Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

$800 Gaming PC for Guild Wars 2

Last response: in Systems
Share
July 21, 2012 4:15:02 PM

Hi this is my first time building a PC and I just wanted you guys to double check and see if I made some good decsions. Im open to criticism and any opportunity to save money.

CPU: Intel core i5 Quad Core $189 http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819115074

Motherboard: BIOSTAR H61MGC LGA 1155 Intel H61 Micro ATX Intel Motherboard $50 http://www.newegg.co...N82E16813138332

Case: Rosewill Challenger ATX mid Tower $50
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16811147153

Video Card: EVEGA GeForce GTX 550ti $134 http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814130625

PSU: Rosewill SLI ready 600w $60 http://www.newegg.co...N82E16817182032

Memory: 8GB (2x 4GB) G-Skill DDR3 1333 $40 http://www.newegg.co...N82E16820231421

HDD: 500GB 7200 RPM SAATA 3GB/S $70 http://www.newegg.co...N82E16822152181

Optical Drive: $19 http://www.newegg.co...N82E16827135204

OS: Windows 7 Home Premium $99 http://www.newegg.co...N82E16832116986

Monitor: Acer 20in LED Backlight $109 http://www.newegg.co...N82E16824009256

I probably won't be overclocking.

More about : 800 gaming guild wars

July 21, 2012 9:48:58 PM

Spending less than a $1000, I would sudjest you go with a AMD based system, you can save quite a bit of money and get much better performance.
m
0
l
Related resources
July 21, 2012 10:00:57 PM

^ Wrong. The i5-3570k and the 7850 will outperform any AMD offering.
m
0
l
July 21, 2012 11:56:25 PM

If your spending less than $1000 then your budget is tight to the point where you can spend maybe $500 on the CPU and Video Card, and that is if your skimping on everything else... with that in mind that i5 now only allows you to use about $250 on a video card, you can buy the 7850... if you went AMD you could get a 7950 (which will run the 7850 in the ground) and a six core buldozer (and I dont care what benchmarks say, you will not notice a difference in a video game between a buldozer and a Ivy Bridge) and still save about $50 to buy some better RAM or put twords a SSD, or a better motherboard so you can overclock it really good and then it will perform the same as the i5... You will get a MUCH better system, when spending less than $1000, by going AMD.
m
0
l
July 22, 2012 11:42:13 AM

Yeah you wouldn't notice the difference between the i5 and FX-6 now because not many games are CPU dependant but in the future there would be a major difference. The FX-6's and even the FX-8's perform similarly to the Sandy Bridge Pentium CPU's in games. The reason being that games won't even touch any more than 4 cores.
m
0
l
July 23, 2012 5:49:02 AM

But your "Games of the future" will use well more than 4 cores (actually most games use 2 or 3 cause using more actually decreases performace due to overhead cost). Actually most of your future games will probably become infinate core, it will be based on your setup as to how many cores it takes advantage of... So with that future in mind your FX's are ready for whatever the future has to offer.
m
0
l
July 23, 2012 5:57:56 AM

You have seen all the proof, yet you still deny the facts? It's seems there is no way to get you to see the truth. *sigh*
m
0
l
July 23, 2012 6:34:10 AM

Are you going to deny my points? They are TOTALLY valid and honestly you really think that a FX CPU isnt playable?

PS, if you keep trolling my post like this, I will be reporting you.
m
0
l
July 23, 2012 6:34:33 AM

I'm not going to argue that Intel doesn't outperform AMD, but I will say for Guild Wars 2, a Phenom II 965 will more than get the job done. And absolutely, if going AMD, the Phenom II is a better choice than FX.

azeem40 said:
^ Wrong. The i5-3570k and the 7850 will outperform any AMD offering.

And a Phenom II with a 7850 would outperform an i5-2400 with a 550 TI in gaming. Just throwing that out there.
m
0
l
July 23, 2012 6:39:36 AM

DickJohnson said:
Hi this is my first time building a PC and I just wanted you guys to double check and see if I made some good decsions. Im open to criticism and any opportunity to save money.

CPU: Intel core i5 Quad Core $189 http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819115074

Motherboard: BIOSTAR H61MGC LGA 1155 Intel H61 Micro ATX Intel Motherboard $50 http://www.newegg.co...N82E16813138332

Case: Rosewill Challenger ATX mid Tower $50
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16811147153

Video Card: EVEGA GeForce GTX 550ti $134 http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814130625

PSU: Rosewill SLI ready 600w $60 http://www.newegg.co...N82E16817182032

Memory: 8GB (2x 4GB) G-Skill DDR3 1333 $40 http://www.newegg.co...N82E16820231421

HDD: 500GB 7200 RPM SAATA 3GB/S $70 http://www.newegg.co...N82E16822152181

Optical Drive: $19 http://www.newegg.co...N82E16827135204

OS: Windows 7 Home Premium $99 http://www.newegg.co...N82E16832116986

Monitor: Acer 20in LED Backlight $109 http://www.newegg.co...N82E16824009256

I probably won't be overclocking.


Its a good foundation, but I would make changes to it, I would suggest at bare minimum a 6870 video card for gaming, its better than the 550 TI.

6870 $160 with mail in rebate
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Cheaper power - Corsair CX430. $22 after mail in rebate (which is awesome to find a quality power supply that cheap)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Better hard drive-
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
m
0
l
July 23, 2012 6:48:20 AM

jmsellars1 said:
Yeah you wouldn't notice the difference between the i5 and FX-6 now because not many games are CPU dependant but in the future there would be a major difference. The FX-6's and even the FX-8's perform similarly to the Sandy Bridge Pentium CPU's in games. The reason being that games won't even touch any more than 4 cores.

I highly doubt games will become more CPU dependent in the next few years. Not while consoles continue to dictate the market. Seriously, don't hold you're breath, they're still coding games in the same languages they were using 15 years ago.
m
0
l
July 23, 2012 9:42:42 AM

I think you misunderstood. I meant you won't see the benefit of an Intel CPU yet because almost any CPU is playable. So yeah, AMD would work but Intel generally give better performance in games. That was my point. The whole games will use more cores in future argument seems weird to m. By the time they do, surely you will be buying a new CPU anyway, its going to be a very gradual process.
m
0
l
July 23, 2012 5:10:59 PM

I did miss what you were saying, I blame the fact that I was up past my bed time when I chimed in on the thread initially :lol: 
m
0
l
July 23, 2012 5:14:14 PM

JefferyD90 said:
Are you going to deny my points? They are TOTALLY valid and honestly you really think that a FX CPU isnt playable?

PS, if you keep trolling my post like this, I will be reporting you.

Go ahead then. What's stopping you? Btw, look up the definition of trolling before you accuse others of it.
m
0
l
July 23, 2012 5:27:39 PM

JefferyD90 said:
Are you going to deny my points? They are TOTALLY valid and honestly you really think that a FX CPU isnt playable?

PS, if you keep trolling my post like this, I will be reporting you.

I don't think he was trolling you, I agree with you that games are playable on FX. However, Bulldozer is still weak, even in multithreading, they aren't as good as they/could should be. Now, Tom's did run benches on the new Trinity APUs which use PileDriver and compared them against an i3. Based on those benches, its possible that PileDriver 8320/8350s might be able to at least perform within spitting distance of Sandy Bridge i5s. But as it is now, there are better options for systems, including from AMDs own prior generation CPUs, Phenom IIs. And this is coming from someone who likes AMD.

m
0
l
July 23, 2012 10:26:14 PM

nekulturny said:
I don't think he was trolling you, I agree with you that games are playable on FX. However, Bulldozer is still weak, even in multithreading, they aren't as good as they/could should be. Now, Tom's did run benches on the new Trinity APUs which use PileDriver and compared them against an i3. Based on those benches, its possible that PileDriver 8320/8350s might be able to at least perform within spitting distance of Sandy Bridge i5s. But as it is now, there are better options for systems, including from AMDs own prior generation CPUs, Phenom IIs. And this is coming from someone who likes AMD.

I agree with everything said except that its week in multithreding... it actually keeps up with i7-2xxx when it comes to actually using all the available cores. But I do agree that that rarely if EVER happens.

And he has posted the same thing in about a dozen of my post... he was trolling...
m
0
l
!