add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

To all 1st time builders

HippoZoned

62 months ago

I see a lot of ppl on here spending 1200+ on over priced intel rigs that haven't been proven to out perform the fx series of processors by a large margin, of course the intel fanboys will argue that however its a never ending invalid arguement

So I've built a machine that will run all current games at 1080p 50-60 fps no problem It saddens me to see money wasted so here ya go

To make it cheaper lose one gpu

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Type Item Price
CPU AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor $131.98 @ SuperBiiz
CPU Cooler Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler $26.75 @ OutletPC
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 ATX AM3+ Motherboard $116.98 @ Newegg
Memory G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-2133 Memory $79.99 @ Newegg
Storage Western Digital BLACK SERIES 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive $79.99 @ Newegg
Video Card Gigabyte Radeon R9 280 3GB WINDFORCE Video Card (2-Way CrossFire) $179.99 @ Newegg
Video Card Gigabyte Radeon R9 280 3GB WINDFORCE Video Card (2-Way CrossFire) $179.99 @ Newegg
Case Rosewill STEALTH ATX Mid Tower Case $69.99 @ Newegg
Power Supply EVGA 750W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply $69.99 @ Newegg
Total
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available $915.65
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-12 16:45 EST-0500

Comments

  • 62 months ago
  • 4 points

People spend $1000+ because they want to have the best performance for their money and being 100% unbiased, a intel i5 is better than a any AMD cpu when it comes to gaming, very few games use more than 4 cores. Also intel offers significantly stronger single core performance. AMD currently has nothing to compete directly with a i5 when it comes to gaming. Also a GTX 970 would significantly out perform 2 r9 280's, using 2 r9 280's doesn't make make it 100% more powerful than 1 R9 280, in the best case scenario it would be 30% more powerful which doesn't justify the cost when some games don't do sli/ x fire good and for the cost of 2 of them you could get a R9 290X or a GTX 970 which would significantly out perform them.. I also see places where you could make significantly cheaper without sacrificing performance nor quality.

  • 62 months ago
  • -3 points

sli crossfire is still somewhat new also more games will start using more cores I'm not gonna get into this arguement I'm honestly tired of ppl saying intel is better than amd even if the intel can slightly out perform the amd fx line its barely noticeable, and of ya ask me I'd want a 8 core cpu to game on and run my capture software for streaming or anything else

  • 62 months ago
  • 2 points

SLI /Cross fire has been out for a while and its due to a a physical bottleneck, they way they are designed, not poor optimization Games will start to use more cores, a i5 over a fx will usually or nearly always result in a higher framerate over a fx. in benchmarks, the i5 muders any AMD CPU but in games thats a different story, it highly depends on the game and GPU. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIT9uLDjZcg I never AMD is bad, its just that AMD hasn't released any high end CPU's for a while intel has. AMD is great for budget to mid range builds and definitely out performs intel in recent games.

  • 62 months ago
  • 1 point

I appreciate the honesty in your post its refreshing.

  • 62 months ago
  • 1 point

I agree w/ vagabond139. 970s are very powerful, and paired with an i5-4690, it will tear up anything at 1080p or 1440p. If you get an extreme edition or even a four core 4790K paired with a powerful graphics card, you can start playing games very well at 4K as well.

  • 62 months ago
  • 4 points

I think AMD is a good option for folks who want a $500 build for their kids.

  • 62 months ago
  • 3 points

I love how this guys gettng on intel fanboys but hes just an amd fanboy

  • 62 months ago
  • 2 points

Frankly, I'd really only use AMD GPUs if on a budget (x < $1k) OR I was planning to use ridiculously large/multimonitor resolutions as their GPUs tend to have a lot of VRAM and the bus width to support that

But I stick with Nvidia 'cause the stuff I use has CUDA support (see Premiere Pro) or PhysX support and they tend to draw less power and generate less heat than AMD's do (plus I really only game on one monitor @ 1080p.. and then there's ShadowPlay)

In the end, though, it's all preference

  • 62 months ago
  • 2 points

Three points, you won't like any of 'em. 1, are you seriously suggesting dual GPU to a first time builder, someone who has never tried cable management before? A 290 would be a much better bet even if it's less FPS for games with crossfire profiles 2. Estimated wattage, and that's with no OC on the FX, is 84% of the PSU's capacity, sorry but I wouldn't call that good advice. And 3, there are still some games for which even an i3 outperforms an overclocked 8350, not everybody knows how to do multi-threading correctly.

  • 62 months ago
  • 1 point

Over 1200? I plan to get a i7-4790k in my build and stay just under $1200 :p

Considering you can get an i5-4690k for just $45 more that that AMD FX-8320, I don't see why you're complaining. If you use it enough, the cost of electricity savings will make up for that cost in a few years :p

  • 62 months ago
  • 1 point

The electricity savings will make up for it? Only if you live some place with ridiculously expensive electricity and plan on keeping it for more than 5 years heavily overclocked at full load for hours/days on end. At that point, investing the price difference would have made you money. Jayztwocents made a great video about that earlier this year.

  • 62 months ago
  • 1 point

":p". I was not being serious with my comment.

Btw... the video by Jayztwocents says using it 4 hours a day at full load and OCed, it would only take 3 years at the national average of electricity cost to make up a difference of $45s. He was using a cost gap of well over $100s. And if you use an OC'd AMD compared to an non-OC'd i5, you're talking about 2 years to save money.

  • 62 months ago
  • 1 point

True enough, I suppose. But where are you getting an i5 4690K for only $45 more than an 8320? Microcenter's price difference is $60, and that seems to be the lowest difference I can find. Not to mention, quality Intel motherboards can be more expensive.

  • 62 months ago
  • 1 point

Microcenter's is $48 difference if I'm putting it into the calculator right (180-132). You can get a tier 1(b) z97 mobo for $110 there as well- cheaper than the $117 tier 1 AMD mobo in this build. Although if you don't have to pay taxes where for the AMD ones you the saving are a little more.

  • 62 months ago
  • 2 points

The catalog in front of me says 120 for the 8320, and 180 for the i5 (before taxes of course). The cheapest motherboards (990 chipset vs. z97) are around the same price (save for a couple bargain bin z97's). Of course, you can still overclock with a cheaper AMD Mobo, and there are really cheap 970 chipset Mobos. If I was going bargain hunting at Microcenter, then an 8320 with a 970 chipset Mobo would only set me back 160+tax, which, if all you're doing is gaming, will be at least adequate even at stock speeds.

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube