PDA

View Full Version : CPU & mobo recommendations please!



BobbyFizz
21-03-2013, 10:21 AM
Currently got a 4 ish year old system, got a few extra quid so thought I'd upgrade a bit.

Current : AMD quad 2.4 socket am2+, Cheap Asrock mobo, 4gb ram, nvidia 9800gt

Looking at keeping the gfx card for now, whats my best bet for a new cpu and mobo? Also guessing I'll need some more ram as this is ddr2.


Currently looking at something like this: [AMD Bulldozer 4.2ghz with Asus M5A mobo, 155] http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/AMD-Bulldozer-FX-4170-4-2Ghz-Quad-Core-Asus-M5A78L-M-USB3-Motherboard-Bundle-/140937401343?pt=UK_Motherboards_CPUs&hash=item20d08613ff

mashakos
21-03-2013, 03:00 PM
my advice: save up for the end of this year. It will pay off big time. The above cpu/mobo combination you mentioned is going to be obsolete by then anyway. Don't waste your money.

BobbyFizz
21-03-2013, 03:13 PM
I suppose in regards to new games that are cross platform on the next gen consoles, that is definitely true. However this upgrade is supposed to be an interim thing, hence I'm not spending a huge amount of cash on it. Thanks for the advice though.

trjp
21-03-2013, 03:54 PM
my advice: save up for the end of this year. It will pay off big time. The above cpu/mobo combination you mentioned is going to be obsolete by then anyway. Don't waste your money.

You have GOT to learn to read what people are asking and not just steam in with "wait - MASSIVE POWER COMING SOON" to every thread dude - some people just want a decent PC which costs 'not very much' - can't you understand that - can't you read what people are actually asking for?

OP - I'm with you on the overall idea but I'd probably try to get a better mobo - that's a 760G board and lacks SATA III - this board seems popular for cheap builds and has that

http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=4122#ov

I came across this deal when looking for inspiration yesterday, it's an assembled bundle for less than the cost of the parts - see here

http://www.awd-it.co.uk/amd-bulldozer-fx-6100-six-core-3.3ghz-gigabyte-970a-ds3-usb3-atx-motherboard-ddr3-memory-
against
http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/LdiN

If you're OK at self-assembly, you could change that spec to include faster (1600) RAM/swap to a newer Piledriver 4300 (quad) and save a few bob into the bargain and so on.

I'm wondering how much of a step-up you'll notice tho - it will depend on the games you're playing because you already have a quad core which is what some games need but then your GPU is getting a bit ancient and that's what a lot of other games need.

What do you play now? Which AMD do you have right now (Phenom or Athlon x4?) and what issues are you looking to solve.

I have an Athlon x2 and that's my problem, it's just maxing-out in newer games, I need more cores (and I'm half-tempted just to shove an Athlon x4 in there as a supercheap step-up)

mashakos
21-03-2013, 04:18 PM
You have GOT to learn to read what people are asking and not just steam in with "wait - MASSIVE POWER COMING SOON" to every thread dude - some people just want a decent PC which costs 'not very much' - can't you understand that - can't you read what people are actually asking for?

I don't think you should be suggesting anything though, since you bought and built a PC that can't run current games. How useful is your advice if your own system sucks?

trjp
21-03-2013, 04:27 PM
I don't think you should be suggesting anything though, since you bought and built a PC that can't run current games. How useful is your advice if your own system sucks?

My advice relates to his question - your advice is to wait for some indefinable thing and to tell him stuff will be 'obsolete' when it isn't - which is more useful?

My PC was all I could get for the 200 I had at the time - it was a good upgrade and it's done what I wanted since - I could get 150 for it today too - what's wrong with that then?

Also, you're committing Ad Hominem which suggests you're shit at arguing so why should we think you know what you're talking about with PCs either?

Seriously - EVERY thread you enter you derail by not reading the question and then get into personal, tangential arguments with people. I don't have anything against you personally (unlike you against me it seems) but it would help people if you'd stop trying to help people I think ;)

mashakos
21-03-2013, 05:03 PM
My advice relates to his question - your advice is to wait for some indefinable thing and to tell him stuff will be 'obsolete' when it isn't - which is more useful?

My PC was all I could get for the 200 I had at the time - it was a good upgrade and it's done what I wanted since - I could get 150 for it today too - what's wrong with that then?

Also, you're committing Ad Hominem which suggests you're shit at arguing so why should we think you know what you're talking about with PCs either?

Seriously - EVERY thread you enter you derail by not reading the question and then get into personal, tangential arguments with people. I don't have anything against you personally (unlike you against me it seems) but it would help people if you'd stop trying to help people I think ;)
I'm a blunt person so maybe I seem as if I am trying to offend you.
I honestly want to know, if you yourself have not managed to build something up to standard, what makes your advice of any value in this specific topic? Hey, maybe you are a master IT guy, but when it comes to PC hardware internals...

trjp
21-03-2013, 06:19 PM
I'm a blunt person so maybe I seem as if I am trying to offend you.
I honestly want to know, if you yourself have not managed to build something up to standard, what makes your advice of any value in this specific topic? Hey, maybe you are a master IT guy, but when it comes to PC hardware internals...

Your lack of reading skills extended to my comment on you NOT DIVERTING EVERY THREAD TO YOUR OWN VANITY didn't it - you also didn't look-up "Ad Hominem" either...

If a mod reads this, would they please delete the irrelevant stuff - their choice as to which bits - please, thanks...

mashakos
21-03-2013, 06:30 PM
Your lack of reading skills extended to my comment on you NOT DIVERTING EVERY THREAD TO YOUR OWN VANITY didn't it - you also didn't look-up "Ad Hominem" either...

If a mod reads this, would they please delete the irrelevant stuff - their choice as to which bits - please, thanks...

better watch out ppl, trjp has hit the caps lock button ...

trjp
21-03-2013, 07:23 PM
better watch out ppl, trjp has hit the caps lock button ...

and he has to have the last word too, completely immune to the fact he's just wrecking yet another thread.

I've ticketted your post and I'm out - GL with everything when you grow-up and all that - you'll need it.

spacein_vader
21-03-2013, 08:47 PM
I honestly want to know, if you yourself have not managed to build something up to standard, what makes your advice of any value in this specific topic?
People have different standards. Yours seems to be about getting the absolute best solution currently (or soon to be,) on the market. There is nothing wrong with that, but it's not the only approach and one that many either can't afford or would rather not spend that amount on. Saying that the hardware the OP mentioned will be obsolete at the end of the year isn't helpful. All PC hardware is obsolete (in the literal "has been replaced by a better/faster/cheaper model" sense,) about 6 months after launch tops. It can however last for many years before it is obsolete in any real world scenarios (as in, it won't run a game at a playable framerate at all, or doesn't meet the minimum spec for the next OS.)

OP, I also have an AM2 quad core (a Phenom II in my case,) running on DDR2. I also went for a gradual overhaul to try and balance the spend over time. I've found the vast majority of games aren't being held up by my CPU. If you have a Phenom you may find similarly. Assuming you're interested in playing games 1st and foremost I'd recommend upgrading in this order:

1. If you're planning on keeping the CPU/mobo a year or more, get another 4GB of memory. DDR2 is getting expensive but you may be able to find some used or end of line.

2. Get a SSD. This is the single biggest performance upgrade I've put in my PC since I bought a 3Dfx Voodoo. EVERYTHING gets faster.

3. Depending on if you're feeling GPU or CPU limited look either towards a GPU upgrade or a CPU/Mobo/RAM swapout.

I got a new GPU at stage 3, but mine was older than your current one (Radeon 4890.) I'm now in the stage of saving for a new CPU/mobo/RAM and pondering over AMD/Intel etc.

Sakkura
21-03-2013, 09:12 PM
1. If you're planning on keeping the CPU/mobo a year or more, get another 4GB of memory. DDR2 is getting expensive but you may be able to find some used or end of line.


I got a new GPU at stage 3, but mine was older than your current one (Radeon 4890.) I'm now in the stage of saving for a new CPU/mobo/RAM and pondering over AMD/Intel etc.
I agree with a lot of what you said, so I'm only going to pick on these two details.

More RAM doesn't seem like a good investment to me. 4 GB is still fine for most games. I would pretty much never recommend buying 8 GB when assembling a new computer, but that's because 8 GB only costs a little bit more and you'll be using a new computer for longer than this relatively old machine.

And a Radeon HD 4890 isn't actually older than a 9800 GT. The Radeon HD 4000 series and Geforce 9000 series were direct competitors, but... the 4890 was released in April 2009 as a rejiggled improvement over the earlier 4870. The 9800 GT was launched in July 2008 as a straight rebrand of the older 8800 GT.

BobbyFizz
21-03-2013, 10:51 PM
Thanks for all the responses


What do you play now? Which AMD do you have right now (Phenom or Athlon x4?) and what issues are you looking to solve.


It's a Phenom 9650

I play Guild wars 2, Red Orchestra 2, Planetside 2, having a few problems with gw2 and ps2, mainly when a lot of stuff going on (the more people the choppier). My assumption is the CPU and Mobo is the bottleneck. I know the card is relatively old, but thinking the best bet for now is the CPU route.

mashakos
21-03-2013, 11:18 PM
Saying that the hardware the OP mentioned will be obsolete at the end of the year isn't helpful. All PC hardware is obsolete (in the literal "has been replaced by a better/faster/cheaper model" sense,) about 6 months after launch tops. It can however last for many years before it is obsolete in any real world scenarios (as in, it won't run a game at a playable framerate at all, or doesn't meet the minimum spec for the next OS.)

this is the last year of this gen. Anything low end is going to be obsolete as in won't be able to play 2014 games at the lowest setting. Think stuff on Watch Dogs' level and higher.

Sakkura
22-03-2013, 12:01 AM
this is the last year of this gen. Anything low end is going to be obsolete as in won't be able to play 2014 games at the lowest setting. Think stuff on Watch Dogs' level and higher.
And this gen started a year ago. Of course current hardware will be able to play 2014 games at the lowest settings, especially when it comes to the CPU. Developers only very rarely shut out a lot of customers by suddenly cranking up the minimum requirements dramatically. Crysis became notorious precisely because it was a deviation from that norm.

mashakos
22-03-2013, 12:13 AM
And this gen started a year ago. Of course current hardware will be able to play 2014 games at the lowest settings, especially when it comes to the CPU. Developers only very rarely shut out a lot of customers by suddenly cranking up the minimum requirements dramatically. Crysis became notorious precisely because it was a deviation from that norm.

I can think of ten games off the top of my head that couldn't run on an athlon64 + ati 9800 Pro that came out in 2006/2007:
Gears of War
The Witcher
UT3
DiRT
Condemned
Bioshock
supreme commander
world in conflict
cod 4
Oblivion

Sakkura
22-03-2013, 01:53 AM
The 9800 Pro and Athlon 64 were already ~4 years old by then.

mashakos
22-03-2013, 02:12 AM
The 9800 Pro and Athlon 64 were already ~4 years old by then.

ok then swap out the 9800 pro for an ati x1900xtx and the athlon64 for an athlon64 x2. Same result.

Boris
22-03-2013, 12:07 PM
Actually, the X1900XTX is above the recommended spec for Witcher. Above. Recommended.

The 9800Pro on an Athlon64 is the minimum spec and should also run.

Sakkura
22-03-2013, 12:11 PM
ok then swap out the 9800 pro for an ati x1900xtx and the athlon64 for an athlon64 x2. Same result.
Found a review (http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/2006/03/31/elder_scrolls_oblivion/4) for the x1900xtx where it ran Oblivion at max settings just fine.

mashakos
22-03-2013, 02:28 PM
Found a review (http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/2006/03/31/elder_scrolls_oblivion/4) for the x1900xtx where it ran Oblivion at max settings just fine.

the review that states a minimum framerate of 15fps is just fine? wah?

I was running oblivion with a minimum framerate of 50fps back then on an 8800gtx.

mashakos
22-03-2013, 02:34 PM
Actually, the X1900XTX is above the recommended spec for Witcher. Above. Recommended.

The 9800Pro on an Athlon64 is the minimum spec and should also run.

and the requirements on the box are always accurate of course. thanks.

I remember capcom stating that Devil May Cry 3 would run on a Pentium II on their min. requirements thingie. Very accurate.

Sakkura
22-03-2013, 02:44 PM
the review that states a minimum framerate of 15fps is just fine? wah?

I was running oblivion with a minimum framerate of 50fps back then on an 8800gtx.
Minimum framerates aren't representative, mainly because scene loading usually incurs a short framerate drop. In any case, this was at MAXIMUM settings.

mashakos
22-03-2013, 03:18 PM
Minimum framerates aren't representative, mainly because scene loading usually incurs a short framerate drop. In any case, this was at MAXIMUM settings.
still terible performance, I was getting 50fps minimum with all the "scene loading"

the 1900xtx came out in 2006, my analogy was that hardware before 2006 would be obsolete (even if the x1900xtx was dead in the water with the release of geforce 8 series). What did ati and nvidia release in 2005?

geforce 7800 GT, 21fps average
radeon X1800, 23.3fps average
http://www.anandtech.com/show/1996/4

that's on a resolution of 1280x1024, basically an android smartphone's screen resolution. Keep in mind that things got considerably more complex than oblivion from 2007 onwards.

Sakkura
22-03-2013, 03:31 PM
1280x1024 was a typical or above-average gaming resolution in 2006. Even today, 1280x1024 and equivalent or lower resolutions make up about half of the computers registered in the Steam hardware survey.

So you could play Oblivion on MAXIMUM settings at a good resolution with the x1900xtx. With older cards you could surely have run it at lower settings. Anandtech confirms that by testing older cards at high settings. Lower settings would clearly have been playable.

Boris
22-03-2013, 05:13 PM
and the requirements on the box are always accurate of course. thanks.

I remember capcom stating that Devil May Cry 3 would run on a Pentium II on their min. requirements thingie. Very accurate.

You claimed they can not run. I pointed a game that obviously does run. So have others. You were wrong. Why can't you accept that instead of trying to weasel out?

BobbyFizz
22-03-2013, 09:11 PM
This thread went a bit mental but anyone kind enough to read my OP, I'm still open to suggestions. Cheers, be happy!

Boris
22-03-2013, 10:37 PM
It references 155 pounds. Is that the budget? It's really hard to shop for computer parts if you don't know how much someone is willing to spend.

(I'm assuming you're just shopping for CPU, mobo and RAM)

BobbyFizz
23-03-2013, 12:28 AM
Yea I was looking at a low spend, so sub 200 or thereabouts, or any ideas are welcome. And yes, just CPU mobo and RAM.

Sakkura
23-03-2013, 03:23 AM
Might be able to squeeze in an FX-6300 then, though with the current spike in RAM prices it'll necessitate a pretty cheap motherboard.

Say an FX-6300 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B009O7YORK/?tag=pcp0f-21) for 106, some Patriot DDR3-1866 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B008U92JHK/?tag=pcp0f-21) for 40 (because I couldn't seem to find DDR3-1600 that was much cheaper and didn't have 1-2 months shipping), and a Gigabyte GA-970A-DS3 (http://www.ebuyer.com/349910-gigabyte-ga-970a-ds3-socket-am3-7-1-channel-audio-atx-motherboard-ga-970a-ds3) for 52.

BobbyFizz
23-03-2013, 10:06 AM
Not bad, thanks for the suggestions.

Grizzly
23-03-2013, 04:22 PM
Hmm. If you are going sub 200 pounds, would it perhaps be an option to get an Intell i3 processor, and immeaditely upgrade your motherboard to DDR3 and get 8 gigs of that? I think you are still below 200 pounds when you do that, and the i3 is reasonbly future-proof (Hyper threading works almost as well as a full quad core these days, as tom's hardwares Far Cry 3 benchmarks show).

However, I would personally recommend that you go over the 200 pound budget and get an i5-3470. It will cost you... roughly 40-50 pounds more I think.
The reasoning behind this is, is simple: Currently, Intell's newer generations are only slightly faster then the generations that preceeded it, and even my Q6600+DDR2 still holds it's own in all the games. The thing is: By the time you need to upgrade your processor, you will need to upgrade your motherboard and ram as well, since by the time it happens, technology will have moved on and getting more ram for your current mobo or a better processor for your current mobo wil be terribly hard (Which is basically what is happening to you right now - DDR3 is already out and stuff). A full upgrade will net you more performance per buck in those cases.

Since the i5-3470 meets Intell's flagship I7-3960x in game-performance in every game except Crysis 3 (where it lags only slightly behind), it has stellar price-performance capabilities - and it will probably last a very very very long while before that one needs upgrading. I recommend that you then pick a cheaper graphics card - in my experience, those need to be replaced a bit faster, and graphics can be scaled down. The amount of CPU power your game needs usually can not.

EDIT2: This looks like a very good deal (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Intel-Core-I5-2380P-3-1Ghz-8GB-DDR3-1333mhz-Gigabyte-H61M-Motherboard-Bundle-/140922303847?pt=UK_Motherboards_CPUs&hash=item20cf9fb567). The P variant indicates that the onboard graphics chip has been removed (which you will not be using anyway), and the 2nd generation i5 is not slower then the 3rd generation, it just draws more energy. For 225 pounds, this is an AWESOME deal.

Sakkura
23-03-2013, 05:56 PM
EDIT2: This looks like a very good deal (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Intel-Core-I5-2380P-3-1Ghz-8GB-DDR3-1333mhz-Gigabyte-H61M-Motherboard-Bundle-/140922303847?pt=UK_Motherboards_CPUs&hash=item20cf9fb567). The P variant indicates that the onboard graphics chip has been removed (which you will not be using anyway), and the 2nd generation i5 is not slower then the 3rd generation, it just draws more energy. For 225 pounds, this is an AWESOME deal.
The 2nd generation Core i5 actually is slower than the 3rd generation.

Grizzly
23-03-2013, 10:46 PM
The 2nd generation Core i5 actually is slower than the 3rd generation.

It is? I thought the difference hardly mattered.

Sakkura
23-03-2013, 11:32 PM
It is? I thought the difference hardly mattered.
Well it's only about 5%, so it's definitely not the end of the world.

mashakos
25-03-2013, 09:42 PM
You claimed they can not run. I pointed a game that obviously does run. So have others. You were wrong. Why can't you accept that instead of trying to weasel out?
not to derail this thread any further but show me a video of The Witcher running at 60fps on an ati X1900XTX. I clearly remember that game running in the low to mid 20's at sub 1600x1200 resolutions, and that's when the card was only one year old. Like I said before: a high end, $650 dx9 card that became obsolete due to inferior technology. I remember because I had a choice between that card and the 8800gtx - which can run AAA titles to this day.

Sakkura
25-03-2013, 10:01 PM
60 FPS is not a necessity. And 1600x1200 was a high-end resolution at the time, like 2560x1440 is today.

JimmyBignuts
26-03-2013, 01:29 PM
not to derail this thread any further but I'm going to continue doing just that.

That's better.

Jambe
28-03-2013, 11:46 PM
I wouldn't use AMD and would stick with ASRock in any case (they're cheap and reliable).

In the US a Core i3 3220 is $130, an ASRock H77M motherboard is $70, and a 2x4 GB RAM kit from a reputable outfit is ~$50. That's about 160 pounds, and you ought to be able to get at least some of that at a sale price or with a package discount or whatever. Not quite sure how your taxes figure into that, though.

ASRock's H77 Pro4-M is like $10 more and has two more RAM slots, but if your PC use isn't particularly memory-intensive you won't need to upgrade that in the foreseeable future anyway (and ftm a 2x8 GB RAM kit is just ~$100).

I haven't been putting AMD CPUs in general use or gaming PCs for the last few years because Intel tends to dominate single-threaded performance at most price brackets and their processors are appreciably less power-hungry (for instance, the 4170 has a 125 W TDP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_design_power) whereas the 3220's is 55 watts).

If you can, keep what you have left for a mid-range GPU upgrade in the near future; you'll be quite significantly GPU-bottlenecked if you're using a 1080p screen...

TechnicalBen
31-03-2013, 03:23 PM
Might be a problem if the OP is in uk. ;) Prices or availability do not translate.

Chorltonwheelie
31-03-2013, 07:09 PM
Get an i3- 2100 3.1 Ghz for about 90, a Gigabyte Z68AP-D3 for about 70 and some DDR3 (4G about 20).

If you can save up a bit for an i5 3570K (unlocked so you can rinse it) and an Asus Maximus V Gene you won't regret it

Ditch AMD, it's false economy in the long run.

Sakkura
31-03-2013, 08:08 PM
Pretty weird hardware choice there. No reason to go Z68 with a Core i3, at least when SLI/Crossfire isn't on the table.

And the Asus Maximus V Gene is overpriced.

Jambe
31-03-2013, 09:53 PM
Might be a problem if the OP is in uk. ;) Prices or availability do not translate.

You're right. I'll have a quick loo at amazon.co.uk:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B007OCJWTM/ - i3 3220, 92
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B008F65MO0/ - ASRock H77M, 65
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00A3VOA3O/ - Corsair 2x4 GB, 37

So 194 altogether (I think they include VAT). Pricier, indeed! A different shop might sell that (or w/ equiv RAM) for a lower price but I'm not sure.

If I was putting together the absolute cheapest-possible 720p or lower-resolution gaming/general use PC, I'd use an AMD APU. But once one's out of rock-bottom budgets (or moves into 1080p or higher resolutions) Intel with a discrete GPU becomes the better choice. Now, if you're not the average user and you do a bunch of work in multithreaded applications, AMD's FX-4300 or 6300 might suit you better at this price range.

Sakkura
01-04-2013, 02:43 PM
You could save a few pounds with an Asrock B75 Pro3 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B007RQ0H3K/?tag=pcp0f-21). And I'd recommend RAM that runs at 1.5V instead of 1.65V, like this Patriot kit (http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B008U92JHK/?tag=pcp0f-21).

Jambe
01-04-2013, 09:32 PM
Sakkura's Patriot kit is a better choice than what I linked (derp, didn't pay attention to voltage in my hasty search!). The Kingston kit would probably do 1600 at 1.5 V and certainly 1333, but why bother if a 1600mhz 1.5 V-rated kit is just 39?

The motherboard's good as long as your case can support an ATX board (the OP's linked board is mATX but he hasn't stated his case's form factor).

/edit: That Patriot kit is actually rated for 1866 mHz (http://www.patriotmemory.com/product/detail.jsp?prodline=5&catid=34&prodgroupid=239&id=1287). It may be unstable at that speed at default timings but you can just set it to 1600 and it'll be fine (if your board doesn't do that automatically).

Grizzly
07-04-2013, 11:47 AM
/edit: That Patriot kit is actually rated for 1866 mHz (http://www.patriotmemory.com/product/detail.jsp?prodline=5&catid=34&prodgroupid=239&id=1287). It may be unstable at that speed at default timings but you can just set it to 1600 and it'll be fine (if your board doesn't do that automatically).

How can something get rated for a certain speed when it is not stable at that speed? That seems rather counter-intiutive.

Sakkura
07-04-2013, 12:44 PM
How can something get rated for a certain speed when it is not stable at that speed? That seems rather counter-intiutive.
I think he originally read it as DDR3-1600 CL9. It's actually a DDR3-1866 CL9 kit, but not CL9 in the sense that most DDR3-1600 kits are (9-9-9-24). Its rated timings at 1866 are 9-10-9-27, so 9-9-9-24 would be asking for more than it's rated for.

Jambe
07-04-2013, 02:32 PM
I think he originally read it as DDR3-1600 CL9. It's actually a DDR3-1866 CL9 kit, but not CL9 in the sense that most DDR3-1600 kits are (9-9-9-24). Its rated timings at 1866 are 9-10-9-27, so 9-9-9-24 would be asking for more than it's rated for.

Nah, it's not even that. It's just that my experience with cheaper high-speed DIMMs leads me to be a bit wary of them. There's even a person on the Amazon page mentioning he had to set his down to 1600. Personally, if I got a pair (at that price) and they wouldn't work at the rated 1866, I wouldn't return them even though RAM vendors have pretty nice replacement programs. The difference in speed is negligible and unnoticeable to the vast majority of users; not worth the bother to me.

/edit: couple more people reporting the same thing at the kit's Newegg page (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820220706), and it's the same for pretty much all such kits, especially the cheaper ones. Just a slower module slipping through the binning process (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_binning) or some emergent electrical issue or whatever. Although I imagine some percentage of those just don't know how to use their motherboards.