Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Help me decide which build to buy? $500 gaming budget

Last response: in Systems
Share

Which build will be better for gaming?

Total: 10 votes (9 blank votes)

  • Build 1
  • 0 %
  • Build 2
  • 100 %
August 23, 2010 8:56:59 PM

so i have made two builds and i like them both. can you tell me which build will be better for gaming and give me more FPS.

Build 1
http://yfrog.com/n597547529p

Build 2
http://yfrog.com/5b94815377p

So which build will be better for gaming and which will get me more FPS in games?
Also for build 1. is the PSU ok? and everything else is ok?f
a b 4 Gaming
August 23, 2010 9:03:51 PM

They're both pretty horrible. Here's what I'd look at:

CPU/GPU: X3 440 and HD 5770 $198 after rebate
Mobo: ASRock 770 Extreme3 $75
RAM: G.Skill Ripjaws 2x2 GB 1600 mhz CAS Latency 7 $93 after promo code
HDD/PSU: Samsung Spinpoint F3 500 GB and OCZ Fatal1ty 550W $80
Case/Optical: Antec 300 and cheap SATA DVD burner $58 after rebate

Total: $504. Went a tad over. You could throw those G.Skill 1333 mhz CAS Latency 9 sticks in it and save a bit though.
August 23, 2010 9:16:59 PM

i am pretty sure that my build with quadcore is better... and the one with GTX 460 is probably a killer. you sure yours is even good
Related resources
a b 4 Gaming
August 23, 2010 9:38:02 PM

Except quad cores don't help in gaming. In fact, they actually are worse for gaming. Check out the various monthly "Best Gaming CPUs for the Money" articles. Also, search "how many cores do you need" for a review Tom's did to find what you really need for gaming. You'd be amazed. The X3 440 (and 445) are recommended ABOVE the X4 6xx CPUs for gaming. They're just not worth the price.

I know my build is the best you're getting for $500. It doesn't sacrifice any quality and gets you the maximum performance possible for the price. Both of your builds have crappy cases (mine's one of the best budget ones out there, see the review on the front page), absolutely crappy boards (Biostar is the lowest of the low quality), a questionable PSU (in the second one, though the StealthXStream series isn't that great either), a slow HDD (in the second build) and much slower RAM.
August 23, 2010 9:48:05 PM

The only thing thats good in your build is the Mobo and the Ram. Everything else in my second build is better. and whats wrong with that motherboard sure its cheap but hey it works. and i like multitask also rather then just game. so thats why i need quadcore. and does that small ram difference really matter? And the Tower in my 2nd build is really neat and nice
August 23, 2010 9:48:19 PM

Hate to break it to you but Mad's build is much better then both of those
August 23, 2010 10:40:12 PM

i still think my build give me more fps
August 23, 2010 10:53:48 PM

If you plan on overclocking, then you could make the x4 perform as well as the x3. If pure gaming performance is what you are after and you don't want to overclock, Mad is right. Also, he is correct, Biostar is crap. He's just a bit blunt in saying it:)  But he also knows his hardware very well. The 5770 can be overclocked to match/outperform the 460 for cheaper. Make sure whatever PSU you choose is "80 plus certified". Also, nothing wrong with those cheap cases except that they are cheaply built and will not last long. I agree with Mad, Antec 300 or Antec 200 would be my pick for the best budget cases. And the Spinpoint F3 is definitely the hard drive you will want on a budget. Your builds aren't "horrible", at least not to me, I've definitely seen worse. What Mad is saying(less delicately than I) is that there are better builds to be had for the money.
August 24, 2010 12:23:26 AM

but wait isnt the quad core same speed as triple core with even extra core? i dont see problem in prossecor? and case doesnt matter to me i can use a cardbox if matters lol. but
a b 4 Gaming
August 24, 2010 12:34:18 AM

Not really. You have to slow the clock speed down when you add a core, which is what impacts gaming performance. This isn't a huge issue when you get a higher end CPU, as they've improved the speeds and the cache on the processors, which makes up for the lower speed from the additional core. However, if you buy a cheap quad core, they can't afford to make it faster, so you get a lower speed, which is all that really matters for gaming.

The reason dual cores are better than a single core despite being slower is that when games used one core, the second core was able to offload the extra processes running in the background to the second core. However, games started using tow cores. So the third core takes on the extra processes. Most games haven't moved past using two cores, and isn't likely to do that for a while still. That makes triple core CPUs optimal.

There are some games that need quad cores to run at optimum speeds. For example, GTA IV really loves quad cores, but that's really about the only major one.

The problem with the processor is that you spend a good $100 on it instead of the $75 on the X3. That's a lot of quality you lose for getting nothing in return. In addition, the X3 can unlock a fourth core, turning it into a cheaper quad. Also, the CPU overclocks amazingly. Those factors mean you can get a faster quad for less, if you get lucky.

Of course, many people actually find the speed loss from unlocking the fourth core (and sacrificing some overclocking ability) actually hurts the gaming performance. So many people unlock the core for performance and then only end up undoing it to get better performance.

The case matters a lot actually. Without a good case with good airflow, parts will overheat, causing the computer to have problems not only in running, but also in longevity. Also, a good case is the base for any build. It protects the parts from everything. Cases aren't expensive either, so there is no reason to not get a good one.
August 24, 2010 12:55:12 AM

oh k since now u explained me that i will just get a phenom instead of athlon.
a b 4 Gaming
August 24, 2010 1:00:35 AM

Out of budget. By $100. Besides, even it wasn't, a better use for the money would be a bigger GPU.
August 24, 2010 1:08:43 AM

btw if i do use build 2 how much FPS lose will i have?
August 24, 2010 1:09:55 AM

and here is the build with phenom. and whats so bad about biostar?
a b 4 Gaming
August 24, 2010 1:13:48 AM

No idea. You'd have horrible quality though.

Biostar is about as low quality as you can get. The boards don't have great specs and they won't last as long. Also, if something goes wrong (and it will with a cheap board and PSU), it's likely to take more parts with it when it fails. Instead of looking at a replacement cost of about $100 only for the board (or just the PSU, or both), you're looking at a replacement cost of $500. In other words, if you go with quality, and something goes horribly wrong, you're likely to need to replace only one or two parts. If you've got low quality, you're likely to be replacing the entire build.
a b 4 Gaming
August 24, 2010 1:26:47 AM

Gaming benchmarks for CPUs mean almost nothing. To get significant differences, the reviews must play around with the settings. You'll often see them run at really low resolutions (or really high ones) beyond the normal usage of gamers. In addition, they add strange settings to further eliminated the GPU. What you end up with are completely unrealistic benchmarks that have no bearing on actual performance.

You should always spend the money first where you'll have the greatest performance gain. In a gaming build, that's the GPU. Instead of spending another $75 on the CPU, you should spend it on the GPU. Sitting almost exactly $75 above the 5770 is the GTX 460 1 GB, which is an excellent card. And $20-30 above that is the HD 5850, which is where you start seeing a real high performance gaming build emerge.

Of course, once you're talking about going over budget, that's another matter. If you're really looking at spending $575-600 (assuming $20 more for a better board), a better use for the money would be to get the GTX 460 instead of a quad core.
August 24, 2010 1:47:29 AM

okay but the quad core is still better then tri core even at the same core speed right?
a b 4 Gaming
August 24, 2010 2:30:37 AM

Yes, but the money you'd spend to get a better quad core is better spent on a GPU. That's the entire point of this discussion. Quads aren't needed for gaming. Big GPUs are. So it makes more sense to spend as much as possible on the GPU, and then fill in the rest of the build.
August 24, 2010 2:32:33 AM

oh ok thanks for that helped learned alot. but i will keep the quad and keep the same GPu but do u know what is a good mobo. cuz biostar IDK sinc eu guys said its crappy
a b 4 Gaming
August 24, 2010 2:42:52 AM

good motherboard makers: Gigabyte, Asus, MSI, ASRock (which is the budget version of ASUS) and Zotec (a new company makes well regarded Home Theater PCs)
August 24, 2010 2:48:01 AM

here is my new build http://yfrog.com/mq77657898p everything is good except the motherboard but then again look at the hardcore GPU. so how is it?
August 24, 2010 6:30:08 AM

bump...
August 24, 2010 7:18:30 AM

I also recommend not going with biostar. I made that mistake with my first build thinking I could save a few bucks. I got two RMA's in a row then switched to MSI, and everything worked perfectly.

The quality of biostar boards are just poor, the transistors won't last as long as anything else, the bios isn't that great, the list goes on. Admiral really knows what he is talking about, I would listen to him if I were you. But I'm not, so I'll just continue listening to him myself. =D

Just buy the triple core and if you really want a quad, unlock it. But you can't unlock it with biostar motherboards ;] ASUS boards are known for core unlocking (imo)
a b 4 Gaming
August 24, 2010 8:03:51 PM

try this mobo:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

its DDR3 and 5200HT, lacks SATA 3 (you won't miss it) and USB3 (you don't really need it) and $59. same as the biostar. ASRock is a solid brand though.

you want USB3 and SATA3, you the Extreme version for $75. Doesn't come withe the CPU, but does have a win7 combo that saves $10
!