Thinking of buying alienware x51 r2

[Jimmy Cyprus]

Hello guys i'm new to the forum and since the next generation of gaming is upon us i want to upgrade from my xbox 360 into a pc. I dont want to build my own because i dont know the first thing about pc hardware and equipment, the task is just too daunting for me even though i'm willing to learn down the road. I was searching for something to ease me into pc gaming, something to just plug into my hdtv and be good to go(just like a console). My search brought me here. I found this alienware x51 r2 on ebay with the following specs:

3.90ghz i7-4770s CPU Quad Core
8 GIG DDR3 (1600mhz, 2x4GB)
128GB SSD
1 TB Hard Drive (7200RPM)
AMD Radeon R9 270 with 2GB GDDR5

Windows 8
DVDRW
UK Spec
"N" WIFI
330W AC Adaptor
Internal High-Definition 7.1 Performance Audio with WAVES MAXX Audio

The price for this is 1000GBP(not cheap by any stretch) Is it worth it? I've searched this forum and a lot of users complained about overheating. Is this something i should worry about? The point of paying over the top for alienware is that i don't have to worry about maintenance like other desktop pc's.

Any advice you have for me guys is very much appreciated!

Thanks!

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Just build your own using Intel 1150 CPU & 1150 Socket iTX board/case
It will be much better. Plus depending on the case u choose, u could easily have more room for drives and such.

[ckay_]

go here and watch a few videos
http://www.youtube.com/user/CareyHolzman

[Sebly]

Rove님이 먼저 게시:

ASE sebdemo1님이 먼저 게시:

I've got the same problem as you do. I've browsed the web, and people are all saying to buy the i5 as the i7 is almost the same for gaming. I personally want to stay around 1000 AUD (Yes i am aussie) but want that good performance. I dont mind if i have to build it or have it come pre-built, but i want the performance of the Alienware x51 R2 and my target price. So can anyone give me a good PC build/Prebuilt PC with my requirements?
Thx, Sebdemo1

Tower only
http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/3mQa3
Total: $1008.00

Sorry if im being annoying Rove but why did you chose an AMD CPU? Is it because of my budget? If so could you tell me the next best thing? Also if anything else was because of my budget could you tell me since im ok with raising the budget a bit more

[Rove]

sebdemo1님이 먼저 게시:

Rove님이 먼저 게시:

Tower only
http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/3mQa3
Total: $1008.00

Sorry if im being annoying Rove but why did you chose an AMD CPU? Is it because of my budget? If so could you tell me the next best thing? Also if anything else was because of my budget could you tell me since im ok with raising the budget a bit more

I personally use a AMD 8 core FX CPU. I've used both FX 8150 and FX 8350. I've never found them lacking while gaming. They never see full usage so far, to the point that I think even a 6 core FX 6300 which is a better price per core should be more than enough.

Some of the reasons I like AMD FX CPUs for gaming:
*They have huge CPU cache, 12MB for the FX 4 cores, 14MB for the FX 6 cores and 16MB for the FX 8 cores. Intel CPUs for the same prices has 3-6MB of cache. I understand all too well what happens to your computer when it runs out of RAM doing a task that requires more than it has, it freezes up and even using a SSD with Page File / SWAP you will know you are out of RAM and something is wrong and your computer is soooo slow. I assume the same sort of thing happens for a CPU if it runs out of cache. I learned about running out of RAM when I tried to generate a huge map in Planetary Annihilation with only 4GB of RAM. It froze my computer and I had to manually reboot. It was only using a HDD for Page File at the time and HDD random read/write is so bad that it just can't fill in for RAM at all even enough for CTRL+ALT+DEL to work. Had to press the reset button on the physical case. I usually use a SSD and 32GB of RAM but I had 4GB installed in a second computer and wanted to see what it could do and what happened. So ya having memory is good, running out is bad. Having extra doesn't mean anything when you don't need it but things stop working if you need it and don't have it. I think CPU cache is probably similar, it's even faster and higher level than regular RAM after all.

*My experience with them has been good.

*I think they are competatively priced vs Intel because AMD is a smaller brand still trying to entice new customers to buy from them so are more motivated to give good prices.

*I enjoy having the fastest GHz even if people want to make noise about how "Ghz isn't everything".

*I don't think AMD could really have got the highest GHz, most cache and most cores, all the best in all the stats and yet made the worst CPU, in spite of what 3rd parties might say. I mean that just doesn't really make sense.

*The Xbox One and PlayStation 4 (newest video game consoles from Microsoft and Sony) both use a 1.6~ GHz 8 core CPU that is made by AMD. It is part of a AMD "APU" that powers both consoles. AMD also sells APUs for PCs but even their best desktop APU has weaker integrated graphics than what they put in the consoles, though the CPU portion might be similar or better on the top A8 and A10 quad core APUs. Any AMD FX CPU with 4-8 cores running at more than twice the speed of the console CPUs should be as good or better than them as a CPU.

Most Intel i3, i5 and i7 CPUs all have integrated graphics like AMD APUs so you do actually have to pay for this. You have to pay for the integrated graphics even though as a gamer they are too weak and you won't want to use them but should use a good quality dedicated card instead.

In comparison and to support the claim that you do indeed pay for integrated graphics: AMD's most expensive 4 core APU, the A10 -7850K, is about the same price as their most expensive (regular) FX 8 core CPU the FX 8350. There are some factory overclocked FX 8350 CPUs that are branded FX 9370 and 9590 that do cost a bit more but they also require special cooling and motherboards and consume almost 2 times the power of the regular ones because of their significantly higher clock speed which is their only difference from a FX 8350. You can actually overclock a FX 8350 to be just like them if you have the proper gear and know-how. So I'm not really counting them.

So my recommendation and opinion are not changed. If you would like to build your own with Intel and or or Nvidia parts instead of AMD please feel free to. I'd recommend nothing lower than a Intel i5 3rd or 4th generation quad core CPU @ 3.2 GHz or more and a Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 or GTX 760 if you decide to do that.

Always it's best to make your machine custom the way that suits you best and will make you happy. Play around with PC Part Picker yourself or shop at other stores and assemble a list how you like it best.

For a business I would recommend Intel CPUs in general since they do consume a bit less power and most business would be fine using their integrated graphics which would save money on a GPU. Some intel i5 and i7 CPUs with integrated graphics have a lot more CPU cache than AMD's APUs which only have up to 4MB for the CPU so this might make them better for business which require CPU power and not a lot of graphics power.

Another thing: gaming is *mostly* about the graphics card, the rest of the system matters as well but a good graphics card is what really makes a good gaming system and it's where most of the money spent should go. For example a system with a AMD FX 4300 quad core CPU, R9 270X GPU (graphics processing unit AKA graphics card), 16GB of RAM and a cheap under $100 AM3+ 970 chipset motherboard will be much much better for gaming than a FX 8350 CPU, R7 250 GPU, 32GB RAM and a expensive $200~ AM3+ 990FX chipset motherboard. The reason is cause the GPU in the first system is better and it's responsible for the largest share of all the work that goes on to make gaming a good experience.

So whatever you decide please get a good GPU and spend more on it than the CPU!

GPU power is about GFLOPS, not only graphics RAM. It's also about things like how fast the graphics RAM is and a few other stats. As a general basic "GPU noob" rule you should be safe to simply say "the highest GFLOPS / TFLOPS in one of the newest generations is the best" and then buy the best you can afford. Best to compare AMD GFLOPS to AMD GFLOPS and Nvidia GFLOPS to NVidia GFLOPS since their GPUs do work a littlle different and they have other stats that are different as well. However even comparing between them GFLOPS to GFLOPS won't hurt you any.

[ACJCLIGHTNING]

Rove님이 먼저 게시:

sebdemo1님이 먼저 게시:

*I don't think AMD could really have got the highest GHz, most cache and most cores, all the best in all the stats and yet made the worst CPU, in spite of what 3rd parties might say. I mean that just doesn't really make sense.

And this is where I realized that you werent sure what you were saying.
I normally support amd desktop CPUs(Laptop cpus are horrible though), but this is not how it works.
An AMD dual core at around 3.4 Ghz is equal to about a intel single core at around 1.8(Currently, it obviously varies from generation to generation).
An intel dual core i3 at 2.1 will beat an amd quad at 3.6 Ghz.

More cores means almost nothing, more Ghz means almost nothing(Processors in the past were over 8 Ghz), and cache means almost aswell(With few exceptions, though an intel i5 will have enough to avoid most of those).

Your right on a lot of stuff, but I recomend an i5 if you can get it around the same price.

[Sebly]

Rove님이 먼저 게시:

sebdemo1님이 먼저 게시:

Sorry if im being annoying Rove but why did you chose an AMD CPU? Is it because of my budget? If so could you tell me the next best thing? Also if anything else was because of my budget could you tell me since im ok with raising the budget a bit more

I personally use a AMD 8 core FX CPU. I've used both FX 8150 and FX 8350. I've never found them lacking while gaming. They never see full usage so far, to the point that I think even a 6 core FX 6300 which is a better price per core should be more than enough.

Some of the reasons I like AMD FX CPUs for gaming:
*They have huge CPU cache, 12MB for the FX 4 cores, 14MB for the FX 6 cores and 16MB for the FX 8 cores. Intel CPUs for the same prices has 3-6MB of cache. I understand all too well what happens to your computer when it runs out of RAM doing a task that requires more than it has, it freezes up and even using a SSD with Page File / SWAP you will know you are out of RAM and something is wrong and your computer is soooo slow. I assume the same sort of thing happens for a CPU if it runs out of cache. I learned about running out of RAM when I tried to generate a huge map in Planetary Annihilation with only 4GB of RAM. It froze my computer and I had to manually reboot. It was only using a HDD for Page File at the time and HDD random read/write is so bad that it just can't fill in for RAM at all even enough for CTRL+ALT+DEL to work. Had to press the reset button on the physical case. I usually use a SSD and 32GB of RAM but I had 4GB installed in a second computer and wanted to see what it could do and what happened. So ya having memory is good, running out is bad. Having extra doesn't mean anything when you don't need it but things stop working if you need it and don't have it. I think CPU cache is probably similar, it's even faster and higher level than regular RAM after all.

*My experience with them has been good.

*I think they are competatively priced vs Intel because AMD is a smaller brand still trying to entice new customers to buy from them so are more motivated to give good prices.

*I enjoy having the fastest GHz even if people want to make noise about how "Ghz isn't everything".

*I don't think AMD could really have got the highest GHz, most cache and most cores, all the best in all the stats and yet made the worst CPU, in spite of what 3rd parties might say. I mean that just doesn't really make sense.

*The Xbox One and PlayStation 4 (newest video game consoles from Microsoft and Sony) both use a 1.6~ GHz 8 core CPU that is made by AMD. It is part of a AMD "APU" that powers both consoles. AMD also sells APUs for PCs but even their best desktop APU has weaker integrated graphics than what they put in the consoles, though the CPU portion might be similar or better on the top A8 and A10 quad core APUs. Any AMD FX CPU with 4-8 cores running at more than twice the speed of the console CPUs should be as good or better than them as a CPU.

Most Intel i3, i5 and i7 CPUs all have integrated graphics like AMD APUs so you do actually have to pay for this. You have to pay for the integrated graphics even though as a gamer they are too weak and you won't want to use them but should use a good quality dedicated card instead.

In comparison and to support the claim that you do indeed pay for integrated graphics: AMD's most expensive 4 core APU, the A10 -7850K, is about the same price as their most expensive (regular) FX 8 core CPU the FX 8350. There are some factory overclocked FX 8350 CPUs that are branded FX 9370 and 9590 that do cost a bit more but they also require special cooling and motherboards and consume almost 2 times the power of the regular ones because of their significantly higher clock speed which is their only difference from a FX 8350. You can actually overclock a FX 8350 to be just like them if you have the proper gear and know-how. So I'm not really counting them.

So my recommendation and opinion are not changed. If you would like to build your own with Intel and or or Nvidia parts instead of AMD please feel free to. I'd recommend nothing lower than a Intel i5 3rd or 4th generation quad core CPU @ 3.2 GHz or more and a Nvidia GeForce GTX 660 or GTX 760 if you decide to do that.

Always it's best to make your machine custom the way that suits you best and will make you happy. Play around with PC Part Picker yourself or shop at other stores and assemble a list how you like it best.

For a business I would recommend Intel CPUs in general since they do consume a bit less power and most business would be fine using their integrated graphics which would save money on a GPU. Some intel i5 and i7 CPUs with integrated graphics have a lot more CPU cache than AMD's APUs which only have up to 4MB for the CPU so this might make them better for business which require CPU power and not a lot of graphics power.

Another thing: gaming is *mostly* about the graphics card, the rest of the system matters as well but a good graphics card is what really makes a good gaming system and it's where most of the money spent should go. For example a system with a AMD FX 4300 quad core CPU, R9 270X GPU (graphics processing unit AKA graphics card), 16GB of RAM and a cheap under $100 AM3+ 970 chipset motherboard will be much much better for gaming than a FX 8350 CPU, R7 250 GPU, 32GB RAM and a expensive $200~ AM3+ 990FX chipset motherboard. The reason is cause the GPU in the first system is better and it's responsible for the largest share of all the work that goes on to make gaming a good experience.

So whatever you decide please get a good GPU and spend more on it than the CPU!

GPU power is about GFLOPS, not only graphics RAM. It's also about things like how fast the graphics RAM is and a few other stats. As a general basic "GPU noob" rule you should be safe to simply say "they highest GFLOPS / TFLOPS in one of the newest generations is the best" and then buy the best you can afford. Best to compare AMD GFLOPS to AMD GFLOPS and Nvidia GFLOPS to NVidia GFLOPS since their GPUs do work a littlle different and they have other stats that are different as well. However even comparing between them GFLOPS to GFLOPS won't hurt you any.

Ok thx! I will definitely use AMD then and i will mess around with the other things. I might change the motherboard as it says it might have some incompatabilty issues. Also do you think I should get a Geforce Video Card as many many MANY people recommend it (im saying this because i actually want this to be better than an Alienware x51 R2, so im not sure what i should get to make it better).
And you dont have to answer if im being a pest.
Thx Seb.

[Rove]

ASE sebdemo1님이 먼저 게시:

Ok thx! I will definitely use AMD then and i will mess around with the other things. I might change the motherboard as it says it might have some incompatabilty issues. Also do you think I should get a Geforce Video Card as many many MANY people recommend it (im saying this because i actually want this to be better than an Alienware x51 R2, so im not sure what i should get to make it better).
And you dont have to answer if im being a pest.
Thx Seb.

Frankly I really don't think it makes very much difference if you go AMD or Nvidia though I think you get a little bit better deal on AMD cards in terms of dollars per stats. Actual performance well different people say different things.

For example a R9 270X and GTX 760 are pretty close in terms of GFLOPS and other stats and are both 2GB graphics cards on the default model. However the GTX 760 is a little bit more expensive.

Basically for a gamer they are close enough in terms of what they can do and are both respectable cards.

For you I would recommend either the AMD R9 270X or the GTX 760. Pick whichever you like. Read up on them from what Nvidia and AMD have to say about them. Figure out whose price and advertising you like more and then buy one.

No big deal either way.

Just do not get a GTX 750 ti cause there is a really big performance gap between that and the GTX 760. The GTX 750 ti is all about being power efficient, the GTX 760 is where you should go for performance (from a Nvidia card if you decide you want one) as long as you can afford it.

[Sebly]

Rove님이 먼저 게시:

ASE sebdemo1님이 먼저 게시:

Ok thx! I will definitely use AMD then and i will mess around with the other things. I might change the motherboard as it says it might have some incompatabilty issues. Also do you think I should get a Geforce Video Card as many many MANY people recommend it (im saying this because i actually want this to be better than an Alienware x51 R2, so im not sure what i should get to make it better).
And you dont have to answer if im being a pest.
Thx Seb.

Frankly I really don't think it makes very much difference if you go AMD or Nvidia though I think you get a little bit better deal on AMD cards in terms of dollars per stats. Actual performance well different people say different things.

For example a R9 270X and GTX 760 are pretty close in terms of GFLOPS and other stats and are both 2GB graphics cards on the default model. However the GTX 760 is a little bit more expensive.

Basically for a gamer they are close enough in terms of what they can do and are both respectable cards.

For you I would recommend either the AMD R9 270X or the GTX 760. Pick whichever you like. Read up on them from what Nvidia and AMD have to say about them. Figure out whose price and advertising you like more and then buy one.

No big deal either way.

Just do not get a GTX 750 ti cause there is a really big performance gap between that and the GTX 760. The GTX 750 ti is all about being power efficient, the GTX 760 is where you should go for performance (from a Nvidia card if you decide you want one) as long as you can afford it.

Thx Rove! Ok now im done here. Also thx Jimmy for letting us use your discussion. Hope you also get what you want. :)

[_I_]

unless you need 8 cores get an i5 system

fx cores are still at intel 775 performance
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/570/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_2_Quad_Q9550.html

for the price, the 4670k is about the same
overall performance is similar
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/446/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-4670K.html
for programs that need 8 cores, performance is close
for programs that need under 8 cores the i5 will be ahead

and amd is a dead horse for desktop cpus
the last ones they released were in june last year

rove has never touched an i5/7 system and has nothing to compare them with

amd ghz isnt the same as intel ghz
from the above links, intel cpus are much slower ghz wize vs amd and still outperform them in single core tests

ex. q9300 (2.5ghz) matches the fx 8350 (4.2ghz) in single cores tests
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/563/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_2_Quad_Q9300.html
even though the fx is using ddr3 vs ddr2 on the 775

amd gpus are fine compared to nvidia
nvidia are lower power, but offer similar price/performance

[Rove]

_I_님이 먼저 게시:

unless you need 8 cores get an i5 system
...
rove has never touched an i5/7 system and has nothing to compare them with
...

Slander... You don't know me, don't pretend.

Have you got or used a AMD FX CPU before of any model or core count?

[SilentHorizon]

No offence to amd fx users, but if your strictly gaming, why get a processor that is more than 1+ years old when a i5 (3rd or 4th gen) will have a better price to performance ratio when it comes strictly to gaming.

However, I can completely see getting a FX processor when it comes to rendering, octo core supported programs and, vitual machines.

[_I_]

Rove님이 먼저 게시:

_I_님이 먼저 게시:

unless you need 8 cores get an i5 system
...
rove has never touched an i5/7 system and has nothing to compare them with
...

Slander... You don't know me, don't pretend.

Have you got or used a AMD FX CPU before of any model or core count?

yes i have and they cant hold up to an i5 for daily work that needs speed
and many games dont need over 4 cores
8 slow cores < 4 fast cores

even some games an i3 will beat the 8350
http://www.hardcoreware.net/intel-core-i3-4340-review/5/
(be sure to read the caption for what side of the scale is better)

ex. higher = better
http://img.hardcoreware.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/metro-last-light-fps2.png
and lower = better
http://static.hardcoreware.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/metro-last-light-percentile2.png

[Bad 💀 Motha]

HBZK100님이 먼저 게시:

No offence to amd fx users, but if your strictly gaming, why get a processor that is more than 1+ years old when a i5 (3rd or 4th gen) will have a better price to performance ratio when it comes strictly to gaming.

However, I can completely see getting a FX processor when it comes to rendering, octo core supported programs and, vitual machines.

Not only this but with AMD FX (again not bashing AMD users) but there are very few good quality FX supported boards to go with. For FX-6 series and above u will want an AMD 990FX Chipset Board and there are just too few to choose from, and they aren't cheap.

The best lower priced board I have found for AMD FX CPUs is ASRock Fatal1ty 990FX Killer AM3+ Motherboard.

At least with Intel CPUs, u will have a lot more boards to choose from, and unless u are going with a top-tier i5 or i7, u don't need the more expensive boards. And even still, with majority of the i5 (4th Gen) you can even get away with using B85 boards, which are fairly cheap in price. And the cheaper Intel based boards still have a boat-load of features, unlike most AMD based boards.