New gaming build, what do you guys think?

Associate
Joined
17 Apr 2013
Posts
25
CPU: AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-78LMT-S2P Micro ATX AM3+ Motherboard

Memory: Corsair XMS3 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory

Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive

Video Card: Gigabyte Radeon HD 7850 1GB Video Card

Case: Fractal Design Core 1000 MicroATX Mini Tower Case

Power Supply: Corsair CX 500W 80 PLUS Bronze Certified ATX12V Power Supply
Optical Drive: Lite-On iHAS124-04 DVD/CD Writer
 
What's your budget? I would be looking at and Intel i5 and at least a 2GB graphics card, do you just need the box? do you need an OS, keyboard, mouse?

Need to know your budget and the games your wanting to play.
 
you ideally need a 2gb graphics card if you play anywhere near 1920x1080 unless you only play simple indie/old games that don't use large textures and geometry data. (most modern games tend to use anywhere from 800-1.6gb at that resolution)
If you say what your max budget is and what exactly you require your computer for you will get some pretty good build suggestions that give max performance per £ spent..

TBH I would pass on that 8core CPU and get something cheaper with less cores and more performance per core.

The last time I upgraded eons ago I bought a x6 1055t and whilst it still manages fine with every game I have played I could disable 2-3 cores and not notice the difference because the majority of the time they are idle so personally I would look into my options of having a CPU with less cores but more performance per core unless you actually do something which needs all those cpu cores like hardcore rendering/a lot of video transcodining.

Whilst a cpu with many cores might sound future proof the odds are it wont make the slightest bit of difference because so far almost no games etc ever been very efficient when it comes to lots of cores the developers struggle to offload the games coding onto multiple cores without one core ending up with the majority of the load and the other cores have to wait for it to keep up anyway so for the majority its better to have less cores with more brute force per core
 
Last edited:
What's your budget? I would be looking at and Intel i5 and at least a 2GB graphics card, do you just need the box? do you need an OS, keyboard, mouse?

Need to know your budget and the games your wanting to play.

My budgets 450, but for that build I've stretched to 470, games like the new Rome total war, battlefield, mass effect , the new GTA ect :)
And no I do not need an os screen keyboard or mouse
 
Last edited:
I'd stick with your choice of CPU and ignore those suggesting Intel i5.
More cores will be better thanks to the path the new consoles are taking.
Intel and PC gaming are gonna be a thing of the past.
The future is AMD .
 
You can overclock the Intel i5 3470 to around 3.6-3.8GHz max but you won't get as high as the 3570k which can overclock to around 4.2-4.5GHz

op never said he was overclocking so I'm assuming he isn't

I'd stick with your choice of CPU and ignore those suggesting Intel i5.
More cores will be better thanks to the path the new consoles are taking.
Intel and PC gaming are gonna be a thing of the past.
The future is AMD .
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=702
if cores are king even in multicore applications like cinebench and x264 video encoding where theres barely any difference.. but then when it comes to thread locked stuff like the majority of games intel has the edge and this wont change any time in the next couple of years regardless of consoles.

You can not split the work load of a game up evenly over a bunch of cores like you can pre determined workloads for video transcoding and rendering, with games the main code of the game is always going to be stuck on one core whilst the little things like audio , graphics , physics get off loaded to the other cores but they aren't very demanding anyway

the intel is about £7 cheaper as well it's a no brainer between those 2
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom