Gaming pc

Tropez

Cycrow wrote: »

One problem with AMD cpus, is that compared to intel, they usually have more, but slower cores. And most games dont make use of all the core, so they end up being slower for games.

Things are changing however, and modern games are moving more and more into multiple cpus, so new games in the future will start to benefit more

Except that CPUs matter very little when it comes to gaming once you've reached a certain power threshold so that any "slowness" isn't even noticeable. I've seen Tomb Raider, Crysis 3, Mass Effect 3, Bioshock Infinite and Dishonored - all releases since 2012 - running on an AMD Phenom II 965, which is far from AMDs flagship chip these days - at 60+ FPS on maximum settings (save for the TressFX on Tomb Raider due to an older graphics card).

Having a minimum of 8Gb of RAM and a powerful graphics card is far more important than a processor. When you check the minimum and recommended specs for PC games the CPUs that are listed are almost always old ones, even on the most modern of games, because once you've reached a particular power threshold when it comes to a CPU there is very little farther it can carry you in gaming.

Obviously a CPU does something while you're gaming but in the vast majority of cases it isn't that much more than it does while booting up the computer in the first place. If you buy one of the AMD PiledriverFX chips right now, the money that you save over buying an Intel chip means you can put the money into the graphics card and your gaming experience will be as smooth as it needs to be.

And with both the PS4 and Xbox One using AMD technology, the next gen games are going to be optimised for AMDs architecture anyway.

Cycrow

Tropez wrote: »

Except that CPUs matter very little when it comes to gaming once you've reached a certain power threshold so that any "slowness" isn't even noticeable. I've seen Tomb Raider, Crysis 3, Mass Effect 3, Bioshock Infinite and Dishonored - all releases since 2012 - running on an AMD Phenom II 965, which is far from AMDs flagship chip these days - at 60+ FPS on maximum settings (save for the TressFX on Tomb Raider due to an older graphics card).

Having a minimum of 8Gb of RAM and a powerful graphics card is far more important than a processor. When you check the minimum and recommended specs for PC games the CPUs that are listed are almost always old ones, even on the most modern of games, because once you've reached a particular power threshold when it comes to a CPU there is very little farther it can carry you in gaming.

Obviously a CPU does something while you're gaming but in the vast majority of cases it isn't that much more than it does while booting up the computer in the first place. If you buy one of the AMD PiledriverFX chips right now, the money that you save over buying an Intel chip means you can put the money into the graphics card and your gaming experience will be as smooth as it needs to be.

And with both the PS4 and Xbox One using AMD technology, the next gen games are going to be optimised for AMDs architecture anyway.

This does depend very much on the games themselves. while alot of games do focus more on graphics, there are other games that do require more in the way of CPU power. Generally games that have alot of objects and such to process will require more CPU power, as you will have things like the AI, Path Planning, Collision Detection, which all require processing, and that can increase exponential with the more object that are added.

alot of first person games generally have a limited number of these, so the amount of CPU required is limited.

The games i've worked on are very CPU heavy so the CPU can actually make a massive difference

Tropez

Cycrow wrote: »

This does depend very much on the games themselves. while alot of games do focus more on graphics, there are other games that do require more in the way of CPU power. Generally games that have alot of objects and such to process will require more CPU power, as you will have things like the AI, Path Planning, Collision Detection, which all require processing, and that can increase exponential with the more object that are added.

alot of first person games generally have a limited number of these, so the amount of CPU required is limited.

The games i've worked on are very CPU heavy so the CPU can actually make a massive difference

But the games that would push even the now lower-end AMD 965 to its limits are an extreme minority. The vast majority (and it is a vast majority) of games, even those using physics, wouldn't push that CPU to 75%. Arkham City is a CPU intensive game by most standards and the 965 has no issue with that either.

When we're looking at the budget that the OP is looking at it simply doesn't make sense to champion Intel when the comparative benefits of an Intel CPU over AMD will be lost because of the difficulty in finding a pre-built PC that has the all-round capabilities not to bottleneck the Intel CPU within that budget. Even the first response that tried to build an Intel based system went almost £100 over budget before we add peripherals and then could only suggest slipping a local computer shop £50 to put it all together.

AMD CPUs aren't the fastest in terms of architecture and I will absolutely concur with anyone who says that if you're building a top-of-the-line PC for gaming and intensive tasks like video editing then an AMD chip is a false economy; but at the pricing levels we're talking about here and that we're only playing Minecraft (admittedly, a bit of a CPU hog) and unspecified titles from Steam the fact is that a decent AMD CPU is not gimping a system significantly simply because the vast majority of games out there are not CPU intensive enough to push them to their limits.

It makes much more sense to get a fast multi-core AMD CPU (3.5Ghz+) and pour the savings into the graphics card.

Cycrow

i agree that its better to focus on a GPU rather than a CPU.

but i was pointing out, that with the change in games design, the AMD processors will actually become better, due to their more cores.
as more and more games make use of this fact.

many old games still use a single threaded game loop, so most of the game will only ever go onto 1 core, which is why intel have had such and advantage when it came to games

theforumking

Definitely check amazon and ebay

TERIERI

Getting this one, thanks Sparhawke.:)

Sparhawke wrote: »

What budget do you have and what is the likely maximum spec game he (read you ) will be playing?

Do you already have things like keyboard, mouse, hard drive (that can be transferred over), monitor?

Zoostorm are very good if you do not want to build your own and tend to come recommended

http://www.very.co.uk/zoostorm-intelreg-coretrade-i5-processor-16gb-ram-2tb-hard-drive-desktop-base-unit-with-free-mcafee-antivirus-plus-software/1281650472.prd?aff=google&affsrc=acquisition&cm_mmc=google-_-PLA_Electricals-_-computers+baseunits-_-uSZ3rEJl_29821782674

closed

£630 + the price of a monitor is a little OTT for minecraft

Tropez

TERIERI wrote: »

Getting this one, thanks Sparhawke.:)

If you haven't ordered it yet I would really hold off and shop around.

The graphics card in that system is one of the poorest on the market at the moment. For that price, you could definitely do better.

pmartin86

For £720 I recently built myself a top of the line machine, so for your budget you should conftably be able to get something future proof, go to your local traders for such things if your uncomftable building your own, you will get much better value for money and something much more tailored to your needs.

I should also point out that GTA has an "18" age rated and COD has a "16" rating, would you let your 11 year old watch an 18 rated movie?

pmartin86

nonnatus wrote: »

My son has an Alienware PC from Dell. It's a scary looking bit of kit, got it for him 2 years ago and this Xmas he's after the Laptop version which is hideously expensive for what you get (screen size etc) so I will be watching this thread with interest.

My son is gaming obsessed, did his school work experience in the Robotics design department of a local university and has his whole future mapped out in great detail (revolves around writing codes and stuff - it's a challenge to remain focussed when he's attempting to explain it all, but then I imagine Bill Gates's Mother had much the same problem...:rotfl:).

If money was no object to the Gamers here, which Laptop would be top of your lists please?

Alienware are probably about as good as it gets for gaming PCs if your buying of the shelf! They cost a fortune but are usualy very well built with good quality components. If money was no object i'd have my entire house built with Alientware laptops! On the flip side, id never actualy buy one, laptops and gaming rarely go hand in hand due to cooling issues, always ALWAYS go for a desktop if gaming is your goal.