~ 700$ Gaming Desktop Build, Bottle-necks and Recommended changes

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
A

AndrewBlake

Distinguished
Oct 8, 2013
34
0
18,540
-10/23 8:09 PM, Updated Part list-

I am trying to build a decent gaming PC for under 700$ and would like to know what bottle-necks it has, and what I should possibly change. Here is my current part list:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor ($139.99 @ SuperBiiz)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($22.99 @ Micro Center)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($79.89 @ OutletPC)
Memory: G.Skill Sniper Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($71.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($45.89 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: Sapphire Radeon R9 380 4GB NITRO Dual-X OC Video Card ($208.98 @ Newegg)
Case: NZXT Source 220 ATX Mid Tower Case ($47.99 @ Directron)
Power Supply: EVGA SuperNOVA G2 550W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($79.50 @ Micro Center)
Total: $697.22
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-10-23 20:09 EDT-0400

I am thinking about overclocking the FX to 4-4.5 GHz, which I have heard is a normal OC when water cooling, depending on how lucky you are with your core. Bottle-necks, thoughts, recommended changes please.

Thanks.
 
Solution
Mxhawthy


I wouldn't even think about RAM speeds if I were you. They are completely irrelevant. I'm at work right now so I can't find the exact video, but if you go onto YouTube and search something like: LinusTechTips RAM speeds and watch that video, it's very in-depth and well-tested. He basically proves that RAM speed does not make any noticeable change to your performance.
Sort by date Sort by votes
Mxhawthy

Mxhawthy

Distinguished
Mar 9, 2014
492
0
19,110


There are no bottlenecks here. The FX8320 and the GTX 960 are a good combo. I don't know about Rosewill PSUs so I can't make any judgement there, just maybe double check some reviews about their PSUs if you want, because dodgy PSUs can completely fry your system.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A

AndrewBlake

Distinguished
Oct 8, 2013
34
0
18,540


Just checked the reviews on new egg, 4/5 with 12 reviews, the company has 5/5 with 241 reviews. Other sites agree.

Thank you for the concern, I didn't really think too much about the PSU but now I am happy knowing that it has decent reviews.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Mxhawthy

Mxhawthy

Distinguished
Mar 9, 2014
492
0
19,110


I wouldn't even think about RAM speeds if I were you. They are completely irrelevant. I'm at work right now so I can't find the exact video, but if you go onto YouTube and search something like: LinusTechTips RAM speeds and watch that video, it's very in-depth and well-tested. He basically proves that RAM speed does not make any noticeable change to your performance.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
A

AndrewBlake

Distinguished
Oct 8, 2013
34
0
18,540


Well they do matter a bit, 100mhz with 20 cas wouldn't be able to run anything, but yes for the most part they don't have a significant difference between them. I was just wondering which one would be the slight bit faster.

And I didn't mean to click yours as best solution, that was a miss-click.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
logainofhades

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator
Apr 27, 2009
37,609
3,279
143,290
Not a good PSU choice, nor will that motherboard be very good, for overclocking. This would be a better way to spend $700.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($174.89 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock H97M PRO4 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($79.89 @ OutletPC)
Memory: Crucial Ballistix Sport 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($74.99 @ Amazon)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($45.89 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: Sapphire Radeon R9 380 4GB NITRO Dual-X OC Video Card ($223.98 @ Newegg)
Case: Deepcool TESSERACT SW ATX Mid Tower Case ($35.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Antec High Current Gamer 520W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($71.63 @ Amazon)
Total: $707.26
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-10-23 10:40 EDT-0400
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
A

AndrewBlake

Distinguished
Oct 8, 2013
34
0
18,540


Both the CPU and graphics card are weaker (signifcantly on the CPU), it doesn't have liquid cooling, the Intel Core doesn't overclock nearly as well and the motherboard is almost the same.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
logainofhades

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator
Apr 27, 2009
37,609
3,279
143,290
CPU is not in any way, shape, or form weaker. An i5 is faster than an FX. I own an FX 8320 @ 4.0ghz rig, and an i5 2400 @ 3.5ghz rig, plus a 4.5ghz 3570k one. The FX is the slowest of the bunch. The R9 380 is also a bit faster than the GTX 960. Doesn't need liquid cooling either, and that particular i5 cannot overclock, nor does it need to.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Mxhawthy

Mxhawthy

Distinguished
Mar 9, 2014
492
0
19,110


Yes, obviously, but that's just being ridiculous. I meant that there's no noticeable different between real-life (not fantasy) RAM speeds. 1600mhz performs just as well as any.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Mxhawthy

Mxhawthy

Distinguished
Mar 9, 2014
492
0
19,110


Correct. But I'm glad you still knew that I was supposed to quote you. And the intel build that Logainofhades put together WOULD perform much better than the FX build.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A

AndrewBlake

Distinguished
Oct 8, 2013
34
0
18,540


The bench marks online disagree, CPU boss says that the overall score is 0.1 higher, yet if you look below it shows the performance of all the cores totaled up is higher, and is very overclock-able compared to it. Pass mark says the i5 has 6639 points but the FX has 8030, not including the large overclock. Granted the fx does require a cooler

GPUBoss and Gamedebate say the two graphics cards exchange blows but appear to be leaning on the R9's side. Different websites disagree on which is faster.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A

AndrewBlake

Distinguished
Oct 8, 2013
34
0
18,540
Upon looking at more websites, it appears that they switch between supporting the fx and the i5. I may go with Logain's build because you both suggest it, but I don't understand why the benchmarks are all over the place.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
logainofhades

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator
Apr 27, 2009
37,609
3,279
143,290
CPU boss is a horrible tool for determining which cpu is better. Passmark does not equal real world performance either. Some actual game benchmarks. The FX 9590 doesn't even surpass an older ivy bridge i5. To get an FX 8350, at those speeds, you would need a far better board, and a larger wattage PSU as well.

CPU_01.png
CPU_01.png
CPU_01.png
CPU_01.png
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A

AndrewBlake

Distinguished
Oct 8, 2013
34
0
18,540


I don't want to seem stubborn but the i5-4460 is not on that list, although I have looked up CPUs that are close to it on the list.
I forgot to mention that it will be used for rendering videos which is why I was thinking the FX would be faster.
And according to Linus benchmarks (no idea how much weight this holds) the FX holds well against high end games and as programs start to use more processors, will become stronger with time.

However I have redesigned the general layout, I now agree that the sapphire is probably stronger.

-edit-

Oh and I switched to air cooling because I heard the EVO is capable of handling OC as long as ambient and airflow is good, which neither will be a problem.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Mxhawthy

Mxhawthy

Distinguished
Mar 9, 2014
492
0
19,110


In gaming, Intel destroys AMD in general. Obviously the ancient Intel CPUs won't, but i3's and above, do.

'Why?' you might ask? Well go back to the Passmark benchmarks/comparison thing that you used, and look at single core performance. Even i3s have almost double single core performance than new AMD CPUs.

Now, this is an important bit that will glue all of what I said above, together: Games CANNOT USE more than 4 cores at the moment.
So having an 8 core CPU, with say a single CPU score of 1000 (purely an example for explanation purposes), 1000 * 4 cores (because that's all that games can use so far, NOT 8) is 4000. Whereas an i5 with a single core score of 2000, well 2000 * 4 is 8000 and that is suddenly twice as powerful as the FX-8/9***


Here's some proof:

- A quote taken from here: http://goo.gl/DOhAiN
"Four CPU cores appears to be plenty, and it's upgrade and multi-task proof. If you do leave your MSN on or music playing in the background, for example, then the game will still have enough spare resources not to chug.
One important conclusion to take away though is that you don't need a 6-core CPU. They do nothing for your games, so unless you already find a quad-core slow in other applications or your day-to-day PC use, don't upgrade for this reason."

- Also, this article: http://goo.gl/wopYqY

- And from our very own Tom's Hardware: http://goo.gl/bdwxu0

I hope this informed you a lot, and removed misconceptions you had about cores and gaming.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
logainofhades

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator
Apr 27, 2009
37,609
3,279
143,290


The 4460 is actually a bit faster, 5-10%, than the i5 3470. Same clock speeds, but Haswell is architecturally better. A 3yr old+ CPU is not going to get stronger, with time either. Depending on software used, it might be better to use the GPU, for your video rendering anyway.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom