Budget Gaming PC!

[lotion22]

CPU Intel Core i3-2100 3.1GHz Dual-Core http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product...96&PID=3938566
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-P67A-D3-B3 ATX LGA1155 http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product...96&PID=3938566
Memory Corsair XMS3 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR3-1333 http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product...96&PID=3938566
Hard Drive Corsair XMS3 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR3-1333 http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product...96&PID=3938566
Video Card Sapphire Radeon HD 6850 1GB http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product...82E16814102948
Case Rosewill CHALLENGER ATX Mid Tower http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product...96&PID=3938566
Power Supply Antec 650W ATX12V http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product...96&PID=3938566 (not sure but I figured it'd be better to pick up a stronger PSU in case I wanted to upgrade/CFX in the future)

I'm looking to build a 600~ dollar PC for gaming. Any criticism/advice is greatly appreciated. I'm also flexible, it's my first time building a PC as well.

Thanks.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Since you are buying a CPU that can't be overclocked you could save a bit of money on the motherboard with either H67 (no overclocking) or H61 (also no SATA 6 Gb).

The RAM is 1.65V, look for some DDR3 - 1333 that is 1.5V instead.

You missed listing a hard drive, a Samsung Spinpoint 1 TB is a good choice.

For just a single video card a good 5xx-watt is enough, there have been Antec PSUs in the Hot Deals forum for as low as $35

With some savings on the motherboard and PSU, you might be able to move up to a core i5-2400, which would give you quad core and turbo boost.

 

[wuliheron]

Intel is not the way to go for a budget gaming pc.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

^^Disagree. i3 will beat AMD processor anyday

 

[wuliheron]

^^Disagree. i3 will beat AMD processor anyday

Maybe on Mars or Venus, but on earth the benchmarks tell a different story. Especially when you consider overclocking and the longevity of AMD sockets.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

well, maybe he doesnt want to OC,
and my call for CPU is that if he can afford an Intel CPU, then go intel
can i have someone please help us out?
I prefer Intel over AMD if the budget if 600 dollars

 

[mnewsham]

Maybe on Mars or Venus, but on earth the benchmarks tell a different story. Especially when you consider overclocking and the longevity of AMD sockets.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=203

Lowest i3 vs highest x6 and the i3 either keeps pace or beats it in anything that isnt highly dependent on cores.

 

[wuliheron]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=203

Lowest i3 vs highest x6 and the i3 either keeps pace or beats it in anything that isnt highly dependent on cores.

That's a black edition AMD processor at stock speed. You might as well compare a race car against an economy car in the middle of a traffic jam.

 

[mnewsham]

That's a black edition AMD processor at stock speed. You might as well compare a race car against an economy car in the middle of a traffic jam.

It is still the most expensive (ie the best) CPU AMD currently offers for consumers the LOWEST end i3 intel offers beats it... That does NOT bode well for AMD if you HAVE to overclock to beat the least intel when you are the BEST AMD has to offer.... Drop your fanboy shit and get out.

 

[mfenn]

That's a black edition AMD processor at stock speed. You might as well compare a race car against an economy car in the middle of a traffic jam.

Protip: Not everyone overclocks.

 

[mfenn]

Since you are buying a CPU that can't be overclocked you could save a bit of money on the motherboard with either H67 (no overclocking) or H61 (also no SATA 6 Gb).

The RAM is 1.65V, look for some DDR3 - 1333 that is 1.5V instead.

You missed listing a hard drive, a Samsung Spinpoint 1 TB is a good choice.

For just a single video card a good 5xx-watt is enough, there have been Antec PSUs in the Hot Deals forum for as low as $35

With some savings on the motherboard and PSU, you might be able to move up to a core i5-2400, which would give you quad core and turbo boost.

Good advice. OP, here's some linkage:

i3 2100 + Biostar H61MH combo $180
Mushkin DDR3 1333 8GB $50
6870 $155 AR
Samsung F3 1TB $75
http://detonator.dynamitedata.com/c...com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817371047Antec Neo Eco 520C $40 AR
Rosewill Challenger $55
Total: $555 AR

 

[wuliheron]

It is still the most expensive (ie the best) CPU AMD currently offers for consumers the LOWEST end i3 intel offers beats it... That does NOT bode well for AMD if you HAVE to overclock to beat the least intel when you are the BEST AMD has to offer.... Drop your fanboy shit and get out.

This ain't no fanboy crap. The only advantage AMD has is price and if you don't want to overclock then don't buy an AMD black edition processor made specifically for overclocking! I suppose some people overclock their cpu just for fun, but most I know do it to save money. If you aren't willing to overclock then it isn't much of a budget system, its just a cheap system.

 

[mvbighead]

This ain't no fanboy crap. The only advantage AMD has is price and if you don't want to overclock then don't buy an AMD black edition processor made specifically for overclocking! I suppose some people overclock their cpu just for fun, but most I know do it to save money. If you aren't willing to overclock then it isn't much of a budget system, its just a cheap system.

It's precisely fanboy crap.

Buying the lowest edition of the i-series makes plenty more sense than buying anything AMD at this point.

And, as DaveSimmons points out, if the OP made a few changes, he could buy the I5-2400 that'd knock the crap out of anything that AMD offers right now.

Linkage:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/363?vs=203

 

[wuliheron]

It's precisely fanboy crap.

Buying the lowest edition of the i-series makes plenty more sense than buying anything AMD at this point.

And, as DaveSimmons points out, if the OP made a few changes, he could buy the I5-2400 that'd knock the crap out of anything that AMD offers right now.

Linkage:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/363?vs=203

LOL, when you can buy a quad core for gaming for less then a hundred bucks calling an i5 2400 a budget chip is ludicrous. Its a mid-range offering by any account and to even suggest it is a budget chip is nothing short of Intel fanboyism.

 

[mvbighead]

LOL, when you can buy a quad core for gaming for less then a hundred bucks calling an i5 2400 a budget chip is ludicrous. Its a mid-range offering by any account and to even suggest it is a budget chip is nothing short of Intel fanboyism.

Nope, I don't even own one. I actually own an AMD Phenom x3 Black Edition, and the only reason I own this chip is Newegg had a Black Friday sale for $65ish bucks and the board was $79 (it now sells for $100-120). It's a helluva nice combo, but Intel stomps the crap out of it with their current offerings.

And, for a person spending $600 on a desktop, an i5-2400 can be fit into the budget if the right parts are selected around that system. And I would still term $600 bucks in the budget category, especially when looking at a gaming system.

Sure, the OP can buy an AMD and save a little cash... but the performance simply isn't there when compared to similarly priced Intel products.

Here you go sparky:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115078

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103727

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/102?vs=289

I picked a processor from AMD that comes at $10 additional expense over the Intel I3-2100. In nearly every category, the I3 is the better performer.

You seem to be suggesting that 2 cores < 4 cores. The reality is that CPU architecture is paramount in the performance of any chip. I-series is >>> than PhenomII, at pretty much every price point. The OP's original processor/MB selection is ideal for a budget rig.

EDIT: And where the heck do I suggest that the I5-2400 is a budget chip anyway? I just suggested that it fits in the OPs 600 budget as DaveSimmons previously suggested.

 

[wuliheron]

Nope, I don't even own one. I actually own an AMD Phenom x3 Black Edition, and the only reason I own this chip is Newegg had a Black Friday sale for $65ish bucks and the board was $79 (it now sells for $100-120). It's a helluva nice combo, but Intel stomps the crap out of it with their current offerings.

And, for a person spending $600 on a desktop, an i5-2400 can be fit into the budget if the right parts are selected around that system. And I would still term $600 bucks in the budget category, especially when looking at a gaming system.

Sure, the OP can buy an AMD and save a little cash... but the performance simply isn't there when compared to similarly priced Intel products.

Here you go sparky:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115078

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103727

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/102?vs=289

I picked a processor from AMD that comes at $10 additional expense over the Intel I3-2100. In nearly every category, the I3 is the better performer.

You seem to be suggesting that 2 cores < 4 cores. The reality is that CPU architecture is paramount in the performance of any chip. I-series is >>> than PhenomII, at pretty much every price point. The OP's original processor/MB selection is ideal for a budget rig.

EDIT: And where the heck do I suggest that the I5-2400 is a budget chip anyway? I just suggested that it fits in the OPs 600 budget as DaveSimmons previously suggested.

Hey, you people are the ones bringing up mid-range Intel chips when talking about budget systems and using benchmarks that compare processors at stock frequencies that are design specifically for overclocking. Either stop with the misleading comparisons or expect people to call you on them. Likewise, stop trying to "interpret" what I mean and making insinuations about what I mean and stick with the facts. If I want someone to read my mind I'll call the psychic network.

All I have said is that AMD is better for budget builds. They have a much larger selection of budget processors and their sockets have greater longevity. The i3 is a decent Intel budget chip, but if you really want to save money and be able to upgrade cheaply in the future to save even more AMD is the way to go. If you don't like overclocking then the i3 is a better choice in this price range.

 

[mvbighead]

Hey, you people are the ones bringing up mid-range Intel chips when talking about budget systems and using benchmarks that compare processors at stock frequencies that are design specifically for overclocking. Either stop with the misleading comparisons or expect people to call you on them. Likewise, stop trying to "interpret" what I mean and making insinuations about what I mean and stick with the facts. If I want someone to read my mind I'll call the psychic network.

All I have said is that AMD is better for budget builds. They have a much larger selection of budget processors and their sockets have greater longevity. The i3 is a decent Intel budget chip, but if you really want to save money and be able to upgrade cheaply in the future to save even more AMD is the way to go. If you don't like overclocking then the i3 is a better choice in this price range.

There used to be a time where AMD owned the budget segment, and even had a decent leg in the performance segment. Lately, they've been sitting on their thumbs. But the fact that you are telling us now that they are better for budget builds is absolutely mind boggling. They're not. They haven't been ever since the Sandy Bridge series was released, maybe even sooner than that.

When talking about budget, or bang for the buck, you take two (or more) items of a similar price point, and you put them against each other. I did so, even putting a little more money towards an AMD processor, and they simply get beat in pretty much every test.

If you are thinking that budget has to be sub $100 dollars, well here you go:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/404?vs=187

If you don't want us to "put words in your mouth", PROVE your point. Thus far, all I've read is your statement that AMD is the budget segment. While this used to be true, it simply isn't anymore. I believe the graphs I've given above prove that, until you PROVE otherwise.

EDIT: And why do you keep bringing up the Mid Range bit? The OP provided his price point, his budget, and we are discussing ways to best utilize that budget. If you can fit a mid range CPU into a low budget without sacrificing too much elsewhere, it'd be stupid to go lower.

EDIT: Greater longevity? Really? My AM2 socket begs to differ. Sure Intel abandoned their old I-series platform. And while Ivy Bridge is around the corner, so is Bull Dozer, both of which will, in 90+&#37; of cases require a new board. AMD's socket has no better longevity, IMO. Further should I decide to throw an x6 in my board in place of the (unlocked) x4 I have now, the performance gains would be minimal in comparison to what I'd see with going from an i3-2100 to an i7 2600.

Intel, at this point, is pretty much the best solution for most segments. AMD's Fusion series is likely AMD's best offering to this point, as it offers great performance all in one single platform, at a low cost. Otherwise, they're getting their butts handed to them on every other corner by Intel.

 

[wuliheron]

If you don't want us to "put words in your mouth", PROVE your point. Thus far, all I've read is your statement that AMD is the budget segment. While this used to be true, it simply isn't anymore. I believe the graphs I've given above prove that, until you PROVE otherwise.

EDIT: And why do you keep bringing up the Mid Range bit? The OP provided his price point, his budget, and we are discussing ways to best utilize that budget. If you can fit a mid range CPU into a low budget without sacrificing too much elsewhere, it'd be stupid to go lower.

More red herrings, but at least in the form of a question this time. A rhetorical one perhaps, but its a step forward.

A) I never complained about people suggesting a better processor. I complained using about misleading comparisons of processors to promote the idea Intel is better for budget systems.

B) As for proof, do a quick google search for budget gaming pc fool.

 

[mvbighead]

More red herrings, but at least in the form of a question this time. A rhetorical one perhaps, but its a step forward.

A) I never complained about people suggesting a better processor. I complained using about misleading comparisons of processors to promote the idea Intel is better for budget systems.

B) As for proof, do a quick google search for budget gaming pc fool.

A) How is a comparison of a $100 processor of Intel to a $100 processor of AMD misleading? When looking for performance for your dollar, you take the best options from company A and compare them against the best options from company B at similar pricepoints, and you make a conclusion.

B) What the hell does that tell me? Someone else's opinion about what I should buy?

When building a system on a budget, you tend look at reviews, benchmarks, and $$$.

On pretty much every level, Intel can beat AMD... that is, unless you get into the cheapest of the cheap to put something together.

But at this point, the OP's budget gets him something that is really quite decent, and he doesn't have to go to a bottom feeder CPU to get it done. Hell, the OP is the person who first suggested an I-series processor. You can tell me all you want about budget, but the fact remains, at pretty much every price point, Intel has something that is better than AMD.

 

[mvbighead]

Here's a prime example of what the OP can get for under $600:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboB...t=Combo.660856

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102948

Comes to 569.63 shipped in my cart.

Better brand of case, with a good PSU. And an improved video card.

And it still leaves him with $30 in his pocket (plus $20 after MIR).

EDIT: Keep in mind, the board is a bit limited, but at the price, it is a pretty good setup.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I'd agree that AMD can make more sense for a $400 build, especially if overclocking.

If you want to run at stock, or care about power, heat, noise, or have a better budget, then right now intel just has better price-performance for gaming at anything above no-budget levels.

I have nothing against AMD, and my 2006 builds for work and home were all socket 939 X2s. Then core 2 came along and AMD has been lagging since then. SB is the final nail in the coffin.

 

[wuliheron]

A) How is a comparison of a $100 processor of Intel to a $100 processor of AMD misleading? When looking for performance for your dollar, you take the best options from company A and compare them against the best options from company B at similar pricepoints, and you make a conclusion.

You just can't get enough red herrings can you. First comparing processors made of for overclocking at stock speeds, then comparing mid-range processors with budget processors, and now comparing a single hundred dollar processor as proof Intel is king of the budget processors. You should go into politics.

B) What the hell does that tell me? Someone else's opinion about what I should buy?

Like I said, you should go into politics. If you want proof that means you have to actually listen to what other people have to say. I know, it sounds crazy, but that's how it works.

When building a system on a budget, you tend look at reviews, benchmarks, and $$$.

On pretty much every level, Intel can beat AMD... that is, unless you get into the cheapest of the cheap to put something together.

But at this point, the OP's budget gets him something that is really quite decent, and he doesn't have to go to a bottom feeder CPU to get it done. Hell, the OP is the person who first suggested an I-series processor. You can tell me all you want about budget, but the fact remains, at pretty much every price point, Intel has something that is better than AMD.

More fanboy rhetoric. Must be a tea party member.

 

[mvbighead]

You just can't get enough red herrings can you. First comparing processors made of for overclocking at stock speeds, then comparing mid-range processors with budget processors, and now comparing a single hundred dollar processor as proof Intel is king of the budget processors. You should go into politics.



Like I said, you should go into politics. If you want proof that means you have to actually listen to what other people have to say. I know, it sounds crazy, but that's how it works.



More fanboy rhetoric. Must be a tea party member.

Shuffle - scuffle - shuffle. All you do is side-step questions and pose your own opinion with nothing, and I mean NOTHING, to back yourself up.

Oh, so because James Smith says that's his $600 build, I should take only that advice and run with it?

Sorry, but I see nothing wrong with comparing a $100 CPU from A to a $100 CPU from B. Those are my options for the benjamin sitting in my pocket.

As far as mid range vs. budget processor... where are you coming up with this? A $100 processor is a budget processor. A $200 processor is a mid-range processor. And a $300+ processor is a high end processor.

As far as listening to what others have to say, I do. But typically, from a crowd that actually puts research into their builds and not just someone who says... OH, here is a $70 processor from AMD... that fits my category of a budget processor because you buy budget processors from AMD. That sort of logic is simply FAIL.

People spend money on parts. You expect a certain level of performance for a certain amount of $$$ spent. I'll give you one last example:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/362?vs=289

AMD's top x4 processor, and Intel's measly I3-2100. Let's say you go out and spend $110 on a 955, and are fortunate enough to overclock it to the 980's speeds... well, you're still almost being edged out, or at least coming up tightly against, the i3 2100. So for $20 more in processor, and likely $20-30 less in board (you don't need a full feature board with OCing abilities), you can get the same performance with absolutely no hassle.

Again, it's CPU architecture over anything else... and the Sandy Bridge series has the best architecture of any chip out presently. So if I am working with a limited budget, I'd look to Sandy Bridge's lowest I series, before I start trying to fiddle with OCing an inferior chip.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

CPU Intel Core i3-2100 3.1GHz Dual-Core http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product...96&amp;PID=3938566
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-P67A-D3-B3 ATX LGA1155 http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product...96&amp;PID=3938566
Memory Corsair XMS3 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR3-1333 http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product...96&amp;PID=3938566
Hard Drive Corsair XMS3 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR3-1333 http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product...96&amp;PID=3938566
Video Card Sapphire Radeon HD 6850 1GB http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product...82E16814102948
Case Rosewill CHALLENGER ATX Mid Tower http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product...96&amp;PID=3938566
Power Supply Antec 650W ATX12V http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product...96&amp;PID=3938566 (not sure but I figured it'd be better to pick up a stronger PSU in case I wanted to upgrade/CFX in the future)

I'm looking to build a 600~ dollar PC for gaming. Any criticism/advice is greatly appreciated. I'm also flexible, it's my first time building a PC as well.

Thanks.

Ignoring all of the fanboi raving in here, this is mostly good OP.

However, this Antec 300 is probably a nicer case than the Rosewill if you're OK with dealing with rebates.

I would not use that 5900 RPM Seagate as my only/boot drive. As mentioned earlier in this thread, go for this Hitachi drive, the Samsung F3 1 TB looks too pricey in Canada.

Everything else looks good. That power supply is more than enough, even for CF. I have an older modular Antec 650W powering a folding machine with a Phenom II and two 9600GSOs.

 

[LuluTheMonk]

All I have said is that AMD is better for budget builds.

Genuine curiosity here, for this $600 build, what would you recommend from AMD that would outperform the proposed builds in this thread from Intel for less or equivalent money?