Compatability of chipset & cpu

So I am building my second PC, this one a little more budget than the first, I am just getting it to play current AAA titles, and stuff like rainbow six. So I have looked at other threads about compatibilty, and someone did one on how to figure out if chipsets were compatible, but it was essentially useless as to me it was very vague, so I come to you all to help me, I am planning on buying this processor: AMD A8 7600 , and this mo-bo: Gigabyte GA-F2A68HM-H FM2+ ATX Motherboard

So I did what other threads told me, found info and specs, but still I do not know if these parts are compatible. Thanks for your help(in advance) I am a decently techy person, but this is beyond my reach, as I am kind of a operating system kind of person.

Just in case anyone wants to know this, this PC is being build in the case of a 2001 Alienware Majestic 12 PC, although the case will be the only part kept from this computer, and specs for that computer are abysmal, it had an intel pentium 4 single core @ an amazing 1.8 ghz so, I decided that I would just use the Alienware case, because I appreciate the style.
Reply to DrDerpCannon25
6 answers Last reply
More about compatability chipset cpu
  1. They are compatible. But the reason you choose that CPU now is beyond me - it is effectively dead platform, not good for gaming.
    Reply to DRagor
  2. While you can appreciate the 'style' of a case, just remember that it still has to properly house a brand new PSU and custom cases, especially something like 15 years old, may not be functional with the PSU you end up using. Cases are cheap and there is some awesome designs, in fact I just replaced mine for only $60 and the airflow design is best I ever seen, and well designed all around.

    That aside I AGREE heartily, why on earth would you pick that processor? If your talking $200 or so budgets, gaming "current AAA titles and stuff like R6" just won't cut it. EVEN if you cut the graphics detail way down and made the display say 1024x768 - WHY???? When for only $249 you can get a 1TB Gold Edition PS4 this week which will play ALOT BETTER the AAA titles (some at 60FPS!!!) and always LOOK better (no 1024x768 low graphics detail).

    A proper "Play *current* AAA titles" PC starts at $700 MINIMUM, and goes up based on the EXPECTED performance you want out of it. A simple i5 from Walmart, toss in a 1050 TI and your gaming 1080p on one screen 40-50ish High settings. Swap the PSU and toss in a 1060 or 1070, now your cranked towards 60FPS solid and can do beyond 1080p (144Hz, etc. display).

    Ryzen just introduced and still working bugs out. The numerous articles site optimization for the AAA titles (among other software) as the biggest problem presently. With the newer Ryzen models down the pipe, personally I am more wait and see on it for now, but will be a Orange to Intel's "Apple" approach, and so I don't really see a 'relative' 1:1 comparison as most people try to do, and think Ryzen still a level 'below' the 'equivalent' (1:1) iCore.
    Reply to Tom Tancredi
  3. DRagor said:
    They are compatible. But the reason you choose that CPU now is beyond me - it is effectively dead platform, not good for gaming.


    OK, well, what would be another cpu/mobo combo for decent gaming under $120?

    Also, the only thing this computer is doing is playing games at low settings around at least thirty FPS, so I am not really in that bad shape, second off, I suck with controllers, and am getting this as a second pc to LAN with my other pc, it is a build for my friend, and if I bought a PS4 we couldn't exactly LAN could we? Second, I checked all the sizes, the placing of screws, ETC, they are all atx standard, I have even made sure my other computer's parts will fit properly, and they are all atx standard sizes, so size-wize, they are fine. Another point you made, intel processors, I have never fully appreciated the apple part, where they sell the thing for way more money, I do like a couple things aout them, but im an AMD person, no need for salt, but thats just my brand. If I needed a new dedicated, hard core gaming computer id be willing to get another one of my current rigs, and although people don't like my cpu and say it's slow and stuff, it';s faster than any intel at it's pricepoint in terms of the video editing, recording, and other taxing CPU tasks, so what is my rig? I have an RX 480 2GB VRAM, an FX 8350 octa-core, and an asus motherboard along with 8 Gigs ram(two older sticks just burnt out) so I have good gaming stuff, I need a second PC to run these games, EVEN IF it just barely runs them.
    Reply to DrDerpCannon25
  4. It is your call, of course. If you want a secondary, cheap machine and it has to be AMD, you indeed have not much choice, not until Ryzen 3 comes out. As the only combo at 120$ I could suggest would be Intel's G4560+cheap B250 mobo (it's around 125$ usually).
    Reply to DRagor
  5. DrDerpCannon25 said:
    DRagor said:
    They are compatible. But the reason you choose that CPU now is beyond me - it is effectively dead platform, not good for gaming.


    OK, well, what would be another cpu/mobo combo for decent gaming under $120?

    Also, the only thing this computer is doing is playing games at low settings around at least thirty FPS, so I am not really in that bad shape, second off, I suck with controllers, and am getting this as a second pc to LAN with my other pc, it is a build for my friend, and if I bought a PS4 we couldn't exactly LAN could we? Second, I checked all the sizes, the placing of screws, ETC, they are all atx standard, I have even made sure my other computer's parts will fit properly, and they are all atx standard sizes, so size-wize, they are fine. Another point you made, intel processors, I have never fully appreciated the apple part, where they sell the thing for way more money, I do like a couple things aout them, but im an AMD person, no need for salt, but thats just my brand. If I needed a new dedicated, hard core gaming computer id be willing to get another one of my current rigs, and although people don't like my cpu and say it's slow and stuff, it';s faster than any intel at it's pricepoint in terms of the video editing, recording, and other taxing CPU tasks, so what is my rig? I have an RX 480 2GB VRAM, an FX 8350 octa-core, and an asus motherboard along with 8 Gigs ram(two older sticks just burnt out) so I have good gaming stuff, I need a second PC to run these games, EVEN IF it just barely runs them.


    REPLY TO QUANTIFY the discussion. :)

    I am reading what you said and appreciate you are technically savvy enough to dive a bit deeper, but I am a bit concerned that your viewpoint is, for a lack of a better term, outdated; "am getting this as a second pc to LAN with my other pc"

    I so sympathize and agree, I too "suck with controllers", but was glad to see there is a Keyboard and Mouse option to Playstations for us "suck with controllers" that does work well as I understand it, so just to let you know of your OPTIONS.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=keyboard+mouse+ps4&oq=Keyboard+mouse+&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j0l5.5136j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

    Except for VERY OLD titles (Quake for example) NO, none of the games for several years can be " a second pc to LAN with my other pc" SPECIFICALLY BY DESIGN. When COD MW or so came out it was decided that gameplay itself can be monetized and controlled to generate the current 'DLC' standard, and with that they tossed out the ability to LAN play.
    https://www.polygon.com/2015/1/29/7944755/lan-party-gaming-call-of-duty

    As such, ANY multiplayer game play is setup via a SERVER by the maker, and to meet the demands of the client side game your buying, you do need to meet certain hardware requirements, and that is the stickler because for PC it gets way above the $100 - 200 price range for you to be able to "just barely runs them". I am not talking 60FPS, I am talking the performance is single digits to 10s FPS because of the equal demand on the CPU to generate the 'intelligence' of the game (for example using circling and flanking tactics, or utilizing higher risk / reward movements without 'cheats' from the programmer on success by the AI) as well as the graphical demands on the CPU to render it properly.

    Thus the rise of the CONSOLES, and how they filled that notch, no worries IF the game will 'play' or not, because game play is guaranteed as the Console maker has strict standards BEFORE a title is allowed on it's platform, Now every PC title exists (there is a very very rare exception) is on Console, it isn't much of a choice anymore to be on PC perse sadly. I do have to give credit, PS3 issued in 2006 was still getting NEW game titles in 2016, 10 Years later, can't say that on PC where you have to replace the entire system every 5 years.

    Which leads to the next part about being a AMD fan. I built my systems around them starting with a 486DX-40 and kept building until the FX line came into collision with the iCore line. While great you can have multiple processors in FX, but all the games and apps were coded to use ONE CORE, and thus the Hyperthreading killed AMD's chances until NOW 7 YEARS LATER, AMD finally got it figured out with Ryzen. So there hasn't been a choice but to suck it up and get Intel's iCore series for the past several years if you wanted the performance to meet the demands as they keep increasing. This is why the i3-6xxx performance was 'at' or 'just' below your FX-8xxx (SHOCKED when I saw the charts), and now they introduced the 9xxx Series of iCore this past month.

    I would also point out NUMEROUS games can't be played on your video card, because it is 2GB, due to the demands needed by the game engine itself, numerous titles will tell you honestly your system does not meet minimum specifications (4GB or more GPUs). You can check specific titles at www.canirunit.com and see for yourself the minimum requirement and the recommended (like advertised and EXPECT it to play and look) requirements.

    So why am I saying that? Because honestly there is no (as noted) alternative from AMD YET (Ryzen was just released) as you want, and even when it is released will NOT be $100-200. As noted, whatever you get for your friend to game will require a second LICENSED and 'registered to the Online Account' copy of every game you want to Multiplay on, AND will need to be AS powerful MINIMUM as you have right now system (for example FX-6xxx can't run games released since BF4' because of the demands it gets bottlenecked too hard on the CPU ) which is still a DEAD platform.

    DEAD Platform: As happened with DDR2 Based systems, DDR3 is dead now and can't be used on newer platforms, PSU's also can't be used as they need different connectors, CPUs aren's compatible, etc. etc. etc. So the options dwindle down and down and down, and the price goes UP UP UP. Further as your set on AMD, those parts (as noted) stopped being made and sold several years ago (FX line), so either your spending the SAME as a much better performance Intel System OR your risking with USED parts / systems and how long those will last.

    So unless your buying a Console (SIGH!) for you both to share play at your home, or gift to them a SECOND console to take home and play there against yours in your home; you have no real choices to meet your price point. You can see for yourself by checking www.pcpartpicker.com . It is very good at matching up parts, and pricing is LIVE, so it changes as the prices change from those retailers.

    As we are saying, it comes down to pricepoint, and there is a point where spending $200 here makes no sense when $200 there provides 10X better value (performance guaranteed, looks much better, plays smoother, etc.).

    Two more resources:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-pc-builds,4390.html
    http://www.tomshardware.com/t/build-your-own/
    Reply to Tom Tancredi
  6. DRagor said:
    It is your call, of course. If you want a secondary, cheap machine and it has to be AMD, you indeed have not much choice, not until Ryzen 3 comes out. As the only combo at 120$ I could suggest would be Intel's G4560+cheap B250 mobo (it's around 125$ usually).


    Okay, I'm sorry but that wouldn't run anything without an internal resolution scaler, 1. It's a dual core, 2. It's clock is decent but people say that it i still quite a slow processor. The processor that I will be using will be a quad core, so it's much better in a lot of respects, especially in terms of what I am going to be using it for. But thanks for the suggestion! Also, I am NOT getting a PS4 although PS4 is better than xbox 1, my friend already has one, second, not paying the $150 to play with a mouse and keyboard on console, second I don't see what you mean with the battlefield 4 bottle necking at the fx 6xxx series processors, because they are not bottlenecks unless ram and GPU are bottlenecks, in fact, I have friends who play new AAA titles on decent settings and frames with fx 6xxx series processors, and also a big part of the games that I play are indie games, which believe it or not DO NOT come on console because as implied with INDIE, the teams are usually small and don't get enough money from the game to pay PlayStation or Xbox to port it to their systems. As I believe I have said, no matter what the game is I will almost always be able to change things like the internal resolution scaler. Anyways this computer isn't gonna be a special 60 FPS max settings rig, this will be a min settings rig, with adjustments to do even lower settings like resolutions, because I don't mind, and neither does my friend. [Also, you would be suprised what you can play with a 2gb VRAM gpu, because if you have extra RAM, there are ways to delegate that to use it as VRAM.]
    Reply to DrDerpCannon25
Ask a new question Answer

Read More

Chipsets PC Builds CPUs Compatibility