PC Build under $300

AM4 is alright and stays pretty cool, but I guess Celeron is better since it’s faster and still runs cold. Plus, you get way more upgrade headroom with Celeron—you can eventually slap in a beefier CPU and GPU so the kids can actually play decent games without issues, whereas AM1 doesn't really give you those options because the chip selection is just kind of weak.

crimsonorca172 said:I’m not looking to play heavy games here. This is basically a family PC for the kids to play their little games and watch movies. Since they're young, we aren't talking about hardcore gaming. 🙂
My wife and I will mostly just be using it for web browsing and general stuff.
So, does Intel have the better integrated graphics (within this budget range where both the CPU and motherboard stay under $100)? That actually matters more to me than raw processing power.

If I end up going with AMD for some reason, which of these should I pick:
- AMD Sempron x4 3850, AM1 - $96
- AMD Athlon x4 5150, AM1 - $126
- AMD CPU Richland A4-Series X2, FM2 4000 - $76

The FM2 motherboards cost more, which pretty much cancels out the savings from picking a cheaper dual-core chip.

I know anything I pick will handle our basic needs. However, my goal is for this machine to remain functional for the same purpose five years from now.

You misunderstood—the AMD A4 5300 actually has the superior integrated graphics compared to the Celeron. The Celeron is the stronger processor in terms of pure CPU performance.

For Facebook and browser-based Flash games, both options are plenty. Regarding the AM1 platform, Tiki explained it well: you can upgrade to more powerful quad-cores on an FM2 or FM2+ board. On the Intel side (using the LGA 1150 socket), you have the option to upgrade to significantly beefier processors later on, like an i5 4440...

Look, even by today's standards, these processors aren't exactly powerhouse machines (they are $80, after all), so don't expect them to still be relevant in five years. Realistically, whatever you buy today will feel outdated in five years anyway.

Well, it turns out I completely misread the situation regarding both the processors and the graphics card, but unfortunately, I didn't realize my mistake until I had already pulled the trigger. 😁

So, looking at a Celeron paired with, say, this motherboard, right? I am fully aware that this setup qualifies as low-end by today's standards, and in about five years, it will likely be nothing more than an ancient relic. Even so, I am hoping it will still function adequately for basic everyday tasks?! Especially if I plan on upgrading to a much better processor down the road.
Thanks so much!

graniteharbor85 said:It’s not a powerhouse processor; it’s just fast because of better single-thread performance and higher cache. But you're forgetting one thing—it’s short two cores, and the absolute limit for it is an R7 250 DDR5. Anything beyond that, and you're stuck with a tiny Pentium BN, which really shows. You'd need at least a G3258 and some overclocking if you want to run an R7 260.

The price is also similar for a BN paired with a 260, but the gap isn't as huge as you'd think for a Pentium, especially when it hits a game that actually benefits from extra cores. Besides, if he feels like messing around, he can easily bump that Athlon up to 3GHz regardless of the stock cooler or Srotex case, since it pulls almost no power and doesn't need much voltage.😉

No, there's no bottleneck, at least not with my G3220 setup (which has a lower stock clock and obviously can't be overclocked) and the Sapphireica 260X. I checked it with MSI Afterburner. Battlefield 3, Far Cry 3, dragon aga, shadow of Mordor... The GPU usage stays above 95% for everything...

crimsonorca172 said:Yeah, I realized I totally misread the specs for the CPUs and the GPU, but only after I already bought them. 😁

So, we're looking at a Celeron paired with something like this motherboard, right?

Exactly, it needs to be an LGA 1150 socket. If you don't mind my input, this one might actually be the better call since it features a DVI output for integrated graphics—assuming your monitor even supports DVI—which is a nice little safety net for the future.

Timothy Kim60 said:Exactly, it absolutely has to be the 1150 socket. If you don't mind me suggesting, it might actually be wiser to go with this one since it features a DVI output for the integrated graphics—assuming your monitor even supports DVI—which would be a fantastic upgrade for the future.

I definitely want it to have DVI—thanks so much for pointing that out! I also have an HTPC (my other rig), and since this is going to be a more modern machine, there is a very real possibility they will eventually swap places, so having that DVI output is a total necessity for me.

As for my current monitor, I don't believe it has a DVI port, though I can't say for certain.

One more thing: would the 1155 socket work? Or is sticking with 1150 the better move?
Naturally, the folks at the local Best Buy are trying to push a pre-built configuration on me; the price isn't significantly higher than what I've calculated for individual components, but it comes with a Pentium and uses the 1155 socket.

To get an 1155 setup running, you’re looking at a G1610 or a G1620 paired with something like an H61 motherboard. Just keep in mind that the integrated graphics are pretty weak, and you'll miss out on USB 3.0 and SATA 3 support—unless you step up to a B75 board instead.

Don't even bother with those pre-built configurations; they're a total rip-off once you look at the actual price.

I was actually wondering if there’s any meaningful distinction between the 1150 and 1155 platforms when you consider "modernity"—specifically regarding how much room I'll have for a decent upgrade path down the road.
I'm not planning on buying a pre-built rig, but I have to admit, hearing about that Pentium in the configuration you mentioned really planted a seed of doubt in my mind; since that setup uses the 1155 socket, and $123 is certainly an option.
In the end, I think I'll likely lean toward the 1150 route with the Celeron you suggested earlier.

The 1155 socket is an older platform, but you won't notice a massive difference in raw CPU performance. The main advantage of the 1150 setup is actually the better integrated graphics. You can still slap some beefier processors like an i5 or an i7 onto an 1155 board—just keep in mind that if you want to upgrade in a few years, you'll likely be hunting through eBay for used parts.

Adam Moore3 said:No, there isn't a bottleneck here, at least not with my G3220 (which has a lower stock clock and obviously can't be overclocked) paired with an AMD Radeon RX series card. I checked this using EVGA Precision X1. Playing Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, Grand Theft Auto V, Dragon Age, or Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor... the GPU usage stays consistently above 95%...

Those Pentium chips are actually quite solid for single-player games. As long as the title isn't heavily CPU-bound—like that recent Hitman game—they pair perfectly with a GTX 770:

http://forum.pcekspert.com/showpost....97&postcount=2

I even talked to someone running a G3220 with a GTX 770; they mentioned everything ran great in most single-player titles, though they did run into a bottleneck in CPU-heavy games like Metro: Last Light.

@Timothy Kim60/">@@Timothy Kim60:
I went ahead and pulled the trigger on those components you recommended: the Celeron 1820, an ASUS motherboard, a 1 TB Seagate BarraCuda, and 4 GB of memory.
I truly appreciate all your guidance on this build!

Nice! That’s a solid deal for that price point. If you eventually find yourself craving much better gaming performance—specifically for the heavy hitters rather than just browser games—you could always pop in a dedicated graphics card like an AMD Radeon RX series with DDR5 memory later on.

Timothy Kim60 said:The 1155 socket is older, but there isn't a massive difference in CPU performance; the main thing is that 1150 boards usually have better integrated graphics. You can still pop more powerful processors like an i5 or i7 into an 1155 setup—it's just that if you want to upgrade in a few years, you'll likely have to hunt for used parts on eBay.

Those Pentiums actually hold their own in single-player games. If the title isn't heavily CPU-bound—like that last Hitman game—they run just fine paired with a GTX 770:

http://forum.pcekspert.com/showpost....97&postcount=2

I even saw one build with a G3220 and a GTX 770; the user mentioned everything ran great in most single-player titles, though they did hit a bottleneck in CPU-heavy games like Metro: Last Light.

Yeah, for sure, especially for casual, non-competitive single-player gaming. Honestly, I haven't run into a game yet that actually managed to bottleneck my CPU. Even Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor, which is supposedly an absolute monster of a game, runs smoothly at 1080p on medium-high settings on a little Pentium without any bottlenecking issues at all. 🙂 If it were a 3258, you could at least try some overclocking... If it had been a bit cheaper, it would have been a much smarter buy than those Athlon chips on FM2. But as it stands, it's actually pricier than a quad-core Athlon, so it doesn't really make sense, even if the socket has more longevity while FM2 is basically a dead end.

Price drops are coming for FM2 and FM2+ Athlon processors

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8637/a...s-october-2014

Honestly, this probably won't even matter for us here in the States since they haven't dropped the prices on the FX series yet.

It feels like all these price drops are completely skipping us over

Check this out—they're asking $120 for a Celeron 1820, when you could easily snag one for 240... 😵

So that would basically mean having unlocked quad-core processors for <$167 😲 That honestly sounds like a massive steal at Best Buy.

I remember when you could snag a 750K for $160

Just as I suspected, the price for the 860K has finally dropped back down to a reasonable level.

http://www.amazon.com/s?k=860K

Timothy Kim60 said:There was actually a moment in the admin panel where the price was 750K for $160

and just like I thought, the 860K dropped back down to a reasonable price

http://www.amazon.com/search?q=860K

Pff, now it's sitting at 740 $170... And 750K $197... It actually went up, I think 740 was $167 a nice even number.

It really depends on how you look at it; we're talking $750k in Los Angeles ($173 - before any 3% discounts)

Honestly, you're better off grabbing it when it hits $860k or lower; $200it’s the same deal

Timothy Kim60 said:it really depends on where you're shopping, like getting a 750K at Best Buy ($173 - without even a 3% discount)

It's honestly better to grab an 860K once the price drops below $200that level

What's the actual difference between the 8xx and 7xx series anyway, besides some negligible TDP variations and the jump from 28nm to 32nm on the 8xx?

The scaling across all four cores is significantly better, and I guess you're looking at maybe a 5-10% bump in IOC.