Used PC advice

[RyanLewisBull]

Hi there, 

So far I am planning on buying a used pc for around £450 from a popularly used market in the UK, CEX. I have come across 3 possible systems to buy which are listed below. They are all graded as the same condition and I don't know the amount of VRAM the 980 has as it isn't stated.

 

1 - i5-4690K/16GB Ram/256GB SSD+1TB HDD/R9 FuryX 4GB =£435

2 - i5-7400/16GB Ram/1TB HDD/GTX1060 6GB = £430

3 - i5-4670K/16GB Ram/120GB SSD+500GB HDD/GTX980 = £430

Thanks in advance.

[Spaceman_Wil]

The second option is definitely going to be best. solely due to the CPU. The 1060 is more on par with a 970, so you'll loose a hair of graphical power when compared to that 980. But second option is definitely the solid choice

[sharknado34]

Those are fairly decent specs, here is what the gtx 980 has for specs. I would recommend however that you go for something that has an i7 though since a lot of games are starting to be really thread heavy. For example my i5 4690k bottlenecks me fairly hard in battlefield 1. The 1% lows are really atrocious in that game. There are also a couple other games that are starting to appear to be that way. So if you could afford it I would get something with an i7. What resolution are you planning on going with for gaming?

[RyanLewisBull]

1 minute ago, Spaceman_Wil said:

The second option is definitely going to be best. solely due to the CPU. The 1060 is more on par with a 970, so you'll loose a hair of graphical power when compared to that 980. But second option is definitely the solid choice

 

I thought that but I found this.

[RyanLewisBull]

On 4/18/2019 at 1:38 PM, sharknado34 said:

Those are fairly decent specs, here is what the gtx 980 has for specs. I would recommend however that you go for something that has an i7 though since a lot of games are starting to be really thread heavy. For example my i5 4690k bottlenecks me fairly hard in battlefield 1. The 1% lows are really atrocious in that game. There are also a couple other games that are starting to appear to be that way. So if you could afford it I would get something with an i7. What resolution are you planning on going with for gaming?

1080p

[jerubedo]

8 minutes ago, sharknado34 said:

a lot of games are starting to be really thread heavy.

I wouldn't really say that. It's a few titles from the same 2 developers:

 

Ubisoft: Assassin's Creed Origins, Assassin's Creed Odyssey, Far Cry 5

 

Dice: Battlefield 1, Battlefield V

 

If we look at other recent releases, these games still do fine on older i5s: Resident Evil 2, Metro Exodus, Devil May Cry 5, Sekiro, Kingdom Come: Deliverance. That's just 5 AAA games that have come out in the past few months.

[sharknado34]

1 minute ago, Bullzy said:

1080p

I have seen games that can take up to 6 gb of vram at 1080p, but that of course doesn't mean anything if the hardware itself can't back it up. I would reccomend 4gb of vram minimum for 1080p

[RyanLewisBull]

I've had a lot of people say number 1 is the better option would you all agree?

[sharknado34]

3 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

I wouldn't really say that. It's a few titles from the same 2 developers:

 

Ubisoft: Assassin's Creed Origins, Assassin's Creed Odyssey, Far Cry 5

 

Dice: Battlefield 1, Battlefield V

 

If we look at other recent releases, these games still do fine on older i5s: Resident Evil 2, Metro Exodus, Devil May Cry 5, Sekiro. That's just 4 AAA games that have come out in the past few months.

That may be true, but for the battlefield series at least they have always been a couple years ahead of the times. 8 gb of ram was pretty standard, then bam battlefield 1 came out needing 16. About a year or 2 later it is pretty standar to use 16 gb of ram for many systems. Cpu cores and theads are no exception. 1 percent lows improve greatly with hyperthreading in many games. 

[jerubedo]

2 minutes ago, Bullzy said:

I've had a lot of people say number 1 is the better option would you all agree?

Yes. As long as the games you are playing won't need more than 4GB of VRAM (some games at 1080p do at max settings). the Fury X performs better on average and the difference in CPUs is negligible. 

[sharknado34]

8 minutes ago, Bullzy said:

I've had a lot of people say number 1 is the better option would you all agree?

Yeah, those cpus are on average similar to each other's performance. The gpu on that one however is the best. Just beware I have heard that graphics card can be kinda loud though. (although no gpu from that generation was exceptionally quiet compared to modern gpus)

[jerubedo]

Just now, sharknado34 said:

Yeah, those cpus are on average similar to each other's performance. The gpu on that one however is the best. Just beware I have heard that graphics card can be kinda loud though. (although no gpu from that generation was exceptionally quiet compared to modern gpus)

Agreed. The Fury X will be louder and far more power hungry than the 1060.

[Herman Mcpootis]

8 hours ago, Bullzy said:

I've had a lot of people say number 1 is the better option would you all agree?

The 1st rig would be the better option.