Solved Is this an ideal custom build?

August 24, 2014 at 12:31:56
Specs: 14.04, Pentium 4 2.8 ghz
Ideal build?

I am planning on building a gaming computer in some time. This is what I plan to purchase.

AMD FX-8350 Black Edition 4.0gHz
Asus M758l USB 3.0
Corsair Vengeance Low Profile Blue DDR3 PC12800/1600MHz CL9 2x4GB
Advance 8990B case w/ 490W power supply

My questions are;

1. Would this computer be able to run the newest games at a decent speed?

2. Is the FX-8350 suited for gaming?

3. Do I need a better motherboard in order to squeeze all the juice out of the processor?

4. Do you have any suggestions for a cheap graphics card which can handle games pretty well? (No nVidia, I hate their attitude towards open-source software)

5. Will the RAM work with the motherboard?

The reason why I'm asking so many questions is because I'm new to this, and I don't want to fail.

Compaq Armada 1700
Mobile Intel Pentium II @266MHz
160 MB RAM
Windows 2000
Chips & Technologies 65555
graphics
ES 1869 audio
Designed for Windows NT, Windows 95


See More: Is this an ideal custom build?

Report •

✔ Best Answer
August 26, 2014 at 07:49:29
"I'll buy the FX-8350 if I can afford it - I also multitask quite a lot, so I think it's worth it to buy it"

I doubt you'll ever take advantage of the 8 cores. Also, the point I was trying to make about the wattage is that it will require more energy than a "normal" CPU & therefore run up your electric bill. I've read that the difference can be as much as $10 per month, depending on how you use your system & whether you leave it powered-on 24/7 or not.

One thing I didn't mention is the long term viability of the socket AM3+ platform. It appears that AMD will be abandoning it (or has already). In fact, it appears AMD will be abandoning CPUs & focus strictly on APUs. So you may wanna reconsider your build altogether & go with the socket FM2+ platform.

http://www.techpowerup.com/195355/v...

http://wccftech.com/amd-possibly-ab...

Here's another tidbit - "single-thread performance of AMD Bulldozer-derived architectures is lower compared to Intel’s. As a consequence, in many cases AMD’s eight-core FX-series central processing units are behind in terms of real world performance when compared to Intel’s quad-core chips that have the same number of floating point units"

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...

message edited by riider



#1
August 25, 2014 at 07:22:28
One problem with the FX-8350 is that it's a 125W CPU. Do you really need 8-cores? If not, save yourself some bucks & get an FX-6300.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews...

The motherboard model number appears to be incorrect. M758L is an outdated PC Chips motherboard. I'm guessing you meant M5A78L-M/USB3? It's based on the older AMD 760G (780L)/SB710 chipset combo so it's definitely not the best choice for an FX-series CPU.

http://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards...

I suggest you invest in a decent motherboard based on the up-to-date 900-series chipset. If you prefer Asus boards, the M5A97 LE R2.0 would be a good choice.

http://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...

For the RAM, you should be getting DDR3-1866, not DDR3-1600.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...

And I do NOT recommend buying a case that comes with a power supply. The PSUs in those bundles are usually very low end. I suggest you buy the case & PSU separately. Either that or buy the case you listed & immediately replace the PSU with a decent quality Corsair unit. You can't beat this Corsair 500W for just $30 after rebate:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...

As for a graphics card, it depends on how much you're willing to spend. This article should help:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews...


Report •

#2
August 25, 2014 at 10:23:17
Answer to questions:

1. Yes. It's all dependent on the GPU you choose, though.

2. Yes and no. It's powerful, but that power is only good on multi-threaded games. Most games will only use one out of the 8 cores it has, wasting those other 7 cores of power. Go with the 6300, like Riider said.

3. Going with a more up-to-date chipset, again like Riider said, would benefit you in this case. Nothing else I can see would make too much difference.

4. How cheap is cheap? Since you said no nVidia, your only choice are AMD GPUs. For around $160-$200 (but this changes all the time, depending on miner purchases and production) you can get the R9 270x, which will run most modern games maybe not at ultra 60FPS, but will run it. Up to $350 you get the R9 280x, more power but a heck of a lot more $. Shop around; GPU prices can be all over the map.

5. Yes, that RAM will work, but since the AMD chips are fully capable of DDR3-1866 without any special overclocking, you might as well go for it.

~oldie
Not everyone can decipher Klingon script...
chay' ta' SoH tlhe' vam Doch Daq


Report •

#3
August 25, 2014 at 16:24:44
" Most games will only use one out of the 8 cores it has, wasting those other 7 cores of power. "

I wouldn't entirely agree with this.

As you may know, I have an 8 Core CPU. I have run fairly extensive benchmarks on many games, and what I've found is that most modern games utilize about 4 CPU cores. These are the games I've tried:

Battlefield 4
Battlefield 3
Titanfall
Watch Dogs
Metro Last Light
Crysis 3

They all run default on 4 cores, but for most you can modify a config file to force it to utilize anywhere from 6 to 12.

In fact, it might only run on 4 by default because Windows recognizes my CPU as 4 Cores with 8 Threads. It does this due to the fact that it has four 'modules' each with two Logic Units, and is more efficient to utilize all modules (each using only 1 Logic Unit) compared to using only two modules (each using both Logic Units) as it causes slight bottlenecking in 4 Core mode.

You also forget that many modern CPUs support some form of 'Turbo Boost' - where if only one core is being utilized it increases power to that core. Sort of a temporary one core overclock - it differs from normal overclocking because the overall heat doesn't go above all cores running at normal clock speeds.

In the end, no, buying a fancy CPU won't help you that much for gaming (contrary to what I've just said). This is because you will gain more performance in-game by spending $50 more on a graphics card that you will spending $50 to get two more CPU cores.

User Info Page Biography for full specs.


Report •

Related Solutions

#4
August 26, 2014 at 07:09:41
Thanks very much guys! I'll buy the FX-8350 if I can afford it - I also multitask quite a lot, so I think it's worth it to buy it. But you just gave me a very good processor alternative I didn't even knew existed, so thanks!

Compaq Armada 1700
Mobile Intel Pentium II @266MHz
160 MB RAM
Windows 2000
Chips & Technologies 65555
graphics
ES 1869 audio
Designed for Windows NT, Windows 95


Report •

#5
August 26, 2014 at 07:49:29
✔ Best Answer
"I'll buy the FX-8350 if I can afford it - I also multitask quite a lot, so I think it's worth it to buy it"

I doubt you'll ever take advantage of the 8 cores. Also, the point I was trying to make about the wattage is that it will require more energy than a "normal" CPU & therefore run up your electric bill. I've read that the difference can be as much as $10 per month, depending on how you use your system & whether you leave it powered-on 24/7 or not.

One thing I didn't mention is the long term viability of the socket AM3+ platform. It appears that AMD will be abandoning it (or has already). In fact, it appears AMD will be abandoning CPUs & focus strictly on APUs. So you may wanna reconsider your build altogether & go with the socket FM2+ platform.

http://www.techpowerup.com/195355/v...

http://wccftech.com/amd-possibly-ab...

Here's another tidbit - "single-thread performance of AMD Bulldozer-derived architectures is lower compared to Intel’s. As a consequence, in many cases AMD’s eight-core FX-series central processing units are behind in terms of real world performance when compared to Intel’s quad-core chips that have the same number of floating point units"

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...

message edited by riider


Report •

#6
August 26, 2014 at 14:29:38
The electric bill is nothing to worry about - however, you just gave me useful information about this topic. Thanks for enlightening me, I am happy some people on the internet have a clue.

Compaq Armada 1700
Mobile Intel Pentium II @266MHz
160 MB RAM
Windows 2000
Chips & Technologies 65555
graphics
ES 1869 audio
Designed for Windows NT, Windows 95


Report •

Ask Question