Best mobo, cpu and ram for £200?

Radiation · 28 Oct 2011 at 13:45

Im not sure what to get for this kind of budget, it's a gaming pc expected to play the latest games well, graphics card is already taken care of.

Marine-RX179 · 28 Oct 2011 at 13:55

CPU:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-367-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=1671

RAM:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MY-104-KS&groupid=701&catid=8&subcat=1517

Motherboard:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-364-GI&groupid=701&catid=5&subcat=1990

If you can stretch the budget a little, go for this motherboard instead, as it is more future proof being Gen 3 with PCI-E 3.0 and support for Ivy Bridge, plus the bonus of onboard 8 Channel HD Audio with THX TruStudio Pro instead of typical Realtek:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-192-MS&groupid=701&catid=5&subcat=1990

Radiation · 28 Oct 2011 at 13:59

Thanks, so is it worth going intel no matter what then?

I would like to do some mild overclocking but don't want to spend much on a motherboard, is there anything good for a bit less, preferably asus?

numatic.nathan · 28 Oct 2011 at 14:02

Marine-RX179 said:
CPU:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-367-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=1671

RAM:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MY-104-KS&groupid=701&catid=8&subcat=1517

Motherboard:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-364-GI&groupid=701&catid=5&subcat=1990

If you can stretch the budget a little, go for this motherboard instead, as it is more future proof being Gen 3 with PCI-E 3.0 and support for Ivy Bridge, plus the bonus of onboard 8 Channel HD Audio with THX TruStudio Pro instead of typical Realtek:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-192-MS&groupid=701&catid=5&subcat=1990

I agree on Mobo and CPU, but I'd go for 8GB RAM instead.. Worth it for the sake of £12

numatic.nathan · 28 Oct 2011 at 14:03

Radiation said:
Thanks, so is it worth going intel no matter what then?

I would like to do some mild overclocking but don't want to spend much on a motherboard, is there anything good for a bit less, preferably asus?

Do t think you can OC the i3 2100

Adam_101 · 28 Oct 2011 at 14:07

cant be oc I'm afraid due to being locked, buttt I've heard on the grapevine of people taking it upto 3.4 in small steps but whether its true or not do not know. I would if you could save up another 100ish and go for 2500k.

Radiation · 28 Oct 2011 at 14:08

numatic.nathan said:
Do t think you can OC the O2 2100

That's a bit lame, no doubt artificial limitation, why do motherboards and cpu's cost so much now?

I remember a time where a motherboard costing £60+ was considered high end and anything for more than £100 was excessive, similarly for cpu's, you could get something very good for around £100, with £200 or more being the very high end?

arc@css · 28 Oct 2011 at 14:14

I don't see why you can't overclock the i3, I've seen several hit up to the 4 ghz mark, though this model probably wouldn't reach that.

pastymuncher · 28 Oct 2011 at 14:18

You could the old socket 1156 i3 but not the socket 1155 ones as they are multiplier locked.

arc@css · 28 Oct 2011 at 14:19

I see, thanks.

numatic.nathan · 28 Oct 2011 at 14:21

But the new i3 at stock is better than the old i3 with a high over clock according to some benchies. Plus you're getting a newer platform and a better upgrade path

Radiation · 28 Oct 2011 at 14:21

With this kind of budget is intel really the best option, if i can get similar or better performance to the i3 2100 from amd with some oc?

numatic.nathan · 28 Oct 2011 at 14:27

Radiation said:
With this kind of budget is intel really the best option, if i can get similar or better performance to the i3 2100 from amd with some oc?

The 965 is about the same price and gets similar results on benchmarks, sometimes behind, sometimes in front. They're older and hotter and more power consuming CPU, but they are still good if you want a budget quad. That being said AM3 mobos are about £40, but the i3 has a miles better upgrade path.

Radiation · 28 Oct 2011 at 15:02

numatic.nathan said:
The 965 is about the same price and gets similar results on benchmarks, sometimes behind, sometimes in front. They're older and hotter and more power consuming CPU, but they are still good if you want a budget quad. That being said AM3 mobos are about £40, but the i3 has a miles better upgrade path.

I tend to find that when it comes time to upgrade i end up having to buy all new bits anyway so i might go for amd if it saves me a bit.

numatic.nathan · 28 Oct 2011 at 15:07

Radiation said:
I tend to find that when it comes time to upgrade i end up having to buy all new bits anyway so i might go for amd if it saves me a bit.

Check benchmarks first but the 965 is still a good chip and can OC a fair bit as well

I'd still opt for the i3 2100 but if you feel the AMD chip would be better go for it!

Radiation · 28 Oct 2011 at 15:11

What about the new AMD Bulldozer FX-4 Quad Core 4100 Black Edition 3.60Ghz, it's about the same price?

Marine-RX179 · 28 Oct 2011 at 15:46

Radiation said:
What about the new AMD Bulldozer FX-4 Quad Core 4100 Black Edition 3.60Ghz, it's about the same price?

Bulldozer is clock for clock SLOWER than it's predecessor Phenom II X4 on gaming, so don't bother.

Going down the socket 1155 path is the best choice, because of better upgrade path. While AMD's socket AM3+ 'might' continue to support future CPUs, but I won't count on its future CPU to rival the performance of what Intel will offer. Also, while the i3 2100 cannot be overclocked, it is still on par with Phenom II X4 980, which is clocked at 3.7GHz in games that use 4 cores or more, such as the BFBC2...but in games that use 3 cores or less, the Phenom II X4 would be slower than the i3 2100 due to one or more cores not being used for the game:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/20873/2

I really don't think going Phenom II X4 would worth it, as at 3.7GHz or higher, its power comsumption is more than twice of the i3 2100 (TDP140W vs TDP 65W) at load. With higher power consumption, it would mean it will generate more waste heat, which in turn lead to needing a 3rd party CPU cooler (which add more to the cost) for keeping the temp under control; i3 2100 on the other hand would be perfectly happy with the stock CPU cooler that comes free with the retail CPU.

Radiation · 28 Oct 2011 at 16:36

Thanks, the intel it is then.

Radiation · 28 Oct 2011 at 16:59

Just one last quick question, how much difference is there between the i3-2100 and the i5-2500K for gaming?

Marine-RX179 · 28 Oct 2011 at 17:55

Radiation said:
Just one last quick question, how much difference is there between the i3-2100 and the i5-2500K for gaming?

It would depends on how high-end your graphic card(s) is (are). Generally speaking, for graphic card with only a single GPU (even GTX580), the i3 2100 won't not bottleneck it in FPS games...but the i5 2500K might offer slighting higher minimum frame rate due to its larger size (3MB vs 8MB) cache, rather than its extra cores. But for games that are extremely CPU demanding that can have ridiculous number of things on screen (i.e. Total War series, WOW), then the i5 2500K's ability to overclock to 4.6GHz might make it deliver better frame rate than the i3 2100, if if thoses games would use 4 cores, the extra cores on the i5 2500K would help as well. WOW for example, the game is know to be extreming CPU demanding, yet the game would pretty much use just ONE core for rendering, so if comparing i3 2100 to a i5 2500K overclocked to 4.6GHz in this situation, it would be pretty much like comparing a single core CPU at 3.1GHz to a single core CPU at 4.6GHz, so the performace different can be quite huge. But most games in general would use 2-3 cores now, and with big name titles using 4 cores or more.

But one thing you need to bare in mind just because a game would 'can use' more cores, it doesn't mean 'need' more cores. BF is an example of this. Anything from a old Core2Quad/Athlon II X4/Phenom II X4/X6 to a i3 2100/i5 2500K/i7 2600K would deliver the same average frame rate on a GTX580, the minimum frame rate however would pretty much depending on the CPU architecture and their cache size.