Please review this rig and offer any improvement suggestions

Saad Muhammad

Mar 21, 2014
Hey All,
Im helping my friend build a modest gaming rig, primarily for gaming. He won't ever be editing videos and stuff really. So, the target for gaming purposes: hit 60 FPS on new titles like Bf4 and Crysis 3 at High/Medium if not Ultra settings (but Low still isn't an option :p). So, now towards the budget. He lives in Saudi Arabia and prices are kinda overpriced at the online store we are gonna buy the stuff from : ( . His budget is around 3000 Sar, that is around 800 Usd (no more than 800 $). I prepared a list of parts for his rig, and I wanted the peeps over at Tom's to give their recommendations so here it goes :

Gpu : Gigabyte Radeon R7 265 (

Ram : Kingston 8 GB 1600 Mhz (

Hdd : Western Digital 1TB 7200 RPM (

Psu : CoolerMaster GX600W (

Casing : PGS VS-92 Black Edition (

Now, what Im really stuck at is the CPU (Intel or AMD). And obviously my choice affects the MotherBoard as well so thats not decided yet either.

Now I've heard people say that Intel has better per core performance and all but I don't really get that stuff. So, I'll ask a straight question : Would it matter his framerates much if he chose an AMD cpu over Intel? If it does matter THAT much so as to bottleneck the GPU (R7 265), then definetly an Intel i5 4440 with an H81 Mobo is the way we'll go. But if it wont chip his performance too much, then would it be advisable to spend alot less on an AMD CPU , say, the FX 6300 and get a decent AM3+ mobo for the same price as the H81 and save the money for a better gpu? Also, if the FX 6300 is okay, would the FX 6300 be better than an i3 4130?

You're more than welcome to give suggestions for any alteration in the current list of parts. Im especially concerned about the CPU like I said above so if you recommend any other cpu, please please pick it from that web store ( and do tell.

P.S :I don't intend to spend any more than 90$ on the mobo (AM3+/H81). And overclocking isn't an option for the guy becasue he's inexperinced and I don't want him frying 800 bucks worth of silicon :p.


The Core i3 4130 beats the FX-6300 in most gaming benchmarks.
The core i5 4440 beats both of them.
Saying that, any of these CPUs should get you 60 FPS in games most of the time.

Power supply you have chosen has a higher rating than required but is rubbish quality. Tier 4 on this list:

The Seasonic G 450 is rated at 37A on the +12V rail, and this is tier 2.
This would allow you to run the FX 6300 and a graphics card up to 200W.
The two Intel CPUs you have listed use less power than the FX 6300.
The R7 265 is rated at 150W.
You could go up to a AMD R9 270X or Nvidia GTX 760 with this power supply.

All of these CPUs have a dual channel memory controller. By choosing a single stick of memory you are halving the bandwidth. Choose a 2 x 4GB (8GB) or 2 x 8GB (16GB) kit.
8GB is enough for now, but 16GB would be more future proof. Compare the relative cost to see if 16GB is worth it to you.


Oct 9, 2013
Go with AMD if you're on a low-budget (less than $200 for the CPU). Intel makes the more powerful CPUs (and more efficient) but if you're looking to save money go with AMD CPUs. Good Intel CPUs are at a premium, though they are the most powerful in the world. Per-core performance is relative to the CPU. With the exception of Intel's extreme CPUs, Intel CPUs are generally dual-cores (2 cores) or quad-cores (4 cores). However, Intel's high-end CPUs come with "hyper-threading", which essentially means that for each CPU "core" there are actually 2 cores (1 physical, 1 "virtual"). So basically a hyper-threaded Intel Quad-Core CPU technically has 8 separate cores.

Intel's top-of-the-range CPUs are hexa-cores (6 cores) and are hyper-threaded so they basically have 12 individual cores. You don't need to think about that though. The general consensus is that for every Intel CPU's core, it equates to 2 of AMD's CPU cores as the per-core performance of Intel's CPUs are very high.

Basically, if you want to spend $200+ on a CPU go with Intel. If not, AMD has great value in the lower price-ranges.


Apr 13, 2014
See this page
tells that fx 6300 is massively better than i3 4130. And the i5 4440 is very costly compared to fx 6300 so it is waste of time to compare the fx 6300 with i5 4440.



The article you have linked makes the statement "In terms of overall gaming performance, the AMD FX-6300 is massively better than the Intel Core i3-4130 3.4GHz when it comes to running the latest games." but does not link one benchmark to back it up or provide any reasoning. Have a look at every game benchmark run on Toms Hardware comparing the Core i3 CPUs to the FX-6300. The extra cores simply don't make up for the poor integer performance of AMD CPUs.

The Core i5 4440 is more expensive. It is also much better. It is a worthwhile upgrade on both the CPUs above if your budget allows.

That isn't to say AMD CPUs don't have their place. If you compare AMD and Intel in the same price range the AMD CPUs have better performance in heavily multi threaded applications. While the Core i3 is better for games than the FX-6300, you might choose the AMD for performance in other situations. Jumping up to the Core i5 though I wouldn't even consider the competition from AMD.

In terms of games, the system in this post will be limited by the graphics card rather than the CPU anyway with any of these CPUs. I would choose the Core i3 to use less energy, run cooler and run quieter.

Similar threads