Computers & Electronics

Best CPU For $130?

  • Last Updated:
  • Jun 6th, 2016 4:19 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 15, 2011
2221 posts
1083 upvotes
Saint John
dankup wrote: Thanks, didn't know that.

Still looking for spec advice for $250 - mobo, CPU, RAM.
http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/list/9dZdLk

i3 6100
Gigabyte H110 motherboard
8GB DDR4

$246.08 after a $10 rebate.

AMD FX series are out of date garbage. Do not buy! They may be faster than intel's budget parts in select CPU-intensive benchmarks, but for gaming and general purpose use, the i3 will run circles around an FX-6300 part.

Also, you can likely re-use your Windows license. I've recycled OEM licenses from broken laptops to new desktop computers without issue. All you have to do is call Microsoft's automated hotline to active. Or just clean install Windows 10 before July 29 and your Windows 7/8 key will activate automatically without issue.
FEEDBACK: RFD HWC Heat
Deal Fanatic
Jul 8, 2010
7578 posts
576 upvotes
York
ES_Revenge wrote: Uh yeah but it's $30 more, perhaps even $20 if you just look for a sale:
http://www.directcanada.com/products/?sku=12201116491

But if you're gonna be stubborn about it, good luck to you. Buy something a small amount less but a whole lot worse/with a shorter usable life before it goes obsolete. Up to you.
CPU Benchmark shows the FX beating the i3 out of the water :/
Deal Expert
Mar 23, 2004
35606 posts
18999 upvotes
dankup wrote: CPU Benchmark shows the FX beating the i3 out of the water :/
Sure it does. Go ahead and buy the dead-platform long-in-the-tooth Bulldozer/Piledriver then. When Zen comes out in ~6 months time and catches up to Intel, while Intel is already ahead, you'll be stuck on FM3+ and DDR3 simply because you wanted to save $20.

FYI: In the real world only an FX-8xxx or higher can beat an i3 and even then only when more than four threads can be used, and it's not by a whole lot. FX-6xxx CPUs are a joke of poor performance, high power consumption/heat output. FX-4xxx go up against stock Pentiums, lol. Even the fastest FX CPU out there can only go up against a basic i5 like a 6400. They have no chance vs. a Intel K cpu, and nowhere even close to an i7. Of course on a LGA1151 board you could upgrade to any of those if you ever needed to; on an FM3 board you're going nowhere unless you upgrade everything.

But save your $20 and be blissful in the "CPU benchmarks" you read ;)
Deal Addict
Aug 23, 2013
1268 posts
82 upvotes
Vaughan
ES_Revenge wrote: Sure it does. Go ahead and buy the dead-platform long-in-the-tooth Bulldozer/Piledriver then. When Zen comes out in ~6 months time and catches up to Intel, while Intel is already ahead, you'll be stuck on FM3+ and DDR3 simply because you wanted to save $20.

FYI: In the real world only an FX-8xxx or higher can beat an i3 and even then only when more than four threads can be used, and it's not by a whole lot. FX-6xxx CPUs are a joke of poor performance, high power consumption/heat output. FX-4xxx go up against stock Pentiums, lol. Even the fastest FX CPU out there can only go up against a basic i5 like a 6400. They have no chance vs. a Intel K cpu, and nowhere even close to an i7. Of course on a LGA1151 board you could upgrade to any of those if you ever needed to; on an FM3 board you're going nowhere unless you upgrade everything.

But save your $20 and be blissful in the "CPU benchmarks" you read ;)
I've only built a couple of computers with Intel CPUs for friends but I can't imagine how quick they must be as my FX-8350 (and previously the FX-6100) was capable of doing everything OP has mentioned and more. I was able to steam and game using two monitors on high settings. Intel is definatly much more powerful but I just can't justify spending that much (as I would probably go for an i7) to do exactly what my CPU is doing for me right now. I guess I'm biased as I've been using AMD for years :D
Deal Fanatic
Jul 8, 2010
7578 posts
576 upvotes
York
birthdaymonkey wrote: http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/list/9dZdLk

i3 6100
Gigabyte H110 motherboard
8GB DDR4

$246.08 after a $10 rebate.

AMD FX series are out of date garbage. Do not buy! They may be faster than intel's budget parts in select CPU-intensive benchmarks, but for gaming and general purpose use, the i3 will run circles around an FX-6300 part.

Also, you can likely re-use your Windows license. I've recycled OEM licenses from broken laptops to new desktop computers without issue. All you have to do is call Microsoft's automated hotline to active. Or just clean install Windows 10 before July 29 and your Windows 7/8 key will activate automatically without issue.
The mobo has 2 slots. Why not get 1x8gb instead of 2x4gb? In the future, I could just buy a 2nd 1x8gb and have 16gb in total
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 15, 2011
2221 posts
1083 upvotes
Saint John
dankup wrote: The mobo has 2 slots. Why not get 1x8gb instead of 2x4gb? In the future, I could just buy a 2nd 1x8gb and have 16gb in total
Dual channel memory is faster. But it shouldn't really matter in real world tasks. 1x8gb is a good choice if you're planning to add another 8 in the future.
FEEDBACK: RFD HWC Heat
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 15, 2011
2221 posts
1083 upvotes
Saint John
dankup wrote: CPU Benchmark shows the FX beating the i3 out of the water :/
Which benchmark is this? Look at some gaming benchmarks if you want to see the FX showing its age (and general Bulldozer crapiness).

The FX can beat the i3 in a few cases - heavily threaded tasks like some rendering or video encoders - but even then it wins by brute force, consuming easily 2X the power of the i3. The single-threaded performance (which is what matters for games) of the i3 is at least 50% stronger than the FX. And when the FX loses, it loses bad.

The i3 also has a modern platform (released in 2015), while the FX series is essentially running on an end-of-life 2011 platform that is due to be abandoned as soon as Zen releases.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1087-bes ... sktop-cpu/
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digit ... 100-review

If you're set on AMD, the Athlon X4 880k is probably the way to go. At least you can get a modern motherboard that way, and it's cheaper.
FEEDBACK: RFD HWC Heat
Member
User avatar
Sep 26, 2013
214 posts
160 upvotes
Winnipeg
birthdaymonkey wrote: Which benchmark is this? Look at some gaming benchmarks if you want to see the FX showing its age (and general Bulldozer crapiness).

The FX can beat the i3 in a few cases - heavily threaded tasks like some rendering or video encoders - but even then it wins by brute force, consuming easily 2X the power of the i3. The single-threaded performance (which is what matters for games) of the i3 is at least 50% stronger than the FX. And when the FX loses, it loses bad.

The i3 also has a modern platform (released in 2015), while the FX series is essentially running on an end-of-life 2011 platform that is due to be abandoned as soon as Zen releases.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1087-bes ... sktop-cpu/
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digit ... 100-review

If you're set on AMD, the Athlon X4 880k is probably the way to go. At least you can get a modern motherboard that way, and it's cheaper.
Agreed, i3 is the way to go, don't even bother looking at AMD till the Zen processors get released.
Deal Expert
Mar 23, 2004
35606 posts
18999 upvotes
marcodt wrote: I've only built a couple of computers with Intel CPUs for friends but I can't imagine how quick they must be as my FX-8350 (and previously the FX-6100) was capable of doing everything OP has mentioned and more. I was able to steam and game using two monitors on high settings. Intel is definatly much more powerful but I just can't justify spending that much (as I would probably go for an i7) to do exactly what my CPU is doing for me right now. I guess I'm biased as I've been using AMD for years :D
It doesn't matter if it's "capable". Surely these CPUs are capable. It's about buying something that has poorer performance, older technology, higher power consumption/higher heat output, and is a technological dead-end (no real upgrade path exists on the same hardware). And there's basically no money saved as a and FX-83xx is $200+ (might as well buy an i5), and a FX-6300 is over $130 (6350 is over $160).

Again if one thinks it's worth saving $20 for all that^...go ahead, it's not my money. Have fun when 6 months comes around and your already-way-too-dated hardware today, becomes totally obsolete, as Zen will release and AMD will finally bulldoze the crap that is Bulldozer into history.
Deal Addict
Aug 23, 2013
1268 posts
82 upvotes
Vaughan
ES_Revenge wrote: It doesn't matter if it's "capable". Surely these CPUs are capable. It's about buying something that has poorer performance, older technology, higher power consumption/higher heat output, and is a technological dead-end (no real upgrade path exists on the same hardware). And there's basically no money saved as a and FX-83xx is $200+ (might as well buy an i5), and a FX-6300 is over $130 (6350 is over $160).

Again if one thinks it's worth saving $20 for all that^...go ahead, it's not my money. Have fun when 6 months comes around and your already-way-too-dated hardware today, becomes totally obsolete, as Zen will release and AMD will finally bulldoze the crap that is Bulldozer into history.
Obsolete or not it's still going to able to handle everything I do now and in the next few years and will only add few dollars to the hydro bills at the end of the year. I do agree with you and I would much rather spend on an Intel processor but that would require me to change my MB as well :(
Deal Expert
Mar 23, 2004
35606 posts
18999 upvotes
marcodt wrote: Obsolete or not it's still going to able to handle everything I do now and in the next few years and will only add few dollars to the hydro bills at the end of the year. I do agree with you and I would much rather spend on an Intel processor but that would require me to change my MB as well :(
So we agree then :P If you already have the system then sure, there's no point in "upgrading" it if it does everything you want and isn't causing you other issues (cooling, noise, etc.). But if you're just buying a brand new system, starting from scratch without any components? It'd be ill-advised to go out and buy an AM3+ or even FM2+ based system right now because there's not much to be saved and it really doesn't make much sense. I could even understand if one had a mobo and RAM already, but otherwise it seems like a poor decision.

Some things we should all keep in mind about Skylake:
-DDR4 is now at or below the price of DDR3...and it's faster.

-B150 motherboards are plentiful and affordable, and offer all the functionality most any person would need, provided they don't wan to use a K CPU and OC, or run SLI/CF GPUs.

-HD 530 (the integrated graphics in most Skylake CPUs) is not far off where the A10-78xx APUs are. It's a little slower, but not by a huge amount. Anyone that really wants to game in either case is better off with a dGPU given the other fact that most monitors are LCDs and most monitors are 1080p, and there's basically no iGPU out there that will game well at that resolution anyway. Even Iris Pro is really only good for 1080p at 30FPS and low settings, at best. Because of the monitor situation (i.e. because you shouldn't use an LCD outside of native) unless one has an older/lower-res monitor (or a CRT) they intend on using, iGPUs are really not too great for modern gaming.

-An i3-6100 may seem pricey at around $150 (and it isn't cheap I'll say that much) but it's more than a competent CPU for 1080p gaming, it's relatively low power and low heat, and it's pretty impressive otherwise--in comparison to the likes of FX-6xxx it's easily ahead; in comparison to A10 it beats it in CPU and is nearly even in GPU; and it can even hold its own against an FX-83xx in many instances. It can be OC'd as well if you're willing to get a Z170 board, deal with beta/modded BIOS, and deal with discarding AVX2 and iGPU functionality (personally I don't recommend bothering but up to the individual).

Intel CPUs aren't exactly cheap, we should all know that, but the problem is they can charge $150+ for an i3 when there's no competition. Them's the breaks. Still because there is no competition it's still better to pay them the $150 for the i3 than bother with AMD...at the moment anyway. When Zen arrives it may change this up, but right now AMD is at the end of their rope in the CPU market, as even the A10 is no longer attractive. There is perhaps the last remaining argument for the X4 870K or whatever, at its $100 price point but you're still buying into a dead platform in doing that, and since that's FM2+ there's absolutely no upgrade because the A10 is the same CPU just with an iGPU. You're basically buying a system that just barely gets by today and has absolutely nowhere to go for tomorrow.
Deal Addict
Aug 23, 2013
1268 posts
82 upvotes
Vaughan
ES_Revenge wrote: So we agree then :P If you already have the system then sure, there's no point in "upgrading" it if it does everything you want and isn't causing you other issues (cooling, noise, etc.). But if you're just buying a brand new system, starting from scratch without any components? It'd be ill-advised to go out and buy an AM3+ or even FM2+ based system right now because there's not much to be saved and it really doesn't make much sense. I could even understand if one had a mobo and RAM already, but otherwise it seems like a poor decision.

Some things we should all keep in mind about Skylake:
-DDR4 is now at or below the price of DDR3...and it's faster.

-B150 motherboards are plentiful and affordable, and offer all the functionality most any person would need, provided they don't wan to use a K CPU and OC, or run SLI/CF GPUs.

-HD 530 (the integrated graphics in most Skylake CPUs) is not far off where the A10-78xx APUs are. It's a little slower, but not by a huge amount. Anyone that really wants to game in either case is better off with a dGPU given the other fact that most monitors are LCDs and most monitors are 1080p, and there's basically no iGPU out there that will game well at that resolution anyway. Even Iris Pro is really only good for 1080p at 30FPS and low settings, at best. Because of the monitor situation (i.e. because you shouldn't use an LCD outside of native) unless one has an older/lower-res monitor (or a CRT) they intend on using, iGPUs are really not too great for modern gaming.

-An i3-6100 may seem pricey at around $150 (and it isn't cheap I'll say that much) but it's more than a competent CPU for 1080p gaming, it's relatively low power and low heat, and it's pretty impressive otherwise--in comparison to the likes of FX-6xxx it's easily ahead; in comparison to A10 it beats it in CPU and is nearly even in GPU; and it can even hold its own against an FX-83xx in many instances. It can be OC'd as well if you're willing to get a Z170 board, deal with beta/modded BIOS, and deal with discarding AVX2 and iGPU functionality (personally I don't recommend bothering but up to the individual).

Intel CPUs aren't exactly cheap, we should all know that, but the problem is they can charge $150+ for an i3 when there's no competition. Them's the breaks. Still because there is no competition it's still better to pay them the $150 for the i3 than bother with AMD...at the moment anyway. When Zen arrives it may change this up, but right now AMD is at the end of their rope in the CPU market, as even the A10 is no longer attractive. There is perhaps the last remaining argument for the X4 870K or whatever, at its $100 price point but you're still buying into a dead platform in doing that, and since that's FM2+ there's absolutely no upgrade because the A10 is the same CPU just with an iGPU. You're basically buying a system that just barely gets by today and has absolutely nowhere to go for tomorrow.
Well said. Thanks for the information and I most definatly agree with you. That will be my next build :)
Member
Apr 27, 2007
226 posts
21 upvotes
Toronto
Based on your budget, I would go used. Take a look at kijiji and see what CPUs/motherboards are being sold.

No point of going new for old gen stuff.
Deal Fanatic
Sep 13, 2004
6023 posts
3617 upvotes
Toronto
The Pentiums look like slightly crippled bargains. Since OP was going to buy a graphics card ("GPU"), the weak graphics are covered. I didn't do any comparison shopping, but I was surprised that you could get a Skylake Pentium for $85 http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.as ... 7RD3YF9320

Here's Intel's comparison of skylake Pentium and i3 http://ark.intel.com/compare/90731,88179
Deal Expert
Mar 23, 2004
35606 posts
18999 upvotes
Hugh wrote: The Pentiums look like slightly crippled bargains. Since OP was going to buy a graphics card ("GPU"), the weak graphics are covered. I didn't do any comparison shopping, but I was surprised that you could get a Skylake Pentium for $85 http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.as ... 7RD3YF9320
They're a little more than slightly crippled. The lack of HT cripples them pretty well I'd say. For gaming, minimum frame rates suffer which can cause unpleasant stuttering. For everything else the Pentium is still behind if any more than two threads are used. Intel isn't stupid, they aren't giving away anything for nothing. This even extended to the G3258 which despite being able to OC you needed over 30% or ~1.2Ghz additional clock speed to get near a 4170 in overall performance (and you are still missing stuff like AVX and AES-NI). The G4400 not being OCable is definitely down a good bit compared to a 6100.

Pentiums are "cheap", regardless of whether Skylake or Haswell or whatever, but they are pretty cut down compared to their i3 brothers.
Hugh wrote: Here's Intel's comparison of skylake Pentium and i3 http://ark.intel.com/compare/90731,88179
That's not a performance comparison though. There's one here though:
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/a6-7400b ... pu-review/
Look what happens in 3DMark for example--the i3 is basically 2x the performance there.

Oddly they didn't test dGPU performance (only integrated) so there's no results in that category but it's well known that Haswell Pentiums v. Haswell i3s suffer in min. framerates in gaming and the Skylakes are otherwise the same in terms of the differences. Plus as mentioned you can't OC the G4400 (officially) to make up any of the difference.

Getting a G4400 is an idea, and it is a lot cheaper, but it really doesn't give you great performance esp. compared to a 6100 which: runs 500Mhz faster, has AVX, has AES-NI, and most importantly has HT. The good news is the G4400 beats an A10-7870K in a lot of areas (!) other than where heavily threaded workloads exist and the iGPU of course which can't compare. So, that means it should easily beat a X4 860K/870K just the same...and it's cheaper! AMD is surely in a woeful situation--Zen can't come soon enough.
Deal Fanatic
Sep 13, 2004
6023 posts
3617 upvotes
Toronto
ES_Revenge wrote: They're a little more than slightly crippled. The lack of HT cripples them pretty well I'd say. For gaming, minimum frame rates suffer which can cause unpleasant stuttering.
It's work to structure a program to usefully exploit multiple cores. I was under the impression that few bothered (I'm not a gamer and I don't use Windows, so I don't actually know). And HT is pretty hit or miss: you can lose due to increased cache pressure.
For everything else the Pentium is still behind if any more than two threads are used.
Only if more than two threads are simultaneously CPU-bound a significant amount of the time.
Intel isn't stupid, they aren't giving away anything for nothing. This even extended to the G3258 which despite being able to OC you needed over 30% or ~1.2Ghz additional clock speed to get near a 4170 in overall performance (and you are still missing stuff like AVX and AES-NI). The G4400 not being OCable is definitely down a good bit compared to a 6100.
It depends how you value performance. For me, it is almost always sub-linear: twice the cpu power is not worth twice the price. But "too slow" might be a sharp threshold for some applications (example: achieving watchable frame rates). And you should probably consider the price of the whole system, not just the CPU.

I don't imagine many care about AES-NI (I do). I don't know if AVX is used much (I understand Firefox will start to use it soon if your GPU is weak or the video drivers are flaky)

Pentiums are "cheap", regardless of whether Skylake or Haswell or whatever, but they are pretty cut down compared to their i3 brothers.


That's not a performance comparison though.
It's a start... You know that the processor is the same and you can mostly scale by clock rate (listed) and core-count (same). Count HT for whatever you guess. Notice the cache difference (both seem reasonably large).

A big difference is the built-in graphics processor but OP suggested he would have a graphics card. Mind you, if the graphics card is 10 years old, ditch it. If you are trying to go inexpensive, then integrated video probably make sense.
There's one here though:
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/a6-7400b ... pu-review/
Look what happens in 3DMark for example--the i3 is basically 2x the performance there.

Oddly they didn't test dGPU performance (only integrated) so there's no results in that category but it's well known that Haswell Pentiums v. Haswell i3s suffer in min. framerates in gaming and the Skylakes are otherwise the same in terms of the differences. Plus as mentioned you can't OC the G4400 (officially) to make up any of the difference.
All those tests blended CPU and GPU performance in a way that I cannot separate.

Getting a G4400 is an idea, and it is a lot cheaper, but it really doesn't give you great performance esp. compared to a 6100 which: runs 500Mhz faster, has AVX, has AES-NI, and most importantly has HT. The good news is the G4400 beats an A10-7870K in a lot of areas (!) other than where heavily threaded workloads exist and the iGPU of course which can't compare. So, that means it should easily beat a X4 860K/870K just the same...and it's cheaper! AMD is surely in a woeful situation--Zen can't come soon enough.
I was often an AMD fan but haven't bought anything with a full performance AMD processor since the Intel Core 2 family came out. I did buy a little E-350 box since then.

I'm not convinced Zen will be enough better. I hope it is.

Thanks for the useful and informed response.
Deal Expert
Mar 23, 2004
35606 posts
18999 upvotes
Hugh wrote: It's work to structure a program to usefully exploit multiple cores. I was under the impression that few bothered (I'm not a gamer and I don't use Windows, so I don't actually know).
This isn't 2007 anymore :P Lots of programs take advantage; and in fact, as I pointed out previously, to make things use only one core you basically have to use really old programs (like LAME) or force it through benchmarks which are specifically programmed to run on only one core. Even LAME you can run more than one instance in the real world which means you can take advantage of 2-3 threads quite easily. Actually, you could take advantage of as many as you have but in reality if you're ripping CDs to MP3s (typical use for LAME) your optical drive won't be able to rip another track before the first or second execution finishes unless a really short track follows a really long one or something like that.
Hugh wrote: And HT is pretty hit or miss: you can lose due to increased cache pressure.Only if more than two threads are simultaneously CPU-bound a significant amount of the time.It depends how you value performance.
I think this goes back even further to 2004 thinking. Today, HT is tried and true, and well proven. Hence why i7s beat i5s and cost more. There are some rare instances where disabling HT on an i7 actually gives slightly better results but these are few and far between. For the most part, with the same generation and same clock speed, an i7 is a faster CPU than an i5. The >$100 premium for an i7 processor is not there because it's a scam (now one might argue it's too much of a difference but even so, HT warrants a price increase). No you're not going to equal an i5 4C/4T with an i3 2C/4T, but it most certainly works and works well to boost performance over 2C w/o HT. AMD is adopting the same SMT approach with Zen, and it's not because the benefits aren't there.
Hugh wrote: For me, it is almost always sub-linear: twice the cpu power is not worth twice the price. But "too slow" might be a sharp threshold for some applications (example: achieving watchable frame rates). And you should probably consider the price of the whole system, not just the CPU.
Indeed if it's not worth it to you then may as well go with the Pentium. As said it's a pretty good processor for $85 given it beats the likes of an A10 in some cases, and basically annihilates the A6.
Hugh wrote: I don't imagine many care about AES-NI (I do). I don't know if AVX is used much (I understand Firefox will start to use it soon if your GPU is weak or the video drivers are flaky)
It's not used that much but when it is used it makes a huge difference (both cases). AES-NI when used, for example, gives something like 400% the performance compared to the Pentium that doesn't have it.
Hugh wrote: It's a start... You know that the processor is the same and you can mostly scale by clock rate (listed) and core-count (same). Count HT for whatever you guess. Notice the cache difference (both seem reasonably large).
Actually between the 6100 and the G4400 the cache is the same, only the 63xx get 4MB.
Hugh wrote: A big difference is the built-in graphics processor but OP suggested he would have a graphics card. Mind you, if the graphics card is 10 years old, ditch it. If you are trying to go inexpensive, then integrated video probably make sense.
Yep the Pentium has half the EUs and lower clock rate on top of that. However yes it's really meaningless when none of these iGPUs can game well at 1080p anyway, save for Iris if you're content with less than 60FPS. But Intel won't even put that on anything but rare and expensive i7 units, so it's moot. I think once Zen comes out Intel may have to start using Iris Pro on CPUs like i5s and possibly even i3s.

Hugh wrote: All those tests blended CPU and GPU performance in a way that I cannot separate.
Huh? Seem pretty simple enough to me. The only thing was, as I mentioned, they didn't test dGPU performance only iGPU performance. If that's what you mean by "blended" then I agree it's not very useful for a gaming comparison where one would likely be using a dGPU. But otherwise it shows the CPU performance just fine.

Hugh wrote: I was often an AMD fan but haven't bought anything with a full performance AMD processor since the Intel Core 2 family came out.
Don't worry no one else did either, lol!

Hugh wrote: I'm not convinced Zen will be enough better. I hope it is.

Thanks for the useful and informed response.
Well there's just nowhere near enough info on Zen to decide either way right now. And there won't be probably until year end so no point in "waiting for Zen" if you're building now, esp. when there's no certainty it will be great (though the APUs will have to be impressive once they start pairing Polaris iGPUs). There will also only be one socket apparently, both for APUs and FX processors, so that's a good thing.

In the end if the Pentium works for you it's a great processor at $85, considering what else is out there; plus if one is willing to OC it outside of specifications (with a capable motherboard and "beta" BIOS) it'll give G3258-like scalability with the benefit of DDR4 and an upgrade path to newer CPUs. But if you'd be using AES instructions, the performance difference is so great that the i3 really is a much better bet, despite costing nearly 2x what the Pentium does.
Deal Fanatic
Jan 18, 2010
7725 posts
5238 upvotes
Canada
FX-6300 + ASUS M5A97 R2.0 (don't get the LE version)
Deal Fanatic
Nov 17, 2004
7312 posts
1672 upvotes
Toronto
OP what motherboard do you have? If you have an AM2 or AM3 socket and you have a name brand motherboard, you could run a Phenom II x4 or an Athlon x4, high density RAM on ebay for AMD systems is dirty cheap, I think I picked up DDR2 Ram that only works on AMD systems for about $1/GB off ebay last year.
I workout to get big so I can pickup bricks and ****.

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)