning in going AMD and putting the price difference towards a better GPU.
 
Last edited:
996GT2 said:
The one case in which it makes sense to buy an AMD CPU is for a gaming rig on a budget.

FX-8320 + GTX 780 is a whole lot better for most games than a 4670K + GTX 770.

The total cost is about the same for both, so if you're building a rig for games and don't plan to go multi GPU down the road, I could see the reasoning in going AMD and putting the price difference towards a better GPU.
Click to expand...
I think it would be short-sighted if not ignorant to go with something like an 8320 for a system with a higher end GPU. not only are you going to limit its performance now it leaves you really nothing to upgrade to without really bottlenecking the crap out of it. if you can't afford a 4670 or 4770 to go with the system that's going to use high end gpu then you should wait until you can afford it. Gimping yourself on day one and killing future upgrade performance is just stupid in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
I keep harping on the same thing re upgradability, but there is a large contingent that seems to believe that nobody ever changes their CPU, they just chuck the platform and buy new. I suppose these guys will be welcoming BGA CPUs when the time comes, but I think the socket is there for a reason, to upgrade!
 
toyota said:
I think it would be short-sighted if not ignorant to go with something like an 8320 for a system with a higher end GPU. not only are you going to limit its performance now it leaves you really nothing to upgrade to without really bottlenecking the crap out of it. if you can't afford a 4670 or 4770 to go with the system that's going to use high end gpu then you should wait until you can afford it. Gimping yourself on day one and killing future upgrade performance is just stupid in my opinion.
Click to expand...

For a gaming system with a single GPU (even a high end one), an AMD chip isn't going to bottleneck much, if at all. I could see the logic there for someone who's on a budget and can't spare the extra $100 or 150 for the Intel chip. I mean, if you wanted the best possible gaming performance at X budget, it's hard to argue with a GTX 780 over a 770, because the GPU is much more important for games than the CPU. Sure, future upgrades are something to take into consideration, but if you had to stick to X budget and wanted the best gaming experience you could get right now at that budget, then I would argue GPU takes precedence.

Granted, once you get out of the "budget gaming" range, it's increasingly hard to justify an AMD build. Getting a good overclock out of an FX chip requires a good cooler, which can easily add another $50-100 out of the price.
 
Last edited:
996GT2 said:
For a gaming system with a single GPU (even a high end one), an AMD chip isn't going to bottleneck much, if at all. I could see the logic there for someone who's on a budget and can't spare the extra $100 or 150 for the Intel chip. I mean, if you wanted the best possible gaming performance at X budget, it's hard to argue with a GTX 780 over a 770, because the GPU is much more important for games than the CPU. .
.
Click to expand...

There are many CPU bound games where a 4670k+gtx770 will provide a better experience than an fx8350+gtx780.
 
If I were looking to build a real budget gaming rig, something that was all about as cheap as possible and still be able to do 720P with med-high detail, I would be all over a AMD A10 system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top