So /g/, I always wondered "What is the cheapest yet fairly reliable PC build you can make that you can later upgrade to a entry-level gaming one?"
So I've come up with $200 pic related build. Only 120GB HDD, 2GB DDR3 RAM, 300W PSU, 2-core CPU @ 3.2GHz and 128-shader GPU @ 720MHz, WiFi USB dongle, micro atx case/motherboard - the minimum I think that should be allowed for a PC. However the cool thing is that since this is a FM2+ MB it means it is backward compatible with FM2 so you can get all the bang for your buck or a little bit more performance+efficiency if you wish.
>Level 1 upgrade: $150
Replace the APU with a $100 A8-7600, add another $20 2GB RAM stick, and add a $30 320GB HDD
Now you have 4 cpu-cores @ 3.1 - 3.8GHz and 384 gpu-shaders @ 720MHz. In addition 4GB RAM and 440GB total storage space.
>Level 2 upgrade: $225
Disable the iGPU and max CPU to 3.8GHz, add a $150 NVidia GTX 750 Ti GPU, add another $20 2GB RAM stick, and add a $50 500GB HDD + $5 3.5" to 5.25" mounting bracket
Now you have 4 cpu-cores @3.8GHz and a 640 CUDA-core GPU @ ~1GHz. In addition 6GB RAM and 940GB total storage space.
Any further upgrades would require a more powerful PSU, water cooling to overclock the CPU and a new case to accommodate the radiator and additional storage. Anyway, by the time you reach Level 2 upgrades you will have spent around $600 with shipping and you will be able to play BF3 and most other games on 1080p, 60FPS+, and on high graphical settings.
What do you /g/ents think?
Problem is the PSU is only 300W so the R7 270, hell even the 260 might not be compatible because of the connectors. I'm very sure the GTX 750 Ti is compatible with a 300W PSU because 2 friends have exactly that kind of build.
I wouldn't bother with these crap tier components. You say it's upgradeable, but the only thing you would be carrying over to the future is the case and motherboard. Everything else is disposable tier crap that should be replaced with something else at the first opportunity.
I highly recommend you at least save up something like $400~500 for a decent base to add to, instead of cheaping out on 80% of the PC that you will have to spend more money replacing in the future.
You'll end up paying more money over time to replace existing parts than just paying money to add new parts. Do you really need a PC so soon that you are forcing yourself to spend $200 right *now*?
Actually many places are telling me the R9 270 has to use a 500W PSU because of amperage issues with lower wattage PSU. The R7 260 recommends a 400W or 450W if possible PSU. The GTX 750 Ti is safe on my chosen 300W PSU because it has a 16A @ 12V DC rail which will output 192W of power which is enough for the 750 ti.
Indeed, but in this case (yeaahhh), I am just looking how low priced I can make a moderately upgradable PC.
>Do you really need a PC so soon that you are forcing yourself to spend $200 right *now*?
No, but I just wanted to show people that even at rock bottom prices you can still make an upgradable PC. I guess I just wanted to strain those limits. Actually this PC build would be great for desperate people who do not want to wait to save 200-400 more $. It is as you say, more money will be spent in upgrades because of crap hardware - but that is the price people will pay if they want a desktop PC as soon as possible. I think this would mainly benefit people on laptops that want the cheapest gaming PC right now - not many sub-$500 laptops have a 128-shader gpu or a gpu at all!
>Intel® HD Graphics
I'm afraid this would not be a suitable choice for a $200 build. Not to mention upgrading would be more restricted. AMD APU builds offer the best bang for the buck and upgradability - Intel should have jumped on the APU bandwagon but they failed.
>Only a few more dollars for a better PC
Whoah, that's pretty cool anons - thanks.
OP you keep harping about a "128 shader" GPU, but in reality the APU you chose has a Radeon 7480D for integrated graphics, which is slightly weaker than a desktop Radeon 6450 graphics card.
That shit can barely do recent games at 30FPS on 720p at no more than low to medium settings.. maybe.
Yes, 1150 socket would allow for more powerful upgrades than the FM2+, I won't deny that. What I meant to point out was that for $200 an FM2+ build would give you a more powerful GPU than intel would. Don't take it the wrong way I don't hate intel but for $200 Intel has nothing to graphically compete with an AMD APU. On top of that after the i3s Intel CPUs become more pricey and offer less performance than AMD so yeah. Though such power efficient i5s and i7s might interest people building servers or low power PCs.
>dual channel for the APU
I feel doubtful that a 128-shader iGPU would need access to so much speed. Besides level 2 upgrades would offer dual channel RAM and by that time you would have 384 gpu shaders to take advantage of it.
I'm putting together a PC myself, and I'd recommend getting a 500-650 W PSU from the get-go.
It will be way overkill before the upgrades, but then you'll start upgrading stuff and your PSU will still satisfy your system's needs.
I'm not an expert so wait before one either checks this or debunks it before listening to me.
No one said anything about hating Intel. I'm just asking why you think upgrades are more limited for Intel systems.
No one in their right mind wants to play games on integrated graphics, anyway. Your own upgrade plans already involve discrete graphics cards so IGP performance only matters for how long you plan to not upgrade.
>On top of that after the i3s Intel CPUs become more pricey and offer less performance than AMD so yeah.
Wait, how do you figure that? The i5 line of quad core processors offer more performance than AMD's quad core APUs.
Jesus christ that's cheap. I want to build a PC myself and ran the bill to $350 with an Intel CPU - this actually has about the same specs. I had no idea, wow. If more people knew about this they would trash their consoles immediately i bet. I just want a PC to watch movies and do some Microsoft word stuff on - I think this would be great!
Yes, i5s do offer more performance but they cross the $100 threshold. Once they do - they perform at the same level as a 4-core AMD cpu would which would only Cost $100. After that they get more powerful but cost 150$+ in which AMD would win the bang-for-your-buck reward. pic related is what I'm talking about.
>offer more performance
>perform at the same level
Those two sentences don't make any sense.
Why are you using synthetic CPU performing to dictate game performance, anyway? You should use framerate benchmarking which is a direct indicator of game performance. When you play a game, you do not load up Passmark CPU tests, you play an actual game.
Dammit, mean to say performs at the same level. Real-game performance would be a good benchmark indeed just remember that some games are badly optimized so that might be biased. Passmark CPU benchmarks tell you the raw computing power when all cores are working, which seems like a good benchmark to me anyway.
>not spending at least 900$ on a pc
Seriously? if you're that poor I suggest you invest your money in something else, like, any basic need since I'm sure you're literally living paycheck by paycheck
I just did this mainly for fun, chill anon. Don't you think it's neat that you only need to spend $200 for a basic PC that can be upgraded?
>Dammit, mean to say performs at the same level.
I'm pretty sure an i5 doesn't "perform at the same level as a 4-core AMD cpu would which would only Cost $100".
>Real-game performance would be a good benchmark indeed just remember that some games are badly optimized so that might be biased.
Yes, but the problem is that people don't want objective performance from a CPU. They want good performance, and ultimately for games that means decent framerate. Unfortunately when it comes to CPU/GPU/game performance there is no such thing as "neutral" optimization and/or playing field. Competing processors are built with different architectures and will perform differently according to how the game is coded to make use of or work against certain architectures.
>Passmark CPU benchmarks tell you the raw computing power when all cores are working, which seems like a good benchmark to me anyway
Actually, it isn't. Passmark benchmarking software spits out a meaningless "power level" number that tells you neither how well it performs in games nor how long it takes to complete certain tasks. Passmark numbers only matter when you want to see how well each processor runs Passmark.
For example, the i3 4350/4360 is listed as being very close to the A8-7600 on that Passmark list, but there is a huge discrepancy in how much worse the A8 7600 does in framerate performance compared to the i3 4360. Game performance varies up to a 50% difference in favor of the i3 processor.
Hmm well I guess real-world performance is what gamers should actually care about. Still the fact that Intel fakes "cores" with their hyper threading worries me. If an AMD cpu is overclocked it spreads out across all cores meanwhile it would it would only spread out on the real cores on Intel cpus. But overclocking is not likely for the average joe so I guess Intel would have leverage here.
Anyway I still think Intel is overpriced but it might be worth it. In this case simply overclocking the A8-7600 to 4.4GHz on water cooling might make it as fast as a $200 i5 - I mean it would be 4.2GHz across ALL cores, that has to boost it significantly.
You've stumped me anon, without overclocking Intel really does seem to surpass even cheap AMD processors.
Don't get me wrong, given certain scenarios and budgets I'd recommend AMD over Intel, but for the time being AMD's kind of dropped the ball when it comes to consumer and enthusiast PC crowd looking for game performance. Part of that can be attributed to game optimization, but the fact remains that APUs are a low-to-middle market segment product. I'd like AMD to come up with better products to be more competitive - monopolies are bad, but as it is right now Intel currently leads in framerate performance.
And sorry, the top end A10-7850K overclocked to 4.7GHz sorta comes close to a non-overclocking i5 processor, but doesn't really match it. It can match the i3, but occasionally even the i3 beats the overclocked 7850K. Overclocking the 7850K is a cheaper option than going with i5 processors, but you'll also have to budget for a better CPU cooler and an A88X chipset motherboard, other chipsets like A78 not being as suitable for overclocking. Like you said, overclocking's not for everyone, but if someone's knowledgeable and on a smaller budget for incremental upgrades, it's an option.
Also, it goes without saying that with no graphics cards and just IGP only, overclocked APUs beat Intel silly, but sooner or later a budget gaming PC is going to have to get a graphics card, after that it shifts in Intel's favor.
Both the 7850K and 4670 are quad core processors, while the i3 43xx are hyperthreaded dual core processors.
One quad core CPU architecture being beat by another CPU architecture in quad and dual core forms isn't a problem with multithreading, it's the CPU architecture that's the cause of differing performance.
Even so, i its just for gaming getting the APU is the way to go, you can play games pretty well while you save up money, though the only APU you're going to want is an A8 7600 right now, memory speed holds back the A10 right now