
Processor: AMD Athlon X4 750K
The Athlon X4 750K is a 32 nm Trinity-based APU with no graphics component. While not a conventional quad-core design, its pair of Piledriver modules still outperforms Intel's dual-core Pentium processors in many threaded workloads. This also can translate into a fairly potent gaming processor if and when the title in question effectively utilizes four threads.
The Athlon X4 750K sports a fairly modest 3.4 GHz base frequency, but ratchets up as high as 4 GHz with Turbo Core enabled. Of course, we also plan to bolster those clock rates, since AMD equips this K-series APU with an unlocked multiplier.
As a budget-oriented processor, the 750K employs 4 MB of shared L2 cache, lacking the L3 found on FX-series CPUs.

Read Customer Reviews of AMD's Athlon X4 750K
CPU Cooler: AMD Retail Boxed Heatsink & Fan
Our budget-oriented gaming build maximizes value by relying on AMD’s bundled heat sink to dissipate heat. It consists of a small, all-aluminum block topped with a 70 mm fan. The whole thing is fastened down by a single mounting clip.
We're expecting the thermal solution to offer some headroom for dabbling in overclocking without generating much noise. Best of all, it doesn't pull funds away from other performance-oriented parts.
- Presenting Our New Budget Gaming PC
- CPU And Cooler
- Motherboard And Memory
- Graphics Card And Hard Drive
- Case, Power Supply, And Optical Drive
- Assembling Our Gaming Box
- Overclocking Our Budget AMD Platform
- How We Tested Our Budget Gaming PC
- Results: Synthetics
- Results: Audio And Video
- Results: Adobe Creative Suite
- Results: Productivity
- Results: Compression
- Results: Arma 3 And Battlefield 4
- Results: Far Cry 3 And Grid 2
- Power Consumption And Temperatures
- Performance Summary
- Can Less Funding Compete For Top Value?
The reason why I ask is that budget builders, if they do choose to upgrade anything, typically upgrade RAM (due to the extreme ease at which it can be installed). This way, as they save their pennies they can make the jump from 4 GB to 8 GB while still having the better graphics card that should serve them a bit better and longer than the one in the current system.
The reason why I ask is that budget builders, if they do choose to upgrade anything, typically upgrade RAM (due to the extreme ease at which it can be installed). This way, as they save their pennies they can make the jump from 4 GB to 8 GB while still having the better graphics card that should serve them a bit better and longer than the one in the current system.
Hopefully next time we will get the see the G3258 in the budget gaming rig since even Tom's own article showed the 3258 pretty much destroying the 750k in games across the board . . . or maybe AMD could come up with something that's actually worth buying over other offerings?
The reason why I ask is that budget builders, if they do choose to upgrade anything, typically upgrade RAM (due to the extreme ease at which it can be installed). This way, as they save their pennies they can make the jump from 4 GB to 8 GB while still having the better graphics card that should serve them a bit better and longer than the one in the current system.
Actually, you are right on target. This is a big decision for budget-buyers to consider. And here is where I was most torn also. For me it somewhat comes down to current market prices. The way they rise and fall you may grab an 8GB kit later on for the price of a 4GB kit now. Though the reverse has already happened too. We bought 8GB kits for way less in the past. If budget/funding forced me under R7-260X, I'd have dropped to 4GB.
In this SBM series we run our benchmark workloads from the HDD, not RAM Drive, so it (dropping to 4GB)wouldn't show up in our benchmark charts much at all (beyond a few apps, tops). Yet jumping to R9 270 would have yielded notable gains in frame rates, and even offered higher max playable settings. Yet it also feels like a bit of a cheat on my part; a benchmark win, yet also a "daily livability" loss.
IMO computing life with 4GB isn't as productive or enjoyable. Stuttering or hitching in games, lengthened time just to exit games or switch between tasks, and even web browsing slowing to a crawl when too many tabs are open.
I got in the habit of outfitting 8GB when RAM was more affordable, especially when the entry-level mobo in use is limited to two sticks. This one supports four, so starting with 4GB becomes more practical. There's some potential for compatibility issues when adding very different memory kits. (single-sided+dual-sided) But nothing I'd worry too much about.
I'd say budget builders more than anyone should consider building in steps. That's one good reason to build rather than buy. Be it the mobo, CPU, Graphics, PSU, RAM, It's nice know part(s) of your platform has/have staying power, even if you can't afford to do it all well, right from the start.
While I most certainly understand what you are saying, considering the double post directly above it, I'd also like to reiterate budget builders are the ones who should probably MOST consider the upgrade path. If you can afford to hit the upper-mainstream now across the board, fine. You may likely be happy for a few years until your next build. Or at least you'd have the platform to stay with a GPU upgrade, if desired.
But if you can't, then why settle for the disposable platform mentality and not consider advantaging upgrade potential into your plan? Remember some folks aren't keen on starting over with a fresh OS all to often. A large CPU bump while retaining the mobo, can be a huge plus for those who always feel they lack free time. Starting with a Pentium and later popping in Core i7 has huge lasting potential for those short on cash only, but not in computing desires. For my son, I even started with Celeron so he could build his own with me, and now that rig outfits i5-2500K, and the Celeron ported over to a cheap office PC. It was part of the plan all along, but the cheap chip got us up and running quicker within my budget. Best of all, it only took me minutes to upgrade.
Took a while... but you are welcome!
Hopefully next time we will get the see the G3258 in the budget gaming rig since even Tom's own article showed the 3258 pretty much destroying the 750k in games across the board . . . or maybe AMD could come up with something that's actually worth buying over other offerings?
$750 before the OS/peripherals is way too rich a starting point. We get that.
What happens though is, our options grow stagnant at the same budgets, and the stories/comparisons start lacking. So we creep the budget up over time seeking a worthy upgrade, or out of curiosity, both ours and readers. Eventually, this one is not a "budget" build in many eyes, and rightfully so. At that point we work back down or simply chop it down. Occasionally new hardware launches fall outside our budgets, but deserve a closer look.
But thanks. Your feedback is noted, and I too would like to explore all worthy options appearing down here such as the G3258.
Since you do these quarterly, why not alternate between productivity boxes and gaming boxes? Have maybe a game or two in the productivity benchmark suite and maybe one or two workhorse benchmarks in the gaming suite but otherwise the vast majority of the benchmarks tailored to the specific tasks of the builds. That way you have about 6 months between similar builds which should cut down on the repetition. This would also keep the focus of the boxes in each budget band consistent, unlike this month where you are building a budget gaming rig, middle of the road rig, and balanced rig.
Realistically these days a gaming rig is just a productivity rig with a big honkin' video card in it anyway so people that want the best of both worlds can look at the productivity rig and pick the video card that suits them from the best gaming cards for the money article if there is some huge announcement between gaming rig articles or the opposite way with processors/storage.
This would also cut down on the amount of work each quarter having focused benchmarks specific to the task at hand. You could introduce one new benchmark each round and the oldest one gets dropped so that you can always compare the latest builds with the past few but your benchmarks never get stale.
This AMD combo is 140$
4150 + H97 (cheapest on newegg) = 210$... thats a lot of money.
One thing I would like to see though is rather then having money drive the marathon have a performance goal and see the cheapest build you can make that can reach it,
For example
Budget -
medium on games x,y,z with 40 fps at 1080p,
Blender 1 Frame 1080p in 5:00,
iTunes 1:00
Enthusiast -
very high with 2x AA on x,y,z, with 40 fps at 2560
Blender 1 Frame 1080p in 3:00,
iTunes 0:50
Monster -
Ultra on x,y,z, with 40 fps on 3x1080p
Blender 1 Frame 1080p in 2:30,
iTunes 0:45
These are just numbers I came up with from looking at the last few SMB's but something along these lines would be cool to see since would give a base line of this is the minimum to do these tasks.
In either case keep up the great work
This AMD combo is 140$
4150 + H97 (cheapest on newegg) = 210$... thats a lot of money.
Asus H81's are 60-65 bucks and a G3258 is 75 for a total of 140 as well... and on Toms article it pretty much destroys the 750k at gaming while using less power. Plus you have an upgrade path to i5's and i7's if you really wanted to where the 750k is pretty much as good as it gets at this point. That's pretty much win-win-win Intel.
overall this is a nice build. the parts were chosen well. i wouldn't start with 4GB system memory even if it afforded more gfx power.