Build me a PC that is as close to equal in real world performance as the PS4?
Tags:
-
GPUs
- ATI
-
CPUs
-
Systems
-
AMD
Last response: in Systems
Meg2015
October 7, 2014 1:31:17 PM
This would be a pretty good build for 480$:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant
CPU: Intel Pentium G3258 3.2GHz Dual-Core Processor ($69.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: ASRock H81 Pro BTC ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($51.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Sniper Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($73.80 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($53.99 @ Amazon)
Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2GB Superclocked Video Card ($154.99 @ Amazon)
Case: NZXT Source 210 (White) ATX Mid Tower Case ($39.99 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: Antec 450W ATX Power Supply ($35.24 @ Amazon)
Total: $479.99
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-07 16:56 EDT-0400
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant
CPU: Intel Pentium G3258 3.2GHz Dual-Core Processor ($69.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: ASRock H81 Pro BTC ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($51.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Sniper Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($73.80 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($53.99 @ Amazon)
Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2GB Superclocked Video Card ($154.99 @ Amazon)
Case: NZXT Source 210 (White) ATX Mid Tower Case ($39.99 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: Antec 450W ATX Power Supply ($35.24 @ Amazon)
Total: $479.99
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-07 16:56 EDT-0400
-
Reply to zeyuanfu
m
1
l
belmonkey
October 7, 2014 8:50:54 PM
CPU: Intel Core i3-4130 3.4GHz Dual-Core $109.99
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H81M-DS2V Micro ATX LGA1150 $44.99
Memory: G.Skill NS 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR3-1333 $42.99
Storage: Western Digital RE3 500GB 3.5" 7200RPM $40.59
Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2GB $134.99
Case: Logisys CS206BK ATX Mid Tower w/480W Power Supply $29.00
Total: $402.55
http://pcpartpicker.com/user/belmonkey/saved/3Z6NnQ
That's probably about as barebones as it could be though, although $45 could be saved by getting that Pentium G3258 instead of the i3. I'm kinda wary of the PSU / case combo used, but I'd guess it'd probably be about as ok as any PSU in a pre-built that you might stick a 750 ti into.
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H81M-DS2V Micro ATX LGA1150 $44.99
Memory: G.Skill NS 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR3-1333 $42.99
Storage: Western Digital RE3 500GB 3.5" 7200RPM $40.59
Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2GB $134.99
Case: Logisys CS206BK ATX Mid Tower w/480W Power Supply $29.00
Total: $402.55
http://pcpartpicker.com/user/belmonkey/saved/3Z6NnQ
That's probably about as barebones as it could be though, although $45 could be saved by getting that Pentium G3258 instead of the i3. I'm kinda wary of the PSU / case combo used, but I'd guess it'd probably be about as ok as any PSU in a pre-built that you might stick a 750 ti into.
-
Reply to belmonkey
m
0
l
Related resources
- New PC build to equal PS4 or XBOX 720 - Forum
- Is it possible to build a $200 PC that out-performs PS4 or Xbox One? - Forum
- How much will it cost me to build good gaming PC for the close years? - Forum
- Help me build my gaming pc - budget & performance (Philippines) - Forum
- Someone help me build ~850 High performance pc - Forum
Skylyne
October 7, 2014 10:38:35 PM
zeyuanfu- I don't know if you're aware, or if the OP is aware, but the ASRock H81 board will only support up to 1600 Mhz memory, so you won't get the full performance of the Sniper series RAM. Just clarifying, in case that went unnoticed. If you went that route for cost, then I kind of get it... just pointing it out. To each their own.
I'll add my recommendation. Unless you want a higher resolution than 1080p, this build should give you enough to keep up with, or surpass, PS4 performance. Just make sure you don't use the stock CPU cooler, since I'm assuming you'd OC your CPU; the Intel cooler isn't going to be your best bet for cooling an OC'ed Pentium.
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant
CPU: Intel Pentium G3258 3.2GHz Dual-Core Processor ($64.98 @ OutletPC)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($28.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H81M-DS2V Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($44.99 @ Amazon)
Memory: G.Skill AEGIS 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($74.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($54.98 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2GB WINDFORCE Video Card ($171.98 @ Newegg)
Case: Corsair 200R ATX Mid Tower Case ($39.99 @ Micro Center)
Power Supply: Antec 450W ATX Power Supply ($29.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $510.88
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-08 00:57 EDT-0400
To answer your AMD question: I'm assuming they are going the APU route to be more of a competitor with Intel. I think they're simply trying to compete for a larger market share, as their CPU line is mostly for gamers (or anyone who doesn't use/need onboard graphics). You can always go the AMD route for a cheaper gaming PC, as it will save you money, but your computer will be running a two year old processor... and that's unacceptable to many people.
One of my reasons for going Intel is the fact that the cost difference isn't as big as it once was; an equivalent i3/i5 and FX build comparison is about $100-150 difference. The Pentium builds will cut costs, but the FX-6300 will outperform them without being OC'ed. Intel has been releasing much more affordable chips, and they have been doing a great job at appealing to budget gamers now. For AMD GPUs, they are still recovering from a giant spike in sales from the BitCoin miners, and are currently either the same cost, or more (depending on the card), compared to their NVIDIA counterparts. Also, depending on who you talk to, NVIDIA drivers will play nicer with Intel chips; and with many people switching to Intel CPUs, it then makes the choice of NVIDIA a little easier than AMD. My main reason for going Intel is the fact I'd be running newer equipment; and for many builds, you have a nice upgrade path. For the build you're asking for, it's kind of pointless to make it upgradeable; but you can probably see the point here.
Intel/NVIDIA is also a more efficient combination. Less power consumption means less heat; and that means a lot for some of us (especially for me, since I'm in Phoenix, AZ). If you want a cooler room, build a more efficient computer. The costs for a/c in some areas make it worth the extra spent on the computer (although, I'm not sure exactly what the difference would be). The reasons for going Intel vary, and so are the reasons for going AMD. It usually depends on: how often you want to upgrade, whether you want something you can upgrade, or if you want the cheapest build possible because of your budget.
I'll add my recommendation. Unless you want a higher resolution than 1080p, this build should give you enough to keep up with, or surpass, PS4 performance. Just make sure you don't use the stock CPU cooler, since I'm assuming you'd OC your CPU; the Intel cooler isn't going to be your best bet for cooling an OC'ed Pentium.
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant
CPU: Intel Pentium G3258 3.2GHz Dual-Core Processor ($64.98 @ OutletPC)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($28.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H81M-DS2V Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($44.99 @ Amazon)
Memory: G.Skill AEGIS 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($74.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($54.98 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2GB WINDFORCE Video Card ($171.98 @ Newegg)
Case: Corsair 200R ATX Mid Tower Case ($39.99 @ Micro Center)
Power Supply: Antec 450W ATX Power Supply ($29.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $510.88
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-08 00:57 EDT-0400
To answer your AMD question: I'm assuming they are going the APU route to be more of a competitor with Intel. I think they're simply trying to compete for a larger market share, as their CPU line is mostly for gamers (or anyone who doesn't use/need onboard graphics). You can always go the AMD route for a cheaper gaming PC, as it will save you money, but your computer will be running a two year old processor... and that's unacceptable to many people.
One of my reasons for going Intel is the fact that the cost difference isn't as big as it once was; an equivalent i3/i5 and FX build comparison is about $100-150 difference. The Pentium builds will cut costs, but the FX-6300 will outperform them without being OC'ed. Intel has been releasing much more affordable chips, and they have been doing a great job at appealing to budget gamers now. For AMD GPUs, they are still recovering from a giant spike in sales from the BitCoin miners, and are currently either the same cost, or more (depending on the card), compared to their NVIDIA counterparts. Also, depending on who you talk to, NVIDIA drivers will play nicer with Intel chips; and with many people switching to Intel CPUs, it then makes the choice of NVIDIA a little easier than AMD. My main reason for going Intel is the fact I'd be running newer equipment; and for many builds, you have a nice upgrade path. For the build you're asking for, it's kind of pointless to make it upgradeable; but you can probably see the point here.
Intel/NVIDIA is also a more efficient combination. Less power consumption means less heat; and that means a lot for some of us (especially for me, since I'm in Phoenix, AZ). If you want a cooler room, build a more efficient computer. The costs for a/c in some areas make it worth the extra spent on the computer (although, I'm not sure exactly what the difference would be). The reasons for going Intel vary, and so are the reasons for going AMD. It usually depends on: how often you want to upgrade, whether you want something you can upgrade, or if you want the cheapest build possible because of your budget.
-
Reply to Skylyne
m
0
l
Skylyne said:
zeyuanfu- I don't know if you're aware, or if the OP is aware, but the ASRock H81 board will only support up to 1600 Mhz memory, so you won't get the full performance of the Sniper series RAM. Just clarifying, in case that went unnoticed. If you went that route for cost, then I kind of get it... just pointing it out. To each their own.I'll add my recommendation. Unless you want a higher resolution than 1080p, this build should give you enough to keep up with, or surpass, PS4 performance. Just make sure you don't use the stock CPU cooler, since I'm assuming you'd OC your CPU; the Intel cooler isn't going to be your best bet for cooling an OC'ed Pentium.
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant
CPU: Intel Pentium G3258 3.2GHz Dual-Core Processor ($64.98 @ OutletPC)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($28.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H81M-DS2V Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($44.99 @ Amazon)
Memory: G.Skill AEGIS 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($74.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($54.98 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2GB WINDFORCE Video Card ($171.98 @ Newegg)
Case: Corsair 200R ATX Mid Tower Case ($39.99 @ Micro Center)
Power Supply: Antec 450W ATX Power Supply ($29.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $510.88
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-08 00:57 EDT-0400
To answer your AMD question: I'm assuming they are going the APU route to be more of a competitor with Intel. I think they're simply trying to compete for a larger market share, as their CPU line is mostly for gamers (or anyone who doesn't use/need onboard graphics). You can always go the AMD route for a cheaper gaming PC, as it will save you money, but your computer will be running a two year old processor... and that's unacceptable to many people.
One of my reasons for going Intel is the fact that the cost difference isn't as big as it once was; an equivalent i3/i5 and FX build comparison is about $100-150 difference. The Pentium builds will cut costs, but the FX-6300 will outperform them without being OC'ed. Intel has been releasing much more affordable chips, and they have been doing a great job at appealing to budget gamers now. For AMD GPUs, they are still recovering from a giant spike in sales from the BitCoin miners, and are currently either the same cost, or more (depending on the card), compared to their NVIDIA counterparts. Also, depending on who you talk to, NVIDIA drivers will play nicer with Intel chips; and with many people switching to Intel CPUs, it then makes the choice of NVIDIA a little easier than AMD. My main reason for going Intel is the fact I'd be running newer equipment; and for many builds, you have a nice upgrade path. For the build you're asking for, it's kind of pointless to make it upgradeable; but you can probably see the point here.
Intel/NVIDIA is also a more efficient combination. Less power consumption means less heat; and that means a lot for some of us (especially for me, since I'm in Phoenix, AZ). If you want a cooler room, build a more efficient computer. The costs for a/c in some areas make it worth the extra spent on the computer (although, I'm not sure exactly what the difference would be). The reasons for going Intel vary, and so are the reasons for going AMD. It usually depends on: how often you want to upgrade, whether you want something you can upgrade, or if you want the cheapest build possible because of your budget.
Yes, I was aware of the 1600 MHz fact, I just got the Snipers:
1, They were cheap
2, When OP upgrades (I assume he/she will, any sane person would do that
), 1866 MHz RAM will come in handy-
Reply to zeyuanfu
m
0
l
Skylyne
October 8, 2014 5:01:10 AM
The speed difference between 1600-1866 Mhz is marginal for gaming, at best. The only real noticeable difference will be in tasks that utilise the CPU much more (like video editing). Even then, 1866 Mhz memory gives minimal results.
But, for the price, why not? The 1866 Mhz DDR3 is overrated for real-world use, though.
But, for the price, why not? The 1866 Mhz DDR3 is overrated for real-world use, though.
-
Reply to Skylyne
m
0
l
Skylyne said:
The speed difference between 1600-1866 Mhz is marginal for gaming, at best. The only real noticeable difference will be in tasks that utilise the CPU much more (like video editing). Even then, 1866 Mhz memory gives minimal results.But, for the price, why not? The 1866 Mhz DDR3 is overrated for real-world use, though.
Actually, you're kinda wrong (actually, VERY wrong). 1866/CL 9, which is what i selected, is the sweet spot for gaming. Stuff like 2400 MHz and up are a bit overrated, though (even that, I'm not that sure about its overratedness
)...-
Reply to zeyuanfu
m
0
l
Skylyne
October 8, 2014 5:19:06 AM
Here's a comparison with Sandy Bridge- http://www.anandtech.com/show/4503/sandy-bridge-memory-...
And here's a comparison of benchmarks and gaming performance- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0L_KFKJYvg
The only way you will really notice a difference in bumping up RAM speed is when you go with DDR4.
And here's a comparison of benchmarks and gaming performance- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0L_KFKJYvg
The only way you will really notice a difference in bumping up RAM speed is when you go with DDR4.
-
Reply to Skylyne
m
0
l
Skylyne said:
Here's a comparison with Sandy Bridge- http://www.anandtech.com/show/4503/sandy-bridge-memory-...And here's a comparison of benchmarks and gaming performance- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0L_KFKJYvg
The only way you will really notice a difference in bumping up RAM speed is when you go with DDR4.
But there is still a difference between 1600 and 1866, and that might mean the extra frame per second that makes an unplayable game playable
In the 3DMark Physics benchmark, though, there is a significant difference, but i don`t really know how it applies to gaming or anything
Actually, you might be right about the no diffeence thing as I currnetly run a DDR2 computer and I can`t really notice the difference between that and my DDR3 laptop.
-
Reply to zeyuanfu
m
0
l
Skylyne
October 8, 2014 2:59:03 PM
If you're running older hardware, with much less performance, and a slow CPU, you'd probably see some type of performance increase, and that 1 fps increase might help; but not on this build. Synthetic benchmarks rarely ever translate very well to real-world performance, as they are simply running loops/etc. to gauge performance; and that is not really comparable to real-world scenarios. While you might have a significant difference in benchmarks, there is always the law of diminishing returns. For gaming, 1600 Mhz memory with a CL of 9-9-9-24 will be the highest point where you aren't overspending for performance.
Memory speed will only make a big difference for people who do a lot of rendering, or for enthusiasts/etc.. Gamers won't benefit very much from spending extra on "faster" memory, because their games just don't need it. If you really do need "faster" memory, you probably need to upgrade something else as well.
Memory speed will only make a big difference for people who do a lot of rendering, or for enthusiasts/etc.. Gamers won't benefit very much from spending extra on "faster" memory, because their games just don't need it. If you really do need "faster" memory, you probably need to upgrade something else as well.
-
Reply to Skylyne
m
0
l
zeyuanfu said:
Skylyne said:
The speed difference between 1600-1866 Mhz is marginal for gaming, at best. The only real noticeable difference will be in tasks that utilise the CPU much more (like video editing). Even then, 1866 Mhz memory gives minimal results.But, for the price, why not? The 1866 Mhz DDR3 is overrated for real-world use, though.
Actually, you're kinda wrong (actually, VERY wrong). 1866/CL 9, which is what i selected, is the sweet spot for gaming. Stuff like 2400 MHz and up are a bit overrated, though (even that, I'm not that sure about its overratedness
)...Actually he's right. You won't notice a difference between 1866 and 1600mhz ram for gaming.
If he doesn't plan to upgrade to an i3/i5/i7 soon, it would be better to get an Athlon X4 860k to avoid the stuttering issues the Pentium has.
-
Reply to RazerZ
m
0
l
Meg2015
October 8, 2014 3:34:58 PM
RazerZ said:
zeyuanfu said:
Skylyne said:
The speed difference between 1600-1866 Mhz is marginal for gaming, at best. The only real noticeable difference will be in tasks that utilise the CPU much more (like video editing). Even then, 1866 Mhz memory gives minimal results.But, for the price, why not? The 1866 Mhz DDR3 is overrated for real-world use, though.
Actually, you're kinda wrong (actually, VERY wrong). 1866/CL 9, which is what i selected, is the sweet spot for gaming. Stuff like 2400 MHz and up are a bit overrated, though (even that, I'm not that sure about its overratedness
)...Actually he's right. You won't notice a difference between 1866 and 1600mhz ram for gaming.
If he doesn't plan to upgrade to an i3/i5/i7 soon, it would be better to get an Athlon X4 860k to avoid the stuttering issues the Pentium has.
I wouldn't go with the 860K as it doesn't have an upgrade path as good a sthe G3258. I'd rather have not-so-good performance right now and have a beast CPU later on.
-
Reply to zeyuanfu
m
0
l
That's why I said to get the 860k if he doesn't plan to upgrade later on. The 860k is a decent cpu for it's price and can get playable fps in the latest titles.
In anycase the OP wants the pc equivalent of the PS4. Honestly there is no exact cpu/gpu equivalent for it, but expect the cpu performance to be roughly similar to a older FX 8 core cpu such as the 8120 severely underclocked and the gpu to be somewhere from a R7 260x to R7 265.
In anycase the OP wants the pc equivalent of the PS4. Honestly there is no exact cpu/gpu equivalent for it, but expect the cpu performance to be roughly similar to a older FX 8 core cpu such as the 8120 severely underclocked and the gpu to be somewhere from a R7 260x to R7 265.
-
Reply to RazerZ
m
0
l
RazerZ said:
That's why I said to get the 860k if he doesn't plan to upgrade later on. The 860k is a decent cpu for it's price and can get playable fps in the latest titles.In anycase the OP wants the pc equivalent of the PS4. Honestly there is no exact cpu/gpu equivalent for it, but expect the cpu performance to be roughly similar to a older FX 8 core cpu such as the 8120 severely underclocked and the gpu to be somewhere from a R7 260x to R7 265.
It might get playable frames per second, but when games become more and more demanding, it won't suffice and OP will have to upgrade SOMEDAY.
-
Reply to zeyuanfu
m
0
l
That's exactly my point... it's like a console. It lasts for a few years then you want an upgrade. He could enjoy a smooth framerate with the 860k now and then later upgrade to a new cpu when needed. He'd need to buy a new motherboard, that's all.
I definitely would not like to play with stuttering gameplay for a year or two... I'd much rather spend money on a new motherboard later on and get something decent now.
I definitely would not like to play with stuttering gameplay for a year or two... I'd much rather spend money on a new motherboard later on and get something decent now.
-
Reply to RazerZ
m
0
l
RazerZ said:
That's exactly my point... it's like a console. It lasts for a few years then you want an upgrade. He could enjoy a smooth framerate with the 860k now and then later upgrade to a new cpu when needed. He'd need to buy a new motherboard, that's all.I definitely would not like to play with stuttering gameplay for a year or two... I'd much rather spend money on a new motherboard later on and get something decent now.
You JUST said in your previous post )before the one I`m replying to) that the point would be so that OP wouldn't have to upgrade...
-
Reply to zeyuanfu
m
0
l
Meg2015
October 9, 2014 2:21:00 PM
Skylyne
October 9, 2014 4:42:17 PM
Meg2015 said:
I have a vagina guysI've met trans-men before... they exist! Still could be a he
The reason we tend to use "he" is the formal use of gender pronouns. We're not really assuming the gender identity of an individual; however, what we are doing is using the male pronoun, as the English language uses male pronouns when there is an unknown. If I'm not mistaken, most languages assume male pronouns, unless the object/noun is blatantly female. I could be wrong on this, but that's what my understanding has been all my life. If I'm wrong, then I need to retake English 101!
And, since RazerZ brought up the 860k option, I would definitely say that's the better buy (hypothetically speaking). Better performance for the cost. I'm just not in tune with anything outside of AMD's FX line.
-
Reply to Skylyne
m
0
l
Skylyne said:
Meg2015 said:
I have a vagina guysI've met trans-men before... they exist! Still could be a he
The reason we tend to use "he" is the formal use of gender pronouns. We're not really assuming the gender identity of an individual; however, what we are doing is using the male pronoun, as the English language uses male pronouns when there is an unknown. If I'm not mistaken, most languages assume male pronouns, unless the object/noun is blatantly female. I could be wrong on this, but that's what my understanding has been all my life. If I'm wrong, then I need to retake English 101!
And, since RazerZ brought up the 860k option, I would definitely say that's the better buy (hypothetically speaking). Better performance for the cost. I'm just not in tune with anything outside of AMD's FX line.
Whoa, Mr.Dictionary
! You probably just explained what people on forums have been doing for years...Well, if by ''upgrade'', you mean get a new motherboard and a new CPU, then I must agree with the 860K... if not, Intel would be the better option.
-
Reply to zeyuanfu
m
0
l
Skylyne
October 10, 2014 2:57:18 PM
zeyuanfu said:
Whoa, Mr.Dictionary
! You probably just explained what people on forums have been doing for years...Well, if by ''upgrade'', you mean get a new motherboard and a new CPU, then I must agree with the 860K... if not, Intel would be the better option.
When I get bored, I become Captain Obvious!
-
Reply to Skylyne
m
0
l
Skylyne said:
zeyuanfu said:
Whoa, Mr.Dictionary
! You probably just explained what people on forums have been doing for years...Well, if by ''upgrade'', you mean get a new motherboard and a new CPU, then I must agree with the 860K... if not, Intel would be the better option.
When I get bored, I become Captain Obvious!
The stuff about masculine pronouns certainly ISN'T English 101
It's more like English 102.-
Reply to zeyuanfu
m
0
l
Skylyne
October 10, 2014 4:05:30 PM
Skylyne
October 10, 2014 4:37:29 PM
zeyuanfu said:
This would be a pretty good build for 480$:PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant
CPU: Intel Pentium G3258 3.2GHz Dual-Core Processor ($69.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: ASRock H81 Pro BTC ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($51.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Sniper Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($73.80 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($53.99 @ Amazon)
Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2GB Superclocked Video Card ($154.99 @ Amazon)
Case: NZXT Source 210 (White) ATX Mid Tower Case ($39.99 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: Antec 450W ATX Power Supply ($35.24 @ Amazon)
Total: $479.99
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-07 16:56 EDT-0400
+1; this PC is as close as you can get to a PS4 haha.
-
Reply to sora
m
0
l
sora said:
zeyuanfu said:
This would be a pretty good build for 480$:PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant
CPU: Intel Pentium G3258 3.2GHz Dual-Core Processor ($69.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: ASRock H81 Pro BTC ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($51.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Sniper Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($73.80 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($53.99 @ Amazon)
Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2GB Superclocked Video Card ($154.99 @ Amazon)
Case: NZXT Source 210 (White) ATX Mid Tower Case ($39.99 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: Antec 450W ATX Power Supply ($35.24 @ Amazon)
Total: $479.99
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-07 16:56 EDT-0400
+1; this PC is as close as you can get to a PS4 haha.
While being cheaper, too (at least cheaper than the 500$ PS4 when it came out).
-
Reply to zeyuanfu
m
0
l
Meg2015,
Would it be an accurate assumption to figure that you inadvertently used the product name "Pentium" in place of what you actually meant to say: "Intel?"
FYI: there is no way to use a Pentium CPU to build an approximation of a PS4. Furthermore, matching desktop parts to a console is always going to run into areas of false equivalency because the software that is compiled for the console is compiled to take advantage of ALL the capabilities of the hardware in the console to the best of the compilers abilities, while software that is compiled for the desktop, is compiled for greater compatibility and to work with desktop OS task schedulers, rather than with optimized task scheduling. The PS4 is an HSA/hUMA platform with a large GPU to use for computations. There is no direct hardware equivalency in the desktop arena because there is no hUMA/HSA supporting system with anywhere near as much system memory bandwidth or as large a GPU integrated into the same memory space as the CPU.
The best way to overcome the software optimization deficit that occurs when moving from a console, to a desktop, is to at least DOUBLE the execution performance of the CPU. Unfortunately, a Pentium only manages to offer execution performance roughly comparable to a PS4, but with a radically different allocation of resources.
Some people assume that the FX-8350 (or other 8 core AMD parts) are the most logical CPU choices for console replacement desktops. Unfortunately, this assumption is based on a false premise that the software that is compiled for the consoles many-core configuration will maintain all of its optimizations for the many-core arrangement of execution resources when compiled for the desktop. Unfortunately, if recent console ports are any indication of things to come, this is far from the truth. The best solution to real-time workloads on the desktop, whether console ports or otherwise remains the same, an i5. Just so happens, the i5 offers about double the execution performance of the PS4, all wrapped up into just 4 cores, which makes it very versatile in terms of workloads, offering the highest possible execution throughput in its class to workloads lightly and heavily threaded alike, making it very well suited to overcoming the software bottleneck created by typically lazy console ports that don't leverage desktop hardware very well.
In order to match or exceed the visual quality of the console on your desktop, it would be a good idea to have a GPU at least a couple models up the chain from the consoles equivalent. IIRC the PS4's iGPU is a rough equivalent of the R9 270X, so something like an R9 290 or GTX970 would be a good alternative to the console to ensure similar or better visual quality.
Having said all that, I think it's important to note, that the PS4 leverages a proprietary AMD APU configuration of 2 X quad core Kabini-like CPUs sharing GDDR5 memory space with the integrated GCN GPU. You're asking why the CPU/GPU merging? The PS4 is a very good answer to that question. That type of platform, that no longer has separate VRAM and System RAM, may well be the future of desktop computing. There are major advantages to such a computing environment as it breaks down the traditional "wall" preventing the CPU and GPU from working on the same problems simultaneously and effectively. The current solution to the problem on the desktop, is to make bigger more powerful CPUs to deal with workloads that only work well on the CPU, and bigger more powerful GPUs for workloads that only work well on the GPU. The HSA/hUMA environment, can theoretically move a LOT of the SIMD workloads off the CPU and onto the GPU, reducing the demand for ever-increasing CPU power, and allowing compute performance to scale up with advancements in GPU technology. The PS4 is a demonstration of this in action, and working fairly well.
AMD is sort of in a transition era on the desktop side. They have already demonstrated a working powerful APU system with modern consoles, but that is partially proprietary hardware that wouldn't work within the scope of current desktop software very well. I'm not sure what the road map is for the desktop but there's nothing wrong with a push for APUs, as there is great potential there.
Would it be an accurate assumption to figure that you inadvertently used the product name "Pentium" in place of what you actually meant to say: "Intel?"
FYI: there is no way to use a Pentium CPU to build an approximation of a PS4. Furthermore, matching desktop parts to a console is always going to run into areas of false equivalency because the software that is compiled for the console is compiled to take advantage of ALL the capabilities of the hardware in the console to the best of the compilers abilities, while software that is compiled for the desktop, is compiled for greater compatibility and to work with desktop OS task schedulers, rather than with optimized task scheduling. The PS4 is an HSA/hUMA platform with a large GPU to use for computations. There is no direct hardware equivalency in the desktop arena because there is no hUMA/HSA supporting system with anywhere near as much system memory bandwidth or as large a GPU integrated into the same memory space as the CPU.
The best way to overcome the software optimization deficit that occurs when moving from a console, to a desktop, is to at least DOUBLE the execution performance of the CPU. Unfortunately, a Pentium only manages to offer execution performance roughly comparable to a PS4, but with a radically different allocation of resources.
Some people assume that the FX-8350 (or other 8 core AMD parts) are the most logical CPU choices for console replacement desktops. Unfortunately, this assumption is based on a false premise that the software that is compiled for the consoles many-core configuration will maintain all of its optimizations for the many-core arrangement of execution resources when compiled for the desktop. Unfortunately, if recent console ports are any indication of things to come, this is far from the truth. The best solution to real-time workloads on the desktop, whether console ports or otherwise remains the same, an i5. Just so happens, the i5 offers about double the execution performance of the PS4, all wrapped up into just 4 cores, which makes it very versatile in terms of workloads, offering the highest possible execution throughput in its class to workloads lightly and heavily threaded alike, making it very well suited to overcoming the software bottleneck created by typically lazy console ports that don't leverage desktop hardware very well.
In order to match or exceed the visual quality of the console on your desktop, it would be a good idea to have a GPU at least a couple models up the chain from the consoles equivalent. IIRC the PS4's iGPU is a rough equivalent of the R9 270X, so something like an R9 290 or GTX970 would be a good alternative to the console to ensure similar or better visual quality.
Having said all that, I think it's important to note, that the PS4 leverages a proprietary AMD APU configuration of 2 X quad core Kabini-like CPUs sharing GDDR5 memory space with the integrated GCN GPU. You're asking why the CPU/GPU merging? The PS4 is a very good answer to that question. That type of platform, that no longer has separate VRAM and System RAM, may well be the future of desktop computing. There are major advantages to such a computing environment as it breaks down the traditional "wall" preventing the CPU and GPU from working on the same problems simultaneously and effectively. The current solution to the problem on the desktop, is to make bigger more powerful CPUs to deal with workloads that only work well on the CPU, and bigger more powerful GPUs for workloads that only work well on the GPU. The HSA/hUMA environment, can theoretically move a LOT of the SIMD workloads off the CPU and onto the GPU, reducing the demand for ever-increasing CPU power, and allowing compute performance to scale up with advancements in GPU technology. The PS4 is a demonstration of this in action, and working fairly well.
AMD is sort of in a transition era on the desktop side. They have already demonstrated a working powerful APU system with modern consoles, but that is partially proprietary hardware that wouldn't work within the scope of current desktop software very well. I'm not sure what the road map is for the desktop but there's nothing wrong with a push for APUs, as there is great potential there.
-
Reply to mdocod
m
0
l
No, I based it on a 8120 because I knew that consoles' games are well optimized for their system and that there isn't really a desktop equivalent for the PS4, so I based it on a beaten down older 8 core.
Didn't know that a PS4 used an APU though, that's interesting. But I disagree that you would need a GTX 970 to match the same graphics/performance level as a PS4.
Didn't know that a PS4 used an APU though, that's interesting. But I disagree that you would need a GTX 970 to match the same graphics/performance level as a PS4.
-
Reply to RazerZ
m
0
l
ccampy
October 11, 2014 9:12:37 AM
-
Reply to ccampy
m
0
l
It would be a bad idea to match the GPU directly in a console replacement PC, as the optimizations for the platform just aren't going to be laid in as thick on the software side. Like I said, a couple notches up the chain to ensure at least a match or exceed visual quality.
On another note: The difference between GPU does not manifest as a difference in FPS in the real world. I don't know anybody who lives in a universe that forces them to play at the same visual quality settings used to produce a benchmark result.
Remember, when we compare GPUs in a benchmark, we set the visual quality the same across the board and then use FPS results as the yardstick by which they are measured. In the real world, these FPS differences manifest as differences in visual quality, because the end user will always adjust visual quality to keep FPS above their minimum comfort level eventually. An R7 250X, R9 270, and R9 290 can all play the same game in the same conditions at 60FPS, the difference is 720P, 1080P, and 1440P respectively.
On another note: The difference between GPU does not manifest as a difference in FPS in the real world. I don't know anybody who lives in a universe that forces them to play at the same visual quality settings used to produce a benchmark result.
Remember, when we compare GPUs in a benchmark, we set the visual quality the same across the board and then use FPS results as the yardstick by which they are measured. In the real world, these FPS differences manifest as differences in visual quality, because the end user will always adjust visual quality to keep FPS above their minimum comfort level eventually. An R7 250X, R9 270, and R9 290 can all play the same game in the same conditions at 60FPS, the difference is 720P, 1080P, and 1440P respectively.
-
Reply to mdocod
m
0
l
GObonzo
October 14, 2014 8:55:28 AM
Meg2015 said:
Please make it Pentium and geforce as I have no idea what amd/ati are doing with their cpu-gpu merging. (also why are they doing that? why did they merge cpu and gpu and why does no one recommend amd/ati anymore? )you don't want a dual-core processor. and anyone that really knows anything does recommend amd gpus. and amd FX cpus for budget builds. it all used to depend on the amount of money you had to spend, now the amd 280 & 290 "X" series are some of the best you can get performance-wise.
-
Reply to GObonzo
m
1
l
Read discussions in other Systems categories
!