Best-looking AMD Motherboard?

[dave909904]

FM2+  or AM3+, under 120 USD.

[refinedskillz]

MSI 970 Gaming

[Electronics Wizardy]

Go intel.

[Misanthrope]

What's the difference? They're dead platform with terrible outdated procesors. If you are going for looks you should be going for intel or waiting for zen instead since looks shouldn't matter over functionality.

[dave909904]

1 minute ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

Go intel.

Not all of us can afford the 300$ CPUs and Motherboards.

AMD is FAR cheaper.

[Electronics Wizardy]

Just now, dave909904 said:

Not all of us can afford the 300$ CPUs and Motherboards.

How about a i3. Its better than a 8320 when gaming.

[Okjoek]

I personally would go FM2+ just because the efficiency is good. Some even better than my i5 3450.

[dave909904]

Just now, Electronics Wizardy said:

How about a i3. Its better than a 8320 when gaming.

Who said I was going to get an 8320.

If you like team blue THAT much (I honestly do, just don't have a big budget), give me a good Z170 motherboard .

[Electronics Wizardy]

4 minutes ago, dave909904 said:

Who said I was going to get an 8320.

If you like team blue THAT much (I honestly do, just don't have a big budget), give me a good Z170 motherboard .

Get a b150 board and a i5 6400. Faster than any amd desktop cpu and much newer.

[Okjoek]

19 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

Get a b150 board and a i5 6400. Faster than any amd desktop cpu and much newer.

This post is probably right. If you cannot wait for Zen just find like the cheapest 4 core skylake CPU you can. Albeit even these lower end ones can be a bit pricey

 

You can actually find some cheaper ones designed for more mobile low-power builds like an i5 6400T which has a TDP of only 35W! I guess it depends on what you're doing with it and if you really need the high clock speeds.

 

[byalexandr]

56 minutes ago, dave909904 said:

Not all of us can afford the 300$ CPUs and Motherboards.

AMD is FAR cheaper.

By the time you spend money on a motherboard with decent VRMs and a beefy CPU cooler you can already have a faster performing system with an i5.

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 hour ago, dave909904 said:

AMD is FAR cheaper.

...for a reason...it's also FAR older and FAR slower.

[Okjoek]

2 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

...for a reason...it's also FAR older and FAR slower.

Maybe so, but AMD have some reasonable deals against Intel's older products. For example I think the Athlon X4 860K provides slightly less performance than my current i5 3450, but for nearly 100 dollars cheaper when bought new.

1 hour ago, dave909904 said:

Who said I was going to get an 8320.

If you like team blue THAT much (I honestly do, just don't have a big budget), give me a good Z170 motherboard .

Again I ask though, what do you do with your computer? I know I suggested an intel CPU around an hour ago, but we can spit out model numbers all day and it won't do us much good if we don't have a picture of what the machine's jobs will include. There's a huge difference from playing something like Witcher 3 and Minecraft + other Esports titles.

[Morgan MLGman]

1 hour ago, byalexandr said:

By the time you spend money on a motherboard with decent VRMs and a beefy CPU cooler you can already have a faster performing system with an i5.

That's an exaggeration.

 

AMD system with a good motherboard that supports overclocking and has lots of features:
 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8320E 3.2GHz 8-Core Processor  ($118.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ASRock 970A-G/3.1 ATX AM3+/AM3 Motherboard  ($73.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $192.97
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-07-31 21:35 EDT-0400

 

Intel system with the cheapest i5 and a motherboard with similar features:

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-6400 2.7GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($179.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H170-GAMING 3 ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  ($77.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $257.97
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-07-31 21:36 EDT-0400

 

Add in a 20$ 212 EVO to the AMD rig and you're still 50$ less than the i5. I'm not talking performance here, just don't exaggerate.

 

[i_build_nanosuits]

4 minutes ago, Okjoek said:

Maybe so, but AMD have some reasonable deals against Intel's older products. For example I think the Athlon X4 860K provides slightly less performance than my current i5 3450, but for nearly 100 dollars cheaper when bought new.

dude...the 860K is 35% slower

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-3450-vs-AMD-Athlon-II-X4-860K/m161vs3265

 

Even the FX-8350 is slower than your old i5

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-3450-vs-AMD-FX-8350/m161vs1489

 

[iiNNeX]

there is a good looking amd board ?

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, iiNNeX said:

there is a good looking amd board ?

yes there are...for some reason they keep coming out with new boards with new gaming aestetics and shit so that the people not aware that AMD CPU's are sub par keep buying into that outdated stuff...it's weird.

[iiNNeX]

4 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

yes there are...for some reason they keep coming out with new boards with new gaming aestetics and shit so that the people not aware that AMD CPU's are sub par keep buying into that outdated stuff...it's weird.

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/pc-components/motherboards/amd?sPage=1&sSort=1

 

Nothing on there looks remotely good to me bar the MSI Gaming 970 and maybe the Gigabyte 990X. Still though, looks very outdated.

[Okjoek]

3 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

dude...the 860K is 35% slower

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-3450-vs-AMD-Athlon-II-X4-860K/m161vs3265

 

Even the FX-8350 is slower than your old i5

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-3450-vs-AMD-FX-8350/m161vs1489

 

Okay my memory failed me, but it wasn't that far off I guess. I could still argue the price still makes the 860k a good deal though. Would you spend 100 extra dollars for that performance gain? I can tell you if I were making that choice on a budget quad core this very minute I wouldn't.

 

I maintain that I would attempt to avoid buying CPUs build on older processes. You may pay more now, but newer technologies run on less energy. If you're like me and you buy a PC to use for nearly half a decade than those power savings will make it all worth while.

 

This is why I threw the i5 6400T out there:

Low power usage,

Cheap ~150-60 dollars,

No given information on intended function.

 

If you're making a budget PC on the latest processes either wait for Zen or something like this.

 

 

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 minute ago, Okjoek said:

Okay my memory failed me, but it wasn't that far off I guess. I could still argue the price still makes the 860k a good deal though.

 

yes, the 860K for super tight budget if you want to run lower end GPU's and play some ''not so demanding stuff'' will get you by.

AM3+ though is more expensive and not much faster...you also need a better motherboard, a CPU cooler and what not...which at this point IMHO it's much better to go with an intel i5-4460/4590 or i5-6400/6500 for example...IMHO...at least for a gaming machine.

[Nena Trinity]

6 hours ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

How about a i3. Its better than a 8320 when gaming.

Not always...

You want 3 AMD modules minimum for anything over R9 285...

[Prysin]

6 hours ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

How about a i3. Its better than a 8320 when gaming.

i3 6100, i7 4790k and FX 8320 owner here.

No. just no.

i3 6100 (yes even skylake) with fast RAM (just like Digital FOundry had) , is not better then FX.

FPS numbers are higher, but the game stutters because CPU is at 100% all the time even with a Sapphire HD 7950

[Prysin]

4 hours ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

yes, the 860K for super tight budget if you want to run lower end GPU's and play some ''not so demanding stuff'' will get you by.

AM3+ though is more expensive and not much faster...you also need a better motherboard, a CPU cooler and what not...which at this point IMHO it's much better to go with an intel i5-4460/4590 or i5-6400/6500 for example...IMHO...at least for a gaming machine.

i5 4460 is a solid choice. 6400 is a waste, it is infact SLOWER then a i5 4460 and even the i3 6300 due to its low clock speed and low turbo speed. There is no point to buy any i5 lower then 6500 on the skylake side.

 

860k is a waste, 880k should be considered as it comes with a Wraith cooler. 30$ cooler bundled with 85$ CPU, great value. FX will be faster then FM2+ CPUs, even in single core, because they scale better with clock speeds. Thus a equally clocked FX WILL be as fast or faster in both single core and multi core as the Steamroller based FM2+ CPUs.

 

For AM3+ there is ONE option.

AMD FX 6350 -> 125$

Reason? It comes with Wraith cooler, it performs more or less the same as a 8350 in most games. 

 

@dave909904

As for boards you got a few options

ASRock 970A G/3.1 -> 70-80$

Features: USB 3.1 Type A and C, DDR3 2400MHz+, 32GB of RAM, M.2 10GB/s, Crossfire x16 + x4 (second x16 slot is electrically x4) 2x 4+1 phase setup in parrallell.

 

ASUS 970 PRO GAMING/AURA -> 100$

Features: DDR3 2133MHz, Crossfire x8/x8, 6+2 phase DIGI+ VRM, M.2 20GB/s, 32GB RAM, ASUS AURA LED header

 

Gigabyte 990FX GAMING -> 130-150$

Features: Crossfire x16/x16 or x8/x8/x8, M.2 20GB/s, 42 PCIe Gen2 lanes (38 usable by user), USB 3.1 Type A + C, 32GB of RAM, DDR3 2000MHz+, 8+2phase power delivery.

 

As you can see, price wise, FX is comparable or cheaper then ANY intel setup you can provide. PLease make a i3 build. I will just laugh, because i bought a skylake i3 6100 + 2400MHz DDR4 and it has nothing to do in a "gaming" system. Since it stutters like fucking mad.

 

[i_build_nanosuits]

4 hours ago, Prysin said:

i5 4460 is a solid choice. 6400 is a waste, it is infact SLOWER then a i5 4460 and even the i3 6300 due to its low clock speed and low turbo speed. There is no point to buy any i5 lower then 6500 on the skylake side.

how about it's NOT?

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-6400-vs-Intel-Core-i5-4460/3512vs2310

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-6400-vs-Intel-Core-i3-6300/3512vs3536

 

Also, if you go with i5-6400, you are on intel's latest platform with support for DDR4 ram which will serve you well now and in the future, it's as cheap and even cheaper than DDR3 in many instances and it's faster...the CPU is faster, and more energy efficient, it runs cooler, quieter, and you can upgrade to maybe a kaby lake core i7 in the future as well...it's a very good very solid platform with a bright future ahead of it...locking yourself into an haswell rig at this time won't make any sense at all unless you have a good 16GB DDR3 kit you want to re-use or something....am3+ or Fm2+ both are even much worse in terms of everything and buying that for a brand new computer at this point in time only make sense if the machine will only be used to render videos and transcode (AM3+) or if you're on an extreme budget (FM2+).

 

That said, i do recommend spending the extra 10$ or so for the i5-6500, it's faster for just a few more bucks.

 

[i_build_nanosuits]

5 hours ago, Prysin said:

i3 6100, i7 4790k and FX 8320 owner here.

No. just no.

i3 6100 (yes even skylake) with fast RAM (just like Digital FOundry had) , is not better then FX.

FPS numbers are higher, but the game stutters because CPU is at 100% all the time even with a Sapphire HD 7950

if i had to build a gaming rig for myself and there was only 2 CPU's available on the face of the earth: i3-6100 or FX-8320...i would for sure pick the FX...i do think it's better than a core i3 overall for gaming...in MOST games...at least in MANY games the required overall multi-threaded performance in modern games is indeed too great for the core i3 to handle...the AMD FX will not have amazing minimum FPS...and in some single-threaded heavy games it will slow down to a crawl...but at least it's a consistent crawl...and it will not stutter it's way out and piss you off...

 

BUT, the core i3 can be upgraded to the world's fastest processors without you needing a new motherboard, RAM etc...it's on a much newer and much better platform, more efficient, better features, faster etc. so for a new computer because of the fact that you can upgrade it to an i5-6500, i7-6700 and soon the i7-7700...for that very reason the i3-6100 is STILL a much better choice than locking yourself into a grossly outdated AMD platform in 2016.

 

PLEASE...think...do not counter argue this...do not disagree...cause if you do, you'll be answering the question i always wanted to ask you.