Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Looking to build gaming PC in $600-$850 range

Last response: in Systems
Share
August 14, 2012 3:03:19 AM

This is my first PC build and I need some help. I need to make the PC on a $850 max budget, preferibly running an FX 4100 or any other AMD specific component. I would use the template but im on my phone and it wont copy and paste :(  .But im looking for a build that can run Minecraft, DayZ, and Skyrim with no problem. Also I plan on doing some game recording and editing. Overclocking is also a possibility. I have a monitor but im not sure on the specs and cant really tell since my old PC is broke. I already have an OS (windows 7). Any info you can give would be great. I also am not planning on starting to get parts for a few months yet.
a b 4 Gaming
August 14, 2012 3:39:56 AM

gaming-wise, i'd strongly recommend you reconsidering the idea of getting an FX-4100, and get maybe a Phenom II X4 955 or a non-overclockable i5 if budget is too much of a concern. the former performs pretty equally save a few games, and the latter has a 50% lead at it's best.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-overclock-crossf...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/12/

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/p...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-812...

http://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/artikel/hardware/p...

the best path to even consider sticking with an FX-4100 is if you're using a mid-range GPU i.e; 7770, 6850, GTX560 (non-ti), and/or are planning to game at a lower resolution or with mid to high graphic settings at 1080p. once you do feel like upgrading that card to something high end, you're not gonna see a lot of improvement
m
0
l
August 14, 2012 4:10:04 AM

Hazle said:
gaming-wise, i'd strongly recommend you reconsidering the idea of getting an FX-4100, and get maybe a Phenom II X4 955 or a non-overclockable i5 if budget is too much of a concern. the former performs pretty equally save a few games, and the latter has a 50% lead at it's best.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-overclock-crossf...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1766/12/

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/p...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-812...

http://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/artikel/hardware/p...

the best path to even consider sticking with an FX-4100 is if you're using a mid-range GPU i.e; 7770, 6850, GTX560 (non-ti), and/or are planning to game at a lower resolution or with mid to high graphic settings at 1080p. once you do feel like upgradikng that card to something high end, you're not gonna see a lot of improvement




Thanks for the feedback. I was looking at AMD for their more user friendly overclocking, but Intel is looking like the better choice so far.
m
0
l
Related resources
Anonymous
August 14, 2012 4:18:07 AM

Intel CPUs are more power efficient as well as being much faster.

It's really unfortunate that this is the case. It's sad to see AMD unable to even field a contestant. I really wish I could offer a good AMD build, but right now Intel beats AMD at every price, efficiency, and power teir.


I'd go with a Pentium G860 build before I'd to a FX-4xxxx, an i3-2xxx build before I'd do an FX-8xxxx or a cheap i5-2xxx build before anything else AMD has.

Unless you're unreasonably attached to AMD I'd take a look at all of the good budget Intel builds floating around the forums.
m
0
l
August 14, 2012 4:35:09 AM

Anonymous said:
Intel CPUs are more power efficient as well as being much faster.

It's really unfortunate that this is the case. It's sad to see AMD unable to even field a contestant. I really wish I could offer a good AMD build, but right now Intel beats AMD at every price, efficiency, and power teir.


I'd go with a Pentium G860 build before I'd to a FX-4xxxx, an i3-2xxx build before I'd do an FX-8xxxx or a cheap i5-2xxx build before anything else AMD has.

Unless you're unreasonably attached to AMD I'd take a look at all of the good budget Intel builds floating around the forums.


It looks like I'll have to go with an intell over AMD. I didnt do a whole ton of research but its true that AMD has pretty much nothing to give, and the only reason I prefered them was all my previous pc's ran on AMD and they didnt have any problems, but that was just for basic stuff. I may go ovet budget a bit and go with an i5-2500k but I dont know how much over that will put me. Any other suggestions you have would be great!
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
August 14, 2012 4:52:12 AM

the Phenom 955BE/965BE/960T is about the only worthwhile OCable CPU from AMD right now for gaming, and even then, it's showing it's age. while an i5 would beat it clock per clock, at the very least, it wouldn't be too much of a bottleneck compared to the FX when you pair it off with a high end card.

if you feel like you can scrap plans for OCing, there's the non-K i5 processors, which should perform better even against a 955BE OCed to 4ghz at games and at worse in equal footing in editing when compared with an OCed FX-4100. you could always upgrade to an OC-able CPU later down the road.
m
0
l
August 14, 2012 5:04:43 AM

Hazle said:
the Phenom 955BE/965BE/960T is about the only worthwhile OCable CPU from AMD right now for gaming, and even then, it's showing it's age. while an i5 would beat it clock per clock, at the very least, it wouldn't be too much of a bottleneck compared to the FX when you pair it off with a high end card.

if you feel like you can scrap plans for OCing, there's the non-K i5 processors, which should perform better even against a 955BE OCed to 4ghz at games and at worse in equal footing in editing when compared with an OCed FX-4100. you could always upgrade to an OC-able CPU later down the road.

I'll probaly just get an i5, but who knows I still have alot of time before I start buying. Maybe something new will come up by then. Im just getting early ideas right now. Still alot of help tho.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
August 14, 2012 5:24:08 AM

good luck then. as a reminder, do note the Ivy Bridge i5 (i.e; i5-3570K) runs hotter than the Sandy Bridge counterparts once you raise the voltage, usually in the 4.2-4.3ghz range. though at that clock, it should perform close to a 2500K clocked at 4.5 if not slightly better.
m
0
l
August 14, 2012 5:29:45 AM

Hazle said:
good luck then. as a reminder, do note the Ivy Bridge i5 (i.e; i5-3570K) runs hotter than the Sandy Bridge counterparts once you raise the voltage, usually in the 4.2-4.3ghz range. though at that clock, it should perform close to a 2500K clocked at 4.5 if not slightly better.

Highest I'll go will probaly be the 2500k, maybe even a lower end i5, but more than likely the 2500k
m
0
l
August 14, 2012 7:25:30 AM

If you don't plan on building a computer for a few more months, then there's not much point in piecing together a build right now. Technology moves incredibly fast, and prices are constantly changing (competition, obsolescence, sales, etc), so what you're looking at now will probably be completely different in a few months. Depending on how many months, you could have a whole slew of new CPUs and video cards to look at - we've yet to see Ivy Bridge i3s on the market (though they don't really seem attractive), the rest of the GTX 600 line is set to release soon, and it may even be possible that the Radeon 8000 series will show up before year's end.

On the topic of AMD vs Intel, I don't really want to fuel this any more, but I don't think it's fair to say AMD can't compete at any price point at all. PhII X4s are still a stiff viable competitor to Intel's lower-end, and the FX-8120 (while being almost universally reviled) is able to keep pace with non-k i5s (and at a lower price, too). Even then, PhII X6 Black Editions can even keep up with i5s.
m
0
l
!