It sounds like you just need something that plays games with good performance. Any of the builds will do fine. You would be satisfied with any of them. The 8320 and ASUS Pro is versatile and has upgrade paths e.g crossfire. It's a great deal. Sorry to confuse you with all the builds. If you have money burning a whole in your wallet, consider an SSD. Kingston HyperX 3K is affordable.
My friend is pushing me to go intel/nvidia. This build that you made http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3Bzau but instead with an Nvidia card would be good too i suppose? If i can do that it would be alot more simple. Sorry for all of the questions, i just want to do this right. What Nvidia card should i get to fit my needs with that build. Thanks again
I've got to be honest, Intel/Nvidia fanboys are a funny bunch! I do use Intel and Nvidia, myself. However, I recognise that AMD offer more bang for buck.
Very few games prefer Intel, it's not much of a concern. Some games prefer AMD. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference with most games. Either way, you're going to have a lot of fun.
Intel & Nvidia are good, but are much more pricy than AMD, and have less price-performance. I usually suggest people to go with an AMD CPU if the budget is under 1k(not including OS).
Also, Hitachi's Ultrastar line has a high rate of failure and isn't very reliable. I prefer WD Blues much, much better.
If you want a Nvidia card, there's no direct competitor to the R9 270. The 750ti is comparable to the R7 265 and the GTX 760 is comparable to the HD 7950. For GPUs, I have found AMD pretty damn good, especially when compared to Nvidia.
So you think it would be better to get the 8300 and the r7 270 over the gtx 760?
Who says you can't have an 8320 and a GTX 760?
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3BEw7
Alright i think i've got everything down. http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3BF7p The only thing i question is the quality of the mobo. I have read shifty reviews about it having trouble installing and failing to boot. Also it is a bit more expensive. Basically it is either this http://pcpartpicker.com/user/kmang/saved/4xrk or the one above, (i would like to change the mobo on that one) I need an opinion
Gigabyte has had some problems in the past with their AM3+ motherboards and defective VRMs. They should be all fixed by now.
Both builds are alright. The one with the GTX 760 will, of course, perform better. The Asus M5A99FX Pro R2.0 will allow you to use 2 cards in SLI/Crossfire. If you do not need the features, like SLI, that the 990fx chipset provides, you can go with the cheaper 970 chipset that the gigabyte board uses.
That case is a bit expensive. I suggest you look into some other cases:
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/nzxt-case-s210001
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/nzxt-case-s210e001
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/corsair-case-200r
I think i am just going to go full AMD. http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3Bxmc f there is any thing strange or if there is something better for and equal or lower price on that list please let me know. Thanks for all of the help everyone :)
I give that system a thumbs up. The R9 270 has a much better price/performance ratio than the GTX 760. You're really getting your money's worth here.
A little bit of an overclock on the CPU and GPU and you're gold.
Looks good.
Hey i just realized that this motherboard has some things i don't need. Kind of a noob question but what exactly does downgrading the the chip-set do? And is there a motherboard that would suit me for a lower price? Also i would like to see if there is a cheaper case that comes with 2 fans and maybe a window that is reliable?Thanks
If you downgrade the chipset, you *probably* won't get sufficient power phases for an 8xxx CPU. If you want to save money, you could choose an FX6300 and an M5A97. That will enable you to allocate budget to a better GPU, or your preferred case.
Lower chipset motherboards are cheaper, and have less features. Since they're cheaper, some will indeed lack the power phases and will not power a 8 core CPU very well. Of course, there are always exceptions.
I don't know of any cheap cases with a window that will accommodate the Hyper 212. If you find a shorter cooler, the Source 210 Window may be an option.
Lowering the price. You might be able to afford a fancier case now.
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3CROz
My friend just told me that i don't need this 8 core for gaming and that i should just get the 6300. Do you agree? It saves me some money for an ssd and if i won't notice a difference i don't really care What do you think? https://pcpartpicker.com/user/kmang/saved/4zbX
AMD's per-core performance is not as strong as Intel's. More games are being more optimized for more cores, and the FX-8320/8350 is comparable to Intel's i5. The 6300 is a good budget chip, but the FX-8320 will last you a lot longer.
You will also need to find a better SSD, as the SSDNow v300 uses asynchronous flash. It's cheaper than synchronous flash, but you will notice significantly lower and inconsistent read and write speeds on the SSDNow V300. SSDs will give you better program launch times and boot times(granted the OS and whatever small programs are installed on the SSD), but they don't really help with gaming performance. Crucial's M500. Kingston's HyperX 3K, and Samsung's 840 Evo are a couple of good SSDs to look into, if you ever decide to upgrade.
With my current pc it takes like 2 minutes to boot up. Would this be the case for my new one? I wouldn't mind a 60 second startup time if it saves me 60 bucks. My friend also said that in the long run there will be better 8 cores in the future. I will buy it is worth the 40 bucks more.
If we're using windows 7, just use a program like ccleaner to make sure that not a whole lot of programs start at launch. This is the main reason why people, especially non tech-savvy people, think that windows "sucks" because it slows down after awhile/installing all games and programs. My laptop with its 5400rpm drive will boot in under a minute because not a whole lot programs launch at the beginning.
With SSDs, we're talking under 15 seconds from button click to windows desktop on windows 7. Windows 8 has a faster bootup time than Windows 7. My build with the Kingston HyperX 3K will boot to windows in about 12 seconds from a completely off state.
I would suggest that you pick up the 8 core, and leave out the SSD for now.
Will the 8 core make a difference in game?
It will make a difference in most games, especially some of the latest gen like BF4.