Friends PC

[jerubedo]

22 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

At this point its repetition, something that doesnt go anywhere with you standing not budging to admit that perhaps the 8100 isnt as good of a choice as you first thought.

The overall data I've shown in a grand total of 21 games has the i3 sitting at a better position overall for pure gaming. Yes, maybe future games will change the landscape, maybe not. I certainly know that if I wanted to play Kingdom Come or AC: Origins, the 2200g isn't going to be a good experience where the i3 will, and I know that the cheaper i3 still mostly bests the 2600 right now as well. And yes, the 1200 fixes those outliers, but at the expense of generally less performance in games overall. The i3 still pulls ahead by a decent margin, certainly enough to count for the extra money spent.

 

22 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

No builds deserve bad boards regardless of how budget they are. Mostl because you can make it work when you dont spend 20$ extra on a CPU that isnt worth it.

I've personally used them for really cheap builds and I've never had a motherboard die on me prematurely. Sure, they don't pack in great features or VRMs, but for basic functionality with no overclocking they do the job and chug along for ages. I'd rather get a slightly more powerful CPU than have a "better board for peace of mind" at that price range. Now for higher end systems, VRMs start to matter and so do features, and the quality of the integrated chips, so yeah, don't skimp.

[LogicWeasel]

2 hours ago, jerubedo said:

So yes for pure gaming it'd be better. The motherboard is not more expensive. A cheap motherboard for it is $55, the same as the AMD boards.

Yeah your price idea is just wrong and so is your argument.  Even if you were trying to get the cheapest garbage motherboard on boths sides (which no one sane recommends even the smallest of budget builder buy because it's penny-wise/pound-foolish) the boards start more around $60-70 and that's for trash A320 or H310 stuff with 0 redeeming features (maybe there's a couple amazon H310 m-atx H310 board for $55 but who the heck even looks for that?!  That's a Walmart PC build rookie-level mistake):  

 

AMD Board worth buying:  https://pcpartpicker.com/product/PCKcCJ/asrock-b450-pro4-atx-am4-motherboard-b450-pro4  Not $55.  Try: $70

 

Intel Board worth buying:  https://pcpartpicker.com/product/4hnG3C/msi-z370-pc-pro-atx-lga1151-motherboard-z370-pc-pro Not $55  Try: $103

Oh look, of the boards for each side (that isn't crap) with Overclocking support , the AMD one is $33 (w/ MIRs).  That's what I had called a more expensive motherboard and then you duck the logic by going cheap.  If you go entry-level value, AMD wins, if you go mid-range mobo pricing (solidly rated X370 or 470) AMD wins, and unless you go super high end OC then it's likely tit for tat.  (My Point ^)

[jerubedo]

25 minutes ago, LogicWeasel said:

Oh look, of the boards for each side (that isn't crap) with Overclocking support , the AMD one is $33 (w/ MIRs).  That's what I had called a more expensive motherboard and then you duck the logic by going cheap.  If you go entry-level value, AMD wins, if you go mid-range mobo pricing (solidly rated X370 or 470) AMD wins, and unless you go super high end OC then it's likely tit for tat.  (My Point ^)

You're all over the place, though. We're talking about i3 8100 and i5 8400, both of which do not overclock, so having the Z board for that is useless unless you plan on upgrading in the future to a K series CPU. If you're not, then you can go with a board like this one for the same $70. It's a fine board, nothing exciting, but it has 4 DIMMs, an M.2 slot, okay VRMs, etc:

 

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/PgQG3C/gigabyte-b360m-ds3h-micro-atx-lga1151-motherboard-b360m-ds3h

 

25 minutes ago, LogicWeasel said:

maybe there's a couple amazon H310 m-atx H310 board for $55 but who the heck even looks for that?!  That's a Walmart PC build rookie-level mistake)

No it's really not. Within the $400-$500 budget, in order to maximize performance from the CPU and GPU, grabbing the lowest board is fine. The CPUs aren't overclockable anyway, the features are largely irrelevant, the VRMs work just fine since there's no OCing, and having only 2 DIMMs is just fine since you would never go for more than 32GB on an overall system like that anyway. They tend to last just fine. I've never personally seen one die prematurely. I've seen plenty of PSU and HDD/SSD deaths, but never really a motherboard at any price point (with the exception of a couple of DOA boards or they came in with a malfunctioning audio chip or something like that. but these are right out of the gate).

 

Edit: I have seen motherboards die from outside of normal use, though, like someone plugged in a fan into a header while the computer was still on and made contact with one of the wrong pins causing a spark and shutdown, followed by a dead mobo. I saw one get bricked by a BIOS update, too.

[LogicWeasel]

1 hour ago, jerubedo said:

You're all over the place, though. We're talking about i3 8100 and i5 8400, both of which do not overclock, so having the Z board for that is useless unless you plan on upgrading in the future to a K series CPU.

No jerubedo, you are in fact the one who is all over the place.  I am not a part of this "We" you speak of when you say what I'm talking about.  Go back and read, I was discussing the i3-8350k and you are projecting an i3-8100 into this discussion (probably mixing up your arguments about some other minutiae I wasn't posting about).  

 

1 hour ago, jerubedo said:

They tend to last just fine. I've never personally seen one die prematurely.

I didn't express the idea that a vastly cheaper motherboard is doomed to die, I expressed other concerns which you do not want to address and would rather straw-man the argument so you can try to be right.

[jerubedo]

17 minutes ago, LogicWeasel said:

No jerubedo, you are in fact the one who is all over the place.  I am not a part of this "We" you speak of when you say what I'm talking about.  Go back and read, I was discussing the i3-8350k and you are projecting an i3-8100 into this discussion (probably mixing up your arguments about some other minutiae I wasn't posting about).  

When I said we I didn't mean you and I, I meant myself and the rest of the people in this thread. The original build I made had the i5 8400 and that devolved into an argument about i3 8100 vs R5 2600. So that's what I was going off of for the majority of the conversation. You brought up the 8350K because of the matching price point to the 2600, which is a fair point. And yes, in that case, I'd go with the Z series board, but you can get them cheaper than the $104 you posted above.

 

Such as this guy for $95:

 

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/Vys8TW/asrock-z370m-pro4-micro-atx-lga1151-motherboard-z370m-pro4

 

That makes the overall price of the 8350 $25 more, but you also get better gaming performance.

 

[LogicWeasel]

5 hours ago, jerubedo said:

The 8350K will outperform the 2600 not just in CS:GO, but almost every title, and in some by a wide margin. So yes for pure gaming it'd be better. The motherboard is not more expensive. A cheap motherboard for it is $55, the same as the AMD boards.

^ You from 5 hours ago stated that not only should the quad core be favored over the 6 core, but the motherboard is not more expensive and that YOU would pair an 8350k with a $55 motherboard (not a Z or even B360 series).

[jerubedo]

10 minutes ago, LogicWeasel said:

^ You from 5 hours ago stated that not only should the quad core be favored over the 6 core, but the motherboard is not more expensive and that YOU would pair an 8350k with a $55 motherboard (not a Z or even B360 series).

Yeah, I did get confused there. I was thinking of the 8100 when I selected the motherboard. It's hard to keep up with 4 different people arguing with me all mentioning different processors, especially when you were all posting at the same time! I've edited that post now for accuracy.

[LogicWeasel]

16 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

And yes, in that case, I'd go with the Z series board, but you can get them cheaper than the $104 you posted above.

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/motherboard/#sort=price&c=128&page=1&X=125,50091

 

Umm.. not significantly cheaper.  For about $8 less you can have less VRM cooling and that isn't worth it.  They don't give away Z370 boards and Amazon collects tax so the cheapest of the cheap Z370 comes out to almost no savings.

[jerubedo]

1 minute ago, LogicWeasel said:

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/motherboard/#sort=price&c=128&page=1&X=125,50091

 

Umm.. not significantly cheaper.  For about $8 less you can have less VRM cooling and that isn't worth it.  They don't give away Z370 boards and Amazon collects tax so the cheapest of the cheap Z370 comes out to almost no savings.

If you get the $95 board, which is fine for overclocking the 8350K (but not 6 core or 8 core CPUs), the overall price of the 8350 becomes $25 more, but you also get better gaming performance.

[GoldenLag]

4 hours ago, jerubedo said:

If you get the $95 board, which is fine for overclocking the 8350K (but not 6 core or 8 core CPUs), the overall price of the 8350 becomes $25 more, but you also get better gaming performance.

Hey guess what. Still not worth it. 

 

Because you need to buy a cooling solution for the CPU. 

 

These CPUs would be fine if they didnt have competing solutions that are just better.

[jerubedo]

47 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

These CPUs would be fine if they didnt have competing solutions that are just better. 

No matter how you slice it the performance for gaming overall is better on the Intel side of things. Okay, sure, you have to get a cooler for the 8350K, so now have it compete with the 2600X instead of the 2600. The 8350K wins that fight as well. The CHEAPER i3 8100 still beats the R5 2600. You're splitting hairs at this point trying desperately to find any reason to say that AMD wins in GAMING, unhappy with the fact that it wins in nearly everything else. You're trying to say that 5 or 6 game releases over the past TWO years counts as a market shift or a trend when in fact that's only 3 games per year out of DOZENS of AAA titles that launch. We can call it a trend once, say, half the games that launch in a year exhibit these same behaviors. THAT'S a trend. THAT'S a market shift.

 

Then you're trying to sell us on the upgrade path saying that people buying a Ryzen 2000 right now are going to blow money on a possibly minor upgrade to Ryzen 3000 3 years after their purchase (3 years being when your average consumer looks to upgrade a CPU if at all),  instead of buying a new Ryzen 5000(?) at that time with a new motherboard and DDR5 RAM. The year of course would be 2021, 1 year after AMD's officially stated support for AM4 ends. The money is better spent on the new platform and very few people are going to want to invest in a used part that is a much more minor upgrade than the new platform at hand. That makes the entire upgrade path argument a moot point for most average consumers.

[GoldenLag]

1 minute ago, jerubedo said:

That makes the entire upgrade path argument a moot point for most average consumers.

And highly relevant for everyone wabting a cheap upgrade instead of having to invest in a new plattform. But hey, lets ignore all those people and the benefits of havign that option.

2 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

No matter how you slice it the performance for gaming overall is better on the Intel side of things. Okay, sure, you have to get a cooler for the 8350K, so now have it compete with the 2600X instead of the 2600. The 8350K wins that fight as well. The CHEAPER i3 8100 still beats the R5 2600. You're splitting hairs at this point trying desperately to find any reason to say that AMD wins in GAMING, unhappy with the fact that it wins in nearly everything else.

Have i challanged the statements about those CPUs having an advantage in singlethreaded games? No, i havent.

 

Ive time and time again told you they are not worth it in valueproposition compared to other products, which is why they have been tossed out in favor of other options for 8 months minimum because they either are too expencive, arent worth it, is lackluster due to being non-ht and in the end PRICING. 

 

I Wouldnt give one damn if AMD won in gaming or not, it is simply they have the lower budget segment, something they have had for months. Its not as if this is recent developments, pricing is king. 

6 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

instead of buying a new Ryzen 5000(?) at that time with a new motherboard and DDR5 RAM

I mean the number of people doing exactly that with DDR3 is enough to keep prices up of 4th gen CPUs. 

 

DDR5 will be expencive and if they can get a CPU that is much better than what they have now for another plattform, why would they buy a new plattform?

 

You are assuming the jump is going to be huge when we dont even know anything of the performance increase of 7nm+ vs 5nm. 

12 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

 

Then you're trying to sell us on the upgrade path saying that people buying a Ryzen 2000 right now are going to blow money on a possibly minor upgrade

Im not selling a upgrade path, im selling the best CPU, Mobo combo at a given budget. The upgrade path is a bonus. 

 

But sure, invest in more expencive 4 core CPUs over cheaper 4 core CPUs or actual 6 core 12 thread CPUs. 

[Stefan Payne]

23 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

That makes the entire upgrade path argument a moot point for most average consumers.

Then tell me why the used prices for LGA1150 and 1151, hell even LGA1156 CPUs are so rediculously high if "upgrading" is not important for the average customer?!
 

Because its not unimportant and they actually do upcrade from time to time.

And that is why the used market is a total trainwreck because the CPU Prices are enormous.

The only exception was LGA1366, because scrapper pulled out the CPUs of those servers and sold them. THAT is why an LGA1366 6-Core Westmere with decent Performance (like X5640) is available for 50€ or so, while a 4 Core i5 is way more, depending on plattofm, up to 150€ used.

[jerubedo]

2 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Have i challanged the statements about those CPUs having an advantage in singlethreaded games? No, i havent.

 

Ive time and time again told you they are not worth it in valueproposition compared to other products, which is why they have been tossed out in favor of other options for 8 months minimum because they either are too expencive, arent worth it, is lackluster due to being non-ht and in the end PRICING. 

But they are as I've been saying. The i3 with motherboard is CHEAPER than the R5 2600 with motherboard. An yes if you want to compare it to the 2200g it is more expensive by roughly $20, but you are also getting the additional $20 worth of performance out of it. Now if the budget is super tight and that extra $20 allows for a better GPU then sure, in that one particular case Ryzen would have the advantage.

 

The same thing goes for the high end as well. If we pit the 9600K against the 2700X, the 9600K works out to the same price after getting a $30 cooler and it performs better as well across the board for now.

 

10 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

You are assuming the jump is going to be huge when we dont even know anything of the performance increase of 7nm+ vs 5nm. 

That's a very true argument. We really don't know what the performance will look like. I've gotten suckered into talking about the future when my original argument was not to do that lol. That's why talking about the future is mostly futile. That's why I've been trying to overall look at the right now instead of what's coming because none of us have a crystal ball.

[jerubedo]

5 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Then tell me why the used prices for LGA1150 and 1151, hell even LGA1156 CPUs are so rediculously high if "upgrading" is not important for the average customer?!
 

Because its not unimportant and they actually do upcrade from time to time.

And that is why the used market is a total trainwreck because the CPU Prices are enormous.

Because that's how the used market works. They price gouge, and it's not because of demand per se. It's because they are taking advantage of people who have a CPU or RAM that died on them and they just want to buy a replacement to get up and running again. It's the same with DDR2 RAM. The pricing for that was out of sight last year. It's not like many people are actually upgrading DDR2 RAM. It's because there isn't much of it on the market and the people looking for it are desperate to replace a broken part and are being taken advantage of.

[Stefan Payne]

1 minute ago, jerubedo said:

Because that's how the used market works.

Yes, high demand, low supply.

Exactly.

So Upgradability and a long living plattform IS actually important for most people.

[jerubedo]

3 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Yes, high demand, low supply.

Exactly.

Read my next sentence...

 

"They price gouge, and it's not because of demand per se."

 

Yes supply is low, but the demand is not necessarily high. The people who are looking for those parts tend to be desperate and don't necessarily know terribly much about computers. They are then taken advantage of by the used market.

 

Businesses are often the target of this. Say a critical system is running on a bunch of DDR2 sticks and say the sticks die, or maybe the motherboard dies. The people looking to buy those parts are desperate and then some seller goes, "oh hey I hear you are looking for this part. Give me, say, 2x the retail value of it when it was NEW and it's all yours." That same person will buy it, too. 

[GoldenLag]

4 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

The same thing goes for the high end as well. If we pit the 9600K against the 2700X, the 9600K works out to the same price after getting a $30 cooler and it performs better as well across the board for now

High end intel has the ball. The 2700x is not worth it with the exception of very specific workloads.

 

And you probably have to spend a little more on the cooler to get the most out of it.

 

5 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

Now if the budget is super tight and that extra $20 allows for a better GPU then sure, in that one particular case Ryzen would have the advantage

From budget ranges iive often worked with, that is the case. That and every other component.

5 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

But they are as I've been saying. The i3 with motherboard is CHEAPER than the R5 2600 with motherboard. An yes if you want to compare it to the 2200g it is more expensive by roughly $20,

Its not worth the extra 20$. And if you use the r3 1200 its especially not worth it. 

 

If your budget can fit the 2600 you pick the 2600 because its the better CPU. With similar singlecore perfromance and better multicore. 

 

And budget stepping allow this to happen. Where the 8100 might fit in is overshaddowed by changing otger parts of the build. 

5 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

They price gouge, and it's not because of demand per se

Well, considering prices have been steady, there is enough demand to keep the prices at what they are. And its not as if there is a lack of 4th gen systems out there.

[Stefan Payne]

2 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

"They price gouge, and it's not because of demand per se."

oh and why else is it then?!
If there is low demand and decent supply, the Prices would be in reasonable areas that are comparable with modern CPUs.

They aren't.

 

An old 4 COre CPU is sold for more than a modern one.

 

So prices didn't drop the way they should.

 

That can NOT happen with good supply and only decent demand. That can only happen with high demand and LOW Supply.

 

Quote

Yes supply is low, but the demand is not necessarily high.

Demand >> Supply

= demand is high, supply is low.

Its the same thing. 

Or are you telling me that the glass is half full when its definately half empty??

 

Quote

The people who are looking for those parts tend to be desperate and don't necessarily know terribly much about computers. They are then taken advantage of by the used market.

No, they are not. And the rest is wrong.

They are not taken advantage of, that's how a "free and open market" works. If there is a demand but no supply, the prices rise.

If there is high supply but low demand -> Prices fall.

You know the time, back in the day, when 10 Year old Hardware were useless shit, you could get that stuff for an apple and an egg.

 

That the Prices are high shows that the CPU Market is shit and didn't innovate in the last 10 years because you can still use 10 Year old CPUs.

Try using a Pentium MMX 166MHz with 2006 stuff. Thats about 10 Years difference in Hardware.

But you can't even run the Windows Version that is needed to run the game to run on that ancient Hardware with only 64MiB RAM.

[jerubedo]

2 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

oh and why else is it then?!
If there is low demand and decent supply, the Prices would be in reasonable areas that are comparable with modern CPUs.

They aren't.

 

An old 4 COre CPU is sold for more than a modern one.

 

So prices didn't drop the way they should.

 

That can NOT happen with good supply and only decent demand. That can only happen with high demand and LOW Supply.

Ugh, this is not how economics always works. You can have a low supply and a low demand with high prices.

 

Take this example: A comic book shop gets a rare toy from the 80s in. It's one of only a few known to exist. The supply is really low. There isn't a huge demand for it, but it's well known that a small niche community of people would pay a huge premium for it. Let's say they'd be willing to pay $1000 for it. The toy sits on the shelf for 5 whole years with a list price of $1000. Then finally someone walks in who sees the toy and is interested and pays for it. That is a case of low supply and low demand, yet high pricing. 

 

Going back to the case at hand, the people trying to replace their broken parts are desperate. Desperation breeds higher prices.

 

Linus just had something similar happen. He wanted to rebuild his childhood computer. Once people caught wind of that they scrounged up the parts and wound up selling them to him for double what they cost when they were new! This wasn't the case of a high demand at all. They were just taking advantage of Linus. See here for the video:

 

 

[jerubedo]

2 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

Demand >> Supply

= demand is high, supply is low.

No it doesn't lol. Let's say there's a one of a kind item and there's only 2 people in the whole world that want it. 2 is greater than 1 and yet 2 people is by no means a high demand. 

 

And just to clarify I'm not going against the laws of economics. The supply is still lower than the demand and therefore prices are higher, which follows the basic laws of economics. I'm just saying that demand isn't "high," meaning not everyone and their brother is upgrading on the used market. 

 

 

[colonel_mortis]

This topic went waaaaaay off the rails a while ago.

This was a topic about creating a t$500-$1000 gaming PC, but there doesn't seem to have been much about that recently.

@Mahomes feel free to post this topic again with a bit more info, and hopefully it won't descend into an Intel/AMD flame war this time.