/ Sign-up
Your question

$1300 gaming build

  • Homebuilt
  • Build
  • Systems
  • Product
Last response: in Systems
June 22, 2010 2:35:53 PM

Well my current pc hardware is dying off at unprecedented rates resulting in a ragequit and subsequent total new pc build.

Like most of u naves I really have no need for more than 2 cores, but who wants to build a $500 gaming pc only to have it be obsolete in december. So without further market enragement I give proposed build.

antec 902 case

intel i7 930 quad core

ASUS P6X58D-E LGA 1366 Intel X58 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard

G.SKILL PI Series 6GB (3 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model F3-12800CL7T-6GBPI

2x SAPPHIRE 100297L Radeon HD 5830 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.1 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card w/ ATI Eyefinity ...

CORSAIR CMPSU-750TX 750W ATX12V / EPS12V SLI Ready CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS Certified Active PFC Compatible with Core i7 Power ...


1. I'm really tempted to go for the now affordable amd 6 core simply because its affordable and future proof. I keep hearing that intel's i7 4 core is still much better for gaming than the new amd x6. Thoughts?

2. Will most nice power supplies these days b compatible with bottom mounted cases? I have heard issues psu's cable reach.

3. All ur base r belong to me? yes, no, maybe?

More about : 1300 gaming build

a c 84 B Homebuilt system
June 22, 2010 2:45:21 PM

Here's a much better build (working on getting under $1,300):

CPU: X3 440 $75
Mobo: Gigabyte GA-790XTA-UD4 $111 after rebate (10% off until 6/30
RAM: G.Skill Ripjaws 2x2 GB 1600 mhz CAS Latency 7 $110
GPU: HD 5970 $700
PSU: Corsair 850W $110 after rebate
HDD: Samung Spinpoint F3 1 TB $70
Case: HAF 922 $90
Optical: Cheap SATA DVD burner $19

Total: $1,285

1.) The X6 are a bad idea for gaming. Period. You'd do better with a cheaper X4 (possibly even a X3 if you need to save more). The i7 isn't exactly good for your budget, and it's not something you should spare all expensive for in a gaming build.

2.) Yes.

3.) No and see above. Two 5830s are not a good value for gaming. The 5830 is generally considered a waste of money because they can't play games at 1080p, but they're too powerful for games at resolutions under that. You'd do better to save some money and get a 5770 or spend more and get a 5850. In your case, spend more and get the best video card on the market.
June 22, 2010 3:06:24 PM

thanks mad for your reply. I should mention that I don't mind spending $100 more or less.

Interesting about the 5830's. I was going off of a toms hardware honorable mention. I think ill go for one 5850 and a 2nd one when they get cheaper.

I don't understand why the i7 is out of the question. AMD seems to be far below the curve right now in all areas except price. I don't mind spending a bit more on mobo and processor.

dunno why a 1TB HD is necessary, but neato.

Is CAS latency the most important thing to look at on memory?

Why do I need a 850w PSU for one ati card?

I think most coolmaster cases look like hot turds melting in the sun, but thats just an personal preference.

as for question #3...I can't believe u took that question seriously and wrote more than a sentence. *flies all zigs for great victory*

Related resources
a c 84 B Homebuilt system
June 22, 2010 3:18:07 PM

They're an honorable mention and not a winner for a reason. If you only want a single card right now, I'd get thd HD 5870 ($390). That alone offers enough power to play every game at max details on a 1080p monitor.

To get an i7 over the above, you'll need to spend a lot of money. The i7 itself will cost another $200, the boards run about $100 more and the triple channel RAM will cost another $70. All told, that's $370 that's not being spent on the GPU, which is most important for gaming. The truth is that you don't really need a whole lot of CPU power to game, making Intel's prices a bit hard to justify until the GPU is maxed out.

The 1 TB is one of the fastest drives out there. You could go with a 500 GB (still the Samsung Spinpoint F3), but it'll only save you $15. That's an amazing price on the 1 TB.

CAS Latency is more important than speed. 1600 mhz/CL 7 is generally the ideal spot right now.

The 850W is for when/if you want to add a second 5970. If you decide to drop that to a 5870, you can switch to a 750W unit.

I agree the HAF is ugly. However, it's massive and possibly the best case out there. The 5970 won't fit in many smaller cases (like the Antec 902, 1200, Coolermaster Storm whatevers, Coolermaste 690, etc.). If you decide to get the 5870, the 902 would be fine. If you want the 5970, you're either going to have to pick the HAF or spend another $70+ to get a big enough case.

I just used that space to explain why you wouldn't want the 5830. It's easier to see the full build that way instead of putting the explanation besides the GPU...
June 22, 2010 3:41:02 PM

"To get an i7 over the above, you'll need to spend a lot of money. The i7 itself will cost another $200, the boards run about $100 more and the triple channel RAM will cost another $70. All told, that's $370 that's not being spent on the GPU, which is most important for gaming. The truth is that you don't really need a whole lot of CPU power to game, making Intel's prices a bit hard to justify until the GPU is maxed out. "

I'm thinking that in the future games will require more multi-core processing. Would an i7 not be a lot more future proof uber l33tness?

very cool advice about video card size and cases. thanks

Also...I am relatively maxing the GPU and I agree that justifies purchase of intel. Dropping the crossfire setup for the single 5870 or 59xx whatever allows for a bit more processor budget.

a c 84 B Homebuilt system
June 22, 2010 3:52:34 PM

Not really. With a few exceptions, games today barely use two cores. Right now, triple cores are actually the best for gaming (search "how many cores do you need" in the articles section for proof). Adding the fourth core actually decreases the overall performance, though not by anything that can be called significant. And that's only talking about physical cores. Games don't even touch hyperthreading.

The i7 is a great CPU for heavy number crunching tasks (rendering, compressing, etc.), but virtually a waste of money for just gaming.

Something else to keep in mind is that Intel is already moving away from the current sockets (LGA1156 and LGA1366). You won't be seeing anything more for the boards you can currently buy. That means that you won't have any upgrade path. AMD is sticking to the AM3 socket for another few years, so you'd be able to drop in whatever advances come next. If you go with Intel, you'd need a new build.

$1,400 would barely allow for an i7, but spend that extra isn't advisable simply because you won't see any benefit from it. Why spend more when you don't get more?
June 22, 2010 4:07:20 PM

oh yeah I read that intel is yet again scrapping the socket for a new Then they hate on AMD for being upgradeable? How u gonna hate on that? hah

I believe intel's thought process is: sure ya don't need 4 uber cores, but we stealin ur upgradability so hope the 4 lasts ya until u can buys new $400 intel setup..whack

my last PC was an AMD so I guess you have convinced me to go that route again.

I should mention that this pc will not be solely a gaming unit. Rendering and compressing are not strangers to my schedule.

to say that $1400 barely allows for an i7 is a stretch, but yeah if ur just planning to play games that are currently is obviously not necessary.

June 22, 2010 4:12:17 PM

uggh all in all this process is just a lot more tedious than it used to be it seems like.

Last time I bought a cpu it was: AMD or intel...basically the same dual core, but intel a bit classier.

now its...32nm vs 45nm. i7vs i5, intel vs amd, hexacore vs quad vs possibly 10-12 cores soon. hah.

p.s. feel free not to comment on why I won't need a 10-18 core processor this decade.
a b B Homebuilt system
June 22, 2010 4:25:52 PM

I'm totally behind MadAdmiral on this one.

I can't say with certainty that you won't need a million cores in this decade. But I can say with some certainty that you won't need a ton in the next 2-3 years.

Consider that games are created to be playable by the widest audience possible. (See Crysis for an example of what not to do.) Right now, most gamers have 2-4 cores, and 6-core processors have just hit the market. It's going to be at least 2 years before 6 cores is considered "standard", could be more like 3-4 years. Until we near the end of that timeframe, games are not going to require that amount of hardware, though some games may see optimizations for more cores.

And re: AMD vs. Intel, Intel owns the high end of the processor market, but AMD offers the best value for gamers, as (as MadAdmiral mentioned), most games are not CPU-limited. On most games, you're only going to see about a 3-5 fps difference by stepping up to a higher grade processor.