best build for $700 gaming pc.

[John Paul Magat]

hi!

can u guys help me build my dream pc. I will be using it to play games and do some other stuff. all i want is to experience a good performing pc. pc without lags etc. i ask here because i really dont have enough knowledge about computers yet.

Thanks! 😀

 

[John Paul Magat]

how about this build?

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/dkh9RB
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/dkh9RB/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-4350 4.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($99.99 @ Micro Center)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($28.99 @ Micro Center)
Motherboard: Asus M5A97 R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($89.78 @ OutletPC)
Memory: Mushkin Stealth 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($65.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Hitachi Ultrastar 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($47.49 @ Amazon)
Video Card: MSI Radeon R9 280 3GB TWIN FROZR Video Card ($156.00 @ Newegg)
Case: Corsair 200R ATX Mid Tower Case ($38.98 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: Rosewill Hive 650W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($59.99 @ Amazon)
Monitor: AOC e2251Swdn 60Hz 22.0" Monitor ($99.99 @ Micro Center)
Case Fan: Corsair Air Series SP120 High Performance Edition (2-Pack) 62.7 CFM 120mm Fans ($24.99 @ NCIX US)
Total: $712.19
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-10 07:10 EDT-0400


OR

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor ($139.99 @ SuperBiiz)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($29.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($115.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($79.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Hitachi Ultrastar 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($47.49 @ Amazon)
Video Card: MSI Radeon R9 280 3GB TWIN FROZR Video Card ($156.00 @ Newegg)
Case: NZXT Source 210 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case ($37.99 @ Mwave)
Power Supply: Rosewill Hive 650W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($59.99 @ Amazon)
Optical Drive: Asus DRW-24F1ST DVD/CD Writer ($14.99 @ Amazon)
Monitor: AOC e2251Swdn 60Hz 22.0" Monitor
Case Fan: Corsair Air Series SP120 High Performance Edition (2-Pack) 62.7 CFM 120mm Fans ($24.99 @ NCIX US)
Keyboard: Cooler Master CM Storm Devastator Gaming Bundle Wired Gaming Keyboard w/Optical Mouse ($28.18 @ NCIX US)
Total: $726.60
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-10-10 11:18 EDT-0400

 

[mdocod]

Actually its an excellent example of what I am talking about .

The R290X graphics card is not bottlenecked at 1080p resolution by even an FX 4320.
Making it insane to pay $200 for a processor when a $100 one [ like the FX 6300] will give you the exact same result , but free up that $100 extra to spend on a graphics card .

People live in a world with budgets and you will not improve a gaming computer by getting an i5 and slashing the power of the graphics card .
And an R280X will not be bottlenecked by an FX6300

A single player bench-marking sequence is entirely useless for comparing performance in the conditions that people actually play. Who buys BF4 to play nothing but single player campaigns?

You're absolutely right that just about any $50 or better CPU (or older equivalent) can play BF4 in single player mode at 60FPS+ all day. But I fail to see how pointing this out is relevant in a reality where most people who play BF4, play BF4 multi-player, which has an entirely different compute workload (far higher).

I'll repeat again, and I want you to REALLY TRY HARD on the comprehension part on this round because you're obviously choosing to skip over the point being made here and try to stay within a cocoon of false information regarding where gaming performance originates:

Any Modern discrete GPU can play BF4 at 60FPS. The difference between a $100 dGPU and a $500 dGPU will be visual quality while doing it.
Not every CPU can play BF4 MP at 60FPS.

The FX-6300 will have 30-40FPS minimums in BF4 MP (depending on whether it is running Mantle+GCN, DX11+GCN, or GK/GM+DX11) regardless of what GPU it is paired with. It WILL bottleneck the GPU, regardless of what GPU is chosen unless the "goal" is to run at 30FPS all the time anyway.

 

[John Paul Magat]

the FX-6300 will have 30-40FPS minimums in BF4 MP (depending on whether it is running Mantle+GCN, DX11+GCN, or GK/GM+DX11) regardless of what GPU it is paired with. It WILL bottleneck the GPU, regardless of what GPU is chosen unless the "goal" is to run at 30FPS all the time anyway.

This is what I understand that AMD is for budget wise user and Intel is for real enthusiasts who is willing to spend more for a better experience w/o overclocking. But I'm still on the process of knowing which is better because i haven't own PC yet i dont know which to choose base on experience. And finally if your CPU cant keep up with your GPU, the CPU will bottlenecked your GPU. correct me if I'm wrong.

question:
How will i know whether the CPU and GPU are compatible?

 

[mdocod]

John Paul,

I'll let you in on some computer building philosophy that is absolute gold, but that 99% of hardware enthusiasts absolutely can not get their head around:

Match the CPU to the compute workload created by the games you want to play and your FPS goals.
Match the GPU to the render workload created by your desired VISUAL QUALITY and FPS goals in those games.

The ONLY relationship between the CPU and GPU that is important, is whatever variables are created by the differences in compute overhead for different APIs on different GPU architectures. Beyond that, there is no mysticism. The amount of work the CPU must do for 60FPS is the same no matter what GPU you buy. The amount of work the GPU must do for 60FPS is ADJUSTABLE with visual quality settings.

To help illustrate this, consider for a moment that the R7 250X, R9 270, and R9 290, all produce about the same FPS when running at 720P, 1080P, and 1440P respectively, all other things being equal. The R9 290 costs 3X as much as the R7 250X, and offers the same FPS at 4X the resolution. Not bad, but the most important lesson to take from this, is that FPS is inversely adjustable with visual quality. There are no hard limits imposed by the GPU for FPS, you can have any FPS you want (within reason) on any GPU as long as the CPU can serve up the unrendered frames.

There really isn't any such thing as a compatibility issue between CPU's and GPU's. You can run any Intel or AMD CPU with any Nvidia or AMD GPU provided the motherboard interface matches (everything these days is PCIE 2.0 or 3.0, which is all compatible).

 

[John Paul Magat]

The ONLY relationship between the CPU and GPU that is important, is whatever variables are created by the differences in compute overhead for different APIs on different GPU architectures. Beyond that, there is no mysticism. The amount of work the CPU must do for 60FPS is the same no matter what GPU you buy. The amount of work the GPU must do for 60FPS is ADJUSTABLE with visual quality settings.

To help illustrate this, consider for a moment that the R7 250X, R9 270, and R9 290, all produce about the same FPS when running at 720P, 1080P, and 1440P respectively, all other things being equal. The R9 290 costs 3X as much as the R7 250X, and offers the same FPS at 4X the resolution. Not bad, but the most important lesson to take from this, is that FPS is inversely adjustable with visual quality. There are no hard limits imposed by the GPU for FPS, you can have any FPS you want (within reason) on any GPU as long as the CPU can serve up the unrendered frames.

thanks for good information, and yes I don't mind playing games on mid or even low settings. as long as its playable. I have been playing games on my laptop with low settings (Compaq Presario CQ60) , I even turn off any sound effects to a more pleasing performance. For now i'll be reading more stuff about this before i start building my dream PC.


Thanks to everyone
Outlander_04, logainofhades, mdocod, Vexillarius and voyboyfan

Arigato Senpai!

 

[Outlander_04]

Actually its an excellent example of what I am talking about .

The R290X graphics card is not bottlenecked at 1080p resolution by even an FX 4320.
Making it insane to pay $200 for a processor when a $100 one [ like the FX 6300] will give you the exact same result , but free up that $100 extra to spend on a graphics card .

People live in a world with budgets and you will not improve a gaming computer by getting an i5 and slashing the power of the graphics card .
And an R280X will not be bottlenecked by an FX6300

A single player bench-marking sequence is entirely useless for comparing performance in the conditions that people actually play. Who buys BF4 to play nothing but single player campaigns?

You're absolutely right that just about any $50 or better CPU (or older equivalent) can play BF4 in single player mode at 60FPS+ all day. But I fail to see how pointing this out is relevant in a reality where most people who play BF4, play BF4 multi-player, which has an entirely different compute workload (far higher).

I'll repeat again, and I want you to REALLY TRY HARD on the comprehension part on this round because you're obviously choosing to skip over the point being made here and try to stay within a cocoon of false information regarding where gaming performance originates:

Any Modern discrete GPU can play BF4 at 60FPS. The difference between a $100 dGPU and a $500 dGPU will be visual quality while doing it.
Not every CPU can play BF4 MP at 60FPS.

The FX-6300 will have 30-40FPS minimums in BF4 MP (depending on whether it is running Mantle+GCN, DX11+GCN, or GK/GM+DX11) regardless of what GPU it is paired with. It WILL bottleneck the GPU, regardless of what GPU is chosen unless the "goal" is to run at 30FPS all the time anyway.

Thank you very much for your input , but unfortunately your inability to run BF4 at higher fps using an FX 6300 is not a universal experience . Most likely a result of your poor software set up

These are multiplayer benchmarks , and the entire article is worth reading
http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-w7-vs-w8-1/8/
and
http://www.hardwarepal.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/BF-4-1920-x-1080-Ultra-settings-GTX-770-vs-7970.jpg
The FX with a 7970 is AVERAGING 58 and 61 fps respectively with Win7 and 8

Sure the more expensive chips are better . Why would they not be ?
But enough cpu horsepower to get the job done + a better graphics card to turn up image details is a lot better option than too many fps at low details

 

[mdocod]

Thank you very much for your input , but unfortunately your inability to run BF4 at higher fps using an FX 6300 is not a universal experience . Most likely a result of your poor software set up

These are multiplayer benchmarks , and the entire article is worth reading
http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-w7-vs-w8-1/8/
and
http://www.hardwarepal.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/BF-4-1920-x-1080-Ultra-settings-GTX-770-vs-7970.jpg
The FX with a 7970 is AVERAGING 58 and 61 fps respectively with Win7 and 8

Sure the more expensive chips are better . Why would they not be ?
But enough cpu horsepower to get the job done + a better graphics card to turn up image details is a lot better option than too many fps at low details

Yes, that article is very interesting, I found this line to be the most interesting of them all:

Right from PAGE ONE:

"The benchmark was done on an empty server, ..."

The CPU matters for MP conditions, testing on an empty server is barely any different than testing a single player sequence.

If these CPUs are barely able to scrape together 60FPS on an EMPTY server, what do you think happens when there's 64 people running around chucking flak? You might want to read your sources more thoroughly before trying to use them to prove the points you are making. Everything you have posted to use as evidence to support your case is just more proof of just the opposite.

-----------

This isn't 2002 anymore. There is a meaningful discrepancy in compute performance among CPUs in 2014. Hearing the same old philosophies of 10 years ago regurgitated today (GPU=everything) is sad.

 

[Outlander_04]

Thank you very much for your input , but unfortunately your inability to run BF4 at higher fps using an FX 6300 is not a universal experience . Most likely a result of your poor software set up

These are multiplayer benchmarks , and the entire article is worth reading
http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-w7-vs-w8-1/8/
and
http://www.hardwarepal.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/BF-4-1920-x-1080-Ultra-settings-GTX-770-vs-7970.jpg
The FX with a 7970 is AVERAGING 58 and 61 fps respectively with Win7 and 8

Sure the more expensive chips are better . Why would they not be ?
But enough cpu horsepower to get the job done + a better graphics card to turn up image details is a lot better option than too many fps at low details

Yes, that article is very interesting, I found this line to be the most interesting of them all:

Right from PAGE ONE:

"The benchmark was done on an empty server, ..."

The CPU matters for MP conditions, testing on an empty server is barely any different than testing a single player sequence.

If these CPUs are barely able to scrape together 60FPS on an EMPTY server, what do you think happens when there's 64 people running around chucking flak? You might want to read your sources more thoroughly before trying to use them to prove the points you are making. Everything you have posted to use as evidence to support your case is just more proof of just the opposite.

-----------

This isn't 2002 anymore. There is a meaningful discrepancy in compute performance among CPUs in 2014. Hearing the same old philosophies of 10 years ago regurgitated today (GPU=everything) is sad.

I agree the cpu matters in multiplayer conditions .
Because the FX 6300 is almost as powerful as a 2500K in integer math [ the difference is about 6% , though it costs less than half as much as an i5 ] its an excellent mp cpu . Anyone on a restricted budget can build a totally capable gaming computer by matching the FX processor with a decent graphics card

But you cannot make a decent gamer by matching a top end cpu with a weak graphics card .

 

[mdocod]

Again, I have to disagree. The graphics card effects visual quality. Visual quality does not make or break a game. A game must first and foremost meet many other requirements to be worth playing. A good game is entertaining with or without good detail settings. A good gaming machine can indeed be made with a relatively weak GPU. FPS in GPU bound conditions is always inversely adjustable with visual quality. On the other hand, there is no adjustment that can be made to solve for a CPU deficit that effects the performance (fps) of a game. Performance in the form of FPS has a very tangible effect on game-play experience (in fact, dipping below a particular FPS can be downright frustrating for some players). Visual quality has much less of an impact on the actual game-play.

A GTX650Ti offers basically the same gaming performance as a GTX680, but at half the resolution. (720P vs 1080P, for example).
If you want 60FPS minimums in BF4 on either of these GPUs, you have to pair them with a decent i5 regardless. So yes, an i5 + GTX650Ti makes just as much sense as an i5+GTX680, but for different monitor resolutions.

 

[VenBaja]

I definitely agree with mdocod here. When I put together my current build in late 2012, I went with an FX-6300 and an AMD 7870LE, buying into the GPU=performance argument. Even overclocked to 4.4Ghz, my FX-6300 would max out at around 80fps with, and this is so important, routine dips into the 40's in all large multiplayer games. I'd say on average I got around 60fps, but I spent a lot of time below that as well in all of my online games. Obviously my graphics settings made no difference, as the 7870LE is a very capable GPU. Frustrated, I upgraded my motherboard and CPU to a Z87/4770k combo, and got a ridiculous boost in frames per second in every multiplayer game I play (BF3, BF4, Red Orchestra 2, PS2, various MMO's, RTS's, etc...). In BF3 and BF4 I went from an average of 60fps, with regular dips well below, to an average of 100+fps, with dips into the 70's (which I never notice because my monitor is 60hz). If given the choice, I would choose higher fps over better visual quality any day of the week. Playing mutliplayer games on High/Ultra settings but dying constantly because of dips in fps was not ideal.

You most definitely want to match the CPU to your workload. The GPU may be the determining factor for your
enjoyment in singleplayer games, but it will not be so in multiplayer games. FPS matters to anyone and everyone who plays large-scale multiplayer shooters, strategy games, and MMO's, and you can always drop to medium settings to maintain higher FPS. You cannot however adjust any settings to make up for poor CPU performance.

 

[logainofhades]

GPU matters more than CPU, but only to a point. If your CPU cannot properly feed the GPU, the obviously the CPU choice matters. Any locked i5 4xxx can properly feed any single or dual gpu configuration currently available. That is why I generally argue against a K series if the budget is limited. The extra $100 or so extra to overclock, would be better spent on a better GPU.