Trying to build that dream 500$ gaming pc

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
C

cluelesskid

Honorable
Nov 18, 2013
52
0
10,630
Hi,

I am looking to build a computer. I have some parts of computer. Only need good CPU and Motherboard.

This is what I have:
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive
**Video Card: MSI GeForce GTX 950 2GB Video Card**
Case: Rosewill Blackbone ATX Mid Tower Case
Power Supply: EVGA 500W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply

**I dont have the video card. But that's what I am thinking of getting. If you guys have better option then tell me.

So here is the catch. Can you help me find a good memory card, CPU, Motherboard, and maybe better GPU. The memory card, CPU,GPU and motherboard should not cost more than $ 330 - 350. I will be using this computer for gaming and high end video editing.

Also, side note questions: which one is better for gaming 4 core or 6 core? like the difference between AMD FX-4350 vs AMD FX-6300? Is it better to get 2 stick of 4gb ram or 1 stick of 8 gb ram? And does the speed matters in ram (I am asking this question because people recommend more DDR3-1600 over 1866) and why would they do that?

 
Solution
Swordkd
That's a really tight budget for all of those parts. I'm torn between trying to suggest an AMD build that would work right out of the gate, or an Intel build that you could upgrade for great performance. With the initial cost for the AMD build(around 400 with Mail-in-rebates) I'll just list the Intel.

Intel:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i3-4170 3.7GHz Dual-Core Processor ($113.99 @ NCIX US)
Motherboard: ASRock H97 Anniversary ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($66.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Memory: Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($37.99 @ Amazon)
Video Card: Asus Radeon R7 260X 2GB Video Card ($88.99 @ SuperBiiz)...
Sort by date Sort by votes
That's a really tight budget for all of those parts. I'm torn between trying to suggest an AMD build that would work right out of the gate, or an Intel build that you could upgrade for great performance. With the initial cost for the AMD build(around 400 with Mail-in-rebates) I'll just list the Intel.

Intel:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i3-4170 3.7GHz Dual-Core Processor ($113.99 @ NCIX US)
Motherboard: ASRock H97 Anniversary ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($66.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Memory: Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($37.99 @ Amazon)
Video Card: Asus Radeon R7 260X 2GB Video Card ($88.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $307.96
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-09-18 13:38 EDT-0400

Dual-core Cpu that also has 2 hyperthreading cores to help out with the video editing. Down the road you can toss in an i7 cpu for a great upgrade for gaming and video editing. Motherboard is solid, nothing flashy. Basic, solid Ram. You could probably fit in 16gb's of Ram with the budget, I just went for the basic 8 though. Solid, budget video card. Not the highest settings at 1080p, but you'll get solid framerates at medium settings.

:edit: To answer your questions, 4 cores is all you need right now for gaming. Some games will take advantage of more, but not many. Actually, most games don't show gains above 2 cores, which is why the i3 isn't a bad budget gaming option.

Speed on Ram matters, but it's not worth paying a premium for. The more important thing is the timings. CAS latency 9 is good for 1600mhz, 10 is good for 2133mhz. You can benchmark and see a difference in the two different speeds, but you won't notice it in real world performance. Basically, DDR3 1600mhz is standard.

For video editing, 16gb's of Ram would be better than 8gb's. Two sticks in a matched pair. I.e., a 2 x 8gb set.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
To answer your questions in reverse:

1. 4 core or 6 core?
It depends, but very few games can use more than 2-3 cores. If your games are sims, mmo, or strategy games, they usually are cpu limited and depends on a single fast master core.
If your games tend to fast action shooters, then graphics becomes more important.
In your budget range, I would pick a i3-4170 for gaming.
A FX-6300 might do better in editing if your app is truly multi threaded.
I would find game slow downs more annoying than a longer batch editing run.

2. Always go for a 2 stick kit. you get faster dual channel operation.

3. Speed is irrelevant for intel because of their ram controller, 1333 or 1600 is fine. Speed is more important to amd processors, so look to 1866 for them

4. A balanced gamer will budget 2x the cpu cost for the graphics card. Looking at $120 processors, I think a $200 GTX960 would be more appropriate. But... we all have budgets, so we need to rebalance.

On a budget, look carefully at a $70 G3258 and a GTX960 if you are willing to overclock.
Here is what it can do.
http://www.techspot.com/review/1017-best-budget-gaming-cpu/

What I really like about the G3258 is that the same lga 1150 motherboard will accommodate a future cpu upgrade to i3/i5/i7.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
People recommend 1600Mhz because there no real advantage to anything higher for the FX series chips, and its cheaper I think. I would not recommend a 4350 and go with a 6 core minimum if you are going AMD. Probably smarter right now to go with Intel though because current AMD offerings are getting pretty long in the tooth and have basically no upgrade path
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Wouldn't buying a much better GPU like GTX 950 and running with AMD FX series (for budget) is better than having a solid cpu and decent GPU? Or am I thinking wrong?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It would for gaming, but it also kills any type of potential upgrade you'd have. Also, I'd rather have the i3 than an fx6300 for video editing. With the build I tossed up there, you almost have the money for the nVidia 950. About 10 dollars over or so after any rebates and MiR's.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Ok. This is what the final looks like. Is this build good.

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3ZgynQ
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You have a good cpu/gpu balance for a budget build; well done there.
I have some suggestions for you.

1. Pay what you need to for a good monitor. It will be with you for a very long time.
Not only is the monitor you picked small, low resolution, but it has an abysmal 60/65 viewing angle.
You need to hold your head in a precise point in front to keep it from looking swashed out.
Here is an example of a better monitor:
Asus VH238H Black 23"
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236117
It has a better 170/160 viewing angle, it is 1920 x 1080 resolution, and it even has some speakers to get you started.

2. I know we all have budgets, so here are some thoughts to help.

You can buy a H81 M-ATX motherboard for more like $30.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813135360
Limitations of the H81 chipset are not really applicable to you. only 2 ram sticks, only 4 sata ports.
Here are the differences:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGA_1150
I have used ECS before, and was pleased.

Silverstone makes nice quality cases, here is a PS08 M-ATX for $35.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811163223

You are silent on what you will use for a hard drive.

Please try to fit a SSD into your budget for that.
It makes everything you do so much quicker. 120gb will hold the os and a handful of games.
One can add a hard drive for storage later.
Samsung evo 850 120gb is about $75.
I saw Samsung 850 evo for $99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA2W02CZ2241


240gb and you may never need a hard drive at all.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote


So you are saying that the motherboard and case will work perfectly with the build that I have CPU i3 and GTX 950. Also I do have a Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive. I feel that SSD have much shorter lifespan as in it is more vulnerable to physical damage like heat and software issues. I maybe spouting out ignorance but that's one of the advice another person gave me "Even though SSD are fast, they are not for everyone" . Is that true in any sense?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
No that is completely hogwash about SSD's being more vulnerable. It is the other way around. Regular hard drives are much more vulnerable to physical damage and are much more likely to overheat. SSD's should on average outlast physical hard drives. Really the only drawback they have over regular hard drives are increased cost of purchase. I guess when SSD's were brand new on the market there was a slight chance you could damage one by using it with a computer with a BIOS/OS which was not designed for one, but that isn't really an issue any more with Windows7+ and systems from the last 4-5 years.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom