• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

New Budget Build for family member

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Mago

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Location
Louisiana
Ok, i have stated before that I am a Intel / Nvidia man personally, but when building a machine on a budget AMD and Radeon are not out of the question for my brother in law.

That be said being an intel man I have not a clue what is what regarding AMD - ATI, cause i dont pay close attention, i might be a little better regarding graphics cards comparability, however i dont know the AMD chips at all.

GOAL: He wants a gaming machine for the modern games but on a budget of $800 to $1000. No overclocking necessary and not Crossfire / SLi needed, so the card has to be decent... (If it were intel then i would OC it a little for him).
I have the feeling the best bang for th buck is going to be AMD / Radeon....So come on AMD / Radeon Gurus, point me in the right direction for a build that will last him 3 years playing the latest games.

What i am thinking so far is :
Ram- $50 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233144

PSU- $ 60 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139027

Case- $50 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811133179 something like this with stick cooling.

CD / DVD Rom $20 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827135204

HDD- $260 TOTAL http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227706 and http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148725

CPU / MOBO / GPU ? Probably AMD 4100ish ( 2500k Comparable) I assume/ mobo no clue (quality board) for AMD and GPU somthing comparable to 560 TI ish...

He has windows & already..

I advised him to wait until the release of Kepler and Ivy to see what effect that will have on the intel prices as many are having really good deals now but prices may drop some and put him within the $1000 range for a solid build...
Thanks for your input.... I really want it to be solid for him and come in at or under his desired price point.
 
Last edited:
Ok, i have stated before that I am a Intel / Nvidia man personally, but when building a machine on a budget AMD and Radeon are not out of the question for my brother in law.

That be said being an intel man I have not a clue what is what regarding AMD - ATI, cause i dont pay close attention, i might be a little better regarding graphics cards comparability, however i dont know the AMD chips at all.

GOAL: He wants a gaming machine for the modern games but on a budget of $800 to $1000. No overclocking necessary and not Crossfire / SLi needed, so the card has to be decent... (If it were intel then i would OC it a little for him).
I have the feeling the best bang for th buck is going to be AMD / Radeon....So come on AMD / Radeon Gurus, point me in the right direction for a build that will last him 3 years playing the latest games.

What i am thinking so far is :
Ram- $50 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233144

PSU- $ 60 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139027

Case- $50 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811133179 something like this with stick cooling.

CD / DVD Rom $20 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827135204

HDD- $260 TOTAL http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227706 and http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148725

CPU / MOBO / GPU ? Probably AMD 4100ish ( 2500k Comparable) I assume/ mobo no clue (quality board) for AMD and GPU somthing comparable to 560 TI ish...

He has windows & already..

I advised him to wait until the release of Kepler and Ivy to see what effect that will have on the intel prices as many are having really good deals now but prices may drop some and put him within the $1000 range for a solid build...
Thanks for your input.... I really want it to be solid for him and come in at or under his desired price point.


Fx-4100 is NOT comparable to 2500k. You'd have to upscale to FX-8100 to compete with 2500k.

If he wants to play the latest games for 3 years then the best bet is a 2500k [especially for oblivion + SC2 to name a few]. If you can afford it then 2500k is the real winner for gaming.

With that being said, here's the rest of the comments.
*You can save about $15 on memory.
*The case could be had on sale for about $10 cheaper as well. I'd go with a more quality case tbh. Antec-300?
*The SSD can be had on sale for about $20 cheaper.
*For a HDD you can buy a 2TB drive for about $10 more.
*560 TI can be had used for about $160 nowadays.
*You can buy a DVD-rom for $10 on sale easily.

With this build you'll have...
$35 ram + $40 case + $60 PSU + $10 DVD rom + $160 560 TI + $270 HDD + sdd

$580 so far.

Let's add 2500k [$180] + mobo Asrock extreme3 gen 3 [$120] + hsf cm212+[ $20]

$320 on top.

So a total of $900 with a $50 for shipping or so for a total of about $950.

I personally build my PC for $1025 after picking up pieces for cheap everywhere.
*2600k, runs up to 4.5 easily. CM-212+ hsf
*8GB of 1.35V 1600 RAM.
*560 ti, no need to overclock.
*ASrock extreme3 gen3
*good brand PSU 600watts.
*antec 900
*1.5TB hdd on cheap.

So, you can easily do a 2500k built on less with cheaper case/psu.
 
Fx-4100 is NOT comparable to 2500k. You'd have to upscale to FX-8100 to compete with 2500k.

It really isnt, that's why I picked him out the Fx-6200, it still may or may not be comparable but it's alot closer and within the budget.
 
Fx-4100 is NOT comparable to 2500k. You'd have to upscale to FX-8100 to compete with 2500k.

If he wants to play the latest games for 3 years then the best bet is a 2500k [especially for oblivion + SC2 to name a few]. If you can afford it then 2500k is the real winner for gaming.

I'm not arguing they aren't comparable, because they aren't. And that's only because of price reasons. Now... I will say that a FX-4100 will keep him gaming for the next 3 years. The new xbox hardware (codenamed 720) was released a couple weeks ago. You could build a PC with similar hardware for only $600. Considering most games people play on the PC are console ports, and that next gen consoles will last for quite some time. It is safe to say, if your on a budget the 4100 is completely fine. Then at the end of the 3 years he could even pick up an 8100, and another graphics card and keep going for ANOTHER 2-3 years.
 
It really isnt, that's why I picked him out the Fx-6200, it still may or may not be comparable but it's alot closer and within the budget.

That motherboard is $65 more expensive then the intel ones which means the Intel build would be cheaper. Also, faster for gaming. Lastly, better overclocking, would run cooler and use less power.

I'm not arguing they aren't comparable, because they aren't. And that's only because of price reasons. Now... I will say that a FX-4100 will keep him gaming for the next 3 years. The new xbox hardware (codenamed 720) was released a couple weeks ago. You could build a PC with similar hardware for only $600. Considering most games people play on the PC are console ports, and that next gen consoles will last for quite some time. It is safe to say, if your on a budget the 4100 is completely fine. Then at the end of the 3 years he could even pick up an 8100, and another graphics card and keep going for ANOTHER 2-3 years.

There is a huge difference between consoles and PCs. Consoles can get away with weather specs due to less overhead, more direct hardware access and less visuals.

It is not safe to say that 4100 is fine as it for playing latest games. It WILL struggle with a number of games as it is.
 
I have to say check out Intel 2500k builds. You will be surprised that they may be cheaper than the Amd ones...The only difference between the two would be the CPU and MB. The price differences at most are minimal. But the performance differences are not
 
That motherboard is $65 more expensive then the intel ones which means the Intel build would be cheaper. Also, faster for gaming. Lastly, better overclocking, would run cooler and use less power.

There is a huge difference between consoles and PCs. Consoles can get away with weather specs due to less overhead, more direct hardware access and less visuals.

It is not safe to say that 4100 is fine as it for playing latest games. It WILL struggle with a number of games as it is.

The 4100 is around the performance of an i3-2100-2120, and a Phenom II X4 955-965, maybe a little bit lower. I have a Phenom II X4 965 and an i3-2120 in the same house. Here is a good reference. Both of those CPU's sit at 70% usage during a 64 player battle in Battlefield 3 (small and large map) Both systems also have 8GB of DDR3 1600. The Phenom system has a Radeon 6870, and the i3 system has a GTX560. With both of those CPU's sit at 70% usage. Both systems also get 60fps @ 1920x1080 on high settings. Both of those results were done without the Phenom being overclocked.

The 4100 might would be a little slower than either of those too. So maybe 80% usage? But how many games put as much strain on a system as Battlefield 3? Skyrim will put a ton of strain on a CPU when you are in house with 1,000 items on the floor.

I've seen Battlefield 3 and Crysis 2 running on a Athlon X2 @2.9GHz, 4Gb of DDR2 800 ram, and a $89 Radeon 6670 IN PERSON. And that system got 40fps on medium settings @1440x900. It was a $300 hardware system.
 
Last edited:
The 4100 is around the performance of an i3-2100-2120, and a Phenom II X4 955-965, maybe a little bit lower. I have a Phenom II X4 965 and an i3-2120 in the same house. Here is a good reference. Both of those CPU's sit at 70% usage during a 64 player battle in Battlefield 3 (small and large map) Both systems also have 8GB of DDR3 1600. The Phenom system has a Radeon 6870, and the i3 system has a GTX560. With both of those CPU's sit at 70% usage. Both systems also get 60fps @ 1920x1080 on high settings. Both of those results were done without the Phenom being overclocked.

The 4100 might would be a little slower than either of those too. So maybe 80% usage? But how many games put as much strain on a system as Battlefield 3? Skyrim will put a ton of strain on a CPU when you are in house with 1,000 items on the floor.

I've seen Battlefield 3 and Crysis 2 running on a Athlon X2 @2.9GHz, 4Gb of DDR2 800 ram, and a $89 Radeon 6670 IN PERSON. And that system got 40fps on medium settings @1440x900. It was a $300 hardware system.

Battlefield3 is a very poor example to use as it is not demanding (Linky).

Games that demand more power: Oblivion [even without 1000 items on the floor], starcraft 2 [very much so], L4D2, ME2 [although very multi-threaded which helps].
 
I wasn't trying to get into an AMD vs Intel debate, the guy asked for an AMD build recommendation for his brother-in-law. Which to me meant that, that's what the guy wants. So I gave him a couple AMD build recommendations, both of those builds I listed will play anything he wants and they are at the upper range of his budget and also the lower range.
 
Battlefield3 is a very poor example to use as it is not demanding (Linky).

Games that demand more power: Oblivion [even without 1000 items on the floor], starcraft 2 [very much so], L4D2, ME2 [although very multi-threaded which helps].

It's quite the opposite, BF3 is more demanding than every single game you listed 10 times over. There are more demanding things than BF3 though, BENCHMARKS. Which is where everybody gets their knowledge of how well a processor does. All benchmarks are different and with most benchmarks different processors continue to score in different places. If you look at enough benchmark scores you will eventually see a pattern, and you can base you purchase upon that. Albeit, this isn't even about benchmarking! It's about gaming performance. So back to nitty gritty I go.

I've seen Oblivion, and L4D2 run on the following system:
Athlon 64 single core. 2.0GHz
1GB of DDR at 400MHz
$49 Geforce 9500GT low profile card.
200w PSU.

In those two games that system got 30fps on medium settings @1366x768.

On the exact same system I've seen Starcraft 2 run at 27fps on low @1366x768.

As far as ME2 goes, its a joke to run as well. On the the Phenom II system, and the i3 I mentioned earlier. 60fps on Ultra with everything on @1920x1080.
Then only 40% CPU usage.
 
I wasn't trying to get into an AMD vs Intel debate, the guy asked for an AMD build recommendation for his brother-in-law. Which to me meant that, that's what the guy wants. So I gave him a couple AMD build recommendations, both of those builds I listed will play anything he wants and they are at the upper range of his budget and also the lower range.

I'm not trying to get into either it, but some people believe it is absolutely necessary to have an i5-2500k before you even try to play an 8bit game. :p
 
Guys and gals,
I really appreciate all of your input. Alot of knowledge here and all points are valid and well taken.
I am guessing if it all balls down to a matter of $100 bucks or so more to get the intel 2500k, i personally as the buidler being familar with intel, would rather go with 2500k and explain why its gonna cost him $100 more... I firmly have the personal belief that intel is better, so not knowing what compared to it form the AMD side i was kinda in the dark. That being said i will probably stay on the intel side...

Also how much do you think the introduction of Ivy will have on the 2500k pricing and kepler on the 500 series cards?

Thanks for everyone who contributed to the discussion.
 
Also how much do you think the introduction of Ivy will have on the 2500k pricing and kepler on the 500 series cards?

New releases of GPUs tend to have a larger effect on the prices of the older generation of GPUs than the same situation with CPUs. The 500 series GPUs are already seeing a stout price drop, sometimes $60-80 in the high end, but I wouldn't expect more than a $20-30 drop in regular SB CPUs.
 
It's quite the opposite, BF3 is more demanding than every single game you listed 10 times over. There are more demanding things than BF3 though, BENCHMARKS. Which is where everybody gets their knowledge of how well a processor does. All benchmarks are different and with most benchmarks different processors continue to score in different places. If you look at enough benchmark scores you will eventually see a pattern, and you can base you purchase upon that. Albeit, this isn't even about benchmarking! It's about gaming performance. So back to nitty gritty I go.

I've seen Oblivion, and L4D2 run on the following system:
Athlon 64 single core. 2.0GHz
1GB of DDR at 400MHz
$49 Geforce 9500GT low profile card.
200w PSU.

In those two games that system got 30fps on medium settings @1366x768.

On the exact same system I've seen Starcraft 2 run at 27fps on low @1366x768.

As far as ME2 goes, its a joke to run as well. On the the Phenom II system, and the i3 I mentioned earlier. 60fps on Ultra with everything on @1920x1080.
Then only 40% CPU usage.


Have you seen any of my links I posted? They contain BENCHMARKS.

Since you obviously did not click on any of them, let me link a direct comparison...
BF3 CPU requirments vs Skyrim CPU vs http://media.bestofmicro.com/G/O/324600/original/OC_StarCraftII.png

See how SC2 is very affected by CPU and speed vs bf3?

Guys and gals,
I really appreciate all of your input. Alot of knowledge here and all points are valid and well taken.
I am guessing if it all balls down to a matter of $100 bucks or so more to get the intel 2500k, i personally as the buidler being familar with intel, would rather go with 2500k and explain why its gonna cost him $100 more... I firmly have the personal belief that intel is better, so not knowing what compared to it form the AMD side i was kinda in the dark. That being said i will probably stay on the intel side...

Also how much do you think the introduction of Ivy will have on the 2500k pricing and kepler on the 500 series cards?

Thanks for everyone who contributed to the discussion.


:)

I found this page to be most useful:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-10.html
 
Have you seen any of my links I posted? They contain BENCHMARKS.

Since you obviously did not click on any of them, let me link a direct comparison...
BF3 CPU requirments vs Skyrim CPU vs http://media.bestofmicro.com/G/O/324600/original/OC_StarCraftII.png

See how SC2 is very affected by CPU and speed vs bf3?




:)

I found this page to be most useful:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-10.html

Well I guess you didn't see what I said then, I said it wasn't about BENCHMARKS. I said it was about gaming.... And you didn't see the lowest of low systems that could actually run Starcraft 2 that I post did you?
 
Well I guess you didn't see what I said then, I said it wasn't about BENCHMARKS. I said it was about gaming....


I replied directly to this:
If you look at enough benchmark scores you will eventually see a pattern, and you can base you purchase upon that.

And you didn't see the lowest of low systems that could actually run Starcraft 2 that I post did you?

...and I am sure bf3 would run on that pc as well. Not well. I'd say around 40fps average on 1440x900 with high settings. How about you look at benchmarks and see which one requires more to play?
 
Back