It would be sensible at this point to recommend uATX builds as standard, and mITX as the smaller alternative. uATX provides plenty of expansion options for a budget or midrange build. If you're not even sure the user wants a GPU, it makes very little sense to recommend a full ATX build.
This comes from my experience building and supporting PCs for friends and family member over the past 20 or so years. Yes, things have certainly changed, but if you're going to buy/build a desktop my first guess is that you want something that's faster than a laptop, costs less than an equivalent performance laptop, more upgradeable than a laptop, and more reliable (long-term) than a laptop. Otherwise you'd buy a laptop and be done with it (which is a topic for another guide, I know).
For most people, the "desktop" PC is actually a box that sits on the floor or in a cubby hole on your desk, so the difference between an ATX case and a micro-ATX case isn't a major factor. Larger cases make it easier to assemble the PC (more room for your hands to work in), and by virtue of having more space they also tend to collect less dust on the components over time. That means people that are never going to crack open the case to clean it out will be better served by an ATX case. I also like the idea of being able to add a GPU (or two) without difficulties down the road. Most people won't do that, sure, but it's an option.
Anyway, there's a paragraph explaining options for mATX builds. If you know you're not going to add a GPU, then I think you know enough to read the text and say, "Oh, there are smaller cases...do I want one of those?" and make a decision. The fact is there are tons of trade-offs to consider but as I didn't want to write a 5000 word guide with six different "under $1000" builds catering to the various potential use cases, I picked two of the most likely builds and kept the text to around 1200 words. :-)
Most mITX motherboards have PCIe x16 slots nowadays, let alone uATX. How does either prevent adding a GPU, as long as you get a case with space for one (the BitFenix Prodigy seems pretty popular for mITX)?
I'd still concur with the OP. Of course most people's desktops sit on a shelf their whole life but as you wrote in the article, most people won't lose anything by going mATX so if you can save half the space, why not? Dust? One thing about mATX/ITX is that the cases are more easily perched on desks and shelves, which I find collect a lot less dust than on the floor. Easier to assemble? Good mATX cases shouldn't be very hard to assemble with standard loadouts and doing it once isn't a big deal as most users aren't swapping out components every few months.
I've used mATX happily for years, and I think it's a more appropriate standard in today's world. ATX is just so 90's. If you only want to write 2 builds, how about mATX and ITX rather than the obsolete AMD? :)
I agree with you on the ATX debate. A desktop is just a box that sits there and never moves. So the size of it really isn't very important. Will there be people who are willing to pay more for something smaller, something "cute"? Sure, always. But a lot of those people can't afford to pay more and the rest of the people are gonna look at you cock eyed and go "why would I spend $200 more to get a 10"x18"x6" box instead of a 16"x18"x10" box?"
Point being, the size of the box that sits still for 10 years doesn't really matter. Yes, my dollar amount and dimensions are entirely made up, but I don't have them memorized because, as I said, it just doesn't matter what size they are.
Why would you go with an APU at all? Why not an FX-8350 8 core CPU? More CPU cores. You won't need the onboard graphics if you're going with a discrete card.
AM3+ is pretty much a dying platform, so I have trouble recommending a new system built using it -- plus the AM3+ chips tend to be more power hungry. Anyway, it's an option, but I'd go for FM2+ personally, even if you don't use the iGPU.
Do you believe FM2+ will see any processors with enough cores (or high enough clock speed) to rival the performance of the FX-8350? If not, what relevance does it hold whether the platform is 'alive' or not?
I'd understand wanting a system with HSA, but just "It's a dead platform" seems like a terrible reason to reject AM3+.
How about "dead platform that doesn't have a decent IGP solution and that uses more power" then? I'd like to think AMD will do a three or four module FM2+ compatible chip at some point (maybe the 20nm or whatever parts when those come out), but you're right: FM2+ isn't likely to receive too much more in the way of faster APUs either, at least not before people need to upgrade to a new motherboard/platform regardless.
The reality is this: if you want more performance than FM2+ can offer, and you're planning on using a dedicated GPU anyway, Intel's Haswell chips are going to be better for the vast majority of people. This is something I showed with the performance vs. system cost charts on the CPU State of the Part article earlier this week.
It is unlikely there will ever be any worthwhile upgrade path on FM2+ from the A10-7850K.
Kaveri's successor, Carrizo, will be limited to 65W TDP chips and will lose half of its PCI-E graphics lanes as a result of its focus on mobile and small form factor markets. http://www.extremetech.com/computing/178752-amds-n... After Carrizo AMD's desktop platforms are dead, 'K12' in 2016 being the only future hope.
Show the dilemma with the AMD platform. With the discrete GPU build, at $170 for the 7850 the user would be better off with a 6350 or 8320, but the AM3+ platform is likely dead.
who cares if its likely dead. thats like saying that the 1150 platform is likely dead. am3+ platform hasn't died or moved forward. it's stuck. it's not dead. get it straight!
I spent $575 and got 3 times as much RAM, hyper-threading, larger CPU cache, lower TDP (same frequency). Toss in graphics card and SSD, swap out my $200 MB, and it would be at or cheaper than yours but with better performance. You guys need to learn how to shop LOL
This wasn't very recent. But if you want specs: Raidmax Typoon with 450W PSU Intel Xeon E3-1230V2 (3.3-3.7GHz) SuperMicro X9SAE-V Motherboard...server grade 24GB (2 x 8GB SuperTalent, 2 * 4GB Kingston) ECC CAS 9 1333MHz Memory....okay could've skipped ECC and got higher frequency, but originally built the rig to crunch numbers
Got the case w/PSU for $40 from Newegg, CPU with Motherboard for $430 from SuperBiiz, and RAM was about $160 ($55 for 2 x 4GB from Newegg, $105 for 2 x 8GB from SuperBiiz).
I also had rebates and the amounts I listed included shipping. So actually it was closer to $600 bare but still not bad. Could throw in a SSD and one of the GPUs above for about the same money. I added a Kingston HyperX SSD for $55 and low-end NVIDIA GPU for $20 on my system.
RAM is significantly more expensive today than when you bought it, that's part of the pricing difference, you'd be very luck to get that much RAM for under $200 these days. The other part seems to be the $40 Case/PSU combo which seems too good to be true to me but if it works and is reliable more power to you.
Here's the case on sale for $36.99. If you google it you can find where it was on Newegg for $39.99. Mine came with a Raidmax PSU....not sure if they still do as none of the descriptions mention it.
At the time of my build pretty much everything I got was a steal. I put it together shortly after Black Friday, so there were tons of combo deals. And yeah, RAM is more expensive now....like almost twice as much. I'm actually trying to sell some of mine and might even make a profit LOL
If I wanted to tailor these building towards pure gaming, would it be a good idea to cut back on the CPU and upgrade the GPU? How little CPU can I get away with before it becomes a bottleneck for the GPU?
An i3-4150 or a FX-6300 (both ~$120) should probably be plenty if the only thing you need it for is gaming and ordinary usage. You might get a few frames from faster processors but largely its the GPU that bottlenecks, both those processors should outperform a PS4/XBone in games. A Pentium anniversary edition is another option if you want to overclock.
There are a few very CPU intensive titles that might warrant a more powerful processor such as: Supreme Commander, Planetary Annihilation, Battlefield 4 (with lots of players), Crysis 3, and Planetside 2. Just buy a few levels above for those games (FX 8320, i5-4460) and it should be enough.
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/PLTCZL i believe this is a better route for the AMD build. I made it similar to the recommended build but i included a better motherboard for the overclocking potential and (imo) a way cooler looking (but more expensive) case.
> Find a Windows license (which may or may not be legal) for $50
You can say this about every part in your list. "Find an intel CPU that may or may not be stolen for $100." Just because illegal keys from MSDN keys are more readily available doesn't mean that a website like this should advocate seeking them out.
I'm not suggesting you search out illegal keys. There are restrictions on what sort of keys you're allowed to use on a system, at least in theory. It's a gray area and if you got buy a Windows key for $50, it could be against Microsoft's licensing terms. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
I guess the question is how far under a grand do you want to be? I realized after making this that this build isn't really comparable to these because they're off by $100 which shows up in the GPU and RAM.
i thought u guy were the experts? i looked at the psu requirement for a 270x (at newegg) and it says 500 watts as the base requirement. does this mean a 450w is ok? did u go 450 watt to save money? u could have easily went up to 500 watts to meet the 270x requirement and still be under a grand? i don't get it. seems too "expert-y" to be using a 450 watt psu. but that's just my nonexpert opinion.
also, i don't think the am3+ platform is dead. i don't even get the dead thing comments on here. an fx8350 is on the heels of an i7-3770k. with better software/coding optimizations, who knows, an amd fx8350 cpu's can prob close that gap even more.
by using an amd apu, there is less cpu performance than the fx series and since your build has a dedicated gpu--theigpu is wasted. i don't get it. again, too expert-y and too way above my head.
anyway, i couldn't sleep so i decided to build my own under a grand pc using a "dead" amd fx cpu:
(tax not included)
mobo: asus m5a99fx pro r.20 ($134.99) cpu: amd fx8350 ($189.99) ram: g-skill ripjaw x (2 x 4GB) 1866 PC314900 ($88.99) gpu: sapphire dual-x radeon r9 280 3GB ($219.99) ssd: samsung 840 evo ($89.99) hdd: seagate barracuda st1000dm003 1TB 7200rpm ($59.99) psu: fractal design tesla r2 650watt certified 80 plus gold ($86.99) case: fractal design define r4
There is no "one size fits all", which is something I tried to get across in the introduction. Basically, you can spend more on a GPU if you're a gamer, less on an SSD, get a better case or a smaller case, etc. I intentionally don't include any rebates on the components, mostly because those change so frequently that in a week the price list would be woefully out of date.
As to your questions: R9 270X will easily run off an 80 Plus Gold 450W PSU; heck, I've run R9 280X on just such a PSU, and total system power draw under load is still well under 400W. The reason AMD and NVIDIA "require" such high wattage PSUs is that if you buy a cheap case that includes a "500W" PSU for $50, that PSU is likely only going to be able to run reliably with constant loads (i.e. gaming) of 300W or less.
For the CPU, FX-8350 is certainly getting close to the performance of an i7-3770K (or i7-4790K) in some instances, but it also uses more power by about 50% and there are plenty of cases where it's really not that close. If you happen to run code that really likes having eight integer cores, FX-8350 (or FX-8320) can really scream, but single-threaded performance is a big step down. Long-term, it's also a bit sad that AMD has publicly stated they're not going after the performance crown any longer, so I suspect FX-8350 will be one of the fastest AMD processors for a while.
Anyway, your total price is about $120 higher than the systems I put together, and for most people the difference in performance will be negligible. The GPU is faster, of course, and anyone could spend a bit more (or a lot more) to improve GPU performance, but outside of gaming or heavy computational workloads it's basically just more money for the same overall experience.
so ur saying that the amd apu u picked will be as snappy as an fx8350 or 8320 in day to day task? if every other component is the same as ur amd apu buid? i dont think an fx8350 plus an am3+ mobo will be that much more if u just switched out those 2 components. ok, so the meager 450w psu might no longer be safe with an fx cpu in there but add 5-10 bucks more to kick up that psu to a 500w unit. And u have an older cpu but a faster cpu. U will also help promote amd fx cpus so amd can finally uodate them, if this publicity thing u do does work. Of course, u didnt. So now, ppl will buy amd apu's, which no one likes except for laptops and amd is not even getting the same desktop apu in mobile firm yet. And intel has iris. So theres ur praise for something u thought was newer and thus mire alive than am3+ but is just nit true. So thanks fir nothing.
On a per-module basis, that 7850 should be close to the 8350 - slightly better per-core IPC, better scaling per module, and there's the oddity that is Kaveri being much better at x87 benches (from what I've seen; correct me if I'm wrong, but it hardly matters unless you really want to bench SuperPi all day long). The 8300 series is viable, especially more so for gaming, and even more so if you undervolt it, but you have to ask yourself what you need a PC to do before jumping towards one socket over the other. How expensive is a good AM3+ board in comparison to FM2+, for example?
The real issue here - for me - is the non-availability of the Athlon II X4 860K or similar CPU in the west; in other words, an APU with its graphics disabled (I don't know why it doesn't have 4MB L2 cache, though, only 2MB). I'd like to see one of those overclocked; it may even send the overclocked G3258 packing if they get it to 4.5GHz. I'd buy FM2+ for that.
By the way, Iris comparisons are null and void due to the price difference.
If we look at the FX-8350, what you'll find is that an i5-4690 is faster in virtually every test. There are a few exceptions (Cinebench R15 multi-threaded, Hybrid x265 4K, and WinRAR) but on the whole we'd be looking at nearly the same price for the two systems with Intel winning the lion's share of benchmarks and using quite a bit less power as well -- 20W+ at idle and 100W+ load. The i5-4690 also wins at nearly every gaming test and at worst is basically tied (Company of Heroes 2 being the lone holdout where AMD has a <3% lead).
If AMD could make a better, more competitive FX series processor -- which means competitive performance and power and cost -- it would be worth buying. Right now, they unfortunately do not, and trying to support something AMD has chose to abandon -- for arguably good reasons -- isn't going to help anyone.
I think you need to read up on how PSU power is rated. Even though this PSU is only good for 450W, its actually capable of delivering all of its rated power (or 444W to be precise) on the 12V rail. This is very important, since all the power hungry components need 12V and nothing else (gpus, cpus..). But there are PSU, that are rated for way more (for example 550W, 600W etc) but can't even deliver 2/3 or sometimes even half the rated power to the 12V rail. And that kind of PSU is really crap, since its effectivly only as powerfull as its 12V rail (for example, corsairs CX 600W is only good for 480W on 12V -- so really you're looking at a 480W PSU).
And those ratings are also the reason, why GPU manufactures overrate PSU requirement.
tl;dr 12V power is the thing, you need to look for.
I'd agree an 8350 might be a better idea, but I'd go intel anyways since relying on software to become more multithreaded is a big "if" (especially games). His build is cheaper than yours because he left some money for the OS, and he also has twice the capacity for his SSD and HDD,
Well, software becoming more multithreaded is definitely happening, but it's only true dual core/module CPUs that are going to really suffer here. The i3 is somewhat faster than a G3258 in games like BF4 and I imagine this will ring true for other Frostbite-powered titles.
That P3258 sounded like a good idea at the time, but it really is handicapped by not having HT and thus puts me off it as regards future proofing. Still, it'd cannibalise i3 sales if it did have HT.
Well yeah but its been "definitely happening" for years now, and you'll probably be in the market for a new CPU by the time it really is an issue (unless you play a few specific games). Also the Pentium is only $70, and you can stick it in a z97 and upgrade to a broadwell quadcore when it comes out. I'd go with the i3 over the pentium for myself, but the pentium is definitely an option for many people.
Faster CPU with Hyperthreading, larger cache, and lower TDP Modular PSU with 100W more power Twice as much RAM at the same speed and better timings M.2 SSD....yes smaller capacity but plugs onboard! Better Motherboard IMO that supports SLI (better audio chipset, better LAN) 2TB hard drive with 1 year longer warranty (honestly, I would skip this; go with 1TB or better SSD) EVGA versus Zotac graphics card........LOL
Grand total $910....whopping $36 more than your w/graphics system.
I came up with this config in about 15 minutes; obviously given enough time you could come up with something better at or below this price point. You just have to know where (and when) to look. I recently picked up a 4TB NAS drive for $86.
You don't need even close to that much CPU, TBH just get an i3 and use the $100 to upgrade to a 760. Will perform better in games, which is the most demanding thing most people do with their PCs.
If you're going to stoop as low as an i3, might as well just get an unlocked Pentium and just overclock it. I use my PCs for wayyy more than just games but if I were gamer only I would just get unlocked i5. Anything less is really too weak IMO.
You gonna need a decent mobo and a aftermarket cooler to get any OC with pentiumK. And that really puts you to a cost for the cheapest i3 and mobo. And believe me, you pretty much can't match i3 with pentiumK overclocked.
For the AMD APU, why not try a dedicated GPU that can be run in Asymmetrical Crossfire with the APU? An R7 240 or 250 can be set up in Dual Graphics to take advantage of the 7850's gpu and can save some $ while being an in-between performer.
Dual Graphics (aka Asymmetrical CrossFire) is... well, it can be okay, or it can be terrible. Maybe Kaveri will do better overall than Llano and Trinity/Richland did in this area, but my experience is that the overhead of dealing with two not-quite-the-same GPUs often takes enough away from the performance (or adds enough jitter) that a single faster dGPU is a better choice. CF and SLI are setups I only recommend once you hit a relatively high level of GPU performance -- minimum GTX or R9 family in my book.
I guess you have to recommend something from AMD, but at the 1000 dollar price point, it is definitely a stretch. The Kaveri APU is very overpriced, and will get badly outclassed by the intel system when using a discrete card. TBH, the only place I can see a valid recommendation for a desktop AMD system is Richland/Kaveri in a SFF where you do not want to use a discrete card or an FX 6300/8320 in a budget system.
Sorry you feel that way, but your comment offers no indication of the problem(s) you have with the article. "Commercial crap" like a PC guide recommendation, like we've been doing occasionally for decades? Okay then....
At $60 there are plenty of higher wattage PSUs from reputable brands (such as Corsair), they just don't have a gold rating. But a gold rating is unnecessary unless you're going for a silent build (as little heat generated as possible) or are using such high wattage components that the reduction in power is actually noticeable. Getting a 600-750 watt PSU instead means you can put $20-80 more towards the graphics card and get significantly more performance in the form of a 280/280X (or a 760 if you lean Nvidia). Having that second HDD right off the bat isn't the best choice for a limited budget unless you for some reason are a huge media consumer without already owning any external storage. For a build with the best bang for the buck on a tight budget, I recommend investing in 1) a platform with an upgrade future 2) the best CPU you can afford if you're doing anything that needs CPU horsepower (streaming, certain games, encoding, content creation) and 3) the best GPU you can afford if you're doing anything that needs GPU horsepower (gaming, GPGPU). Those are the 3 most expensive items. Everything else is several times cheaper and can be upgraded in the future. A Coolermaster Hyper 212 is the only heatsink anyone really needs and you can get them for $20 on sale or $30 regularly, equalling CLCs or heatsinks up into the $60-80 range.
I have to agree with other people questioning the recommendation of an APU. With the A10-7850k, you're paying for the iGPU. If you're buying a discrete GPU that means it's a waste of money. Yes, the AM3+ platform is effectively dead, but while the FM2+ platform may be more up to date, it's still lagging far behind Intel. AM3+ is significantly better bang for the buck with a discrete GPU if you're looking at AMD, but the best, serious bang for the buck while having good chipset freatures is Intel, hands down (sadly...). You can either get a huge increase in multithreaded performance with AM3+ for a little less money going the 8350 route or equivalent CPU performance going for the much cheaper, often on sale 6300. (No real reason to go for an iGPU-less AMD CPU quad core since the 6300 is the same price/$10-20 more for 50% more performance) AMD motherboards are also cheaper than Intel ones so you can potentially spring for certain "nicer" features without having to spend more. You're just locking yourself into a dead end platform, but if you're on a tight budget and/or plan on upgrading your PC several years down the line when you have more money, it doesn't matter. Upgrading just the CPU on an Intel build when say Broadwell comes out is a huge waste of money unless you're coming from a very low end Haswell (again, for those on a tight budget like this article addresses).
The advice I'd say to focus on though is just figure out your needs and then buy as much CPU and/or GPU as you can for that. RAM and storage is easy to add later on when you have more money. But replacing a CPU/GPU means you've got a couple hundred dollar paperweight laying around (unless you can reuse it).
I have no idea which power supply you're talking about, because I looked at half a dozen Corsair CX power supplies, competitively priced, and every single one had a 12v rail supplying very close to its maximum wattage. There may be some bad PSUs in Corsair's value lineup, but overall they're a good brand. Their high end PSUs are untouchable by the competition.
pretty much all of their CX and VS lineup "overrates" their maximum power and only 750W models come close to providing all of their available power to the 12V rail. And 30C rating is pathetic aswell.
XFX and Seasonic provide much better value (and power on 12V) for the money. Atleast here in EU anyway.
I looked at that link, and every single CX PSU still in production has a 12v rail wattage close to its maximum wattage. Make sure you're not looking at discontinued products. We're talking products people can actually buy. Corsair has had some less than desirable PSUs but recently their PSUs have been rather good.
With the 7series A-8s now showing up I'd say there is literally no conceivable reason to go with a A-10 as long as price is close to i5.. What you save you can either pocket or put to use for something else in the system.
Midrange AMD: I'd build it with the A8-7600, save $65, forget about any add on GPU, and be done for $577. It's close enough to the A10 series in performance, but user less power.
Kaveri's sweet spot appears to be at the much lower TDP levels. That 7600 is looking rather appealing; the 7800 does look slightly better on power than even the 7600 but the price is not close enough.
I understand that AM3+ is not going to see any new chips.. I still think a 6300 and a nice 970 motherboard would be more appropriate. You would get better CPU performance at a lower price. freeing the budget and giving us the option for a faster GPU.. Also, if you didn't want to go AM3+ you can still go with the FM2+ and an athlon 760k so you won't be paying extra for the worthless integrated graphics (by worthless I mean if you have a discrete GPU) there isn't much to do with HSA yet and I don't see why going with the APU would outweigh the price difference. Yes I understand it's a newer, more efficient chip. If the price of the upcoming athlon x4 860k will be right (and I expect it to be if AMD wants to take sales from the pentium G3258), that would have been even better..
I'd just like to point out how amazing it is that the "midrange" Intel system is considered "midrange" today. That's a powerhours of a fucking system that will allow you to play every game in the world for years to come, edit photos and HD video. It will let your animate and render 3D objects and manipulate audio files. Hell, bump up the case the Fractal Design R4 and a Seasonic SS 650W PSU and you've got a silent PC as well.
I'd personally rather have the 2Million MTBF offered by a Mushkin SSD than the 1 Million MTBF offered by that Crucial, not to mention the faster speeds across the board for $10 less. But that's a minor thing.
It's just really awesome that something so powerful is available to people now for so little. I mean, if you budgeted well even someone making minimum wage, and living with their parents/no rent, could afford that PC. Fucking Brilliant!
I picked up a pre built with a new Intel Skylake i7 , 16 GB of ram , a GTX 750 Ti which i removed and sold since i don't care in the least about gaming, 1 TB hard drive & Win 7 Pro installed with a Win 10 Pro license for when i want to upgrade .
After trying Win 10 for a few months on another computer i will never upgrade to it , it's horrific .
I paid $630.00 shipped to my door , the tax was $30.00.
When i tried to put a system together on the PC partpicker website i could not come anywhere remotely close to the price i paid so the notion that you can build cheaper is hogwash in a lot of instances.
Fact is the overwhelming majority of PC users will never build there own computer , i do agree that if you plan on spending upwards of a thousand bucks on a system you can definitely do far better by building your own and i would never spend that kind of money on a pre built .
But you are not going to build a system with what i listed as included for $600.00 trying to do it yourself , no way .
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
65 Comments
Back to Article
homerdog - Friday, August 8, 2014 - link
It would be sensible at this point to recommend uATX builds as standard, and mITX as the smaller alternative. uATX provides plenty of expansion options for a budget or midrange build. If you're not even sure the user wants a GPU, it makes very little sense to recommend a full ATX build.Jambe - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
/concurHlafordlaes - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
/another concurJarredWalton - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
This comes from my experience building and supporting PCs for friends and family member over the past 20 or so years. Yes, things have certainly changed, but if you're going to buy/build a desktop my first guess is that you want something that's faster than a laptop, costs less than an equivalent performance laptop, more upgradeable than a laptop, and more reliable (long-term) than a laptop. Otherwise you'd buy a laptop and be done with it (which is a topic for another guide, I know).For most people, the "desktop" PC is actually a box that sits on the floor or in a cubby hole on your desk, so the difference between an ATX case and a micro-ATX case isn't a major factor. Larger cases make it easier to assemble the PC (more room for your hands to work in), and by virtue of having more space they also tend to collect less dust on the components over time. That means people that are never going to crack open the case to clean it out will be better served by an ATX case. I also like the idea of being able to add a GPU (or two) without difficulties down the road. Most people won't do that, sure, but it's an option.
Anyway, there's a paragraph explaining options for mATX builds. If you know you're not going to add a GPU, then I think you know enough to read the text and say, "Oh, there are smaller cases...do I want one of those?" and make a decision. The fact is there are tons of trade-offs to consider but as I didn't want to write a 5000 word guide with six different "under $1000" builds catering to the various potential use cases, I picked two of the most likely builds and kept the text to around 1200 words. :-)
ClockworkPirate - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
Most mITX motherboards have PCIe x16 slots nowadays, let alone uATX. How does either prevent adding a GPU, as long as you get a case with space for one (the BitFenix Prodigy seems pretty popular for mITX)?Evil_Sheep - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
I'd still concur with the OP. Of course most people's desktops sit on a shelf their whole life but as you wrote in the article, most people won't lose anything by going mATX so if you can save half the space, why not? Dust? One thing about mATX/ITX is that the cases are more easily perched on desks and shelves, which I find collect a lot less dust than on the floor. Easier to assemble? Good mATX cases shouldn't be very hard to assemble with standard loadouts and doing it once isn't a big deal as most users aren't swapping out components every few months.I've used mATX happily for years, and I think it's a more appropriate standard in today's world. ATX is just so 90's. If you only want to write 2 builds, how about mATX and ITX rather than the obsolete AMD? :)
Hrel - Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - link
I agree with you on the ATX debate. A desktop is just a box that sits there and never moves. So the size of it really isn't very important. Will there be people who are willing to pay more for something smaller, something "cute"? Sure, always. But a lot of those people can't afford to pay more and the rest of the people are gonna look at you cock eyed and go "why would I spend $200 more to get a 10"x18"x6" box instead of a 16"x18"x10" box?"Point being, the size of the box that sits still for 10 years doesn't really matter. Yes, my dollar amount and dimensions are entirely made up, but I don't have them memorized because, as I said, it just doesn't matter what size they are.
FITCamaro - Friday, August 8, 2014 - link
Why would you go with an APU at all? Why not an FX-8350 8 core CPU? More CPU cores. You won't need the onboard graphics if you're going with a discrete card.JarredWalton - Friday, August 8, 2014 - link
AM3+ is pretty much a dying platform, so I have trouble recommending a new system built using it -- plus the AM3+ chips tend to be more power hungry. Anyway, it's an option, but I'd go for FM2+ personally, even if you don't use the iGPU.mickulty - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
Do you believe FM2+ will see any processors with enough cores (or high enough clock speed) to rival the performance of the FX-8350? If not, what relevance does it hold whether the platform is 'alive' or not?I'd understand wanting a system with HSA, but just "It's a dead platform" seems like a terrible reason to reject AM3+.
JarredWalton - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
How about "dead platform that doesn't have a decent IGP solution and that uses more power" then? I'd like to think AMD will do a three or four module FM2+ compatible chip at some point (maybe the 20nm or whatever parts when those come out), but you're right: FM2+ isn't likely to receive too much more in the way of faster APUs either, at least not before people need to upgrade to a new motherboard/platform regardless.The reality is this: if you want more performance than FM2+ can offer, and you're planning on using a dedicated GPU anyway, Intel's Haswell chips are going to be better for the vast majority of people. This is something I showed with the performance vs. system cost charts on the CPU State of the Part article earlier this week.
Kalelovil - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
It is unlikely there will ever be any worthwhile upgrade path on FM2+ from the A10-7850K.Kaveri's successor, Carrizo, will be limited to 65W TDP chips and will lose half of its PCI-E graphics lanes as a result of its focus on mobile and small form factor markets.
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/178752-amds-n...
After Carrizo AMD's desktop platforms are dead, 'K12' in 2016 being the only future hope.
Flunk - Friday, August 8, 2014 - link
All current CPU products are APUs, get with the times.Death666Angel - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
I can name a few Xeons and the aformentioned AM3+ CPUs that don't have GPU portions.Jovec - Friday, August 8, 2014 - link
Show the dilemma with the AMD platform. With the discrete GPU build, at $170 for the 7850 the user would be better off with a 6350 or 8320, but the AM3+ platform is likely dead.wurizen - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
who cares if its likely dead. thats like saying that the 1150 platform is likely dead. am3+ platform hasn't died or moved forward. it's stuck. it's not dead. get it straight!Peeping Tom - Friday, August 8, 2014 - link
Crap Intel build for the money.I spent $575 and got 3 times as much RAM, hyper-threading, larger CPU cache, lower TDP (same frequency). Toss in graphics card and SSD, swap out my $200 MB, and it would be at or cheaper than yours but with better performance. You guys need to learn how to shop LOL
Morawka - Friday, August 8, 2014 - link
then post the part picker linkPeeping Tom - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
This wasn't very recent. But if you want specs:Raidmax Typoon with 450W PSU
Intel Xeon E3-1230V2 (3.3-3.7GHz)
SuperMicro X9SAE-V Motherboard...server grade
24GB (2 x 8GB SuperTalent, 2 * 4GB Kingston) ECC CAS 9 1333MHz Memory....okay could've skipped ECC and got higher frequency, but originally built the rig to crunch numbers
Got the case w/PSU for $40 from Newegg, CPU with Motherboard for $430 from SuperBiiz, and RAM was about $160 ($55 for 2 x 4GB from Newegg, $105 for 2 x 8GB from SuperBiiz).
Peeping Tom - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
I also had rebates and the amounts I listed included shipping. So actually it was closer to $600 bare but still not bad. Could throw in a SSD and one of the GPUs above for about the same money. I added a Kingston HyperX SSD for $55 and low-end NVIDIA GPU for $20 on my system.Salvor - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
RAM is significantly more expensive today than when you bought it, that's part of the pricing difference, you'd be very luck to get that much RAM for under $200 these days. The other part seems to be the $40 Case/PSU combo which seems too good to be true to me but if it works and is reliable more power to you.Peeping Tom - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
http://www.directron.com/atx312ws.htmlHere's the case on sale for $36.99. If you google it you can find where it was on Newegg for $39.99. Mine came with a Raidmax PSU....not sure if they still do as none of the descriptions mention it.
At the time of my build pretty much everything I got was a steal. I put it together shortly after Black Friday, so there were tons of combo deals. And yeah, RAM is more expensive now....like almost twice as much. I'm actually trying to sell some of mine and might even make a profit LOL
inighthawki - Friday, August 8, 2014 - link
24GB of RAM? That's a pretty odd amount... Did you get 2x8GB+2x4GB or something?Peeping Tom - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
Yup. Started out with 2 x 4GB and about a month later got the 2 x 8GB. Should've loaded up with 32GB from the beginning, but even 24GB is overkill.inighthawki - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
Gotchaanonymous_user - Friday, August 8, 2014 - link
If I wanted to tailor these building towards pure gaming, would it be a good idea to cut back on the CPU and upgrade the GPU? How little CPU can I get away with before it becomes a bottleneck for the GPU?Salvor - Friday, August 8, 2014 - link
An i3-4150 or a FX-6300 (both ~$120) should probably be plenty if the only thing you need it for is gaming and ordinary usage. You might get a few frames from faster processors but largely its the GPU that bottlenecks, both those processors should outperform a PS4/XBone in games. A Pentium anniversary edition is another option if you want to overclock.There are a few very CPU intensive titles that might warrant a more powerful processor such as: Supreme Commander, Planetary Annihilation, Battlefield 4 (with lots of players), Crysis 3, and Planetside 2. Just buy a few levels above for those games (FX 8320, i5-4460) and it should be enough.
leoblaze9 - Friday, August 8, 2014 - link
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/PLTCZLi believe this is a better route for the AMD build. I made it similar to the recommended build but i included a better motherboard for the overclocking potential and (imo) a way cooler looking (but more expensive) case.
Thermogenic - Friday, August 8, 2014 - link
> Find a Windows license (which may or may not be legal) for $50You can say this about every part in your list. "Find an intel CPU that may or may not be stolen for $100." Just because illegal keys from MSDN keys are more readily available doesn't mean that a website like this should advocate seeking them out.
JarredWalton - Friday, August 8, 2014 - link
I'm not suggesting you search out illegal keys. There are restrictions on what sort of keys you're allowed to use on a system, at least in theory. It's a gray area and if you got buy a Windows key for $50, it could be against Microsoft's licensing terms. Sorry if that wasn't clear.willis936 - Friday, August 8, 2014 - link
I guess the question is how far under a grand do you want to be? I realized after making this that this build isn't really comparable to these because they're off by $100 which shows up in the GPU and RAM.http://pcpartpicker.com/p/6GCLdC
wurizen - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
i thought u guy were the experts? i looked at the psu requirement for a 270x (at newegg) and it says 500 watts as the base requirement. does this mean a 450w is ok? did u go 450 watt to save money? u could have easily went up to 500 watts to meet the 270x requirement and still be under a grand? i don't get it. seems too "expert-y" to be using a 450 watt psu. but that's just my nonexpert opinion.also, i don't think the am3+ platform is dead. i don't even get the dead thing comments on here. an fx8350 is on the heels of an i7-3770k. with better software/coding optimizations, who knows, an amd fx8350 cpu's can prob close that gap even more.
by using an amd apu, there is less cpu performance than the fx series and since your build has a dedicated gpu--theigpu is wasted. i don't get it. again, too expert-y and too way above my head.
anyway, i couldn't sleep so i decided to build my own under a grand pc using a "dead" amd fx cpu:
(tax not included)
mobo: asus m5a99fx pro r.20 ($134.99)
cpu: amd fx8350 ($189.99)
ram: g-skill ripjaw x (2 x 4GB) 1866 PC314900 ($88.99)
gpu: sapphire dual-x radeon r9 280 3GB ($219.99)
ssd: samsung 840 evo ($89.99)
hdd: seagate barracuda st1000dm003 1TB 7200rpm ($59.99)
psu: fractal design tesla r2 650watt certified 80 plus gold ($86.99)
case: fractal design define r4
total: $990.92
wurizen - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
oops, the fractal define r4 case is $119.99. white version.JarredWalton - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
There is no "one size fits all", which is something I tried to get across in the introduction. Basically, you can spend more on a GPU if you're a gamer, less on an SSD, get a better case or a smaller case, etc. I intentionally don't include any rebates on the components, mostly because those change so frequently that in a week the price list would be woefully out of date.As to your questions: R9 270X will easily run off an 80 Plus Gold 450W PSU; heck, I've run R9 280X on just such a PSU, and total system power draw under load is still well under 400W. The reason AMD and NVIDIA "require" such high wattage PSUs is that if you buy a cheap case that includes a "500W" PSU for $50, that PSU is likely only going to be able to run reliably with constant loads (i.e. gaming) of 300W or less.
For the CPU, FX-8350 is certainly getting close to the performance of an i7-3770K (or i7-4790K) in some instances, but it also uses more power by about 50% and there are plenty of cases where it's really not that close. If you happen to run code that really likes having eight integer cores, FX-8350 (or FX-8320) can really scream, but single-threaded performance is a big step down. Long-term, it's also a bit sad that AMD has publicly stated they're not going after the performance crown any longer, so I suspect FX-8350 will be one of the fastest AMD processors for a while.
Anyway, your total price is about $120 higher than the systems I put together, and for most people the difference in performance will be negligible. The GPU is faster, of course, and anyone could spend a bit more (or a lot more) to improve GPU performance, but outside of gaming or heavy computational workloads it's basically just more money for the same overall experience.
wurizen - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
so ur saying that the amd apu u picked will be as snappy as an fx8350 or 8320 in day to day task? if every other component is the same as ur amd apu buid? i dont think an fx8350 plus an am3+ mobo will be that much more if u just switched out those 2 components. ok, so the meager 450w psu might no longer be safe with an fx cpu in there but add 5-10 bucks more to kick up that psu to a 500w unit. And u have an older cpu but a faster cpu. U will also help promote amd fx cpus so amd can finally uodate them, if this publicity thing u do does work. Of course, u didnt. So now, ppl will buy amd apu's, which no one likes except for laptops and amd is not even getting the same desktop apu in mobile firm yet. And intel has iris. So theres ur praise for something u thought was newer and thus mire alive than am3+ but is just nit true. So thanks fir nothing.silverblue - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
On a per-module basis, that 7850 should be close to the 8350 - slightly better per-core IPC, better scaling per module, and there's the oddity that is Kaveri being much better at x87 benches (from what I've seen; correct me if I'm wrong, but it hardly matters unless you really want to bench SuperPi all day long). The 8300 series is viable, especially more so for gaming, and even more so if you undervolt it, but you have to ask yourself what you need a PC to do before jumping towards one socket over the other. How expensive is a good AM3+ board in comparison to FM2+, for example?The real issue here - for me - is the non-availability of the Athlon II X4 860K or similar CPU in the west; in other words, an APU with its graphics disabled (I don't know why it doesn't have 4MB L2 cache, though, only 2MB). I'd like to see one of those overclocked; it may even send the overclocked G3258 packing if they get it to 4.5GHz. I'd buy FM2+ for that.
By the way, Iris comparisons are null and void due to the price difference.
JarredWalton - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
You can read Ian's review of what will likely be the last FX-series AM3+ CPU now:http://www.anandtech.com/show/8316/amds-5-ghz-turb...
If we look at the FX-8350, what you'll find is that an i5-4690 is faster in virtually every test. There are a few exceptions (Cinebench R15 multi-threaded, Hybrid x265 4K, and WinRAR) but on the whole we'd be looking at nearly the same price for the two systems with Intel winning the lion's share of benchmarks and using quite a bit less power as well -- 20W+ at idle and 100W+ load. The i5-4690 also wins at nearly every gaming test and at worst is basically tied (Company of Heroes 2 being the lone holdout where AMD has a <3% lead).
If AMD could make a better, more competitive FX series processor -- which means competitive performance and power and cost -- it would be worth buying. Right now, they unfortunately do not, and trying to support something AMD has chose to abandon -- for arguably good reasons -- isn't going to help anyone.
hojnikb - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
I think you need to read up on how PSU power is rated.Even though this PSU is only good for 450W, its actually capable of delivering all of its rated power (or 444W to be precise) on the 12V rail. This is very important, since all the power hungry components need 12V and nothing else (gpus, cpus..).
But there are PSU, that are rated for way more (for example 550W, 600W etc) but can't even deliver 2/3 or sometimes even half the rated power to the 12V rail. And that kind of PSU is really crap, since its effectivly only as powerfull as its 12V rail (for example, corsairs CX 600W is only good for 480W on 12V -- so really you're looking at a 480W PSU).
And those ratings are also the reason, why GPU manufactures overrate PSU requirement.
tl;dr
12V power is the thing, you need to look for.
Salvor - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
I'd agree an 8350 might be a better idea, but I'd go intel anyways since relying on software to become more multithreaded is a big "if" (especially games). His build is cheaper than yours because he left some money for the OS, and he also has twice the capacity for his SSD and HDD,silverblue - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
Well, software becoming more multithreaded is definitely happening, but it's only true dual core/module CPUs that are going to really suffer here. The i3 is somewhat faster than a G3258 in games like BF4 and I imagine this will ring true for other Frostbite-powered titles.That P3258 sounded like a good idea at the time, but it really is handicapped by not having HT and thus puts me off it as regards future proofing. Still, it'd cannibalise i3 sales if it did have HT.
Salvor - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
Well yeah but its been "definitely happening" for years now, and you'll probably be in the market for a new CPU by the time it really is an issue (unless you play a few specific games). Also the Pentium is only $70, and you can stick it in a z97 and upgrade to a broadwell quadcore when it comes out. I'd go with the i3 over the pentium for myself, but the pentium is definitely an option for many people.Peeping Tom - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
I've actually never used PCPartPicker before now (can't believe I haven't!), but here goes:http://pcpartpicker.com/p/KXmgrH
Faster CPU with Hyperthreading, larger cache, and lower TDP
Modular PSU with 100W more power
Twice as much RAM at the same speed and better timings
M.2 SSD....yes smaller capacity but plugs onboard!
Better Motherboard IMO that supports SLI (better audio chipset, better LAN)
2TB hard drive with 1 year longer warranty (honestly, I would skip this; go with 1TB or better SSD)
EVGA versus Zotac graphics card........LOL
Grand total $910....whopping $36 more than your w/graphics system.
I came up with this config in about 15 minutes; obviously given enough time you could come up with something better at or below this price point. You just have to know where (and when) to look. I recently picked up a 4TB NAS drive for $86.
Peeping Tom - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
Error, actually about $70-90 more. Still worth it to pay a bit more IMOSalvor - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
You don't need even close to that much CPU, TBH just get an i3 and use the $100 to upgrade to a 760. Will perform better in games, which is the most demanding thing most people do with their PCs.Peeping Tom - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
If you're going to stoop as low as an i3, might as well just get an unlocked Pentium and just overclock it. I use my PCs for wayyy more than just games but if I were gamer only I would just get unlocked i5. Anything less is really too weak IMO.hojnikb - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
You gonna need a decent mobo and a aftermarket cooler to get any OC with pentiumK. And that really puts you to a cost for the cheapest i3 and mobo. And believe me, you pretty much can't match i3 with pentiumK overclocked.squirrelboy - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
I'm wondering why they went with a Z motherboard for a non-K i5.CSbeer - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
For the AMD APU, why not try a dedicated GPU that can be run in Asymmetrical Crossfire with the APU? An R7 240 or 250 can be set up in Dual Graphics to take advantage of the 7850's gpu and can save some $ while being an in-between performer.JarredWalton - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
Dual Graphics (aka Asymmetrical CrossFire) is... well, it can be okay, or it can be terrible. Maybe Kaveri will do better overall than Llano and Trinity/Richland did in this area, but my experience is that the overhead of dealing with two not-quite-the-same GPUs often takes enough away from the performance (or adds enough jitter) that a single faster dGPU is a better choice. CF and SLI are setups I only recommend once you hit a relatively high level of GPU performance -- minimum GTX or R9 family in my book.frozentundra123456 - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
I guess you have to recommend something from AMD, but at the 1000 dollar price point, it is definitely a stretch. The Kaveri APU is very overpriced, and will get badly outclassed by the intel system when using a discrete card. TBH, the only place I can see a valid recommendation for a desktop AMD system is Richland/Kaveri in a SFF where you do not want to use a discrete card or an FX 6300/8320 in a budget system.SantaAna12 - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
It's been said...but I thought I would throw this in the hat:Anandtech is better than this.
I stopped cruising THW years ago after it sold because of commercial crap like this.
Anandtech is better than this!
JarredWalton - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
Sorry you feel that way, but your comment offers no indication of the problem(s) you have with the article. "Commercial crap" like a PC guide recommendation, like we've been doing occasionally for decades? Okay then....garadante - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
At $60 there are plenty of higher wattage PSUs from reputable brands (such as Corsair), they just don't have a gold rating. But a gold rating is unnecessary unless you're going for a silent build (as little heat generated as possible) or are using such high wattage components that the reduction in power is actually noticeable. Getting a 600-750 watt PSU instead means you can put $20-80 more towards the graphics card and get significantly more performance in the form of a 280/280X (or a 760 if you lean Nvidia). Having that second HDD right off the bat isn't the best choice for a limited budget unless you for some reason are a huge media consumer without already owning any external storage. For a build with the best bang for the buck on a tight budget, I recommend investing in 1) a platform with an upgrade future 2) the best CPU you can afford if you're doing anything that needs CPU horsepower (streaming, certain games, encoding, content creation) and 3) the best GPU you can afford if you're doing anything that needs GPU horsepower (gaming, GPGPU). Those are the 3 most expensive items. Everything else is several times cheaper and can be upgraded in the future. A Coolermaster Hyper 212 is the only heatsink anyone really needs and you can get them for $20 on sale or $30 regularly, equalling CLCs or heatsinks up into the $60-80 range.I have to agree with other people questioning the recommendation of an APU. With the A10-7850k, you're paying for the iGPU. If you're buying a discrete GPU that means it's a waste of money. Yes, the AM3+ platform is effectively dead, but while the FM2+ platform may be more up to date, it's still lagging far behind Intel. AM3+ is significantly better bang for the buck with a discrete GPU if you're looking at AMD, but the best, serious bang for the buck while having good chipset freatures is Intel, hands down (sadly...). You can either get a huge increase in multithreaded performance with AM3+ for a little less money going the 8350 route or equivalent CPU performance going for the much cheaper, often on sale 6300. (No real reason to go for an iGPU-less AMD CPU quad core since the 6300 is the same price/$10-20 more for 50% more performance) AMD motherboards are also cheaper than Intel ones so you can potentially spring for certain "nicer" features without having to spend more. You're just locking yourself into a dead end platform, but if you're on a tight budget and/or plan on upgrading your PC several years down the line when you have more money, it doesn't matter. Upgrading just the CPU on an Intel build when say Broadwell comes out is a huge waste of money unless you're coming from a very low end Haswell (again, for those on a tight budget like this article addresses).
The advice I'd say to focus on though is just figure out your needs and then buy as much CPU and/or GPU as you can for that. RAM and storage is easy to add later on when you have more money. But replacing a CPU/GPU means you've got a couple hundred dollar paperweight laying around (unless you can reuse it).
hojnikb - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
Actually, value Corsair PSU are pretty crap for the money, since their 12V power rating is very poor (cx v2 600W only has 480W on 12V).I believe seasonic or XFX 450/550/650W offer the best quality and 12V power rating for the money.
garadante - Sunday, August 10, 2014 - link
I have no idea which power supply you're talking about, because I looked at half a dozen Corsair CX power supplies, competitively priced, and every single one had a 12v rail supplying very close to its maximum wattage. There may be some bad PSUs in Corsair's value lineup, but overall they're a good brand. Their high end PSUs are untouchable by the competition.hojnikb - Sunday, August 10, 2014 - link
dont know what corsair you have been looking for, but as can be seen here http://www.realhardtechx.com/index_archivos/Page44...pretty much all of their CX and VS lineup "overrates" their maximum power and only 750W models come close to providing all of their available power to the 12V rail. And 30C rating is pathetic aswell.
XFX and Seasonic provide much better value (and power on 12V) for the money. Atleast here in EU anyway.
garadante - Sunday, August 10, 2014 - link
I looked at that link, and every single CX PSU still in production has a 12v rail wattage close to its maximum wattage. Make sure you're not looking at discontinued products. We're talking products people can actually buy. Corsair has had some less than desirable PSUs but recently their PSUs have been rather good.iTzSnypah - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
You must have no idea who Super Flower is....just4U - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
With the 7series A-8s now showing up I'd say there is literally no conceivable reason to go with a A-10 as long as price is close to i5.. What you save you can either pocket or put to use for something else in the system.Gadgety - Sunday, August 10, 2014 - link
Midrange AMD: I'd build it with the A8-7600, save $65, forget about any add on GPU, and be done for $577. It's close enough to the A10 series in performance, but user less power.silverblue - Sunday, August 10, 2014 - link
Kaveri's sweet spot appears to be at the much lower TDP levels. That 7600 is looking rather appealing; the 7800 does look slightly better on power than even the 7600 but the price is not close enough.DIYEyal - Sunday, August 10, 2014 - link
I understand that AM3+ is not going to see any new chips.. I still think a 6300 and a nice 970 motherboard would be more appropriate.You would get better CPU performance at a lower price. freeing the budget and giving us the option for a faster GPU..
Also, if you didn't want to go AM3+ you can still go with the FM2+ and an athlon 760k so you won't be paying extra for the worthless integrated graphics (by worthless I mean if you have a discrete GPU) there isn't much to do with HSA yet and I don't see why going with the APU would outweigh the price difference. Yes I understand it's a newer, more efficient chip. If the price of the upcoming athlon x4 860k will be right (and I expect it to be if AMD wants to take sales from the pentium G3258), that would have been even better..
Hrel - Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - link
I'd just like to point out how amazing it is that the "midrange" Intel system is considered "midrange" today. That's a powerhours of a fucking system that will allow you to play every game in the world for years to come, edit photos and HD video. It will let your animate and render 3D objects and manipulate audio files. Hell, bump up the case the Fractal Design R4 and a Seasonic SS 650W PSU and you've got a silent PC as well.I'd personally rather have the 2Million MTBF offered by a Mushkin SSD than the 1 Million MTBF offered by that Crucial, not to mention the faster speeds across the board for $10 less. But that's a minor thing.
It's just really awesome that something so powerful is available to people now for so little. I mean, if you budgeted well even someone making minimum wage, and living with their parents/no rent, could afford that PC. Fucking Brilliant!
noamchomsky - Monday, May 25, 2015 - link
No PC building/buying guides for 10 months? :(herbc - Saturday, April 29, 2017 - link
I picked up a pre built with a new Intel Skylake i7 , 16 GB of ram , a GTX 750 Ti which i removed and sold since i don't care in the least about gaming, 1 TB hard drive & Win 7 Pro installed with a Win 10 Pro license for when i want to upgrade .After trying Win 10 for a few months on another computer i will never upgrade to it , it's horrific .
I paid $630.00 shipped to my door , the tax was $30.00.
When i tried to put a system together on the PC partpicker website i could not come anywhere remotely close to the price i paid so the notion that you can build cheaper is hogwash in a lot of instances.
Fact is the overwhelming majority of PC users will never build there own computer , i do agree that if you plan on spending upwards of a thousand bucks on a system you can definitely do far better by building your own and i would never spend that kind of money on a pre built .
But you are not going to build a system with what i listed as included for $600.00 trying to do it yourself , no way .