computer died

[Ziggy]

Let's try not to turn this into an AMD vs Intel thread!

I'm not gonna lie, I'm definitely biased toward Intel over AMD. I have nothing against AMD, and if you're looking to keep cost down on a build, it's definitely something you should consider. I also pointed out that you could go with the Intel 1156 socket mobo/CPU over the 1155 which will shave a few hundred off the cost. Though I'm not sure how the i3 CPU will compare to the AM3+ CPUs, the i3s are all dual core (I think) compared to AMD's 4, 6 and 8 cores. It looks like at that price point, AMD would be the better choice.

Either way, AMD or Intel, it doesn't matter. The pure and simple fact remains that building your own PC will be much better than buying one from Best Buy. I don't think I can stress that enough.

@ SpaceBooger:

AMD CPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819103996

AMD MOBO: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6813138348

With that mobo and CPU combo, you can use the same RAM, PSU, and everything else I listed above. You can even use the faster 1866 DDR3 RAM with it, slight more expensive, but maybe only $10 more for an 2x4GB kit. Anyway, that mobo/CPU is exactly half the cost ($210) of the Intel CPU/mobo combo I picked earlier. Of course, I picked the Biostar mobo this time, the Asus mobos were $180 and up.

Asus mobo: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6813131736

Biostar seems like an underdog to me. The Asus name dominates, but I have a lot of love for Biostar. I have a Biostar in my i7 920 build, and I used one when I rebuilt my mom's computer. They've been great. So unless mine blows up ::knock on wood:: I highly recommend them. The Biostar board I linked has the 970 NB chipset, while the Asus has the 990FX. I'm not sure what the difference is there, since I'm not up on AMD stuff. Other than that, it looks like they have all the same features, the Asus has more ports and whatnot though.

edit: I take back what I said about the Asus boards. You can get cheaper AM3+ Asus boards, but they weren't rated as highly (that's why I missed them in my initial search).

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductLi ... ageSize=20

Anyway, I just wanted to do a mock build for you so you can kinda visualize it. Now we have an Intel build and an AMD build to look at. If you decide to go this route and build your own (which I really think you should) we can help you fine tune it.

[Cronozilla]

Don't worry, I'm not a crusader. I wasn't turning it into AMD vs Intel, honest. It's just, the bang for your buck. It bothers me that people make the argument that some crazy $350 CPU from Intel will work better for Crysis 2 than a $120 CPU from AMD ... it has no effect in that department, both are beyond what the game requires.

My affinity is purely from a performance/$ issue.

So, I'm just looking toward getting people quality machines that will do amazing things for as little as possible. I mean if you're gonna splurge anywhere ... it should be on the GPU. But that's what I usually see people skimping on, because they got this behemoth expensive CPU that they're not even going to utilize. It's silly and a waste of a lot of money. Like water cooling a computer that isn't massively overclocked. Just a waste of money for bragging rights, "look how much I spent on this thing! :O" <~ annoying.

In terms of integrated CPUs, Intel doesn't really compare right now. The power consumption difference in the APUs is slightly higher (100W vs 65W) in similarly priced combo chips (there are 65W APUs, they're just dual core only). The Radeon chipset is likely much better than anything Intel HD can offer, also. And the price is lower for a chip with double the cores, and that's just crazy-sauce.

The biggest variable in the HTPC issue is really the case. The reasonably priced ones tend to not really solve the issue. And with that capture card ... it's going to be finicky in the height department. The most well rounded cases are like $220-$300

The price of those cases has honestly made me consider just building some interface device for the TV, that's like $100 or something and all the content is streamed from a media server on the network. It'd certainly be cheaper. (And you could install it in multiple rooms with little trouble :O) The media server would have the capture card, to note.

Oh, also, it's likely cheaper to get a bluetooth dongle and a PS3 media remote than any special made HTPC remote setup.

[Ziggy]

LOL, no worries. I wasn't accusing you of starting a classic AMD vs Intel debate, I just could foresee this thread going in that direction, getting off topic from SpaceBooger's problem.

As far as gaming goes though, I get the impression that SpaceBooger really isn't into cutting edge PC gaming. I don't see him spending $200 on a video card. That's why I suggested he just keep the one he has now, if possible (mainly, if it still works). The 9800GT is probably still gonna be better than any integrated GPU, so he's better off not spending the money on a new card if he doesn't need or want it.

[isiolia]

I'm in the process of building out a HTPC. I have the Ceton 4-tuner cablecard adapter, 128GB Solid State Drive, and a 2TB hard disk. I still need to pick out a case, power supply, motherboard, cpu, ram.

I do have the option of going with a micro-ATX board but I think I will stick with ATX. I think you get more deals/options to choose from with ATX. Do people find this to be true?

I'm also planning to go with i3-2100 and use the integrated GPU. I do not plan to do any gaming on this machine.

Before you get too set on standard ATX over micro ATX, start shopping cases. Many HTPC oriented cases don't fit standard ATX boards, with those that do obviously running a bit bigger.

I wouldn't necessarily say that you get more deals on ATX. Can go either way really.

Might want to hold off a month or two for Ivy Bridge - better performance, lower power use. If not that, there was a slight lineup revision not too long ago, so you'd probably want to get an i3 2120 - costs like $3 more for a 200Mhz speed bump.

I think add-in cards still win if you want more robust drivers and video acceleration/filtering too, not just games. I've got a passively cooled nVidia 430GT in my HTPC that's worked nicely.

In terms of integrated CPUs, Intel doesn't really compare right now. The power consumption difference in the APUs is slightly higher (100W vs 65W) in similarly priced combo chips (there are 65W APUs, they're just dual core only). The Radeon chipset is likely much better than anything Intel HD can offer, also. And the price is lower for a chip with double the cores, and that's just crazy-sauce.

Main problem with the APUs in a desktop is that they lose to nearly any current discrete card. A comparison here at the same price point. In a laptop they're a more compelling option.


If you're really trying to cut costs on a CPU, see if there's a Microcenter near you. They do in-store pickup prices on CPUs that are quite good. For example, an i5 2500k is $179.99 instead of $219.99.
If you aren't overclocking though, I'd go with an i5 2400 instead, which is $149.99 there, or $189.99 on Newegg.

[Cronozilla]

Well, $200-$250 would just be playing games maxed, a decently better card is only in the $110 range. Which isn't too bad.

You wouldn't be able to turn anti-aliasing up, but you could at the very least get the full textures

Also, spending a little more ($50?) on a board that has SLI would allow the 9800 to be used for dedicated PhyX, which in some games is very very awesome. There's not really a similar experience anywhere else.

Though ... that's mostly expandable stuff for the future. But if he doesn't need a video card, case, HDD, optic drive ... you're talking about only $200-$300 to upgrade ... not $700 or whatever. (Sans OS)

And he's already said he doesn't want a discrete GPU. (Entire point in getting a combo-chip) So it's a moot point. Obviously, the embedded GPUs aren't going to out perform a dedicated solution. Even if it's the same chipset, speed, all that, there's bandwidth and memory differences that would greatly affect the performance.

[Ziggy]

I was talking about SpaceBooger, not gtmtnbiker.

[gtmtnbiker]

The reason for me to go with an integrated solution is that the i3 has plenty of oomph to do all of the video watching/recording that I want, plus I want to keep the power usage low. Down the road, I can always add a fan-less GPU if the integrated solution should be insufficient.

You also can't go by the TDP rating for a chip to determine how much power it will use. There are some guys over at avsforum.com who have done real world power monitoring with a kill-a-watt device to measure how much power a system will use running certain benchmarks. These tests show that the sandy bridge architecture beats the pants off AMD when it comes to performance.

I do agree with others that if you're really into PC gaming, that you want to put your money towards getting a very good GPU.

As for the case, I'm putting this in a media center. See this thread to see what it looks like. So I have 19" width, 30" depth, and 7-8" height to work with. I don't need a small or tiny case unless it's sufficient for my needs.

The height of the Ceton card is about 2.5" so it's pretty low profile.

[SpaceBooger]

is the gtx 560 2gig ram a decent improvement from my 9800gt? I'm asking cause I found one cheap.
Oh and I'll post what I'm looking into later when I get on the NetBook.

[SpaceBooger]

Here are the specs I'm thinking about:
Processor: AMD FX-Series FX-6100 3.3GHz
Motherboard: GIGABYTE GA-M68MT-S2P
GPU: GeForce GTX 560
Power Suply: 700W
Ram: 8gb
Hard Drive: 1TB

All together this some of my other parts and a case looks like it will be my new rig. It should be a slight upgrade and good enough to play the games I already own (Batman AA, Ghostbusters, SF4, Transformers War of Cybertron, Borderlands, etc). This should be well under my budget and a decent cost effective system.

[Cronozilla]

You want the GTX 560 Ti 1GB card, not the 2GB. They lower the ram speed and games aren't even allocating the space.
Look at EVGA for manufacturers, they have some $250 cards with lifetime warranties.
The 560 Ti will max pretty much anything out right now at 1920x1080. The Superclocked version is something you might want to look into also. While you can overclock the card on your own, damaged caused by doing so is not covered by warranty. An SC card is overclocked by the manufacturer already and is covered. (I wouldn't suggest waiting for a GTX 660 or anything, it'll likely be 6 months to a year before they're reasonably priced)

gtmtnbiker, the projected power usage of either system would still be sub-300W, so it doesn't really matter. And, again, it's quad core vs dual core (Obviously, the quad core would be using more electricity ). Adding in a GPU later would sort of defeat the purpose of talking power consumption anyway, wouldn't it?

Ziggy587, SpaceBooger explicitly said he wasn't using it for games >_>