Super low budget general use/gaming PC

[ibex333]

Building a super cheap gaming PC for a friend. We are talking about mid-range to low end gaming, so parts must be as cheap as possible.

1. What YOUR PC will be used for. That means what types of tasks you'll be performing.
General use (word, email, web, movies) and low end gaming

2. What YOUR budget is. A price range is acceptable as long as it's not more than a 20% spread

Like $120-200 to start, and additional $100 or so for the video card LATER. (read below, we already have most of the parts) Also, I am assuming we cant fit a "real" video card in there, so if something even can be fitted, it will have to be extremely low profile, extremely low performance and very low power.

3. What country YOU will be buying YOUR parts from.
USA

4. IF you're buying parts OUTSIDE the US, please post a link to the vendor you'll be buying from.
N/A


5. IF YOU have a brand preference. That means, are you an Intel-Fanboy, AMD-Fanboy, ATI-Fanboy, nVidia-Fanboy, Seagate-Fanboy, WD-Fanboy, etc.

Absolutely no brand preference! We'll go with whatever offers more gaming bang for the buck.

6. If YOU intend on using any of YOUR current parts, and if so, what those parts are.

We got this case, so everything that I am doing must be done around this case, with its size in mind, and it's low power PSU every step of the way.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16811208054

I am also getting him this RAM.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820301191

So since this is essentially a low end gaming micro PC/hybrid, we pretty much got everything we need except for the mobo and the CPU.
We are NOT getting a video card now, we will use the built in graphics on the CPU.
We wont be getting a DVD drive(most likely). We got all necessary peripherals already.


What I need help with is getting the CPU/Mobo combo that will give the absolute most performance for the money. I'm not sure if I want to go with AMD or Intel here... Strangely, Intel seems to offer cheaper parts that offer more performance. But maybe I am missing something.

For intel I am thinking something like this mobo...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813138378

And this CPU
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819116774

It has HD4000 graphics, so even though it wont rock anyone's world, it will play Command and Conquer 3 on mid to high, and will most likely run Company of Heroes on low, Dawn of War 2 and whatnot. And off course movies will play at 1080p. (Not that its too important, since few people actually watch movies at a real 1080p anyway.)

I would love an AMD alternative with more powerful built in graphics, but I just cannot find anything that would fit under the budget limit. Remember, even though $200 is max, we'd like to stay well under that. (if we can, without sacrificing too much performance)

So for AMD, I'm thinking something like...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819113281

and this mobo
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813130661

But again, it doesn't seem very cost effective to go with AMD, unless I am missing something? If anyone has any better, cheaper ideas please let me know.





7. IF YOU plan on overclocking or run the system at default speeds.

Probably no overclocking. I cant fit a cooler is such a cramped case.

8. What resolution, not monitor size, will you be using?

Oh, something 21 inches or so... Maybe 24 inches later on. No gaming on max res off course, unless something older.

9. WHEN do you plan to build it?

Now.

X. Do you need to purchase any software to go with the system, such as Windows or Blu Ray playback software?

No software needed. We got everything.

 

[Torn Mind]

The HD 4000 is worse than or somewhat on par with the graphics of the A4-5300, which is quite a ways worse than what is in the A8 or even A6. Just so you know.

Monitor length is not important, resolution is significant, since 1600x900 is less taxing on a GPU than 1920x1080, for example.

Now, as for which way is ultimately better, that is not clear cut in this scenario. The APU will give you superior gaming performance prior to getting a discrete card, but the i3 might be better when paired with a discrete card.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

The HD 4000 is worse than or somewhat on par with the graphics of the A4-5300. Just so you know.

Monitor length is not important, resolution is significant, since 1600x900 is less taxing on a GPU than 1920x1080, for example.

Now, as for which way is ultimately better, that is not clear cut in this scenario. The APU will give you superior gaming performance prior to getting a discrete card, but the i3 might be better when paired with a discrete card.

He's going to get a GPU later so I would advise to get maybe a Pentium or something. Maybe a used i3 and a used mobo.

 

[Torn Mind]

He's going to get a GPU later so I would advise to get maybe a Pentium or something. Maybe a used i3 and a used mobo.

He's going to have to search pretty hard for a discrete card that can fit in the case, as according to the specs stated on Newegg, it is only 3.8 inches(97 mm) wide.

 

[ibex333]

Alright, so lets drop the idea about a discrete card. If we are going to go with an APU, which one am I better off going with?

 

[Torn Mind]

Alright, so lets drop the idea about a discrete card. If we are going to go with an APU, which one am I better off going with?

Hold on there, I didn't say there aren't any discrete cards out there. There are some potent low profile cards available that can fit in that case.
Here are some 7750s should fit in there ok.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...ize=100&Page=2
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814202002

But with that said, an Richland or Trinity A10 might be enough for older games without a discrete card at all, especially if the resolution is under 1080p. And with Kaveri confirmed, perhaps that $100 might be better spent as part of a platform upgrade to FM2+ should you find things lacking.

Here's a couple videos with the 6670, which the A10 is slightly weaker than due to fewer stream processors and less memory bandwidth, running a couple of the games you listed. You should be able to run the settings at high levels with just the APU, although a low-profile 7750 would probably allow you to turn the settings all the way up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG98wlXIcpY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjrWb9-dnOc

Also, I don't know about the included PSU's quality, so the less taxed it is, the better.

 

[DominionSeraph]

The HD 4000 is worse than or somewhat on par with the graphics of the A4-5300, which is quite a ways worse than what is in the A8 or even A6. Just so you know.

HD4000 looks to be typically less than 50% down from the A10:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7032/...-gpu-on-the-desktop-radeon-hd-8670d-hd-4600/2

The A6 is 1/2rd the cores of the A10, so it should be at that level. The A4 is 1/3rd.

He can afford an A8...
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/BF0w

... but I'm concerned about a 100W CPU in that case.


With the RAM the OP linked, this is only $3 over budget, and it includes the low profile 6670 now:
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/17bLA
(Get the processor at Amazon)

 

[Torn Mind]

HD4000 looks to be typically less than 50% down from the A10:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7032/...-gpu-on-the-desktop-radeon-hd-8670d-hd-4600/2

The A6 is 1/2rd the cores of the A10, so it should be at that level. The A4 is 1/3rd.

He can afford an A8...
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/BF0w

... but I'm concerned about a 100W CPU in that case.


With the RAM the OP linked, this is only $3 over budget, and it includes the low profile 6670 now:
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/17bLA
(Get the processor at Amazon)

Hmm, yes, the A4 should have a little less 1/3 the performance of the A10. But it can still vary depending on the game. But shelling out $140 just to get the HD 4000, that's a lot of money spent that could be going to a cheaper chip from either company or a Richland APU. Even so, it still is group toghether in the GPU hierarchy at Tom's Hardware.

He doesn't necessary need the "K" chip; the non-Ks are only 65 watts.

But perhaps going with the Pentium rig you suggested, but with a low profile 7750 is the way to go if one wants to maximize gaming performance while not sacrificing performance with the general use tasks intended for the rig. Web stuff and Word can be handled by a dual core easily, and he saves $100.

 

[VirtualLarry]

... but I'm concerned about a 100W CPU in that case.

Don't be. I have a quad-core LLano @ 3.0Ghz, doing DC, in a Xion 710 slim mATX case, and it's fine.

 

[Hubb1e]

Don't go with a dual core two threaded chip like a Pentium or Celeron for gaming. You'll run into a brick wall very quickly as newer games are expecting 4 threads which makes those CPUs turn from fast little gaming chips into a slideshow... The i3s game pretty well becuase of the hyperthreading, and the higher clocked AMD quad cores game pretty well. You're spending a heck of a lot on that HD4000 i3 compared to other i3s and it's only 50% of the performance of the AMD APUs. And then you're crippling it with single channel RAM. Find a dual channel RAM kit. 1600 minimum or 1866 proffered, and then get yourself the A8 or better yet an A10. Then you've got a quad core and good graphics. You'll be surprised how potent the AMD APUs are for older games.

 

[mfenn]

Agree on the RAM. Single channel is fine for a CPU-only machine, but IGPs need dual-channel RAM.

Torn Mind's discrete build is very compelling if you want to spend up to the $200 limit. Otherwise I would go with something like:

A8-5600K $110
Biostar A55MD2 $50

But really, I think spending $40 more and getting a discrete card is the way to go.