Build help!, Capability????

Illest

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2011
71
0
18,630
I had an original system build but after forums have made some modifacations to make it a cheap build but very capable of games, what do you think this system is capable of, Skyrim? Battlefield 3? MW3? New Vegas? games like that?
@1920x1080p

MOTHER BOARD:ASUS P8H67-V (REV 3.0) LGA 1155 Intel H67 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard with UEFI BIOS (@$105)

CPU:Intel Core i3-2100 Sandy Bridge 3.1GHz LGA 1155 65W Dual-Core Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics 2000 BX80623I32100 (@$110)

GPU:HIS IceQ X Turbo H695QNT2G2M Radeon HD 6950 2GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.1 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card with Eyefinity (@$270)

RAM:G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 4GB 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model F3-12800CL9S-4GBRL (@$23)

POWER:APEVIA JAVA ATX-JV650W 650W ATX12V / EPS12V SLI Ready CrossFire Ready Power Supply (@$55)



TOTAL:$463 (i already have a case with a cooling system, and a 1tb 7200rpm)
 
Solution
Honestly, you're fine. The next best thing (on the Intel side) is more expensive, and this processor will be fully capable in handling things. Once you play games that want to use more cores, you'll benefit from a quad-core, but those are few and far between. Not worth the cost right now if you can't afford it. The 2100 is a good chip on her own.

Edit: I should add, I have a dual-core that is slower than the 2100, and I game just fine on medium settings at 1920 x 1200 on most games (Crysis included), running a dated GPU. I was just saying the CPU may be a factor in some games, but I didn't mean to make it sound like you needed anything better. I just meant that in the rare game that wants more cores, you'll see higher FPS. But by that...

phyco126

Distinguished
Nov 6, 2011
1,014
0
19,460
Don't forget the operating system (and make sure you get/install a 64-bit version of it to use all 4 GB of RAM). Oh, and optical drives. Those can still be useful.

Otherwise, I don't see any real problems here and should game fine, for the most part. The CPU is going to be a limiting factor in some games, but I don't thing she'll do too horribly for most.
 

phyco126

Distinguished
Nov 6, 2011
1,014
0
19,460
Honestly, you're fine. The next best thing (on the Intel side) is more expensive, and this processor will be fully capable in handling things. Once you play games that want to use more cores, you'll benefit from a quad-core, but those are few and far between. Not worth the cost right now if you can't afford it. The 2100 is a good chip on her own.

Edit: I should add, I have a dual-core that is slower than the 2100, and I game just fine on medium settings at 1920 x 1200 on most games (Crysis included), running a dated GPU. I was just saying the CPU may be a factor in some games, but I didn't mean to make it sound like you needed anything better. I just meant that in the rare game that wants more cores, you'll see higher FPS. But by that point, you'll already have more FPS than you'll know what to do with.
 
Solution