Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

$600 skyrim/wow/bf3 gaming build

Last response: in Systems
Share
December 3, 2011 4:01:00 PM

Okay guys, I've already spent around $200 So it's more of a $600 build.
(I already bought:
PSU: Thermaltake TR2 600w
ram: G.Skill Ripjaws X 8gb 1600mhz, Switched from Kingston 4gb 1600mhz Ram
Optical Drive: Asus 24x DVD Burner
Case: CM Storm Enforcer)

So im leaning towards Intel because it seems more reliable than Amd. :sweat:  (Started a fanwar) Lol
I get $300 on Christmas and $300 on my B-day in March.
Any ideas on GPU, Mobo, CPU, CPU Cooler?
I was thinking about on Christmas get Mobo/CPU/CPU Cooler.
On B-day get HDD/GPU.
December 3, 2011 4:37:09 PM

sosofm said:
Mobo : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Cpu : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
GPU : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
CPU cooler : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Total $564.96 without rebates. My advice is to wait with the GPU because in Q1 2012 arives the new ATI 7000 series.

which would you get,
asrock p67 extreme4 gen3
or
asrock z68 extreme3 gen3?
m
0
l
Related resources
December 3, 2011 5:20:38 PM

z68 supports more features.

Intel is not more reliable than amd. Intel DOES however have a market advantage right now. the i5 2500k is hard to beat. Get it or be destroyed. Interesting to note your building a pc on the verge of 2 die shrinks.

28nm video cards and 22nm intel cpu's. If you have any current equipment to substitute for one of those I would suggest waiting for that technology as well. Your z68 motherboard can fit 22nm ivy bridge chips AND 32nm sandybridge, so no worries there.

This is perfect since you are waiting for half of your build until march. By then 28nm video cards will be out and by april we will see 22nm CPU's. The best thing for you to do may be to get a 32nm i5 2500k processor now with a z68 motherboard and use your current GPU if you have one. When your Bday rolls around, get a ridiculously awesome 28nm video card and in a year if you have some spare change you can upgrade to ivy bridge (22nm cpu).


m
0
l
December 3, 2011 5:26:53 PM

Since your going the intel route which is a very smart and standard thing to do this year, know that you will be forced to get a cpu cooler. AMD actually makes a decent heatsink, intel does not even bother. If you overclock at all you will need an aftermarket heatsink. If you do not overclock with a 2500k then you are doing it severely wrong.

You will want to make sure that if you get a massive CPU cooler that it does not conflict with the height of your memory layout. What i mean is, if those fancy memories your buying have those neat looking heat spreaders on top, know that they will most likely run into your cpu cooler. Get ones with short spreaders or none at all. They dont need them.
m
0
l
December 3, 2011 6:08:46 PM

so
i5 2500k
asrock z68 extreme3 gen3
and decide a gpu in march?

any idea on a cpu cooler?
m
0
l
December 3, 2011 6:14:41 PM

im going to start a new thread on this topic.
thanks for all of the ideas.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 3, 2011 7:46:49 PM

Get the Hyper 212+ at $20 it's hard to beat
http://www.amazon.com/Cooler-Master-Hyper-Sleeve-RR-B10...

As for GPU, as stated, the new AMD GPUs come out in Q4 of this year so sometime around this time or the start of Q1 2012 so just wait for that. The Nvidia competition won't come out till later Q2 2012ish

For the CPU go with the 2500k it'll be great and yes the Asrock Extreme3 Gen3 is probably your best bang for the buck motherboard.
m
0
l
a c 76 à CPUs
December 3, 2011 8:15:40 PM

There is no point going with a top end cpu like the 2500k for a budget gaming build to play BF3 , WOW or even Skyrim

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/14/
compare the performance of the FX4100 and Phenom to the 2600K

http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-perfor...

Save the $100 on the processor and spend it on a better graphics card . Its totally wasted on the cpu if all you are doing is gaming
Also no point in fitting 8 gig of RAM when you are on a budget .There will be NO performance increase for a gamer

So
FX 4100
970 or 990 chipset AM3+ mb
2 x2 gig of RAM
The most powerful graphics card you can afford
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 3, 2011 8:18:03 PM

Outlander the OP is spending $600 for just MB+CPU+HS+GPU so, $125+$210+$250+$20 that's about $600.
m
0
l
a c 76 à CPUs
December 3, 2011 8:25:08 PM

He could have the exact same performance months earlier if he went with AMD .

The intel will spank the AMD in encoding and productivity apps but if thats not important then why spend the money
m
0
l
December 3, 2011 8:29:58 PM

would games be playable with this build,
i3 2100
asrock z68 extreme3 gen3
gtx 550 ti?
i'm thinking that it would be cheaper to upgrade to a high end 500 series card
around holiday/2012 because by then 600 series will be out and then 500 series cards will be alot cheaper.

also it would be cheaper if i went with an i3 then upgrade to i5 when ivy bridge comes
out.
m
0
l
a c 76 à CPUs
December 3, 2011 8:35:06 PM

The FX 4100 generally games better than the i3 2100 .

You could have the FX 4100 and a quality mb for under $200 . Ideally spending $220 - $230 and you have a board that will last for several years while you upgrade processors when you want to
m
0
l
December 3, 2011 8:35:45 PM

Outlander_04 said:
He could have the exact same performance months earlier if he went with AMD .

The intel will spank the AMD in encoding and productivity apps but if thats not important then why spend the money

go to anandtech.com and compare the 955 to i5 2500k and then you will see the diffrence in gaming. :) 
m
0
l
December 3, 2011 8:44:20 PM

Outlander_04 said:
The FX 4100 generally games better than the i3 2100 .

You could have the FX 4100 and a quality mb for under $200 . Ideally spending $220 - $230 and you have a board that will last for several years while you upgrade processors when you want to

im choosing to stick with intel because bulldozer didn't live up to everybody's expectations.
amd also stated that it wont be intel vs amd anymore, its just intel.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 3, 2011 8:58:02 PM

^ That statement is very debateable.

Bulldozer didn't live up to expectations because it was though to be against the Sandy Bridge chips, BD was intended to be up against the older i7/i5s not the new ones since that was when BD started development.

As for the AMD vs Intel, debateable. AMD could catchup, Intel is great, no doubt, but at the lower end, AMD is a bit better.
m
0
l
December 3, 2011 9:26:31 PM

aznshinobi said:
^ That statement is very debateable.

Bulldozer didn't live up to expectations because it was though to be against the Sandy Bridge chips, BD was intended to be up against the older i7/i5s not the new ones since that was when BD started development.

As for the AMD vs Intel, debateable. AMD could catchup, Intel is great, no doubt, but at the lower end, AMD is a bit better.

okay i admit, i have to agree to you.
m
0
l
a c 76 à CPUs
December 3, 2011 9:32:09 PM

slader166 said:
go to anandtech.com and compare the 955 to i5 2500k and then you will see the diffrence in gaming. :) 



When you compare the two cpu's with a top end card , on a relatively low resolution monitor and older games as anandtech do the intel produces higher frame rates .

That , however is meaningless since most people are playing on 1080p monitors , and the newer games are more graphically demanding then the situation is different .
Try reading the links I posted above . The $100 +dollars yo save by going AMD can be spent on a better graphics card and that will result in a benefit for gaming where the more expensive intel cpu will not.

Its also smart to keep in mind that conventional LCD monitors refresh at 60 Hz . Thats 60 times per second or 60 FPS .
If you build a computer that produces higher frame rates you have just wasted money because the monitor can never actually display those frames . Even when the intel does make 100fps and the 955 only makes 80 fps there will be NO difference in user experience

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 3, 2011 9:35:43 PM

The 955 is a great CPU no doubt, it'll do just fine. I'm using it now to play BF3 and honestly you probably wouldn't notice any change. But IMO I like reaching high clocks, the 955 does it by getting to 4ghz (barely) but the 2500K can overclock so much more and perform so much better in CPU related apps if you ever use them. Personally I use PS5 and LR3 a lot so I'd benefit from it, but are you going to?

It all comes down to usage, you can go with the 955 and pretty much get Gaming done, the 2500K is pretty sweet for the overall performance, but as you can see is about $100 more.
m
0
l
December 4, 2011 12:27:43 AM

do you really think i should go with amd?
i mean, i don't care has long as it plays newer games at high playable fps.
so which amd cpu would you recommend for budget gaming?
and which intel would you recommend for budget gaming?
m
0
l
December 4, 2011 1:09:54 AM

which would be better for gaming,
i3 2100 or 955?
m
0
l
December 4, 2011 1:26:34 AM

which build is better?

phenom ii x4 955 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
asrock 990fx extreme3 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
cooler master hyper 212 evo http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
or
intel i3 2100 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
asrock z68 extreme3 gen3 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
coolermaster hyper 212 evo http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


after both builds i have $200 left for a gpu.
which is the best for under $200?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2011 1:32:52 AM

Well if you're going with the 2500K, no doubt intel. AMD is just an option if you'd like to save but still get decent FPS.

As for between those 2 builds, go with the AMD one, Get this motherboard instead and save more money.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
You'll save $20 for similar capabilities, so that gives you $220 for the GPU allowing for a 560 Ti.

As for posting, try to use the Edit button next time instead of triple posting.
m
0
l
December 4, 2011 1:39:53 AM

Hold on if he isnt getting the GPU till his birthday (march) why not just save the money up till you can buy the whole thing instead of putting it together piece by piece. New parts will come out by the time your birthday comes around.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2011 1:43:01 AM

I have a 955 with only 30% consumption on skyrim, it's really bad how little it takes. I would'nt go too much on the CPU. Only about 50% on Battlefield 3 on ultra 2048 x 1152. My graphics is a 5850 saffire toxic. It is just overkill for most games and got both the CPU and GPU for under $100 with future piledriver upgrade avaliblity. Oh and I believe that BD is ok but will start becoming really good in a few years when multi-threading is more common and the architecture is more mature.(piledriver?) I mean it was meant to be scaleble as it uses modules.
m
0
l
December 4, 2011 2:13:07 AM

Quote:
Also no point in fitting 8 gig of RAM when you are on a budget .There will be NO performance increase for a gamer


According to the conclusions in this article:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ram-memory-upgrade,...

8GB of RAM is the minimum for a 64-bit system when it comes to gaming and multitasking applications. Besides, 8GB isn't going to be much more expensive than 4GB.
m
0
l
December 4, 2011 2:17:12 AM

kyle382 said:
Since your going the intel route which is a very smart and standard thing to do this year, know that you will be forced to get a cpu cooler. AMD actually makes a decent heatsink, intel does not even bother. If you overclock at all you will need an aftermarket heatsink. If you do not overclock with a 2500k then you are doing it severely wrong.

You will want to make sure that if you get a massive CPU cooler that it does not conflict with the height of your memory layout. What i mean is, if those fancy memories your buying have those neat looking heat spreaders on top, know that they will most likely run into your cpu cooler. Get ones with short spreaders or none at all. They dont need them.

Intel makes liquid cooled heatsinks now for the 1155/1156 1336/2011 socket cpus.
m
0
l
a c 76 à CPUs
December 4, 2011 2:22:38 AM

Dukbutter said:
Quote:
Also no point in fitting 8 gig of RAM when you are on a budget .There will be NO performance increase for a gamer


According to the conclusions in this article:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ram-memory-upgrade,...

8GB of RAM is the minimum for a 64-bit system when it comes to gaming and multitasking applications. Besides, 8GB isn't going to be much more expensive than 4GB.



and according to this page
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ram-memory-upgrade,...
from the article you are quoting the increase
when you went from 4 to 8 gig of RAM in a 32 bit game [ which they all are except the half life port ]
is around 2%

So if you are running at 60 fps with 4 gig of RAM and you jump to 8 gig then you will see about 1.2 FPS increase .
If you are getting 40 FPS on a budget rig then the increase is a massive 0.8 FPS
These are increases are not even noticeable in game play .

Gamers need 2 x2 gig if they have a 64 bit OS , and they may want more if the graphics cards have lots of vRAM
But to say 8 gig is the minimum required is a conclusion that was probably loved by Toms sponsors but not actually all that objective
m
0
l
December 4, 2011 2:29:01 AM

Get an HD 5770 instead of the 550ti
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2011 2:59:03 AM

^ Wrong, 5770<550 Ti<6790.

As for 8GB vs 4GB, does it really matter? I Mean it's always good to have more ram just in case. I remember 2 years ago I thought that, since all I did was game, I'd only need 4GB. Now I edit a lot more using Photoshop, LR3, and Premiere/After Effects and now that I bought some more ram, 8GB, it's runs much smoother.

Overall, might as well get it since it's so cheap after all.
m
0
l
December 4, 2011 3:19:11 AM

Quote:
and according to this page
http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 778-8.html
from the article you are quoting the increase
when you went from 4 to 8 gig of RAM in a 32 bit game [ which they all are except the half life port ]
is around 2%

So if you are running at 60 fps with 4 gig of RAM and you jump to 8 gig then you will see about 1.2 FPS increase .
If you are getting 40 FPS on a budget rig then the increase is a massive 0.8 FPS
These are increases are not even noticeable in game play .

Gamers need 2 x2 gig if they have a 64 bit OS , and they may want more if the graphics cards have lots of vRAM
But to say 8 gig is the minimum required is a conclusion that was probably loved by Toms sponsors but not actually all that objective


Fair enough :) 
m
0
l
December 4, 2011 3:35:45 AM

I have 16 gigs of ram and man do i use about 9-12 gigs on a daily basis. Having 120+ tabs open in firefox and chrome do that. Plus at 4 gigs of shared video memory per graphics card its always good to have more ram.

Plus you cant go wrong with buying the most you can right now because ram is dirt cheap. You would actually spend more getting 4 gigs of 2x2 ram than getting 8 gigs of 2x4.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2011 4:51:59 AM

^ Your usages are a bit crazy though... 120+ Tabs in Firefox would make FF overload, even after 30 (As shown by the "Browser Grand Prix" from THG) browsers start struggling to manage each tab, though FF is one of the better browsers at it. But yeah, an avg person really doesn't open 120+ tabs, maybe 10 at most. Those tabs is the reason you're using so much ram. But yeah people who use things like Browsers (Heavy) and Photoshop (Heavy) need at least 8 but if OP is just gaming, 4 is sufficient but always nice to have 8.

Also to clarify before trolls refute your statement.
I believe you mean, it's cheaper per gig to buy 8GB of ram (2x4gb) now than getting 4GB of ram (2x2GB)
m
0
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
December 4, 2011 6:59:40 AM

+1 for:
* AMD PhII x4 955 BE (should OC to 3.8-4.0 without voltage adjustments) or FX 4100 would be good too. Both CPU's fit the same socket set, if you got with AM3+ based mobo.
* 8 gb's DDR3, which I think the OP has already bought.
* AM3+ based mobo <---most are better equipped than intel mobo's for the $.
* GTX 560 Ti or even a AMD 6950 2gb <--- Could possibly unlock to 6970.

Now this recommendation would only be for a week or two and will change as time of purchase is delayed. If your buying after Christmas than you might be fine with these options, but if you wait and buy all of the parts in March (which I'd recommend buying all of your parts at the same time), everything recommended here will definitely be different. By buying all of your parts at once, you afford yourself the opportunity to test out your parts within the 30 days (usually the return window at most businesses). You can possibly save yourself weeks, if you need to return something out of the 30 day window. And you also only have to deal with the business that you bought the parts from. Usually after the 30 day window you have to deal with the manufacturer directly, which isn't always as motivated as the business that you bought your parts from. This motivation difference can shave off weeks in return and evaluation times.
Share
December 4, 2011 7:06:30 AM

aznshinobi said:
^ Your usages are a bit crazy though... 120+ Tabs in Firefox would make FF overload, even after 30 (As shown by the "Browser Grand Prix" from THG) browsers start struggling to manage each tab, though FF is one of the better browsers at it. But yeah, an avg person really doesn't open 120+ tabs, maybe 10 at most. Those tabs is the reason you're using so much ram. But yeah people who use things like Browsers (Heavy) and Photoshop (Heavy) need at least 8 but if OP is just gaming, 4 is sufficient but always nice to have 8.


Yeah 120 tabs in firefox works great though as long as you use the 64 bit version of it. 32 bit would obviously lag. Otherwise opera seems to handle the workload the best from what ive seen.


aznshinobi said:
Also to clarify before trolls refute your statement.
I believe you mean, it's cheaper per gig to buy 8GB of ram (2x4gb) now than getting 4GB of ram (2x2GB)


I meant what you said, i just said it slightly different. 8 gigs of ram 2x4gb is cheaper. 4 gigs of ram 2x2gb is more expensive for what you get.
m
0
l
December 4, 2011 11:44:06 AM

did nobody else catch that article on toms about AMD giving up the CPU race against Intel? Maybe I'm reading 2 far into it...i remember i skimmed the article b4 work, but it sounded like AMD is going to be focusing on the mobile platform from now on. If this is the case, I certainly would not recommend any AMD desktop builds.
m
0
l
December 4, 2011 12:02:12 PM

^They didn't say that they were giving up on x86, they just said they are not going to directly compete with Intel. Which to me isn't necessarily a bad thing.
m
0
l
December 4, 2011 2:21:20 PM

sell PSU and wait till u have all the money .. then buy
m
0
l
December 4, 2011 2:21:46 PM

@ shinobi I can beat that Hyper 212+ .. with a stick :) 
m
0
l
December 14, 2011 12:45:12 AM

Best answer selected by slader166.
m
0
l
!