How is this for a budget gaming PC?

[Renzatic]

I did do a bit of research before throwing this build at you guys

I used to keep up to date on this stuff back in the day. But now? Even after having just built one, I'm still kinda out of the loop.

Depending on the performance, I'd say this would make AMD based machines a better choice for cheaper gaming setups, even with DX12 on the horizon.

 

[bradl]

I used to keep up to date on this stuff back in the day. But now? Even after having just built one, I'm still kinda out of the loop.

Depending on the performance, I'd say this would make AMD based machines a better choice for cheaper gaming setups, even with DX12 on the horizon.

AMD has always been the cheaper option for gaming setups. Unless you want the faster speed (and sometimes, the cooler CPU), you'll pay the premium with going with Intel. But AMD CPUs have been cheaper, and reliable for as long as I've used them, and that's going back to the K6 days back in 1998. In fact, my Mini ITX build is the first build I have done with an Intel CPU.. scratch that. it's the 2nd. I did a quick/dirty Hackintosh build with a Core i3-2105 for less than $500.

But you'd definitely save between $100 - $200 by going AMD over Intel.

BL.

 

[lowendlinux]

That was for CrossFire support. The APU and the AMD GPU running together would be great running together I thought.

It does’t work as well as you’d think honestly.

 

[Renzatic]

AMD has always been the cheaper option for gaming setups. Unless you want the faster speed (and sometimes, the cooler CPU), you'll pay the premium with going with Intel. But AMD CPUs have been cheaper, and reliable for as long as I've used them, and that's going back to the K6 days back in 1998. In fact, my Mini ITX build is the first build I have done with an Intel CPU.. scratch that. it's the 2nd. I did a quick/dirty Hackintosh build with a Core i3-2105 for less than $500.

But you'd definitely save between $100 - $200 by going AMD over Intel.

My last computer was an Opteron, so I know they're reliable. But I've been under the impression that since the arrival of the Core2Duo, if you want a more general purpose computer, even the highest end AMD chips pale in comparison to a midline Core i chip. They're far from being terrible, but you get more bang for the buck going with Intel.

 

[bradl]

My last computer was an Opteron, so I know they're reliable. But I've been under the impression that since the arrival of the Core2Duo, if you want a more general purpose computer, even the highest end AMD chips pale in comparison to a midline Core i chip. They're far from being terrible, but you get more bang for the buck going with Intel.

Sorta..

Keep in mind that it was AMD that came out with the x86-64 architecture and spec, and Intel had to really catch up to compete. That was around the time with Core 2 Duo and hyperthreading to emulate additional cores, but by then, AMD figured out to get 3 and 4 cores onto the CPU. Then Intel came up big, while AMD went to adding more cores with 6 and 8-core chips, where Intel worked on speed and performance. But with that performance, you pay for it. Call it the 'Intel Tax'.

If you can take slightly slower performance (not that the naked eye would see), AMD would be a cheaper deal; but if you want the max and best, Intel it is.

BL.

 

[TechGod]

Sorta..

Keep in mind that it was AMD that came out with the x86-64 architecture and spec, and Intel had to really catch up to compete. That was around the time with Core 2 Duo and hyperthreading to emulate additional cores, but by then, AMD figured out to get 3 and 4 cores onto the CPU. Then Intel came up big, while AMD went to adding more cores with 6 and 8-core chips, where Intel worked on speed and performance. But with that performance, you pay for it. Call it the 'Intel Tax'.

If you can take slightly slower performance (not that the naked eye would see), AMD would be a cheaper deal; but if you want the max and best, Intel it is.

BL.

I don't care about Intel having slightly higher performance.

 

[Renzatic]

snip

It wasn't just x64 AMD kickstarted. They were also directly responsible for introducing us all to multicore processors, back when Intel were still futzing around trying to get the P4's up to 4Ghz to compete with the Athlons, which were just as fast at half the clockrate.

It's a shame they couldn't keep up that competitive edge.

 

[TechGod]

AMD build:
http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/user/DoomBlades/saved/rPLxFT

Intel build:
http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/GFHbHx

 

[TechGod]

It wasn't just x64 AMD kickstarted. They were also directly responsible for introducing us all to multicore processors, back when Intel were still futzing around trying to get the P4's up to 4Ghz to compete with the Athlons, which were just as fast at half the clockrate.

It's a shame they couldn't keep up that competitive edge.

Least the new Fury X is amazing on the GPU side.

 

[Renzatic]

AMD build:
http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/user/DoomBlades/saved/rPLxFT

Intel build:
http://nz.pcpartpicker.com/p/GFHbHx

I'd do a little more research on the mobos for the sake of double checking, since they're the one piece most likely to be the source of any hardware incompatibilities, and thus be the one piece most likely to give you a flaky experience. But from a glance, it's all looking pretty good to me.

Though I would deeply suggest going with an SSD. 256GB SSDs are pretty cheap these days, and the difference in speed and performance even on lower end models is night and day compared to oldschool magnetic drives.

 

[TechGod]

I'd do a little more research on the mobos for the sake of double checking, since they're the one piece most likely to be the source of any hardware incompatibilities, and thus be the one piece most likely to give you a flaky experience. But from a glance, it's all looking pretty good to me.

Though I would deeply suggest going with an SSD. 256GB SSDs are pretty cheap these days, and the difference in speed and performance even on lower end models is night and day compared to oldschool magnetic drives.

And I can just pull out a hard drive from their external enclosures to use inside the PC for more storage, right?

Maybe I should increase my budget to 2000 dollars, then I'll have a really sweet machine that will also last a long time.

 

[Renzatic]

And I can just pull out a hard drive from their external enclosures to use inside the PC for more storage, right?

If it's a regular SATA drive with the standard SATA connections, yeah.

Maybe I should increase my budget to 2000 dollars, then I'll have a really sweet machine that will also last a long time.

It never hurts, though it is very possible to buy more machine than what you'll need. Since your primary concern is gaming, chances are good the only thing you'll need to concern yourself with is upgrading the GPU when your PC reaches its middle age point. Your processor will probably last you at least 4 years before it starts becoming a bottleneck on game performance.

...though this isn't accounting for DX12/Mantle, which will leverage multithreading across multiple cores moreso than previous APIs.

 

[TechGod]

If it's a regular SATA drive with the standard SATA connections, yeah.



It never hurts, though it is very possible to buy more machine than what you'll need. Since your primary concern is gaming, chances are good the only thing you'll need to concern yourself with is upgrading the GPU when your PC reaches its middle age point. Your processor will probably last you at least 4 years before it starts becoming a bottleneck on game performance.

...though this isn't accounting for DX12/Mantle, which will leverage multithreading across multiple cores moreso than previous APIs.

And if this is gonna take some time to save up, I might as well wait for the new chips and API's as well? That way, I will actually be able to save up enough.

 

[Renzatic]

And if this is gonna take some time to save up, I might as well wait for the new chips and API's as well? That way, I will actually be able to save up enough.

It probably wouldn't hurt to wait for Skylake, since it's the first of the future DDR4 line. Though I don't think it's absolutely necessary, and it usually takes a generation or two before you start seeing vast performance differences among RAM generations. Plus, you probably will be spending more than $2000 to upgrade to it. I'll leave this entirely to your discretion, since I'm currently of the opinion that getting a solid current generation CPU will do you about as well as waiting for the latest and greatest coming out at the end of the year.

As far as the APIs go, any DX11 card will support DX12 out of the box, and I assume the same applies to Mantle. The current generation of cards are already pretty well future proofed.

If you were going with Intel, I'd just say get a good i5 Broadwell chip, a mid-high end GPU, and be done with it. Provided you're not absolutely obsessive about playing all your games at absolute max settings, it'd last you about 4-5 years. Going AMD will probably give you about as much lasting power for games, but since I don't keep up with that scene, I'll defer to Bradl or Lowend for their opinion on that.

 

[TechGod]

It probably wouldn't hurt to wait for Skylake, since it's the first of the future DDR4 line. Though I don't think it's absolutely necessary, and it usually takes a generation or two before you start seeing vast performance differences among RAM generations. Plus, you probably will be spending more than $2000 to upgrade to it. I'll leave this entirely to your discretion, since I'm currently of the opinion that getting a solid current generation CPU will do you about as well as waiting for the latest and greatest coming out at the end of the year.

As far as the APIs go, any DX11 card will support DX12 out of the box, and I assume the same applies to Mantle. The current generation of cards are already pretty well future proofed.

If you were going with Intel, I'd just say get a good i5 Broadwell chip, a mid-high end GPU, and be done with it. Provided you're not absolutely obsessive about playing all your games at absolute max settings, it'd last you about 4-5 years. Going AMD will probably give you about as much lasting power for games, but since I don't keep up with that scene, I'll defer to Bradl or Lowend for their opinion on that.

Ok, thank you so much! I would only play at 1080P since any higher resolution display is just too expensive and I don't mind playing with a mixture of medium and high settings in games anyway, once again, thanks for all your help!

 

[lowendlinux]

AM3+ is a dead socket and AMD will have new processors next year. That cooler you picked MIGHT control the heat of that FX if you keep everything reasonable but it's going to struggle. Now is not the time to build anything AMD if your intent is to game, HT PC sure AM1 smokes just about everything but beyond that they're old, slow, hot, and use WAY to much power. That 6300 will perform on the C2D/C2Q level they're not worth the money very little team red makes is worth the money currently '16 will hopefully fix that.

 

[TechGod]

AM3+ is a dead socket and AMD will have new processors next year. That cooler you picked MIGHT control the heat of that FX if you keep everything reasonable but it's going to struggle. Now is not the time to build anything AMD if your intent is to game, HT PC sure AM1 smokes just about everything but beyond that they're old, slow, hot, and use WAY to much power. That 6300 will perform on the C2D/C2Q level they're not worth the money very little team red makes is worth the money currently '16 will hopefully fix that.

Oh wow, thanks for warning me! I really want to use AMD, I have never owned an AMD computer before.

 

[lowendlinux]

Oh wow, thanks for warning me! I really want to use AMD, I have never owned an AMD computer before.

I like the red team too but right now is not the time.

 

[lunaoso]

When I build computer for most people I’m able to convince them to go mini ITX it just make more sense for most people a small computer small footprint with just basically non-consequntial trade offs.

I went with mITX for my current build as well. I sometimes wish for some more expandability, but the small form factor is really great. I hope that by the time I need to upgrade to a new PC, mITX will have progressed a lot by then (I'm sure it will). After the work that I've put into my Prodigy, I'd be sad to see it get kicked to the curb .

 

[bradl]

I went with mITX for my current build as well. I sometimes wish for some more expandability, but the small form factor is really great. I hope that by the time I need to upgrade to a new PC, mITX will have progressed a lot by then (I'm sure it will). After the work that I've put into my Prodigy, I'd be sad to see it get kicked to the curb .

but the thing about that Prodigy is that you're looking at ATX expandability in a mITX form factor. Granted, dual video cards are out of the question, but that Prodigy can hold up to 15 drives, so that makes a lot of room to expand, especially as far as drive space goes.

BL.

 

[lunaoso]

but the thing about that Prodigy is that you're looking at ATX expandability in a mITX form factor. Granted, dual video cards are out of the question, but that Prodigy can hold up to 15 drives, so that makes a lot of room to expand, especially as far as drive space goes.

BL.

The case definitely supports the expandability, but the motherboards are a bit lacking imo. I know there isn't room for more PCI slots on the board itself, but I would like a few more sata ports to support all of those drive spots. This is already being addressed though with a few mITX boards I've seen bump it up to 6 Sata. I put LEDs inside of my prodigy, so I really don't want to let it go . Hopefully I can convince myself to stick with mITX as the years go on.

 

[lowendlinux]

The case definitely supports the expandability, but the motherboards are a bit lacking imo. I know there isn't room for more PCI slots on the board itself, but I would like a few more sata ports to support all of those drive spots. This is already being addressed though with a few mITX boards I've seen bump it up to 6 Sata. I put LEDs inside of my prodigy, so I really don't want to let it go . Hopefully I can convince myself to stick with mITX as the years go on.

I like the expandability of larger boards too but most people prefer the smaller format especially if the connectivity is built. When I show people the size of the case I can build a computer in they're floored because they are so used to largish black boxes. It's been a couple years since someone has wanted me to build based on mATX or ATX since most computers are moving from the office to the living room even gaming PC's. I personally don't care for the Prodigy in either of it's sizes but it cools well, has lots of drive bays, and is cheap.

 

[TechGod]

I wanna build a pretty expandable box and kinda wanna treat it is my "baby" so I'll be going the full ATX route. I know I've posted mini ATX parts in a few of my lists but I kinda feel like a full ATX

 

[lunaoso]

I like the expandability of larger boards too but most people prefer the smaller format especially if the connectivity is built. When I show people the size of the case I can build a computer in they're floored because they are so used to largish black boxes. It's been a couple years since someone has wanted me to build based on mATX or ATX since most computers are moving from the office to the living room even gaming PC's. I personally don't care for the Prodigy in either of it's sizes but it cools well, has lots of drive bays, and is cheap.

Absolutely. The small size makes up for its disadvantages.

 

[twietee]

When building your first rig I'd personally opt for a bigger case, except if you're a swiss watchmaker. It's pretty crammed anyway so that extra inch comes in handy. Also you may want to update your gpu sooner than your CPU/MB and those can get quite big/too long.