Build A Balanced AMD-Based Gaming PC On A Budget

[RedJaron]

Now, on the enhanced build I say go with the 760K for $10 more.. What you get with this CPU is the improved Richland memory controller. It's even better than the ones in the FX Visheras. Good 2133CL9 or 2400CL10 is not that much more expensive, at maybe $10 more. This combination will make up for lack of L3 cache, as THE RAM will have close to the same latency as the L3 cache on the FX chips. You can verify this in Sandra or AIDA memory and cache latency tests.

I was thinking the same thing. The 750K is alright, but only $10 more for better memory performance is almost a no-brainer.

I'd like to see an entire article based on "The quest for the right graphics card."

I'd love to see this, too. I really like the approach taken here, finding the right card to balance things out. I understand time constraints on benchmarks and reviews, but I'd love to see at least some testing done with components more appropriate to the cost of the reviewed hardware. It'd be a great addition to the Best CPU and GPU for the Money updates.

As a bare minimum there is no way I could possibly recommend a $25 PSU. You are just asking for trouble. This is one of the most critical parts of the PC and should not under any circumstances be "skimped out on". It does say this in the article but the baseline build list a $25 one, not good advice.

I totally agree. You don't need to spend the farm, but $50 can get you a quality PSU for a budget build. Even better, a good PSU is one of the few things you can take from one build to another. Spend a little extra on a PSU once and it can easily be used in two, three, or even more systems down the road.

I hate to rain on the parade but having dabbled in this area a bit recently, every time I now see the words budget and itx mobo/case together, I get a nervous twitch and grumpy. Budget and itx are generally not compatible.

I didn't understand the ITX parts either. Only the most extreme mATX boards go over $100, and most of the premium boards top out around $90. Spend $65 - $75 and you get a very decent board for an entry-level gaming build. For the case, get a Corsair Carbide, Antec 302, or Source 210 for under $70. Even some Rosewill and Raidmax cases can look pretty decent. That's already $25 saved over the "premium-budget" build without losing performance or looks ( of course that last part is subjective. )

I can understand spending a little extra here and there on some flash, though. Even if it's not immediately visible, it's sometimes nice to know you've got those things under the hood. Aside from the ITX board and case, I don't think they went overboard here.

Maybe I'm a bit näive, but at $80 for the CPU + $120 for a card (total $200) a high-end AMD APU such as the A10-7850K (@$170) would cost less. The motherboards would be equivalent price to this system, and the memory, HD, case & power supply would be identical. I don't think I've seen an actual comparison using the AMD APUs.
Any thoughts?

The A10 wouldn't have near the graphical alacrity that a 260/270 card does. You'd severely limit your gaming experience going that route.

 

[vertexx]

My main problem with the article was that it failed to build and test the base system it implied in the headline.

Again, the article didn't say build the cheapest possible PC. And if you actually read the article, he explains the motives here:

During the course of our story, we'll naturally be considering the value of the parts we pick. The plan is to present two different configurations at a couple of price points. First, we'll look at the product of using the least-expensive components possible. The second machine puts a bit more emphasis on quality and looks.

Everyone's needs (and budgets) are different, so you may prefer one system over the other. Or, perhaps a combination of their parts is more suitable.

The way I view it is the author is providing a means to build the cheapest possible build, if that is what you want, but suggesting some upgrades that would make the build more enjoyable. He even says you can mix and match to your delight. If you want a cheaper case, then get a cheaper case. You can start with the barebones system and then upgrade over time if you want. That's what this hobby is all about.

Most of the articles on Tom's give us hard data we can trust and rely on. This one didn't even come close to the quality Tom's normally gives us.

I thought the CPU/GPU scaling chart was excellent "Data", and something you don't see every day. Sure, it's not pages upon pages of charts, but doesn't that get old after a while? I thought this was a nice change of pace and a different perspective on a build, and I'm not sure why there has to be so much hate on it.

Can the stock cooler keep this chip cool enough for gaming? Many reviews on newegg say it can't, and if not, the price of a decent cpu cooler makes buying an i3 a much more sensible option.

Sure, there is a point here, but most people will be buying the 750 or 760k to overclock it and will buy a CPU cooler. An adequate one to allow overclocking can run in the $20-25 range. He didn't build the base CPU and test it. But if you're interested in that, why not state you'd like to see that and encourage him to do another article on that? Why do you have to dump all over it?

Bottom line is the article is not perfect, but it was a nice change of pace from the normal pump and dump a bunch of charts. I for one have been leaning away from Tom's due to the lack of more thoughtful content, so I appreciate what the author did here with this article.

 

[ingtar33]

as an IT guy, dealing with new system builds all the time, i've got to say SSDs are almost required equipment these days. When i see brand new Dell desktops sporting i5-4670s and Quatro graphics cards functioning as slow as a 9 year old p4 due to the 5400rpm hard drive they shove into their computers it almost makes me cry.

Here is a machine that should blow the socks off the Pentium 4Ds we're replacing, but in all ways functions basically identically to the old Pentium 4d... hell you should see the disapointment in the face of the new users. I mean underwhelming is being nice.

In this way manufacturers like Dell and HP shoot themselves in their feet. Hell, walk into a best buy and try any of their display computers, not one of them have a SSD, and all of them perform identically in typical desktop functions as a 9 year old P4... Every day that passes, i get more and more irritated with the industry as a whole. it's almost like they don't WANT to sell computers.

Anyway, i'll get off my soapbox. love the article, glad you tossed an SSD into the little devil, it was bubbling in the back of my head when reading the article, and nice to see it put in there. not sure i'm a fan of the look of that red box, but i do like the attempt to color coordinate and keep the price down.

 

[vertexx]

I hate to rain on the parade but having dabbled in this area a bit recently, every time I now see the words budget and itx mobo/case together, I get a nervous twitch and grumpy. Budget and itx are generally not compatible.

Really? I used to think so, until my youngest son and I built the below build (except the GPU is a hand-me-down 7850). You'll notice it has a 240GB SSD, which is the secret sauce of this. It runs Ubuntu, and he generally does Minecraft stuff (playing, learning to manage our home server VMs, and learning to mod), homework, and steam gaming for titles that run Linux. It's a shit-hot little build, admittedly counter to the build in this article. But I have my eye on an AMD ITX build for another purpose in our home.

Sure, you CAN build this cheaper in uATX, but then I'd need to buy him a new desk, or it would have to sit on the floor collecting dust. This case is TINY, and it fits a big GPU; it's CHEAP and it has awesome cooling effectiveness.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: Intel Pentium G3220 3.0GHz Dual-Core Processor ($59.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: ECS H81H3-I/HDMI (V1.0) Mini ITX LGA1150 Motherboard ($59.88 @ Newegg)
Memory: Team Vulcan 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($64.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Crucial M500 240GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($109.99 @ B&H)
Video Card: MSI Radeon R7 265 2GB Video Card ($148.38 @ Amazon)
Case: Silverstone SG05BB-LITE Mini ITX Tower Case ($37.02 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: FSP Group 300W 80+ Certified Micro ATX Power Supply ($44.50 @ Amazon)
Total: $524.75
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-05-30 22:39 EDT-0400)

p.s. You can ignore the pcpartpicker warning about the PSU. UATX is the same as SFX. This FSP doesn't have a PCIe Power Connector, but two molex to a PCI connector is all that's needed to power the GPU. It runs great with 300W. This is the same PSU that's bundled with some of the Lian-Li ITX cases.

 

[Flunar]

Vertexx, I get the point, notice I said "generally".

I happen to use that FSP PSU in a coolermaster 130 case (running a 1037U celeron setup). Tempted to put it in my itx based server (node 304) but I'll probably use a corsair modular one.

 

[buzznut]

I actually applaud the choice to do a budget build with a bit more style. Excellent idea!
To that end, the egg has the white prodigy for 69.99 with a $10 rebate. There are also Micro atx versions of the prodigy, albeit a bit pricier but then again uATX mobos are less expensive and more feature filled then their mini itx cousins.

Bitffenix also has some really nice budget enclosures for around $50 that would be cool. All in all this is a pretty good "what if" article and I think a lot of folks would like an entry level gaming machine that looks good too. Agree completely that a quality PSU with a five year warranty should be a goal of even the most budget conscience people. Just do it, you won't be sorry you got a quality power supply. Never have had buyers remorse buying a quality PSU.
Buying a cheap power supply with a weak warranty on the other hand... (facepalm)

 

[winterborn]

Can someone clarify the heart of what I thought this article was about, the best bang for buck and ballanced CPU/GPU AMD combo.

So would it be a X4 760K OC'ed to 4.5ish and a R9 270 or R9 280?
Also what is intel's option that will perform as good or better in games with those levels of cards? Maybe a G 3440 or i3 4150?

I don't care about anything other than the bang for buck gaming potential of the CPU/MB/CPU and don't care about SSD's etc.

 

[ingtar33]

Can someone clarify the heart of what I thought this article was about, the best bang for buck and ballanced CPU/GPU AMD combo.

So would it be a X4 760K OC'ed to 4.5ish and a R9 270 or R9 280?
Also what is intel's option that will perform as good or better in games with those levels of cards? Maybe a G 3440 or i3 4150?

I don't care about anything other than the bang for buck gaming potential of the CPU/MB/CPU and don't care about SSD's etc.

the point of choosing the r7-265 or r7-260x or gtx 750ti was you got 0% advantage going with an intel cpu over the athlon II x4 750k at that gpu power level. in short that was the point where the faster cpu made 0% difference in gaming performance. he explained this on page 2 i think... with graphs and everything.

 

[winterborn]

I understand that in this article it showed that the R7 265/260x/750ti was the bottleneck for gaming performance. I suspect if you had a I7 ****K clocked to 5.5+ and a R7 260* the gaming performance would be close to the budget chip due to the cards limit.

What I and I suspect a lot of people would like to know is the budget gaming "sweet spot" when it comes to CPU/MB/GPU. In other words what budget CPU including overclocking would keep up or not bottleneck a graphics card that can play most modern games at 1920x1200 (single monitor) with medium to high settings at 30-60FPS.

That card seems to be the 750ti and up and the R9 270 and up, so what budget intel CPU or Budget (OC'ed) AMD CPU will keep up with the card.

Please someone at Toms put a 760K in a FM2+ 88* board and test it with a stock and overclocked R9 270 and a R9 280 to see where the budget balance really is.

 

[damric]

I understand that in this article it showed that the R7 265/260x/750ti was the bottleneck for gaming performance. I suspect if you had a I7 ****K clocked to 5.5+ and a R7 260* the gaming performance would be close to the budget chip due to the cards limit.

What I and I suspect a lot of people would like to know is the budget gaming "sweet spot" when it comes to CPU/MB/GPU. In other words what budget CPU including overclocking would keep up or not bottleneck a graphics card that can play most modern games at 1920x1200 (single monitor) with medium to high settings at 30-60FPS.

That card seems to be the 750ti and up and the R9 270 and up, so what budget intel CPU or Budget (OC'ed) AMD CPU will keep up with the card.

Please someone at Toms put a 760K in a FM2+ 88* board and test it with a stock and overclocked R9 270 and a R9 280 to see where the budget balance really is.

It's going to vary from game to game, and your settings and monitor. Example: in Battlefield 3 I'm limited by my HD 7850 at 52FPS with ultra settings at 1080p while all 4 of my athlon cores are at about 70%. But if I play some older DX9 game like WoW, my GPU hardly has to work and only one of my CPU cores will be overworked while the other 3 are pretty much idle and I get like 25FPS in some areas.

 

[anathema_forever]

there are alot of good tips in the comments for building a budget system.

 

[laststop311]

such cute lil budget builds. You got to take longevity into the build as well. I'm not gonna list all my components but my pc is a x58 lga 1366 i7-980x hex core, so you can imagine 2500 went into my pc easily probably a little more. Now that was over 4 years ago. The only additional money spent on this pc since then was a gpu upgrade when nvidia dropped the price of the gtx 780 to 500 dollars. So for a little over 3000 dollars I've been able to stay at the high end of gaming performance for 4.25 years now. If the pc industry keeps moving the way it is this configuration should easily last me double that so 8.5 years.

Now the 3000 invested in it doesn't seem as high a number when you divide it by 8.5 years. Costs me 353 dollars per year and i'm gaming at 2560x1440 with total buttery smoothness. The problem with these budget builds is the speed at which your parts become outdated and the latest software and games start to run crappy. I promise there's no way even the 730 dollar version will last 8.5 years like my trusty gulftown hex core will. And who knows with the almost non existent performance upgrades for the enthusiast line my pc may keep going even longer then 8.5 years. I don't miss quad channel ddr4, for the things i do you will not be able to tell a difference between quad ddr4 and the cl9 2400mhz triple channel ddr3 i use, or any of haswell-e's features. Even sata express isn't rly missed when you can add in a pci-e ssd right into a pci-e slot and get even better performance than sata express. The only thing that can possibly make me upgrade is when the bandwidth of pci-e 2.0 is finally too outdated and it starts hindering my performance which i dont see happening for a long time.

 

[anthonyla65]

That CPU is junk. A Haswell Pentium G3420 (3.2Ghz) would perform much better whilst drawing half the power. Yes you can overlock the Athlon but it would run hotter and draw even more power. Not wise with a 350W PSU powering also a R7 260X.

 

[Haravikk]

For the minimum build I kind of wonder if it's really worth getting an R7 260X when the A10 7850k's integrated GPU is actually pretty good, especially if you over clock it a bit.

I mean sure, the discrete card is definitely a bit better, but personally I'd go for the A10 APU, and look toward buying a much better graphics card later. Plus if games start coming out that can take advantage of a spare GPU for things like physics, then having a APU could be a big bonus.

 

[anthony8989]

I always enjoy these articles. I have one question, though. Why spend the extra cash on the RAM kit with the LED lights on it? Once all the components are in the case it seems like you won't even be able to catch a glimpse of the RAM sticks. Seems kind of superfluous.

 

[Onus]

such cute lil budget builds. You got to take longevity into the build as well...

Sure. This article, like most, is just another data point. Taken as such, it is valuable. A given person's ideal system will be some combination of all of the data points that person has accumulated.

 

[jlwtech]

I really like the budget build and the CPU-to-GPU scaling. Very informative.
However, some of the components used for the Red Devil are pretty absurd:

1) The $40 HSF + $10 Thermal Paste. That is way too expensive. A $15-$20 cooler is all you need (use the included thermal paste). It will net the same OC results and Temps. Savings = $30-$35
2) The PSU. $65 is a lot for a budget build, and it doesn't leave a lot of room for GPU upgrades. Unless energy bills are a huge concern, go for a $30-$40 80+ Bronze unit with higher wattage. Corsair CX430 for $40: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139026
Savings = $25-$35
3) The Memory. 2x4GB 1600 CL9 for $75?? Too much. The lights are nice, but this is a budget build. Save the $15 and get the $60 kit.
Or, get a 2x4GB 2133 CL10 kit for $69: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139026 and get yourself some red LED fans/lights with the remaining $6. This combo gives you better performance and lighting, for the same price.
4) The Video Card. A GTX 750ti is a good card, but there are higher performing choices at $150: The r7 265, for example: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131572 That one comes with 2 free games and a factory overclock.
Plus there is a ton of Open Box, Refurbished, and Used deals out there. Here is a refurbished R9 270x for $145: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131582 That offers ~20% better performance than a GTX 750ti, for $5 less.


TOTAL SAVINGS = $55-$85.
With that extra money, you can up your GPU budget to $205-$235, netting you a R9 280, or a GTX 760.

Here are some good GPU deals under $250:

R9 270x for $180 and it comes with 2 free games: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161443&ignorebbr=1

R9 280 for $230, plus a $30 rebate, plus 3 free games: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150706&ignorebbr=1

Open Box R9 270 for $133: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202090R

Open Box R9 280x for $248 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202061R

I know Toms doesn't address Open Box/Refurbished/Used parts, but this is a budget build, and you'd be crazy not to take advantage of the savings.

 

[jlwtech]

The title of this review has the words "Gaming PC on a Budget" and "AMD-Based" in it.

That Red Devil build is not even close to "A Gaming PC on a Budget". It was designed with an "aesthetics first, performance second" philosophy. It looks great, but it's performance-per-dollar is terrible. It's not a budget gaming build by any means.
AND
A GTX 750ti isn't "AMD-Based". (I'm nitpicking here)

 

[Onus]

You will typically not see the Corsair "CX" (or "GS") line recommended, because it is built with some inferior Samxon capacitors that cannot take heat. They've been cited for early failures (such as by c.hegge at HardwareInsights). I would not put one in a gamer.
Next, your suggestion of a more powerful video card is contradicted by the reasoning which explained why the R7-260X was chosen. You'll also possibly need a beefier PSU, which adds cost. In the budget build, especially in the SFX or TFX form factor, a 300W PSU with a GTX750Ti would be cheaper than a 450W PSU with a R7-260X or R7-265 and offer very close performance.
The changes you suggest may make a good build, but they aren't anything new; what was done offers a more distant data point, which at least to me makes it more interesting.

 

[jlwtech]

You will typically not see the Corsair "CX" (or "GS") line recommended, because it is built with some inferior Samxon capacitors that cannot take heat. They've been cited for early failures (such as by c.hegge at HardwareInsights). I would not put one in a gamer.
Next, your suggestion of a more powerful video card is contradicted by the reasoning which explained why the R7-260X was chosen. You'll also possibly need a beefier PSU, which adds cost. In the budget build, especially in the SFX or TFX form factor, a 300W PSU with a GTX750Ti would be cheaper than a 450W PSU with a R7-260X or R7-265 and offer very close performance.
The changes you suggest may make a good build, but they aren't anything new; what was done offers a more distant data point, which at least to me makes it more interesting.

Firstly,
The Corsair CX430 was cited as an example. There are plenty of quality 400-500 watt, 80+ Bronze PSU's available for ~$40. $65 is a lot to spend on a PSU for a budget build, and 360watts doesn't leave much room for GPU upgrades.
Secondly,
My video card suggestions are NOT contradicted because they found that gaming performance, with a r7-260x, will not increase with a better cpu. That doesn't mean that a PC based on an Athlon 750K will see no performance gains from upgrading to a GPU better than a r7-260x.
The fact that their Red Devil build does exactly that, using the GTX 750ti, supports my comments and contradicts yours.

Thirdly,
I suggested a higher a wattage PSU. This would allow for the "more powerful" Video Cards.

Fourthly,
A 300w PSU + GTX 750ti is NOT cheaper than a 450w PSU + R7 265. The R7 265 is the same price as the 750ti, and the R7 260x is cheaper. PSU prices vary, so a 400w PSU can be cheaper than a 300w. Typically, the price difference is negligible at that wattage range.

 

[ceh4702]

This is an interesting article. I neither like AMD or ever want to try overclocking. So when choosing any processor I never choose a processor based on overclocking possibilities. I choose a processor based on both price and performance possibilities. It is just a little unfair to compare this processor to a 3rd generation i3. Intel has made some headway in the 4th generation in the area of integrated graphics. One thing they did is increase the Cache size on some of the processors. Last Christmas I purchased an Intel 4330 3.5GHz I-3 with 4MB L3 Cache and Intel HD Graphics 4600 which I purchased for $125 on sale. I am just using this to watch movies so I am not really gaming with it. This seems to be an excellent processor. At any rate why compare something purchased today with a 3rd Generation I-3? It invalidates your comparison. It might not improve that much between the I-3 3rd and 4th generations, but the specific processor I mentioned has an extra 1 Meg of Cache size which could make a difference in gaming or it could just be allocated for the Intel 4600 graphics.

 

[ceh4702]

What about the cost of an OS? Cant run a computer without one.

 

[ceh4702]

I like the looks and overall design of the bit fenix, however, I would not trust a PC standing on fairly soft composite curved handles. I think this is a flaw in their case design.

 

[Traciatim]

What about the cost of an OS? Cant run a computer without one.

SteamOS, Linux. Free options are available if you don't want to run Windows. It's almost never included in the price of build machines because it's an optional item and people who will be using Windows will just add it in to the price themselves.

 

[jlwtech]

This is an interesting article. I neither like AMD or ever want to try overclocking. So when choosing any processor I never choose a processor based on overclocking possibilities. I choose a processor based on both price and performance possibilities. It is just a little unfair to compare this processor to a 3rd generation i3. Intel has made some headway in the 4th generation in the area of integrated graphics. One thing they did is increase the Cache size on some of the processors. Last Christmas I purchased an Intel 4330 3.5GHz I-3 with 4MB L3 Cache and Intel HD Graphics 4600 which I purchased for $125 on sale. I am just using this to watch movies so I am not really gaming with it. This seems to be an excellent processor. At any rate why compare something purchased today with a 3rd Generation I-3? It invalidates your comparison. It might not improve that much between the I-3 3rd and 4th generations, but the specific processor I mentioned has an extra 1 Meg of Cache size which could make a difference in gaming or it could just be allocated for the Intel 4600 graphics.

I disagree. It is perfectly fair to compare the Athlon 750k to an i3-3220.
The 750k is not AMD's newest architecture, and it's the same with the i3-3220. Both were launched in late 2012, and both can be purchased today.
A "fairer" comparison for a 4th gen i3 would be the Athlon 760k. Both were launched in mid-2013, and both are the newest architecture for their platform.
That being said, I think the reason Toms compared the 750k to the 3220 was due to price. The 3rd gen i3's are a little cheaper, and so is the LGA 1155 platform (compared to the 1150). After all, the 750k is only $80.

Not all 4th gen i3's have 4MB L3. The least expensive i3 with 4MB of L3 is $140, and that's almost double the cost of the 750k.

Anyways, this review is about a gaming pc with a discrete graphics card. There would be not point in paying extra for a CPU with beefed-up integrated graphics, when it's not going to get utilized.