System Builder Marathon Q1 2015: Budget Gaming PC

[Onus]

+1

Real futureproofing

sadly, futureproofing is a myth.

This is why you'll never see me use the term "future-proof;" I prefer "future-resistant."
There are costs associated with it, and possible limitations. Expressing speed / longevity as a range on a ten-scale, an AMD build can get you 3-7 fairly cheaply. Intel will give you 3-10, but you may pay a lot more to reach the top of it. If all you can afford now is a 5 or 6 from either, and don't need too much more, then buying the upgrade range for the AMD build may be cheaper. If you want instead to buy at a specific number and don't care about upgrades, chances are that Intel will turn out to be cheaper unless it is a level beyond what AMD can reach.

 

[pauldh]

Well, i3 is probably the best choice for gamers on a budget who do not overclock. FX-4's are capable, but you will typically need to hit high clocks to match the brute force of i3. And high clocks also means a beefed up cooler, mobo, and PSU expense. Lightly tuned, or on the cheap, I have no issue with FX-4, and numerous other CPU's under i3.

Now this would be an example of a PC built for longevity. It starts with a decent mobo, cooler, and PSU, but the cheapest FX, to be overclocked to the gills. There's little concern over chip life, because the plan is to replace it in a year or so anyway with an 8-core FX. Heck, the plan may even call for a graphics card upgrade, but the core of the build is chosen to last.

Hmm, I WAS done commenting....

OK, so part of me likes this idea, especially at first thought. It could be fun.

Yet part of me feels we are then even more so settling for less than we'd eventually want (an earlier comment you had). What I mean is, a Z-series mobo, G3258, solid PSU with reserve, and an aftermarket cooler could later drop just the $70 CPU expense and insert i5 or i7 K-series.

Typically I am dead set against putting big money into a G3258 OC, but not if done so with full expectation to OC i5/i7 K shortly down the road when funding is available. My own G3258 purchase is paired with a Z-series and $30 air cooler, yet I haven't had the time to tweak it yet. Eventually, it will be pulled for i5, like the 3 machines my kiddos game on.

On the flip side, what is most likely to drop in price or lose value over time? Probably graphics. So maybe securing i5 with weaker graphics, is the smarter future-thinking plan. Of course, if dropping funds on a new higher-res display, then graphics needs to be addressed. But it's possible graphics and a new display are where those (Birthday or tax return) funds will later be aimed.

That said, you and I are not the norm, and I must agree with what others are saying too. The reality is likely less than 5-10% of the custom-built forward-thinking PC's I built for people (or helped spec out) in the past ever saw a significant upgrade. Typically, it was storage or more RAM when needed (and cheaper). Most of my closest buddies had overclock-able and upgradable rigs, but never augmented the clocks or put in a new part. The exception is when I gave them a spare graphics upgrade. I'd pass on links to killer upgrade deals, and time and again they would not jump on them, replying they'll just wait and build a new machine some day.

Anyway, sorry for the book; just thinking out loud with you, and pinging feedback....

 

[Onus]

Well, i3 is probably the best choice for gamers on a budget who do not overclock. FX-4's are capable, but you will typically need to hit high clocks to match the brute force of i3. And high clocks also means a beefed up cooler, mobo, and PSU expense. Lightly tuned, or on the cheap, I have no issue with FX-4, and numerous other CPU's under i3.

Now this would be an example of a PC built for longevity. It starts with a decent mobo, cooler, and PSU, but the cheapest FX, to be overclocked to the gills. There's little concern over chip life, because the plan is to replace it in a year or so anyway with an 8-core FX. Heck, the plan may even call for a graphics card upgrade, but the core of the build is chosen to last.

Hmm, I WAS done commenting....

OK, so part of me likes this idea, especially at first thought. It could be fun.

Yet part of me feels we are then even more so settling for less than we'd eventually want (an earlier comment you had). What I mean is, a Z-series mobo, G3258, solid PSU with reserve, and an aftermarket cooler could later drop just the $70 CPU expense and insert i5 or i7 K-series.
.
.
.

My later comment on the "range" you can buy touches on this. If you're going to want to reach a 9 or 10 on the performance scale, you must choose Intel. If you can get by long term with an 8 or even a 7, then the AMD build may start out cheaper. On a budget, and starting out Intel, you may actually begin half a point lower than with AMD (more in some titles/tasks), but it's a necessary sacrifice if your goal is that 9-10.

 

[pauldh]

My later comment on the "range" you can buy touches on this. If you're going to want to reach a 9 or 10 on the performance scale, you must choose Intel. If you can get by long term with an 8 or even a 7, then the AMD build may start out cheaper. On a budget, and starting out Intel, you may actually begin half a point lower than with AMD (more in some titles/tasks), but it's a necessary sacrifice if your goal is that 9-10.

Its work time, so I'm lagging behind in the responses.

(Again, just thinking out loud) What's the cost of said AMD platform, right now? And, weighing it all out, unless you simply just enjoy tuning, then why not start with a decent H87 + i5-4460 + boxed cooler? Yes, it should cost a bit more, which I'm not discounting altogether. And that may come in handy for graphics or an SSD, maybe. But you are also not tossing out a $100 part down the road either. It's a fun idea, just trying to make some practical sense of it too.

 

[palladin9479]

For a very long time, I believed this; it sounds reasonable. Lo and behold, it turns out not to be true in all cases. For years, I thought I was being wise, buying inexpensive (not "cheap") parts that met my needs at the time. Then I'd find myself upgrading within a couple of years, and do it again, and again; and yet again.

Well I'm speaking in general terms. Add the cost of those "upgrades" to the cost of the original system vs lifecycle replacements. It's the spare parts accumulating in closets that are the problem, those still had a value and you still paid money for them. Now this isn't to say that upgrades can't extend the life of a system, but economically it's always a loss in the long run. Of course I'm only referring to "core" platform components like MB / CPU / Memory / dGPU, other items can be recycled. dGPU is weird, on one hand if you buy budget then your just gonna end up replacing it sooner rather then later, but if you buy mainstream or performance then it can last through a complete platform upgrade. So really I'm talking about budget systems where someone makes the decision to buy low on the CPU / dGPU with the reason being they can just "upgrade" later to what they originally wanted. Instead of just buying what they originally wanted, they are buying that plus the cost of another low end card.

 

[Onus]

My later comment on the "range" you can buy touches on this. If you're going to want to reach a 9 or 10 on the performance scale, you must choose Intel. If you can get by long term with an 8 or even a 7, then the AMD build may start out cheaper. On a budget, and starting out Intel, you may actually begin half a point lower than with AMD (more in some titles/tasks), but it's a necessary sacrifice if your goal is that 9-10.

Its work time, so I'm lagging behind in the responses.

(Again, just thinking out loud) What's the cost of said AMD platform, right now? And, weighing it all out, unless you simply just enjoy tuning, then why not start with a decent H87 + i5-4460 + boxed cooler? Yes, it should cost a bit more, which I'm not discounting altogether. And that may come in handy for graphics or an SSD, maybe. But you are also not tossing out a $100 part down the road either. It's a fun idea, just trying to make some practical sense of it too.

This is a case where you're already starting out around an 8 on the performance scale, and not quite as hampered by a low starting budget. My points apply to much lower starting budgets, e.g. the $600 available for this SBM build. You probably don't have $180 for a CPU if you want good gaming performance.

For a very long time, I believed this; it sounds reasonable. Lo and behold, it turns out not to be true in all cases. For years, I thought I was being wise, buying inexpensive (not "cheap") parts that met my needs at the time. Then I'd find myself upgrading within a couple of years, and do it again, and again; and yet again.

Well I'm speaking in general terms. Add the cost of those "upgrades" to the cost of the original system vs lifecycle replacements. It's the spare parts accumulating in closets that are the problem, those still had a value and you still paid money for them. Now this isn't to say that upgrades can't extend the life of a system, but economically it's always a loss in the long run. Of course I'm only referring to "core" platform components like MB / CPU / Memory / dGPU, other items can be recycled. dGPU is weird, on one hand if you buy budget then your just gonna end up replacing it sooner rather then later, but if you buy mainstream or performance then it can last through a complete platform upgrade. So really I'm talking about budget systems where someone makes the decision to buy low on the CPU / dGPU with the reason being they can just "upgrade" later to what they originally wanted. Instead of just buying what they originally wanted, they are buying that plus the cost of another low end card.

That's the thing; other than a couple of graphics cards, there are no spare parts accumulating, because I haven't had to replace anything (and arguably a couple of the graphics cards weren't / aren't needed either, but I had some specific purpose in mind, e.g. BTC mining, or some other experiment, when I bought them). Your point seems more about patience. Some people can't (or won't) wait to accumulate another $100-$200, even if the performance gain would be huge. So, they end up "settling," then buying an upgrade they would not have needed if they had waited another month.

 

[damric]

I see people arguing for either a Pentium AE or FX-4xxx. Having tested those and an i3 on my own bench, I would go with the i3 any day of the week.

The only time I see the i3 start to really stumble is when recording/streaming while playing a well-threaded game. In that instance it is much better to have an 8 core FX or i7/Xeon. But for regular gaming the i3 still kicks ass and the hyperthreading helps it a lot with typically over 85% scaling.

I put the Pentium in a console emulator-rig that is also used for legacy games. It does very well there.

My FX-4100 at 5GHz cannot even come close to matching my Haswell i3's stock performance, though my overclocked Athlon 760K and 860K can in some instances with high overclocks.

 

[Onus]

I'd also prefer the i3. If I were a serious overclocker I might look at the FX-4300, but I keep my OC's mild.
Do you happen to know how the FX-4300 compares to the FX-4100? I would think you'd get a lot closer to the i3 (or match it), but would need that high, power-sucking OC to do it.

 

[pauldh]

I'd also prefer the i3. If I were a serious overclocker I might look at the FX-4300, but I keep my OC's mild.
Do you happen to know how the FX-4300 compares to the FX-4100? I would think you'd get a lot closer to the i3 (or match it), but would need that high, power-sucking OC to do it.

Yup, exactly.

Here's 4.7 GHz FX-4350 vs. a last Gen i3. The games were heavy hitters on purpose.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/piledriver-k10-cpu-overclocking,3584-19.html

Matching i3-4150 or -4160 will be very tough.

 

[pauldh]

I see people arguing for either a Pentium AE or FX-4xxx. Having tested those and an i3 on my own bench, I would go with the i3 any day of the week.

The only time I see the i3 start to really stumble is when recording/streaming while playing a well-threaded game. In that instance it is much better to have an 8 core FX or i7/Xeon. But for regular gaming the i3 still kicks ass and the hyperthreading helps it a lot with typically over 85% scaling.

I put the Pentium in a console emulator-rig that is also used for legacy games. It does very well there.

My FX-4100 at 5GHz cannot even come close to matching my i3's stock performance, though my overclocked Athlon 760K and 860K can.

How high did you get Richland and Steamroller? In numerous attempts, I couldn't touch Ivy B i3 with Trinity.

The 860K is currently available at Newegg.

 

[Onus]

Damric is one of the few who has delved into all aspects of AMD overclocking, including of the chipset. There was absolutely no snot left in his CPU when he got done.

 

[pauldh]

lol, nice.

Not extreme (with the modest air cooling), but that FX-4350 was 4.72 GHz with 2612 MHz HT Link and 2411 MHz CPU-NB.

 

[damric]

I see people arguing for either a Pentium AE or FX-4xxx. Having tested those and an i3 on my own bench, I would go with the i3 any day of the week.

The only time I see the i3 start to really stumble is when recording/streaming while playing a well-threaded game. In that instance it is much better to have an 8 core FX or i7/Xeon. But for regular gaming the i3 still kicks ass and the hyperthreading helps it a lot with typically over 85% scaling.

I put the Pentium in a console emulator-rig that is also used for legacy games. It does very well there.

My FX-4100 at 5GHz cannot even come close to matching my i3's stock performance, though my overclocked Athlon 760K and 860K can.

How high did you get Richland and Steamroller? In numerous attempts, I couldn't touch Ivy B i3 with Trinity.

The 860K is currently available at Newegg.

On cold days I can bench the 760K at almost 5GHz and the 860K at 4.5GHz. At those clocks they are about even performance. We are still trying to figure out how the SR Northbridge is tuned. At stock it's only 1800MHz and it seems to crap out over 2GHz. DDR3 latency suffers as a result compared to my Richland which could do 2600MHz NB. I would guess that it's "geared" differently like how K10 liked 3:1 and BD/PD liked 2:1. No problem running DDR3-2400CL9 or DDR3-2500CL10, but 2400 is the max memory divider. I think there is leftover bandwidth on the table so hopefully they add a higher divider on a new revision.

 

[damric]

I'd also prefer the i3. If I were a serious overclocker I might look at the FX-4300, but I keep my OC's mild.
Do you happen to know how the FX-4300 compares to the FX-4100? I would think you'd get a lot closer to the i3 (or match it), but would need that high, power-sucking OC to do it.

IPC on the 4300 is better since it is piledriver, but...

It's the same PD as in Trinity. Better to get a Richland since it has resonant clock mesh and better IMC. FX has those L3 issues too.

I usually tell people to get the i3. That's what I ended up putting in my wife's gaming rig. I personally like to overclock as it gives me a feeling of beating the system even though I always seem to fail or break even on costs considering more expensive cooling and motherboards.

 

[RedJaron]

I don't know that I can recommend an FX-4300 for anything right about now. The money it takes to get that clocked to a point that it can beat an i3 makes it more expensive so the 860K seems to be the better quad-core AMD route right now. Some might argue with the upgrade path of the 860K vs the 4300, but I'm inclined to agree with Paul and Palladin on that one. Upgrading the CPU without also upgrading the mboard seems pretty rare to me. ( GPU upgrades are much more common, which is why I'm critical on PSU selection even in lower-budget builds. ) Considering the 860K can hit RAM about as fast as the 4300 hits L3, it's not like you're losing much.

The FX-6300 is the i3 alternative I'd look at instead. Like Damric said, the i3 can struggle in places like streaming games. Even if you don't spend the extra money to really OC the 6300, the two extra threads do become helpful if you've got the applications to take advantage of them.

 

[damric]

I never would have thought that so many people would be interested in this whole recording and streaming games thing, but it's really catching on quickly. And it absolutely hammers my quads and synthetic quads (all logical cores go to 100%). Someone could totally justify a Haswell E build if this is their thing.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

I never would have thought that so many people would be interested in this whole recording and streaming games thing, but it's really catching on quickly. And it absolutely hammers my quads and synthetic quads (all logical cores go to 100%). Someone could totally justify a Haswell E build if this is their thing.

I have to agree that as of late there seems to be a lot more people streaming Twitch and stuff.

 

[palladin9479]

I never would have thought that so many people would be interested in this whole recording and streaming games thing, but it's really catching on quickly. And it absolutely hammers my quads and synthetic quads (all logical cores go to 100%). Someone could totally justify a Haswell E build if this is their thing.

I've seen it coming for awhile, it's gaming meets social media. People do more then just play a single player game over and over again, they share it or play multiplier with real time voice chat. This is why I would never recommend a Pentium model to anyone outside of pure office applications, real world scenarios place too much of a load for the ancillary programs people use. I also wouldn't really recommend the FX4 models either for much the same reason. The APU's get a bit of a pass because they are useful in niche situations where power utilization and form factor are important and offer a good value for under $150 USD. For an actual "gaming" machine, it's Haswell i3 (4th ALU helps a ton), FX6300 or above.

 

[HomerThompson]

I'm glad to see Toms Hardware has abandoned the Pentium recommendations when an i3-4150 is so much better a gaming processor. I don't see the need for the optical drive in 2015 though when you can install your operating system from a USB drive and when everyone buys their games through Steam, Origin, UPlay, etc. I'd have also taken the NZXT Source 220 over the 210 Elite, since the 220 has better cooling thanks to a mesh front panel while still having the same default fan configuration at the same price.

 

[HomerThompson]

I never would have thought that so many people would be interested in this whole recording and streaming games thing, but it's really catching on quickly. And it absolutely hammers my quads and synthetic quads (all logical cores go to 100%). Someone could totally justify a Haswell E build if this is their thing.

I don't get streaming. People actually like watching video of other people playing games?

 

[f-14]

not bad paul other than the asrock boards, i hate those boards, they always have driver problems.
nice to see the savings could get you a Core i3-4370 Haswell Dual-Core 3.8GHz, because i am curious what that extra 1MB of Cache would have resulted in. for a budget build, can't complain, it's right up in every high school students budget dream.

 

[damric]

I never would have thought that so many people would be interested in this whole recording and streaming games thing, but it's really catching on quickly. And it absolutely hammers my quads and synthetic quads (all logical cores go to 100%). Someone could totally justify a Haswell E build if this is their thing.

I don't get streaming. People actually like watching video of other people playing games?

My thoughts exactly, but it's here now

 

[shrapnel_indie]

I don't get streaming. People actually like watching video of other people playing games?

I don't fully get it myself. The only time I'll watch some video of gameplay is for review (finding hacks/cheats where applicable) or to see how someone got past a particularly tricky part in a game. Beyond that All I would need is a few minutes of video to see how the graphics and gameplay was. I'm not into watching someone play through a whole game from start to finish.

 

[justintaylor99]

It would be cool if you included if you had 10 more dollar items for each category, some budgets can be stretched, good job though