• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Budget Pc Build Finalization

I would get a more powerful PSU like somewhere between 700-900W. I'm not sure ho much would you add for that but I think that it is something that could benefit you in the long run. Solid build anyway. 🙂

Oh and a 120GB SSD I guess would be something that you would also consider but that would make you spend an extra $125.
 
Intel17 said:
I wouldn't get that AMD FX chip. An i3 3220 would be a better choice for gaming, IMO.
Click to expand...

Erm, no.

51123.png


Stick with the AMD part, it's the best value in that range.
 
If the games are going to get better and better with using more than 2 cores than don't even look in the direction of i3
crysis3%20proz%202.jpg
 
NTMBK said:
Oh yes, because that is what everyone cares about in a gaming desktop PC. 🙄
Click to expand...
It's an amazing argument... That nobody cares about in targeted user group (like you said). Still it's reoccurring so often that it's getting silly.

People who recommend i3 should buy and actually use it themselves to game on. With pictures/videos as proof etc. 😀
 
inf64 said:
It's an amazing argument... That nobody cares about in targeted user group (like you said). Still it's reoccurring so often that it's getting silly.

People who recommend i3 should buy and actually use it themselves to game on. With pictures/videos as proof etc. 😀
Click to expand...

Actually, the i3 is very competitive with the FX6350 in a lot of games (the ones above are cherry-picked). My own testing has shown that in many games, it can actually keep pace with an i7: http://www.techbuyersguru.com/CPUgaming.php

That being said, I'd still recommend an FX6300/6350 for a slightly more future-proof gaming rig, but don't dismiss the i3 entirely for a budget rig. If I were building a system for a mix of productivity, gaming, and office use, I'd get the i3.
 
Termie said:
That being said, I'd still recommend an FX6300/6350 for a slightly more future-proof gaming rig, but don't dismiss the i3 entirely for a budget rig. If I were building a system for a mix of productivity, gaming, and office use, I'd get the i3.
Click to expand...

How come? I'd have thought that for general purpose productivity and office use, any modern chip would be fine (even a Celeron) if paired with an SSD- and the majority of CPU intensive tasks other than gaming tend to be pretty well multithreaded these days (encoding springs to mind). Given that most modern PCs ship with at least 4 threads, I wouldn't expect many more single-threaded CPU intensive applications to arise. *shrug*

EDIT: Also, nice article! I might have to check out your blog more often.
 
Termie said:
Actually, the i3 is very competitive with the FX6350 in a lot of games (the ones above are cherry-picked). My own testing has shown that in many games, it can actually keep pace with an i7: http://www.techbuyersguru.com/CPUgaming.php

That being said, I'd still recommend an FX6300/6350 for a slightly more future-proof gaming rig, but don't dismiss the i3 entirely for a budget rig. If I were building a system for a mix of productivity, gaming, and office use, I'd get the i3.
Click to expand...

To me the 6300 is not that much better than i3 unless you overclock. The i3 is probably a bit faster in older, poorly threaded games, while the 6300 is clearly ahead in a few newer games like cry sis 3. I would probably go with the 6300 as well, based on the expected requirements of future games, but I don't think the i3 is a terrible choice either.
 
Not to mention 6300 is faster in many x86 desktop workloads (that support MT of course). In those apps the 4T PD is competitive with 4T i3,so 6300 is just miles ahead. But this is about the games so this argument is more of a "plus" or added benefit than the main reason to go with 63xx over i3.
 
NTMBK said:
How come? I'd have thought that for general purpose productivity and office use, any modern chip would be fine (even a Celeron) if paired with an SSD- and the majority of CPU intensive tasks other than gaming tend to be pretty well multithreaded these days (encoding springs to mind). Given that most modern PCs ship with at least 4 threads, I wouldn't expect many more single-threaded CPU intensive applications to arise. *shrug*

EDIT: Also, nice article! I might have to check out your blog more often.
Click to expand...

Thanks!

The reason I'd recommend it for a multi-purpose system is its ultra-low power consumption, much better single-threaded performance, and built-in video.

I'm typing this right now on my i3-3220 test system and it's using 27W at the wall. With a discrete video card it would be closer to 45W, but even so, it's pretty amazing.
 
Termie said:
Thanks!

The reason I'd recommend it for a multi-purpose system is its ultra-low power consumption, much better single-threaded performance, and built-in video.

I'm typing this right now on my i3-3220 test system and it's using 27W at the wall. With a discrete video card it would be closer to 45W, but even so, it's pretty amazing.
Click to expand...

In this test pclab end of the world test. the i3 is 10% ahead of 6300 in overall summary of the 15 games. Granted it is not the very latest games, but the i3 is a far better overall gaming processor than some make it out to be now, especially if you are interested in older games as well as the latest shooters.
 
inf64 said:
People who recommend i3 should buy and actually use it themselves to game on. With pictures/videos as proof etc. 😀
Click to expand...

I used an i3-540 OC with a 470 and 7950 as well as 7950 CFX.

I used the same 470 (SLI) with a 555, 965, 1090T, i5-2500k as well.


For a budget gaming rig I'd consider an i3, it has it's pros and cons just as the AMD chips do. AMDs chips are good for highly threaded games, but still suffer from poor single thread performance in those games and is exemplified in MP gaming. Each side in going to have it's advantages when comparing the i3 to even the 8350, AMD can overclock, but never to make up the gap in their ST performance. The i3's can't overclock, but they have stout ST performance out of the box compared to AMD and have vastly superior perf/w characteristics.

For me personally it's very hard to recommend or consider an AMD chip for gaming, after owning so many recent chips with water cooling and high clocks they just don't have the the single thread performance to drive performance in the games I tend to play, which are typically RTS/Diablo type games/Online based.

However after using the now, extremely dated 2008 tech i3-540 overclocked to 4/4.2GHz I can also say it isn't free and clear of problems of it's own, it does not do well in some titles, like BF3 MP, in single player there is no problem, but it doesn't not excel in MP with a typical cap around 44-46 fps. It's also no longer the creme of the crop when it comes to IPC, and had a hard time in some of the titles that do favor IPC such as Grim Dawn.

In the end you need to look at the types of games you play and then decide between the two, because they both have strengths and weakness. Anything short of the i5 is a compromise in gaming, if you haven't already consider used... You should be able to find an i5-2500k or i5-3570k for possibly as low as $150.


As far as RAM goes don't over spend, it makes very little difference in gaming.
 
Alot of people play only blizzard titles/MOBA's and I Imagine the i3 would take a good lead in those situations. I personally would still take the fx6300 however. Really for game CPU's the only relevant choices are the 6300/2500k/3570k/4570k. Taking into account there prices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top