Update on the budget build I posted the other day.

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by JohnGalt36, Feb 5, 2016.

  1. Danath

    Almost what I have, Phenom II X4 965 BE (OC to 3,8Ghz) and ATI HD 6850. But "run PS2 wonderfully" isn't exactly how I would describe it, FPS tend to stay under 50 in big fights.

    Now, I've been looking for a new rig, and oh boy, "old" Intel CPUs (2013) are barely 20€ less expensive than the newest (2015).
    You get ~10% better performance for the same money you paid in 2012.
  2. Taemien


    The newer gen Intels are tons more efficient. Like I said that means less power and less expensive mobos. But I will say this.. be prepared to wait for sales. For example the i7 4790K I use has dropped and risen in price alot since I bought it. I got it for 300. Its been as high as 400, and as low as 200. Right now its 330.

    And you're right that the Intel chips from a few years ago don't drop in price very much. This is due to them being very relevant. I blame AMD for that slump they caused on themselves. Pretty much made Intel the go to chip from 2012-2015. As I said before, newer AMDs were just causing issues for people.

    2016 might be different though. It might be a good time to sit and wait to see what comes out this year.
  3. Gundem


    Plus the increased single core power adds greater value to OC'ing an Intel CPU vs AMD.

    I'd bet you could run a budget build with an Intel Pentium for around 500$ that could run this game 60fps medium.


    In fact...

    Intel Pentium G4500, 100$

    MSI GTX 660 OC, 100$ on Ebay

    SanDisk 120BG SSD, 50$

    8GB Ballistix Elite RAM, 50$

    GIGABYTE GA-Z87X-HD3 Mobo, 100$

    Coolmaster Hyper 212 EVO Air cooler, 30$


    OC CPU to 4.5GH'z. Use MSI Afterburner to OC GPU slightly.
    • Up x 2
  4. Danath

    Whats the relation between power and mobo?


    Also, if you buy a 2013 Intel (Haswell), you can't use the mobo for the next upgrade (Skylake). Doesn't sound like a good investment to me.
  5. Gundem


    Higher voltage CPU requires better quality, more resistant, better heat dispersing mobo. With lower voltage you are less prone do damages.
  6. Taemien

    Higher power requirements mean more expensive architectures on mobo's. Not much though admittedly. And this is assuming the new stuff AMD is going to put out this year. Not historically, so consider it an educated prediction. I could be wrong though. I'm interested to see if they can fix their issues and keep their price points lower.



    I'm not sure why someone would buy a 2013 CPU in 2016. The processor I'm using I bought over a year ago. If I were to get one now (which I don't need to since I future-proofed for a bit) I'd get something made in 2015 or 2016.. IF it was better and more cost efficient than the 2014 CPU I'm using now.

    Truth be told it seems like Intel slumped a bit in 2015. There's not much bang for the buck over 2014. And if you do get a new AMD Zen, you'll need a new Mobo anyway as it will use the new AM4 socket.

    If everything pans out, AMD might be the way to go for 2016. You can get a new mobo, new CPU, and then upgrade the CPU easily without a new Mobo as long as the AM4 socket sticks around. And it will if the AM3 was any indicator. Or they could get into another CPU war with Intel and come out with a Slot A2 or some sh-t like that again.
  7. Reclaimer77

    Even if AMD improved their architecture, Intel is like a decade ahead of them on the manufacturing of the silicon itself.
  8. Goretzu

    AMD have a lot to do and it is unlikely that they'll surpass Intel with their next generation (best we can really hope for is probably more on par with a competitive price).

    Having said that never say never, AMD were significantly behind with their K5 and K6 architecture (although both were competitive because they was much better value $-wise and had more overclocking potential - back in the stone age of OCing when you built your own watercooling heatsinks with a soldering iron! :eek: ).
    But by K7 they'd more or less surpassed Intel and stayed ahead with the K8 architecture and the K10 wasn't bad it was just that Intel after years of being behind came out with the truly excellent Core 2 Duo CPUs which everything they've done since has largely been built on.


    I mean Bulldozer wasn't a bad architecture (although AMD have struggled with power efficency where Intel have not - ironically it used to be the other way around), it just wasn't really great for the desktop and gaming PC of that time or even now.


    Intel isn't immune to this either, however, otherwise you wouldn't be able to get an Intel G3258 for $70 give it a nice overclock it and have it genuinely stand up to top-end Intel CPUs in gaming.
  9. Towie

    Very true and people either forgot this or didn't know in the first place. When Intel was going P6 & Netburst architecture to win the GHz race, Athlon was way superior in terms of instructions-per-clock - in fact, when Intel hit the GHz/TDP limit far sooner than it anticipated (having to ramp up quickly due to superior Athlon performance), it had to do something different - so Core 2 was born out of development of Pentium M, a totally different architecture.

    Intel hasn't looked back since and leads the IPC race with a very efficient and fast architecture.

    BUT - If it wasn't for AMD - I fear we would still be saddled with 150W TDP Processors running crazy Ghz but delivering very little (relatively speaking)...
    • Up x 1
  10. Goretzu

    Yeah that's the thing, although Intel has had the better performing and more efficent CPUs (at the top end at least) for a while now, it was always AMD driving them on cost, on efficiency and performance, way back from the late K5's. Without AMD (and Cyrix once upon a time) Intel would almost certainly have been churning out very high power/low efficiency CPUs that wouldn't be remotely as powerful as they currently are.



    That's why there is some hope for their new Zen architecture (as alway the proof will be in the end product, of course).

    As they initally re-hired one of the engineers that was integral in their K7 and K8 successes and got rid of a lot of what they were trying to do (but not succeeding with) with Bulldozer and have instead moved back towards what Intel have been doing so well with since Core Duo.

    Which should provide a much better (in performance and efficiency) gaming and desktop use CPU (hopefully), and it can only be good for the consumer if they manage to pull off something decent.
  11. Danath

    Thought as much, but is not like the price is really related to that, too technical for flashy titles and numbers "SUPPORTS THE NEW GCARD WITH A JILLION GFLOPS PER NANOSECOND" :p At best you can count the capacitators