Budget PC build around $500?

Is it possible to put together a build for gaming? My budget is capped at $1167, and that doesn't include peripherals or a monitor.
I suppose it would mostly be for titles like Fortnite, Overwatch, or similar MOBA games—nothing too demanding, I guess.

2x Crucial DDR4 Patriot, 2666Mhz, 4GB
MS HELIOS III case without PSU
Seagate BarraCuda 1TB, 64MB, 7200rpm HDWD110UZSVA
MSI B350 Desktop Motherboard (AM4, 2xDDR4, PCI-Ex16, 2xPCI-Ex1, USB3.1, USB2.0, 4xSATA III, M.2, Raid)
AMD Ryzen 3 1200 Processor
Sapphire RX 560 Pulse OC, 2GB GDDR5
LC-Power LC6350 350W Super Silent 80+ Bronze ATX Power Supply

Total: $1197 Centro

I guess the only other decent routes would be the Ryzen 3 2200 or the Ryzen 5 2400G. Maybe a Pentium G4560, though I probably wouldn't bother with that platform.

2 x G.Skill DIMM 4GB DDR4-2400 $241
1 x AMD Ryzen 3 2200G $254
1 x MSI B350M GAMING PRO $206
1 x Seagate BarraCuda 1TB SATAIII $112
1 x Kingston Technology A400 SSD 120GB 120GB 2.5" SATA III $93
1 x Cooler Master T2 Mini-Tower ATX case, no PSU, black $61
1 x Cooler Master MasterWatt Power Supply, 550W, 80 PLUS Bronze, modular $196

Total: 3 $164

Maybe this one? It actually includes an SSD in the bundle.

I guess the Vega integrated graphics are about on par with an RX 550, right?

crimsonstag84's setup is an RX 560

The truth 😁

You're looking at worse graphics, but you get a much better user experience outside of gaming thanks to the SSD and Hyper-Threading.

The Ryzen 3 2200G doesn't have Hyper-Threading, or SMT. Also, I guess the motherboard and power supply choices are pretty lackluster.

Ah, my bad. I was staring at the AMD product page and saw the number of CPU cores, then noticed the 8 GPU cores right next to it, and my brain just short-circuited into thinking that was the HT count. Total brain fart on my part. You should probably just take 🙂
from crimsonstag84.

I suppose my take is that it makes more sense for him to go with the Ryzen 3 2200, since it should provide enough grunt for the types of games he mentioned. That being said, he’d definitely want to pair it with dual-channel memory clocked at 3000MHz to really see results.
In exchange, he gets an SSD, which is going to make the whole system feel incredibly snappy compared to just relying on an old HDD.
As for the GPU, I guess he can always just swap that out for something better down the road.

An SSD simply doesn't fit into these budget-conscious builds; you really have to funnel almost all your resources into the GPU, leaving everything else stretched quite thin. That said, since there isn't much room for future upgrades here anyway, it might actually be more prudent to opt for an Intel Pentium G4560 paired with a GTX 1050 Ti rather than sticking with the Ryzen 3 1200 and RX 560 combo.

Samuel Castillo49 said:An SSD just doesn't fit into budget builds; you really have to dump most of your resources into the GPU and scrape by on everything else. Besides, there isn't much room for upgrades later anyway, so maybe choosing a G4560 + 1050Ti would be better than an R3 1200 + RX 560.

Who says there won't be upgrades? Back in the day, an SSD didn't make the cut when 120GB was considered a luxury. Now that you can find them for cheap $100, it’s a shame not to include one in any build, regardless of the budget.

Ultimately, it depends on what the builder wants. Either squeeze out every possible FPS right now, or look a bit further ahead and consider the upgrade path.

Personally, I'd go with the Ryzen combo because it offers a clear upgrade path; your suggestion of a G4560 and 1050Ti is basically a dead end. That said, the R3 1200 and RX 560 combo also feels like a bad deal to me since the 2200G gives you a GPU in the range of an RX 550 and a CPU for $267.

Ryzen 3 2200G paired with 2x4GB of 2933 MHz RAM will handle most games on medium settings, maybe even high if you're lucky... once you have some extra cash, just grab a budget SSD or eventually look into adding a dedicated graphics card.

Personally, I view an SSD as a matter of individual preference, and $100 represents a significant portion of a budget build—funds that could easily be redirected toward a superior graphics card or a more capable processor. My own setup includes a somewhat higher-end laptop alongside my desktop, yet neither utilizes an SSD, as I simply find it unnecessary for my workflow. I have worked extensively on various systems without one, and I have never once felt its absence; everything runs smoothly and efficiently enough for my needs. If I were to allocate those funds, I would much rather invest in a high-quality display, a better component, or perhaps something else entirely.

Regarding future upgrades, there are some limitations to consider; the power supply is somewhat underwhelming, and the motherboard isn't particularly robust, especially with only two RAM slots available. Furthermore, even a Ryzen 3 2200 might feel underpowered in three or four years. Sometimes, one chooses to invest in hardware that offers longevity, while other times, it makes sense to prioritize what works for the immediate term, much like this situation, depending entirely on one's budget and specific requirements.

Samuel Castillo49 said:Using an SSD is just a matter of personal preference, and $100 isn't something you can ignore on a budget build because that money could easily mean the difference between a decent GPU or a better CPU. I have a slightly more expensive laptop as well as a desktop, and I don't use an SSD; I don't need one at all. I've worked on plenty of machines without them and I don't miss it one bit—everything runs perfectly fine and fast for me. I'd much rather spend that cash on a better monitor, a better component, or something else entirely.

Regarding future upgrades; the power supply is weak, the motherboard is mediocre (only 2 RAM slots to boot with), and the processor might be underpowered in 3-4 years (even the Ryzen 3 2200). Sometimes you buy something built for the long haul, and sometimes you buy something for the short term like this case, depending on your budget and what you need.

An SSD isn't a "personal preference." An SSD is clearly newer, superior technology compared to an HDD, which is becoming obsolete. The only thing keeping HDDs alive is the price-to-capacity ratio, nothing more. And even then, SSDs are catching up since you can already find a 250GB SSD for less than $167.

If you want to talk about preferences between Intel and AMD, fine, but you're claiming there's no difference between an HDD and an SSD when, in the hardware world, an SSD is becoming the standard.
Either you simply don't know what you're talking about, or you're the type of person who clings to crazy personal beliefs and refuses to accept what aren't "preferences," but facts.

That’s not even the issue, though. The issue is that you're passing off your nonsense idea that "an SSD isn't necessary" to other people. That's where the trouble starts. Because if someone takes it upon themselves to give advice to others, they should actually know what they're talking about when they give it—which obviously isn't the case here, considering you're spouting garbage that not one single hardware expert would agree with. Whether it's on this forum or anywhere else.

Furthermore, you're talking about a build I didn't put together—which we've already established isn't the way to go—just like you claim the "processor might be weak," yet you included a G4560 in your own setup, which is not only weaker than a Ryzen 3 2200 but sits on a dead platform. You're literally contradicting yourself.

The point is exactly what Amy Vaughn12 said: with a Ryzen 3 2200, there's enough power to run the games mentioned, and by adding an SSD along with the ability to upgrade both the CPU and the GPU later, you won't be stuck in a dead end like you would be with the worst possible combo: a G4560 and a 1050Ti.

Perhaps you should consider moderating your tone when addressing others? Expressing frustration or attempting to assert dominance does not inherently validate your position, nor does it imply that I am uninformed about the subject at hand. If some random "hardware expert" you encountered insists that life is impossible without an SSD, that is merely their opinion, not a universal law. You claim that SSDs are catching up to HDDs in price because a 250GB drive costs $167? I would argue otherwise, considering my perfectly optimized 1TB/7200/64 RPM drive cost me only $100, or even my military-grade 1TB laptop which was purchased for $133.

To put it more succinctly and avoid unnecessary circling around the point: you are advising someone who is assembling a budget configuration intended almost exclusively for gaming to prioritize integrated graphics and a fast drive over a significantly more powerful GPU—a component that would ensure longevity, whereas a faster drive can always be added later.

Furthermore, regarding the comparison between the Intel G4560 + GTX 1050 Ti versus the Ryzen 3 1200 + RX 560 or perhaps a 2200G, it seems you have entirely missed my underlying point. You are discussing upgrades, yet the individual in question would likely need to replace nearly every single component within just a few years anyway. In any event, I have no intention of forcing my opinions upon anyone or attempting to convince them of anything, as you seem to suggest; rather, I am simply offering potential additional options in a well-meaning and sensible manner.

... I didn't even tell him whether X or Y was the right way to go; I just suggested what made sense to me.

Adam Moore3 said:Personally, I’d go with a Ryzen combo because you actually have an upgrade path. With your suggestion of a G4560 and a 1050Ti, you're basically hitting a dead end.

Look, I know how much HDDs cost. I never said an SSD had overtaken an HDD in price—just that the gap is closing. And just because your HDD is perfectly "optimal" (whatever that means to you) doesn't change the fact that your computer boots up at a fraction of the speed it could, and it’s significantly slower and less responsive than it would be with an SSD.
Not to mention the fact that it's one of the last mechanical parts in your rig unnecessarily making noise. And no, I didn't get this info from some random hardware expert; it's common knowledge in the entire US tech community, even if you clearly disagree.

The point is that even with the Ryzen combo, you can run those games on medium without any issues, and you have a straightforward upgrade path to a GTX 1060 if you want, plus that SSD you hate so much. It’s a more balanced, faster PC that isn't a dead end for future upgrades.

If you can't see the benefits and want to insist on nonsense like "hurr durr SSDs suck, HDDs are king," then be my guest. I don't plan on wasting any more words on this. 👍

Back when my OS was running on an HDD, I actually had enough time to whip up a sandwich and take a quick bathroom break while the PC booted up. Nowadays, with an SSD, I barely have enough time to pull on a single sock before everything is ready to go.

copperhawk19 said:So, the integrated Vega is basically on par with an RX 550, right?

Just wanted to jump in here...
Is this comparison actually legit?🍿

People usually pit the Vega against a GT 1030...

My machines power up within thirty seconds at most. Honestly, I find myself wondering why anyone makes such a fuss about it in the first place. Whether a system boots in ten seconds, thirty seconds, or even two minutes—does it truly change the course of one's life? That kind of luxury seems better suited for those running high-end, top-tier configurations rather than budget builds. People constantly harp on about "boot times" when discussing an SSD, treating it as if it were the ultimate metric, while overlooking the more practical benefits like overall system responsiveness or faster loading screens during gameplay. Besides, given how many of these budget SSDs utilize such low-quality memory chips, a demanding OS like Windows 10 will chew through them like a kid with an ice cream cone; you'll be lucky if they even last eighteen months. Ultimately, it comes down to a fundamental trade-off: do you want a fast drive and 60 fps on low settings, or a slower drive paired with 120 fps on high settings and extra RAM to spare? An SSD is something you can always choose to install later whenever your budget allows.

You didn't even test that rig with an SSD, so you shouldn't really be talking about whether there's a noticeable difference or not. There is a massive difference. If I were putting together a budget build for myself, an SSD would be an absolute non-negotiable for me.

Given the specific types of games he's looking to play, the integrated graphics on that 2200g should actually hold up pretty well.