Hardware PC Hardware Buyer's Guide August 2013

Lots of people have bought that cheap Z68 board on new stock with a BIOS that doesn't support Ivy bridge. It's a poor recommendation. An FX-6300 would have been far better -- some newer games require 4 cores to be playable in any reasonable way too, and this is only going to continue. tomshardware has a recent article saying the very same.

 

If you'd have gone for an ROG board in the Gaming PC you'd have saved 75 quid on that sound card!

 

The decision for the 760 over the 670 makes sense for an article such as this as ultimately the 670 is EOL.

 

It's cheap, yeah - but people who are ordering the board right now are getting ones without the BIOS that supports Ivy. I don't think a main recommendation that people will have to check first and may not be able to get at all is the right way to go (plus some people will no doubt just assume it's fine and get a system they can't boot).

Here's the recent conclusion that puts together a number of tests in games at 1080p across several processors, bearing in mind the 6350 is exactly the same as a mildly overclocked 6300:



The one for applications is here: http://media.bestofmicro.com/I/F/395943/original/Combined-Applications-Performance.png

 

bit never put in stuff they have not tested themselves, AMD have not sent a cpu to test id imagine so its pretty much they would be buying it themselves and testing it.

people do more than game on there pcs also, if you only want to game a i5 750 is still more than enough for 99% of games out there. Not alot of games are cpu dependent anymore, Those that are want a super fast single thread like Civ 5, football manager 2013 been the big 2 ( in terms of unit sales) that require a quick single thread.

 

The application benchmarks are in that post too. The result for the 6350 is even higher, when overclocked matching an i5 pretty much.

The problem is that a more expensive CPU that on average performs worse is being recommended, together with a board that as sold may not even work with the CPU. I can't imagine AMD would object to sending a CPU that retails at ~£85 for testing.

In Civ 5, the 6300 (at stock) and the i3 3225 perform about the same:

http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-6300-FX-4300/FX-6300-FX-4300-45.jpg

 

BT have said they wont test any more AM3 cpu`s - hence why they haven't used any this year

the FX6300 series is the one to get for the mid range - and given how games are now pretty much GPU limited , a cheaper AMD rig , in real world gaming , is just as good as a far more expensive intel rig.

BF3 is just 1 example.

btw hyper threading , in games , isn't all its cracked up to be

 

For someone who enjoys using the terminal, it is interesting that you continue to use the start menu GUI in the most inefficient way possible. No matter how good your muscle memory is, you will be faster typing the first few letters of the name and hitting enter, and that will work for everything on the system, rather than only the few programs or files that you have placed at a shallow menu depth.

Having them pre-installed and having them open as if they were standard directories is clearly an improvement over what came before, even if you do not deem it a significant improvement. Complaints about zip file support bogging down explorer is laughable. Perhaps if you were loading your data from a floppy disk, the performance impact might become measurable.

And now you do not need to do that. You can have the OS cycle through a large set of images alternately on each screen. You can have a screens with differing resolutions and aspect ratios, and maintain correct scaling/cropping/centring options.

It is more useful once you have 3 screens, especially if you move windows around between monitors frequently. I do with 16:10 was more common, though.

And being able to do this in the GUI is still a large improvement over not being able to do it in the GUI. Your implication that if someone does not use the command line for all file transfers, they must be inferior compter users to you is extremely condescending, as is your assumption that someone who does not agree with your dislike of windows and love of linux must be someone unfamiliar with the terminal.

There are valid concerns about TPM, but nearly all vendors use it, and it is not something specific to micosoft. Secure boot is also a valid complaint about MS locking down tablet hardware, but that criticism should also be levelled at their competitors too. Secure boot can be disabled in the bios on other hardware.

 

I was not refering to the quantity of ram, but it's speed. The mobo supports (from the gigabyte website)

Support for DDR3 3000(O.C.) / 2933(O.C.) / 2800(O.C.) / 2666(O.C.) / 2600(O.C.) / 2500(O.C.) / 2400(O.C.) / 2200(O.C.) / 2133(O.C.) / 2000(O.C.) / 1866(O.C.) / 1800(O.C.) / 1600 / 1333 MHz

And there are faster modules out there...

 

No worthwile news in the last 12 months...It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.

Anyway, good to see this back.

 

I agree with BT's use of the i3 instead of the AMD 6300.

Recently built a budget gaming rig for a friend and thought I'd give the 6 core a go. Regret it in every way. The AMD board (MSI 970) and the chip run hotter than I could have imagined. Compared to every Intel system I've built recently, the AMD build is hot, even running idle. Using a 3rd party cooler too and the performance is not that great either. i3 all the way.

 

I ask this question once again - when will bit tech make its software suite vaquely relevant or in this decade? its so old its laughable.

 

It seems more a problem with the build than any issue with the CPU. I know quite a few people who have done builds with them and they seem fine,and many who have extensive Steam libraries.

Moreover,my Core i3 2120(which is not much slower than a Core i3 3220),was more of a bottleneck in modern games using some of the new engines than any of my mates who had an FX6300. It was a good thing I ditched it while it had some value still for a Core i5.

 

One of the reasons I'm holding out for my new build is the new 802.11ac wireless standard.

Premium motherboards that include built-in wireless capabilities have not yet implemented the new standard. Currently there are a few USB 3.0 wireless adapters and just one PCI-E wifi card from Asus that do offer it and that's about it for now. Routers also should be compatible with the new standard for it to be functional. The difference in speed between the old and the new is 4 fold on paper.

Also, two legendary components have been replaced with newer ones without an explanation.

How is the SS Argon better than the CM Hyper 212 Evo, and how is the Creative SB Z better than the Asus Xonar DX 7.1? I do take BT's word for what it is, but that's after a thorough review!

 

How about
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/05/26/asus-xonar-dx-pci-express-soundcard/1
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/02/11/creative-sound-blaster-z-review/1
And
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cooling/2013/05/02/silverstone-argon-ar01-review/1
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cooling/2007/11/19/cooler_master_hyper_tx2_and_212/3
Last one isn't the EVO, so not sure how much difference that makes.

 

Wow its like you answered my question from the forum i posted a week ago asking for an update to this, much appreciated keep up the good work................now lets see what i can get for my monies hehe

 

Gigabyte Z68AP-D3 from affordable all rounder.

A side note could still have been made imo.

 

So glad BT brought this back even if I don't agree with everything they recommend.