I'd honestly look for a local deal on a i7-6700 and send it all back. On eBay people are crazy and want way too much, but if you can find one for under $100 local I'd just get that and call it a day. Then you don't have to spend anymore money on the CPU/RAM/MOBO portion of your system.
Sell the i5-6600 for a reasonable price to someone who needs it and you might practically get that upgrade for $50 or less, maybe even close to free.
You can not upgrade that machine beyond what you have now with a graphics card.
You have a "Micro" tower based on the model you gave not a "Mini" tower.
You can look up the owners manual for any Dell on their site, which lists the specifications and what processors they support: https://topics-cdn.dell.com/pdf/optiplex-3020m-desktop_owners-manual_en-us.pdf .
While it is technically possible for you to remove that motherboard and put it into a larger case there would be many proprietary connectors and it would not be cost effective. You need to buy a new machine.
You should research what an APU is. Intel does come with onboard graphics, but the APU's people typically refer to are the AMD APU's with built-in Vega graphics. APU's are typically not cost-effective and are bad buy for normal builds that can support cheap graphics cards like the RX480/580, which can be found for $100 or less on eBay.
You are being so literal. I will concede that your point regarding the 2600X being clocked higher is basically the same comparison I am making in reverse, but there was never any confusion regarding those chips and what they were or where they sat in the lineup. Everyone knows a 2600 is a 2600x ;)
AMD stated that they changed the name because of the market they were sold in, not that the chip was physically different in any way. So, once again trying to use semantics won't change the fact that the 1600af is a 2600x ;)
I'm not even sure what you're arguing with me about if you're in agreement that they are so "close".. It seems you're just upset with the way I described the chips as "identical" or "same".
Point is: 1. They are compatible with all boards updated to the proper bios 2. The chips are identical PHYSICALLY (same arch, same core count, same memory controller), not arguing nomenclature, marketing, or clockspeed. They all clock roughly the same anyway depending on the silicon 3. There is no reason to buy any other 2600 for 99% of users and to use the cost difference to get a much better cooler than any of the other stock coolers, which according to you, is necessary for proper operation.
I replied here because the comments in this thread were falsely painting this chip as a risky purchase for many people. It may have steered people away from the best $/performance chip you can buy new today.
You're welcome to go argue with all the reviewers who echo my sentiments if you want. Have a wonderful day.
Anyone reasonable please see this link and buy with confidence : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tso-xJG2ehU
Oh boy.... You are still arguing semantics. A 1600AF/2600 isn't a 2700x because they have 2 fewer cores. You tried to use an obvious fallacy to make my comparison appear false.
You can win your argument I'm not saying they are the "same" chip by name or part number. But they are the same the same way a Ford Fusion was a Mercury Milan, but I have a feeling you'd even argue that with me lol.
Hardware unboxed just released a video today with a direct response from AMD stating that it is in fact... a downclocked 2600.
So, thankfully it's a 2600. You're also wrong about the Amazon reviews, they are separate listings and the reviews are specific to each part number.
You're really grasping at straws citing the 100mhz difference.
It's 100mhz lower than the actual 2600. The chip is a zen+ chip period, the clocks are different yes. It's performance is identical at identical clocks. That is what I mean by "it's a 2600" .... Because well It is a 2600.
It does not lose performance with the stealth, where are you coming up with this? I've got one sitting here right in front of me, it holds 3700 all cores for days on end if I want it to.
In regards to 500 series it's not a 1st gen part, so 1st gen compatibility doesn't matter.
Wanted to confirm as well so people aren't misinformed. This chip is a 2600 and will work on any AMD board which has support for the the 2600. Every board that's been shipped for the past couple years basically is fine, including the x570. Old boards of course need a bios update.
Also, I've seen posted on another thread that the gamers nexus review wasn't representative of the 1600af performance because of the use a liquid cooler instead of the stock stealth for testing. I can confirm that's also false, this chip runs cool and it maintains 3700 boost clock across all cores without issue under load with the stock cooler and even has room for a mild overclock.
I've not seen any of these issues mentioned in any other forum or any review and own one myself. I'm not sure how this misinformation manifested itself.
I just had some experience with the i5-6500. I definitely wouldn't buy it right now over the 9400 or most new chips.
I was able to get mine bundled with a mobo and ram for $120 total.
With that said if you are trying to go with an older gen chip don't pay those exorbitant prices. They are people that haven't quite realized Intel has competition now and their chips are worth about 1/4 of what they are asking.
You can find the chips cheap though so don't give up if that is what you want. I was able to get a i7-6700 with an entire system for $200. Dell is even running discounts now this month for refurbished systems with i7-6700's for $250 for the entire system, with mouse, keyboard and warranty to boot. So, you can pay a reasonable price for those chips.
On ebay those people want $250 just for the chip alone lol.
I did get the i5 system and an i7. I'm not worried about the performance of the i5-6500 though, I think it's being really blown out of proportion. People are playing this game on the original Xbox One lol. I understand that the optimizations are different and I'm not sure what was involved with porting that game over, but the Xbox is much less powerful than even the old i5.
In any case, I found multiple old Dell systems on ebay that had i7's in them. They were buy it now for $175-200. Meanwhile the processors themselves were all on ebay for well over 200+ if you bought them separately. People can price their i7's at those exorbitant prices all day, but only a fool would buy them at those asking prices. I also think Ryzen will alter the used landscape, prior used i7 pricing didn't have to compete with cheap multi-core processors that outperformed them on a new platform. Why pay those prices when you can often get new Ryzen parts for the same price as an old i7?
So, I popped the i7 into the gaming computer. I threw the i5 into the Dell with a SFF RX550 4GB and am selling that as a nice little esports gaming PC for someone.
Thanks guys. I did decide to go just go with the deal on the i5.
I echo the opinions shared about the i5 being more than adequate for the majority of all the games out and in the near future.
The games he plays are all over the place from brand new AAA titles to a lot of the e-sports titles with friends from school.
In any case, I watched a ton of youtube reviews and tests and the 10-20% bump in FPS I saw in i5's paired with GTX1070/Vega56 level gpu's just doesn't justify the extra cost of the system.
In addition, if he does for some reason need more threads in a few years, I'm sure the price of used i7's will only continue to plummet in price as this AMD/Intel CPU war continues. So, I can probably just snag one of those really cheap as an upgrade to the system later on.
Thanks for the input. That is the main concern just because I don't want to build this for him and then in a year have them say, "Well, this new game doesn't run smooth anymore.". Power wise the i5 really doesn't seem very far behind the Ryzen at all if I'm looking at what's available to play today.
I thought maybe the stuttering issues were simply boiling down to maybe coding or driver problems? Because the only two games I typically see mentioned are Battlefield and Assassins Creed.
If the thread count is really becoming an issue across all games though I'll definitely go that route instead of picking up the i5.
I looked up a ryzen 5. I didn't search long but it was $120 for the processor alone before motherboard and ram.
Did a quick YouTube check: https://youtu.be/Ud-aocLYLNI
And it only outscored the i5 by maybe 10fps in most of the titles.
It does have the extra threads tho. Seems hard to justify in today's money tho for such little performance increase in gaming.
Dang if it was $220 I'd actually buy one lol. They can keep it at that price tho.
I've been out of the loop for at least an earning call or two on the Intel stock, but last I heard AMD was taking a nice chunk out of Intel's server market. It was relatively small in the grand scale, but snowballs grow quickly.
You're right about the longevity of mining cards OP. They are usually in no worse condition if not better condition because they've been run at such low voltage their entire lifespan.
The only fail point is the fan, which of course was already mentioned.
The bios thing is really a non-issue. The guy that sells it with a mining bios is definitely a douchebag and should have flashed it back to stock to sell it, however, you can easily flash the card back to stock yourself. While is is a hassle and can provide a lot of confusion for a novice user the card itself is in no way damaged by this and even with a 3rd party bios you can still patch the drivers with a simple program.
Honestly, 8 gigs will mostly likely be fine for 99% of everything you will do. There are situations where applications will be able to utilize the extra ram, but it's probably not worth the cost for the majority of people.
And when you upgrade to your graphics card you will automatically free up that 2 gigs the iGPU was using.
Personally, I'd just buy 8 and save my money to put towards the graphics card. You will get far more benefit from that.
That statement about the drivers, much like the benchmark, is total fabrication.
What driver is it exactly that your claiming doesn't work? Because I've got Ryzen rigs that are rock solid, and I've got Intel rigs that are too. I've not had driver issues with either company for many many years.
Personally, I'd go with the Vega 56 just due to the cost difference. IMO the extra cost of the 64 is simply not worth the performance bump.
In addition, you can flash Vega 56's with Samsung ram to the Vega 64 bios to unlock some of the potential.
As far as power consumption goes, simply look up how to edit powerplay tables on Vega. You can cut the power consumption on Vega down drastically. Power consumption would not be a concern of mine between the 56 and 64 as both can be significantly reduced.
I prefer AMD because the have normally been the cost leader. I'm very smart financially and don't like to waste my money. If I can get an AMD processor for 50% of the price of an Intel and still get 80% of the performance, that is just smart money and I'll choose that route every time. AMD is also easier to root for, but in truth I'd ditch them in a heartbeat if they lost their value aspect.
I've also always preferred AMD's method of more threads too. I used to use Intel way back in the day and was one of the few people who used dual socket pentiums back before multi-cores and multi-threads were a thing. It was so much smoother.
I've owned many CPU's since then on both sides and without a doubt Intel is faster. I still argue to this day that my AMD systems are smoother though, even the ill FX line. For daily tasks with multiple programs operating simultaneously I'll gladly run an FX 6 or 8 core, even if a lowly dual-core celeron will get more FPS in a game.
At the end of the day though as the first paragraph stated. The AMD processors will do the same thing the Intel ones do for much less money. For me that's the end of the discussion.
Also, over the last couple years my AMD branded chips have made me astronomically more money in crypto than my Intel chips have. That same thing can be said for my AMD vs Nvidia gpu's as well, that's an entirely different discussion though.
My opinion is that the Vega 56 is the best dollar for performance, IF you are a power user and can modify the voltage on the card.
Not buying from Nvidia or using their products is just a bonus.
I agree with Nullarc77. The extra money spent on the more expensive coolers are RARELY worth the money.
You end up potentially paying 10-25% more in many cases sometimes more and you get the exact same PCB with a "better" cooler slapped on. You get a 50-100 more MHz boost out of your card maybe which in the real world gives you what? 3-5% difference in performance? Most likely never even noticeable in real world application.
You're better off probably just keeping some good thermal paste and pads around and reapplying good stuff onto a cheap card. I've venture to guess that many heat issues are simply poor contact/manufacturing issues.
I would say it depends on if you like to tweak your systems or not?
In general my answer would be to buy the 1070ti for 90% of users. It's simply faster and more power efficient out of the box.
However, if tweaking interests you Vega's really only typically need 140-160 watts.
Here is a decent article that shows power reduction and performance increase undervolted. The nvidia cards were not undervolted in any way though so it's not necessarily a fair comparision.
You can flash the bios from a Vega 64 on to a Vega 56. Essentially, unlocking untapped potential in the Vega 56 and making its performance closer to its bigger brother.
All of the blower style cards that are AMD reference design had Samsung ram on them. As for other cards you will just have to read reviews and see what type of ram people are saying they are getting. Once you have a card you can check the ram type with the GPU-Z application.
If you get a Hynix card it's not the end of the world. They perform fine, but if you try to flash the reference 64 bios (that used Samsung ram) onto the Hynix card it won't be able to handle the same speed. In fact, it probably won't even let you flash it at all. This issue is simply that the ram brand is different so it won't work.
If you can find a Vega 64 that uses Hynix ram you can flash that cards bios over. I've just personally never looked for one. I don't know if any Vega 64's were made with Hynix or if they all had Samsung. Last I checked, which was over 6 months ago, all Vega 64's had Samsung. Someone else may be able to answer that.
Not being able to flash isn't that big of a deal. The Vega 56 actually has tighter timings on it's ram than the Vega 64. You will probably just only be able to get the ram up to 900-950mhz, while a Vega 64 with loser timings will get up to 1100mhz, and sometimes even up to 1200mhz with an unlocked SoC.
I wouldn't worry too much about which brand you buy. They are pretty much all the same.
If you want to go this route look up powerplay tables that crypto miners use to lower their voltage via registry settings. Simply Googling Vega powerplay tables should point you in the right direction.
I've done this to my Vega's. I am mining on them, but I've extensively used my XFX Vega 56 for gaming with the lower powerplay settings and it being flashed to Vega 64 bios. I actually get better performance and less thermal throttling at the lower voltage settings.
EDIT: BTW my Vega's only use 150-180 watts with reduced voltages.
If you decide to flash your Vega to 64 from 56 make sure that it has Samsung ram and not Hynix. Hynix HBM2 can not handle the same timings.
Why AMD releases these cards over-volted is beyond me. I've got 6 Vega's and none of them have had any issues running full-bore 24/7 at lower voltages. So, I don't really buy the excuse that they have high voltage due to silicon lottery issues.
One upside to buying a Vega is they are one of the only cards left that are still profitable for mining =)
EDIT: Btw Vega's only use 150-180 watts with reduced power settings.
I would have no problem buying that card. If you care about performance/$ that would probably be your best bet.
It's quite often that some people act like longer cards and cards with 3 fans will perform better than their smaller mini counterparts.
While that is sometimes true to a small degree, it's usually not noticeable at all in the real world. And I'd take a 1080 any day over any of the 1070's
I'd get the 75hz. Simply because it is a 25% bump percentage wise.
I have a 75hz monitor and honestly it feels slightly smoother to me , but I also have nothing to compare it to and I've never played on a 144hz monitor and it might just be in my head.
I'm 30 so I'm not an old man, but maybe my eyes just can't see like these young kids anymore.
I will say this though. Unless you bleed money the cost of 144hz monitors is stupid. So, I think it's a smart choice going for the 75hz. I have a 4k 80" tv hanging in my living room that I got for $800. They want 400-500+ for some of these ~20-30" 144hz monitors. What a rip off.
Look out for deals too. Best Buy just had the 560 for $20 less than listed here a few days ago. The 1050 was also on sale but I I can't recall its price.
I think this guy got it right. Drop the CPU down a grade and get 8gb of ram.
Are you comfortable with overclocking? You can easily o/c the processor to get more performance.
The 2200g is definitely the perfect processor for your usage. It will be more than enough for a office pc and capable of playing games on lower settings into the future above and beyond Sims 4.
I only see the point in 2200G/2400G if you are building a system that is designed around not having a graphics card just as you are.
The 2400G is pointless for your use and just in general IMO. The 2200G provides far better performance/$ and can be overclocked to match the 2400G in the future if for some reason you need more performance.
Like others have said, if you are planning on adding a GPU in the future don't even bother with these processors they are just a stepping stone/waste of money.
Crazy. It's called shipping?
Anyway, it was just an example. I couldn't build that pc for as cheap as the pre-builts offer them. So, buying and selling the 560 for the card you want is cheaper in that example.
If you're ultimate goal is the custom look though you gotta do what you gotta do. My point was just that a system that's half the price will perform as good as the one listed.
Whoops I did miss that. That's still like $3k in US though right? Still seems a bit pricey though.
Wow. That PC is insanely expensive. It certainly looks cool but you're basically setting money on fire.
If you care about performance just buy something like this: https://www.costco.com/Lenovo-IdeaCentre-720-Desktop---AMD-Ryzen-7---4GB-AMD-Graphics.product.100409435.html
Sell the 560 it comes with and buy a 1080ti on your own somewhere and add a cheap ssd if you want. It will perform great for $1600 instead of $4500.
No flashy lights, cooling, or windows, but you can get all that stuff much cheaper too if you buy it on your own.
Thanks for the incredible level of insight. You have truly added a great deal of substance Mr. Sherlock.
I would personally get the EVGA.
I've had SeaSonic's fail and have whining noise on the Focus+ Gold Line. I've owned 2 and had 2 with issues.
EVGA I have never had a failure yet of any kind.
The only Corsair I've ever gotten was a top of the line like 1200watt and it died within minutes of use.
These are just my personal experiences. My SeaSonics are fine and they did warranty the broken ones, but I had to pay $20 to get the items shipped to them. I don't know if EVGA pays for shipping or not since I've never used their RMA process.
I do that too. I usually try to buy the old Dell workstations cheap with Xeon's in them when I can find them.
That's a very good point. Your average consumer isn't gonna know and as a retailer I would probably do the same thing for more profit.
For my uses those processors do not run faster. Even according to that link the FX is 44% faster at mutli-threaded integer apps and 9% in FP.
I'm not trying to start a bulldozer/piledriver argument. I'm well aware of the bias against the FX line. In my experience though, my FX6300 vs my dual-core hyperthreaded Intel system my FX is a much smoother system. Yes, the Intel performs at a higher FPS in most games, but that's not my intended use.
I know people hate it, but I use these primarily when I can find them cheap to mine cryptonight and my AMD processors perform multiple times better. My FX6300 is 600-1000% faster (literally) than the G4560 in that scenario. 30-50H/S vs 300H/S.
Hi, what everyone has suggested is pretty good. My son games at his grandma's on my old pc I built in high school! It's a Q8300 + GT1030.
Here at home he has a G4600 + GTX1050.
Both systems, even that ancient one, runs all his games and even new AAA titles at low 720p.
That GPU you have is definitely old and could use a upgrade, but I'm surprised no one suggested overclocking. Crank that CPU up a little and add a GT1030 and I bet you can get a good bit more life out of that system.
I have the same card in my son's gaming computer. I have his card at +100/+700 (Core/Ram). Just so you have a data point to go by. Obviously, your card may do better or worse.
I'm pretty sure you can easily get +100/+400 on probably all of them without any trouble at all.
Also, those little 1050's run really cool. I don't think I've ever seen it go over 60C.
The FX chips are good and now with programs actually support all the multi-core power they provide they get some good use. They always get tons of flak, but they are great at multi-tasking, even compared to the same era intels. They just got crushed on single-thread apps.
For that price though it's just not worth it. A FX chip and all the components associated with it would have to be -60% the cost of a Ryzen chip for me to even consider it.
Best to buy those chips and ddr3 cheap on the used market.
Also please do not buy the Deepcool case. My friend just gave me that same one. His old pc was in it and it has got to be one of the worst cases I've ever had the pleasure of using.
I have these PNY 1060 and 1070's and they are just fine. Nothing fancy but they work.
That is a ok price. That card was selling new at Best Buy for $430 back in Sept/Nov of last year. The MSRP on that card for founders edition is $400.
No, you're not getting a steal, but you're not being scammed at that price either. It's a good buy and will easily pay for itself mining in less than a year.
Conclusion: Good deal.
I'm sure there is a speed penalty but I'm currently using adrenaline drivers now on my bios modified rx570 and it's patched and working fine. I just wanted to test it out and see.
Definitely true that using old drivers can cause issues or lack of performance on new games and stuff tho.
Thanks for the update. It's been a while since I had to research anything like this. I am still running the old blockchain drivers and have not tried to utilize any of the newer drivers released. You wouldn't happen to know what version that started on do you? I'm gonna try to google it myself here after posting this and see if I can find out myself.
EDIT: I did a little searching and I'm seeing reports of people using up to 18.1.1 with the patcher on January 23rd. I'll keep checking into it though to see for sure.
I just wanted to also add that since we are talking about Nvidia cards. Those are most likely not going to have a modified bios. I'm sure there are people that can do it, but 99% of people do not even attempt to flash the bios on Nvidia cards.
I'm not sure what you're getting at exactly? I can't answer worldly questions as to why certain people act the way they do. I'm not condoning miners or anyone misrepresenting the hardware they are selling and not stating that the card has a modified bios on it.
It seems almost as if you're saying downloading ATIflash, loading the stock bios file, and clicking flash is a difficult procedure though?
It takes less than a minute to flash a bios. It might take you 5-10 min if you gotta search around and download the file and program.
I just wanted to reply because there is a lot of misinformation in this thread.
You can indeed flash your card back to the original bios should you find that someone flashed it with a modified version. Techpowerup has a running database of almost every card and bios. You can simply download the correct stock bios and be on your away.
In addition, you can even continue to run that modified bios with no issues as long as you patch it so that the driver verification is not an issue.
Depending on the card or game the bios with the faster timing may actually increase your performance. Most miners undervolt their cards too so you may find that it runs much cooler than the stock card.
There is a lot of negativity surrounding mining, but really the only thing that's an issue is possibly the life of the fan if it was run at high speeds for very long periods. Even then those fans are designed to last a long time.
With that being said $200 for a 1080 sounds awfully fishy.
True. I'm assuming typical office work tasks.
Cooling doesn't matter, get whichever is cheaper. The performance will be exactly the same.
The cooling is only gonna be a factor if you're someone that want's to try to overclock and push his card to the limit. Even the founders edition cards handle +700 on the memory overclocks just fine. and stay under 75c.
You can get Dell Inspiron laptops or even used workstation desktops from Dell refurbished site for as high as 50% off with coupons. You can literally get these computers for under $200 for the whole thing that will do more than what you ask for.
That's the best route to go.
If you do want new even the 2400G recommended is overkill as the 2200G for $99 is more than enough to do what you ask with excellent iGPU and 4 threads.
I'm kind of unsure why you need a new computer at all?
I'm still running core2duo's and core2quads's here at my home. In fact, I just updated my sons q6600 computer with 4gb of more ram (8gb total) and a $60 GT1030 and he plays Wolfenstein II on it for crying out loud.
You could browse the web and watch youtube videos on a rasberry.
I know I probably sound like I'm coming across as mean, but you don't need a new computer and I'm just trying to save ya some money.
Any of these new processors is absolutely complete overkill for these types of setups. If he wants it to be faster replace the old HDD with a new SSD and save yourself a lot of money.