I am not looking for a debate on AMD/Intel. I have used both over the years. I am going to also try to avoid words like "futureproof" as much as possible.
TL;DR:
I've been rocking the same PC since 2008, and it feels like it is getting to the end of it's lifespan. Obviously, 6 years is almost an eon in computer terms. I have had a fairly tight budget that has restricted me from upgrades, and I am not one to desire a bazillion FPS on ultra settings with every option at it's best. In the next couple of months I should have the ability to spend $800-$1000 for a new rig, and would like something that has potential to last. My question is basically - which of the three options below would more likely serve me for a greater length of time on a variety of titles (mix of mmo/fps/fantasy rpg/etc.)
Longer Background:
I have been gaming since Wolfenstein and beyond. My first rig was a Headstart Explorer with a proprietary OS. We moved up to a 486 dx/2 66, up to a 266mhz Pentium Sony Vaio, Dell, HP. and so-forth. Though I would upgrade these, I was not confident in my building abilities, and for college in 2000 I got a custom-built CyberPower PC. The PC with minor upgrades lasted until 2008 when I built my current desktop (disconnected and in storage.) It was:
AMD Athlon 64x X2 5400+ Brisbane
Asus M3A78
Asus GeForce 9800 GT 512mb
4gb OCZ 1066 (PC2 8500)
WD Blue 500gb
The rig served me well, even allowing me to play Skyrim when it came out (albeit at lower settings.) The list of games that were "too much" for my rig has slowly began to grow, and began including titles that pique my interest. The big crush for me was getting an ESO beta invite and seeing how poorly the game ran. Then my room-mate got an HP all-in-one touchscreen with an AMD APU (no discrete graphics) for Chistmas. When I loaded up ESO and was able to play it more smoothly than my rig, I started my research to get "back in the building game." Her little all-in-one APU can even play DayZ Standalone at very-low settings with low/normal on some settings when in the woods or small towns. When an all-in-one $300 budget rig runs better than my custom built desktop, I need a freaking upgrade!
As I said in the short version, I obviously don't upgrade often, and am fine with low-settings. Besides, there are always going to be low-req games like Minecraft to fill in the "meanwhile" gaps.
So it boils down to wanting a rig in the $800-$1000 range that will maximize FPS today, and that it will last 3-5 years of new titles (again, even at lower, but playable settings later on.)
I've heard the debates between the Haswell i5's/i7's and the Vishera FX's... and to be honest, both seem like solid performers with pros/cons. Hotter AMD's with more cores (which may potentially get used some day - heard rumors like this about hyper-threading too), Cooler, lower-power consumption Intel's with fewer cores but higher benchmarks and price tags. The two contenders for me are the FX 8320 (with room to overclock later on), and the i5 4670k (again, with room to overclock later on.)
The Builds:
I've come up with three builds that seem likely to serve my needs. One close to the $800 mark, and two near the $900-$1000 mark.
Option 1: Endgame AMD (budget-minded, expandable)
http://pcpartpicker.com/user/Ozmer/saved/gVzkcf
Option 2: Endgame Intel (budget-minded, less power req, expandable)
http://pcpartpicker.com/user/Ozmer/saved/QV8j4D
Option 3: Endgame AMD+ (higher power consumption, budget-blown, expandable)
http://pcpartpicker.com/user/Ozmer/saved/pyzkcf
I still have a very usable 750 watt PSU that could be used for the first two builds, which save power by using the 2gb gtx 770. The latter would almot definitely need the new power supply to run both the FX line with the R9 290. My logic in Option 3 is that while the gtx 770 runs right on par with the R9 290, the 290 has the 512bit bus that *could* utilize the 4gb for more than just multi-monitor support. Even i thought that the 4gb 770 would be a potential option, but I have heard that the 256bit bus would restrict the memory usage and that the 4gb 770 was mostly designed for multi-monitor. Not sure if that is true however.
So there it is. 3 options for a 3-5 year rig. I am leaning hard towards option 2, as I would have the ability to boost graphics later with a second 770 and a better power supply, without making a space-heater. So which has the most potential to last a couple generations, even if it is at low settings later?
**Disclaimer** - I already have a usable case, and did not include the OS on purpose.
TL;DR:
I've been rocking the same PC since 2008, and it feels like it is getting to the end of it's lifespan. Obviously, 6 years is almost an eon in computer terms. I have had a fairly tight budget that has restricted me from upgrades, and I am not one to desire a bazillion FPS on ultra settings with every option at it's best. In the next couple of months I should have the ability to spend $800-$1000 for a new rig, and would like something that has potential to last. My question is basically - which of the three options below would more likely serve me for a greater length of time on a variety of titles (mix of mmo/fps/fantasy rpg/etc.)
Longer Background:
I have been gaming since Wolfenstein and beyond. My first rig was a Headstart Explorer with a proprietary OS. We moved up to a 486 dx/2 66, up to a 266mhz Pentium Sony Vaio, Dell, HP. and so-forth. Though I would upgrade these, I was not confident in my building abilities, and for college in 2000 I got a custom-built CyberPower PC. The PC with minor upgrades lasted until 2008 when I built my current desktop (disconnected and in storage.) It was:
AMD Athlon 64x X2 5400+ Brisbane
Asus M3A78
Asus GeForce 9800 GT 512mb
4gb OCZ 1066 (PC2 8500)
WD Blue 500gb
The rig served me well, even allowing me to play Skyrim when it came out (albeit at lower settings.) The list of games that were "too much" for my rig has slowly began to grow, and began including titles that pique my interest. The big crush for me was getting an ESO beta invite and seeing how poorly the game ran. Then my room-mate got an HP all-in-one touchscreen with an AMD APU (no discrete graphics) for Chistmas. When I loaded up ESO and was able to play it more smoothly than my rig, I started my research to get "back in the building game." Her little all-in-one APU can even play DayZ Standalone at very-low settings with low/normal on some settings when in the woods or small towns. When an all-in-one $300 budget rig runs better than my custom built desktop, I need a freaking upgrade!
As I said in the short version, I obviously don't upgrade often, and am fine with low-settings. Besides, there are always going to be low-req games like Minecraft to fill in the "meanwhile" gaps.
So it boils down to wanting a rig in the $800-$1000 range that will maximize FPS today, and that it will last 3-5 years of new titles (again, even at lower, but playable settings later on.)
I've heard the debates between the Haswell i5's/i7's and the Vishera FX's... and to be honest, both seem like solid performers with pros/cons. Hotter AMD's with more cores (which may potentially get used some day - heard rumors like this about hyper-threading too), Cooler, lower-power consumption Intel's with fewer cores but higher benchmarks and price tags. The two contenders for me are the FX 8320 (with room to overclock later on), and the i5 4670k (again, with room to overclock later on.)
The Builds:
I've come up with three builds that seem likely to serve my needs. One close to the $800 mark, and two near the $900-$1000 mark.
Option 1: Endgame AMD (budget-minded, expandable)
http://pcpartpicker.com/user/Ozmer/saved/gVzkcf
Option 2: Endgame Intel (budget-minded, less power req, expandable)
http://pcpartpicker.com/user/Ozmer/saved/QV8j4D
Option 3: Endgame AMD+ (higher power consumption, budget-blown, expandable)
http://pcpartpicker.com/user/Ozmer/saved/pyzkcf
I still have a very usable 750 watt PSU that could be used for the first two builds, which save power by using the 2gb gtx 770. The latter would almot definitely need the new power supply to run both the FX line with the R9 290. My logic in Option 3 is that while the gtx 770 runs right on par with the R9 290, the 290 has the 512bit bus that *could* utilize the 4gb for more than just multi-monitor support. Even i thought that the 4gb 770 would be a potential option, but I have heard that the 256bit bus would restrict the memory usage and that the 4gb 770 was mostly designed for multi-monitor. Not sure if that is true however.
So there it is. 3 options for a 3-5 year rig. I am leaning hard towards option 2, as I would have the ability to boost graphics later with a second 770 and a better power supply, without making a space-heater. So which has the most potential to last a couple generations, even if it is at low settings later?
**Disclaimer** - I already have a usable case, and did not include the OS on purpose.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram