Oh and I totally forgot to ask about heatsinks. I'm not sure which I should get for cheap and if it matters. Last thing on my list.

If you aren't overclocking, the stock heatsink should be plenty good. I have no idea which processor you picked though.

It might be worth it to get an i5 2500 and pass on a GPU if you just want to run WoW and lineage. Might be better for the majority of stuff you'll be doing if you aren't gaming all the time.

I'd at least consider swapping out that CPU -- As much as I wanted to like Bulldozer (I waited a long time for it, and was planning an upgrade cycle around it) it just doesn't stack up right now -- It's somewhat interesting in its "8 core" version, but you have to remember that those are (in the processor you selected) 4 integer cores sharing two SIMD/FPU cores. An FX "module" contains 2 integer cores and shared SIMD/FPU, as well as L2 cache -- the FX 4x00 series disables two entire modules to get down to the 4 integer cores it advertises, not the 2nd integer core per module.

You could go with the older Phenom CPU and get 3 or 4 cores with dedicated FPU/SIMD, which might give you better performance in some types of workloads -- although you'll sacrifice some of the newest AVX SIMD instructions.

I'm not saying definitively that you should switch -- I'm saying that you should look at performance/cost against some of those "true" 4-core Phenoms around the same price, and not simply assume that the newer FX processor is faster as a given (it may well be at par or faster on workloads that you care about, in which case its a keeper, I just don't know). Basically, check it out and do your due diligence.

You might also consider going to an intel platform, even some i3s are competitive with the 4100, and can be had fairly cheaply.

Eh... there really isn't much of a reason to buy an AMD CPU, especially on the low end. They are simply dominated by Intel CPU which are much faster at the same price point. Take a look at the sub $200 CPU roundup on Toms Hardware.

http://www.tomshardw...hmark,3120.html

Take a look at the sub $200 CPU roundup on Toms Hardware.

http://www.tomshardw...hmark,3120.html

Those are gaming benchmarks, which implies that a) they are not CPU bound, and b) they don't exploit multiple cores.

What they do however show is that in this particular price range, AMD processors are roughly competetive on speed, and in many cases offer a greater number of cores for the same price. It's true that Intel is nice if you only need blazing straight line performance, but in particular the 8-core AMD models are really hard to beat for tougher processing workloads (i.e. image/sound/video processing, compiling large programs, or any form of scientific computation).

Where Intel currently dominates is the high-end, starting with the $220 Core i5-2500K. If there is any way you can swing enough cash to reach for that, I would say go for it.

***

Also worth mentioning that NewEgg isn't as cheap as it used to be. We managed to find all our components at 10-15% lower prices at MicroCenter, when we built a $2,000~ gaming PC a couple of weeks ago.

What they do however show is that in this particular price range, AMD processors are roughly competetive on speed, and in many cases offer a greater number of cores for the same price. It's true that Intel is nice if you only need blazing straight line performance, but in particular the 8-core AMD models are really hard to beat for tougher processing workloads (i.e. image/sound/video processing, compiling large programs, or any form of scientific computation).

You must be reading a different review from mine. The summary section shows that the lowest end Intel CPU in the review (Intel G630: $79.99 Newegg) is faster than the FX 8120 ($199.99 Newegg) in the benchmarks they performed and that the Intel i3 2100 ($124.99 Newegg) is faster than any AMD offering less than $200.

For low end CPU, number of cores is overrated. For normal development related tasks, you will rarely see performance improvements from more than two cores. If you're using software which really leverages those multiple cores, you should seriously reconsider spending only $100 on a CPU ;)

You must be reading a different review from mine. The summary section shows that the lowest end Intel CPU in the review (Intel G630: $79.99 Newegg) is faster than the FX 8120 ($199.99 Newegg)

I'm staring at the benchmark right now. Let's leave the Pentiums out of this - they are all dual-core without hyper threading, which is pretty minimal for today.

in the benchmarks they performed and that the Intel i3 2100 ($124.99 Newegg) is faster than any AMD offering less than $200.[/quote]
According to the final chart, the i3-2100 outperforms the FX-4100 by about 8% (adjusting for their ~200 point scale), and costs about 15% more. That basically makes them comparable processors, given that we are putting a hyper-threaded dual-core up against a quad-core with two shared FPUs.

My guess is that the performance gap will close in the near future - AMD and Microsoft have both mentioned that Window's scheduling behaviour is costing these FX processors considerable performance, and patches to correct this behaviour are in the pipeline.

Even if it doesn't, that still leaves the FX-4100 entirely price-competitive with it's i3-2100 rival. The FX-8120 is definitely not, though, as the i5-2500K is clearly the better choice in that price range.

For low end CPU, number of cores is overrated. For normal development related tasks, you will rarely see performance improvements from more than two cores.[/quote]
I burn all 4 cores in my Phenom II, for a lot of development tasks. Recompile a decent size codebase on an hourly basis, and you'll be very glad of those extra cores ;)

If you're using software which really leverages those multiple cores, you should seriously reconsider spending only $100 on a CPU ;)[/quote]
This is very true. If we haven't scared away the OP yet, I'd suggest he take way2lazy2care's advice, and sink his spare cash into an i5-2500K instead of a video card.

My guess is that the performance gap will close in the near future - AMD and Microsoft have both mentioned that Window's scheduling behaviour is costing these FX processors considerable performance, and patches to correct this behaviour are in the pipeline

Microsoft released the Windows 7 hotfix last week, which was good for about 8%. Win8 is a little more flexible with its scheduler and gets somewhere between that an 15% or so. It might get a couple percent better, but that's probably all the legs its got without hardware changes.

I'm curious if we might see a different architecture from AMD that nixes the second integer core per module, in favor of adding two more would-be modules. Given the new focus on Server and Mobile, and I doubt that it would save ore than 15% of the die space, I doubt it, but it would be an interesting part.

You posted the private link. Next time post the public wishlist link instead.

I would really recommend that you not go with a refurb 10,000 rpm drive. Refurb drives are a really bad bet when it comes to the risk of losing all you data, and 10,000 rpm drives tend to last a much shorter time to start with - not to mention, 74 GB is minuscule in this day and age.

Grab a nice, new, 7,200 rpm western digital instead, with a terabyte capacity. Or if you really don't mind the tiny size, go for a much faster SSD.

I agree with this.
I've owned several 10,000 rpm drives i.e. WD raptors and I've had to RMA every single one I've owned. Don't know if it's the heat or what but luckily they all died before the warranty ran out on them. I've been buying SSD's lately and so far they have been pretty reliable not to mention just as fast as the 10,000 rpm drives but size is still a problem since 96GB is not much space when you are running Windows.
I've also been quite a few gaming rigs with both Nvidia and AMD cards and they both seem to last about the same hardware wise, so not really any reliabilty issues there but I totally hate AMD's catalyst software and have had issues with that more often than with Nvidia software. Not to mention you do get Physx with Nvidia cards and it's easier to use multiple cards (SLI) in my experience.

Oh and I totally forgot to ask about heatsinks. I'm not sure which I should get for cheap and if it matters. Last thing on my list.

I recently got an antec artic cooling freezer extreme 3, no way you're going to fit this in a small case. For a 95W processor, it tops at around 60C with no CPU fan. I'd like to try making my PC less noisy.

For 450, I am personally very interested in APUs. The quadcore llano is comparable to a few-years-old Q6600. I have played a bit with one and I was positively impressed by graphics performance. Differently from reviews, I believe the platform has consistent upgrade options when it comes to budget builds. Personally I like the tri-core model.
As much as I like AMD I would never, ever buy an FX, let alone recommend it. Unless perhaps a new stepping comes out with improved process.

It appears clear to me OP is looking to a budget build over performance. A friend of mine has a shop and has been asked to build whole computers for the price of the i5-2400 alone (it's worth noticing processors are way more expensive here, not to mention mainboards).

For 450, I am personally very interested in APUs. The quadcore llano is comparable to a few-years-old Q6600. I have played a bit with one and I was positively impressed by graphics performance.

You know, I really want to like the APUs. And their graphic performance is very solid - considerably faster than Intel/NVidia's integrated solutions. But the base CPU performance is once again anaemic, with even the A8-3870k dominated by an i3-2100.

Still, you are right, for a budget gaming PC there are not bad. I'd probably take one over the FX series, although I'd be less thrilled about tying myself into an FM1 socket - seems to me that rather reduces upgrade options.