Budget 41-50k Gamin rig questions

[angie]

I am trying to build a rig. so far I have zeroed in on these components-

Monitor: Benq 24 inch LED - GL2450 Monitor @11k
Processor: AMD 3.1 GHz AM3+ FX 8120 Processor @10.5k
GFX: Sapphire HD6950 2GB @ 16k


Please suggest a compatible motherboard to go along with it.
Also should I go for 1 GB or 2GB HD6950?
Is the processor alright? Anyone using it already?

 

[Jakob]

Fill up the template for a better way to know what exactly you need-http://www.techenclave.com/pc-buying-advice/template-what-should-i-buy-73107/

 

[angie]

1. Q: What is your budget?
   • 50K (max 55k)
   
   
2. Q: What is your existing hardware configuration (component name - component brand and model)
   A: building from scratch. But don't need mouse, keyboard and speakers/headphones.
3. Q: Which hardware will you be keeping (component name - component brand and model)
   • NA
     
     
4. Q: Which hardware component are you looking to buy (component name). If you have already decided on a configuration then please mention the (component brand and model) as well, this will help us in fine tuning your requirement.
   • CPU - AMD 3.1 GHz AM3+ FX 8120 Processor @10.5k
   • Motherboard - any compatible motherboard
     
     
   • GPU - Sapphire HD6950 2 GB (should I go for 1 GB or 2 GB?)
   • Monitor: Benq 24 inch LED - GL2450 Monitor @11k
   
   
5. Q: Is this going to be your final configuration or you would be adding/upgrading a component in near future. If yes then please mention when and which component
   • Final
   
   
6. Q: Where will you buy this hardware? (Online/City/TE Dealer)
   • Hyderabad
   • More than! Open to online purchase
   
   
7. Q: Would you consider buying a second hand hardware from the TE market
   • No
   
   
8. Q: What is your intended use for this PC/hardware
   • Gaming
   • Browsing
   • Desktop Processing
   • 24x7 operation
   • Watching HD movies
     
     
   
   
9. Q: Do you have any brand preference or dislike? Please name them and the reason for your preference/dislike.
   • No
   
   
10. Q: If you will be playing games then which type of games will you be playing?
    • Max Payne 3
    • GTA 5
    
    
11. Q: What is your preferred monitor resolution for gaming and normal usage
    1. Gaming - 1920*1200
    2. Desktop - 1920*1200
    
    
12. Q: Are you looking to overclock?
    • Not immediately.
    
    
13. Q: Which operating system do you intend to use with this configuration?
    • Windows 8 64 bit

Please reply.

 

[ALPHA17]

• Q: Which hardware component are you looking to buy (component name). If you have already decided on a configuration then please mention the (component brand and model) as well, this will help us in fine tuning your requirement.
  • CPU - AMD 3.1 GHz AM3+ FX 8120 Processor @10.5k
  • Motherboard - any compatible motherboard
    
    
  • GPU - Sapphire HD6950 2 GB (should I go for 1 GB or 2 GB?)
  • Monitor: Benq 24 inch LED - GL2450 Monitor @11k
• Q: If you will be playing games then which type of games will you be playing?
  • Max Payne 3
  • GTA 5
• Q: Which operating system do you intend to use with this configuration?
  • Windows 8 64 bit

Seriously you need to get out of the attitude of I am building a gaming RIG so that it can run games that come maybe next-to-next season on the highest settings, it will not happen so better stop thinking on those lines, this is the RIG I suggest you --

Intel Core i5 3450 ~12500/-
GIGABYTE-B75M-D3H ~4500/-
Corsair Vengeance 2GB x2 1600MHz ~1800/-
AMD HD7850 2GB ~16500/-
Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 1TB ~4800/-
HP [boxed] optical drive ~1000/-
Seasonic S12II 520W ~4500/-
Bit Fenix Merc Alpha ~2500/- (from Bhumika Peripherals, CTC, Secunderabad)
DeLL ST2220L OR BenQ E2220HD ~8500/-
LOGITECH G1 combo ~1500/-
APC BR650VA-IN ~2800/-

This RIG cannot be over-clocked, so if you need an over-clocking capable RIG strictly please notify. And Windows 8 is yet to see the light of day.

Hope this helps, Cheerio!

 

[amitkher]

Any reason for favouring AMD FX 8210? Is it the reports that Windows 8 has optimized well for FX 8120? If so, quality benchmarks showing this are yet to come up. This might get cleared up in a month or so.
If it is a special need for higher number of cores, let us know.

 

[angie]

Seriously you need to get out of the attitude of I am building a gaming RIG so that it can run games that come maybe next-to-next season on the highest settings, it will not happen so better stop thinking on those lines

That might be inferred of what I posted, but it is not the case. I just want to make best possible use of the available resources. If GTA5 can be played on the rig I am assembling thats ok, maybe not at the highest resolution.

- - - Updated - - -

Intel Core i5 3450 ~12500/-

As far as intel core i5 3450 is concerned, according to this list they are ranked equal. So I would like to go with AMD one as it is cheaper and also overclockable. Though if you know about performance differences, please let me know.

- - - Updated - - -

AMD HD7850 2GB ~16500/-

Where to buy this at 16.5k? The closest i got online was 17.2k on snapdeal.

- - - Updated - - -

DeLL ST2220L OR BenQ E2220HD ~8500/-

I wanted to go for 24 inch monitor, not sure how much the size will actually differ (in 2 inches). But I might go for 24 inch option only.

PS - Dont need the mouse/keyboard and optical drive.

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate it.

- - - Updated - - -

Any reason for favouring AMD FX 8210? Is it the reports that Windows 8 has optimized well for FX 8120? If so, quality benchmarks showing this are yet to come up. This might get cleared up in a month or so.
If it is a special need for higher number of cores, let us know.

No mate, its nothing like that. I just found this processor giving the best performance at this price point. If you can suggest any other processor with no matter how less cores, I will surely think about that. I have read the reviews and know that AMD's performance per core differs significantly from Intel.

 

[ALPHA17]

That might be inferred of what I posted, but it is not the case. I just want to make best possible use of the available resources. If GTA5 can be played on the rig I am assembling thats ok, maybe not at the highest resolution.

As far as intel core i5 3450 is concerned, according to this list PassMark - CPU Benchmarks - List of Benchmarked CPUs they are ranked equal. So I would like to go with AMD one as it is cheaper.

That is not a gaming benchmark for starters, it is the raw processing power of the CPU, the AMD FX-8120 a octa-core (according to AMD) vs. Intel Core i5 3450 (quad-core) is pretty poorly in the tests, 8 cores performing just as well as 4 Intel cores.

The Intel Core i5 3450 is a more efficient processor to boot, consuming lesser power under load and idle conditions.

Here is a comprehensive benchmark run, check out the gaming frame-rates + power stats -- AnandTech - Bench - CPU (this is the Core i5 2500k vs. AMD FX-8150 for reference).

The Intel Core i5 2500k is an older processor than the Core i5 3450 (consumes more power) but as the FX-8120 and Core i5 3450 are not on the bench-list I got the closest substitutes for the same.

And apologies if I misinterpreted the first statement but still Intel > AMD in gaming.

Hope this helps, Cheerio!

 

[angie]

Hope I got this right.
Intel i5-2500k may surely be better vs AMD fx-8120 in terms of efficiency but I am looking at overall performance.

Maybe core i5-3450 is more efficient with 4 cores and AMD may be doing only half the work with each core, but if that equates to a equal performance with lower price, why shouldn't I go for that?
And as far as Intel vs AMD in general, I didn't open the thread for that.

I just want to get the best processor at this price point.

After a little more searching, like this page and rankings over here , I am deciding to go with AMD. Can't go by a general mindset that intel is better for gaming. No offence. It depends on case to case on what are you comparing. Most people on other forums are jumping in on this question but only with core i5-2500k which is much costlier. AMD one is cheaper here and supports overclock. So can't see any case for i5-3450.

- - - Updated - - -

Interestingly, Fx-8120 goes head to head with 2500K here, and it gives quite a competition.

 

[ALPHA17]

Hope I got this right.
Intel i5-2500k may surely be better vs AMD fx-8120 in terms of efficiency but I am looking at overall performance.

Maybe core i5-3450 is more efficient with 4 cores and AMD may be doing only half the work with each core, but if that equates to a equal performance with lower price, why shouldn't I go for that?
And as far as Intel vs AMD in general, I didn't open the thread for that.

I just want to get the best processor at this price point.

After a little more searching, like this page and rankings over here , I am deciding to go with AMD. Can't go by a general mindset that intel is better for gaming. No offence. It depends on case to case on what are you comparing. Most people on other forums are jumping in on this question but only with core i5-2500k which is much costlier. AMD one is cheaper here and supports overclock. So can't see any case for i5-3450.

- - - Updated - - -

Interestingly, Fx-8120 goes head to head with 2500K here, and it gives quite a competition.

Even in overall performance the Core i5 crushes the AMD FX-8150. Gaming is your priority and the Intel processor with its more efficient architecture completely sweeps the board with AMD,.

God, why are you not understanding that the Core i5 3450 retails for ~12500/- whilst the AMD FX-8120 retails for ~10500/-. Here are a few reviews of the Bulldozer --
AMD FX-8120 review | bit-tech.net / AMD FX-8120 review | Expert Reviews / AMD FX-8120, AMD FX-6100 and AMD FX-4100 CPUs Review - X-bit labs.

Sadly, its more of the same bad news for AMD or anyone with a Socket AM3+ motherboard looking for a decent CPU for around the £150 mark. The FX-8120 just isn't a good choice when it comes to the kind of applications we run on our PCs. It's regularly outpaced by far cheaper Intel dual-core CPUs, while the similarly-priced Intel Core i5-2400 is significantly faster in many of our tests.

Our tests showed that a pair of Bulldozer cores can compare in performance only against one Sandy Bridge core, and only with certain allowances and only in applications that split the load in parallel threads. This is where the low performance in most applications comes from.The flagship eight-core CPU in the FX family, AMD FX-8150, in most cases can’t catch up even with the quad-core Core i5-2500, performing well only in few selected applications for 3D modeling and during video transcoding.

Out of six scenarios, the new AMD FX processors do well only in one: during 3D modeling and rendering. It is actually not surprising, because in tasks like that the number of cores matters a lot. But even in the most favorable case eight Bulldozer cores are equivalent to four Sandy Bridge cores and the six-core FX-6100 loses even to Core i5-2320.

In other wide spread applications including popular tools for creating and editing multimedia content, AMD processors look even sadder. Bulldozer microarchitecture should totally stay away from office applications and Web-development tools.

AMD FX processors are definitely not cut for gaming. They not only get completely destroyed by Intel’s Core i5 and Core i3, but also yield even to their own predecessors from the Phenom II family. The reasons behind this situation are quite obvious: contemporary games can rarely take full advantage of the multi-core architectures, so the real strength of the new Bulldozer microarchitecture remains in the shade. -- Gaming performance = Intel's forte

Slower eight-core modification, AMD FX-8120, looks even less convincing, because it has significantly lower clock frequencies. In terms of performance, this processor ranks even below the quad-core competitor solutions. Moreover, FX-8120 is also slower than the top previous-generation AMD CPU – Phenom II X6 1100T.

It turns out that the only one who may benefit from the upcoming migration from Phenom II to the new FX family is AMD. Bulldozer microarchitecture allows the company to stop using old manufacturing process for their semiconductor dies and move on to the new cores with lower production cost. However, the end users won’t win in this situation. FX CPUs that are coming to replace the good old Phenom II processors are not faster or cheaper than their predecessors.

If you still are adamant with AMD please go ahead with the buy, no need for me to add anything.

The last statement does not have any links please provide so. Cheerio!

If this is any consolation I am using an AMD Phenom IIx4 965 B.E based desktop.

 

[amitkher]

No mate, its nothing like that. I just found this processor giving the best performance at this price point. If you can suggest any other processor with no matter how less cores, I will surely think about that. I have read the reviews and know that AMD's performance per core differs significantly from Intel.

Angie, I wish any AMD processor were any match for i5 at the moment, except for some specialized workloads. I think you are misinterpreting the benchmarks that you are quoting.

Most desktop software is not multi-threaded. Games these days are but most cannot take advantage of more than 2 cores, some take advantage of 4. So if the processor you are judging has at least 4 cores, performance per core should be the only metric you should care for. Because out of 8 cores of FX 8120, software is unable to use more than 2 or 4 cores. 4-6 cores are idle.

But passmarks will give double points for double the cores. These double points have to be interpreted correctly - if you run a workload that uses all cores, passmarks score is usable for you. If you are using maximum 4 cores, halve the score to consider.

 

[harry_houdini]

Forget about all benchmarks , check the softwares you will use . Then see what benchmarks relate to it , then see benchmark results . Otherwise they are just numbers .
I was in the same dilemma , wanted to try amd but after reading a heck lot , never inside me felt or could convince myself to go for amd fx series . I felt like a fool to even consider it ! .
But yes they might be good in certain things , so you research a bit , am sure Intel will win .

Anyways upto you , cheers .

 

[angie]

ok. Appreciate all your replies.

Here is the link anyways - FX8120 vs. 2500k Benchmark Results

 

[ALPHA17]

ok. Appreciate all your replies.

Here is the link anyways - FX8120 vs. 2500k Benchmark Results

If you still cannot see the writing on the wall please check the average frame rates in the games, they are all stilted towards the Core i5 2500k.

Memory Latency is better on the Intel RIG, almost double the bandwidth too.

Plus he has clocked the FX processor and Core i5 @4.5GHz / 4.4GHz respectively to level out the playing field but can you imagine how much more power the AMD setup will be drawing.

 

[angie]

Yup. But here we are comparing 3450, so.. .Nonetheless, 2500k is out of my budget since the motherboard it will require will also cost more than what FX8120 will need (around 6.6K).

 

[Gigas Shop]

Try this for Gaming module in budget .....KHX1600C9D3B1/4G - 1400/-
HyperX blu memory | Kingston