[FSDarkNemesis]

Heya All,

I'm posting to ask what are the options I have for a computer build without the following parts which i have? These parts below are what I'm salvaging from my Pentium 4 which died on me.

23' Monitor
320 GB HD
Several PC Cooling Fans
1GB GDDR5 ATI Radeon 5750 (New one, idling in the Chassis after replacing old GeForce 7300 which was thought to be the cuase of my Comp Dying but it's not. If you recommend a better one, I'm all ears.)
Speaker System
Ethernet Card
DVD Burner
Keyboard and Mouse* (*Of Course I'll upgrade to Razer babies if price permits.)

So? How are my options? Can't be bothered to sign for Hardware zone SG because I VERY rarely visit so no point. I know there are PC gurus here and it's this forums I visit every now and again.

I hope for quick replies, because Thursday will be the day for the build.

[MCKL]

i felt GTX570 would be better, but that card is decent so ok.... RAMS? i7? i5?

[FSDarkNemesis]

Preferbly core i7, or core i5 2nd gen. Ram prefered 8 Gig.

[Aean(:]

Well what are you planning to do on your computer? Gaming? Video editing?
Are you looking to upgrade in the future or is are you going to stick for this?
And also do you own the HD 5750 already or is that the card you are planning to buy?

Also correct me if im wrong but youre planning to build a computer with SGD 1200 but you already salvaged 90% of the required parts from your old computer..

[FSDarkNemesis]

Originally Posted by Aean(:

Well what are you planning to do on your computer? Gaming? Video editing?
Are you looking to upgrade in the future or is are you going to stick for this?
And also do you own the HD 5750 already or is that the card you are planning to buy?

Also correct me if im wrong but youre planning to build a computer with SGD 1200 but you already salvaged 90% of the required parts from your old computer..

Well I plan to crossfire the 5750, and I need the case, mobo psu, another hard drive, cpu, and the ram. Basically the key components, not the. Minor parts.

[Fourby]

If you are on a budget, and want the most power for your money, you dont want an i7

just puttin that out there.

a 1090T or 1100T six cores are SO good for their money, but if you are one of those hardcore anti-AMD, pro-intel, then go for i5, as you can boos the shit out of them for sick speed

[syfMiley]

Originally Posted by Fourby

If you are on a budget, and want the most power for your money, you dont want an i7

just puttin that out there.

a 1090T or 1100T six cores are SO good for their money, but if you are one of those hardcore anti-AMD, pro-intel, then go for i5, as you can boos the shit out of them for sick speed

Fourby would know cause he just runs anything he wants ever.

[FSDarkNemesis]

Okay Guys, here's the final build after assembling:

CPU: Core i5-2500K 3.3GHz - Unoverclocked as of yet
HDD: 1TB + 250GB Secondary
RAM: 8 GB DDR3 1600 RAM
GPU: 1 GB nVidia GeForce GTX 550 Ti
Case: Cooler Master "ThermalTake" Spacecraft-VF1
DVD Burner
USB 2.0 / USB 3.0 - 4 Each
Monitor: LG Flatron W2252TQ

[antarnis]

I'd suggest you to get a hold of the AMD FX 8 core processor. Saw the review and it was quite awesome o_o

[Aean(:]

Originally Posted by antarnis

I'd suggest you to get a hold of the AMD FX 8 core processor. Saw the review and it was quite awesome o_o

The AMD 8 Core processor works better for video rendering etc, where as the I5 2500k performs better in games. (Based on benchmarks)

[inFeZa]

I suggest get a SSD - Best thing ever. Makes everything so much faster.

[dippa]

AMD FX reviews have been crap, what sites have you guys been reading?

The true culprit for Bulldozer's lackluster single-threaded performance is difficult to track down. The easy answer would seem to be clock speed. We've heard of issues at Global Foundries and perhaps Bulldozer is the latest victim. If AMD's clock targets were 30% higher than Phenom II, it simply didn't make them with the FX-8150.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/t...8150-tested/11

Toss a single-threaded app at the processor, though, and it underperforms Intel's three-year-old Core i7-920 running at its stock 2.66 GHz. AMD’s architects say they shot to maintain IPC and ramp up clock rate, but something clearly went wrong along the way.

Ironically, consistent, scalable performance is one of the attributes that AMD claims it gets from its Bulldozer module. The issue we see over and over, though, is that it relies on software able to exploit scalability in order to compete. When it doesn’t get what it wants, performance steps back relative to the previous generation. As a result, even though AMD implements a more advanced version of Turbo Core to help improve single-threaded performance, the difference between what you get in lightly- and heavily-threaded applications is anything but consistent.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...x,3043-24.html

However, today we introduced to you an FX processor based on the new Bulldozer microarchitecture but designed for the desktop segment. And this is where we observed a dramatic the mismatch between Bulldozer’s hardware functionality and the needs of typical desktop applications. It is particularly frustrating that the entire marketing effort was aimed at making us believe that Bulldozer will be the rising star of the desktop market. Unfortunately, this never happened.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu..._15.html#sect0

When we looked at the AMD FX-8150 in CPU intensive tests, it clearly showed that it was no real superstar and was a disappointment for a lot of potential customers, but gaming is never really looked upon in the same way, so we thought that we’d show you how it performs when we take a look at the processor from a different angle.

When looking at gaming, it did a really good job and this may not be completely clear at first, so let me explain in a little bit more detail. You may be flicking back through the results and feeling slightly let down, but you have to look at things from a slightly different perspective and we’re explain exactly why. The Core i7 2600k retails for £239 and the AMD FX-8150 retails for £199.98 which immediately shows you that the AMD FX-8150 gives better value for money, and when looking back at the results, we can see that the performance in gaming wasn’t too dissimilar, and even in some cases, we saw the FX-8150 come out on top.

http://www.eteknix.com/reviews/proce...ance-analysis/

That's generally the reception I've seen: most disappointed, but hopeful that AMD's future chips could be something special.