Best upgrade option for socket am3+ ?

D

Doodlehed

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
147
I think my specs are in my signature but its tax season soon and im looking to upgrade my machine for some bf4 and whatever else that looks good this year.

The only addition i have made is added a 120gb ssd.

Still a decent setup for gaming but i feel like my fx 4100 is holding me back a bit and to a lesser extent my video card.

I play WoW a lot and i feel like the 4100 doesnt cut it. I still get in a 25m raid and hit 5 fps during aoe.

So whats my best option on an am3+, or should i just get a mew mobo and cpu?
 
Your best option is limited from your motherboard.

I suppose you have the Asrock 890 (not 980) FX deluxe 4.

http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/890FX Deluxe4/?cat=CPU

Seems only 95W FX CPUs are allowed. Probably can get FX-6300, but they forgot to update the list. Email Asrock support to verify. I don't think it will support 125W FX (8320, 8350) and frankly, you shouldn't put one in a white socket. In another thread, there is another person, who is upset because his white socket Asrock added support (with a warning about cooling) for 8 core and now it's overheating.

So, either way, you will have complaints, but it's wiser to stay within 95W FX CPUs with white sockets.

As things stand now, your best bet is to find a Phenom 1100T or 1090T and the next best solution is FX 6100. But if you email Asrock, most probably the BIOS will support FX6300 too, which is probably preferable to the Phenoms, if you can overclock a bit. Question is, how much will that board allow you to overclock though...
 
Are you sire an 8350 wouldnt work right? Thats kinda what i had my eye on. I may just end up getting an intel cpu and mobo. I was hoping to be able to upgrade cpu a n d gpu for 500$ though.
 
The 8350 would not work due to lack of motherboard support of the 125 watt. If you have a microcenter near you could do a bundle on the 8350 and motherboard and still come out with a decent gpu.
 
Doodlehed said:
Are you sire an 8350 wouldnt work right? Thats kinda what i had my eye on. I may just end up getting an intel cpu and mobo. I was hoping to be able to upgrade cpu a n d gpu for 500$ though.
Click to expand...

I don't know how it would work, but i am 99% sure that the BIOS won't support it, because in that list there is no mention of 125W Bulldozer either (like 8150).

If you want to be sure, you must email Asrock, because it's obvious they haven't updated the list of supported CPUs. I 've done it in the past and they should reply to you within a few days. To me for example they had attached BIOS screens with the CPU models i had asked if they were supported.

So, you can email them asking about FX-6300, FX-6350, FX-8320, FX-8350.

But my bet is, they will tell you only FX-6300 is supported. But you can't take my word for it, you need to contact them to make sure you get a CPU that the BIOS will work with.


I guess they COULD release a support BIOS for 8350, but then you 'd come back and post this:

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1040498536#post1040498536

So damned if you do, damned if you don't... But it's better to avoid 8 core FX on white sockets.

Your other alternative is to forget that motherboard, get a new "black" socket AM3+ motherboard and get the FX-8350 you want. Or you can forget AM3+ completely and go APU with FM2+ socket that seems to have more future in it. Or join the dark side and go Intel.
 
I agree that the 6300 would be the best way to go. You probably wont be able to overclock it a whole lot because of the 95W motherboard but 4.0-4.2 GHz shouldnt be too hard to get. That would be a big upgrade from your current CPU.
 
from a $ to performance side the 6300-6350 is as good if not better in some case then 8320-8350, for the very optimized things, then the fx8 are faster cause they do have 1 more core 2 possible threads.
 
If your FX-4100 is at @4.4 Ghz and its not working in WoW well enough for you I think its time for a new Intel build. I don't think a Vishera upgrade is going to help it that much.
 
Well, flippin.

I don't want to get a new motherboard to upgrade to an 8350. It probably wouldn't be very noticeable.

I haven't had an intel cpu gaming machine since like....98. No damn clue what I'm doing.

If I go with an intel option will I have to get new RAM also?

Or can I just get mobo/cpu and plugin all my current stuff?

An Intel solution would be a bit more expensive yes? Could I still get a decent GPU upgrade from my 6870 HD fpr 500 bucks or would I even need to upgrade my GPU with a new solid processor?

Tax time isn't for another month or whatever, I shouldn't be getting excited this soon but I can't help it. :)
 
Maybe I should ask, if you guys had 500 dollars to upgrade my rig, would would be the first and second things?

I just saw the 9370, has anyone had any experience with these? Would it be a viable solution for an upgrade with a new motherboard or is intel still pounding amd into the ground? I like my AMD processors but at some point there's just no reason to lie to myself. I would prefer an AMD solution just because....I've always had good luck. Opinions on the new amd cpus vs intel?
 
Doodlehed said:
Maybe I should ask, if you guys had 500 dollars to upgrade my rig, would would be the first and second things?

I just saw the 9370, has anyone had any experience with these? Would it be a viable solution for an upgrade with a new motherboard or is intel still pounding amd into the ground? I like my AMD processors but at some point there's just no reason to lie to myself. I would prefer an AMD solution just because....I've always had good luck. Opinions on the new amd cpus vs intel?
Click to expand...

I'm running a 9370.. quite happy with it even though my 1100T was purring along at 4Ghz all day long. THe 9370 is prob the best $200 cpu going IMH(YB)O. You're sure to hear Intel fans clamor on about "OMGZORS !! 220W CPU!!", but what they forget to mention is that Intel are hardly any better when OCed to astronomical hieghts either.. that last 200-400Mhz take a LOT of juice..


power-consumption2.png

gzBNZwN.png


I think this graph shows it best.. the power requirements above 4.7+Ghz CLIMB quickly..
scaling_sandy.png


While some like to suggest that AM3+ is dead.. AMD have a much longer platform longevity compared to Intel. I wouldnt expect AMD to jump on DDR4 for quite some time and USB3.0 and PCIe 3 are available as 3rd party solutions.
 
You're better off upgrading your video card because there's really no difference in CPU regardless of the expensive i7 4960X or the FX-4100 you have now for BF4:

You can still take advantage of the FX-6300 since it's going for like $90 at Micro Center.

CPU_01.png
 
I just read a little bit about the 9370. Is it REQUIRED to run it on liquid? I've never toyed with a liquid cooler and I'm sure they're not hard to setup I'd rather stay away from it.

I'm not sure how it goes but coming from a small wattage cpu to that monster, how much a month would it cost to run if it were on all the time?
 
Doodlehed said:
I just read a little bit about the 9370. Is it REQUIRED to run it on liquid? I've never toyed with a liquid cooler and I'm sure they're not hard to setup I'd rather stay away from it.

I'm not sure how it goes but coming from a small wattage cpu to that monster, how much a month would it cost to run if it were on all the time?
Click to expand...

Not required anymore than any other OC'ed CPU,.. however I would invest in a quality Air Cooler OR look around for one of the AIO H20 coolers that are going for cheap these days.. (say H100 for $59 a week or two ago.. same price as a Noctua 12S).
 
but is a 6350 or so going to be noticeable at all from my current setup?

I guess I could get a 100$ 6300 and blow 400 on a video card?

Gaming isn't the only thing I want to work great though. I do a bit of photo editing with photoshop and some 3d rendering graphics. I do like a snappy pc. I kind of achieved that with my SSD but i can still tell my cpu is lacking. That 9370 is looking kinda sexy, just not sure I want to turn my computer into a heater.
 
The chart provided by mi7chy is pretty telling, based on that I'd suggest upgrading your GPU first and see how it feels. If you aren't satisfied you will probably have to upgrade your motherboard/cpu afterwards.

What resolution are you running? Surprised you are seeing such fps drops in a game like WoW, you should look at getting either a 670 gtx or 760 gtx if you are gaming at 1080p or below. That should give you all the horsepower you need, don't think WoW can take advantage of more than 4 cores anyway so you are unlikely to see any benefit to upgrading to a cpu with more physical cores.
 
Right now im using 19?0 x 1280. Those framerate drops only really happen when im using the 32 bit wow. 64 works pretty smooth. I feel like battlefield 4 wouldnt run that great though i havent even played it yet. Bf3 taxed my pc a bit.
 
BF4, PS4, XBox One, etc. hint at the future trend of utilizing more cores and not fewer cores running at higher clock. Here's a screenshot of BF4 taking advantage of 9 cores. Add to the fact that virtualization is becoming more common and that benefits from more cores so I'd personally consider the hard-to-find 95W 8-core FX-8300 or research downclocking the readily available FX-8320 to FX-8300 speed/95W TDP first then cosider FX-6300 second.

BF4_zps64a9336a.png
 
Last edited:
The new AMD Kaveri APU processors are coming in late January as are Mantle demos. If you really like AMD, then I would save up and make a decision after seeing how the reveal turns out. Those new APU from AMD will have the new Steamroller cores from AMD, and the the little GPU on them will assist the processor in doing some tasks. There are hints to many other uses as it is a pretty strong entry level power GPU. Usually you can do things such as render video and Photoshop in OpenCL on them.

So for now save and see what they have to offer in January.
 
mi7chy said:
BF4, PS4, XBox One, etc. hint at the future trend of utilizing more cores and not fewer cores running at higher clock. Here's a screenshot of BF4 taking advantage of 9 cores. Add to the fact that virtualization is becoming more common that benefits from more cores I'd personally consider the hard-to-find 95W 8-core FX-8300 or research downclocking the readily available FX-8320 to FX-8300 speed and 95W TDP first then FX-6300 second.

BF4_zps64a9336a.png
Click to expand...

I don't think its the best idea to run an 8-core cpu on that motherboard even if its downclocked.
 
In wow your going to see more fps with an NVidia gpu and with an Intel cpu. Try getting a NVidia gpu first since your thinking on a new card anyway. Then decide if you need more fps and go Intel Ide think at 4.4 that cpu with an NVidia card would be fine. Wow favors Intel and NVidia always has and still does. My old gtx 580 ran it very well and in that game my 7950 was actually a downgrade although I still play it fine.
edit...play wow in 64 mode always. its plenty faster around crowds of people
 
Wow is not really an issue. I just want a nice upgrade that will be noticable in wow and play bf4 on great settings.
 
Im not too keen on the APUs. I dont need the video capabilities unless theyre going to add to my current gpus power. Thatd be pretty cool i guess. But i dont want an apu at the price of reduced cpu power.
 
Doodlehed said:
Im not too keen on the APUs. I dont need the video capabilities unless theyre going to add to my current gpus power. Thatd be pretty cool i guess. But i dont want an apu at the price of reduced cpu power.
Click to expand...

A hex core should be enough then, that an a GPU upgrade should serve you nicely.
 
you can use BF3 or BF4 in argument saying Intel is hardly better pull up a lot of games fact is, something like 2500k-2600k vs 3770k vs 4770k vs 4320-6150-6350-8150-8350 etc all do show in the vast majority of cases ~78% Intel does have a performance lead, in the case of FX4 a drastic lead in many cases.

$/performance for AMD is FX6350.
For Intel that still stands on the 2500k/3770k.

Frostbite based games and virtually all EA published games do and will be showing more and more optimizations towards AMD and Radeon in general, however, there still are many games out there heavily biased toward Intel.

FX9 are tuned for higher speeds, but are not at all better then FX8 in comparison. That was a very good point though, I have seen many tests where Intel chips were taken to same stupid high clock speeds and their power/temps skyrocket just the same as AMD does, the difference, Intel has far more performance to show for this clock speed increase.

FYI FX8 is a 4 core cpu that can do 2 threads per core so they call it an "8 core" Frostbite engine is very good for resource use, however BF4 is so stupidly optimized right now it is not helping.

FX4 many many people including personal friends of mine were not happy with its performance, period, same reasoning, plays fine for some things, then other games and apps it just seems to struggle, so another time that benchmarks do not show this side.

As for get Nvidia, its preference, in the last 5 years I have known more people to switch to Radeon after their Nvidia cards overheated and died or just for a change as they always used Nvidia, and nearly all of them are still using Radeon right now.

Anyways. WoW is a very single threaded type game, so overclocking say 2 cores to a high speed will make a difference, as will using an Intel cpu as they are very single threaded performance beasts, but when it comes to other games(BF4 and such) it does not matter as long as the cpu is "good enough" as anything from an i3 to a top of the line FX9 or i7 extreme all will have very similar performance.

Not all games/apps are built the same there will always be a give and take.

As for Kaveri, as far as the IGP is concerned, apparently its performance will be ~7770 level paired with the right memory or 7750 without doing much of anything, which is just amazing for it to be all in 1 chip 65w level, they also apparently have a more refined memory controller and overclock very well without making their power consumption go through the roof, so I second don't bother getting a new cpu just yet, if you do anything, maybe shut x cores down to clock the remaining ones higher, for WoW and many other games out there this should help a lot.
 
dragonstongue said:
you can use BF3 or BF4 in argument saying Intel is hardly better pull up a lot of games fact is, something like 2500k-2600k vs 3770k vs 4770k vs 4320-6150-6350-8150-8350 etc all do show in the vast majority of cases ~78% Intel does have a performance lead, in the case of FX4 a drastic lead in many cases.

$/performance for AMD is FX6350.
For Intel that still stands on the 2500k/3770k.

Frostbite based games and virtually all EA published games do and will be showing more and more optimizations towards AMD and Radeon in general, however, there still are many games out there heavily biased toward Intel.

FX9 are tuned for higher speeds, but are not at all better then FX8 in comparison. That was a very good point though, I have seen many tests where Intel chips were taken to same stupid high clock speeds and their power/temps skyrocket just the same as AMD does, the difference, Intel has far more performance to show for this clock speed increase.

FYI FX8 is a 4 core cpu that can do 2 threads per core so they call it an "8 core" Frostbite engine is very good for resource use, however BF4 is so stupidly optimized right now it is not helping.

FX4 many many people including personal friends of mine were not happy with its performance, period, same reasoning, plays fine for some things, then other games and apps it just seems to struggle, so another time that benchmarks do not show this side.

As for get Nvidia, its preference, in the last 5 years I have known more people to switch to Radeon after their Nvidia cards overheated and died or just for a change as they always used Nvidia, and nearly all of them are still using Radeon right now.

Anyways. WoW is a very single threaded type game, so overclocking say 2 cores to a high speed will make a difference, as will using an Intel cpu as they are very single threaded performance beasts, but when it comes to other games(BF4 and such) it does not matter as long as the cpu is "good enough" as anything from an i3 to a top of the line FX9 or i7 extreme all will have very similar performance.

Not all games/apps are built the same there will always be a give and take.

As for Kaveri, as far as the IGP is concerned, apparently its performance will be ~7770 level paired with the right memory or 7750 without doing much of anything, which is just amazing for it to be all in 1 chip 65w level, they also apparently have a more refined memory controller and overclock very well without making their power consumption go through the roof, so I second don't bother getting a new cpu just yet, if you do anything, maybe shut x cores down to clock the remaining ones higher, for WoW and many other games out there this should help a lot.
Click to expand...

I wonder how well it would work with a 7770 in crossfire
 
ssnyder28 said:
I wonder how well it would work with a 7770 in crossfire
Click to expand...

What Kaveri has as an interesting feature is not crossfire, but with Mantle the APU will get used as well as long as the game is programmed for it

And in this case I don't know if 7770 is GCN or just rebranded from 6xxx series.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
Yes :) but the results are not that great. With Mantle however it should just be maximized since there is no need to use alternate frame rendering.
Click to expand...

I assume you are not speaking from 1st hand experience then ? As someone who has used Crossfire with mixed cards as well as matched the difference between the two is less than 4%.

290 + 290X was about 4% faster than 290+290 and about 3% slower than 290+290X. With the 7970 6gb + 7950 3GB, the performance was a few (6-8%) % faster than 7950+7950. Crossfire scaling easily matches SLI by all accounts. Is it perfect ? No. Is it the problem riddled minefield some would have you believe ? absolutely not. Contrary to some people's beliefs, AMD cards do NOT appear scale back to match "the slowest card".. ie one fast (7970/290X) and one slower (7950/290) is almost always faster than 2 slower (7950+7950 or 290+290)..

If the scaling and performance is "Not Great", then please do share with us your experience with what is great in comparison of "mixed" mode CFX/SLI.

edit: sorry for the brashness, found a new Double IPA I like A LOT.. Firestone Double Jack (9.5%) and it's YUMMY !!!
 
edit: sorry for the brashness said:
haha ya.I drink micro brews myselfand like now usually post 1/2 bent. Should go to beer advocate.com and sign up. what cpu did you use Intel or Amd to test? btw that beer is good.
Click to expand...
 
1/2 bent said:
haha ya.I drink micro brews myselfand like now usually post 1/2 bent. Should go to beer advocate.com and sign up. what cpu did you use Intel or Amd to test? btw that beer is good.
Click to expand...

for testing used an AMD 9370 @ 5.2 Ghz

My passion of late has been Imperial/Double IPAs. I am particularity fond of Heady Topper, though found Laquintas Hop Stoopid and DogFish 90 minute IPAs at the local Walgreens, Revolution DoubleFist IPA is a great substitute (20 minute train ride) and the aforementioned DoubleJack by Firestone is my new fav (being readily available)
 
mi7chy said:
You're better off upgrading your video card because there's really no difference in CPU regardless of the expensive i7 4960X or the FX-4100 you have now for BF4:

You can still take advantage of the FX-6300 since it's going for like $90 at Micro Center.

CPU_01.png
Click to expand...

single player benchmarks for BF3 and BF4 are not at all an indicator of performance for multiplayer.

It is widely known that BF4 loves extra cores for multiplayer. So does BF3, for that matter. I have tested it myself, with an Phenom II X6.

If you are looking for an upgrade in BF4 from the FX-4100, get something with 6 or more cores.

The 6970 will be able to push 60fps average at 1080p and high settings, with SSAO turned off, and in game "post" anti-aliasing or SMAA injected via sweetFX (only works in 32 bit mode for BF4, right now. but the performance between the two modes identical).

for a videocard upgrade, I would recommend a 280x or better from AMD or a 770 or better from Nividia. those cards will get you twice the performance of a 6970.

*oh sorry, I misread your videocard. Those suggested cards would be a 3x upgrade over a 6870. A 270x or a 760 would be a 2x upgrade.


------------------------------------------

here's my results from testing BF3, which prove frostbite loves more cores. I did this because in several forums people were linking BF3 multiplayer CPU and GPU benchmarks from a russian site, that were grossly misrepresenting AMD by posting framerates far lower than what is actually attainable in reality.* I KNEW that my own system performed way better than what they showed, so I proved it. Frostbite has been going the multi-thread route for a while. Yes, in BF3. Before the AMD deal. Multi-core benefits are there for any processor, not just AMD, and not just in BF4.

*in fact, they were misrepresenting everything, from top to bottom. Comparing my actual real world scores to their chart, my system may as well have been a 7970 with a 6 core extreme edition i7.

frapslog2.jpg


This is Kiasar railroad (the same map used by that russian site). All entries seen there are benched over 5 minutes each. From the same map, on the same server, in the same match (yes, even though I rebooted at one point, I was able to enter the same match/server and get a full 5 minute bench, before the round ended!). For each run, I made sure to get on a dirtbike and wing across the map in third person view, in addition to just playing the game without thinking about anything else.

For the first entry, I tried physically disablling 2 cores in the bios, to make my phenom II x6 like an x4. but for some reason the computer wouldn't post at all. So instead I went to the BF3 process and set the processor affinity to only use 4 cores. So BF3 was running on 4 cores, while everything else (windows, GPU, etc) was running on 6.

for the second entry, I alt tabbed and restored the processor affinity to 6 cores, then returned to the game and benched again.

for the third entry, I completely closed the game and restarted it with all six cores in affinity, just in case messing with the affinity mid game somehow compromised the 6 core performance.

for the fourth entry, I rebooted the machine and de-clocked the northbridge overclock from 2659mhz, to as close as I could get it to stock on the multipliers i'm using, which was 2127mhz.

so in summary:

1. 4 core BF3 affinity
2. alt tabbed and restored to 6 core affinity
3. completely exited and restarted BF3, with default 6 core affinity
4. returned northbridge to near stock clock.

In all cases (#2 through #4) the six cores beat the 4 core affinity in average framerates by more than 10fps. It is likely that a true 4 core would perform even worse, since windows and everything else would not have the 5th and 6th cores available, as they do in my testing.
 
Last edited:
FrameBuffer said:
I assume you are not speaking from 1st hand experience then ? As someone who has used Crossfire with mixed cards as well as matched the difference between the two is less than 4%.

290 + 290X was about 4% faster than 290+290 and about 3% slower than 290+290X. With the 7970 6gb + 7950 3GB, the performance was a few (6-8%) % faster than 7950+7950. Crossfire scaling easily matches SLI by all accounts. Is it perfect ? No. Is it the problem riddled minefield some would have you believe ? absolutely not. Contrary to some people's beliefs, AMD cards do NOT appear scale back to match "the slowest card".. ie one fast (7970/290X) and one slower (7950/290) is almost always faster than 2 slower (7950+7950 or 290+290)..

If the scaling and performance is "Not Great", then please do share with us your experience with what is great in comparison of "mixed" mode CFX/SLI.

edit: sorry for the brashness, found a new Double IPA I like A LOT.. Firestone Double Jack (9.5%) and it's YUMMY !!!
Click to expand...

That is in a perfect world where there is support for the game you are running. I don't have any experience besides the number of years where I have seen people with crossfire announce it as the holy grail then when games did not scale good enough were pulling their hair out in frustration.

I can recall Rift being a game that did not scale with crossfire at the start eventually it did but it took them a long while (friend had 2 5770) on other games where it worked it was brilliant.
 
Well crap, I lost that entire post.

Anyways, the FX4 serious isnt really for gaming when you factor in the 6 or 8 core brothers.

You have a 4100, if all we did was replace it with a 4300 series CPU then you would expect a 15% improvement in certain cases since it has a 10-15% higher IPC.

The FX9000 series is just an overvolted higher freq cherry picked FX 8350. If you want guaranteed 5 GHz then you would buy one of those. I have seen FX 8350s that wont go past 4.6 Ghz on good motherboards, while others just like mine with do 5 Ghz on the same or slightly less voltage then the 9590 or 9370s.


Realistically for what you want to do I would pick up an 8350 and under volt and under clock it. Then grab a better GPU and enjoy. Later down the road I would look at better motherboard and pick up some sort of larger watercooler and start OCing the 8350.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
That is in a perfect world where there is support for the game you are running. I don't have any experience besides the number of years where I have seen people with crossfire announce it as the holy grail then when games did not scale good enough were pulling their hair out in frustration.

I can recall Rift being a game that did not scale with crossfire at the start eventually it did but it took them a long while (friend had 2 5770) on other games where it worked it was brilliant.
Click to expand...

As much as I loved the atmosphere and game play of Rift, it was running on a terrible engine. It barely uses 2 CPU cores and SLI / CrossfireX support is really sad and pathetic. It's the limitations of the Gamebryo Engine rather than the developers. I would still be playing that game if I could get over 20 fps when I turn things on high. I might revisit it soon to see what difference this FX-9370 will make over the FX-8120. The developers have a multithreaded version of the game for internal testing, but they say it's no way near ready for release last I checked.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
I can recall Rift being a game that did not scale with crossfire at the start eventually it did but it took them a long while (friend had 2 5770) on other games where it worked it was brilliant.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the OT rant but ...


Rift is a HORRIBLE example.. I've played the game a lot since launch (and beta).. it uses the GameBryo engine, a horribly unoptimized POS.. looks great/performs like crap. It is very limited, SLI and Crossfire didn't work at launch. Ive run it with dual 5770s, 6970s, 7970s, 290(x)s as well as single GPUs from the 480, 580, 670, 760 and 780 using a tri core 720 @ 2.4 Ghz up to the 8core @ over 5ghz.. the ONLY real difference came with the faster CPUs. It's pretty telling when you drop a 780 in at 1080p lowest settings and get almost the same identical FPS as you do with max eye candy (minus SSAA) and jumping to 5760x1080 only drops you by about 4-8fps

Just look around the web for Fallout3, TES-Oblivion, Warhammer (dated now) threads concerning GPU/CPU performance, they all use GameBryo.. again one of the best looking game engines but soooo terribly wrong when it comes to getting use out of anything more than a dual core
 
Doodlehed said:
Maybe I should ask, if you guys had 500 dollars to upgrade my rig, would would be the first and second things?

I just saw the 9370, has anyone had any experience with these? Would it be a viable solution for an upgrade with a new motherboard or is intel still pounding amd into the ground? I like my AMD processors but at some point there's just no reason to lie to myself. I would prefer an AMD solution just because....I've always had good luck. Opinions on the new amd cpus vs intel?
Click to expand...
There's nothing AMD worth getting at the moment..
That may change come Jan 14th with Kaveri..it also may not..

1)Motherboard

2)CPU

3)RAM
:D

I would look for a used Sandy Bridge setup.You probably could get mobo/cpu for around $300...then get good RAM....for later..
 
Last edited:
For 500 dollars.

AMD 8320 $160.
Asus M5A99FX Pro R2.0 $150.
Powercoler R270X 2GB $200.

Total $510
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top