I have another build in progress. My neighbour asked me to build him gaming capable PC for his kids and to work for him. I have very tight budget so i havent have to much options. I picked patrs i can buy in kits of components (like PC and mobo in one kit) to make everything even cheaper. In Poland those components are preatty cheap so I think Iam on the right track. I dont realy have time to change anything but I would like to hear some of your opinions on my build.
Here it is : http://pcpartpicker.com/p/h8HJmG
R9 270 as far as i know is an outstandig card in this price reange. I only worry about procesor and mobo. CPU might cause bottleneck with GPU and mobo is basicly nonoverclockable. What do you think ?
PS. HDD will go later but he wanted this build to be as fast as possible and there is no better way to boost Windows than SSD.
There's no reason to buy such an expensive case for a budget oriented build, the user isn't going to be looking at the case while he's using the machine. The cash saved by buying a cheap but adequate case can be put towards a better motherboard. Also, I don't recommend using a 128gb SSD for a primary storage drive, even if you're planning to upgrade soon. In my experience, that amount of space seems incredibly small after installing windows and a couple of games. Otherwise, the build looks good.
I think it should be fine, but a 500w power supply is official minimum for the r9-270, but the one you have has more than enough amps.. so it should be fine.. but it is something to consider.
I know prices will vary from what the US pcpartpicker will show, but I could look at a cheaper case like mentioned above and any motherboard with good customer reviews will be ok since you are not overclocking.
Here is another build to consider for non-overclocking (and if prices are comparable):
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/H4pWBm
more powerful processor i3-4130
reliable motherboard
cheaper but quality case
256GB SSD with good customer reviews
reliable semi-modular corsair 500w power supply
I realize this all depends on regional prices, but if you are not overclocking, the i3-4130 performs better and you can pair it with a cheaper B85 chipset motherboard. It should fit somewhere close to the same budget.
I was considering this i3 from the beginning but this amd in kit with mobo was realy dirt cheap (almost same price as this i3 4130). If this was my build i still would stick with 4670k for sake of future upgrades but in this budget compromises have to be made. As for the case my hands was tide because it was kids choise. I only hope that bottleneck from the CPU wont be massive because it would be shame to choke this card. Altho i doubt the will use full potential of this build (Battlefield 4 for 8 yo boy my nieghbour wouldnynt be happy about it) but at least it will last for longer.
Ps. 128GB SSD is ok in my opinion for boot drive at least. I used 128GB SSD as my boot alongside 1TB HHD for about 3 years and I have no complaints what so ever.
Ps 2. I have to include DVD wrighter so it hits my budget even harder. I hope I will find that cheap as well as other components.
What would be the point of a SSD for a kid's pc? Slow access times should teach them patience :P
But seriously, it doesn't perform any better but in boot times, and why would you pay 60$+ for a few seconds off booting time. You can always use hibernate/sleep/fast booting like asrock's using c states suspend.
A 750k or fx 6300 would be better than the i3 in the long run.
I'd rather have the 750k, but it's primarily because of the faster clock rate and larger number of physical cores. I totally understand that they feature the same number of threads, but hyperthreading simply doesn't scale perfectly, either because the software doesn't adequately support it or because there was an interrupt request that prevented the second operation from being processed on that core. Either way, more physical cores provide a more consistent performance. I'm just waiting impatiently for AMD to actually release some truly performance-oriented CPUs for the FM2+ platform. I was hoping to see some allusion to big things from AMD at Computex, but they really let us down in that regard, simply focusing on all of these things that we've all been aware of for months and months now. We'll have to keep an eye out to see if AMD has been hiding some things from us.
This is probably what I would go with, all things considered. It gets you an aftermarket cooler, a slightly better motherboard (more VRMs, but you also don't have a heatsink on them, which is sad), better RAM, a similar GPU, the same case and a more powerful PSU. The difference in price has been reduced to the cost of the aftermarket CPU cooler, while doubling the storage capacity. You do sacrifice a bit in terms of write-speed and max IOPS, but you won't really notice that in real life, only really in benchmarks.
An i3 is quite a bit faster than a 750k in all tasks... the two cores are significantly more powerful on a core to core comparison, and the SMT scaling vs physical cores aren't even close to enough to make up for the per core performance difference... furthermore, to say it has a faster clock rate is completely irrelevant when comparing between different architectures... the amount of cycles doesn't dictate how much work is done in each cycle, so while saying get the 760k over the 750k makes sense because of clock speed, even bringing it up as a point against an i3 is rather ridiculous.. i3 > 750k no contest
The i3 will give the FX 6300 a good run as well... it's not nearly the blowout 2 cores vs 6 cores sounds like... though I would lean toward the 6300 in this race unless it were an office/net browsing computer or maybe even a really low-budget CAD system...
I think a lot of people overestimate the uses of multithreading, as most programs just aren't optimized for it, especially the select few that the majority use in "productivity" work... maybe more will be down the line? I'm not nostradamous... I know there aren't a lot of good uses for extra cores NOW unless you're video processing, virtualizing OS, conversions, or compressions... You'll seemingly be doing something very CPU intensive at times, bring up core temp and one core will be at 94% while the rest are idling... Prime95 is the best multi-threaded program out there but it's just a stress tester... I've never seen an actual program max out all cores before...
Now for this build, the money saved by going with a 750k might be worth it... but to say it's outright better than an i3 is very incorrect and misleading to an uninformed person asking for assistance :)
Modern AMD and Intel CPUs are so different on an architectural level, you simply cannot compare based on number of cores and clock speeds alone. You have to look at IPC (instructions per clock) per core and overall IPC. With the i3 you have the option to easily upgrade to an i5 or i7 later on, which makes the i3 a much better choice for the long run IMO. The i3 already out-performs the 750/760K as it is, so you're already starting ahead. Granted the 750/760K can overclock, but that can only make up for so much. What you spend on a cooling solution to help the 760K close the gap puts you at the cost of an i3 and then some. Unless AMD has some serious performance parts coming through the pipeline for the FM2+ socket, 1150 still has the upgrade advantage here.
All that being said, the OP isn't looking for some killer gaming rig. I would say if you go with the FM2+ platform, then at least get the 760K instead. It has a few newer architectural advancements, is clocked higher out of the box than the 750K and is only literally a few dollars more. I would also safely say that the 760K will not bottleneck an R9-270, at least not much. An i3 would definitely not bottleneck it.
Here's my recommendation: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3zvhmG
i3-4150, reliable decent quality mobo with 4 ram slots for easy upgrades, little bit cheaper ram with good timings, 128GB SSD + 1TB HDD, killer deal on this R9-270 right now, same case and PSU.
The difference in the SSD is $30 over the OP's choice, but I doubled the storage capacity. Given that this is going to be an office computer that also plays some games, an SSD is the obvious choice, since it provides very tangible performance improvements for day-to-day tasks. The amount that would be spent between that SSD and a 1TB HDD is not enough to pay for the increase even to a R9 270X, which does not significantly improve upon the R9 270, which shares the same die. You also cannot afford even a GTX 760 with the change over.
A word about SSD. I have 128GB SanDisk SSD just likie in my Partpicker sheet and it gave a new life to my eeePC 1215b (e-350 Windows 8.1, ,4GB of 1333 DDR3). Everything is faster and snapier not to mention boot time even tho its SATA laptop so there is massive bottleneck choking this drive. There are other pros for using SSD in netbook it's lighter, quieter and consume less power (for desktop it's irrelevant tho). Just to point out i havent messured anything exept boot time so i base my opinion on the feel of my system but I doubt it's just a placebo effect.