Is My PC Good?

[dylanmcroucher]

AMD Piledriver Eight Core FX 8350 4.0GHz
16GB (4x 4GB) DDR3 1600 Dimm
22x DVD Writer
EVGA GeForce GTX 970 SuperSC ACX 2.0+ 4GB GDDR5
Microsoft Windows 8.1
Novatech 750Watt PSU
Novatech Standard Wired USB Mouse
Novatech Standard USB Keyboard
Novatech Eclipse High Performance Mid Tower Case
GIGABYTE GA-970A-DS3P AMD 970 (Socket AM3+) Motherboard
Arctic Freezer 7 Pro Rev 2 CPU Cooler
Onboard Audio
SanDisk SSD SATA III 2.5" 128GB Solid State Hard Drive
2TB 3.5" 7200rpm SATA Hard Drive

Also can you give me an estimate value?

Thank you!

 

[YoAndy]

Less than or around $450, it should be okay for mild gaming

 

[Eximo]

Mild gaming?

A little outdated, but the GPU is only a generation behind and offers decent performance at 1080p.

The CPU is pretty much maxed out for the socket, but still competent for almost any game. Those 8 threads actually do come in handy on some titles. IPC would be great, but at least it isn't an old dual core.

Overall though it is a tough sell, so I more or less agree on the price.

 

[dudeman509]

Looks like my old system. I still have my 970 and it's a capable 1080p gamer. The FX was able to keep up with almost every modern game. I do see a performance improvement in some games, such as Fallout 4, GTA V, and BF1. Otherwise, if you're playing recent-ish games instead of really old ones that use a single core, it can keep up ok.

 

[YoAndy]

Mild gaming?

A little outdated, but the GPU is only a generation behind and offers decent performance at 1080p.

The CPU is pretty much maxed out for the socket, but still competent for almost any game. Those 8 threads actually do come in handy on some titles. IPC would be great, but at least it isn't an old dual core.

Overall though it is a tough sell, so I more or less agree on the price.

Actually I was going easy on him because by the end of this year low end gaming will be anything at or lower than 1080p, since even the $ 299 consoles like the XBOX ONE S and PS4 PRO are able to play games at 4k or 1080p and upscale to near 4k resolutions. And the new XBOX ONE Project Scorpio to be released this holydays, will be able to play games at 4k 60fps for less than $500.

High-End Gaming is 2160p 4k 60fps+
Mild gaming is 1440p 2k 60fps+
And low 1080p full HD 60fps+

 

[dudeman509]

Mild gaming?

A little outdated, but the GPU is only a generation behind and offers decent performance at 1080p.

The CPU is pretty much maxed out for the socket, but still competent for almost any game. Those 8 threads actually do come in handy on some titles. IPC would be great, but at least it isn't an old dual core.

Overall though it is a tough sell, so I more or less agree on the price.

Actually I was going easy on him because by the end of this year low end gaming will be anything at or lower than 1080p, since even the $ 299 consoles like the XBOX ONE S and PS4 PRO are able to play games at 4k or 1080p and upscale to near 4k resolutions. And the new XBOX ONE Project Scorpio to be released this holydays, will be able to play games at 4k 60fps for less than $500.

High-End Gaming is 2160p 4k 60fps+
Mild gaming is 1440p 2k 60fps+
And low 1080p full HD 60fps+

I'd still consider low to be 720p like your typical integrated graphics/laptop can handle.

Mild would be 1080p 60 FPS.

High-end could be considered either 1440 or 4k at this point in time since only the most recent graphics cards that are relatively pricey can really handle that well.

 

[Eximo]

More about cost than the performance numbers. And the terminology 'mild' has the wrong connotation.

I don't agree that low is 1080 at 60+ FPS. More like 1080p above 30FPS, which many console titles won't achieve. And you have to take into account that those are new consoles. Low-end would easily fall into the used market, or using older consoles/PCs.

Right now the mainstream PC is targeting 1080p @ 60FPS with high or better settings. This requires a mid-range GPU like the RX580 or GTX1060. Prior to Polaris and Pascal mainstream was below 60FPS at 1080p.

High end is easily 1080p 60+ FPS (Think 144hz monitors) or 1440p @ 60hz. Since this requires a high end GPU.

Then you have 1440p at 60+ FPS and 4K @ 60FPS as the current 'ultimate' gaming machines. Which can easily go into the multiple thousands of dollars to achieve.

4K 60+ is practically outside the capabilities of our current hardware. Even a pair of GTX1080Ti struggles in some games, and the GPUs and monitor alone push you past $2500 or so.

 

[Muzzammil22]

See your part list here

If you go with current build then you might have to update bios.
Your total estimate would be €460.
Power Supply

You can cut off RAM to 8GB it won't affect much instead you can add a good cpu cooler

 

[YoAndy]

More about cost than the performance numbers. And the terminology 'mild' has the wrong connotation.

I don't agree that low is 1080 at 60+ FPS. More like 1080p above 30FPS, which many console titles won't achieve. And you have to take into account that those are new consoles. Low-end would easily fall into the used market, or using older consoles/PCs.

Right now the mainstream PC is targeting 1080p @ 60FPS with high or better settings. This requires a mid-range GPU like the RX580 or GTX1060. Prior to Polaris and Pascal mainstream was below 60FPS at 1080p.

High end is easily 1080p 60+ FPS (Think 144hz monitors) or 1440p @ 60hz. Since this requires a high end GPU.

Then you have 1440p at 60+ FPS and 4K @ 60FPS as the current 'ultimate' gaming machines. Which can easily go into the multiple thousands of dollars to achieve.

4K 60+ is practically outside the capabilities of our current hardware. Even a pair of GTX1080Ti struggles in some games, and the GPUs and monitor alone push you past $2500 or so.

I have 2x GTX 980 Ti and I play at 4k above 60fps and some games at 2k 1440p. On my second PC(my wife's) I have 2x GTX 1080's, I haven't played at 1080p since the old age of my GTX 760 2GB and it was released in 2013

 

[Eximo]

More about cost than the performance numbers. And the terminology 'mild' has the wrong connotation.

I don't agree that low is 1080 at 60+ FPS. More like 1080p above 30FPS, which many console titles won't achieve. And you have to take into account that those are new consoles. Low-end would easily fall into the used market, or using older consoles/PCs.

Right now the mainstream PC is targeting 1080p @ 60FPS with high or better settings. This requires a mid-range GPU like the RX580 or GTX1060. Prior to Polaris and Pascal mainstream was below 60FPS at 1080p.

High end is easily 1080p 60+ FPS (Think 144hz monitors) or 1440p @ 60hz. Since this requires a high end GPU.

Then you have 1440p at 60+ FPS and 4K @ 60FPS as the current 'ultimate' gaming machines. Which can easily go into the multiple thousands of dollars to achieve.

4K 60+ is practically outside the capabilities of our current hardware. Even a pair of GTX1080Ti struggles in some games, and the GPUs and monitor alone push you past $2500 or so.

I have 2x GTX 980 Ti and I play at 4k above 60fps and some games at 2k 1440p. On my second PC(my wife's) I have 2x GTX 1080's, I haven't played at 1080p since the old age of my GTX 760 2GB and it was released in 2013

It certainly does depend on the game and settings, but typically people refer to the latest hard hitting games running at or near maximum settings when testing performance of top rated equipment. You can always back down (well most of the time) and get better results. Depends on if you are a graphics or FPS person.

Those costs kind of put you on an entirely different playing field. I'm not one to talk, my previous dual GTX980 wasn't exactly cheap. If you are spending nearly $2,000 dollars on just graphics cards and monitors, well that totals up to more than most people are willing to spend on a whole gaming PC.

 

[YoAndy]

More about cost than the performance numbers. And the terminology 'mild' has the wrong connotation.

I don't agree that low is 1080 at 60+ FPS. More like 1080p above 30FPS, which many console titles won't achieve. And you have to take into account that those are new consoles. Low-end would easily fall into the used market, or using older consoles/PCs.

Right now the mainstream PC is targeting 1080p @ 60FPS with high or better settings. This requires a mid-range GPU like the RX580 or GTX1060. Prior to Polaris and Pascal mainstream was below 60FPS at 1080p.

High end is easily 1080p 60+ FPS (Think 144hz monitors) or 1440p @ 60hz. Since this requires a high end GPU.

Then you have 1440p at 60+ FPS and 4K @ 60FPS as the current 'ultimate' gaming machines. Which can easily go into the multiple thousands of dollars to achieve.

4K 60+ is practically outside the capabilities of our current hardware. Even a pair of GTX1080Ti struggles in some games, and the GPUs and monitor alone push you past $2500 or so.

More about cost than the performance numbers. And the terminology 'mild' has the wrong connotation.

I don't agree that low is 1080 at 60+ FPS. More like 1080p above 30FPS, which many console titles won't achieve. And you have to take into account that those are new consoles. Low-end would easily fall into the used market, or using older consoles/PCs.

Right now the mainstream PC is targeting 1080p @ 60FPS with high or better settings. This requires a mid-range GPU like the RX580 or GTX1060. Prior to Polaris and Pascal mainstream was below 60FPS at 1080p.

High end is easily 1080p 60+ FPS (Think 144hz monitors) or 1440p @ 60hz. Since this requires a high end GPU.

Then you have 1440p at 60+ FPS and 4K @ 60FPS as the current 'ultimate' gaming machines. Which can easily go into the multiple thousands of dollars to achieve.

4K 60+ is practically outside the capabilities of our current hardware. Even a pair of GTX1080Ti struggles in some games, and the GPUs and monitor alone push you past $2500 or so.

I have 2x GTX 980 Ti and I play at 4k above 60fps and some games at 2k 1440p. On my second PC(my wife's) I have 2x GTX 1080's, I haven't played at 1080p since the old age of my GTX 760 2GB and it was released in 2013

It certainly does depend on the game and settings, but typically people refer to the latest hard hitting games running at or near maximum settings when testing performance of top rated equipment. You can always back down (well most of the time) and get better results. Depends on if you are a graphics or FPS person.

Those costs kind of put you on an entirely different playing field. I'm not one to talk, my previous dual GTX980 wasn't exactly cheap. If you are spending nearly $2,000 dollars on just graphics cards and monitors, well that totals up to more than most people are willing to spend on a whole gaming PC.

Actually those are old consoles. For example the PS4 Pro has a 8GB RX480 equivalent GPU with a core clock of 911 MHz and memory clock of 1700 MHz. While the RX 470 or 480 may be similar to what's in the PS4 Pro, if devs are good at tap the console hardware efficiently with their API, it will outperform the PC equivalent RX 470/480 easy.The PS4 Pro is able to Play multiple games at native 4k resolutions and it will upscale the rest to near 4k.

 

[Eximo]

I suppose at this point there is little gain from debating with you. We are talking at cross-purposes.

I still consider an FX 6300 and up with a GTX970 a competent gaming system. Not something anyone should go out of their way to build or buy, but still perfectly capable or running most, if not all, contemporary gaming titles.

Yes, a console bought today would be better, but that is just a matter of age. (And I would consider those to be high end products in and of themselves, since you could go out and buy the older models at reduced price)

The base cost of a console is a bit misleading though. For a single player experience it is cost effective, but you start adding up the costs of accessories, the TV, subscription fees, and the generally higher price of games and you are back to a mid-range gaming PC which can also get the job done, and be a more productive option for other tasks.

 

[YoAndy]

I kinda agree with you, and if you own the CPU is okay, but spending money on any of the FX CPU's is crazy. But It's hard for me to call the FX 6300 good (anymore), in games will bottleneck a GTX 1050 Ti, it gets outperformed by the $84 Dual core 4 threads Intel Pentium G4560. I guess it could be okay for extremely tight budget entry level gaming but it has no good upgrade path, just a dead end.

Now the Fx 8350 will bottleneck a GTX 970 or a GTX 1060 but like you said stills offer playable frame rates.