Building a gaming computer & budget for a student?

[FinnLassie]

Hi!

I've decided that it's time to build myself a computer that I will completely dedicate for gaming. As much as I love using my MacBook Pro, it just gets too hot way too fast and the fan is ridiculously loud - which makes co-op and multiplayer games a bit of a pain to play. Once the computer is build, I'll move into using the laptop as a uni working station...

What I'm looking at is building a computer that'd last me at least 'til I graduate and/or get a job (so in the next 2-4 years).

Being a student my budget isn't really the most amazing, but I'm wondering what would be a smart choice that wouldn't kill me... The amount of money I've thought about being willing to spend is somewhere between 450€ to 600€.

The build will likely take place November - December time.

So... like... what do I do. :smalltongue: I know there's tutorial websites, but I'd like to get an opinion from all of yous as well.

[snowblizz]

Being a student my budget isn't really the most amazing, but I'm wondering what would be a smart choice that wouldn't kill me... The amount of money I've thought about being willing to spend is somewhere between 450€ to 600€.

The build will likely take place November - December time.

So... like... what do I do.
Wait until November so we know what parts will be available! 5-6 months is like a decade in the world of computers. Any recommendations now will be hopelessly outdated by then. OK, not quite as bad, but still... it depends a lot on when/if new "generatison" of the various technologies will be released as invariably prices will shift a lot and the previous top range stuff will come within a decent budget without being too far off the new stuff (generational leaps are much smaller nowadays).

But start thinking on stuff like do you have a screen, mouse keyboard and stuff. A place to put it? What kind of tower (most are tower models today) do you want or do you go for the more compact solution (that narrows your options a bit).

You'll probably want to consider the intel i5 family cpus that's normally used in gaming machines as a cheaper cpu option for less intensive raw calculation ability. Most of the demand for gaming will be on the graphics card after all. For GPU you'll want something like the nVidia 970 or RAdeon R9 290 or thereabouts. Because even with a hopeful November price drop I doubt you'll have much of a budget for the next generation graphics cards. And buying the new budget scrap card can be more expensive and worse than getting a top of the line odler generation card.

[Fri]

Also, take various site's stance on "gaming graphic card" with grain of salts. Sometimes I really can't understand what's people's standard on "gaming pc" is. I built my pc a year ago with just 500 dollar budget, and I game heavily on it. Sure I can't play games on ultra or high or whatever, but I can play most modern games and I'm satisfied. My brother also got a lenovo laptop for about 500 bucks about three years ago (definitely not what most people seem to consider "gaming laptop" but he play our favourite modern games like dragon age or mass effect just fine.

But yes, from me, I'll also second the recommendation of buying higher end older graphic card than lower end newer graphic card.

[Whoracle]

Tangible hardware suggestions will have to wait until you're ready to build, like SnowBlizz said.

But here are a few general pointers:
- Don't be afraid of the actual build process. Apart from inserting the CPU into its socket on the mainboard*, there's nothing you can do wrong, as long as you heed one simple rule: "If you need force, you're doing it wrong!"
- Make a list of what hardware you already have, if any at all. Why? Because:

- You can reuse a case that you have from an older machine. The form factor stanards for Mainboards haven't really changed in the last 15-ish years (or whenever ATX was introduced)
- You can reuse your Mouse and Keyboard
- You can potentially reuse your hard disk
- You have to reuse your monitor. Else your budget won't cut it.
- Get an SSD. No matter if you want to reuse your old HDD or not. Get an SSD. Crucial M100s are like 70€ over here for 256 GB, and they speed up things considerably.
- Don't push too much RAM. 8GB is more than enough for pure gaming. 4GB might cut it close, depending on the games in question, but 8GB is more than enough for all but the newest games on ultra.
- Get a decent Power supply. Not only decently sized, but from a brand manufacturer. Because

- The machine tends to run quieter
- A faulty power supply can ruin things in a hurry. Not that I'd know, has never happened to me, of course, but so I've heard *cough*

So, list any you have lying around of the following:
Mouse, Keyboard, Monitor, HDD, Power Supply, Case, RAM

Mainboard, GPU and CPU you'll have to buy new. RAM most likely too. Salvage whatever else you can.

*Even the CPU insertion isn't hard, just that if you use force with that, it's too late to stop.

[Silfir]

If you're willing to do the basic research, I recommend building a PC yourself; pre-builts are sold with a significant markup and often have mediocre quality parts. Especially with a limited budget in mind.

Do you already own mouse, keyboard and (most importantly) a monitor?

How are prices for computer hardware in Finland? Would you buy from Amazon (perhaps Amazon Germany, if Amazon Finland doesn't exist), or Finnish sites?

If we're talking about just the big hunk of metal that has all the computery parts and no peripherals, 600 € at German prices (i.e. buying from Amazon Germany) is just about adequate to get 1080p/60 fps performance out of new releases for 2-4 years, but if you go down from there so you can also fit a monitor, you'll have to make fairly significant sacrifices, and will probably have to drop detail levels and won't always get 60 fps.



CPU: Either an i3-6100 or an i5-6500. These are the most current Intel CPUs, a two-core and a more expensive quad-core respectively. How much you want the latter over the former depends on what you want to do with the machine. Games that only utilize one CPU core at a time (like SC II) will run just as fast with the i3, but games that are optimized for multiple cores (like the recent Warhammer: Total War) will run noticably faster with an i5.

That said - AMD is actually coming up with a new generation of microprocessors, called "Zen", that may actually make them a competitive option on the CPU market again. Right now, with a budget limit of €600 or less, an i3 would probably be the best option.

Motherboard: For the current generation of Intel processors, you're looking for motherboards with an LGA 1151 socket - and more specifically, one with a H110 chipset. These are the most basic motherboards you can get, and therefore the least pricey - but even at their most basic, H110 motherboards will generally have all the features you need. Any motherboard made by MSI, ASRock, Gigabyte or Asus are going to work just fine. Boards with more features will have B150, H170 or Z170 chipsets - but cost more as well.

I wouldn't expect a lot of movement here - though the motherboard you'll be getting will be something entirely different if it turns out Zen is a thing at this point.

RAM: The cheapest 8 GB DDR4-2133 stick you can find will work completely fine. H110 boards are limited to 2133 MHz anyway. I recommend going a single stick because the H110 motherboards at low budget ranges will only have two RAM slots; if you get two 4 GB sticks you can't upgrade easily. Right now, 8 GB will be indistinguishable from 16 GB in performance for all but the most RAM-demanding of games, so it makes sense to start off with only 8 and upgrade to 16 once it's required, which won't be for a quite a while.

Things won't change much here either. DDR4 is the new standard, so even Zen AMD boards will probably use it. (Any older AMD CPUs are not a good buy at this point.) Higher clock speeds on RAM isn't needed for anything substantial; it can get some extra fps, but not nearly enough to make the investment worth it.

Storage: I'd just get a 240-256 GB SSD. Don't necessarily buy the cheapest there is, but you don't have to spend a lot either. If you have a spare hard drive lying around, you can cut corners and drop to a 120 GB SSD as well. SSDs are not cost efficient for raw media storage - like movies, tv shows, etc. - but ideal for any frequently run applications, especially Windows itself.

It's quite possible for SSDs to drop in price even more until November, and for new models to come out.

Video card: This is where you'd look to spend the biggest chunk of your money - where you get the best "performance per €" return on investment. There's a lot of movement in the GPU market - but right now, everything points towards the AMD RX 480 being the best option in your budget range by a country mile. It's not released yet, but will be by November, and right now it's priced at $200 US, but is supposed to be "VR ready" and faster than the R9 390 - which is a 340€ card at the moment. If the rumors are accurate, it'll be the ultimate price/performance option out there, and will likely cause other cards to go down in price so they're not completely obliterated.

So November is a perfect time to be looking at video cards again, when the current excitement has blown over and a clear recommendation has emerged. But I don't think you have to spend a lot more than 200€ to hit the sweet spot in terms of performance/€ for a 1080p monitor.

Case: I'd just get something basic and MicroATX (since all the cheaper motherboards will be MicroATX as well) that won't break the bank, nor fall apart if you sneeze on it. Something like a Fractal Design Core 1000, or a Cooler Master N200, at the moment. And yes, if you have one, why not reuse it?

PSU: Don't get the cheapest on the market - do a bit of research and get a unit with decent build quality. But also keep in mind that you don't get anything out of having one with more wattage than your parts will actually use. For instance, the most recent video cards have actually gone down in power usage so much that I think 400-450W is perfectly sufficient for a budget PC. Hell, even the currently fastest GPU around - the GTX 1080 - won't need more than that. Resarch individual units; while Corsair is a highly popular brand, I wouldn't recommend the VS or CX lines, for instance.



EDIT: Yeah, a lot more practically-minded advice in this thread now already. Do detailed research in November, figure out what you can reuse (HDDs are especially nice for this), and so on. Buy everything at once so you can test it all right away and won't have trouble sending anything back.

Regarding the topic of "What is a gaming graphics card" - it's definitely true that expectations differ wildly from person to person when it comes to performance. A friend of mine was playing games on what looked to me like 20 fps or something, which is really at the lowest end of playable - definitely choppy at the very least - but he swore he didn't notice and felt the game was fluid. It comes down to what you're used to. At any rate, it's more or less beside the point; for any given budget, there is generally a small range of "best" options in terms of performance per €/$/rupees, so it just comes down to how much you're willing to spend in the end, and what your specific use case is. (I.e. which games specifically you're looking to play - Warhammer: Total War is very heavy on the CPU, but goes relatively easy on the GPU - it's usually the other way around.)

[Hunter Noventa]

A lot of good advice here, but I'll reiterate that you should really do your research and invest in a good Power Supply. I've had more trouble with power supplies than any other PC Part in the past couple of years. And if a PSU goes off the rails, it can destroy your entire PC, so it's worth the money to invest in one noted to be reliable.

Also going to echo that you'll want the advice closer to your actual build time, AMD is pushing a lot of new tech this year, which likely means that the old tech will be a lot cheaper by then.

[snowblizz]

How are prices for computer hardware in Finland? Would you buy from Amazon (perhaps Amazon Germany, if Amazon Finland doesn't exist), or Finnish sites?

Prices are on the expensive side unfortunately (which is why I'm pessimistic about the budget reaching what I'd consider a gaming computer, but I've been told before I have above average expectations).
From experience one needs to shop around for each part, weighing up the delivery cost over savings in individual parts. FWIW my previous gaming computer I actual paid for the parts seller to assemble (many online stores do that, you get sort of a hybrid between self assembly and premade), though it was only 20€, well worth not having the hassle, this new cmoputer was ~60€ to assemble but I'm done with that hassle. Though if it goes up again I'll be doing it myself again. I kinda miss it too. That one time I swore it off is fading from memory (sadly some of the old AMD CPUs required considerable force to be properly isntalled, it was a close call...)

[FinnLassie]

Thanks all for your input! I'll shortly answer that I'm basically starting from zilch - I have no monitor, no keyboard, nada. I'll likely get around buying a monitor during this summer, though, as doing them arts on a 15" screen isn't good enough for me anymore...

And yes, I will be building the computer from scratch but with a bit of help from another friend.

I know there'll likely be new components coming out in the following months, but is it really necessary for me to get the absolute latest sh'bang if I'm building on a budget?

Will look into these replies more in detail during this weekend, just had a wee skim through as I need to get busy busy busy with real life. :smallsmile:

[Whoracle]

Well, since I'm monumentally bored right now and can't get up from my desk (curse you, food coma!), I decided to see how low I can get a gaming ready PC for.

Assumptions:

530€ (converted from the 600$) budget
Monitor, Mouse and Keyboard not needed
Everything bought via amazon.de


Specs (rough):

8GB RAM
at least 120GB HDD
Solid PSU


Here's what I found:

Case: Zalman T3 - [25.45€] (https://www.amazon.de/Zalman-M-ATX-M-ITX-Mini-Tower%C2%A0-%C2%A0PC-Geh%C3%A4use/dp/B00G4E60TQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1464974330&sr=8-1&keywords=micro+atx+case)
HDD: Crucial M4 240GB - [61,83€] (https://www.amazon.de/Crucial-BX200-240GB-interne-Solid/dp/B016JREGAC/ref=sr_1_75?ie=UTF8&qid=1464975646&sr=8-75&keywords=crucial+ssd)
CPU*: AMD FX6300 - [107,50€] (https://www.amazon.de/AMD-Hexa-Core-Prozessor-Socket-Cache/dp/B009O7YORK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1464975813&sr=8-1&keywords=amd+hexa)
Mainboard*: ASRock - [94,99€] (https://www.amazon.de/Asrock-Extreme4-Mainboard-Prozessor-Speicher/dp/B0058HUQJ0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1464974829&sr=8-2&keywords=am3%2B++ddr4)
RAM: Crucial CT8something - [25.75€] (https://www.amazon.de/Crucial-CT8G4DFD8213-Arbeitsspeicher-2133MHz-DDR4-DIMM/dp/B00MMLUYVU/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1464974566&sr=8-3&keywords=8GB+DDR4)
PSU: beQuiet! 550W - [54.90€] (https://www.amazon.de/quiet-BN259-Netzteil-System-schwarz/dp/B018WJL0XQ/ref=sr_1_31?ie=UTF8&qid=1464974638&sr=8-31&keywords=be+quiet+netzteil)
GPU**: GeForce GTX950 - [158,80€] (https://www.amazon.de/Asus-GTX950-M-2GD5-Grafikkarte-Speicher-DisplayPort/dp/B014GTF0SM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1464975241&sr=8-2&keywords=nvidia+geforce+gtx+950)


Makes for a total of 529,22€. There. 0,78€ left. Talk about german precision :smallwink:
Of course, you can get more bang for the buck if you shop around, or buy used. But I'm not THAT bored :smallbiggrin:

* While a lot of people swear by Intel CPUs, I found that while that while they are more powerful by numbers, they're less powerful by bang for buck, making AMD CPUs the better choice for a budget. The FX8350 is what I run in my rig right now, and I don't have any problems with it. Keep in mind that the plural of anecdote isn't data, though - YMMV. I was couldn't find ANY i5 new that came even close in price, though.
** I don't know enough about current gen AMD GPUs to look for one, really. Always been a nVidia guy, ever since 3dfx folded back in the day. The GTX950 is the biggest one that I could fit into the budget.

Note: THIS IS NOT WHAT YOU SHOULD BUY, it's just a little demo on what you can get for that money.

Edit:

[...]but is it really necessary for me to get the absolute latest sh'bang if I'm building on a budget?[...]

Absolutely not. BUT: New gadgets mean that current gadgets will drop in price. No one (that I understood) suggested to get the latest and greates in November, but you can get way better stuff then for the same money than you can get now.

Edit Edit: Just saw that you doN't have a keyboard/mouse. In that case I'd drop a few rungs lower on the mainboard side to free up some funds for K/M.

[Alias]

What's your budget? Mine is $2000 and this is what I spec'ed out.

https://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=28123212

Since you're a student I doubt you're looking to buy a computer that costs as much as a good used car. However, there are basic steps you need to follow when building regardless of the price range. For illustration I'll walk through a build with a target cost of $1000. Anything less and you aren't really going to get enough oomph for your effort as opposed to just buying an off the shelf unit and doing a drive wipe to get rid of all the bloatware that it ships with.

1. Start with the CPU
The CPU will dictate pretty much everything else compatibility wise. There are two choices - AMD and Intel. Intel chips are a bit faster per dollar, AMD chips are cheaper. I prefer Intel but I've build AMD machines in the past. Skylake is the current generation - by the time you intend to do this build the Kaby Lake processors should be on market which will push the cost of this processor down by $50 - $100. As it stands now, this is what we'll start with:

Intel Core i7-6700 8M Skylake Quad-Core 3.4 GHz LGA 1151 65W BX80662I76700 Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics 530 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117560)

$315, and this one comes with a suitable heatsink out of the box so you won't have to look for that later. Note the CPU is the heart of the box - I recently refurbed a computer I built 6 years ago to be my brother's Christmas present and all I needed to replace to get it able to handle Fallout 4 at maximum settings was the graphics card. By the time the CPU needs upgrading these days the whole unit is dated to the point swapping things out isn't worth it.

2. Next the motherboard.
The Intel chip above uses an LGA 1151 socket so the motherboard we choose MUST have that socket. Motherboards come in a variety of sizes, but for a gaming machine that likely only needs to use one PCI-Express slot for the video card the Mini-ITX form factor works best. Also avoids ending up with a computer that weighs as much as a small child. The motherboard will influence our further choices.

GIGABYTE GA-H110N (rev. 1.0) LGA 1151 Intel H110 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 Mini ITX Intel Motherboard (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128899)

$75. The important thing to note is memory type supported - DDR4 2133. You can put faster memory in, but it's a waste of money. It is not recommended to put slower memory in. Another constraint on the motherboard is the case. In addition to needing a mini-itx case, this board has support for one USB 3/0 connector on the case. Next the most expensive component - the graphics card.

3. Graphics card
This is where the price can vary enormously, depending on what you want to spend. The following card can run Fallout 4 at max resolution and everything turned on.

EVGA GeForce GTX 970 DirectX 12 04G-P4-3973-KR 4GB 256-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 Video Card (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487136)

$275. They don't make games that can push a GTX 1080 (The processor in my personal build above) to its limits and they won't be doing so for a few years. The price on this card is only going to plummet between now and November as those cards hit the market starting this month.

4. Memory
Memory is cheap. Following the type the motherboard supports.

GeIL EVO POTENZA 16GB (2 x 8GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 2133 (PC4 17000) Intel Z170 & Intel X99 Desktop Memory Model GPR416GB2133C15DC (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820144924)

$50. Going with 8GB will save at most $21. The extra memory can be put to use by the hard drive which is our next consideration.

5. SSD

The presence of an M2 connector was one of my considerations on the motherboard - and the one given above is the cheapest that meets that requirement. The M2 connector is supplanting SATA by giving the SSD drive a full PCI Express style connection. This is the difference between the machine booting in a minute and booting in 10 seconds. SSD's are bleeding fast. Further, with 16GB of RAM half of that, 8GB, can be taken by the drive to act as a ramdrive buffer for both further speed increases and to reduce the number of read/write cycles. Capacity is the price driver here - the following is the cheapest 256GB drive available.

SAMSUNG SM951 M.2 256GB Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA12K3G96790)

$160. Unless you want to store every movie you own on the system that should be enough. If you do have a lot of media you can still get a normal HD to use as a media drive.

6. Case
DIYPC HTPC-Cube-BK Black USB3.0 Aluminum/Steel Mini-ITX Tower Computer case, can support 120mm Radiator, Standard Size ATX PSU (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811353044)

$39. Not a lot to say here - the case is the visual look of the system and you can spend a lot on it. I went with cheap but durable material here.

7. Power Supply
The graphics card we're using needs a 6 or 8pin connection from the PSU and the recommended minimum wattage of the PSU is 500.

LOGISYS Computer PS550J12BK 550W ATX Power Supply (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817170031)

$26

So, we're at $940. A good gaming keyboard and mouse are around $30, but you might have those already so I left it out. The Windows tax is $100 though as a student you may be able to get it at academic pricing which I think is around $50.

The prices cited above will fall before November - I would expect a comparable system to this to run around $800 by then. Some of this will be from these items falling in price, but some the stock will run out. Double check the build before using it if you want to use it for possible compatibility problems.

[wumpus]

Two best links I've ever seen for such a thing:
http://pcpartpicker.com/ (localization is somewhat limited, 5 EU countries are listed).
http://www.logicalincrements.com/ (might be dead, I could have sworn it was working when I recently updated the bookmark).

To be honest, my best suggestion for that level would be to find something used on the local equivilent of craigslist at $400 and:
add a $50 SSD (try to find a base PC with 1-2TB (or more) of spinning disks, but SSDs are the only thing really following Moore's law).
add a $150-200 video card. These *sort of* follow Moore's law (although this latest generation is the first silicon "improvement" for something like 6 years). Considerably better boards (since the last couple of years) should be available in November. I'd expect the AMD480 to be in that price range, and if we are lucky their will be a Nvidia 1060 to compete with it (unfortunately nobodies seen a 1070 yet, so who knows).

WARNING: this requires far more study on each part than simply putting the parts together. If you have the means, I suggest simply buying the parts and possibly blowing the budget. If you don't, then carefully googling each available "deal" to see if it will take a ~175W video card + spare SATA port. But to be honest, the only improvements in desktop computers in the nearly the last 10 years have been in SSDs, video cards, and monitors. And at that price I can only expect a 1080 monitor.

[Silfir]

I know there'll likely be new components coming out in the following months, but is it really necessary for me to get the absolute latest sh'bang if I'm building on a budget?

Well, if I have no idea about the general market in Finland, I have less than zero idea about the used market. The thing is, buying "older" stuff new isn't often a good deal once you break it down into price/performance terms, as in, an i5-4460 with a H81 motherboard will be somewhat cheaper than an i5-6500 with a H110 one, but the older motherboard will lack a lot of features and there is also a marked difference in performance.

But if you're willing to buy used and spot a great deal, older parts can form the cornerstones of an excellent budget build. Especially interesting areas to look at here are the CPU/motherboard (usually sold together on the used market) and the GPU.

For the CPU, the thing is that even older generation Intel CPUs are still really really good, especially the overclockable ones. An i5-2500k with a Z77 motherboard with a decent cooler not only can still keep up, it will be able to for years yet. (Even an i5-2500, which can't be overclocked, can still be absolutely worth using if you pick it up for cheap.) CPU requirements simply haven't gone up as swiftly over the last seven to eight years as they used to in the past, and AMD's lack of competitiveness has caused Intel to slack a bit on innovation; why make an enormous effort to make new jumps in technology and efficiency when the only competitor is still in the process of merely catching up? That's part of why people have high hopes for AMD's Zen architecture.

Lots of people who upgrade to the new hotness in GPUs will be pushing their perfectly functional and occasionally still really great old cards to the used market. So I think it should absolutely be worth it to look into the used market come November. It can just be hard to keep track of how different older GPUs compare to each other.

With all that being said, one thing you have to say about used parts is that almost by definition you'll end up having to invest in upgrades and replacements sooner than you would with new parts (and run sooner into situations where you have to replace not just one part, but other parts with it). Buying new and current hardware is more expensive now, but can often save quite a bit of money in the future. That's not counting the very real risk of buying broken parts or ending up getting straight-up scammed.



EDIT: Well, since we're all bored and trying to see what we can do within the €600 limit...

PCPartPicker part list (http://de.pcpartpicker.com/list/hJ3TwV) / Price breakdown by merchant (http://de.pcpartpicker.com/list/hJ3TwV/by_merchant/)

CPU: Intel Core i3-6100 3.7GHz Dual-Core Processor (http://de.pcpartpicker.com/product/hV7CmG/intel-cpu-bx80662i36100) (€120.22 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Motherboard: ASRock H110M-HDS Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard (http://de.pcpartpicker.com/product/WXyxFT/asrock-motherboard-h110mhds) (€58.26 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Memory: Crucial 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR4-2133 Memory (http://de.pcpartpicker.com/product/xvLypg/crucial-memory-ct8g4dfd8213) (€25.75 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Storage: Patriot 120GB 2.5" Solid State Drive (http://de.pcpartpicker.com/product/gxs8TW/patriot-internal-hard-drive-pbt120gs25ssdr) (€34.99 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Video Card: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 960 2GB Video Card (http://de.pcpartpicker.com/product/YxrcCJ/gigabyte-video-card-gvn960ixoc2gd) (€179.99 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Case: Zalman ZM-T4 MicroATX Mini Tower Case (http://de.pcpartpicker.com/product/f9xfrH/zalman-case-zmt4) (€26.92 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Power Supply: EVGA 430W 80+ Certified ATX Power Supply (http://de.pcpartpicker.com/product/HvTmP6/evga-power-supply-100w10430kr) (€45.40 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Monitor: Hannspree HE225DPB 21.5" Monitor (http://de.pcpartpicker.com/product/6b3RsY/hannspree-monitor-he225dpb) (€94.89 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Total: €586.42
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-06-03 20:30 CEST+0200

(You can probably get a keyboard for 8 € or something from your local media store, or bum one off a friend; even 20 year old ones will still work with modern PCs. A more likely reason this won't work is that you don't live in Germany, so will have to pay considerable shipping when ordering from Finland. Actually, looking it up, I think the way to go is to omit the case and monitor and get those locally, since shipping costs are based on kgs and those ought to be the heaviest parts by far.)

On the issue of AMD FX 6300 CPUs vs. Intel: I seriously doubt AMD has any hope of keeping up in "bang for your buck" when it comes to gaming, because the vast majority of CPU usage in gaming is based on single-process performance - and AMD FX hexacores and octacores are completely eclipsed by the i3-6100 in that area, while costing about the same. (The cores on an FX series AMD are so much slower than Skylake Intel, actually, that the i3-6100 can keep up with them even in multi-threaded stuff to some extent, thanks to hyperthreading. An i5 is nice to have for gaming, but not necessary; it'll perform exactly as fast as an i3-6100 in any game that isn't optimized for multiple cores.) Also, the AM3+ socket is dead, whereas the LGA 1151 socket the i3-6100 has much, much more powerful options available.

Here's a benchmark (http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-6100-vs-AMD-FX-6350-Six-Core/3511vsm713) comparing i3-6100 with an FX-6350. i3-6100 is the better quad core despite not actually having four cores.

[halfeye]

On the Intel side, look at the 'T' series cpus, they aren't as fast, but they are a lot lower power, which means they are cooler and quieter.

[Silfir]

On the Intel side, look at the 'T' series cpus, they aren't as fast, but they are a lot lower power, which means they are cooler and quieter.

I'm not sure how helpful that is... Lower power requirements won't save you money on the build, only a tiny bit over the long run in power consumption. The CPU already doesn't have a big impact on how big of a PSU you need.

[Gnoman]

What's your budget? Mine is $2000 and this is what I spec'ed out.

https://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=28123212

Since you're a student I doubt you're looking to buy a computer that costs as much as a good used car. However, there are basic steps you need to follow when building regardless of the price range. For illustration I'll walk through a build with a target cost of $1000. Anything less and you aren't really going to get enough oomph for your effort as opposed to just buying an off the shelf unit and doing a drive wipe to get rid of all the bloatware that it ships with.

1. Start with the CPU
The CPU will dictate pretty much everything else compatibility wise. There are two choices - AMD and Intel. Intel chips are a bit faster per dollar, AMD chips are cheaper. I prefer Intel but I've build AMD machines in the past. Skylake is the current generation - by the time you intend to do this build the Kaby Lake processors should be on market which will push the cost of this processor down by $50 - $100. As it stands now, this is what we'll start with:

Intel Core i7-6700 8M Skylake Quad-Core 3.4 GHz LGA 1151 65W BX80662I76700 Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics 530 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117560)

$315, and this one comes with a suitable heatsink out of the box so you won't have to look for that later. Note the CPU is the heart of the box - I recently refurbed a computer I built 6 years ago to be my brother's Christmas present and all I needed to replace to get it able to handle Fallout 4 at maximum settings was the graphics card. By the time the CPU needs upgrading these days the whole unit is dated to the point swapping things out isn't worth it.


The advantages of an i7 over an i5 are almost nonexistant if you're going with a single-gpu rig, and the -K models of the Skylake chips are only good for extreme overclocking. An i5-6600 is far cheaper and will be just as powerful for any practical purpose. Your linked rig will gain almost nothing by going with a -K i7 over a non-K i5, let alone a budget build.



I know there'll likely be new components coming out in the following months, but is it really necessary for me to get the absolute latest sh'bang if I'm building on a budget?


Right now, everything is going to a whole new architecture generation that is not only more powerful and more efficient, but cheaper. A few years ago, the top-of-the-line high end video cards were introduced at around $1400 USD, while the current top-end card was just released at $699 USD. (Sorry, but I don't think in euros, but it's the ratio that matters rather than the absolute numbers) Processor prices have been similarly much less than a few years ago for the same tier. More importantly than that, Intel and Nvidia (who already have their new architecture out) are the high-price high-performance supplier. AMD/ATI has announced but not released theirs, and while they typically can't compete at the highest performance levels they usually have a much better price to performance ratio at the mid-to-low end of the spectrum. This is a case where getting the absolute latest has a very good chance of being easier on your budget.

[FinnLassie]

Quickie note: I mentioned in my starting post that my budget will be around 450€ to 600€ - really depending on, I dunno, stuff. Like, if for example some parts are just superior and better to spend the extra mile on. Stuff like mouse and keyboard and monitor I can figure out by myself, but yeah, you've all given rather detailed run downs on the computer-y part-y section!


.... ... again, need to get back to real life (i.e. sleep, 4:55am wake up call). And again, will be taking a closer look and giving proper responses tomorrow/Sunday :smalltongue:

[Silfir]

You know what's slightly embarassing? In order to figure out you were from Finland, I looked up "Savo" in Wikipedia to found it what kind of location that is. It's only now that I finally read your username using the part of my brain that, like, understands stuff.

[Mando Knight]

Two best links I've ever seen for such a thing:
http://pcpartpicker.com/ (localization is somewhat limited, 5 EU countries are listed).
http://www.logicalincrements.com/ (might be dead, I could have sworn it was working when I recently updated the bookmark).

There's also /r/buildapc's beginner's guide (https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/wiki/beginnersguide).

The specific components should definitely be chosen closer to build time, both to decide whether you should pick up the newest tech and to enjoy a price drop on older gear when you're not springing for the latest and greatest.

[Alias]

Quickie note: I mentioned in my starting post that my budget will be around 450€ to 600€ - really depending on, I dunno, stuff. Like, if for example some parts are just superior and better to spend the extra mile on. Stuff like mouse and keyboard and monitor I can figure out by myself, but yeah, you've all given rather detailed run downs on the computer-y part-y section!


.... ... again, need to get back to real life (i.e. sleep, 4:55am wake up call). And again, will be taking a closer look and giving proper responses tomorrow/Sunday :smalltongue:

At 450 euro you may as well buy an Xbox One or PS4 - you'll get more bang for the buck that way. If the 600 has to include the monitor you're better off just staying with a console.

[Alias]

The advantages of an i7 over an i5 are almost nonexistant if you're going with a single-gpu rig, and the -K models of the Skylake chips are only good for extreme overclocking. An i5-6600 is far cheaper and will be just as powerful for any practical purpose. Your linked rig will gain almost nothing by going with a -K i7 over a non-K i5, let alone a budget build.

Which is going to last longer as far as game support goes? I bought an AMD Thurban 6 core 7 years ago and the same argument you're trotting out now was trotted out against that processor. But to run Fallout 4 I only had to change the graphics card to run the game at max specs. The same logic applies here - a skylake is good for 7 to 9 years of gaming, an i-5 might last the next 3 to 5 before it fails to meet min specs on the latest games.

[Silfir]

That's an impressive double post - neither one is even remotely accurate.

[Fri]

But I agree that the hit would be on the monitor. Monitors aren't super expensive, but I've basically never calculated them in my pc budget, and if I do it'd be significant difference. I've been using the same lcd monitor for almost 10 years (and also keyboard actually. Wow. My monitor and my keyboard is still the same ones I used in college). That's how I can keep getting new pc in budget.

I guess if this is going to be your first one, you have to grit your teeth and either get more money for the monitor, or get cheaper graphic card. You can think of the monitor as investment I guess, since like my example, I've been using it for almost 10 years in many computer upgrades already.

[Alias]

That's an impressive double post - neither one is even remotely accurate.

You keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep better at night.

[snowblizz]

I guess if this is going to be your first one, you have to grit your teeth and either get more money for the monitor, or get cheaper graphic card. You can think of the monitor as investment I guess, since like my example, I've been using it for almost 10 years in many computer upgrades already.

About a year two years (whre does time fly?) ago I bought a new flat 28" computer monitor that doubles as a tv. So it's differnet kind of cost.:smalltongue: Didn't count it as part of the computer I bought.

[Silfir]

I did just post a sub 600€ build with current tech that both vastly outperforms either console (not that getting an Xbox One in Europe is at all to be recommended) and includes the monitor. Though you're right, if it didn't include the monitor it could have included a more powerful GPU instead, like the impending RX 480, or the R9 380X if we stick with what's out right now.

I'd be very reluctant to cheap out on the graphics card of all things, considering it's the single most important piece in a gaming build. My own monitor has also been around for a pretty long time - they're long-term investments. As such I'd encourage FinnLassie to calculate it extra. (It looks like decent 1080p screens - 23+", low response times - can be had for 120€, and 160€ for IPS panels - in Finland, that is.) Frankly, in this price range every extra 100€ can be converted into a significant upgrade of some sort or another; it's all tradeoffs.

[Gnoman]

A current-gen i5 is a Skylake chip. The only difference between an i5 and an i7 is that the latter has four "fake" cores via hyperthreading (some have an extra two physical cores and a corresponding two fake cores as well, but not the model referenced), marginally higher clock speed, and the necessary memory channels to run three or four videocards instead of just one or two. Unless you are running those three or four GPUs, you will never see any benefit whatsoever for paying twice as much for your processor and getting a slightly higher electric bill. And, on the off chance that you do eventually need that incredibly small performance boost, they use the same socket so it's a drop in replacement.

[snowblizz]

Frankly, in this price range every extra 100€ can be converted into a significant upgrade of some sort or another; it's all tradeoffs.
That's how my 1000€ budget became 1200€.

[factotum]

* While a lot of people swear by Intel CPUs, I found that while that while they are more powerful by numbers, they're less powerful by bang for buck, making AMD CPUs the better choice for a budget. The FX8350 is what I run in my rig right now, and I don't have any problems with it.

I agree, and don't forget that you can go even cheaper than the FX-6300 you quoted--I have an Athlon 860K (3.7GHz quad-core) in my PC at the moment, and I picked it precisely because it was the best performing chip in its price range (and the only one that was actually a quad-core, although the AMD Bulldozer architecture means it's actually somewhere in between a true quad-core and a dual-core with hyperthreading). In fact, for gaming the 860K might even be a better choice than the FX-6300, because it has a faster clock speed and thus will run games that aren't well multithreaded better. (Even nowadays, a lot of games aren't written to make good use of multiple CPU cores--Stellaris doesn't seem to use more than 2 CPU cores, for instance).

[halfeye]

I'm not sure how helpful that is... Lower power requirements won't save you money on the build, only a tiny bit over the long run in power consumption. The CPU already doesn't have a big impact on how big of a PSU you need.

For me, it's not about saving money on the power bill or reducing the PSU capacity. The lower power CPUs need less direct cooling, CPUs have a cooler with a fan directly connected to them, you can use a smaller, quieter one if the CPU is lower power. I agree that the GPU is the main bottleneck for gaming, which is why a slower CPU can make sense. The CPU fan and the case fans are typically throttled up or down depending on how hot the CPU is, with a low power CPU they are going to spend more time throttled down than with a higher power consumption CPU, though you probably need to configure the fan settings in the BIOS to get the best result.

[Silfir]

The same price range has the low-end Pentium dual cores, like the Pentium G4400, which is 40% faster (http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Pentium-G4400-vs-AMD-Athlon-II-X4-860K/3539vs3265) in either single-threaded or dual-threaded applications while being 25% behind for quad core and multi-threaded stuff.

If higher single- or dual core performance makes the 860K a better pick than the FX-6300 for gaming, the Pentium G4400 would be an even better one, surely?


For me, it's not about saving money on the power bill or reducing the PSU capacity. The lower power CPUs need less direct cooling, CPUs have a cooler with a fan directly connected to them, you can use a smaller, quieter one if the CPU is lower power. I agree that the GPU is the main bottleneck for gaming, which is why a slower CPU can make sense. The CPU fan and the case fans are typically throttled up or down depending on how hot the CPU is, with a low power CPU they are going to spend more time throttled down than with a higher power consumption CPU, though you probably need to configure the fan settings in the BIOS to get the best result.

The standard locked Intel CPUs come with the free stock cooler, which is completely sufficient...? How is any of that relevant for a budget build, if it's not done with either the power bill or PSU size in mind? I mean, the "T" variant of the i3-6100 is not a lot more expensive - but getting a more quiet cooler will cost another chunk of money. There are just far better uses for that money in a budget build.

Noise is also not an impossible thing to handle after the fact - the stock cooler is fairly painlessly swapped out for an aftermarket cooler after the fact if it's waking up half the neighbourhood.

[halfeye]

The standard locked Intel CPUs come with the free stock cooler, which is completely sufficient...? How is any of that relevant for a budget build, if it's not done with either the power bill or PSU size in mind? I mean, the "T" variant of the i3-6100 is not a lot more expensive - but getting a more quiet cooler will cost another chunk of money. There are just far better uses for that money in a budget build.

Noise is also not an impossible thing to handle after the fact - the stock cooler is fairly painlessly swapped out for an aftermarket cooler after the fact if it's waking up half the neighbourhood.

Noise can't be dealt with after building if the CPU is a beast, which is what some people recommend for gaming. The i3-6100 isn't one of those though, I'm not arguing against that.

$600 including a monitor is going to be tough. I would tend to avoid $25 PSUs, it's worth spending three times that on a PSU in my view. If I had to meet that budget I'd probably skim on the motherboard a bit, not bother with sound ouput above stereo. At $200 the radeon 480 might well be in for me. How are DDR4 prices these days? DDR3 used to be cheaper, is it still and does that make a case for old gear?

[factotum]

The same price range has the low-end Pentium dual cores, like the Pentium G4400, which is 40% faster (http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Pentium-G4400-vs-AMD-Athlon-II-X4-860K/3539vs3265) in either single-threaded or dual-threaded applications while being 25% behind for quad core and multi-threaded stuff.

But the 860K is seen by the system as a quad core, which the G4400 is not--and that actually makes a difference in some cases; for example, Far Cry 4 won't even start up if you have a dual-core CPU because Ubisoft programmed a check in there to force it to only run on quad-core. I suppose a dual-core CPU with hyperthreading might get round that, but that would force you into the Core i3 range because the desktop Pentiums don't support HT, and in the UK at least the cheapest i3 (i3-4160) is nearly double the price of the 860K or G4400.

[Silfir]

Noise can't be dealt with after building if the CPU is a beast, which is what some people recommend for gaming. The i3-6100 isn't one of those though, I'm not arguing against that.

$600 including a monitor is going to be tough. I would tend to avoid $25 PSUs, it's worth spending three times that on a PSU in my view. If I had to meet that budget I'd probably skim on the motherboard a bit, not bother with sound ouput above stereo. At $200 the radeon 480 might well be in for me. How are DDR4 prices these days? DDR3 used to be cheaper, is it still and does that make a case for old gear?

Definitely agree on $25 PSUs - I do think that there are valid options for $50 though, if you go for quality units with low wattage. (Keeping in mind wattage requirements for single-GPU setups, especially with the RX 480, are really not high at all. You can probably get away with a 400W PSU from a quality brand with at least Bronze efficiency. Seasonic springs to mind, or EVGA, some Corsair, XFX, Super Flower... Whatever you get, it's important to seek out reviews of the specific model in question, and not buy solely based on price or brand.)

DDR4 costs the same as DDR3 these days. As in, $27 vs. $25 for 8 GB. That's DDR4-2133 compared with DDR3-1600; DDR3-2133 is significantly more expensive than DDR4-2133. When it comes down to it, DDR4 is now actually significantly cheaper if you compare by clock speed.


But the 860K is seen by the system as a quad core, which the G4400 is not--and that actually makes a difference in some cases; for example, Far Cry 4 won't even start up if you have a dual-core CPU because Ubisoft programmed a check in there to force it to only run on quad-core. I suppose a dual-core CPU with hyperthreading might get round that, but that would force you into the Core i3 range because the desktop Pentiums don't support HT, and in the UK at least the cheapest i3 (i3-4160) is nearly double the price of the 860K or G4400.

That's definitely a valid point. I'd say the extra 50€/40£ for an i3 are still worth paying if you can fit it into the budget without gimping the GPU. It's just a lot (http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-6100-vs-AMD-Athlon-II-X4-860K/3511vs3265) faster (even in multicore), uses a motherboard socket that allows for significant upgrades down the line without replacing the board, and uses DDR4 instead of DDR3.

At any rate, by November there's a good chance AMD's Zen processors are out, and if they do for the CPU market what the RX 480 is poised to do for GPUs, we'll both be singing the praises of the entry level Zen quad core.

[Fri]

Also, on slightly unrelated note, the only thing that bothers me when building a computer is putting the processor into the mother board.

If you're going to build it by your hand, maybe you could ask someone in the store to do it for you, just to take some pressure off yourself.

[halfeye]

Also, on slightly unrelated note, the only thing that bothers me when building a computer is putting the processor into the mother board.

If you're going to build it by your hand, maybe you could ask someone in the store to do it for you, just to take some pressure off yourself.
Is that with AMD processors? it's a while since I used one of them, and I remember a Duron being tough to fit, but I don't remember any problem with an Athlon 64. With Intel CPUs, it's a matter of lining things up and taking it slowly, there's no need to push things hard.

[Whoracle]

Is that with AMD processors? it's a while since I used one of them, and I remember a Duron being tough to fit, but I don't remember any problem with an Athlon 64. With Intel CPUs, it's a matter of lining things up and taking it slowly, there's no need to push things hard.

Same with AMD. See my earlier comment in this thread. It's just that with other components, if you're pushing hard, you need to stop. With the CPU, if youi're pushing hard, you need to have not started pushing hard.

[Seerow]

Is that with AMD processors? it's a while since I used one of them, and I remember a Duron being tough to fit, but I don't remember any problem with an Athlon 64. With Intel CPUs, it's a matter of lining things up and taking it slowly, there's no need to push things hard.

My only experience here is with Intel CPUs, but I've found they generally take a little more force to get in than I am really comfortable with. It's scary because everyone tells you not to push hard or it could ruin the processor forever, but to actually get it in right, it doesn't just slide in; some force is needed to lock it into place. My first time, I tried doing it, then called over a friend who had put together a couple pcs just to make sure I didn't ruin anything.

[halfeye]

My only experience here is with Intel CPUs, but I've found they generally take a little more force to get in than I am really comfortable with. It's scary because everyone tells you not to push hard or it could ruin the processor forever, but to actually get it in right, it doesn't just slide in; some force is needed to lock it into place. My first time, I tried doing it, then called over a friend who had put together a couple pcs just to make sure I didn't ruin anything.


I don't see it that way, but maybe I'm looking at it differently. :smallbiggrin:

With recent Intel processors, the yellow metal pins are on the socket, and there are yellow metal blobby bits on the processor they touch, they don't actually go into holes. There are a couple of notches on the processor circuit board that line up with the socket, so that's not to bad to find, then you carefully put the processor into/onto the socket, making sure it's the right way round and in the right place. Then there is a cover that comes down onto the processor to hold it in place, there's a little nut the cover has to go under, but that is before you have to pull the lever to tighten things up. That lever is spring loaded so it takes a bit of effort, but you're not directly applying that effort to the CPU, so it shouldn't be too worrying, provided the CPU was correctly seated in the socket to start with.

[FinnLassie]

*cracks knuckles*

Ok, let's see what we got here...

*scrolls through thread and new posts*

... I think I actually need to get a notepad tomorrow to figure out what everyone has said and form my response afterwards, since there are some things I need to ask about... but I'm not entirely sure what the thing is that I need to ask. :smalltongue: So much stuff. For which I of course have to thank you all :smallsmile:

[Alias]

A current-gen i5 is a Skylake chip.

A dual core one if I'm not mistaken. There are games that aren't GPU optimized out there (Team Fortress 2 and anything on older Source engine comes to mind) that will drag their feet if you skimp on the CPU. There are also games that flat out won't run on anything less than a quad, though they are rare.

Still, that wasn't the point of my post. If I wanted to make a post to say "Here, buy this" it would have been a hell of a lot shorter. My goal with the post was to illustrate what anyone has to check to make sure the various pieces chosen, regardless of their cost, will fit together. CPU socket, memory speed, those sorts of things.

My personal choice of processor is highly influenced by the things I do when I'm not gaming, like virtualization. It's not uncommon for me to, when I'm working, be running two or three virtual machines at a time (testing network setups before applying them to bare metal), or compiling large software packages that where having a quad core is the difference between waiting 5 minutes to compile and waiting 2. I also like playing with video game dev engines like Hammer, and compiling a game map scales very directly with the number of cores available, with a very complex map taking up to a half hour if you do it with a dual core.

Granted, OP didn't state those preferences up front - but I figure anyone interested in tech enough to want to build their own rig is probably dabbling into these areas as well, so I don't see getting a quad core as a mistake.

My advice is to the OP is to save money until you can spend about a grand on a system, not including the monitor, even if it takes a year. Waiting is hard, but the $1000 mark is the sweet spot for power per dollar and has been for a long while. I personally go over that, but that's cause I have a six figure income, no kids and no car payment so darn it, that's what I'm splurging on. For 99% of the populace spending $2000 on a computer is gratuitous and I knew that when I mentioned that build.

[tyckspoon]

A dual core one if I'm not mistaken. There are games that aren't GPU optimized out there (Team Fortress 2 and anything on older Source engine comes to mind) that will drag their feet if you skimp on the CPU. There are also games that flat out won't run on anything less than a quad, though they are rare.

You're mistaken. i3 is dual core plus hyperthreading, i5 are quad without hyper, and i7 are quad with hyper. The i5 series have been the default gamer recommendations for as long as the i# naming convention has been in use.

[Silfir]

A dual core one if I'm not mistaken.

You are. The i5 is a quad core, just like the i7. It just lacks hyperthreading. It's cores are otherwise just as fast as the i7's.

The i3 is a dual core, though it does have hyperthreading (at least in Skylake).

If OP had tasks in mind like the ones you mentioned or others - virtual machines, game development, video editing, streaming while playing multi-core-reliant games, running multiple GPUs and so on - then yes, I'd probably recommend saving up for an i7, too. I don't think interest in building her own machine implies that OP is planning anything like that, though - to me it's simply a sign of computer hardware literacy. (Which in this day and age really ought to become the standard, but sadly isn't.)

For the use case she described - gaming - neither an i7 nor a $1000 budget are necessary. 600€ including monitor is really tight, though, that much is true.

[Fri]

If it's me, I'll ask around if I can get monitor, keyboard, speaker, and mouse (though it's peanuts) from another source. Giveaway, or second hand. Especially monitor. Then the budget will be back on track.

[halfeye]

A dual core one if I'm not mistaken.
In a desktop machine, you are mistaken. Laptop i5s are different, there you get two cores and hyperthreading, there are fairly rare instances of laptop i7s with two cores and hyperthreading, but desktop i5s don't have the same thermal limitations, and are much beefier processors.

Hyperthreading isn't magic, so the extra cores come at about half speed. Since thread speed is typically more important than thread number in gaming, desktop i7s may actually be inferior to desktop i5s for gaming.

[factotum]

Hyperthreading isn't magic, so the extra cores come at about half speed. Since thread speed is typically more important than thread number in gaming, desktop i7s may actually be inferior to desktop i5s for gaming.

Modern versions of Windows are aware of HyperThreading and know that not all virtual cores are created equal, so the OS won't schedule two CPU-heavy threads onto the same physical core unless it has absolutely no choice in the matter. Back when HyperThreading was first introduced and the OS didn't understand what to do with it you'd have been correct, but not now.

[wumpus]

If it's me, I'll ask around if I can get monitor, keyboard, speaker, and mouse (though it's peanuts) from another source. Giveaway, or second hand. Especially monitor. Then the budget will be back on track.

To be honest, I suspect that CPU/motherboard/memory should be seen as being sourced this way before the monitor. Exception: until recently, you could simply buy a ton of older (19" certainly, probably bigger ones) for peanuts from university surplus (the store was closed by the fire marshal and now appears a shell [sorry, considering it is the terrapin trader] of its former self).

To be more blunt: AMD's desktop processor is [still] built with 2010 tech (32nm) and seems to hold its own with intel* (for the price) at roughly your budget level. Checking local prices, this seems to match an i3 offering. Building a system this way isn't always easiest (adding DD2 memory might be a problem. DDR3 should be a breeze). Don't be too surprised if the power supply needs to go (and/or the heatsink. Systems replaced due to "loud fans" should make a great source). I'd even put bulk (spinning) hard drives in this list, and consider them optional (you will want to add a modern SSD regardless). -This pretty much assumes that you bought the whole system. In general I'd avoid used hard drives.

The things that *have* improved are also the things you will noticed most. SSDs and GPUs. I'd expect that the (VAT-less US $200) AMD480 will be the thing to build a 1080 (resolution) gaming system around (at roughly that price point), and expect that comprimises will be needed to get everything else to fit.

One final note: if you are paying for it try to find a monitor with an LED backlight instead of fluorescent. After cracked screens (in laptops), broken backlights and backlight power supplies are the only things I've seen go wrong with LCD monitors. I'd expect long life from a LED system, not so much from one without.

[FinnLassie]

I've read the thread through and actually ended up talking about this stuff and went through the thread again with a friend of mine which helped me understand some of the questions I had... So yeah! Thank you all very much! :smallsmile: *offers everyone a lovely bouquet and a basket of chocolate chip cookies*

And yeah I probably should have told I'm from Finland. Soz. :smalltongue:

I actually have a question regarding monitors... I know I want to get a 27'' one, but I'm not exactly sure what exactly I should look for, as I don't need a megahypermachine. My online searches have been a mess, since some of the jargon is a bit overwhelming in any language I speak, and when having the term "gaming" in the search bar it feels like I can only find articles talking about those super expensive ones that are meant for some heeeeavy gaming.

[Silfir]

There are several factors to consider with a monitor.

The first is definitely resolution. 1920x1080, also referred to as 1080p, is also called "Full HD" and is the standard that desktop monitors tend to meet at the very least nowadays. 2560x1440 is sometimes called "2k", but most often 1440p. Then there's 3840x2160, also called 4k. Higher resolution means a more detailed, smoother, less jagged image. But it's also more expensive. In particular, forget about 4k right away.

Second is size, especially in relation to resolution. 27" is rather a lot, so while 1080p screens that big are common, the image might look grainier as it would on a 24" screen. The ideal resolution for a 27" screen is 1440p - but as you've noticed, that's considerably more pricy.

Third is refresh rate, measured in Hz - how often per second the monitor is capable of changing what's shown on it, basically. The standard is 60 Hz - which means that the monitor will show a total of 60 frames per second. This is where your graphics hardware comes in, because even if your monitor can update sixty times per second, that doesn't mean that your computer will be able to feed it 60 frames per second. The opposite is true as well - your PC may be able to reach framerates much higher than 60 fps. A 60 Hz monitor won't take advantage of the extra frames visually - to do that, you need high refresh rate monitors, like 120 Hz or 144 Hz ones. These are also much more expensive. All that being said, 60 fps is very smooth already, so it's enough for most people - which is why most monitors only have 60 Hz.

Fourth is response time. This is the amount of time that passes between your computer creating the image to display and its updating the screen. Cheaper monitors often have high response times - maybe 20 milliseconds - which is no issue at all for office work, or displaying video - but it's a big deal when playing games that require fast reaction and interaction of any kind, which is most of them. As such, if you're buying a monitor to play games with, you want low response times. The lowest it goes is 1 millisecond, but these are often fairly expensive in exchange - even 7 ms can be workable, though personally I'd aim for at least 5 ms.

Fifth is panel type. The two main panel types are IPS and TN. IPS screens tend to be more expensive or have higher response times, but their colors and viewing angles (i.e. how the image looks if you look at it from the side) tend to be superior. Some people may not notice the difference at all, and many don't consider this an important enough difference to pay a lot of money. If you're looking at it straight ahead and you don't happen to do professional image work (for instance as a photographer, graphic designer or digital artist), a TN panel is usually just fine. Try to find out which panel type your Macbook Pro has. Quick googling says that they started having IPS screens from 2012 onwards ("Retina").



What does all this mean for you? First, decide if you're fine with a 27" 1080p screen. They exist and they are definitely less expensive than 1440p ones. On the other hand, 24" 1080p ones are cheaper still and may result in better-looking images. For each model you're considering, find out their response times (usually by googling their model number and "response time"), eliminate those with more than ~7 ms and give preference to those with less. Then go with whatever makes the most sense for you to get. Maybe find a "minimum" model (like this one (https://www.verkkokauppa.com/fi/product/44957/dsfkk/Acer-K242-24-Full-HD-LED-naytto)) and compare it to the bigger ones, to put it in terms of how much you have to pay extra to get, for example, 27" (https://www.verkkokauppa.com/fi/product/23567/dshqg/Samsung-S27D390H-27-LED-naytto-musta) compared to 24" or 1440p compared to 1080p. (Actually, this is strange - I was able to find a 4k (https://www.verkkokauppa.com/fi/product/14583/fqtrs/Samsung-U28E590D-4K-naytto) before a 1440p on verkkokauppa after sorting for price. This to me suggests that 1440p is perhaps unreasonably expensive in Finland.)

Parts marketed as "gaming hardware" will often prioritize looks over function (like a snazzy monitor color scheme or radical backlights and other such nonsense). In terms of monitors, you'll likely run across models with 1 ms response times and much higher than 60 Hz refresh rate. Unless you're trying to become a professional Counterstrike player and have lots of money to burn, these are poor picks.

[Knaight]

Also, take various site's stance on "gaming graphic card" with grain of salts. Sometimes I really can't understand what's people's standard on "gaming pc" is. I built my pc a year ago with just 500 dollar budget, and I game heavily on it. Sure I can't play games on ultra or high or whatever, but I can play most modern games and I'm satisfied. My brother also got a lenovo laptop for about 500 bucks about three years ago (definitely not what most people seem to consider "gaming laptop" but he play our favourite modern games like dragon age or mass effect just fine.

A lot of it is frame rate. Some people just aren't happy if their frame rate ever dips below 60 fps, and that takes a pretty high end graphics card. Others (myself included) are entirely fine with 20 fps, and as such a high end graphics card is entirely excessive.

[FinnLassie]

Oh wow! Thanks for the fast response, Silfir, and thanks for the detailed rundown. :smallsmile: Besides gaming one of the big reasons why I am looking for a 27'' monitor is that I will be using it as a kind of a tv screen. I'll definitely have to see how the monitors work IRL... I almost visited Verkkokauppa when I was in Helsinki last weekend, but now I'll definitely go over there during my next visit.

[Silfir]

A lot of it is frame rate. Some people just aren't happy if their frame rate ever dips below 60 fps, and that takes a pretty high end graphics card. Others (myself included) are entirely fine with 20 fps, and as such a high end graphics card is entirely excessive.

That's impressive. Even consoles (which represent kind of the lowest common denominator) tend to aim for at least 30 fps.

I guess 20 fps is about the lowest that human eyes can train themselves to see animation as fluid as opposed to a slideshow. I can't do it, but a friend of mine is consistently broke and he insists he's fine with it.

At any rate, if 20 fps is alright it simplifies things a lot for FinnLassie, because you can get that with Skylake integrated graphics no problem on pretty much anything.

[Michaelcostagan]

Search on Google for the reviews and recommendations, it will help you.

[DavidSh]

I guess 20 fps is about the lowest that human eyes can train themselves to see animation as fluid as opposed to a slideshow. I can't do it, but a friend of mine is consistently broke and he insists he's fine with it.

Silent movies were, on average, projected at 16 frames per second, with a multi-bladed shutter so that the flicker rate was 48 flickers per second (each frame projected thrice, essentially).
Traditional hand-drawn cel animation was often drawn "on twos", giving a new image every other frame of a 24-frames per second film short, giving an effective 12 frames per second. So if one is just watching, and not controlling, the eye can handle a pretty low frame rate.

[Knaight]

That's impressive. Even consoles (which represent kind of the lowest common denominator) tend to aim for at least 30 fps.

I guess 20 fps is about the lowest that human eyes can train themselves to see animation as fluid as opposed to a slideshow. I can't do it, but a friend of mine is consistently broke and he insists he's fine with it.

It's also one of those things where the type of task being done makes the frame rate matter. Take word processing - a slide show where each slide is just a new letter is fine, and keeping up with that is low single digit fps. For watching movies and similar, 24 fps is good enough in almost every case, and some animation is shot lower. For gaming, the type of game makes a big difference. I'm good with 20 fps, but I also tend to favor turn based games, puzzle games with no reflex components, and other such things where motion fluidity is a side note of fairly little importance. If I was interested in competitive FPS (which shows up on just about every console), I suspect I'd have higher frame rate standards. They still wouldn't hit the 60+ (or even 120+) that I know other people have, but they might hit 30.

It's one of those things that would be helpful to know for recommendations. 20 fps is easy to get in a 600 euro budget. I suspect 120 fps is doable, but I have no idea how to make it happen.

[snowblizz]

When buying my computer I was reading a bit and from what I recall is that you need a card that provdes *at least* the framerate at which your screen updates. Or you have graphical glitches. A 120Hz screen but a card that can't supply at that rate gives you glitching, and running a 60Hz screen on higher or lower will also lead to "screen tearing".

[factotum]

Oh wow! Thanks for the fast response, Silfir, and thanks for the detailed rundown. :smallsmile: Besides gaming one of the big reasons why I am looking for a 27'' monitor is that I will be using it as a kind of a tv screen.

How close will you be sitting to it when you're using it as a TV? If you'll still be sat at your PC desk and thus viewing from a couple of feet away, you don't need it to be as big as if you're intending to watch it from the far side of your living room.