AMD A10-7850k + gtx 960 graphics, build for gaming pc?

[MiRazeru]

Hi guys! This is my first time to post a thread here so please be patient with me also, im a newbie in building pcs, all I want is to build a gaming pc and my budget will be $600. Im not good in looking for parts so I just pick the ones I think that will be good enough for the budget and at least will be good for gaming performance. My thought of building my pc (in my opinion only) is having and AMD A10-7850K and and inno3d gtx960 herculez. And im not sure if this will be a good build for a gaming pc. Also I want to ask if it's okay to have that gtx960 as a gpu. Im also open to other suggestions of pc builds that will fit my budget. Thanks in advance

also, if you can suggest a build that will have atleast gtx950 or higher that can still fit my budget, but can still have a decent processor. It's up to you, I really dont know much about these things and I dont want to regret the pc that I will be buying. Thanks again!

 

[Obakasama]

I have a soft spot for their builds: http://www.gamersnexus.net/pc-builds/2493-diy-gaming-pc-build-for-under-500

Truthfully it depends what you want out of your system. There's a sticky (somewhere) about things to consider when thinking about a new build.

A few simple questions:

(1) Do you intend to overclock?
(2) What does your budget cover? (Actual things you need to buy with that money.)
(3) What sort of games will you be playing?

I will comment that though the outlay for an FM2+ build is cheap, I wouldn't recommend it (even though I have one myself). There is no viable upgrade path with the platform at the end of its lifespan. If you intend to use a GPU, then getting an APU like the A10-7850k is somewhat pointless; you'd be better off pairing it with an X4 880k in my opinion. It's fine if you want something now and intend to build another PC soon after, but it seems like a waste of money to do so. You may as well go for a cheap(ish) Intel build and still be able to upgrade to a better CPU later.

 

[MiRazeru]

I have a soft spot for their builds: http://www.gamersnexus.net/pc-builds/2493-diy-gaming-pc-build-for-under-500

Truthfully it depends what you want out of your system. There's a sticky (somewhere) about things to consider when thinking about a new build.

A few simple questions:

(1) Do you intend to overclock?
(2) What does your budget cover? (Actual things you need to buy with that money.)
(3) What sort of games will you be playing?

I will comment that though the outlay for an FM2+ build is cheap, I wouldn't recommend it (even though I have one myself). There is no viable upgrade path with the platform at the end of its lifespan. If you intend to use a GPU, then getting an APU like the A10-7850k is somewhat pointless; you'd be better off pairing it with an X4 880k in my opinion. It's fine if you want something now and intend to build another PC soon after, but it seems like a waste of money to do so. You may as well go for a cheap(ish) Intel build and still be able to upgrade to a better CPU later.

thanks for your reply. So it is better not to buy an APU if im planning to use a GPU? if that's the case what can you recommend for me? like will it be better to have an amd or intel build?
for your questions above, first I dont know how to overclock but maybe if i will be watching tutorials maybe i can try. the budget cover wil be the whole cpu system, will it be a bad budget for a cpu? and im just playing dota 2 most of the time, and some nba2k16 too

 

[Guest]

This would be a pretty solid pc. http://pcpartpicker.com/list/BfDYgL
You could switch out the cpu for a k edition and get a gaming mb. You could also add a ssd if you wanted.
I know its a little higher then your budget, if you wanted too you could lower it buy getting a cheaper i5.

 

[Obakasama]

With respect to the APU + GPU set up, the GPU makes the iGPU redundant. As such you'd be paying for a feature you won't be using.

Sticking to the FM2+ platform, the x4 880k is the most powerful CPU available for it. While benchmarks may show some APUs to be slightly more powerful, I don't think the additional cost (and the redundancy of the iGPU) makes it worthwhile.

Therein lies the problem. In quite a few benchmarks, even an i3 outperforms the AMD CPUs on the FM2+ platform. For example: http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-6100-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-880K/3511vsm121029

Kd0g76's build is a solid one. I would perhaps replace the i5 with an i3-6100 and the 16GB RAM with 8GB; you should still get a good experience with the games you play without the system being over budget. (There is still the matter of the OS to factor in.) It would still allow you to upgrade later with a better Intel CPU, GPU and RAM.

 

[MiRazeru]

This would be a pretty solid pc. http://pcpartpicker.com/list/BfDYgL
You could switch out the cpu for a k edition and get a gaming mb. You could also add a ssd if you wanted.
I know its a little higher then your budget, if you wanted too you could lower it buy getting a cheaper i5.

Thanks for the reply but Im not sure if I can consider having an i5 and a gtx960 because it's a bit pricey here in my country. The price in the site you gave is lower than the prices here in my country, The difference in price is a bit far, unfortunately 🙁

I just want to ask now if it is better to spend money more on the gpu or on the processor? for example if I want to have a gpu like a gtx960, what will be a cheap processor for it to still run smoothly? that's why I've thought of having a10-7850k because of it's cheap price but still having a good performance(based on what i read). Is it better to have a better gpu than processor or should it be like a balanced performance of the two?

 

[MiRazeru]

With respect to the APU + GPU set up, the GPU makes the iGPU redundant. As such you'd be paying for a feature you won't be using.

Sticking to the FM2+ platform, the x4 880k is the most powerful CPU available for it. While benchmarks may show some APUs to be slightly more powerful, I don't think the additional cost (and the redundancy of the iGPU) makes it worthwhile.

Therein lies the problem. In quite a few benchmarks, even an i3 outperforms the AMD CPUs on the FM2+ platform. For example: http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-6100-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-880K/3511vsm121029

Kd0g76's build is a solid one. I would perhaps replace the i5 with an i3-6100 and the 16GB RAM with 8GB; you should still get a good experience with the games you play without the system being over budget. (There is still the matter of the OS to factor in.) It would still allow you to upgrade later with a better Intel CPU, GPU and RAM.

so basically I would not take the APUs in my option already? Im confused because when im searching for comparisons, for example, an i3 vs a10 7850k, the results is that the a10 is better. Im not really sure because I really dont know some things about the comparison. so should I get an intel i3 already?

 

[Obakasama]

Ideally a balance, but it depends on the games you're playing. It's not a definitive answer unfortunately. If we consider the idea of bottlenecking, then we're effectively referring to an imbalance between components; which in turn also means spending more on something being wasted. (I'm careful with money so I think this way...) I wouldn't worry too much about some of those technicalities; what's most important is you get to run the software you want in a satisfactory manner.

If the FM2+ build is the only viable option you have, then consider the x4 880k in place of the APU. Perhaps something like this: http://pcpartpicker.com/list/r3X8JV

Do keep in mind the PC would essentially be obsolete and there's little you can do to upgrade to gain performance afterwards.

EDIT: whoops, slow to type....

Depends on which benchmarks you're referring to. For example:
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-6100-vs-AMD-A10-7850K-APU/3511vs2937
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/444/AMD_A10-Series_A10-7850K_vs_Intel_Core_i3_i3-6100.html
Both show the i3 to be better than the A10 in pure CPU terms. The A10 seems to have the advantage on the integrated graphics.

You can get the A10 by all means, but as I've mentioned before if you plan on getting a GPU then it seems a bit pointless. An APU is effectively a CPU and a GPU. When you use a discrete graphics card, the GPU portion of the APU is disabled, i.e. is not used. So the benchmarks with the integrated graphics comparisons become meaningless; they are useful if you don't get a discrete GPU.

 

[scuzzycard]

With respect to the APU + GPU set up, the GPU makes the iGPU redundant. As such you'd be paying for a feature you won't be using.

Sticking to the FM2+ platform, the x4 880k is the most powerful CPU available for it. While benchmarks may show some APUs to be slightly more powerful, I don't think the additional cost (and the redundancy of the iGPU) makes it worthwhile.

Therein lies the problem. In quite a few benchmarks, even an i3 outperforms the AMD CPUs on the FM2+ platform. For example: http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-6100-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-880K/3511vsm121029

Kd0g76's build is a solid one. I would perhaps replace the i5 with an i3-6100 and the 16GB RAM with 8GB; you should still get a good experience with the games you play without the system being over budget. (There is still the matter of the OS to factor in.) It would still allow you to upgrade later with a better Intel CPU, GPU and RAM.

so basically I would not take the APUs in my option already? Im confused because when im searching for comparisons, for example, an i3 vs a10 7850k, the results is that the a10 is better. Im not really sure because I really dont know some things about the comparison. so should I get an intel i3 already?

The i3 is a far better choice for gaming when a dedicated GPU is present. Online comparisons like CPUBoss are unreliable for gaming builds because they base their comparisons on the results of a few synthetic tests that heavily-weight multicore performance, which is only relevant for a small minority of games.

 

[Ecky]

Reasons to get a socket 1151 Core i3 6100:

-A 6th generation Core i3 is generally much more powerful than any FM2+ CPU

-It draws less than half the power, produces less than half the heat, so it will be much quieter under the stock heatsink and can be used with a smaller, cheaper power supply

-It is not the most powerful CPU available in its socket, so there are good upgrades available in the future

-Its socket will be receiving 2 more years of CPU updates, while all FM2+ CPUs that will ever exist have already been made and the socket has been abandoned by AMD, so when you want to upgrade, you'll need to move to Intel's socket 1151 anyway

-Socket 1151 uses DDR4. Socket FM2+ uses DDR3. DDR3 production is dropping and prices are rising, while DDR4 prices are dropping as it becomes more mainstream. If you want to add any more RAM in the future, it will probably be more expensive on the FM2+ system.

-Socket 1151 tends to have a better feature set, partly because it's newer. Features like USB 3.1, M.2 slots, NVMe support are much less common on FM2+. Also, Intel's native solutions for things such as onboard LAN, SATA and USB tend to be vastly superior to 3rd party ones such as Broadcom and Realtek. AMD does not make their own solutions for these, and relies on Broadcom, Realtek, etc. to provide solutions for their boards.

FM2+ CPUs only make sense if you can get them for very significantly cheaper than a Core i3, or if you simply don't need a high performance machine.

Techspot's review of the i3 6100 is titled "The Best CPU for the Money: Core i3 6100 Skylake Tested":

http://www.techspot.com/review/1087-best-value-desktop-cpu/

Although there will be cases where the fact that Athlon X4's and A10's don't slow your games down compared with the i3, it's not because they're more powerful, it's more that those games just don't need as much CPU power to run well. In cases where the i3 can be fully utilized, you see it 60% faster (or more) than AMD's chips:

 

[Guest]

http://pcpartpicker.com/list/fcWkXH
I changed the loadout to Obakasama advice. You could switch out the 2x4 ram to 1x8 so that way it will be easier to upgrade. You could also pick out a cheaper psu maybe a 500 watt, but don't get a bad psu brand get a well know brand.

 

[MiRazeru]

Ideally a balance, but it depends on the games you're playing. It's not a definitive answer unfortunately. If we consider the idea of bottlenecking, then we're effectively referring to an imbalance between components; which in turn also means spending more on something being wasted. (I'm careful with money so I think this way...) I wouldn't worry too much about some of those technicalities; what's most important is you get to run the software you want in a satisfactory manner.

If the FM2+ build is the only viable option you have, then consider the x4 880k in place of the APU. Perhaps something like this: http://pcpartpicker.com/list/r3X8JV

Do keep in mind the PC would essentially be obsolete and there's little you can do to upgrade to gain performance afterwards.

EDIT: whoops, slow to type....

Depends on which benchmarks you're referring to. For example:
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-6100-vs-AMD-A10-7850K-APU/3511vs2937
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/444/AMD_A10-Series_A10-7850K_vs_Intel_Core_i3_i3-6100.html
Both show the i3 to be better than the A10 in pure CPU terms. The A10 seems to have the advantage on the integrated graphics.

You can get the A10 by all means, but as I've mentioned before if you plan on getting a GPU then it seems a bit pointless. An APU is effectively a CPU and a GPU. When you use a discrete graphics card, the GPU portion of the APU is disabled, i.e. is not used. So the benchmarks with the integrated graphics comparisons become meaningless; they are useful if you don't get a discrete GPU.

It's getting clear to me now, thanks! So im now thinking of getting an i3 now, what if im planning to have an i5? can you tell me some difference between the two? and what i3 or i5 is a good processor for a gaming pc? and what will you recommend for me? also, is it fine if i go with a gtx750 ti? or is it better to stick with gtx960? im really not yet sure about it, because of the limited budget too, if i get an i3 i can stick to a gtx960 but if im going to have an i5, most likely i will be having 750 ti as the gpu. But i need to confirm first what will be a better option, an i3 or an i5? maybe i can also have an i5 and a gtx960 but that will consume most of my budget and the other parts of the cpu will be compromised so im not really looking forward to it. Thanks for the patience

edit: you mentioned that I can upgrade the processor? or am i thinking it wrong? if it's right, so does it mean that i can have an i3 first then just upgrade it to i5 later? is that what you mean?

 

[Ecky]

i3 6100 or i5 6500. Both have 4 hardware threads, but the i3 is a 2 core with hyperthreading, while the i5 has 4 cores. Both are good, the i5 is better but more expensive.

 

[MiRazeru]

With respect to the APU + GPU set up, the GPU makes the iGPU redundant. As such you'd be paying for a feature you won't be using.

Sticking to the FM2+ platform, the x4 880k is the most powerful CPU available for it. While benchmarks may show some APUs to be slightly more powerful, I don't think the additional cost (and the redundancy of the iGPU) makes it worthwhile.

Therein lies the problem. In quite a few benchmarks, even an i3 outperforms the AMD CPUs on the FM2+ platform. For example: http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-6100-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-880K/3511vsm121029

Kd0g76's build is a solid one. I would perhaps replace the i5 with an i3-6100 and the 16GB RAM with 8GB; you should still get a good experience with the games you play without the system being over budget. (There is still the matter of the OS to factor in.) It would still allow you to upgrade later with a better Intel CPU, GPU and RAM.

so basically I would not take the APUs in my option already? Im confused because when im searching for comparisons, for example, an i3 vs a10 7850k, the results is that the a10 is better. Im not really sure because I really dont know some things about the comparison. so should I get an intel i3 already?

The i3 is a far better choice for gaming when a dedicated GPU is present. Online comparisons like CPUBoss are unreliable for gaming builds because they base their comparisons on the results of a few synthetic tests that heavily-weight multicore performance, which is only relevant for a small minority of games.

Thanks! yes, that is the site that im always looking for comparisons and all i see is that the APUs especially the 7850k is a better option that's why i thought of it as an option, and it is as well cheaper than others especially than intel

 

[MiRazeru]

Reasons to get a socket 1151 Core i3 6100:

-A 6th generation Core i3 is generally much more powerful than any FM2+ CPU

-It draws less than half the power, produces less than half the heat, so it will be much quieter under the stock heatsink and can be used with a smaller, cheaper power supply

-It is not the most powerful CPU available in its socket, so there are good upgrades available in the future

-Its socket will be receiving 2 more years of CPU updates, while all FM2+ CPUs that will ever exist have already been made and the socket has been abandoned by AMD, so when you want to upgrade, you'll need to move to Intel's socket 1151 anyway

-Socket 1151 uses DDR4. Socket FM2+ uses DDR3. DDR3 production is dropping and prices are rising, while DDR4 prices are dropping as it becomes more mainstream. If you want to add any more RAM in the future, it will probably be more expensive on the FM2+ system.

-Socket 1151 tends to have a better feature set, partly because it's newer. Features like USB 3.1, M.2 slots, NVMe support are much less common on FM2+. Also, Intel's native solutions for things such as onboard LAN, SATA and USB tend to be vastly superior to 3rd party ones such as Broadcom and Realtek. AMD does not make their own solutions for these, and relies on Broadcom, Realtek, etc. to provide solutions for their boards.

FM2+ CPUs only make sense if you can get them for very significantly cheaper than a Core i3, or if you simply don't need a high performance machine.

Techspot's review of the i3 6100 is titled "The Best CPU for the Money: Core i3 6100 Skylake Tested":

http://www.techspot.com/review/1087-best-value-desktop-cpu/

Although there will be cases where the fact that Athlon X4's and A10's don't slow your games down compared with the i3, it's not because they're more powerful, it's more that those games just don't need as much CPU power to run well. In cases where the i3 can be fully utilized, you see it 60% faster (or more) than AMD's chips:

Thanks! this helped me a lot in deciding what processor to choose. and now im thinking of getting an intel already, most probably i3 but im still planning if i can also get an i5 but im not yet really sure because of my budget. I really want to have a good gpu as well as a good processor 🙁

 

[MiRazeru]

http://pcpartpicker.com/list/fcWkXH
I changed the loadout to Obakasama advice. You could switch out the 2x4 ram to 1x8 so that way it will be easier to upgrade. You could also pick out a cheaper psu maybe a 500 watt, but don't get a bad psu brand get a well know brand.

Ive seen it, thanks to your suggestions, it's a big help. but im still thinking of it because of the budget, and the prices in my country is far bit higher than the prices in that site so i cant really decide yet 🙁

 

[MiRazeru]

i3 6100 or i5 6500. Both have 4 hardware threads, but the i3 is a 2 core with hyperthreading, while the i5 has 4 cores. Both are good, the i5 is better but more expensive.

thanks, im thinking about that too and yeah i5 is more expensive but i can compromise to having a lower end gpu. can you recommend me some gpu that will be cheaper than gtx960 but will still have a good performance in gaming?

 

[Ecky]

How much were you planning to spend on the GTX 960? It's not a very good value - the GTX 1060 3GB and RX480 4GB are very little more expensive and more than twice as fast. The R9 460 and 470 are both good choices too.

 

[scuzzycard]

i3 6100 or i5 6500. Both have 4 hardware threads, but the i3 is a 2 core with hyperthreading, while the i5 has 4 cores. Both are good, the i5 is better but more expensive.

thanks, im thinking about that too and yeah i5 is more expensive but i can compromise to having a lower end gpu. can you recommend me some gpu that will be cheaper than gtx960 but will still have a good performance in gaming?

Poor prioritizing there - do not get a weaker GPU in order to get an i5. The i5 offers very little over the i3 in most games, but getting a 960 instead of a 1060 will cut your frame rates almost in half. The 1060 3GB has 90% of the performance of the 6GB version, but comes in at the same price as a 960, which only offers 50% of the 1060 6GB's performance.

 

[MiRazeru]

i3 6100 or i5 6500. Both have 4 hardware threads, but the i3 is a 2 core with hyperthreading, while the i5 has 4 cores. Both are good, the i5 is better but more expensive.

thanks, im thinking about that too and yeah i5 is more expensive but i can compromise to having a lower end gpu. can you recommend me some gpu that will be cheaper than gtx960 but will still have a good performance in gaming?

Poor prioritizing there - do not get a weaker GPU in order to get an i5. The i5 offers very little over the i3 in most games, but getting a 960 instead of a 1060 will cut your frame rates almost in half. The 1060 3GB has 90% of the performance of the 6GB version, but comes in at the same price as a 960, which only offers 50% of the 1060 6GB's performance.

isnt 1060 a bit pricey than 960? or if you can suggest me a build consisting of 1060 and an i3, that can still fit in my budget, i might as well think of it. but as of now, if not 960? will 970 be a good option or it wont really have a huge difference?

 

[MiRazeru]

How much were you planning to spend on the GTX 960? It's not a very good value - the GTX 1060 3GB and RX480 4GB are very little more expensive and more than twice as fast. The R9 460 and 470 are both good choices too.

maybe more or less $200? not really the expensive ones though, ive read about 1060 and it looks like it's a really good gpu but im not sure if it can fit my budget well. maybe if you can suggest me a build consisting of 1060 that can still fit my budget maybe i can make it an option. but most likely if not, what more gpus can i replace with the 960?

 

[Ecky]

The RX 460 is faster than a GTX 960 and has an MSRP of $109. The RX 470 is about the same as a GTX 970 but is newer and more efficient, and has an MSRP of $180. Don't pay more than ~$90 for a GTX 960, or ~$160 for a GTX 970, or you're getting a bad deal.

 

[Ecky]

For what it's worth, the RX 480, which is twice as fast as a GTX 960, has a $200 MSRP. They're sold out in most places right now but if you shop around, you can get one for that price.

 

[scuzzycard]

i3 6100 or i5 6500. Both have 4 hardware threads, but the i3 is a 2 core with hyperthreading, while the i5 has 4 cores. Both are good, the i5 is better but more expensive.

thanks, im thinking about that too and yeah i5 is more expensive but i can compromise to having a lower end gpu. can you recommend me some gpu that will be cheaper than gtx960 but will still have a good performance in gaming?

Poor prioritizing there - do not get a weaker GPU in order to get an i5. The i5 offers very little over the i3 in most games, but getting a 960 instead of a 1060 will cut your frame rates almost in half. The 1060 3GB has 90% of the performance of the 6GB version, but comes in at the same price as a 960, which only offers 50% of the 1060 6GB's performance.

isnt 1060 a bit pricey than 960? or if you can suggest me a build consisting of 1060 and an i3, that can still fit in my budget, i might as well think of it. but as of now, if not 960? will 970 be a good option or it wont really have a huge difference?

The 3GB version of the 1060 is only $199 on NewEgg, which is the same price as the 4GB 960. The 2GB 960 is a bit cheaper, but not nearly enough to make up for how much slower it is than the 1060. The 970 is both slower and much more expensive, so that's a no-go.

 

[MiRazeru]

For what it's worth, the RX 480, which is twice as fast as a GTX 960, has a $200 MSRP. They're sold out in most places right now but if you shop around, you can get one for that price.

thanks for the graph, it helped me a lot in choosing a gpu. I wish i had more budget for building this pc 🙁 btw can i upgrade the gpu for the future?