Should you buy a $50 CPU??

[biohazard918]

42 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

I'm not getting the point of this video... So, the 3000G a crappy 2 core 4 thread CPU is $50. The verdict of the video should be, if you're building a budget system, you should be looking at Ryzen 5 1600 that goes for only $30 more ($80) and is a proper 6 core CPU with 12 threads. Sure clock is a bit on the lower side, but is still a 6c/12t CPU that will rip through games without much problems. I've used MicroCenter prices coz JayzTwoCents often mentions it, NewEgg seems to have it for $100. Still, doubling the price from $50 to $100 goes from 2c/4t @ 3.5GHz to 6c/12t @ up to 3.6. 100% price jump for 300% more cores. Going past this point seems to lose its value appeal because you're increasing price, but not gaining any serious core counts or clocks. Like, 2700X costs over 3x more, but only gives you 2c/4t more and some clock boost. Totally not worth it if you're on a budget.

 

GTX 1650 Super seems to be the only meaningful option at the lower end. Something like RX 570 is just $20 less and is probably slower anyway, not to mention older.

 

So, get the Ryzen 5 1600 for $80-100 and you're set for proper gaming sessions with that GTX 1650 Super. This 3000G only has value if you're sticking it in a PC as CPU and GPU combo and it'll be running basic multimedia and games from GOG. Old legendary games are fun and they'll run great even on that 3000G. It'll cost you $50. And that's the end cost of CPU and GPU.

 

Then there is still the Ryzen 5 2400G. 4c/8t CPU that boosts up to 3.9GHz with VEGA 11 graphics for $130-160. It can actually run relatively new games really well at 720p...

 

There are options even at very low end that are very much viable. And that 2400G, even if you'll at some point have to buy a graphic card, it'll still be viable. Where 3000G just isn't.

The Polaris cards are actually really competitive if you don't care about power. 

 

https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2525?vs=2572 

 

Yeah its slower then the 1650 super but its also 40 bucks cheaper.  I'd take a 570 and a 1600 af over a 1650 super and 3000G

[imreloadin]

This was an extremely poorly thought out video...like what was even the point of having the Cinebench test if you DIDN'T EVEN OVERCLOCK the AMD CPU??? You said that was the main reason that it would beat Intel's offering and then just refuse to do anything? I was expecting a repeat with it being overclocked but...NOPE...instead all we get is "I think that makes it the better value still"

 

THINKS??? How about you PROVE it's the better value?!?! What is the point of this video if you're not going to actually do anything to even justify your claims?

 

Here is what this shit video gives you:

Only does 3 tests...that's right, THREE!

Only does overclocking for two tests and doesn't even try to take the time to dial it in, just quick and dirty and that's all you get!

SINGLE STICK OF RAM...using that on Ryzen has been WELL documented as the best way to kneecap your CPU performance and especially iGPU performance at this point.

Doesn't even MENTION the Intel chip again after the Cinebench run, like what was even the point?

 

 

"Should I buy a $50 CPU?"

 

I STILL DON'T KNOW!!! Maybe if I only play R6 Siege and Tomb Raider and have no money. Lord only knows if I do anything else since there was literally zero effort put into this video...

 

Seriously LTT, step your damn game up...

[caincha]

3:14 - just the 960 Pro M.2 SSD should be more expensive than the whole system.

Plus I got the feeling that it would be compared to Intel's budget system and yet… nowhere to be seen…

[Sir0Tek]

I wonder how this 'Budget Gaming' system would do against a Nehalem/Westmere combo or an AMD fx which $50 would also buy you, with at least a mainboard already included, paired with a $100-150 gpu.

The 3000g isn't bad, it is a good choice for a media-PC at low wattages and -noise, even itx maybe. But gaming, unless it is Sims or Cities: Skylines?

[ahuckphin]

 

I was reading through the YouTube comments and many of them mention about dual channel memory. I could not help but think about this video.

 

I feel like this "Should you buy a $50 CPU??" video is not going to be that positviely recieived as I persoanlly feel Linus Media Group is unaware of the low end sector that much.

[Russell Garrard]

Amen, seriously though... who the hell these days runs only a single stick? Don't give me that 'But they can upgrade later' shit when 16GB is all you need for 90%+ of applications and 16GB is smacking $50USD!

 

Would of been interesting to see a single stick vs two!

[pApA^LeGBa]

The smart thing in a budget build would be getting RAM with 3000Mhz. There are very cheap options out there. Just a few bucks more than the cheapest i found with 2133. In Euro it´s just 6€ more.

[Intergalacticbits]

I read what they said about why they only used one stick of memory but still the first thing I thought when I watched this video was what everyone one is saying.

 

It would have been nice to see what kind of performance improvement might have come by gradually adding more memory one step at a time to this low end system.

 

For me that would have made it much more interesting to watch.

[Tristerin]

"Should you buy a $50 CPU - AMD Athlon 3000G"

 

There fixed your title for you.  Wont watch if this is the title on YouTube.

[BigDamn]

22 hours ago, SolidSonicTH said:

Do you hate Jake too?

Nah. Jake is cool

[Stevieboy118]

The single stick of ram triggered me so much i went out and bought the bits and tested it myself.