Gaming PC build under $600?

Greetings to all.

I am seeking assistance regarding the assembly of a gaming PC with a budget of $1333. I already possess a monitor and the necessary peripherals; my requirements are limited strictly to the tower itself. Ideally, I would prefer an AMD processor paired with an AMD graphics card and 8GB of RAM. It is essential that the system can run Grand Theft Auto V at least on medium settings. I have no intention of overclocking, so a specialized cooler is unnecessary. Thank you in advance for your efforts. One final detail: please ensure the components are sourced from Best Buy.

Is there some specific reason you’re stuck on using Ekup? Honestly, you’d be much better off grabbing it from a reliable retailer like Micro Center or Newegg. You usually get free shipping, assembly services, more dependable warranties, and generally better prices.

Adam Moore3 said:Is there some specific reason it has to be from Ekupa? You'd honestly be better off using a reliable online retailer like Best Buy, Micro Center, or B&H. They usually offer free shipping and setup, more dependable warranties, and generally better prices.

Well, it doesn't actually have to be from Ekupa. It can be from any shop, as long as it's based here in the States and offers delivery.

If you're looking at Intel NVIDIA, that's probably your best bet—especially if you aren't planning on overclocking or dealing with those beefy coolers most AMD chips require. Plus, you’ll have a much better selection of high-end CPUs to choose from later if you decide to upgrade.

i3 4170
GIGABYTE H81M S2V
KINGSTON 8GB 1600 MHZ
TOSHIBA 3.5" 1TB SATA 3
GIGABYTE GTX 950 2GB WF
FORTRON HEXA+ 400W 80+ ACTIVE
MS VOYAGER MIDI ATX

= $1333 including assembly and shipping.

graniteharbor85 said:If you aren't planning on overclocking, Intel NVIDIA is definitely the better way to go—especially since you won't have to deal with the massive heatsinks most AMD processors require. Plus, you’ll have much more room to breathe with a wider selection of high-end CPUs when it comes time to upgrade.

i3 4170
GIGABYTE H81M S2V
Kingston 8GB 1600 MHz.
Toshiba 1TB SATA III 3.5" Hard Drive
GIGABYTE GTX 950 2GB WF
FORTRON HEXA+ 400W 80+ ACTIVE
MS VOYAGER MIDI ATX

= $1333 Includes shipping and handling.

This... 👍 I just built that exact same rig for a friend recently for around $4,000, and he says he's loving it. Honestly, there's no point in trying to force an AM3+ build at these current price points—it's definitely not worth it in this budget.

I don't have a specific recommendation for you, but honestly, dropping $4,000 on a gaming rig right now doesn't strike me as the smartest move.

Why?

Beyond that initial $4,000, you're looking at a massive amount of follow-up spending. I remember back when I was totally obsessed with gaming, I dropped a fortune on a decent graphics card $200 and couldn't even make it a full year before I felt the itch for an upgrade. As soon as a new title drops, the hardware requirements jump, and there's always a newer GPU hitting the shelves. Plus, let's be real—some games are just optimized better for one manufacturer over another.

In my opinion, a PlayStation is a much better option. You buy it, and you can actually enjoy some peace and quiet for a while without worrying about upgrades.

And if we're talking about comparing Intel and AMD, AMD has consistently delivered better performance in my experience, and from what my gamer friends tell me too.

Technology has come so far that you could probably find a really solid laptop in that same price range that would still handle most games just fine.

Charles Barnes5 said:I don't have a specific suggestion, but dropping $4,000 on a gaming rig these days doesn't seem like the smartest move to me.

Why?

Aside from that initial $4k, you're going to be pouring money into upgrades constantly. I remember back when I was obsessed with gaming, I dropped a ton on a $200 and couldn't even go a year before I felt the itch for an upgrade. As soon as a new title drops, the requirements spike and new cards hit the market immediately. Plus, some games just run better on one brand versus another.

A PlayStation is a much better option. You'll actually have some peace of mind for a while.

And if we're talking Intel vs. AMD, AMD has always shown better performance in my experience and based on what my gamer friends tell me.

Technology has come so far that you can grab a decent laptop for a similar price that will still run games pretty well.

Wait, what? 😲 You think you can spend $4,000 on a LAPTOP and get a similar experience to a PC? You walk into a "Desktop Computers" subforum and recommend a PlayStation over a PC just because it's a "much better option"? And you think $200 gets you a "solid graphics card"? Or that AMD always outperforms Intel? Honestly, I don't even know how to respond to this besides KLIK 🙂

Building a rig with $200 GPU isn't quite the same thing as what graniteharbor85 suggested. It’s like if you had bought an HD6670 or a 7730 back in 2015 or 2016; those cards were barely cutting it for the heavy hitters even then, so you’d be completely stuck trying to run anything modern today.

A gaming laptop is going to give you significantly less bang for your buck, and honestly, a PS4 is also weaker by comparison.

Charles Barnes5 said:I don't have a specific recommendation, but I really don't think dropping $4,000 on a gaming rig is the smartest move right now.

Why though?

Beyond that initial $4,000 investment, you’re looking at a lot of extra costs down the road. I remember back when I was super obsessed with gaming, I dropped a ton on a decent graphics card $200 and honestly, it hadn't even been a year before I felt like I needed an upgrade. As soon as a new title drops, the requirements jump up, and there’s always a newer card hitting the shelves. Plus, it seems like certain games just run better with one brand over another.

Honestly, a PlayStation is a much better option because you can just sit back and relax for a long time without worrying about upgrades.

And if we're talking about comparing Intel and AMD, AMD has always seemed to offer better performance in my experience, and that goes for my gamer friends too.

Technology has come so far lately that you could actually grab a pretty solid laptop for a similar price that would still handle most games just fine.

In my experience, and from what I know of people working in 3D development, AMD has always felt a bit underwhelming compared to Intel NVIDIA.

Also, gaming laptops are going to cost you way more than $1,500, and since I own a G75, I can tell you they kind of suck as actual laptops because they weigh 10 or 15 pounds and basically act like desktops. The battery life is terrible, too. If you want a real laptop, you go with something like a MacBook where the battery actually lasts half a day, because that's supposed to be the whole point of having a laptop.

Nathan Moore6 said:In my experience, and from what I hear from people I know working in 3D development, AMD has always been garbage compared to Intel or NVIDIA.

Gaming laptops cost way too much, easily over $1,500, and I’ve owned a G75 so I know the deal. Gaming laptops suck because they weigh 10-15 pounds and act more like desktops. The battery life is pathetic. If you want a real laptop, get something like a MacBook where the battery actually lasts half a day. That’s the whole point of a laptop.

You're generalizing way too much. On the CPU side, AMD had series that were actually solid and left Intel with nothing to say for themselves. Just look at the Phenom II series—until the i5 chips showed up, Phenom was king of the hill.

It's the same story with graphics cards. Every generation, either NVIDIA or AMD has a better card depending on the price bracket. Unless we're talking about one specific series, there's no point in generalizing or pushing this fanboy nonsense.

AMD held the upper hand back in the day, starting from the first Athlon through roughly 2006—the era of single-core dominance and those first dual-core chips. During that stretch, they were truly outperforming Intel technologically, even if they weren't winning the market share battle. They managed to stay competitive during the Phenom II years, too, but once they released Bulldozer and Intel countered with Sandy Bridge, the market share swung heavily toward Intel... So, when you're looking at Intel, especially for a high-end PC, the comparison with AMD is almost moot because AMD simply doesn't offer a comparable high-end lineup. That said, all this talk about 3D development and high-end workstations is total off-topic noise for a thread focused on a budget 4-core gaming build.

graniteharbor85 said:If you aren't planning on overclocking and don't want to deal with the massive cooling requirements typical of most AMD processors, then choosing Intel and NVIDIA might be the smarter play for you. Plus, you'll likely enjoy a much broader selection of high-performance CPUs when it comes time to upgrade later on.

i3 4170
GIGABYTE H81M S2V
KINGSTON 8GB 1600 MHZ
TOSHIBA 3.5" 1TB SATA 3
GIGABYTE GTX 950 2GB WF
FORTRON HEXA+ 400W 80+ ACTIVE
MS VOYAGER MIDI ATX

= $1333 including assembly and shipping.

So, just to be clear, this setup can actually handle all today's games without breaking a sweat—provided I'm not trying to crank everything up to ultra settings, right?

Could someone please put together a build for me with a $450 budget here so I don't have to start a whole new thread? I'm wondering if there would be any significant upgrades I should consider—maybe adding an SSD?—since I'm looking for a gaming rig that can run just about anything and still feel snappy for everyday tasks. 😁

Robert Rodriguez2 said:I feel like you might be overgeneralizing things just a little bit there, because if we look strictly at the processor side of the equation, AMD actually had some really impressive runs where Intel just couldn't seem to find an answer, like when we look back at that Phenom II era. Before the i5 series really started gaining momentum and changing the game, those Phenom chips were absolutely king of the hill.

When you look at the GPU side of things, it’s always been pretty much the same story where one generation sees NVIDIA taking the lead while the next one swings back toward AMD, and honestly, that’s just how the market works depending on which price bracket you're looking at. So, unless we're talking about a very specific series of cards, I don't see much point in making broad generalizations or getting all worked up with that intense fanboy energy.

I’m definitely not trying to paint everyone with the same brush here, but since my setup is mostly built around AMD hardware—honestly, half my room is just dedicated to my rig at this point—I feel like I have a pretty solid handle on how these things actually perform in the real world. In my experience, though, NVIDIA drivers always seem to come out feeling a bit more polished, and their cards tend to handle heavy-duty creative work so much better that they naturally end up being the superior choice for gaming too.

I’ve always felt that Intel just has a slight edge when it comes to their engineering talent in general, and while AMD is absolutely fantastic if you're looking to build something on a tight budget, I usually find myself leaning toward Intel whenever I want to put together a system that feels a bit more serious and high-end.

Bradley Lewis59 said:So this setup can handle all current games without issues (even the heavy hitters), assuming I don't push settings to max?

Can someone help me put together a build for under $4,500 without me starting a whole new thread? I'm looking for any meaningful upgrades (like an SSD?)—basically just a gaming rig that runs everything smoothly and is comfortable for everyday tasks. 😁

To stretch things out a bit:

1 x Gigabyte 970A-DS3P v2.0, AM3+, AMD 970 SB950, 4x DDR3 2000(O.C.)
1 x DDR3 8GB (1x8GB) Kingston, HyperX Fury, 1866MHz, CL10
1 x AMD FX-Series X8 8300 3.3GHz,16MB,125W,AM3+, FD8300WMHK
1 x Gigabyte R9 380 2GB WF2 OC, GV-R938WF2OC-2GD, 2GB DDR5 256bit
1 x TOSHIBA 1TB, 7200rpm, SATA 6 Gb/s, 32MB, DT01ACA100
1 x Fortron 500W Power Supply, Hyper, PPA5005003, 12cm fan
1 x MS VOYAGER midi tower case without PSU
1 x LC Power Cosmo Cool, 92 mm, Hydraulic bearing, 800-2200 rpm,

$1556 AMD

If not, maybe go with that i3 build, or you could swap in an i5 (+$183) or a Patriot Blaze 120GB SSD (+$133)

Nathan Moore6 said:I’m not making generalizations here. I actually own way more AMD gear than Intel stuff, and half my room is basically a hardware showroom, so I know what I'm talking about. In my experience, NVIDIA drivers are always more polished, and their cards handle serious gaming much better, which is why they win for gamers.

Intel just has better engineers overall. AMD is fine if you're on a tight budget, but when you want something actually decent, you go with Intel.

Now you're just talking nonsense. You don't even realize how wrong you are, right? What, are those AMD workstation cards just useless junk? Come on, give me one actual example...

Both AMD and NVIDIA cards have specific strengths, so...

Nathan Moore6 said:I’m not making sweeping generalizations here. I own more AMD gear than Intel stuff, and since half my room is basically a hardware showroom, I actually know what I’m talking about. In my experience, NVIDIA drivers are always more polished, and their cards are just superior when it comes to heavy-duty tasks—which is exactly why they end up being better for gaming, too.

You’re generalizing here. It really all comes down to the specific software you're running. For instance, AMD GPUs tend to perform better when you're working in SolidWorks—and let's be honest, SolidWorks isn't exactly a video game. 😁

Here are the specific elements from that program. I can't see any link here. Could you please post it?, I can't see any link here. Could you please provide it? Back in the day, you could grab a 7750 for about $100, while a 780Ti would set you back closer to $700. It all comes down to the underlying architecture. Think back to when Bitcoin mining was absolutely exploding; that was a very specific type of computing task where an AMD card—specifically higher-end models like the GeForce GTX 7870—actually outperformed the 780Ti. People were making thousands of dollars just by mining with those AMD GPUs. At the end of the day, software performance is its own beast. There isn't one single rule that applies to everything, yet people love to generalize.

UPDATE: Here’s the data for the Bitcoin benchmark:

[Link to image: GPU Price Comparison Chart]

Nathan Moore6 said:Intel generally employs superior engineering talent across the board. While AMD is a fantastic choice for budget-friendly builds, if you’re looking to step up to something truly high-end and serious, you go with Intel.

That’s mostly true. Like I mentioned before, AMD just doesn't have anything to offer in the high-end segment right now; their last dedicated high-performance CPUs—excluding the APUs—were released practically three or four years ago. And these processors from... $667 They're basically just overclocked versions of the AMD chips. $333 Which are unlocked anyway. 😬 ).

To give you some perspective, I’ll share a quick real-life story. I once met this guy who makes a living filming weddings and various events—nothing fancy, just standard video editing work. His setup was an i5 3570K on a Z77 motherboard with a basic air cooler, 8GB of RAM, and absolutely no SSD. At the time, he could have opted for an AMD FX 8320, which would have been much better for his rendering workloads. More importantly, the price difference would have allowed him to pick up a budget 120GB SSD or an extra 8GB of RAM instead. That combination would have yielded a significantly better overall experience. Not everyone—even small business owners—has the budget to drop $1,500 or $2,000 on a high-end workstation. $0.00Look, we were talking about something more substantial here, and in that specific scenario, AMD was actually the smarter play. Like I’ve said before, everything is entirely relative. Now, when you consider that AMD isn't even in the same league as Intel—we're talking ten times the headcount, roughly eleven times the R&D budget, and significantly higher stock valuation—it becomes clear. This guy is basically just feeding us Wikipedia trivia, much like you and I are doing right now.