PCPartPicker

  • Log In
  • Register

Build Guide

FX-6300 / GTX 960 Gaming PC

by philip

48
119 Comments

Revision History

Description

For our latest build video we put together an FX-6300-based gaming PC. Check it out here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge9mViMeQck. In the $650-$750 price range, this build is a solid value for a gaming system.

Newegg has kindly put together a combo deal with the same parts we used in the video:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.2284977

For reference here is the exact part list used:

Type Item Price
CPU AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor $104.99 @ Newegg
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-970A-D3P ATX AM3+/AM3 Motherboard $86.98 @ Newegg
Memory Kingston Savage 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR3-2133 Memory $79.99 @ Newegg
Storage Kingston Fury 120GB 2.5" Solid State Drive $67.99 @ Newegg
Storage Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive $54.99 @ Newegg
Video Card Zotac GeForce GTX 960 2GB Video Card $215.66 @ Newegg
Case Cooler Master Elite 431 Plus (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case $44.99 @ Newegg
Power Supply Cooler Master VSM 650W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply $100.98 @ Newegg
Total Using Newegg Combo Deal $695.99

The AMD FX-6300 is a great choice for budget gaming builds, with good baseline performance and plenty of overclocking potential. If you do choose to overclock, you'll want to upgrade the stock cooler.

While the Cooler Master Elite 431 Plus case is a bit scarce with cable management, there's still plenty of room to route cables cleanly. We had no problems keeping everything clean and organized. The 3.5" SATA external hot-swap bay is definitely a bonus.

Hope you enjoy the video - let us know what you think!

Part List Customize This Part List

Warning: These parts have potential issues/incompatibilities. (See details.)

Estimated Wattage: 255W
Component Selection Base Promo Shipping Tax Price Where
CPU $61.39 FREE $61.39 OutletPC Buy
Motherboard
Memory
Storage
$42.89 FREE $42.89 OutletPC Buy
Video Card
Case
Power Supply
Total: $104.28
* Using your selected merchants and only including nearby in-store pickup prices)
* Some physical dimension restrictions cannot (yet) be automatically checked, such as cpu cooler / RAM clearance with modules using tall heat spreaders.

Potential Issues / Incompatibilities

  • Some AMD 970 chipset motherboards may need a BIOS update prior to using Vishera CPUs. Upgrading the BIOS may require a different CPU that is supported by older BIOS revisions.
  • Unable to verify the Cooler Master - Elite 431 Plus (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case has sufficient space to fit the Zotac - GeForce GTX 960 2 GB Video Card.

Comments Sorted by:

Rage1422 21 points 50 months ago

280/x > 960

Weak1ings 1 Build 4 points 49 months ago

280X>960=285>280 I believe this to be a more accurate statement. The 280X is the best value but anything less and the 960 beats them up with superior cooling and TDP.

TechL.T.I.A 3 points 49 months ago

280x takes down 960 on about 7-10 fps 280x is more worth it mate

JarodK 2 points 49 months ago

Actually it will take it down by as much as 20 FPS.

beepic117 14 points 50 months ago

Why the $80 2133 RAM? There's 1600 for like $60ish

SpecialMuffins 6 points 49 months ago

Also, the motherboard can't even get 2133; max is 2000. :|

Moltraze 1 Build 3 points 49 months ago

Because it's savage ;)

SpecialMuffins 1 point 49 months ago

?

Moltraze 1 Build 3 points 49 months ago

The new trending word around where I live is "Savage", Ideky, it just is, thought maybe I wasn't the only one.

[comment deleted by staff]
beepic117 1 point 48 months ago

Not with a dedicated GPU and for use with gaming, it just drives up the cost.

xNightCaster 1 Build 10 points 50 months ago

The R9 280x is far better than the 960, and roughly 50$ cheaper too...

mdocod 9 points 50 months ago

The R9 280X can run games at higher visual quality settings than the GTX960 but does not ensure any better performance, in fact, the contrary is more likely.

The GTX960 benefits from a more mature DX11 implementation at the driver level. The result is a higher performance floor, ESPECIALLY noticeable when running multiplayer compute intensive games on a CPU with many weak cores like the FX-6300 proposed in this build.

It is in fact, arguably more intelligent to pair an nvidia GPU with piledriver than an AMD GPU, as nvidia's DX11 optimizations make better use of the many-core architecture than AMD's own implementation (ironic much?).

If this build were proposed with an i3, it would make more sense to use the R9 280/X instead of a GTX960, as the arrangement of execution resources in the i3 make the differences in the driver level implementation more of a wash depending on the game in question.

[comment deleted by staff]
mdocod 1 point 50 months ago

Do you have any way to prove that what I am saying isn't true? Or are you just assuming I'm wrong because it doesn't placate to the simplistic romantic GPU comparison routine that everyone loves to use? It sure would be a lot easier if we could make a GPU selection decision based on a few GPU bound benchmarks, after-all, those are very easy to produce and re-produce at will. Most games have some sort of bench-marking sequence that is almost entirely GPU bound built right in.

In fact, creating, and re-creating realistic CPU intensive conditions where the bottleneck routinely shifts back and forth from the CPU to the GPU, is far more difficult. Most review sites don't even bother trying as there's too much room for error. Unfortunately, in the real world, people don't play bench-marking sequences, they play in conditions that are indeed compute intensive (multi-player, raids, congested battles, etc).

I've been testing and researching hardware for years. I've observed the same trend appear whenever CPU bound conditions are introduced in DX bench-marking attempts. It occurs in game engines and viewports used for CAD/engineering/modeling software that uses DX (like autodesk software). Nvidia solutions consistently pull ahead almost across the board when the workload shifts to being CPU bound in DX viewports/games. The only time this isn't the case, is when the CPU being used has limited inter-core parallelism and would already reach full saturation on all cores before any advantage is realize. For example, nvidia's driver doesn't do well on pentiums/celerons at all because those CPU's don't have the additional execution resources available that the driver is designed to scale into.

On the other hand, very often we see AMD's openGL implementation proving better than nvidia's, though openGL is so rare in mainstream gaming I hardly see the point in bringing it up here.

You can take it or leave it. If you want to stay in your bubble I don't blame you.

Jakomako 7 points 50 months ago

Do you have any way to prove that what I am saying isn't true?

Like the multitude of benchmarks that show the 280X beating the 960 in every game under the sun? You're the one going against all the available data. The burden of proof is on you. I've never seen a single piece of data that indicates that a GPU that underperforms against another GPU when paired with a top-end CPU, will then outperform that same GPU just because it's paired with a less capable CPU. If you don't have any actual data to back up your claims, they're worthless. I don't care how much experience you have. It's all just pseudo-scientific BS you've pulled directly from your *** until you have some actual data that shows that sort of performance discrepancy.

mdocod 11 points 50 months ago

Like the multitude of benchmarks that show the 280X beating the 960 in every game under the sun?

GPU bound benchmarks do not reflect real world conditions, especially not for a machine being configured with a WEAK CPU. ALL of those benchmarks you are looking at, are performed with a flagship CPU, often OVERCLOCKED, and are GPU bound "sequences" intentionally designed to isolate the raw render performance of the GPU, which is not up for debate here. The R9 280X does indeed have more render throughput than a GTX960, I'm not claiming otherwise. All those benchmarks you are looking at prove is something we already agree on.

Performance and visual quality are separate issues. More render throughput can only buy more performance if there is headroom on the compute side of the puzzle to scale into. Nvidia's DX11 implementation affords more compute headroom to scale into.

You're the one going against all the available data

"All" of the available data {that you are looking at} is only useful for comparing raw render throughput of the GPU, not real world hard limits on performance. Performance and visual quality are separate issues. In CPU bound conditions, it doesn't matter if you're running an R9 250X or an R9 290X, they will both wind up running at the same performance floor.

The burden of proof is on you

http://pclab.pl/art55318-3.html

One of those rare tests where they created an intentionally CPU bound condition. Compare equal CPU performance on each chart, note the huge advantage of the Nvidia implementation, especially noteworthy on CPU's with more threads. Note how on the Pentium AMD pulls ahead, this is because AMD's DX11 implementation is poorly threaded, so actually has less total compute overhead, so is favored on weak CPUs with very few cores when running heavily threaded games like BF3/4 or Crysis 3.

The same trending can be spotted in many games. Read WoW forums. Anyone who plays WoW, and does serious raiding is familiar with the nvidia advantage for DX11 in compute bound conditions.

If you look closely, you can even see some of that effect showing it's face in this benchmark...

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_760/24.html

Techpowerup was trying to run a GPU bound benchmark there, but unfortunately, WoW is one of those titles that is hard to isolate on the GPU consistently, especially at lower resolutions with high end GPUs, so results wind up being inadvertently muddled by the CPU boundedness and of course, whatever differences in driver/API implementations there are to effect that CPU boundedness. As a result, we wind up seeing cards like the GTX580 performing on par with the HD7950 (R9 280) in some of these tests. This phenomena is indeed related to the differences in API optimizations. Keep in mind, that in this techpowerup review, they were trying to create basically a "solo" repeatable sequence, so we're only seeing the effect of fractional, marginal influences from the CPU/API/driver here. If they were to carry out the same test during a raid, the FPS figures would all be much lower, and the results would basically all be clumped into 2 distinct groups representing the different API optimizations. All of the AMD GPU's would be getting the about the same FPS, while all the Nvidia GPUs would be getting ~20-30% higher FPS than whatever the AMD group was able to achieve (assuming they could replicate equal conditions from test to test, highly unlikely).

Understanding how that is possible, first requires a rudimentary understanding of how a viewport is generated. The GPU can't do ANYTHING until the pre-rendered frame is generated by the CPU. You seem to be operating from a false premise that these game engines and viewports run entirely within the GPU. This is wrong.

If you don't have any actual data to back up your claims, they're worthless. I don't care how much experience you have. It's all just pseudo-scientific BS you've pulled directly from your *** until you have some actual data that shows that sort of performance discrepancy.

http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/AutoDesk-AutoCAD-2014-Professional-GPU-Acceleration-504/

AutoCad uses a DX11 viewport, but like almost all CAD viewports, is more CPU bound in most conditions than GPU bound. Note the K2000 (GTX650) beating the W8000 (R9 280). This has nothing to do with render throughput, this is the result of API optimizations.

jacobs4525 1 Build 3 points 49 months ago

He's not arguing that the 960 is the stronger GPU, he's saying that since Nvidia has a better DX11 implementation in terms of multi-threading the CPU workload, overall performance will be better, since the 6300 really needs to utilize all 6 of its threads to achieve acceptable performance in most games, and it's a known fact that AMD's implementation of DX11 in their video cards is worse at this.

Foxies 1 Build 3 points 49 months ago

Has more vram than the 960. So, it will outlast the 960

deathraydave 2 Builds 1 point 5 months ago

2080ti > 1080ti > 970

Steveythehuman 1 Build -2 points 50 months ago

Isn't the 960 way newer though?

squirtkenny 6 points 50 months ago

The 960 can be new but still lack performance. The same way the 295x2 can outperform a 970 or 980 despite it being released months beforehand

ChainsawMS 2 points 48 months ago

I guess we'll have to see the numbers again once DX12 is out with the GTX 9xx series being full DX12 cards. Plus you can get a 4gb GTX 960 if you really want which actually helps a lot with minimum frames/sec and 1440p res.

squirtkenny 1 point 48 months ago

The 4GB on a 960 is pretty stupid since the 960 barely has the horsepower to hit the 2gb buffer let alone a 4GB one. Maybe it's good for Skyrim with hella texture packs but in order to see many of those textures in fruition you need A. A good monitor and B. Raw horsepower, high memory usage or not.

Now the 4GB on the 960 may see an increase between 5-10 FPS at MAX. But for the extra price it is nowhere near justified

vitinho_18 -5 points 49 months ago

2 vs 1 GPU is 295x2 for one reason. A 980 sli is far better than a 295x2

justingatz 3 points 49 months ago

But then again, two GTX 980's costs much more than a 295x2.

vitinho_18 0 points 49 months ago

The 295x2 price dropped by 500$, and they are far power hungryer.

nicnec7 1 point 49 months ago

There's actually not that much of a difference between the two considering the 290x is pretty close to the performance of a 980.

simonlvschal -4 points 49 months ago

nah its not .. 290x is far from 980. lol and 295x is weak and Requires A ton of power and its going very hot like 70+ degrees even with fans ramped up to 70%

rhali8 2 Builds -2 points 49 months ago

Or just get this - https://www.umart.com.au/umart1/pro/Products-details.phtml?id=10&id2=422&bid=4&sid=220220& - the ROG ares outperforms ANY gpu, no matter what the price.

jjohnson122 3 Builds -4 points 50 months ago

The average 960 runs for around $210, most 280x cards run for $240+

lebuilder 5 points 50 months ago

I'm currently getting mine for like 180+ USD

juhni 1 Build 3 points 50 months ago

Newegg has a sale for 1 for $199 till end of March. Plus the 285 is cheaper than the 960.

7443chris 3 points 50 months ago

I got a powercolor PCS+ r9 290 for $209 and it is SO much better than the gtx 960. The only advantages of the 960 is that it is new, it uses less power, and it supports Nvidia shield's streaming service

simonlvschal -4 points 49 months ago

i think you need a brain check.. the R9 280x is around 30$ more expensive then gtx 960. and also gtx 960 is stronger then 280x.

xNightCaster 1 Build 1 point 49 months ago

You must be misinformed, look through your research again because the 280x outperforms the 960 in nearly every game out there.

Additionally, the prices range from card to card, I've seen 280x's sell as low as 160$, whereas most 960s sell for around 220-240$, given its a newer card...

rhali8 2 Builds -3 points 49 months ago

I agree - the GTX 960 can get 10 - 15 more frames on most games! Not saying the R9 isn't a good card!

Worriedwalrus 4 points 50 months ago

I have the motherboard, not recommended. It has an inoperable usb 3.0 driver and the north bridge gets extremely hot

AthlonMurderer 0 points 49 months ago

Wait really? I was thinking of getting it for my pc im going to build!?!?!

justingatz 1 point 49 months ago

I honestly would not get this build. You can spend far less than what this person decided to spend on this build, and still get near equivalent performance.

SpecialMuffins 1 point 49 months ago

You should see this build for a basic idea of what you want:

http://pcpartpicker.com/guide/NPXscf/fx-6300-gtx-960-gaming-pc#cx751359

You will most likely need to keep that mobo if you plan on OC'ing the 6300. [switch the i5 with an fx]

jjohnson122 3 Builds 3 points 50 months ago

For the same price you could have an fx 8320 and an r9 280x which would be far better.

NinjamanJosh 1 Build 3 points 50 months ago

Why use single channel memory if dual channel 8GB is the exact same price for Hyperx memory?

firsttimer321 3 points 49 months ago

It is a budget build remove the ssd and get a nicer cpu/gpu

Hussein.H 2 points 49 months ago

I'd go for 1866MHz RAM and maybe an R9 280 or 280X. Not the greatest build guide. Also, some of the parts here do not have a price so the total is inaccurate!

ccanter14 2 points 49 months ago

Plus the SSD is good for your OS. It will boot insanely quick. Also could put your mostly played game on too for quick loading.

Detective 1 point 50 months ago

Looking to spend about this for a new gaming system - I want to be able to play Batman: Arkham Knight at full graphics at either 60 fps or 120fps (if possible for this price).

Should this build be able to handle that?

fellway 1 point 50 months ago

I looked at some benchmarks for other Batman games in recent history (since arkham knight is unreleased), and assuming it is somewhere near the same optimization level as previous titles, it should be able to run fine at very high graphics levels. This is just speculation though, as benchmarks for Arkham Knight can't be found yet.

According to this site, it should run just fine (you can plug in whatever parts and settings): http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=17044&game=Batman%3A+Arkham+Knight&p_make=AMD&p_deriv=FX-6300&gc_make=Nvidia&gc_deriv=GeForce+GTX+960+2GB&ram=8&checkSubmit=

Detective 1 point 49 months ago

Thanks!

matzybro 1 point 50 months ago

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Type Item Price
CPU *Intel Core i5-4590 3.3GHz Quad-Core Processor $186.56 @ OutletPC
Motherboard *ASRock Z97 Anniversary ATX LGA1150 Motherboard $79.99 @ Micro Center
Memory *G.Skill Ares Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory $54.99 @ Newegg
Storage *Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive $44.99 @ Amazon
Video Card *Sapphire Radeon R9 290 4GB Tri-X OC Video Card $239.99 @ Newegg
Case Corsair 300R ATX Mid Tower Case $59.99 @ Micro Center
Power Supply *Antec TruePower Classic 750W 80+ Gold Certified ATX Power Supply $49.99 @ Newegg
Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts
Total (before mail-in rebates) $806.50
Mail-in rebates -$90.00
Total $716.50
*Lowest price parts chosen from parametric criteria
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-03-13 19:06 EDT-0400

If you have 700 dollars to spend, go for something like this. You can do better than a 6300 at this point.

Detective 1 point 49 months ago

Cool, thanks very much - 2nd person to recommend the R9 290, taking it as a sign ;)

matzybro 1 point 49 months ago

No problem. The 290 at $240 right now is the best card for your money in my opinion. And the i5 you will also be very happy with.

RSCakeBomb 1 point 49 months ago

pairing a non-K series CPU with a Z97 motherboard

matzybro 1 point 49 months ago

For upgrade path, also this board is about as cheap as the H97s or z87 atx boards.

7443chris 0 points 50 months ago

THANK YOU! SOMEBODY OTHER THAN ME ACTUALLY KNOWS HOW TO SCALE price:performance CORRECTLY!

Whatdoyoutypehere 1 point 50 months ago

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/kKNMK8 I'd save 40$ more to get an i5/w an overclockable board. Also, the 290 would be faster.

Note : philip's build cost's 718$.(that's what I see)

ametueraspirant 1 point 50 months ago

so do the towers come with disk drives and power cables and the like? or are those just inconsequential and separately purchasable?

RowdyBeaman 1 point 49 months ago

Almost no tower will ever come with an optical drive (disk drive as you put it) but you can get a really good one for around $20. Also the power cables will come with the power supply, but if you have more things to power than you have enough cables for (unlikely unless you have lots of storage) then yes you can buy them rather cheaply.

eton0213 1 point 49 months ago

Why were some of the comments deleted? I'm new to pc part picker and not sure. Was it because they were particularly vulgar?

RandomnessSlaya 1 point 49 months ago

the memory may not work because the board only supports 2000 MHz not 2133 MHz.

CommunistShrub_ 1 point 49 months ago

I think it'd be better to use a i5 with a 280 (x if you can stretch the budget). It'll perform similarly and be better at more than just gaming. But if you want it to be 100% gaming, an Athlon 860k and GTX 970 with a 1TB HDD and slightly slower RAM would be better.

bwood269g 1 Build 1 point 49 months ago

I built this same thing basically last weekend. https://pcpartpicker.com/b/z7FdnQ

Freddy runs Far cry 4 at 1080p ultra, 60fps that dips when i load things sometimes.

ryankirsch13 1 point 49 months ago

get rid of the SSD, change your power supply, no need for an 80+ gold if you can get a silver, or bronze for less, your not drawing much power. Get the Zotac out of here. the money you save on the power supply, get a better case, the money you save on not buying a SSD you can get yourself a coolermaster 212 evo, and whats with the 1x 8gb Ram module... anyone that has any business building a PC would know for a dual channel setup you use 2 or 4 DIMM slots, save 30 bucks and get 1600 CL10 2x 4gb and you wont see a frame of a difference. Whats left over from your SSD, Ram, and whats left over from the PSU you can grab yourself a 970 almost, or just get an R9 290 if thats what you like, or a 280x and it will preform better. Bad attempt at a budget build

abhishekSPS 1 point 49 months ago

Hey could you recommend me a good configuration. i am not a hardcore gamer just play DIRT, NFS, Burnout Paradise, etc. But I want want to build a system which should not start to show its age any time soon. I tend to keep 900 tabs in chrome and 9000 tabs in firefox and 40-50 pdfs open all at once...alright not really all of that is true but you get my point. I don't do any video editing, photoshoping but AUTOCAD and streaming FHD movies.

I have started to put my feet on audiophile world so it would be nice to have SPDIF port on my mother board to hook up an external DAC....I have separate budget for DAC+Amp and headphone ;) I will have os on ssd (crucial mx100?)and 2*1 tb wd hdd for everything else.

Also wifi ac dual band @ 5Gz is a must.

I can go upto 1000$ but i have to start from scratch i mean I am going to buy even monitor, mouse, and keyboard..... my current laptop has intel core 2 duo t6600 @ 2.20GHz 4 Gb ram which already hangs a lot some time.....so my new build should be a considerably better than this one.

Any thoughts would be highly appreciated and thanks for reading. :)

xLayde_N 1 point 49 months ago

I would go for an R9 280 or R9 270 and if the budget was cheaper, GTX 750Ti

ccanter14 1 point 49 months ago

Pretty nice build. Its along the lines of what I am spec'ing out.

Rastaaa 1 point 49 months ago

Hey if anyone still comes on here I would like some help. I am looking to buy a new Gaming Pc for around $600. I do not play high demanding games at all, the main games I play are Team Fortress 2, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Left 4 Dead 2 and other non-demanding games. I would really like an SSD on this build. Thank You. (OS is not needed)

MARCUS_PAR 1 point 49 months ago

I am thinking about buying the parts in this guide, can anyone who has built this pc give me a review on performance?

Thanks.

nicoli1986 1 point 49 months ago

I don't mess with mail in rebates but I think this would be a solid cheap build that could run just about anything on high settings. The I3 with hyper threading has much better single core performance than AMD and most your games only use 2 cores. Also the hyperthreading is nice just in case you need more cores usually you can use the virtual cores.

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/29q7Hx

jensbier 1 point 49 months ago

Guys iam a damn ''noob'' with building pc's, you are thinking wtf are u doing here...

I want to buy a good pc that can run battlefield 4 on medium settings for sure. I like if u guys think this is a good build or if there is another good build for me pls tell it to me.

Srry for my bad english hopefully u can help me. Thnxx.

therandomplay 1 point 49 months ago

FX8320 Maybe?And I would recommend a Cooler Master 212 Evo or TX3 because it will keep the CPU Cooled better and sound like an airplane taking off.

xLayde_N 1 point 49 months ago

Why would you go for a $100 PSU in a budget build, I would use something from EVGA or Corsair.

jeffPC 1 point 49 months ago

I used this build and the PC is great. I am having a problem with the graphics card over heating though. Any advice? It keeps freezing up!

philip staff submitter 10 Builds 1 point 49 months ago

Hmmm. If your card is overheating it should throttle down and get slower, but not freeze up. First thing I'd do is run MSI Afterburner and check what temps it runs at at idle and at load. If the idle temps are really high that might point to a defective unit. The freezing up might point to a defective unit too (perhaps an RMA is worth considering). To rule out anything else, might also be worthwhile trying out another video card if you have one available to test with.

niofalpha 1 Build 1 point 49 months ago

This build... Why such over priced Ram, and why not a Cheaper PSU? Not to mention at this price range you can easily be affording an i5... http://pcpartpicker.com/p/ZpWZK8

killazdc 1 point 48 months ago

i have this dont get amd bad bad

robehargra 1 point 48 months ago

Can the video card fit the case and why is the videocard price not included?

MyDailyNightmare 1 Build 1 point 48 months ago

Doesn't this processor bottleneck the video card?

Leon_the_Demon_killer 1 point 48 months ago

Even with it having 6 threads, an i3 would be a better option over the 6300 in game performance and TDP. The cost of a cheaper board for the i3 would off set the slight difference in cost.

Unfortunately, in terms of performance, AMD just cannot compete with intel right now. It's really sad.

Circas 0 points 50 months ago

No Idea why people are putting a GTX 960 in a build at the performance/price point it offers. Only time I would see it being a viable choice is if your upgrading a old build with a small PSU, you have a 650W PSU..

FX-6300 should not be put into a gaming build and has a terrible upgrade path. Stick with Intel.

No idea why I do not see G.Skill Ripjaws X series in this build. They are cheap, work great, have a nice look, and just overall get the job done. Also they come in 2x4 which is better performance and STILL cheaper than have been chosen.

We should really stop putting Kingston SSDs in builds, I personally will not touch ANY of their products. I will gladly pick up a OCZ Arc 100 or the MX 100 from Crucial which both are known for working great and are cheaper.

Overall I think there are better options.

matzybro 1 point 50 months ago

I agree. Then again im losing hope, i posted a build further down where u get a 4690k w/AMcooler and r9 290 for 75 dollars more than the fx6300/960 by selecting a more price effecient psu, removed ssd, better case and still got my post hidden from 5 downvotes.. As well as a 8350 290 build for 20 dollars more. No point, just let people buy these weird builds.

AmazingPhil 0 points 50 months ago

i3+R9 280/X would be a better combination. Not recommended to use the stock FX-6300 (aluminum) cooler as it was not designed to handle the 125W TDP, at least without reaching very high temperatures and sounding like a vacuum cleaner. Also a 650W PSU is way overkill for these specs.

racecar56 0 points 50 months ago

This really is a terrible build.

I was able to make a partlist for a few cents shy of a full $200 cheaper than this one, which has none of the problems I am listing below, all while using the same GPU (albeit from EVGA).

This partlist uses a single-channel memory configuration, when you can get a better-performing dual-channel kit for less money. It also uses a CPU prone to bottlenecks, whereas my partlist does not. I used to use an FX-8320, I should know. Lastly, my partlist all fits inside a Micro ATX case, whereas the same cannot be said for this one.

MyDailyNightmare 1 Build 2 points 48 months ago

I have a friend whose 760 bottlecks his 6300. I guess I don't feel like the 6300 is viable in a mid level gaming rig anymore.

racecar56 1 point 48 months ago

That sounds about right. I think anyone who intends on getting a half-decent graphics card should be avoiding current AMD processors, as it's a stupid decision; you are depriving yourself of potential FPS. It's not about AMD hate, it's about the resulting performance you're getting.

MyDailyNightmare 1 Build 1 point 48 months ago

I have a hard time with this statement as I have a few different friends running 8350's with no bottlenecks what-so-ever. The 6100, and 6300 are just prone to bottlenecking.

racecar56 1 point 47 months ago

I seem to hear that the general consensus is that the 8350 has less issues with bottlenecking than the 8320, but I have no experience with the 8350 to back that up.

What gives you the impression that it has no bottlenecking issues, though? Have you tried the exact same hardware, except with an Intel motherboard & CPU instead, and saw no performance difference?

MyDailyNightmare 1 Build 1 point 47 months ago

All we do is game, strictly. So, for us, the 8350 is all we are going to need. I am sure it is possible to bottleneck an 8350, as it is possible to bottleneck any processor with enough GPU power. Can i speak towards any experience video rendering or other related tasks? No. However, I can say the 6300 just LOVES to bottleneck when gaming. It just does not like processor heavy games, whereas the 8350 handles them with no problem.

HungrySpartan20 1 Build 0 points 50 months ago

Hot damn, mama call the fireman.

TechNerd007 0 points 49 months ago

GG

How_do_I_computer -2 points 49 months ago

If you want the best graphics performance, replace the GTX with a equal AMD graphics card, that way you can do a crossfire with the FX, scince this FX happens to be a apu (is both a cpu AND gpu) and boost fps even more.

TheGingerBeard 3 Builds 3 points 49 months ago

The FX-6300 is NOT an apu. If you look at the info for the part is says 'Integrated Graphics - No'. None of the FX series have integrated graphics.

How_do_I_computer 1 point 49 months ago

Oops. Sorry, I was thinking about the Richland APU. =P

fellway 0 points 49 months ago

While it seems to be promising, results are far less glamorous than expected, sometimes even worse than just the GPU on its own.

How_do_I_computer 0 points 49 months ago

I know, its not as helpful as it could be sometimes, but when it helps, heck, it was a free fps boost.

matzybro -7 points 50 months ago

75 more dollars and you get so much more for your money. I would not put a fx 6300 in a 700 dollar build, there are other options that would give you more for your money at this point.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Type Item Price
CPU Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor $222.75 @ OutletPC
CPU Cooler Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler $28.98 @ OutletPC
Motherboard *ASRock Z97 Anniversary ATX LGA1150 Motherboard $79.99 @ Micro Center
Memory *Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory $58.99 @ Newegg
Storage *Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive $44.99 @ Best Buy
Video Card *HIS Radeon R9 290 4GB IceQ X² Video Card $252.98 @ Newegg
Case Corsair 300R ATX Mid Tower Case $59.99 @ NCIX US
Power Supply *EVGA SuperNOVA NEX 750W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply $49.99 @ NCIX US
Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts
Total (before mail-in rebates) $861.66
Mail-in rebates -$63.00
Total $798.66
*Lowest price parts chosen from parametric criteria
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-03-10 16:59 EDT-0400
matzybro -1 points 49 months ago

the fanboys/elitists are at it again.. lmao

matzybro -2 points 50 months ago

If you want to stick with AMD, go with this instead PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Type Item Price
CPU AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor $162.75 @ OutletPC
CPU Cooler Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler $28.98 @ OutletPC
Thermal Compound Arctic Silver 5 High-Density Polysynthetic Silver 3.5g Thermal Paste $6.49 @ OutletPC
Motherboard MSI 970A-G46 ATX AM3+ Motherboard $69.98 @ OutletPC
Memory Corsair Vengeance 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory $58.99 @ Newegg
Storage Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive $44.99 @ Amazon
Video Card HIS Radeon R9 290 4GB IceQ X² Video Card $252.98 @ Newegg
Case Corsair 200R ATX Mid Tower Case $49.99 @ Amazon
Power Supply EVGA 850W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply $69.99 @ NCIX US
Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts
Total (before mail-in rebates) $803.14
Mail-in rebates -$58.00
Total $745.14
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-03-10 17:49 EDT-0400
[comment deleted]
[comment deleted]
[comment deleted]
[comment deleted]
[comment deleted]
philip staff submitter 10 Builds 2 points 50 months ago

It wasn't removed - when there are revisions to the part list for a guide (which we did for this guide a couple days ago), it archives the comments with the revision they were posted on.

[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
Reason:
Note: Wattages are estimates only. Actual power draw may differ from listed values.
Component Estimated Wattage
AMD - FX-6300 3.5 GHz 6-Core Processor 11W - 95W
Kingston - Savage 8 GB (1 x 8 GB) DDR3-2133 Memory 10W
Western Digital - Caviar Blue 1 TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive 4W - 20W
Kingston - HyperX Fury 120 GB 2.5" Solid State Drive 2W - 10W
Zotac - GeForce GTX 960 2 GB Video Card 30W - 120W
Total: 255W