Advice for buying a gaming PC!

Robert Rodriguez2 said:1 x AMD Athlon II X4 860 3.70GHz 4cores,cache : 4MB
1 x DDR3 4GB (1x4GB) Kingston, 1600MHz, CL11, Value
1 x HDD WD 500GB, 5000AAKX, SATA 3, Buffer 16MB, 7.200 rpm , 8,9 ms
1 x MS PHOENIX case without PSU, Midi tower MBO: ATX, mATX
1 x Power Supply FORTRON 500W, Hexa 500 w , 12cm fan
1 x LG GH24NS DVD burner, DVD±RW, 24x DVD±R ,8x DL , 40x CD-R
1 x Sapphire R7 250X 1G GDDR5 PCI-E HDMI / DVI-I / DP, 950MHz / 1125
1 x Spire Kepler Rev.2 ,cooler, 1156/775/FM1, 96.5×51×125 mm ,92mm
1 x ASRock A78M-Pro4, Socket FM2+ 95W / FM2 100W processors

$1103
If this is your budget, don't overthink it! Just grab this setup and you're good to go!

Or, if you don't need to save every penny, try to squeeze in a stronger graphics card.

1 x AMD Athlon II X4 860 3.70GHz 4cores,cache : 4MB
1 x DDR3 4GB (1x4GB) Kingston, 1600MHz, CL11, Value
1 x HDD WD 500GB, 5000AAKX, SATA 3, Buffer 16MB, 7.200 rpm , 8,9 ms
1 x MS PHOENIX case without PSU, Midi tower MBO: ATX, mATX
1 x Spire Kepler Rev.2 ,cooler, 1156/775/FM1, 96.5×51×125 mm ,92mm
1 x ASRock A78M-Pro4, Socket FM2+ 95W / FM2 100W processors
1 x Sapphire AMD Radeon R7 260X 1GB GDDR5 OC, 1GB GDDR5 128bit, 28nm
1 x Power Supply FORTRON 500W, Hexa 500 w , 12cm fan

$1108

Could I pair this with an AMD FX-6300?
And will these parts actually be available in 2 or 3 months?

Nah, just hit me up in 2 or 3 months 😁

crimsonstag84 said:He doesn't actually need that Hexa 500 w😉 A 400W model should be plenty enough--$35 plus, you'd get much better results by grabbing the ASRock A78M-Pro4+ for $25 a little extra.

If I ever decide to upgrade my rig, will that ASRock A78M-Pro4 support an AMD FX 8xxx?

fadedorca66 said:No, definitely check back in about 2 or 3 months! 😁

Wait, what?? Is it impossible to build something with an AMD FX, or is there just no hardware available? 🤔

They aren't compatible. The AMD FX uses the AM3+ socket, while the 860K is on an FM2+ socket.

You're spinning your wheels here. Honestly, check back in three months; until then, you're just going to end up frustrated. You're also trying to push the AMD FX too hard for nothing—if the hardware won't cooperate, it simply won't work.

Timothy Kim60 said:They aren't compatible! The AMD FX uses the AM3+ socket, while the 860K is on FM2+

You're spinning your wheels here! Just check back in three months; until then, you might just drive yourself crazy. Also, stop trying to force the AMD FX—if it doesn't work, it simply doesn't work!

Hehehe, I can't wait six months!😁
I'm pushing for the AMD FX because it's AM3+; with the 860K, I won't have any room to upgrade to a better CPU later. That's my reasoning!😉

Who knows what things will look like by June, man? I know you're itching to get started, but building a PC right now feels like a losing game, I guess.

Roger Mitchell4 said:With an AMD Athlon II X4 860, I'm essentially stuck; there isn't much room to move up to a better processor. That’s why 😉

If you're aiming for an upgrade, if I recall correctly, we've gone through about 17 pages of suggestions involving the Intel Core i3. If upgrading is actually on the table for you, just jump straight to an i5 or even an Intel Core i7.

Also, Smartic put together a pretty solid build for you featuring an AMD FX-4300, but who knows if that setup will even be relevant in three months.

fadedorca66 said:Who knows what things will look like by June? I know you're eager, but building a PC right now just doesn't make sense.

Alright, alright! No hard feelings! 😁

Timothy Kim60 said:If you're looking to upgrade, I think you mentioned an Intel Core i3 setup in those 17 pages of suggestions. If upgrading makes sense for you, go for an i5 or even an Intel Core i7!

Also, Smartic put together a really solid build for you using an AMD FX-4300, but who knows where we'll be in three months.

No way am I touching Intel; I won't touch anything less than a quad-core.
I'm sticking with this current rig unless I find something significantly better in the next three months!

Don't let the label fool you—this isn't just any basic dual core. Because it features Dual Core + Hyper-Threading, you're effectively getting four virtual cores under the hood. In most gaming scenarios, you can count on it outperforming a quad-core AMD Athlon II X4 860, though it does come with a higher price tag. Plus, you actually have some room to upgrade later on. It’s also capable of handling all those titles that previously demanded a true quad-core setup.

Timothy Kim60 said:It’s not just any basic dual core. It's Dual Core + Hyper-Threading, giving you four virtual cores. Honestly, in most games, it actually outperforms a quad-core AMD Athlon II X4 (though it does cost more), plus you get much better upgrade paths. It also handles all those titles that used to require a true quad-core without breaking a sweat!

More expensive, but definitely better. I'd much rather spend a little extra on the CPU to snag a better graphics card.
How are those old i5-750 processors holding up?

Roger Mitchell4 said:Higher quality but more expensive. I'd rather shell out a bit extra for a better GPU than overspend on the CPU.
What's the deal with those old i5-750 chips...?

Man, what are you even going to do with an ancient i5? You can only find them used, and they won't have any warranty.
Besides, grabbing an i3 would actually end up being cheaper than an AMD FX-6300.

Intel Core i3-4150-$317
ASRock A78M-Pro4-$133

Total:$450

AMD FX-6300-$283
Gigabyte on GTX 970-$190
Spire kepler-$28

Total:$502

Sean Garcia3 said:What can you even do with an old i5? You'd likely only find one used without any warranty.
Besides, an i3 would actually end up being cheaper than an AMD FX-6300.

Intel Core i3-4150-$317
ASRock H1M HDS-$133

Total:$450

AMD FX-6300-$283
Gigabyte GA-970A-DS3P-$190
Spire Kepler-$28

Total:$502

I've been watching YouTube, and honestly, the AMD FX performs way better than the i3 for gaming (BF4, Watch Dogs, Crysis)!
Which GPU pairs better with the AMD FX-6300: the NVIDIA GTX 750 or the AMD Radeon R7 260X?

Look, I'm not trying to start anything, but there's just no point 😁

The AMD Radeon R7 260X is actually a bit faster than the NVIDIA GTX 750

fadedorca66 said:No hard feelings, but there's just no logic in that! 😁

The AMD Radeon R7 260X is actually a bit faster than the NVIDIA GTX 750.

Is it even possible that an Intel Core i3-4150 and a GTX 750ti could outperform an AMD FX-6300 and an AMD Radeon R9 270X by over 10 FPS? 🤔...
How about using a Gigabyte on GTX 970 motherboard for an AMD FX setup?

You’re being pretty vague with these posts. One minute you’re claiming the AMD FX-6300 is way better than an i3, then the next you're asking if an i3 paired with a much weaker GPU beats an AMD FX-6300 with a beefier card. Obviously, in that scenario, the AMD FX-6300 wins because those graphics cards aren't even in the same league. Honestly, even if you had an Intel Core i7 paired with an NVIDIA GTX 750, the combo of an AMD FX-6300 and an AMD Radeon R9 270X is still going to crush it in games. At the end of the day, the GPU is what actually carries the heavy lifting when it comes to gaming performance.

Sean Garcia3 said:Your posts are a bit confusing! One minute you're saying the AMD FX-6300 is way better than an i3, and then you ask if an i3 paired with a weak GPU beats an AMD FX-6300 with a strong one. Well, obviously the AMD FX-6300 wins there because those GPUs are worlds apart! Even if you had an Intel Core i7 with an NVIDIA GTX 750, the combo of an AMD FX-6300 and an AMD Radeon R9 270X would perform better in games since the graphics card is what really drives the results when gaming.

Actually, no... I just checked Watch Dogs and Battlefield 4, and the Intel Core i3-4150 and NVIDIA GTX 750 Ti actually get about 10 FPS more than the AMD FX setup with the R9!

Watch Dogs doesn't have an in-game benchmark, so you can't just compare two random YouTube videos—heaven knows how different the scenes and settings might be between them. It’s much more logical to simply look at the graphics cards and processors listed in a professional review. Besides, we're arguing over nonsense when none of this hardware even fits your budget anyway.

Timothy Kim60 said:Watch Dogs doesn't even have an in-game benchmark, so you can't just compare two random YouTube videos—heaven knows they could be from totally different scenes or settings! Just look at the GPU and CPU specs in a proper review. Besides, we're arguing over nonsense when neither of these options fits your budget anyway.

Fair enough.