My friend wants me to build him a gaming pc for about $600. I have come up with this build so far http://pcpartpicker.com/user/brocklay/saved/4ibH. Any thoughts or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Does your friend plan to OC?
No. I don't think he does.
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3ntug try that use the 1tb drive now, and in the future you can install another when he recovers from this purchase.
Ok. Thanks for the advice :)
.... horrible mobo to throw an 8350 on... the 6300 is one thing, but I don't recommend that mobo for an 8350 at all... all while using a stock AMD CPU cooler?
why would you dump more money into the processor for a gaming rig.. the bottleneck is the graphics.. This build is $640 and has a better motherboard, better case, equal ram, and mot importantly better graphics.
An SSD would be nice, but if you dont got the money, then don't worry about it.
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3nyFV
If you do get this case, put the two top fans in the front for dust control. you will hardly ever need to clean it. Just remove and vacuum the dust filters.
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3nA0D
motherboard supports the cpu. i recommend a hyper 212 evo, i have one and it's really good and only 30$. 750ti from evga cuz evga version has g-sync support. fx 8320 is better for the money than a fx 6300 imo. but you can buy a fx 6300 if you want, but don't buy a shitty motheboard with 4+2 phases or lower with the fx 8320.
^+1
That's about as good as it gets in terms of price to performance.
The FX-6300 will go a long way. It can be OC'd quite a bit and will handle a high-end GPU.
For a gaming rig, the GPU is the most important component. With mantle and DX12, CPU overhead in gaming will be less moving forward. It doesn't make any sense to dump more money into a more expensive CPU that isn't going to give the user any noticeable difference in performance.
An FX-6300 + GTX 760 will annihilate an FX-8320 with a GTX 750ti in gaming.
it's hard to put a gtx 760 in the build. 640$ is not 600$ :). fx 8320 is a 8 core, most modern game use 8 cores so with 8 cores your fine for a while, there is a big gab between the fx 6300 and the fx 8320 in performance. the problem with the am3+ are the motherboards, most have shitty power phases designs. 4 phases isn't really a lot.
even tho the FX 8320 has 2 extra cores, there will be only about 1% performance gain in gaming, i have watched a video where the fx 6300 was against i7-3770k with 2 HD 7970 in CFX, and the i7 was 2 fps faster, so yeah...
And in any AMD build, please include a aftermarket cooler for the CPU, the stock will drive you grazy...
Whilst you might not get a GTX 760 fit in the budget, a R9 270 will be more powerful than the GTX 750 ti
This went 15$ over the 600$ and i fitted a SSHD 1 TB drive in it, and also, an aftermarket cooler for the FX 6300 http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3nC0v
The mobo will be completely fine with the FX 6300, we used the LE version on my friends build even tho i would not recommend it, but it was the only mobo available, and he is running completely fine with base clocks. My other friend runs his FX 8350 in this board with no problems, but i wouldn't recommend OC'ing on this board much...
can you link that?
actually it was the fx 6100 bulldozer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV2Voo5h3eU
so the FX 6300 would perform even better
that's interesting! i believe bf3 is 6core game. i still think the fx 8320 is a good cpu and worth the extra money with a better motherboard:)
It doesn't matter if it has 16 cores or 100 cores. The main bottleneck in gaming is the graphics card. In lower budget builds it is critical to set aside the majority of the budget for the graphics card alone. The number of cores matters very little. With Intel's very high IPC capabilities, even their dual-core Core i3 processors can keep up with most AMD quad and 6-core CPUs because each core of the Intel part is able to process more work per core than the AMD parts can process, per-core. AMD makes up this short-fall by using more cores simultaneously.
Here's a video that shows you don't need and shouldn't buy an expensive CPU for a budget gaming PC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIT9uLDjZcg
+1
What matters in gaming is the singe-thread performance. If that is all you plan to do, and you don't plan on doing anything like rendering a movie or having 40+tabs open in chrome while you game, the 6100 is perfectly fine.
I upgraded to the 8320 from the 6100, and to be honest the 6100 was better at gaming, because it could handle a higher overclock than the 8320 could. (got the 6100 to 4.9 with my h80) But I wanted my computer to do more things while I game, so now it can run 2 minecraft servers, rip dvd's and blurays, and have several tabs open in chrome *while* I game. Now ask yourself if you are going to do that kind of multitasking. If not, then the 6100 is a good bet. Use the money you save on a better gpu or ssd.
If I were to build a gaming PC on a STRICT $600 (USD) budget, I'd probably build something like this: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3nHlQ
FM2+ is AMD's future platform. 4 RAM DIMM slots for easy memory upgrading. The X4 760K (an A10-6800k minus the iGPU) is a very solid quad-core CPU that can overclock to the moon with proper cooling. R9-270X is slightly faster than the HD7870 it replaces and nips at the GTX 760's heels while costing about $50 less.
and don't forget, the only way they go is forward. I do not know about how soon, but I would not be surprised to see a 6 core CPU on FM2+ in the future.
That's the idea. ;) Think ahead and prepare for the future as best you can.