$1350 gaming PC

A buddy of mine is looking to pick up a gaming PC. He was originally leaning toward a laptop; we actually found an incredible deal on an Alienware with a 970M graphics card for about $3167 ( CLICK ), which would have been insane. But now, the cheapest option for a machine like that is $4000, and he’s lost all patience waiting, so he’s 99% likely to just go with a desktop.

I’ve put together a few parts, and this is where we landed:

1 x Asrock B85 Pro4 -Intel Socket 1150
1 x Intel Core i5-4460 (3.20GHz,1MB,6MB,84 W,1150) Box
1 x DDR3 8GB (1x8GB) Kingston, HyperX Fury, 1866MHz, CL10
1 x Gigabyte GF GTX970 G1 GAMING, 4GB GDDR5, DVI, DP, GVN970G14GD-00
1 x SEAGATE HDD desktop Barracud 7200 ST1000DM003
1 x OCZ Arc 100 120GB, Kontroler OCZ Barefoot 3 M10
1 x FORTRON 550W Raider, RA550, 12cm ventilator
1 x Zalman R1 mid tower case. 192(W) x 465(H) x 450(D)mm.

$2408USA

That's just the tower, so he'll need a full setup with peripherals.
The budget isn't set in stone. We could push it a bit past $3000 (including everything) if it makes a massive difference, but I'm not sure it's worth it. Forcing a GTX 980 seems overkill, and I'm torn on whether switching to AMD's side for the GPU makes sense right now. I'm also debating whether to stick with the i5 or look into some AMD FX options. There are so many directions we could take, and since it's a decent amount of money, I don't want to suggest anything without getting a few more second, third, or even twenty-first opinions 🙂 So, any advice or recommendations are welcome. 🙂

I probably wouldn't go with an FX, but if the budget allows, I’d definitely lean toward the 1151 platform. As for the GPU, the R9 390 has been outperforming the GTX 970 lately, and you won't have to worry about VRAM issues. Then again, if they're really interested in some of the specific software Nvidia offers, sticking with the GTX 970 might make sense.

MSI Main board desktop B150_PRO-DH Intel Core i5-6500
INTEL Core i5-6500
2x Crucial RAM 4GB DDR4 2133 MT/s (PC4-17000) CL15
Patriot SSD Blaze R545/W430, 120GB, 7mm, 2.5" PB120GS25SSDR
Zalman mid tower case black, ZAL-R1
ZAL-R1 GIGABYTE video card AMD Radeon R9 390 gaming GDDR5 8GB/512bit
SEAGATE HDD desktop Barracud 7200 ST1000DM003 super Flower FX 550 w - 80 plus Bronze Power supply
super Flower FX 550W - 80 Plus Bronze power supply

Total: $2415 $1050

In the USA, this setup would run you about $2500.

crimsonstag84 said:I wouldn't go with an FX, honestly, but the 1151 platform is a solid choice if the budget allows for it. As for the R9 390, it's been outperforming the GTX 970 lately, and you won't have to worry about VRAM issues. Then again, if they care about specific Nvidia software features, sticking with the GTX 970 might make sense.

MSI Main board desktop B150_PRO-DH Intel Core i5-6500 2 x Crucial
INTEL Core i5-6500
2x Crucial RAM 4GB DDR4 2133 MT/s (PC4-17000) CL15
Patriot SSD Blaze R545/W430, 120GB, 7mm, 2.5" PB120GS25SSDR
Zalman mid tower case black, ZAL-R1
ZAL-R1 GIGABYTE video card AMD Radeon R9 390 gaming GDDR5 8GB/512bit
SEAGATE HDD desktop Barracud 7200 ST1000DM003 super Flower FX 550 w - 80 plus Bronze Power supply
Super Flower FX 550W - 80 Plus Bronze power supply

Total: $2415 Centro

In the USA, this setup will run you about $2500.

Look, I didn't even think about Skylake. What's the actual difference besides the TDP and the 14nm architecture? Is it noticeably faster? I haven't read anything about it. And regarding the 390, is it really beating the 970 lately with those recent drivers? It seems like most builds people put together use the 970 if the price is right. Also, what about a monitor? Should I just grab a standard AOC or LG with an IPS panel for around $333 or is it worth stretching the budget for a PLX? The main goal here is gaming, nothing else—not sure if a fancier monitor actually makes much of a difference over a cheap IPS one.

A 24" IPS should be totally fine—that Samsung is solid, though you might find some comparable Acer or LGa models in that same bracket up to $433. It really comes down to how far he sits from the screen; if he’s more than 3 feet away, he definitely needs a 24". If he’s sitting just about half a meter out, maybe a 22" would work.

Skylake isn't exactly a massive leap in speed, maybe just a tiny 5-7% bump as usual. For gaming, it's probably more like 0-5%. But you get all those modern perks like SATA-Express and USB 3.1, so why not? Motherboards and DDR4 RAM cost a little more than the 1150 setup, but the processor is only $83 more.

It’s not significantly faster, but having a newer socket is definitely a major plus compared to the 1150—especially if you look at how quickly the 1156 and 1155 sockets vanished from the market (just in case his motherboard dies down the road). It’s just a little more expensive right now.

Regarding graphics cards, I'd go with either the R9 390 Strix or the MSI Gaming model. That Gigabyte card has a decent price too, but the coolers on those first two are much more robust.

Wow, seriously, I'm looking at the benchmarks right now, and the 390 is actually faster than the 970. I didn't see that coming; I always just assumed the 970 was the best buy. At least it used to be. Luckily, I joined the discussion before making a final call 😬 definitivno CE Skylake will be the move regarding the platform, but I'm wondering if it's worth stretching the budget for the 390X? I know there wasn't much point in choosing the 290X over the 290, but is this situation any different?

If you ask me, the GTX 970 feels like a more complete package. Even if the R9 390 manages to pull higher FPS in certain scenarios, most people probably wouldn't even notice since they're essentially in the same performance tier anyway. Besides, the GTX 970 is way better when it comes to managing temperatures, power draw, and noise levels, not to mention it comes with some pretty decent features.
Regarding the Skylake build, it’s fine, I suppose, but I feel like it might be a bit of a waste of cash. Personally, I’d rather sink that money into better peripherals, a solid SSD—like an 850 EVO, which really should be part of a budget like this—or maybe something else entirely.

There’s no point in overextending yourself; it's the exact same situation.

Ryan Hayes82 said:I feel like the 970 is the more complete card. Even if the 390 pulls higher FPS, you probably wouldn't notice since they're in the same tier anyway. Plus, the 970 is way better when it comes to power draw and noise levels and it has some nice features.

It's significantly better in that regard, and average power consumption during actual gaming is pretty close to what you see in Furmark—which is where those power stats usually come from, I guess.

Ryan Hayes82 said:In my opinion, the 970 is the more complete card. Even if the 390 pulls higher FPS, you probably won't notice since they're in the same tier anyway. The 970 is way better regarding temps, power draw, and noise, plus it has some nice features.
Skylake, sure, but I think that's just throwing money away. I'd rather invest that budget into better peripherals, an SSD (an 850 EVO should definitely be part of this budget), or something else.

That’s exactly what I was thinking. I'm talking about the past. When the 390 first dropped, there wasn't really a reason to pick it over the 970. But now, after that whole VRAM scandal (I know it's not a massive deal, but if you're dropping $400, you want exactly what you paid for, not 90% of it), and following the release of new drivers from AMD along with their performance improvements, things have shifted for me. All those shiny features Nvidia offers rarely matter to the average gamer. Honestly, the only real reason I'd consider the 970 over the 390 right now is power consumption. And that doesn't even matter much to me because I'm not using some cheap junk power supply, so I don't need to stress about it. Noise too—how much louder is the Strix than the 970? Nothing crazy. In exchange, I get undeniably better performance—not a huge leap, but still better—and double the VRAM, or at least, the amount actually listed on the box. 🙂

EDIT: It's officially confirmed; she's definitely going to the computer. She gave him the go-ahead with a healthy dose of skepticism 😬 Ordering in the next few days, and 99% chance it's going into crimsonstag84's rig. Really nicely put together 👍 The only thing catching my eye is the power supply. Can we squeeze in at least a Silver unit? Even if it's $33 more expensive, it's worth it.

crimsonstag84 said:

I actually just checked that out, looks good, I'm a fan. 👍 Thanks everyone for the suggestions! 🙂

The whole point of the Google 390 vs 970 debate is that, in the end, the 970 still comes out on top. I mean, you aren't seeing a massive difference in actual FPS, but Nvidia gets a huge edge because of the lower power draw—which can be pretty significant—directly impacting heat and noise levels. As far as I can tell, the VRAM on the 970 is plenty for both 1080p and 1440p gaming.
Asus really messed up the cooling on their 390 and 390x versions, so I’d probably suggest avoiding those altogether. If you were leaning toward the 390, then the Sapphire nitro would definitely offer much better cooling performance.
Maybe swap out that Blaze SSD for something else; I don't know, it just doesn't quite feel right in this build to me...

Ryan Hayes82 said:The internet is flooded with Google 390 vs 970 comparisons, but they almost always land on the 970 being the winner. Honestly, there isn't much difference in actual FPS, but Nvidia has a massive edge because it draws less power—which translates directly to lower temps and less noise. Plus, the VRAM on the 970 is plenty for 1080p or 1440p gaming.
Asus really messed up the cooling on those 390/390x versions, so I'd steer clear. If you're set on getting a 390, the Sapphire nitro has way better thermal management.
Swap out that Blaze SSD for something else; it just doesn't feel right in this build...

Well, it depends on which site you read; one recommends one thing, another recommends something else. From what I've seen, though, most recent posts lean toward the 390, mostly due to the drivers. CLICK It's technically more powerful in about 80% of cases by a few FPS, sometimes even up to 10, but that’s rare. In 10% of cases they're equal, and in 10% it's weaker. For me, the choice is pretty simple. It honestly just irritates me—it's not even that 3.5 GB is insufficient for 1080p, it's that it feels borderline false advertising. They market it as 4 GB when it's actually 3.5 + 0.5 GB. I'm not some hardcore fanboy or anything, but it's a matter of principle. Besides, the performance speaks for itself, even if it's only a 5 FPS difference. 🙂

Regarding the SSD, I think I'll throw in an OCZ Arc 100. It's not much more expensive and seems noticeably faster.

From what I've observed in head-to-head comparisons, there seems to be a general consensus that the R9 390 is actually the superior pick (and this was even true before we saw the DX12 benchmarks from Ashes and Fable)





PCE nitro review:

Regarding the Sapphire R9 390 nitro, it’s a high-quality build with solid specs and great 1440p performance. It definitely beats out the competing GTX 970. In that sense, it's a smarter buy than even the 390X model if you aren't pushing past 1440p, since you don't lose much performance but gain significant overclocking headroom.

If I had to point out any downsides, I'd say the GTX 970 has two major red flags (almost guaranteed coil whine and VRAM issues), whereas the R9 390's main drawback is just power consumption.
When it comes to noise and thermals, the logical assumption would be that the GTX 970 performs significantly better, but looking at the reviews, the gap isn't actually that large. Of course, it all depends on the specific cooler and vendor. Take the Nitro temperatures, for example: click (absolutely fantastic temps). The thing is, the 300 series features coolers that are a full class above the 200 series (think Sapphire Tri-X or MSI Gaming models...)

It might also be more future-proof thanks to that 8GB of RAM and the initial DX12 benchmarks. One guy using an R9 390 claims Lords of the Fallen eats up 5.5GB at 1080p, while here it hits 6GB!!! That VRAM is a massive advantage.

Also, check out these DX12 results: click

Let's say Ashes isn't exactly a mainstream title, but even in Fable running on Unreal Engine 4 (without async computing)—an engine that usually favors Nvidia—the 290X and 390 actually pull ahead of the 970 in terms of both FPS and frame times click

The Radeon R9 390 seems to be the one card that is in its own league being faster than the GeForce GTX 970 while selling at the same price point.

So, I think this is the "top-tier model for a top-tier price" deal:

That's a beast of a cooler (see the first link in the post). Kudos to the Nitro team, but I'd still make sure to get a 3-year warranty.

So, the MSI version is definitely the best value here. Wow, I always figured the Strix versions were pretty much the gold standard for these cards, so I didn't realize they missed the mark this time. It looks like MSI wins out because of that 3-year warranty compared to Nitar's 2-year one? Even if the Nitro has better cooling, I think the warranty is the deciding factor for me. Arc 100 should be fine, right? They have two different versions listed—one at 470 and another at $180—is that just a typo or is there actually some difference between them?

What are you all talking about regarding the Strix?

This?

In terms of temperatures The Asus R9 390 Strix runs notably hotter than some competing R9 390s, in the mid-80s rather than the low-70s we observed with Sapphire's Nitro model. Primarily this is duo to a conscious design decision by Asus to minimise fan speeds at the expense of higher temperatures. Throughout testing, the fan speed stayed at 40 percent duty which translates into just 1,400 RPM - a virtually inaudible level of noise given the size of the fans. During low loading, the fans on the Asus R9 390 Strix stay switched off until a temperature threshold of 60 degrees Celsius is passed.

The Strix DC3 cooling with the R9 390 is an understated performer. Prospective buyers may be unimpressed by the temperatures, but it's important to consider the trade-off that is made in favour of a dual-slot solution and quiet operation, many users would happily sacrifice lower temperatures for less noise output and Asus Has clearly invested in this idea.

I'm not entirely convinced the Nitro is superior; MSI features active VRM cooling (if I recall, Nitro uses passive), plus a backplate and a 3-year warranty...

Regarding the Arc—it's likely sourced from two different suppliers.

Won't a 240/250GB SSD fit? Personally, I'd even trade a pricey Skylake build just to make that happen.

So, apparently they intentionally sacrificed airflow—meaning higher temps—just to keep things quiet. Honestly, if the temperatures stay within a reasonable range and don't hit levels that could actually damage the card over time, I'm fine with it. The only thing bothering me is THIS. $133 Besides, if someone is buying a serious high-end gaming PC and doesn't plan on upgrading their GPU anytime soon, the price difference isn't even that huge. Maybe it's worth the extra cash after all? Hard to say...

390X? In my opinion, no. It’s just not worth it given the inferior cooling solution. You're looking at the exact same scenario as the 290 versus the 290X click. By simply bumping up the core clock by an extra 50MHz to compensate for the stream processor difference, you'll find the standard 290s were actually better overclockers than the 290X anyway click

When it comes to the Sapphire R9 390 Nitro, it’s a high-quality build with solid specs and excellent 1440p performance—definitely a superior choice over the competing gtx 980. From that perspective, it’s actually a smarter buy than the 390X model if you aren't pushing past 1440p resolution, because the performance drop is negligible while the overclocking headroom remains high enough.

If you overclocked a standard 390 to match 390X levels, it would outperform the gtx 980 in a massive amount of games (at least at 1440p) link

And if you've checked the DX12 benchmarks, the 390X (essentially just an overclocked 390) routinely beats out the gtx 980.

Timothy Kim60 said:In my opinion, the 390X isn't worth it. The cooler is subpar. It’s basically the same deal as the 290 versus the 290X click—you end up just bumping the core clock by an extra 50MHz to make up for the difference in stream processors, and honestly, the standard 290s always had better overclocking headroom than the 290X anyway click

If you actually overclocked a 390 to match the 390X, it would outperform a gtx 980 in most games (at least at 1440p) link

Plus, if you check out the DX12 benchmarks, the 390X (which is really just an overclocked 390) routinely beats the gtx 980.

Right, well, the guys already mentioned that, but I'm still overthinking it. 😁 I'll definitely be going with the Skylake + R9 390 setup. But should I prioritize an SSD, an Arc 100, or is there something smarter I should be looking at?

In my view, an Arc 100 240GB is a solid buy if you can snag it at the MSRP—basically, anything under $100 is a win.$247 Otherwise, it’s just too close in price to a Samsung 850 250GB, which actually comes with a 5-year warranty.