The "PC Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
As you may know, I'm saving for a new graphics card and I'm looking at the GTX 960 as a good card for the money that also works well with a standard 500w PSU.
But....what if I saved a bit more and bought a new PC? My CPU is not great, it's an A8 APU and it's struggling at times, the motherboard is creaky and only an FM2 and won't take anything other than the APUs due to the wonderful knobbling HP do on their Bios. So I'm thinking here's a challenge, find me a PC (on Amazon as I have vouchers making up some of my money towards it, or take £150-£200 off the maximum price) that will; a) run all the latest games at high settings or thereabouts (not necessarily ultra), b) costs less than or around £500 and c) looks pretty.
This is the best I've come up with so far:
Go!
But....what if I saved a bit more and bought a new PC? My CPU is not great, it's an A8 APU and it's struggling at times, the motherboard is creaky and only an FM2 and won't take anything other than the APUs due to the wonderful knobbling HP do on their Bios. So I'm thinking here's a challenge, find me a PC (on Amazon as I have vouchers making up some of my money towards it, or take £150-£200 off the maximum price) that will; a) run all the latest games at high settings or thereabouts (not necessarily ultra), b) costs less than or around £500 and c) looks pretty.
This is the best I've come up with so far:
Go!
Page:
chasfh wrote:
pb wrote:
[i]chasfh wrote:
[i]pb wrote:
[i]The only sensible way is to look at real world game footage, check fps and smoothness against the resolution and detail of the graphics and then weigh this up against the cost.
So far it seems like AMD video cards benefit from stronger CPUs while Nvidia cards work better and smoother on lower end CPUs. I5s are more powerful in real world tasks and gaming than the equivalent FX chips but at twice the price. The FX CPUs have less physical cores (6 cores = 3 physical cores) though each one is technically faster than Intel cores and, in return, the Intel CPU is made with newer processes.
Direct X 12 could benefit both and possibly AMDs use in both PS4 and Xbox One could see a greater leaning towards utilising the 6 core CPUs further.
I'm being cautious as I'll be building or buying this to last a while and I want future proofing as much as possible. On the other hand I have very little money spare so £500-£600 is an absolute limit and even that's pushing it.
1) AMD cards benefit from FASTER cores (such as the FX4300)
2)DX12 benefits from more RAM.
3)My gaming is about as "real world" as you can get
Seems I can respond til I'm blue in the face, but apparently my "real world" feedback is unreliable.
There's no benefit to me in exaggerating or downright lying, so I fail to understand the reluctance to accept what I say.
At the end of the day, though, it's your decision. Clearly some YouTube videos and some "unbiased" testing trumps everything else, so best of luck...[/i]
Real World feedback being a test between an intel and AMD system? It's good that you're happy with your system and I haven't said anything negative about AMD, I'm running an AMD desktop and my daughter's laptop at the moment and I've had both builds in the past. But the facts are that the Intel system listed would be faster than the AMD based one. That's not a bad thing considering the speed difference isn't that great but the price gap is nearly £200. If you're matching price then technically the equivalent of an i5 4460 is a AMD FX 8350, which is faster.[/i]
Intel was not the discussion. FX4300 against FX6300? For gaming, the 4300 is superior, hands down.
According to "benchmarks", Arkham Knight and the Witcher (along with a host of other games) should not even run on the 4300, but in the REAL WORLD, they run perfectly. That's my point, that's what I've said all along, that's what's in dispute.
For price, you can't do better, for performance there's no drawback. Your initial post was for advice on what's best on a pretty strict budget, I've given an answer that you don't accept.[/i]
I didn't find a 4300 based system, that's all, and I don't have time t build one myself. I'd certainly look at prices if there was a system there. Also, I'm just concerned with how long any of the CPUs will be around for in terms of being supported in games, though with the AMD motherboard being an FM 3+ it should be easy to upgrade.
pb wrote:
[i]chasfh wrote:
[i]pb wrote:
[i]The only sensible way is to look at real world game footage, check fps and smoothness against the resolution and detail of the graphics and then weigh this up against the cost.
So far it seems like AMD video cards benefit from stronger CPUs while Nvidia cards work better and smoother on lower end CPUs. I5s are more powerful in real world tasks and gaming than the equivalent FX chips but at twice the price. The FX CPUs have less physical cores (6 cores = 3 physical cores) though each one is technically faster than Intel cores and, in return, the Intel CPU is made with newer processes.
Direct X 12 could benefit both and possibly AMDs use in both PS4 and Xbox One could see a greater leaning towards utilising the 6 core CPUs further.
I'm being cautious as I'll be building or buying this to last a while and I want future proofing as much as possible. On the other hand I have very little money spare so £500-£600 is an absolute limit and even that's pushing it.
1) AMD cards benefit from FASTER cores (such as the FX4300)
2)DX12 benefits from more RAM.
3)My gaming is about as "real world" as you can get
Seems I can respond til I'm blue in the face, but apparently my "real world" feedback is unreliable.
There's no benefit to me in exaggerating or downright lying, so I fail to understand the reluctance to accept what I say.
At the end of the day, though, it's your decision. Clearly some YouTube videos and some "unbiased" testing trumps everything else, so best of luck...[/i]
Real World feedback being a test between an intel and AMD system? It's good that you're happy with your system and I haven't said anything negative about AMD, I'm running an AMD desktop and my daughter's laptop at the moment and I've had both builds in the past. But the facts are that the Intel system listed would be faster than the AMD based one. That's not a bad thing considering the speed difference isn't that great but the price gap is nearly £200. If you're matching price then technically the equivalent of an i5 4460 is a AMD FX 8350, which is faster.[/i]
Intel was not the discussion. FX4300 against FX6300? For gaming, the 4300 is superior, hands down.
According to "benchmarks", Arkham Knight and the Witcher (along with a host of other games) should not even run on the 4300, but in the REAL WORLD, they run perfectly. That's my point, that's what I've said all along, that's what's in dispute.
For price, you can't do better, for performance there's no drawback. Your initial post was for advice on what's best on a pretty strict budget, I've given an answer that you don't accept.[/i]
I didn't find a 4300 based system, that's all, and I don't have time t build one myself. I'd certainly look at prices if there was a system there. Also, I'm just concerned with how long any of the CPUs will be around for in terms of being supported in games, though with the AMD motherboard being an FM 3+ it should be easy to upgrade.
pb wrote:
chasfh wrote:
[i]pb wrote:
[i]The only sensible way is to look at real world game footage, check fps and smoothness against the resolution and detail of the graphics and then weigh this up against the cost.
So far it seems like AMD video cards benefit from stronger CPUs while Nvidia cards work better and smoother on lower end CPUs. I5s are more powerful in real world tasks and gaming than the equivalent FX chips but at twice the price. The FX CPUs have less physical cores (6 cores = 3 physical cores) though each one is technically faster than Intel cores and, in return, the Intel CPU is made with newer processes.
Direct X 12 could benefit both and possibly AMDs use in both PS4 and Xbox One could see a greater leaning towards utilising the 6 core CPUs further.
I'm being cautious as I'll be building or buying this to last a while and I want future proofing as much as possible. On the other hand I have very little money spare so £500-£600 is an absolute limit and even that's pushing it.
1) AMD cards benefit from FASTER cores (such as the FX4300)
2)DX12 benefits from more RAM.
3)My gaming is about as "real world" as you can get
Seems I can respond til I'm blue in the face, but apparently my "real world" feedback is unreliable.
There's no benefit to me in exaggerating or downright lying, so I fail to understand the reluctance to accept what I say.
At the end of the day, though, it's your decision. Clearly some YouTube videos and some "unbiased" testing trumps everything else, so best of luck...[/i]
Real World feedback being a test between an intel and AMD system? It's good that you're happy with your system and I haven't said anything negative about AMD, I'm running an AMD desktop and my daughter's laptop at the moment and I've had both builds in the past. But the facts are that the Intel system listed would be faster than the AMD based one. That's not a bad thing considering the speed difference isn't that great but the price gap is nearly £200. If you're matching price then technically the equivalent of an i5 4460 is a AMD FX 8350, which is faster.[/i]
Intel was not the discussion. FX4300 against FX6300? For gaming, the 4300 is superior, hands down.
According to "benchmarks", Arkham Knight and the Witcher (along with a host of other games) should not even run on the 4300, but in the REAL WORLD, they run perfectly. That's my point, that's what I've said all along, that's what's in dispute.
For price, you can't do better, for performance there's no drawback. Your initial post was for advice on what's best on a pretty strict budget, I've given an answer that you don't accept.
chasfh wrote:
[i]pb wrote:
[i]The only sensible way is to look at real world game footage, check fps and smoothness against the resolution and detail of the graphics and then weigh this up against the cost.
So far it seems like AMD video cards benefit from stronger CPUs while Nvidia cards work better and smoother on lower end CPUs. I5s are more powerful in real world tasks and gaming than the equivalent FX chips but at twice the price. The FX CPUs have less physical cores (6 cores = 3 physical cores) though each one is technically faster than Intel cores and, in return, the Intel CPU is made with newer processes.
Direct X 12 could benefit both and possibly AMDs use in both PS4 and Xbox One could see a greater leaning towards utilising the 6 core CPUs further.
I'm being cautious as I'll be building or buying this to last a while and I want future proofing as much as possible. On the other hand I have very little money spare so £500-£600 is an absolute limit and even that's pushing it.
1) AMD cards benefit from FASTER cores (such as the FX4300)
2)DX12 benefits from more RAM.
3)My gaming is about as "real world" as you can get
Seems I can respond til I'm blue in the face, but apparently my "real world" feedback is unreliable.
There's no benefit to me in exaggerating or downright lying, so I fail to understand the reluctance to accept what I say.
At the end of the day, though, it's your decision. Clearly some YouTube videos and some "unbiased" testing trumps everything else, so best of luck...[/i]
Real World feedback being a test between an intel and AMD system? It's good that you're happy with your system and I haven't said anything negative about AMD, I'm running an AMD desktop and my daughter's laptop at the moment and I've had both builds in the past. But the facts are that the Intel system listed would be faster than the AMD based one. That's not a bad thing considering the speed difference isn't that great but the price gap is nearly £200. If you're matching price then technically the equivalent of an i5 4460 is a AMD FX 8350, which is faster.[/i]
Intel was not the discussion. FX4300 against FX6300? For gaming, the 4300 is superior, hands down.
According to "benchmarks", Arkham Knight and the Witcher (along with a host of other games) should not even run on the 4300, but in the REAL WORLD, they run perfectly. That's my point, that's what I've said all along, that's what's in dispute.
For price, you can't do better, for performance there's no drawback. Your initial post was for advice on what's best on a pretty strict budget, I've given an answer that you don't accept.
chasfh wrote:
pb wrote:
[i]The only sensible way is to look at real world game footage, check fps and smoothness against the resolution and detail of the graphics and then weigh this up against the cost.
So far it seems like AMD video cards benefit from stronger CPUs while Nvidia cards work better and smoother on lower end CPUs. I5s are more powerful in real world tasks and gaming than the equivalent FX chips but at twice the price. The FX CPUs have less physical cores (6 cores = 3 physical cores) though each one is technically faster than Intel cores and, in return, the Intel CPU is made with newer processes.
Direct X 12 could benefit both and possibly AMDs use in both PS4 and Xbox One could see a greater leaning towards utilising the 6 core CPUs further.
I'm being cautious as I'll be building or buying this to last a while and I want future proofing as much as possible. On the other hand I have very little money spare so £500-£600 is an absolute limit and even that's pushing it.
1) AMD cards benefit from FASTER cores (such as the FX4300)
2)DX12 benefits from more RAM.
3)My gaming is about as "real world" as you can get
Seems I can respond til I'm blue in the face, but apparently my "real world" feedback is unreliable.
There's no benefit to me in exaggerating or downright lying, so I fail to understand the reluctance to accept what I say.
At the end of the day, though, it's your decision. Clearly some YouTube videos and some "unbiased" testing trumps everything else, so best of luck...[/i]
Real World feedback being a test between an intel and AMD system? It's good that you're happy with your system and I haven't said anything negative about AMD, I'm running an AMD desktop and my daughter's laptop at the moment and I've had both builds in the past. But the facts are that the Intel system listed would be faster than the AMD based one. That's not a bad thing considering the speed difference isn't that great but the price gap is nearly £200. If you're matching price then technically the equivalent of an i5 4460 is a AMD FX 8350, which is faster.
pb wrote:
[i]The only sensible way is to look at real world game footage, check fps and smoothness against the resolution and detail of the graphics and then weigh this up against the cost.
So far it seems like AMD video cards benefit from stronger CPUs while Nvidia cards work better and smoother on lower end CPUs. I5s are more powerful in real world tasks and gaming than the equivalent FX chips but at twice the price. The FX CPUs have less physical cores (6 cores = 3 physical cores) though each one is technically faster than Intel cores and, in return, the Intel CPU is made with newer processes.
Direct X 12 could benefit both and possibly AMDs use in both PS4 and Xbox One could see a greater leaning towards utilising the 6 core CPUs further.
I'm being cautious as I'll be building or buying this to last a while and I want future proofing as much as possible. On the other hand I have very little money spare so £500-£600 is an absolute limit and even that's pushing it.
1) AMD cards benefit from FASTER cores (such as the FX4300)
2)DX12 benefits from more RAM.
3)My gaming is about as "real world" as you can get
Seems I can respond til I'm blue in the face, but apparently my "real world" feedback is unreliable.
There's no benefit to me in exaggerating or downright lying, so I fail to understand the reluctance to accept what I say.
At the end of the day, though, it's your decision. Clearly some YouTube videos and some "unbiased" testing trumps everything else, so best of luck...[/i]
Real World feedback being a test between an intel and AMD system? It's good that you're happy with your system and I haven't said anything negative about AMD, I'm running an AMD desktop and my daughter's laptop at the moment and I've had both builds in the past. But the facts are that the Intel system listed would be faster than the AMD based one. That's not a bad thing considering the speed difference isn't that great but the price gap is nearly £200. If you're matching price then technically the equivalent of an i5 4460 is a AMD FX 8350, which is faster.
pb wrote:
The only sensible way is to look at real world game footage, check fps and smoothness against the resolution and detail of the graphics and then weigh this up against the cost.
So far it seems like AMD video cards benefit from stronger CPUs while Nvidia cards work better and smoother on lower end CPUs. I5s are more powerful in real world tasks and gaming than the equivalent FX chips but at twice the price. The FX CPUs have less physical cores (6 cores = 3 physical cores) though each one is technically faster than Intel cores and, in return, the Intel CPU is made with newer processes.
Direct X 12 could benefit both and possibly AMDs use in both PS4 and Xbox One could see a greater leaning towards utilising the 6 core CPUs further.
I'm being cautious as I'll be building or buying this to last a while and I want future proofing as much as possible. On the other hand I have very little money spare so £500-£600 is an absolute limit and even that's pushing it.
1) AMD cards benefit from FASTER cores (such as the FX4300)
2)DX12 benefits from more RAM.
3)My gaming is about as "real world" as you can get
Seems I can respond til I'm blue in the face, but apparently my "real world" feedback is unreliable.
There's no benefit to me in exaggerating or downright lying, so I fail to understand the reluctance to accept what I say.
At the end of the day, though, it's your decision. Clearly some YouTube videos and some "unbiased" testing trumps everything else, so best of luck...
The only sensible way is to look at real world game footage, check fps and smoothness against the resolution and detail of the graphics and then weigh this up against the cost.
So far it seems like AMD video cards benefit from stronger CPUs while Nvidia cards work better and smoother on lower end CPUs. I5s are more powerful in real world tasks and gaming than the equivalent FX chips but at twice the price. The FX CPUs have less physical cores (6 cores = 3 physical cores) though each one is technically faster than Intel cores and, in return, the Intel CPU is made with newer processes.
Direct X 12 could benefit both and possibly AMDs use in both PS4 and Xbox One could see a greater leaning towards utilising the 6 core CPUs further.
I'm being cautious as I'll be building or buying this to last a while and I want future proofing as much as possible. On the other hand I have very little money spare so £500-£600 is an absolute limit and even that's pushing it.
1) AMD cards benefit from FASTER cores (such as the FX4300)
2)DX12 benefits from more RAM.
3)My gaming is about as "real world" as you can get
Seems I can respond til I'm blue in the face, but apparently my "real world" feedback is unreliable.
There's no benefit to me in exaggerating or downright lying, so I fail to understand the reluctance to accept what I say.
At the end of the day, though, it's your decision. Clearly some YouTube videos and some "unbiased" testing trumps everything else, so best of luck...
The only sensible way is to look at real world game footage, check fps and smoothness against the resolution and detail of the graphics and then weigh this up against the cost.
So far it seems like AMD video cards benefit from stronger CPUs while Nvidia cards work better and smoother on lower end CPUs. I5s are more powerful in real world tasks and gaming than the equivalent FX chips but at twice the price. The FX CPUs have less physical cores (6 cores = 3 physical cores) though each one is technically faster than Intel cores and, in return, the Intel CPU is made with newer processes.
Direct X 12 could benefit both and possibly AMDs use in both PS4 and Xbox One could see a greater leaning towards utilising the 6 core CPUs further.
I'm being cautious as I'll be building or buying this to last a while and I want future proofing as much as possible. On the other hand I have very little money spare so £500-£600 is an absolute limit and even that's pushing it.
So far it seems like AMD video cards benefit from stronger CPUs while Nvidia cards work better and smoother on lower end CPUs. I5s are more powerful in real world tasks and gaming than the equivalent FX chips but at twice the price. The FX CPUs have less physical cores (6 cores = 3 physical cores) though each one is technically faster than Intel cores and, in return, the Intel CPU is made with newer processes.
Direct X 12 could benefit both and possibly AMDs use in both PS4 and Xbox One could see a greater leaning towards utilising the 6 core CPUs further.
I'm being cautious as I'll be building or buying this to last a while and I want future proofing as much as possible. On the other hand I have very little money spare so £500-£600 is an absolute limit and even that's pushing it.
Haha chas ... just go with whatever ;¬)
pb wrote:
DL wrote:
[i]Just go with your heart pb ... :¬)
Me ... I've looked for you and I'm an Intel user. Had AMD processors in the early days and they were better ... now I use Intel and you have the problem of 5000 and 6000 series processors now!
Me ... my i7 4790k and associated setup will last for another 5 years so ... the choice is yours ;¬)
Windows 10, i7-4790K, 16Gb Ram, Asus Z97 m/b, GTX 970 4Gb
8gb RAM and i5 4460 would be my price range with a GTX 970.
Having looked into it, I can save money and get the AMD 6300 (seen the videos, seen the benchmarks and it's the best AMD choice) with the 380 4gb card or pay the extra and get the i5 and GTX 970, which is faster.
Or...go for the middle ground with the 960 based PC in my first post.[/i]
Of course you're right...
Having run one for the past three years, I wouldn't know any better...
Good luck!
DL wrote:
[i]Just go with your heart pb ... :¬)
Me ... I've looked for you and I'm an Intel user. Had AMD processors in the early days and they were better ... now I use Intel and you have the problem of 5000 and 6000 series processors now!
Me ... my i7 4790k and associated setup will last for another 5 years so ... the choice is yours ;¬)
Windows 10, i7-4790K, 16Gb Ram, Asus Z97 m/b, GTX 970 4Gb
8gb RAM and i5 4460 would be my price range with a GTX 970.
Having looked into it, I can save money and get the AMD 6300 (seen the videos, seen the benchmarks and it's the best AMD choice) with the 380 4gb card or pay the extra and get the i5 and GTX 970, which is faster.
Or...go for the middle ground with the 960 based PC in my first post.[/i]
Of course you're right...
Having run one for the past three years, I wouldn't know any better...
Good luck!
DL wrote:
Just go with your heart pb ... :¬)
Me ... I've looked for you and I'm an Intel user. Had AMD processors in the early days and they were better ... now I use Intel and you have the problem of 5000 and 6000 series processors now!
Me ... my i7 4790k and associated setup will last for another 5 years so ... the choice is yours ;¬)
Windows 10, i7-4790K, 16Gb Ram, Asus Z97 m/b, GTX 970 4Gb
8gb RAM and i5 4460 would be my price range with a GTX 970.
Having looked into it, I can save money and get the AMD 6300 (seen the videos, seen the benchmarks and it's the best AMD choice) with the 380 4gb card or pay the extra and get the i5 and GTX 970, which is faster.
Or...go for the middle ground with the 960 based PC in my first post.
Just go with your heart pb ... :¬)
Me ... I've looked for you and I'm an Intel user. Had AMD processors in the early days and they were better ... now I use Intel and you have the problem of 5000 and 6000 series processors now!
Me ... my i7 4790k and associated setup will last for another 5 years so ... the choice is yours ;¬)
Windows 10, i7-4790K, 16Gb Ram, Asus Z97 m/b, GTX 970 4Gb
8gb RAM and i5 4460 would be my price range with a GTX 970.
Having looked into it, I can save money and get the AMD 6300 (seen the videos, seen the benchmarks and it's the best AMD choice) with the 380 4gb card or pay the extra and get the i5 and GTX 970, which is faster.
Or...go for the middle ground with the 960 based PC in my first post.
Just go with your heart pb ... :¬)
Me ... I've looked for you and I'm an Intel user. Had AMD processors in the early days and they were better ... now I use Intel and you have the problem of 5000 and 6000 series processors now!
Me ... my i7 4790k and associated setup will last for another 5 years so ... the choice is yours ;¬)
Windows 10, i7-4790K, 16Gb Ram, Asus Z97 m/b, GTX 970 4Gb
Me ... I've looked for you and I'm an Intel user. Had AMD processors in the early days and they were better ... now I use Intel and you have the problem of 5000 and 6000 series processors now!
Me ... my i7 4790k and associated setup will last for another 5 years so ... the choice is yours ;¬)
Windows 10, i7-4790K, 16Gb Ram, Asus Z97 m/b, GTX 970 4Gb
There's no mention of Corsair RAM that I could see. Corsair power supply, yes, but the RAM is simply listed as "8GB DDR3 1600mhz Performance Ram".
And with regard to "tests" on CPUs, real-world performance will always be more important. I have considered the 6300 several times, but as I said, games don't tend to play as well on more than 4 cores. Running on 4 cores out of six at a slower speed than you could on 4 cores out of 4 at higher Ghz, well...
Logic, anyone?
Given that the l2 and l3 caches are the same size on both processors, given that the actual CORE build is identical on both, given that the base timings are identical on both, not sure how you'd gain by having 2 extra (slower running) cores sitting unused...
Just sayin'....:-)
And with regard to "tests" on CPUs, real-world performance will always be more important. I have considered the 6300 several times, but as I said, games don't tend to play as well on more than 4 cores. Running on 4 cores out of six at a slower speed than you could on 4 cores out of 4 at higher Ghz, well...
Logic, anyone?
Given that the l2 and l3 caches are the same size on both processors, given that the actual CORE build is identical on both, given that the base timings are identical on both, not sure how you'd gain by having 2 extra (slower running) cores sitting unused...
Just sayin'....:-)
Page: