CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › IT › Hardware › Desktops › Budget gaming PC build: $500-$600 range

Budget gaming PC build: $500-$600 range

Started by Anthony Hall4 · · 👁 7 views · 31 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Anthony Hall4Robert Rodriguez2crimsonstag84Bryan Taylor6Jeremy Miller2analogtiger19Adam Moore3Kimberly Gomez34Alexander Moore67
Kimberly Gomez34 Kimberly Gomez34 Regular
686 messages
joined Jul 2009
#21 ·
I’m not saying it’s weak—it’s actually the most powerful integrated GPU we’ve seen so far. The problem is that if you look at those first two reviews, you get two completely different stories. One makes it look like it’s closing in on the GTX 750, which would be incredible (maybe just a testing fluke or that trick I mentioned earlier), while the other review claims it’s worse than a GTX 750 with DDR3 memory in the same game, which is just plain bad. Again, likely a mistake, since it outperforms that card in almost everything else. Since both reviews dropped at the same time from sites owned by the same person, you can't really blame it on biased results.

edit

It’s only after seeing a third opinion that we can actually draw a reliable conclusion:

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages...adwell,14.html
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...rrives-12.html

Since it sits about 7-15% above the integrated graphics found in the 7850K and 7870K—which are already just slightly behind a GTX 750 with DDR3—it's safe to say the Intel HD Graphics performs roughly on par with a GTX 750 using DDR3.

I definitely agree that it makes no sense for them to exclude this from Pentiums, i3 chips, and the rest of the lineup.
Robert Rodriguez2 Robert Rodriguez2 Regular
353 messages
joined Jul 2015
#22 ·
Adam Moore3 said:Forget the G3258; there's nothing else to ask for besides an Athlon. Having just two physical cores and two threads makes certain games unplayable. You can overclock that thing to the moon, but yeah: Dragon Age: Inquisition won't even launch. And that's a game from just a year ago—just the first one in the series.

My trusty Athlon x3 450 with three cores and a GTX 450 handled DA: Inquisition just fine on medium at 40-45fps.👍
Kimberly Gomez34 Kimberly Gomez34 Regular
686 messages
joined Jul 2009
#23 ·
I think they might have tweaked Far Cry 4 (and maybe even Dragon Age: Inquisition) to make them playable on dual-core setups, though you can't really bank on that since it's all thanks to the modding community.

If you've been watching Linus Tech Tips, you'll notice he avoids dual-core processors for a reason—I believe I've seen him mention it at least twice. They tend to prioritize an Athlon over a Pentium, and if that's not an option, they'll go for an FX 6300 before touching an i3.

(And man, what a total mess of a build; just a basic stock cooler and nothing else. 🤣 )


Certain games just stutter heavily when you try running them on a Pentium—think Watch Dogs, GTA V, and stuff like that.
Anthony Hall4 Anthony Hall4 NewcomerOP
8 messages
joined Dec 2015
#24 ·
Thanks everyone for all the help,

Now, I was wondering if someone could walk me through the actual differences between these two processors:

Intel Core i3 4160, LGA 1150, 3.6GHz, 3MB cache, integrated GPU, Dual Core

AMD FX 6300, AM3+, 3.5GHz, 14MB cache, Six Core

Which one would you say is the better pick?
Adam Moore3 Adam Moore3 Regular
322 messages
joined Jun 2014
#25 ·
Robert Rodriguez2 said:My trusty Athlon x3 450 with its three cores and a GTX 450 actually held up pretty well... they managed to run Dragon Age: Inquisition on medium settings at about 40-45fps. 👍

I'm running this on my laptop—an i5 4200m paired with an 8750M—and I'm getting the exact same settings and average FPS... 🙂 It’s honestly pretty weird that you can actually get it to run. A ton of people have been flooding the Electronic Arts forums complaining that they can't even launch the game on triple-core processors. Did you end up installing that fix for dual cores or what...?

Timothy Kim60 said:I think they tweaked Far Cry 4 (maybe even Dragon Age: Inquisition) so you can actually run it on a dual core, but honestly, you can't really bank on that since it's just something the modding community cooked up...

If you've been paying attention, even Linus avoids dual-core processors for that exact reason—I think I've caught him dodging them at least twice now. He’ll pick an Athlon over a Pentium any day, and if he isn't using the Athlon, he's looking at an FX 6300 before an i3...

i3 And yeah, they totally botched it—stock cooler and everything... 🤣 )


Some games just stutter on a Pentium (like Watch Dogs and GTA V, I think...)

And for DA:I, a new tweak just dropped, but honestly, I think 99% of players are still dealing with massive frame drops. Your FPS might look decent at around 30-40, but then it just tanks to 1 or 2 for a second or two. It’s pretty clear the game isn't even optimized—or coded—to actually run on an AMD FX 6300...

It's funny how people love to make fun of something like an FX 6300. Around here, that's considered a solid midrange CPU that ends up in just about every budget build...$1333They’re basically just talking about some low-end CPU you’d slap into a budget rig you build in your basement while swinging a baseball bat around... 🍿 How on earth does a GTX 960 and an FX 6300 even fit into a $500 build? 😲

Anthony Hall4 said:Thanks to everyone for all the hard work...

Can someone please explain the difference between these two processors?

Intel Core i3 4160. LGA 1150 socket. 3.6GHz clock speed. 3MB cache. Integrated graphics included. Dual Core.

AMD FX 6300, socket AM3+, 3.5GHz, 14MB cache, Six Core

Which one’s better?

It's hard to say. What kind of games are you mostly looking to play? Do you have anything specific in mind, or...?
Bryan Taylor6 Bryan Taylor6 Active Member
179 messages
joined Oct 2017
#26 ·
Honestly, if you want to game, your best bet is pairing an FM2 860K with some overclocking and a GTX 950...





Kimberly Gomez34 Kimberly Gomez34 Regular
686 messages
joined Jul 2009
#27 ·
Adam Moore3 said:It’s honestly hilarious how people love to make fun of something like an FX 6300. Around here, that's considered a solid mid-range CPU that you'll find tucked away in just about every budget build for around $300.$1333They’re talking about some bottom-of-the-barrel, low-end CPU that you’d only find in a budget rig built in a basement—the kind of junk you'd probably beat with a baseball bat. 🍿 How on earth are they planning to fit a GTX 960 and an FX 6300 into a $500 build? 😲

They went with a cheap motherboard without any aftermarket cooling, plus a basic case and PSU combo, and they even slightly blew the budget. They even threw in an SSHD. Honestly, they basically gutted the rest of the build just to squeeze out every bit of performance for gaming by prioritizing the CPU and GPU.

The whole thing was just meant for laughs, but they clearly didn't appreciate it. They even went as far as saying it’s actually a more than solid gaming PC—it exceeded their initial expectations. Regarding the CPU, the consensus was that while it might not be the best choice if you were pairing it with dual GTX 980s, it’s perfectly fine given we're running a GTX 960. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that logic. The issue is that these guys exclusively chase high-end gear, mostly sticking to 2011-v3 builds, so naturally, budget-friendly setups don't really excite them. You can tell they don't even know how to mindlessly throw together a budget build for a specific price point—something any average guy on this forum could whip up in his head. They just don't think about it that way because they rarely encounter it.

Anthony Hall4

Bryan Taylor6 is absolutely right here. In this specific situation, your best bet is to pick the CPU that allows you to pair it with a more powerful graphics card.
Robert Rodriguez2 Robert Rodriguez2 Regular
353 messages
joined Jul 2015
#28 ·
Adam Moore3 said:I get the same average FPS on my laptop with an i5 4200m and 8750M using those settings. 🙂 It’s weird you can even run it, though—everyone on the Electronic Arts forums is complaining they can't get it working on triple-core setups. Did you install that "fix" for dual cores or what?

Nah, no fixes here. Just running the stock game.😲
Alexander Moore67 Alexander Moore67 Active Member
137 messages
joined Jun 2013
#29 ·
Timothy Kim60 said:I'm not saying it's weak—it's actually the strongest integrated GPU we've seen yet—but looking at these first two reviews, you get two completely different stories. One makes it look like it's nearly hitting GTX 750 levels (which would be incredible), though that might just be a testing fluke or a specific trick I mentioned earlier. Then the second review shows it performing worse than a GTX 750 in the exact same game, which is pretty disappointing; again, likely a mistake since it outperforms that card in other titles. Both reviews dropped at once from sites owned by the same guy, so you can't really claim one is biased against the other.

edit

You really can't draw any solid conclusions until a third source weighs in:

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages...adwell,14.html
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...rrives-12.html

Since it's about 7-15% faster than the integrated graphics on the 7850K or 7870K, and those are only slightly slower than a GTX 750 ddr3, then the Intel HD Graphics is basically on par with that GTX 750 ddr3.

It definitely seems illogical that they wouldn't include this in Pentium or i3 chips.

I think the 7870K has the better GPU, but an i7 processor gives you the edge, though at what cost? Plus there's DDR4 at 2666.
Kimberly Gomez34 Kimberly Gomez34 Regular
686 messages
joined Jul 2009
#30 ·
Broadwell uses DDR3, whereas Skylake (which moves to DDR4) actually features an integrated GPU that's weaker than both Broadwell and those AMD options. It's important to note that Intel and AMD handle their GPU architecture quite differently; Broadwell pulls its performance from that expensive L4 cache (128 MB of eDRAM) combined with a significantly larger iGPU footprint thanks to the advanced 14nm process—where the processor and iGPU essentially split the die fifty-fifty. Because of this, AMD's integrated graphics from those specific generations aren't actually more powerful (you can see that in the links provided above); they might be more efficient, since they squeeze slightly lower performance out of a smaller area on a 28nm process using fewer transistors and cores, all while being found in much more affordable processors. One guy actually gave a pretty entertaining and vivid explanation of this using horses and donkeys here.

But look, nobody really cares about the "how"—the bottom line is that they are more powerful. It's just that Intel chose to offer them in high-end chips, making them more of a trophy feature for premium processors, and honestly, the people buying those rigs usually have a dedicated GPU anyway
.
Alexander Moore67 Alexander Moore67 Active Member
137 messages
joined Jun 2013
#31 ·
Timothy Kim60 said:Broadwell uses DDR3, while Skylake (which moves to DDR4) actually has weaker integrated graphics than both Broadwell and those AMD options. Intel and AMD handle their GPUs quite differently; Broadwell pulls its performance from that expensive L4 cache (128 MB of eDRAM) and utilizes a much larger iGPU area thanks to the advanced 14nm process—where the CPU and iGPU basically split the die fifty-fifty. Because of that, AMD's integrated graphics from that era aren't necessarily more powerful (you can see that in the links above); they might be more efficient since they get similar performance out of a smaller footprint on a 28nm process with fewer transistors and cores, and they come in much more affordable processors. One guy explained the whole concept using a really interesting analogy about horses and donkeys here.

But honestly, nobody cares how they do it—the fact is they're faster. It's just that Intel chose to only include this tech in high-end chips, making them sort of a trophy feature for expensive processors. Most people buying those rigs have a dedicated GPU anyway.

Kimberly Gomez34 Kimberly Gomez34 Regular
686 messages
joined Jul 2009
#32 ·
Look, that’s just some YouTuber, and those up there are reviews from four major tech outlets. It could be another valid angle if it holds water—basically, improved AMD drivers versus Intel's struggles. But honestly, I’m not totally sold yet.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads