Jani_Nykanen

Last Login:
February 24, 2017
Warn:

Rank:
Member



User Profile
Follow

Hits: 52,650
Joined March 07, 2014
Games (5)

A Journey to Eternity
July 24, 2016
Operation Fungus
December 14, 2015
The Last Minute Dungeon
December 12, 2016
Project Spooky
November 02, 2014
Mr. Spooky's Snowy Tower of Winter
December 23, 2014


Going to upgrade a PC
Posted on February 16, 2017 at 13:50

I was considering upgrading my "other PC" i.e. the PC I have in my parents' house. I'm going to spend my summer (and most weekends) there, and I would like to have a PC that can run Overwatch better than 20-30 fps in lowest possible settings.

I'm going to keep only the motherboard and the hard drives. The motherboard I have is this one (I think):

AsRock FM2A68M-HD+
(I do have another motherboard that has more memory slots if needed, but I'd rather use this one if possible).

Anyway, here's the parts I'm considering to buy (links to a Finnish computer component store):

CPU:
AMD Athlon II X4 880K

Graphics card:
HIS AMD Radeon R7 360 GREEN iCooler

I'm definitely not sure about this. It's so cheap, does it mean it sucks? But I'd rather not spend more money on a GPU...

EDIT: Or would this be better: XFX AMD Radeon RX 460

Power supply:
Silverstone 500W Strider Modular

or

Chieftec 550W A-80 modular

I'm not sure which one is better. The latter one has more power (550W vs 500W), so maybe I should choose it?

Case:

Silverstone PS09B Micro-ATX


RAM:

I already have 2x4GB RAM, but I'm not sure if they are DDR2 or DDR3, so I'll consider this one:
Corsair 8GB (1 x 8GB), DDR3 1600MHz

It's pretty expensive, though.


SSD:

Probably not going to buy, yet, but if I some day must reinstall operating systems, I'll probably by a small SSD (64GB, maybe) and install OSs there.





Thoughts? I would like to know if those pieces are compatible, and if there are better options I'm not aware of.


The Motherboard and CPU are compatible... second GPU (The RX) has significantly higher base-clock (And is a newer architecture, so better driver support)...

Case form factor matches motherboard, so that's also alright...

I'd grab the 550W PSU, mostly because it's slightly cheaper, and it never hurts to have a bit of extra room for future expansion (Sold a 1kW PSU to a customer a few weeks ago... he's not even running anything that pulls half that much. Single GTX 960, Micro-ATX board, Core i5... but he's insistent that the Power Supply will make the computer "faster"... gotta love my job).

RAM is also OK. Price seems to be normal for DDR3 sets. :P

As for the SSD, I got myself a small 64GB one last year. Not for the OS though (Not much point, WIn10 startups are pretty speedy for one, and I leave it on all day. No need for rapid startups)
I got it for games. Specifically Fallout 4 and Dark Souls 3 (And Steam made it way easier to do this now with the option to move game install folders).
Also for Visual Studio 2015. Pretty much instant startup.

I'd say it's a pretty solid backup gaming build (Should do fine with Overwatch and many other games). Better options? Maybe. Lots of similar ones at least with slight price variations.

Enjoy building it! And don't forget to stow your cables! Failing that, at least cable-tie the things out of the way. (Common local cause of CPU overheats: Power cables resting on CPU fan).
Posted by Mega February 16, 2017 15:39 - 7 days ago
| [#01]

Kind of related to this:

If I would get SSD, would GameMaker compile faster?
I mean, when you click that green triangle to test the game?
With 300+ sprites it takes painfully long for it to compile.

If not SSD, then what would speed it up?

Disclaimer: I have no idea how computers work.
Posted by Zuurix February 16, 2017 18:25 - 7 days ago
| [#02]

@Zuurix: I wondered the same thing. My last GM game, Dark Slash Run, was hitting compile times of 40 seconds or more and that's basically a short WIP/Demo.
Let me test quickly...

'k. Resource read/write: Much faster.
Binary compilation/testing? Much the same.
So basically saving and the little resource save bar that pops up when you test are there for a second at most on an SSD (And before they were sitting there for ages whenever I hit CTRL+S or tested).
Posted by Mega February 17, 2017 3:34 - 7 days ago
| [#03]

That Athlon X4 is really not going to be worth it. Wait a month; AMD has new CPUs coming out that will be reasonably low cost but also much, much better performance.
Posted by flashback February 17, 2017 19:26 - 6 days ago
| [#04]

But will those CPUs support Fm2+ socket?

On the other hand, I could get AMD FX-6300 6C in 102.60€ (or CPU AMD FX X4 4320 86.50€), and AM3+ motherboard in 50€, would that be a better option? (unless those new CPUs will have even lower price)
Posted by Jani_Nykanen February 18, 2017 2:13 - 6 days ago
| [#05]

@flashback: Oh yeah, forgot about those.

@Jani: Get an AM socket motherboard, the new Ryzen series will be using those. Just wait a few weeks to see what the pricing is like (But all indications are towards the Ryzen having excellent pricing for the performance).
Posted by Mega February 18, 2017 3:32 - 6 days ago
| [#06]

According this: https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/amd-zen-release-date-specs-prices-rumours ...

...the pieces I can afford right now have only 4 cores 3.0-3.5GHz clock rate. Are they still better than that older six-core AMD FX 6300? (Although if someone costs $130 in the US, it'll cost probably 150€ or more in Finland...)
Posted by Jani_Nykanen February 18, 2017 4:40 - 6 days ago
| [#07]

The whole thing with the new architecture is that while it's 4-core 3.0Ghz (3,000,000,000 cycles per second), it's what it's doing with each cycle on each core that can make it perform better or worse.
Hell, we've had 3.0+ Ghz CPUs for nearly 20 years by this point, but the difference between a single-core Pentium 4 3.0Ghz with HyperThreading and a Single-Core Celeron G-series 2.0Ghz from the last five years is like night and day (Favoring the Celeron).

And then there's the whole multicore thing. Most apps/games aren't geared towards using more than two cores in practice, and from what I've seen they always schedule on the first two cores (So Core 0 and Core 1). Barring fringe cases, you'll get more out of a new architecture @ 3.0Ghz with two cores over the older architecture @ 3.0+Ghz with more cores.

Of course, I'd wait for benchmarks post-release and for the price to settle (Initial supply-demand in some countries will drive retail pricing up).
Posted by Mega February 18, 2017 5:01 - 6 days ago
| [#08]

Great, now I'm totally confused what to buy and what not to buy. Maybe I'll just buy Nintendo Switch and use it satisfy my gaming needs... But since there is no Overwatch for Nintendo Switch nor programming tools, I'll rather wait those benchmarks and then decide what to buy
Posted by Jani_Nykanen February 18, 2017 6:44 - 6 days ago
| [#09]

Quote
Are they still better than that older six-core AMD FX 6300?

Almost certainly. The benchmarks that have already leaked for higher-end Zen engineering samples are extremely impressive.
Posted by flashback February 20, 2017 17:46 - 3 days ago
| [#10]

Recent Activity
 
Active Users (0)