Hardware Opinions on this build?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chyyran
  • Start date Start date
  • Views Views 1,520
  • Replies Replies 14
So many problems with that build,

* Motherboard already has Ethernet port, so why another PCI network card?
* A so-so PSU. You should never skimp on PSU quality unless you are on serious budget ($600+ is not serious budget). I would even go with cheaper case but better PSU.
* Better cooler please. Hyper 212 will be better than TX-3.
* 16 GB memory is overkill unless there is a specific need, and gaming isn't one of them.
* FX-6100 & HD6570, what kind of combination is this? Honestly following combinations will all be better in someway,
---> AMD Trinity/Richland APU (A6 & A8)
---------> Yields the same gaming performance yet being cheaper and more modern than AM3+ platform
---> Intel Sandy/Ivy Bridge Pentium/i3 + H61 + HD6770/HD7770
---------> More expensive but significantly more gaming performance. More future proof. Gaming cares about per-core performance, not more threads/cores.

You should only invest FX processor if it is FX-8xxx series, just not worth it for FX-4xxx and FX-6xxx. My assumption is that your friend will be doing gaming, but if there is anything special let us know.
 
-.-" it's a pretty horrible build IMO....
8GB is standard now days (I just upgraded to 16GB for CAD and other rendering stuff)
I don't like the cpu and the gpu either :/

As rydian said, a lot of pre-builds are cheaper and more powerful
 
-.-" it's a pretty horrible build IMO....
8GB is standard now days (I just upgraded to 16GB for CAD and other rendering stuff)
The average user, and even gamer, won't even touch 8GB either. 4GB is perfectly acceptable, with 8GB being room for air. More than 8GB is an area reserved for enthusiasts (read: people with holes in wallet) or people who actually need that much RAM, which is such niche area, the computer is probably already funded under a grant or some other research, so no user purchase is necessary.
 
The average user, and even gamer, won't even touch 8GB either. 4GB is perfectly acceptable, with 8GB being room for air. More than 8GB is an area reserved for enthusiasts (read: people with holes in wallet) or people who actually need that much RAM, which is such niche area, the computer is probably already funded under a grant or some other research, so no user purchase is necessary.

Ehhhh, try making a render of some things in solidworks.... it can eat up ram like hell.
Bigg ass assemblies in both inventor and solidworks can eat up ram aswell :/

my craptop (acer) has ( I thought) 4 GB (could also be 8)
My main laptop has 16 GB and my desktop also has got 16 GB.
 
Ehhhh, try making a render of some things in solidworks.... it can eat up ram like hell.
Bigg ass assemblies in both inventor and solidworks can eat up ram aswell :/

my craptop (acer) has ( I thought) 4 GB (could also be 8)
My main laptop has 16 GB and my desktop also has got 16 GB.
If this is required for your job but you had to buy it yourself... ow.
 
Ok, he updated it with an A10-5800K and a 7770 GPU and less RAM. Hows this current build?

IMO, GPU seems to be less of a bottleneck now, but maybe the PSU isn't enough
 
Had to look up the models since that CPU has an HD 7660D integrated, but the 7770 is over twice as powerful so it's a good reason to get the GPu as well, assuming the motherboard and CPU are still cheaper than an Intel equal or something without a high-end dedicated (last three words are one phrase!) card.

The HD 7 series seems to have notably lower PSU requirements than earlier series, but I'd still recommend a 500W for future purposes, and to give more room for the extra draw of USB charging nowadays and all that jazz. The brand/make of that one seems fine, it's just the max wattage seems a bit low to me.
 

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum