Budget Build For Gaming?

[QWC]

I was wondering how this PC setup would look (on a budget) for some gaming.
Mostly WoW, DoD:S, TF2, CS:S, S.T.A.L.K.E.R and a few others.
For under $700 (W/S&H) I think it looks pretty good.
I was, at first, going to spend $1,000 for a PC but that seemed a little to much for my needs.

So how does this look?

- http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=16832591

 

[computernewb]

you can get more performance for $700.

atleast an i3-2120 + Hd 6870 with a cheaper case and a hard drive.

or a phenom ii quad core.

 

[nekulturny]

Even for a budget build system, a true quad core processor is the way to go. On a budget, a Phenom II 965 is currently the best choice, if you ask me. Due to the fact that Phenom IIs have been discontinued, its a good idea to pick one up while you can, since once they're gone we'll be stuck with dual core i3s or Bulldozers at the budget price point. Dual cores simply have inherent disadvantages compared to a quad core, and they will become more prevalent as software programming becomes more apt to be written to utilize 4 cores.



I recommend you change a couple things on your build, while the video card is not horrible, you could do better. At any rate

Better choice of CPU- http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103727

Motherboard to go with it- http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157280

 

[pfunkmd]

Read this review on i3 vs the fx4100 from tom's hardware the i3 beatsthe fx in every game. I would stay away from the fx for gaming I had a fx6100 and it was no good. If you go amd go with the Phenom II 965 for gaming.


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-2100-gaming-benchmark,3136.html

 

[nekulturny]

Read this review on i3 vs the fx4100 from tom's hardware the i3 beatsthe fx in every game. I would stay away from the fx for gaming I had a fx6100 and it was no good. If you go amd go with the Phenom II 965 for gaming.


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-4100-core-i3-2100-gaming-benchmark,3136.html

They're both dual cores that pretend to have 4 cores, the i3 does it better, but its just not the same thing as a true quad. Although the advantage of an FX, is it can be overclocked heavily, the i3 cant at all. The problem is, you shouldn't have to do massive overclocks.

 

[jerreddredd]

Nice budget build.

I just build one very similar, but with a i3 2120 cpu and a Sapphire 6850. so far I am impressed. My only suggestion is to consider the MSI H61MA-E35 (B3) MB. its the one I just used and it has both SATA 6G and USB 3.0 on it for the same price.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130629

NZXT makes nice cases and those are a solid picks for a HDD and PSU.

you might want to consider a small SSD drive for your OS and apps (and maybe a game or 2). the price has been dropping on them and there are some solid ones at good prices.

Crucial M4 SSD:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148441
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148448

computernewb is partially correct, but the performance increase would be slight on the 2120 CPU (a FPS or 2) and cost 31% more.

a HD 6870 would get you 5-15 FPS for a cost increase of just 7% ($10 on the same brand XFX card. which is worth consideration.

AMD CPU's aren't even in the same league for gaming in my book at their price point.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120.html

 

[salamakajakawaka]

i3 2100 -130
Radeon 6870 - 160
Corsair gs 600watt psu - 80
25 dollar 2x2 gb memory kit - 25
Pick case - 60
Hard drive - 100
H61 mobo - 60
windows - 100

Something like this is about 700

 

[nekulturny]

AMD CPU's aren't even in the same league for gaming in my book at their price point.
http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] ,3120.html

That article assumes outdated prices. Phenom IIs don't cost as much at the time of the writing of the article, so the conclusion page can be completely forgotten.

Also again, the i3 is limited in its functionality for a daily PC. I'll assume a Phenom II 965 priced at $120 set to 18.5 multiplier (which is the stock setting of a 980). Completely fair in Queensbury rules, since you cant do that trick with an i3-2120 priced at $130.

Skryim- Identical performance (less than 5 FPS is identical in terms of reality)
Battlefield 3- Identical, they didn't do benchmarks for multiplayer.. The i3 is not up to snuff for multiplayer.
Just Cause 2- Identical
Starcraft II- i3 has an advantage
Dirt 3- Identical
Metro 2033- Identical


Now lets talk about Daily PC use. Multitasking, surfing the web with multiple windows, etc.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=102

Every program that calls more than 2 cores into play, the i3 gets beaten. This will continue to happen as I mentioned, as software technology catches up to hardware and more programs are written to utilize more than 2 cores. To say they aren't in the same league is a silly statement. I suggest you take "your book" back to the editor for a revision, its not-factual.

And its completely ridiculous that people actually go around telling people on these forums that a crappy H61 with an i3 is actually a better choice than a 965 BE. People are spending real money based on our recommendations, check the fanboy stuff at the door and stick to the facts.

 

[jerreddredd]

AMD CPU's aren't even in the same league for gaming in my book at their price point.
http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] ,3120.html

That article assumes outdated prices. Phenom IIs don't cost as much at the time of the writing of the article, so the conclusion page can be completely forgotten.

Also again, the i3 is limited in its functionality for a daily PC. I'll assume a Phenom II 965 priced at $120 set to 18.5 multiplier (which is the stock setting of a 980). Completely fair in Queensbury rules, since you cant do that trick with an i3-2120 priced at $130.

Skryim- Identical performance (less than 5 FPS is identical in terms of reality)
Battlefield 3- Identical, they didn't do benchmarks for multiplayer.. The i3 is not up to snuff for multiplayer.
Just Cause 2- Identical
Starcraft II- i3 has an advantage
Dirt 3- Identical
Metro 2033- Identical


Now lets talk about Daily PC use. Multitasking, surfing the web with multiple windows, etc.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=102

Every program that calls more than 2 cores into play, the i3 gets beaten. This will continue to happen as I mentioned, as software technology catches up to hardware and more programs are written to utilize more than 2 cores. To say they aren't in the same league is a silly statement. I suggest you take "your book" back to the editor for a revision, its not-factual.

And its completely ridiculous that people actually go around telling people on these forums that a crappy H61 with an i3 is actually a better choice than a 965 BE. People are spending real money based on our recommendations, check the fanboy stuff at the door and stick to the facts.

First, the OP asked for a gaming system, second if you look at the anandtech charts between the i3-2100 and 965BE and apply the same type logic you used above (5FPS, 5% or 1-2 seconds) margin of error or unnoticeable to most people. The two chips either tie in the benchmarks, or each wins the same number. I will give you this, the majority of the multi threaded app tests were won by the AMD Quad Core and by a significant margin (but not all) an the 956 could be OC'd to maybe win some of the closer tests. In daily use there is no noticeable differences (Multitasking, Surfing the web with multiple windows, etc.)

BTW: My son has no issues playing BF3 on a i3 2120 w/HD 6850 in Multipayer. he doesn't have all the eye candy turned up like he does on his i7 2600K w/GTX 570. but he says it is smooth on both.

Being very close or the same in benchmarks, the Sandybridge chips are more appealing for their lesser heat/and energy consumption and they don't need to be over clock to perform well.

I am not an intel "Fanboy" and I wouldn't refer to AMD CPU and chips set as "crappy" as you have done above to Intel. I actually have 2 AMD based systems in my home and 5 Intel based systems. if AMD would produce a product that performs well, I will recommend it. Bulldozer was such a disappointment, they didn't even perform as well as there current lineup at the time of release. I did like the upgraded graphics on them and have built a few office systems out of them. I have hopes that AMD will bounce back in the future. I am waiting to see if Intel's IVY bridge is a significant advancement in CPU power.

I stand by my statement.

 

[nekulturny]

First, the OP asked for a gaming system, second if you look at the anandtech charts between the i3-2100 and 965BE and apply the same type logic you used above (5FPS, 5% or 1-2 seconds) margin of error or unnoticeable to most people.

Fair enough.

Bulldozer has nothing to do with this, did you see me recommend one? Leave that hunk of junk out of it. You're preaching to the converted, Bulldozer was a major disappointment. I recommended a Phenom II 965, somebody else mentioned Bulldozer, so I assume thats where you're getting that from.


i3 is a bad choice for a well balanced modern system, sorry if you think I'm going on the war-path, but thats the fact. You're better off spending the extra money for a true quad. Be it an i5 or a Phenom II

No you didn't say it was "Crappy", you said it wasn't in the same league. that was a fallacious statement. People get touchy when you tell them something they bought sucks, especially when it isnt true. We have an i5 2400 system in the house, it doesn't play games any better than my cheaper Phenom II. People that actually own both, are more apt to get my attention, for the record.


Ivy Bridge, already has benches leaked, its not going to be all its cracked up to be. BTW. Maybe 6 percent increase at best its looking like. And since you mentioned heat, its looking like Ivy Bridge chips run very hot compared to SB. Intel fanboys are already coming to Ivy's defense over it in the CPU forums, check it out. BTW, I'm not a really fanboy either, but I take exception to people acting like theres something an Intel product can do that mine cant. Especially considering again, we own both.


As far as the H61 chipset, fine.. I wont call it crappy, its antiquated. And you don't have to settle for an antiquated chipset.

Not interested in hearing about power consumption, since at worst it translates to 20 bucks a year on an electric bill.


As far as your son...Thats the point, you can turn the eye candy up with a true quad.

Being very close or the same in benchmarks, the Sandybridge chips are more appealing for their lesser heat/and energy consumption and they don't need to be over clock to perform well.

Don't make it sound like its a big deal.. In BIOS during your initial setup, change the multiplier to 18.5, takes 2 seconds and you have a Phenom II 980 for the price of a 965.

 

[jerreddredd]

well, we will just have to agree to disagree.

At least we both agree on Bulldozer and I am tracking the same thoughts you are on Ivy. if Ivy is only +6% performance wise then its not worth a look unless Intel prices it aggressively. (and I think they won't)

If the OP thinks he wants to give his build a little longevity for when more multi-theaded games come out, then I would recommend that he increase his budget and go with a i5 2400 or take your path on the AMD 965BE (with a AM3+ MB)

I am not sure that the eye candy is limited by the CPU in BF3, more by the GPU in our little i3/HD 6850 HTPC. I think I will go plop a GTX 570 in a crank it up (if it fits in the case anyway)... experiments, inquiring minds want to know. If the 570 fits I'll let you know how it comes out in multi with all the eye candy cranked.

 

[nekulturny]

Id be interested in seeing your results, indeed. Sorry we got off on the wrong foot.

I doubt intel will price IB aggressively like you said, right now they're enjoying a free ride against AMD. Problem in the market with no competition is it promotes laziness.