Bare minimum GPU and CPU to play high-end games at a low graphics settings at 60+FPS?

GDonPadlan · Oct 11, 2014

I've been asking everywhere around Reddit (/r/computers, /r/buildapcforme, etc.) but all their answers are along the lines where the builds they showed me can max out any game and still run at a consistent 60+FPS. For example, they've given me an FX-8350 with an R9 290. Obviously that can run any game very well. But right now, in having to know what parts can run high-end games at low settings, not only will the total price for the whole build be cheaper, but I still will know that it can run lower and medium-end games very well.

So, what are the actual parts I need to at least play high-end games at low graphics settings at 60 or more frames?

DonkeyOatie · Oct 11, 2014

How low is low? 800 x 600?

Fitzitz · Oct 11, 2014

Do you want a full build? Or just the few specific parts? I would say an i5, r9 260x and 8gb ram for low settings on high requirement games.

gamer1357 · Oct 11, 2014

This combo should run all games at 60fps on low, most on medium, and some on high. You really dont need that much to run games on low settings, even in 1080p.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Pentium G3258 3.2GHz Dual-Core Processor ($69.99 @ Amazon)
Video Card: XFX Radeon R7 265 2GB Video Card ($109.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $179.98
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-11 16:47 EDT-0400

Gracodana · Oct 11, 2014

http://pcpartpicker.com/user/Gracodana/saved/9GVD4D

How's this?

maybe put the gpu up to gt 740/r7 250 for some of the newer games

DonkeyOatie · Oct 11, 2014

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-a10-7800-kaveri-apu-efficiency,3899.html

This review suggests that the OP should be good with an A10-7800 series APU and no GPU at all, at low enough settings. This will allow a very inexpensive build

GDonPadlan · Oct 11, 2014

DonkeyOatie :

WHOOPS I accidentally pressed "Pick Answer As Best Solution."

Anyways, I still want a decent resolution, but just the graphics settings will be low.

DonkeyOatie · Oct 11, 2014

GDonPadlan :

I think you can take that back until you really get a good answer.

Sorry to keep asking the questions, but what is 'decent' 1080p, 1440 x 900?

What's you monitor?

At 1080p you will need a GPU. Some of the most demanding games like Crysis 3 and Battlefield 4 will need a half decent GPU . For example, the $150 GTX750 ti will do more ot less everything at 1080p and low or medium effects.

As this:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7764/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-750-ti-and-gtx-750-review-maxwell/14

review shows. You could drive this with a Pentium of some sort.

Just how low do you want to go?

edort4 · Oct 11, 2014

Im no expert but the sensation I got from seeing lots of reviews and benchmarks is that actually is more power demanding to get 60+FPS than to get high resolutions (to a point).

Its "easier" to go from 720p to 1080p at 30+FPS than going to 60+FPS from 30 on 720p. So if you really want a build that can go 60+FPS, I guess that you mean that can at least always run at that, not an average of 60FPS, you are going to need quite some power.

I cant tell exactly what hardware you need but unless you plan on playing at 720p on low setting you are gonna have to start looking into enthusiastic gear. Also you should clear you graphics quality expectation. The difference between low and ultra quality is HUGE. Basically means that you can have enough with a 260x or needing a 970 at least.

GDonPadlan · Oct 11, 2014

DonkeyOatie :

Oh please tell me how to take that best answer thing back.

And right now, I'm on a laptop, so I thing for a monitor, I'd like to slowly transition from this small screen to a larger one. What is a screen size and resolution that is a bit bigger than a 1366x768 16.3" screen?

DonkeyOatie · Oct 11, 2014

In the review I linked to they benchmark games including Battlefield 4.

The GTX750 ti, a mid-range $150 GPU, in 1080p gets:

48 fps in high
74 fps in medium
94 fps in low

and 36, 50, 60, in Crysis 3 under the same circumstances.

That suggests that a card in this range can handle almost any modern game at 1080p and low or medium effects with 60fps or better.

I just don't know how much weaker we could go with the GPU and, frankly, I would bother looking. I'd buy a GTX750 ti.

DonkeyOatie · Oct 11, 2014

GDonPadlan :

Why?

A good 23" !PS monitor capable of 1920 x 1080 (1080p HD resolution) costs about $130 in the USA.

How much do you want to spend and what do you want to spend it on?

It looks like a $750 system all up (including everything) will meet your needs. That's fairly cheap.

I too have moved from a 1440 x 900 17" laptop to a new system with similar requirements to you. To help us asvise you, tell us how much you are prepared to spend.

edort4 · Oct 11, 2014

DonkeyOatie :

Why a 750ti? Due to the PSU? R7 265 are cheaper and gives a bit more power. And for 10$ than 750ti you can get a R9 270x wich I believe is quite more powerful.

GDonPadlan · Oct 11, 2014

DonkeyOatie :

Two questions: (Sorry if I'm just barraging you with questions.)

What is the AMD equivalent to the GTX 750ti? I might be able to squeeze in a few extra bucks just by changing the brand name.

What CPU was used in those benchmark tests? I'd like to know which CPU I should pair the GPU with.

DonkeyOatie · Oct 11, 2014

edort4 :

Yes, power supply and cooling saving..

I interpret:

So, what are the actual parts I need to at least play high-end games at low graphics settings at 60 or more frames?

to mean that the OP is asking for the LEAST powerful hardware to run games, not the cheapest, or most cost effective. As you say, the 265 is more powerful and the 270 even more powerful at a modest price increase, although the 265 and the 750ti are both $150 locally.

I'm wondering how a 260 would do?

DonkeyOatie · Oct 11, 2014

GDonPadlan :

Don't worry, we live for questions

As edort4 said, the R7 265 is about the same as the GTX750 ti, the same or slightly cheaper price and better performance (see the benchmarks) and the even better R7 270 is only slightly more expensive. This will require a bigger power supply and better heat management thant the NVidia based card.

The review mentions under Test that the CPU is an overclocked i7 4960X, but a much less powerful chip could be used. The limiting factor in most of these bench marks, deliberately, is the GPU.

Would you prefer an AMD or Intel CPU?

GDonPadlan · Oct 11, 2014

edort4 :

http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R9-270X-vs-GeForce-GTX-750-Ti
According to this, yeah.

But what is a CPU that can match the i7-4960X? So far, I decided on the R9 270X, but no CPU yet.

GDonPadlan · Oct 11, 2014

DonkeyOatie :

GDonPadlan :

Don't worry, we live for questions

As edort4 said, the R7 265 is about the same as the GTX750 ti, the same or slightly cheaper price and better performance (see the benchmarks) and the even better R7 270 is only slightly more expensive. This will require a bigger power supply and better heat management thant the NVidia based card.

The review mentions under Test that the CPU is an overclocked i7 4960X, but a much less powerful chip could be used. The limiting factor in most of these bench marks, deliberately, is the GPU.

Would you prefer an AMD or Intel CPU?

Ah right, scratch my 270X thing. I prefer AMD, dunno why, I just always liked them more than Intel. By the way, how would a GTX 650 compare with an R7 265?

DonkeyOatie · Oct 12, 2014

You just said that you preferred AMD but then suggested an NVidia GTX650, or did I misunderstand. I think that the GTX650 is too weak for 1080p at 60FPS for modern games.

Reading through the entire thread, I realize that I have been working at cross purposes. I have been recommending low POWER solutions (750 over 265) because of lower Total Design Power (TDP). I have realized that when power is being mentioned, it is really performance that is being discussed.

In the bottom half of the GPU market, AMD cards give better price/performance over NVidia, at the expense of higher power consumption (TDP)

Can you give us more information to help with your decision. Why?

Is it money, space in a case, availability at local suppliers, power consumption?

If you accept low effect, most CPU/GPU combinations can do 1080p and many of them can achieve 60 FPS at low.effects settings.

To be more helpful I need more information about budget and existing hardware, if any, os I know where 'good enough' is.

GDonPadlan · Oct 12, 2014

DonkeyOatie :

You just said that you preferred AMD but then suggested an NVidia GTX650, or did I misunderstand. I think that the GTX650 is too weak for 1080p at 60FPS for modern games.

Reading through the entire thread, I realize that I have been working at cross purposes. I have been recommending low POWER solutions (750 over 265) because of lower Total Design Power (TDP). I have realized that when power is being mentioned, it is really performance that is being discussed.

In the bottom half of the GPU market, AMD cards give better price/performance over NVidia, at the expense of higher power consumption (TDP)

Can you give us more information to help with your decision. Why?

Is it money, space in a case, availability at local suppliers, power consumption?

If you accept low effect, most CPU/GPU combinations can do 1080p and many of them can achieve 60 FPS at low.effects settings.

To be more helpful I need more information about budget and existing hardware, if any, os I know where 'good enough' is.

It's money. You're right; AMD does have better bang for buck.

Gracodana · Oct 13, 2014

what about fx 4300 or athlon x4 750k they are fairly cheap and quad core.

Bare minimum GPU and CPU to play high-end games at a low graphics settings at 60+FPS?

Reputable

Champion

Honorable

Reputable

Distinguished

Champion

Reputable

Champion

Distinguished

Reputable

Champion

Champion

Distinguished

Reputable

Champion

Champion

Reputable

Reputable

Champion

Reputable

Distinguished

Share this page