Seasoned Builder, looking for some input.

[Cojac92]

So I've always built my own rigs, and all 5 of my friends rig's... Along with all their upgrades, and I've usually made decent decisions in the long run. Although, I'm kind of stuck on this one, I don't know which direction to go so I figured I would get you guys to throw in your 2 cents.

One of the 5 buddies I build/upgrade for is due for an upgrade, his budget is $400. It can go above $400 by a little, but it would be coming out of my pocket. I'd pay it because his birthday is at the end of the month.

Anyway his current specs are:
Core 2 Duo E4500 2.2 or 2.4 Ghz
2GB of DDR2 800
Radeon HD 6570
Cheap Biostar or Foxconn board.
500w Rosewill PSU
Zalman Z9 Plus Mid-tower case
Windows Vista 32-bit (It was the only extra OS I had when I built this system couple years ago, and it saved him some money)

This system is for 100% gaming, nothing else. So here are my two picks since we are on a tight budget, with having to pick up a 64-bit OS.


I think this paticular build would be great for him if he waits a while before picking up a new graphics card. Since he could just crossfire the APU & 6570.


Here is build number 2. I think it gives more headroom for future upgrades, and it would be a nice little setup as soon as he had the cash to pick up a new dedicated graphics card.


EDIT: I even decided to add an Intel build, although this build has no overclocking potential.

 

[lust]

vista isn't too bad...

SB upgrade



IB upgrade

 

[Conumdrum]

There is no path except purchasing the W product with full copyright legal protections.

There is no such thing as Torrent on this forum.

 

[Cojac92]

vista isn't too bad

He has a 32 bit copy, making 4GB's of that 8GB kit you posted useless.

 

[WrkBoot]

He has a 32 bit copy, making 4GB's of that 8GB kit you posted useless.

Isn't he able to find a 64 bit vista and use his legal key? I would go with the last Intel build

 

[Cojac92]

Isn't he able to find a 64 bit vista and use his legal key? I would go with the last Intel build

I suppose, but who in the hell would want to stay on Vista? It would be coming out of my pocket for a 64-bit Vista disc. With a 2500k + motherboard other than a ASRock for overclocking + RAM + aftermarket heatsink. I'd already be digging into my pocket for $20 before I even get a 64-bit Vista disc.

The most I'd be willing to come out of my pocket is $10. I already do all his upgrades and any other work for free for him.

The last Intel build as in the one I posted? Or one of the builds Lust posted?

 

[lust]

He has a 32 bit copy, making 4GB's of that 8GB kit you posted useless.

he can go to any computer store and get a boot disk for 10 bucks.

 

[DHP]

can't you upgrade from vista to W7 cheaper than buying a full new OS ?

 

[Cojac92]

can't you upgrade from vista to W7 cheaper than buying a full new OS ?

Ah, yes you can. BUT! You can only upgrade to the same version you already have. 32-bit Vista will allow you to upgrade to Win7 32-bit. No cross upgrades.

I did have the same idea as you though, but I checked Microsoft's FAQ board and it was up there. So the upgrade route is off the table.

 

[lust]

Ah, yes you can. BUT! You can only upgrade to the same version you already have. 32-bit Vista will allow you to upgrade to Win7 32-bit. No cross upgrades.

I did have the same idea as you though, but I checked Microsoft's FAQ board and it was up there. So the upgrade route is off the table.

well if i were him id stick it out with 4gb of ram and when i have enough money to buy an OS i'd install the other 4gb.

 

[Cojac92]

well if i were him id stick it out with 4gb of ram and when i have enough money to buy an OS i'd install the other 4gb.

I don't think that would be the best route to go. We could just get a nice motherboard, 4GB of RAM, 3570k and a heatsink. Although, he would still be crippled by that 4GB of RAM until whenever he gets the extra cash to buy win7. We are talking about Vista/background programs taking up 1.5-2GB of ram. Leaving only 2GB for games; granted that is still better than the situation he is in now.

The reason I went in the direction I did was at least he would have a lot newer CPU & motherboard, and 8GB of faster ram... I would also be able to overclock it and give him some more bang for his buck, and the OS issue would be out of the way until either modern computing needs more than 16GB of RAM, or video games require something newer than win7. Seeing as long as XP lasted I doubt that would even be an issue before new hardware became the need.

 

[lust]

I don't think that would be the best route to go. We could just get a nice motherboard, 4GB of RAM, 3570k and a heatsink. Although, he would still be crippled by that 4GB of RAM until whenever he gets the extra cash to buy win7. We are talking about Vista/background programs taking up 1.5-2GB of ram. Leaving only 2GB for games; granted that is still better than the situation he is in now.

The reason I went in the direction I did was at least he would have a lot newer CPU & motherboard, and 8GB of faster ram... I would also be able to overclock it and give him some more bang for his buck, and the OS issue would be out of the way until either modern computing needs more than 16GB of RAM, or video games require something newer than win7. Seeing as long as XP lasted I doubt that would even be an issue before new hardware became the need.

there is nothing wrong with that motherboard. i'm sure anyone would agree that the asrock extreme4 is a fine board indeed.

 

[Cojac92]

there is nothing wrong with that motherboard. i'm sure anyone would agree that the asrock extreme4 is a fine board indeed.

ASRock do make good motherboards, I just don't like overclocking on them. I feel they are a bit lackluster in terms of options & control via their eXtreme tuning software and the bios.

 

[lust]

ASRock do make good motherboards, I just don't like overclocking on them. I feel they are a bit lackluster in terms of options & control via their eXtreme tuning software and the bios.

if you go with an asus board it will already take you past the budget.

 

[EpicMango]

there is nothing wrong with that motherboard. i'm sure anyone would agree that the asrock extreme4 is a fine board indeed.

I can support this, as I run a Extreme4. I had absolutely no hitches getting mine to work, even though the reviews on Newegg had me a little skeptical. I can't say on its performance as a OC'ing mobo, but I don't think that that would be an issue for OP right now. Since the computer is for 100% gaming, OC'ing won't be neccessary for quite some time. I don't even have a doubt with OC'ing..but I can't say from first hand experience

 

[Cojac92]

I can support this, as I run a Extreme4. I had absolutely no hitches getting mine to work, even though the reviews on Newegg had me a little skeptical. I can't say on its performance as a OC'ing mobo, but I don't think that that would be an issue for OP right now. Since the computer is for 100% gaming, OC'ing won't be neccessary for quite some time. I don't even have a doubt with OC'ing..but I can't say from first hand experience

I am speaking from first hand experience. I've never had a problem with an ASRock board. No hiccups, always stable, zero issues. Although, like I stated beforehand I just feel like their isn't enough options in the bios. It's just kind of cut & dry, up the mV for your CPU and increase the multiplier. I like having my phase control, VRM frequency, PLL overvoltage.... etc.

I'm not saying anything is wrong with them. Period. I just don't want to buy my buddy something I don't feel comfortable overclocking with.

As far as you claiming overclocking won't be necessary. You are correct. It won't, but it sure would be nice to get an extra 20fps if I were to go with a Llano build, or a little bit snappier performance from the FX4100 if I went that route.

 

[EpicMango]

I am speaking from first hand experience. I've never had a problem with an ASRock board. No hiccups, always stable, zero issues. Although, like I stated beforehand I just feel like their isn't enough options in the bios. It's just kind of cut & dry, up the mV for your CPU and increase the multiplier. I like having my phase control, VRM frequency, PLL overvoltage.... etc.

I'm not saying anything is wrong with them. Period. I just don't want to buy my buddy something I don't feel comfortable overclocking with.

As far as you claiming overclocking won't be necessary. You are correct. It won't, but it sure would be nice to get an extra 20fps if I were to go with a Llano build, or a little bit snappier performance from the FX4100 if I went that route.

Yes! Since its for strickly gaming, there's no reason to get a more expensive processor that will do less. I was actually looking at some FX processors. I would drop the intel and go with some FX processor, as you can save money, AND use that money to get 8GB's of RAM!

 

[Cojac92]

Yes! Since its for strickly gaming, there's no reason to get a more expensive processor that will do less. I was actually looking at some FX processors. I would drop the intel and go with some FX processor, as you can save money, AND use that money to get 8GB's of RAM!

I may have an Intel CPU in my current rig, but I am an avid supporter of AMD. It's an underdog thing. Intel's profit last year was in the billions, while AMD's was only 25 million? Don't quote me on that, but I know it was an astronomical difference. I feel like they do pretty good in the CPU market, while fighting Nvidia in the GPU market as well, 2 uphill battles for a figuratively speaking "small" company.

Most of us were all actually underwhelmed by the FX line of processors, but something like a 4100 is a good bang for your buck IMO. Moreover, if you going to spend $200+ on a CPU I would go with Intel, they really start to walk away from AMD in that price range. Gaming systems really don't need... say for instance... My 5.0Ghz water cooled i7-2700K. It's overkill. I can be playing most any game, and be up-converting video from 720p to 1080p and only have 87% CPU usage.

I built a friend of mine his first gaming computer last year, a different friend than we are talking about now. He gave me only $320, and told me to make it play every game on the market.

I went with a $39 Athlon X2 at 2.9Ghz.
A $45 biostar motherboard that was on sale for $35
$20 for 4GB of ram
$20 DVD burner
$40 500GB HDD (before the flood of doom)
$90 Radeon 6670
$30 Sentey case
$30 430w Rosewill PSU

That comes up to $305 in hardware. Plus, $15 shipping. Bam, right on the $320 mark. I then gave him a mouse and keyboard I had laying around, and a win7 license from a notebook with a busted screen somebody gave me for working on their desktop. His sister then gave him her old 21 or 22 inch LCD TV.

He was able to play Starcraft II on Ultra at 30fps
Battlefield 3 on Medium at 40fps.
And pretty much every other game a respectable settings & framerates. Granted that was on a 1440x900 resolution. But for $320 it was amazing! A lot of people really think X79 boards and 3960X's are required for minesweeper.

 

[Knufire]

Phenom II X4s will usually outperofm a FX-4100 in gaming.

4GB os sufficient RAM for gaming as well. Only game I've ever broken 4GB of usage on was heavily modded Minecraft, and that's due to hack job coding on visual mods.

Certain games, like BF3, will see a very good FPS jump on Intel vs AMD.

Look for combo deals to make it cheaper.

 

[Cojac92]

Phenom II X4s will usually outperofm a FX-4100 in gaming.

4GB os sufficient RAM for gaming as well. Only game I've ever broken 4GB of usage on was heavily modded Minecraft, and that's due to hack job coding on visual mods.

Certain games, like BF3, will see a very good FPS jump on Intel vs AMD.

Look for combo deals to make it cheaper.

Yes, Phenom II X4's will do better than a 4100. The reason I had it in one of my build options is just to get my hands on one. Me and my friends have had several Phenom & Phenom II's. Although, I haven't had a chance to see a FX in action. I was going to have one of my friends be the guinea pig. It's a bit mean I know, but it's not like I'm making him use a single core sempron.

You can read reviews all day long, and have people tell you what it performs like, but to me there isn't anything like getting first hand experience with a product.

As far as ram goes, I could see my friend using 4GB. He doesn't run a "slim" OS so to speak, but it's not packed with a bunch of resource hog software either. He would probably be sitting right at around 4GB of usage while playing a game. An extra $15-20 isn't a bad price to pay for extra headroom.

Edit: I have seen BF3 use 4GB of ram on large maps. That doesn't leave anything for the OS, so you start HDD thrashing. Going from 4GB to 8GB of ram with the same 7200rpm HDD also cuts off an extra 10sec of load times in BF3 as well.