Best value "Entry Level" gaming PC.

[Madpacket]

A recent thread "http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2399275" sparked a lot of discussion and debate over the merits of choosing specific types of hardware for bare minimum gaming. Let's continue the discussion here in this thread as the OP's questions in that thread were answered and he made a decision based off that information that was provided.

Goal: Using new hardware, build the cheapest possible PC that can still allow you to "play" the majority of PC games available today.

I put "play" in quotes as many of us have different interpretations of what is actually playable. For casual gaming I mostly consider 20-30 FPS to be playable for the many different types of games (RTS's, FPS, Racing, RPG, etc). There are of course exceptions to this but an average of 20-30 FPS is a good starting point. Basically if the game can be completed start to finish where the input of the controls are not severely impacted by the framerate, it's good to go. Screen resolution and graphic detail is important but is secondary in importance to the frame rate.

The goal is *not* to build a Steam Box / PS4 equivalent gaming PC as is the trend today. It's simply to build the cheapest PC that is still capable of casual gaming that perhaps a child or very light gamer might enjoy. Discrete video cards need not apply.

Bonus points for power efficiency, size considerations and future proofness.

Current CPU/APU contenders along with some observations:

Haswell Pentium G3220/G3258:

-CPU much faster
-Dual channel capable (although officially limited to 1333Mhz and lower end boards don't appear to allow memory overclocking).
-GT1 graphics when paired with matching sticks of RAM possibly faster than HD8400?
-Greater overall motherboard selection however if choosing a board with only 2 memory slots (which is common at these price points) you will run into memory upgrade limit issues (e.g 2*2 sticks is ideal for dual channel instead of 1*4).
-Known CPU upgradability path
-More expensive

Athlon 5150/5350:

-Radeon HD 8400 possibly better overall game compatibility.
-Better drivers?
-Cheaper
-Lower power
-RAM flexibility/upgradability (single or dual, doesn't matter here which allows you to go with 1 4GB stick now instead of 2*2 like you would want to on the Pentium).
-Mantle
-Unknown APU upgradeability

Another option as mentioned by "Insert_Nickname" is to look at the FM2 platform.

Low end FM2/FM2+ processors A4-40xx, A4-63xx, A6-5/6400K etc:

-Faster IGP.
-Dual channel for increased IGP speeds but same limitations apply with only having dual memory slots on low end boards limiting memory
-Somewhat power hungry (in comparison) which may limit case selection and or increase cooling requirements.
-Spot check on Newegg shows good selection of cheap mATX boards but ITX boards kind of pricey?
-Upgrade path??
-Mantle on newer chips (although it to get pricey here).



***Note this really shouldn't have to be said but I see this repeated over and over. Not everyone lives within driving distance of a Microcenter and not everyone lives in America Please take this into consideration when posting the best deals. MSRP should be used as a base. I think it's fine to post the best prices available but just be cognizant of the geographical limitations many of us face.

As stated in that other thread, I will soon pick up an 1150 motherboard and then will be able to compare the Pentium G3258 directly to the Athlon 5350 so if you have any specific game requests (beyond the Lego games) for comparison please let me know and I will test them.

 

[cbn]

I think the average frame rate for playable should be 30.

For First person shooters average frame rate should be 60.

(If the average frame rate falls short, so be it. But I think an attempt to reach 30 average FPS should at least be made by lowering resolution and/or detail settings)

 

[janeuner]

Screen resolution and graphic detail is important but is secondary in importance to the frame rate.

I suppose if you limited yourself to a 720p display, your proposed builds would provide playable frame rates for some modern games. Not sure about the majority though.

At that performance level, you'd likely come out ahead by repurposing an old LGA775 or AM2 machine. Both are readily available from refurbishers.

 

[Madpacket]

Sure we could aim for 30 FPS average.

For FPS hitting 60 FPS, this is pretty much out of the question for these integrated GPU's unless we drop the resolution below 1024x768 or stick to 4/5+ year old games.

A counter argument for needing is 60 FPS is that the console gamers (360/PS3 anway) have been getting along just fine with 30 fps average (in many instances dropping down in the 20's for the more demanding games).

Perhaps we need to set a goal of not dropping the resolution less than 600P.

 

[Madpacket]

At that performance level, you'd likely come out ahead by repurposing an old LGA775 or AM2 machine. Both are readily available from refurbishers.

Although you are probably correct. I'm not sure everyone has access to old refurbed equipment and normally you get a short warranty this way. Not to mention the power efficiency of these old machines can be pretty terrible.

As stated in my original post we should focus on new hardware.

 

[cbn]

Sure we could aim for 30 FPS average.

For FPS hitting 60 FPS, this is pretty much out of the question for these integrated GPU's unless we drop the resolution below 1024x768 or stick to 4/5+ year old games.

A counter argument for needing is 60 FPS is that the console gamers (360/PS3 anway) have been getting along just fine with 30 fps average (in many instances dropping down in the 20's for the more demanding games).

Here is a list of frame rate targets for various PS4 and Xbox One games:

http://www.ign.com/wikis/xbox-one/PS4_vs._Xbox_One_Native_Resolutions_and_Framerates

30 FPS for general games, 60 FPS for first person shooters and some of the action games.

Also, I've seen mention of a 60 FPS average as a standard for PC First person shooters mentioned in several of the Anandtech GPU reviews.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Seems like a pointless academic argument when you initially rule out the best option in the vast, vast majority of cases, that being a low end cpu like the 3258, i3, FX6300 or Athlon x4 760 with a discrete card. Honestly if one is investing the time and money in building a system, buying games, paying for internet, etc, I dont see the point of bare minimum gaming like the 5350 or the igp of a pentium or i3, when twice (or more) the performance is available for very near the same cost. The only igp I would consider even remotely suited for gaming is something like a high end FM2 APU, and even then, you can get much better performance with basically any modern big core cpu and a 7750, 7770, or GTX 750 (even non Ti).


Edit: I honestly dont mean to threadcrap, and I wont keep arguing this point, but I just wanted to express my opinion.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

A8-7600 based system stikes the best balance between budget and performance for this use case scenario (very limited scope btw, because, well, what frozentundra said ^).

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Just wondering where the entry-level FM2(+) APUs are in this? If we're discussing low-end AMD vs Intel those are pretty relevant too.

I'm thinking the A4-40xx, A4-63xx, A6-5/6400K, A4-7300 and finally A6-7400K should be included, as they're not that much more expensive.

At least the A6's should be superior to both the 5150/5350 and G3258 in graphics performance, with the 7400K properly being superior to everything thanks to its 256SP GCN IGP, and so included for reference.

I'd also like to see a detailed examination of memory frequency, timings and dual vs single-channel. Based on my own experience that can have a significant impact on IGP performance.

 

[cbn]

Seems like a pointless academic argument when you initially rule out the best option in the vast, vast majority of cases, that being a low end cpu like the 3258, i3, FX6300 or Athlon x4 760 with a discrete card. Honestly if one is investing the time and money in building a system, buying games, paying for internet, etc, I dont see the point of bare minimum gaming like the 5350 or the igp of a pentium or i3, when twice (or more) the performance is available for very near the same cost. The only igp I would consider even remotely suited for gaming is something like a high end FM2 APU, and even then, you can get much better performance with basically any modern big core cpu and a 7750, 7770, or GTX 750 (even non Ti).

1.) We all know discrete cards make for a better gaming experience, but I think this exercise in finding the resolution needed to achieve a playable frame rate is very valid.

....And actually to be honest, lowering resolution isn't really all that bad sometimes. Yesterday, I played Skyrim on my G3258's iGPU (at stock cpu clocks) at 1024 x 768 and got around 60 FPS (eyeballing FRAPs). The game didn't really look that bad on my CRT monitor. Next time I will try LCD monitor with the iGPU to see if the image quality is still decent enough.

2.) I think iGPU gaming is interesting for Steam Boxes which are primarily meant to be very low cost hardware for streaming Windows games, but in some cases may also play the game natively using OPEN GL. With that mentioned, I know the OP wants to keep this thread limited to Windows games, which is fine by me.

 

[Madpacket]

Here is a list of frame rate targets for various PS4 and Xbox One games:

These integrated low end systems have no chance to compete with the likes of the PS4 or Xbox One. They are at best competing with PS3/XBOX 360 which spend the majority of their time at 30 FPS. The exception to the rule appears to be with racing games (at least the exclusive ones).

http://gearnuke.com/playstation-3-and-xbox-360-exclusives-history-resolution-fps/

Honestly if one is investing the time and money in building a system, buying games, paying for internet, etc, I dont see the point of bare minimum gaming like the 5350 or the igp of a pentium or i3, when twice (or more) the performance is available for very near the same cost.

Yes you are correct these are not the best value (perhaps my thread title is misleading) systems by any means. The goal is find the best bare minimum entry level system still capable of gaming.

It may seem academic to do this but I believe there is a big market (maybe not in the western world, but definitely in developing countries) that purchases this type of gear and where every dollar makes a big difference.

A8-7600 based system stikes the best balance between budget and performance for this use case scenario (very limited scope btw).

Approximately how cheap could you build a complete system using the A8-7600?

 

[Madpacket]

Just wondering where the entry-level FM2(+) APUs are in this? If we're discussing low-end AMD vs Intel those are pretty relevant too.

I agree, I will add this to the OP.

 

[Shivansps]

6400K should be able to provide higher IGP gaming performance of all.

 

[cbn]

What should the price limit be on these iGPU processors?

A6-7400K is currently $85:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...FQGVfgodKTwA_w

 

[Yuriman]

Just picked up a $130 Chromebook with a Haswell Celeron, and loaded Ubuntu onto it. I think that's about as cheap as you can build a "gaming" computer, which runs Hearthstone and Minecraft very smoothly. Not planning on trying Titanfall on it.

Though not "cheapest", I'd probably argue for a Haswell i3. GT2 is considerably more capable than GT1 (Pentium/Celeron), and an i3 is arguably more suited to dropping in a discrete GPU down the road than most AMD APUs, though a case can be made for those as well.

One thing to remember is that not all AMD APUs have the same number of shaders, and so they're not superior across the board to Intel's IGPs. The 7400K only has half of an A10's iGPU.

 

[Shivansps]

I think the limit is the cost of the cheaper celeron + entry level card ($40 GT630), i whould say the 7400K is in, but i whould still consider the much cheaper 5400K and 6400K.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

What should the price limit be on these iGPU processors?

APU/CPU + MB or just the APU/CPU? If the later, as stated the limit should properly be around 6400K-level, but still include the 7400K for reference to show what you get for the additional ~$20.

I think the limit is the cost of the cheaper celeron + entry level card ($40 GT630), i whould say the 7400K is in, but i whould still consider the much cheaper 5400K and 6400K.

Agree with this, but honestly you're not going to get much more then IGP-level performance with that old Fermi-based card. Unless you'd chanced to snatch one of the rare GK208 rev.2's. Cheapest Celeron + GT640/R7-240 I'd say.

 

[Shivansps]

mmm its gona be better than any of those IGP, an Intel HD3000 with DC1600 performs exactly the same as a GT520/610, and the HD3000 performs better when both are OC. Thats a old test ive done myselft.

No sure on what level is Haswell GT1 compared to HD3000, but a GT630 is a LOT more than a GT610.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

No sure on what level is Haswell GT1 compared to HD3000, but a GT630 is a LOT more than a GT610.

According to this, only the highest-end HD4600 is comparable to the 192SP 6400/5400K. The GT1 (10EU) used in Pentiums/Celerons should be between the HD4000 (16EUs) and HD2500 (6EUs). The 128SP Kabini should be directly comparable to the GT1.

 

[Yuriman]

The i3 and i5 above have HD4600, while the 7400K has 256 shaders (as well as being a 1-module 2 thread chip). The Pentium uses GT1.

So yeah, GT2 is definitely lower on the foodchain than 256 shader Richland, but not much. Unfortunately, you can't get better than GT1 (in a desktop chip) without jumping to an i3. In mobile I believe it's available on some lower end chips, while some i3's have GT3.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

Approximately how cheap could you build a complete system using the A8-7600?

Under $500.- with OS http://pcpartpicker.com/p/kVzWmG
It will game with some decent fps even at 1280x1024

It's still a tough sell when compared to what can be done with $500: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2389797

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

A8-7600 based system stikes the best balance between budget and performance for this use case scenario (very limited scope btw, because, well, what frozentundra said ^).

+1

If you are not planning on using a discrete graphics card -- then the APU's are really the best option.... Don't buy anything less than an A6, though. The GPU on the A4 is pretty underwhelming. The A8/A10 do offer a nice performance bump for a future upgrade.

If you are planning to use a video card in the future -- then a low-end CPU with either Socket 1150 / AM3+ motherboard would provide a better upgrade path for up to eight thread CPU's in the future.

 

[Yuriman]

Even an A6 with a single module would be pretty horrible for a lot of things, but it seems well matched for its iGPU.

 

[cbn]

The i3 and i5 above have HD4600, while the 7400K has 256 shaders (as well as being a 1-module 2 thread chip). The Pentium uses GT1.

So yeah, GT2 is definitely lower on the foodchain than 256 shader Richland, but not much. Unfortunately, you can't get better than GT1 (in a desktop chip) without jumping to an i3. In mobile I believe it's available on some lower end chips, while some i3's have GT3.

A6-7400K is Kaveri, so those 256 shaders are GCN.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

....And actually to be honest, lowering resolution isn't really all that bad sometimes. Yesterday, I played Skyrim on my G3258's iGPU (at stock cpu clocks) at 1024 x 768 and got around 60 FPS (eyeballing FRAPs). The game didn't really look that bad on my CRT monitor. Next time I will try LCD monitor with the iGPU to see if the image quality is still decent enough.

Ugh..... The last thing I'd ever want to do is play games at the resolutions I was using on my 3DFX video card from 15 years. Oh the humanity..... Please add a video card, the iGPU on the G3258 is really lame.