Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Entry Level Build $800.00
GrubbsGrady
Member UncommonPosts: 371
in Hardware
Looking for some ideas for a build for a coworker of mine.
This will be his first pc for gaming, he has a monitor/keyboard/mouse already.
No overclocking or anything like that, he just wants to be able to play modern games on moderate-high settings.
His max budget is $900.00 total out of pocket (not after rebates)
Any ideas are appreciated, thanks!
Comments
The thread title says $800, but the text of the post says $900. Anyway, the first build I came up with was this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113286
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130679
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148544
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161466
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817182068
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811147183
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226679
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=17D-001H-00002
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832416776
After the promo codes, that's $740 including shipping and before $40 in rebates. That's far enough under budget that you could go Intel on the CPU by replacing the CPU and motherboard above with:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.2251333
That comes to $882, again including shipping and before $40 in rebates. That's a better CPU, but it's also more expensive, so it's really just a question of what your coworker is willing to pay.
Also, I included an SSD and no hard drive. If 240 GB is plenty of space for him, that's an easy call. If he needs 2 TB of random junk, you'll have to add a hard drive, though there's plenty of space in the budget to add one to the initial build.
...or if you want to get something actually reasonable and good value for your money:
http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=20384714
No point going AMD FX, AMD desktops are dead platform. You can take i3 from Intel, get same performance, less power consumption(heat) and have sensible upgrade path.
Here it is:
http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=20384734
i3+ GTX 960 + 256Gb SSD + 1TB HDD + Windows 8 FULL, not a lousy OEM all that at $780 price tag - there is still $53 left in rebates.
So let's see here, compared to the Intel version of my build, you got:
1) a slower CPU
2) a low end motherboard
3) a lower end power supply (both in quality and rated wattage) incapable of powering many gaming video cards
4) a memory channel left completely vacant
5) a slower video card
6) a case with only one fan
7) no way to install the OS at all
8) less money in rebates, and
9) you paid $8 more for it than my build even before rebates.
But hey, you made room for a hard drive that may or may not get used, as well as the option to transfer the OS license to a different computer in the future. In case he still wants Windows 8.1 when building his next computer sometime around 2022.
A build with the 6 core FX-6300 is a great choice now, on top of everything that stands up to know, new benchmarks and tests of DX12 show that it utilizes up to 6 cores fully and 100% (mantle utilizes up to 8 cores atm).
So getting a 6-core processor is gonna future proof you by an insane amount for all the upcoming api.
The boost in cpu performance for multi-core processors is gearing up to be unseen so far regardless of if u have nvidia or amd graphic card.
Also check out this draw call insanity increase : http://www.anandtech.com/show/9112/exploring-dx12-3dmark-api-overhead-feature-test/3
We're in for photo-realistic graphics, and AAA movie cgi by late next year at this rate
You know better than to use logic and feed the troll... tsk tsk
James T. Kirk: All she's got isn't good enough! What else ya got?
That particular troll is almost too tempting not to feed. Its on a level all its own.
OP seems to know enough to make the correct decision. The AMD build on that budget would be my choice.
Yeah I know. The same ridiculousness in every thread, and it doesn't matter how many times it gets explained.
James T. Kirk: All she's got isn't good enough! What else ya got?
Agreed. Backing up your claims? Unheard of...the "explanation" is far more superior to any evidence.
Uhhh, where is your explanation?
I can't believe that people on this forum are still reccommending almost 3 year old AMD CPU over Intel, while AMD wasn't so great even when it released. AMD CPU's have bad single core performance compared to Intel and that's what really counts in gaming.
I've been hearing stories since 2012 that multithreaded performance will come out on top and it's just a matter on days. And also that programming games for consoles (8-core AMD Jaguar CPU) will push performance of AMDs over Intel, but it's 2015 now, and still, AMDs are lagging behind and basically have stopped production of high end CPU's.
Comparing top bins to eliminate an price savings due to "overclocking" or anything else. I didn't go shopping for sales or rebates, that's just what price I found right now.
Core i3 4370: $159 on Newegg right now
AMD FX6350: $125 right now on Newegg.
I did find this benchmark comparison:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1281?vs=1197
This compares the 6350 with a i3 4360 (100Mhz slower, but $10 more expensive, if you really would rather compare that than the 4370 on price...)
A lot of stuff is faster on the i3, particularly if you just start at the top and get hung up on the synthetic stuff. Pretty much anything listed as "multi-threaded" the FX wins.
But scroll down to the bottom, for the gaming benchmarks.
Hmm, that difference all but evaporates. Games are neck and neck - a difference of 1FPS or so in nearly all titles (a couple of glaring exceptions, I admit, but those appear to be just that - exceptions), with the "Lead" (if you want to say it's meaningful in this context) going back and forth between both CPUs. In every title - if the game is playable at 60+FPS, it's playable on both, if it's not playable at 60+FPS, it isn't playable on either.
If your workload happens to include a lot of the items where one outshines the other - sure, promote that particular CPU. The i3 does beat out a FX-6core in some particular instances.
But in gaming it's a wash. And the i3 is more expensive up front. And the i3 has fewer cores, and most people assume (that's a big word) that the future will include more multi-threaded software, not less. So why pay more for no extra gaming performance today, and possibly worse performance in the future - unless you have a very specific need that it addresses right now.
So my recommendation for a FX-6core over an i3 stands, and for the reasons I list above - with a full suite of benchmarks to support my conclusion.
The FX line may be old, and maybe it will be discontinued eventually. But today, it still fits a few very specific niches very well - one of thsoe being people building machines on a tight budget. I'm not trying to say AMD is better than Intel - if you have enough money in the budget to go with an i5 4690k - then do so by all means. But if you don't and your budget is so tight that you are trying to scrimp out $30, why would you even consider an i3, or a lower binned i5.
I provided links and proof in the last thread. You are just wasting your time. You can present all of the proof that you want, some people still won't get it.
James T. Kirk: All she's got isn't good enough! What else ya got?
All of the proof you needed was posted in the last thread with explanations on top of that. Whether you choose to acknowledge it is another choice.
James T. Kirk: All she's got isn't good enough! What else ya got?
When comparing prices between i3 and FX6300 you are forgetting that CPU cooler on AMD is loud as a hairdryer (former fx6300 owner here). So you have to buy some aftermarket cooler, which increases the AMD price For at least 20$.
Personally, I would go with i5 since it's a safe bet and adjust other hardware accordingly. You can always upgrade GPU, HDD or add more RAM later.
Are you saying the stock Intel cooler is so good it doesn't need a replacement? AMD heatsink may be loud, but the stock Intel one is abysmal performing.
We all would prefer an i5 over an i3 or a FX-whatever. The point is, if you are to the point where your budget doesn't allow an i5 without cutting back on the graphics so much that it's too painful - then what?
Intel's coolers are some of the worst. If you can't afford an I5, and FX processor is a better choice.
James T. Kirk: All she's got isn't good enough! What else ya got?
The bottom line is every gaming PC build should have a decent aftermarket tower heatsink, and if you are on a budget AMD's with a decent heatsink outperform Intel when you take platform cost into account.
When the choice is between an I5 and an AMD FX 8 core it is a no brainer.
Get the AMD and OC it as far as you can. Both platforms are at EOL now.
The IPC deficit of the AMD FX series disappears when they are overclocked, and they will have a longer lifecycle than a quad core. Especially when you take into account that DX12 and Vulkan will offer a much bigger boost to AMD's 8 core than Intel's 4 core.
You say no OC but that does him a disservice when it is as simple as setting a few parameters in bios and forgetting it. My Phenom II x6 has been purring like a kitten at 4ghz since I bought it, and with DX12/Vulkan it will probably last another few years before I need to upgrade it.
/sigh
IPC does not mean what you think it means, higher clock speed does not improve IPC - instructions per cycle. Nor things work how you imagine or is presented by some posters here.
CPU performance isn't the bottleneck, the API is. Having more cores under DX12 won't bring any performance gain because the issue isn't the lack of cores or CPU performance.
DX12 brings some major things contributing to increased performance - more load onto GPU instead of CPU and better CPU load utilization.
The most difference will be CPU heavy tasks - RTS and alike. Majority of the games won't see any improvement CPU wise since CPUs today are already fast enough, well Intel CPUs that is.
You are grossly misunderstanding the implications and features DX 12 is bringing on the table. Just look at essentially abandoned Mantle and you will get a picture what DX12 is about.
I know I am beating a dead horse...but still...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8962/the-directx-12-performance-preview-amd-nvidia-star-swarm
I'm laughing at myself right now.
I saw the title of this thread and expected to read another star citizen rant about ship prices in a game you can't play yet....
Pleasantly surprised to see it isn't.
I have a life, its just different from yours.....