Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Is this a good build for a mid-range gaming PC?

Tags:
  • Gaming
  • Graphics Cards
  • Build
  • Components
Last response: in Components
Share
August 1, 2013 4:29:14 AM

Already have keyboard + mouse, screen, case etc. as well as the video card listed. Not really sure about the SSD and the PSU, really just picked them blindly. Don't mind paying up to about £400 and intend to eventually purchase upgrades e.g better graphics card maybe at christmas or whatever.

Here is the build:
http://pcpartpicker.com/user/Robomoo/saved/252i

Any advice/ suggestions would be appreciated.
Thanks.

More about : good build mid range gaming

August 1, 2013 4:55:09 AM

Looks pretty good, a couple things that I would change just out of preference would be:

- I wouldn't get a microATX board, just because they usually only have 2 RAM slots.
- If you are gaming on it I would threw a little money into getting a little better heatsync (yet not really essential).
- Get another Hard Drive. Put your OS on the SSD then have a bigger ~500GB just for storage and overflow.

Yet these are just my preference, all together its not a bad system.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b U Graphics card
August 1, 2013 5:15:58 AM


If you can stand to wait, FM2+ motherboards should be popping up in retail over the next month or so ..

That will give you an up-grade path to the Kaveri APUs, and are backward-compatible with Trinity/Richland ...



m
0
l
August 2, 2013 3:26:55 AM

alexinnes said:
Looks pretty good, a couple things that I would change just out of preference would be:

- I wouldn't get a microATX board, just because they usually only have 2 RAM slots.
- If you are gaming on it I would threw a little money into getting a little better heatsync (yet not really essential).
- Get another Hard Drive. Put your OS on the SSD then have a bigger ~500GB just for storage and overflow.

Yet these are just my preference, all together its not a bad system.


-This motherboard has I think 4 RAM slots (it says in its description 4 x 240 pin DIMM memory slots, but maybe I am wrong about this and that means something else) so that should be fine.
-Also I don't really understand the difference between hard drives and SSDs... I just thought SSDs were 'better' hard drives and that you could have ones with less memory sort of thing... What would be the benefits of putting the OS on an SSD and having a hard drive for storage as opposed to just having an SSD or just having a hard drive?

m
0
l
August 2, 2013 5:34:47 AM

With 4x RAM slots it should be fine.

SSD mean solid state drive, which in turn basically means no moving parts. Conventional hard drive (i am simplifying this quite a lot) are just spinning disks with a head that moves over them and reads the data on them. The downside of a conventional hard drive is that the disk has to spin and the head has to find the data, thus making it slow (compared to SSD).
Think of SSD's as giant internal pen drives, they work (generally) the same way, they don't need to spin any disks to find the data, thus making them muuuch faster. The downside is that they are generally much smaller.
I hope that makes sense.

So down to the question. Having your OS on the SSD would mean that your boot time would be considerably faster, talking about 30-50 seconds for your pc to be turning on. It would also mean that windows itself would work a lot quicker. You could also store all/most of your programs on the SSD meaning they would load a lot faster than they would be on a conventional hard drive.
Just using the conventional hard drives for things like photos and videos as they take up a lot of space, which the SSD lacks (the SSD you picked is only 64GB so it would only store the OS and a couple of programs).

I hope this helps, its a little lengthy and I apologies on that.

Robomoo said:
alexinnes said:
Looks pretty good, a couple things that I would change just out of preference would be:

- I wouldn't get a microATX board, just because they usually only have 2 RAM slots.
- If you are gaming on it I would threw a little money into getting a little better heatsync (yet not really essential).
- Get another Hard Drive. Put your OS on the SSD then have a bigger ~500GB just for storage and overflow.

Yet these are just my preference, all together its not a bad system.


-This motherboard has I think 4 RAM slots (it says in its description 4 x 240 pin DIMM memory slots, but maybe I am wrong about this and that means something else) so that should be fine.
-Also I don't really understand the difference between hard drives and SSDs... I just thought SSDs were 'better' hard drives and that you could have ones with less memory sort of thing... What would be the benefits of putting the OS on an SSD and having a hard drive for storage as opposed to just having an SSD or just having a hard drive?



m
0
l
August 2, 2013 7:10:43 AM

alexinnes said:
With 4x RAM slots it should be fine.

SSD mean solid state drive, which in turn basically means no moving parts. Conventional hard drive (i am simplifying this quite a lot) are just spinning disks with a head that moves over them and reads the data on them. The downside of a conventional hard drive is that the disk has to spin and the head has to find the data, thus making it slow (compared to SSD).
Think of SSD's as giant internal pen drives, they work (generally) the same way, they don't need to spin any disks to find the data, thus making them muuuch faster. The downside is that they are generally much smaller.
I hope that makes sense.

So down to the question. Having your OS on the SSD would mean that your boot time would be considerably faster, talking about 30-50 seconds for your pc to be turning on. It would also mean that windows itself would work a lot quicker. You could also store all/most of your programs on the SSD meaning they would load a lot faster than they would be on a conventional hard drive.
Just using the conventional hard drives for things like photos and videos as they take up a lot of space, which the SSD lacks (the SSD you picked is only 64GB so it would only store the OS and a couple of programs).

I hope this helps, its a little lengthy and I apologies on that.



Cool thanks, that's really helpful. I think I'm going to do what you suggested and get both drives. Could you recommend a good hard drive to get too? Otherwise i'll probably just go with something like this (picked arbitrarily):

http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/hitachi-internal-hard-d...

Also, are there any special wires/ mountings or whatever you need if you are using an SSD or multiple hard drives?
m
0
l

Best solution

August 3, 2013 5:07:37 AM

No worries :) 
That hard drive looks fine.
Nope the SSD is normally a little bit smaller than a conventional hard drive, so you might want to look into getting a mount for it so that it will fit in the hard drive mount in the case, yet most new cases have a SSD mount in them. Let me know what case you have and I can have a quick look to see if it has an SSD mount.
SSD's just use the same connections as a normal hard drive.
You just need to plug them both into the motherboard and then tell the BIOS to boot from the SSD, they are labeled in the BIOS so its not difficult.
Yet any problems just give me a PM and I can help you :) 

Robomoo said:
alexinnes said:
With 4x RAM slots it should be fine.

SSD mean solid state drive, which in turn basically means no moving parts. Conventional hard drive (i am simplifying this quite a lot) are just spinning disks with a head that moves over them and reads the data on them. The downside of a conventional hard drive is that the disk has to spin and the head has to find the data, thus making it slow (compared to SSD).
Think of SSD's as giant internal pen drives, they work (generally) the same way, they don't need to spin any disks to find the data, thus making them muuuch faster. The downside is that they are generally much smaller.
I hope that makes sense.

So down to the question. Having your OS on the SSD would mean that your boot time would be considerably faster, talking about 30-50 seconds for your pc to be turning on. It would also mean that windows itself would work a lot quicker. You could also store all/most of your programs on the SSD meaning they would load a lot faster than they would be on a conventional hard drive.
Just using the conventional hard drives for things like photos and videos as they take up a lot of space, which the SSD lacks (the SSD you picked is only 64GB so it would only store the OS and a couple of programs).

I hope this helps, its a little lengthy and I apologies on that.



Cool thanks, that's really helpful. I think I'm going to do what you suggested and get both drives. Could you recommend a good hard drive to get too? Otherwise i'll probably just go with something like this (picked arbitrarily):

http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/part/hitachi-internal-hard-d...

Also, are there any special wires/ mountings or whatever you need if you are using an SSD or multiple hard drives?


Share
a b 4 Gaming
a b U Graphics card
August 3, 2013 6:22:19 AM

For 400 dollars, this looks like a good build + Graphics Card upgrade. Get this build. The 7790 is quite a lot faster than the 6670.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: AMD Athlon II X4 750K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor (£58.50 @ Scan.co.uk)
Motherboard: MSI FM2-A75MA-E35 Micro ATX FM2 Motherboard (£45.30 @ Scan.co.uk)
Memory: PNY XLR8 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory (£37.92 @ Amazon UK)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive (£47.99 @ Ebuyer)
Video Card: MSI Radeon HD 7790 1GB Video Card (£99.98 @ Amazon UK)
Power Supply: XFX ProSeries 450W 80 PLUS Bronze Certified ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply (£37.98 @ Novatech)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 (OEM) (64-bit) (£68.39 @ Aria PC)
Total: £396.06
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-08-03 14:18 BST+0100)

Also there is the comparision between the 6670 and the 7790 for you to see that how much powerful is the 7790 over the older 6670.



I hope this helps. Definitely get this build and this graphics card and happy gaming. I hope this helps. Take a look at the build I suggested and tell me what you think about it.
m
0
l
August 6, 2013 3:54:50 AM

Sangeet Khatri said:
For 400 dollars, this looks like a good build + Graphics Card upgrade. Get this build. The 7790 is quite a lot faster than the 6670.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: AMD Athlon II X4 750K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor (£58.50 @ Scan.co.uk)
Motherboard: MSI FM2-A75MA-E35 Micro ATX FM2 Motherboard (£45.30 @ Scan.co.uk)
Memory: PNY XLR8 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory (£37.92 @ Amazon UK)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive (£47.99 @ Ebuyer)
Video Card: MSI Radeon HD 7790 1GB Video Card (£99.98 @ Amazon UK)
Power Supply: XFX ProSeries 450W 80 PLUS Bronze Certified ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply (£37.98 @ Novatech)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 (OEM) (64-bit) (£68.39 @ Aria PC)
Total: £396.06
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-08-03 14:18 BST+0100)

Also there is the comparision between the 6670 and the 7790 for you to see that how much powerful is the 7790 over the older 6670.



I hope this helps. Definitely get this build and this graphics card and happy gaming. I hope this helps. Take a look at the build I suggested and tell me what you think about it.


Ideally I would get a much faster card than the 6670 but I already have one left over from my other machine (basically I'm building this one for my brother and the 6670 is the one I used to have in my PC before I upgraded it), so actually I am factoring out the cost of a video card. We'll probably get a better one in a year's time or something and spend more money now on other components. Thanks for your help though :) , it's likely the 7790 is the one I'll go for given a year.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b U Graphics card
August 6, 2013 5:12:36 AM

Anyways, if you are not buying a case, graphics card and you have 400 pounds to spend, then you should definitely get this build right here. I mean the 8 core 8320 is an awesome processor which can be overclocked to make it exactly like the 8350 in terms of performance and can be overclocked even more to achieve better performance. So, this is a very good processor for a good price. So, this is something you should definitely get.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor (£117.59 @ Aria PC)
Motherboard: MSI 990FXA-GD65 ATX AM3+ Motherboard (£85.52 @ Aria PC)
Memory: PNY XLR8 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory (£37.92 @ Amazon UK)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive (£48.12 @ Scan.co.uk)
Power Supply: XFX 550W 80 PLUS Bronze Certified ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply (£49.86 @ Scan.co.uk)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 (OEM) (64-bit) (£68.39 @ Aria PC)
Total: £407.40
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-08-06 13:10 BST+0100)

I hope this helps. Is there anything else I can do for you?
m
0
l
!