$1500 AUD gaming pc

[WaavinHicks]

looking through local stores, all within a 10 minute drive from eachother I came up with this, which also saves on shipping from the first list I had

 

CPU - i5 4670k - $275

Motherboard - Asus z87-A - $199

Ram - Corsair Vengeance 8GB Kit(4GBx2) DDR3-1600 - $109

HDD - Seagate barracuda 1tb - $68

SSD - Samsung evo 120gb - $107

GPU - Asus gtx 770 - $435

PSU - Corsair rm550 - $145

 

$1338 without a case, which is his choice

[PillowSmoke]

And get way worse performance?

 

Yea but the price ratio is better.

[paulsterio]

 

Yea but the price ratio is better.

 

The 8350 isn't as good as the 4670K and you're saving like $20 by going with it instead. 

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/111882-the-4670k-or-3570k-vs-8350-aggregate-comparison/

[helping]

The 8350 isn't as good as the 4670K and you're saving like $20 by going with it instead. 

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/111882-the-4670k-or-3570k-vs-8350-aggregate-comparison/

No, you save a fair bit more than 20$

 

Your information is a bit out of date. 

 

I'm all for choice, you're more than welcome to pick an i5 chip, I won't deny that it's superior. But to sacrifice parts of a build due to forsaking a chip that performs similarly, especially in threaded applications and games for that 2 or 3 FPS doesn't make much sense to me when you get just get better components for a build focused on gaming. 

 

Price to performance you're not going to beat an 8350, or even better an 8320 on a 990FX platform. This is something I've understood from collective information, from everything I see. Not a few benchmarks. And I do read a lot. In claiming "way worse performance," your use of comparatives is flat out wrong.

 

I'm plenty sure I can find some credible vidyaz for you if you'd like.

 

looking through local stores, all within a 10 minute drive from eachother I came up with this, which also saves on shipping from the first list I had

 

CPU - i5 4670k - $275

Motherboard - Asus z87-A - $199

Ram - Corsair Vengeance 8GB Kit(4GBx2) DDR3-1600 - $109

HDD - Seagate barracuda 1tb - $68

SSD - Samsung evo 120gb - $107

GPU - Asus gtx 770 - $435

PSU - Corsair rm550 - $145

 

$1338 without a case, which is his choice

Much better, just watch out for that RM550. I'm not sure if Corsair fixed it yet, but a lot of the RM550's have had QC and failure issues. I don't know the exact details but I do know there are known problems with the at least one of the most recent revisions. Do you have any other options? 

[PillowSmoke]

No, you save a fair bit more than 20$

 

Your information is a bit out of date. 

 

I'm all for choice, you're more than welcome to pick an i5 chip, I won't deny that it's superior. But to sacrifice parts of a build due to forsaking a chip that performs similarly, especially in threaded applications and games for that 2 or 3 FPS doesn't make much sense to me when you get just get better components for a build focused on gaming. 

 

Price to performance you're not going to beat an 8350, or even better an 8320 on a 990FX platform. This is something I've understood from collective information, from everything I see. Not a few benchmarks. And I do read a lot. To claim "way worse performance," your use of comparatives is flat out wrong.

 

I'm plenty sure I can find some credible vidyaz for you if you'd like.  

 

Thanks bro, for backing me up.

[paulsterio]

No, you save a fair bit more than 20$

 

Your information is a bit out of date. 

 

I'm all for choice, you're more than welcome to pick an i5 chip, I won't deny that it's superior. But to sacrifice parts of a build due to forsaking a chip that performs similarly, especially in threaded applications and games for that 2 or 3 FPS doesn't make much sense to me when you get just get better components for a build focused on gaming. 

 

Price to performance you're not going to beat an 8350, or even better an 8320 on a 990FX platform. This is something I've understood from collective information, from everything I see. Not a few benchmarks. And I do read a lot. In claiming "way worse performance," your use of comparatives is flat out wrong.

 

I'm plenty sure I can find some credible vidyaz for you if you'd like.

 

It's not more than $20. Do explain. 

 

It is way worse performance, you can cherry pick the most multi-threaded applications you want and jump up and down and say hey look, it's actually within reach of the 4670K, but look at how it gets hammered in single core benchmarks, which are arguably more relevant today than multi-core, unless you're editing videos or rendering. 

 

Please do find some credible evidence, no Tek Syndicate please. 

[helping]

It's not more than $20. Do explain. 

 

It is way worse performance, you can cherry pick the most multi-threaded applications you want and jump up and down and say hey look, it's actually within reach of the 4670K, but look at how it gets hammered in single core benchmarks, which are arguably more relevant today than multi-core, unless you're editing videos or rendering. 

 

Please do find some credible evidence, no Tek Syndicate please.

Right now a 4670k is 230$, and an 8350 is 190$, an 8320 is 150$. Typically between comparable motherboards the 990FX chipset will be cheaper.

Arguably indeed. Do you seriously think single core performance is more relevant in modern and future titles? If so I won't bother arguing. People that have i5 chips and adore Intel will probably not agree with you.

here's someone that isn't Tek Syndicate

I'll just asks a few others if I can bother them for their opinion on the matter. I have some homework to finish and OP's issue has been resolved, so there is little point in posting beyond clarifying what we can define as "significant" especially on budget constraints. I stress that you're definitely entitled to your opinion, but please don't go about throwing extremes and absolutes.

@WoodenMarker @Kuzma @Vitalius @TheSLSAMG @_ASSASSIN_ @Hans Christian | Teri

 

I'm not trying to summon an army but I can't be bothered to elaborate on something so asinine. If simplicity doesn't speak then hopefully volume will. 

[Vitalius]

@helping is somewhat right. 

Comparable motherboards between those CPUs would save you more than just $20, on top of what you would save going with an 8350/8320 ($40). 

People say it's terrible, and in some cases it is (power efficiency, and single core performance), but terrible is relative. Relative to what is the real question. 

I define terrible as 50%. If it is 50% weaker (or relatively close) in single threaded programs as compared to the CPU with the best single core performance, then it is indeed terrible. But that's certainly not the case. "Way worse", I equate to terrible, or close to it.

I would say it is definitely worth going with an 8350 over a 4670k  if you want to save money. The 8350 can overclock better to make up some of the difference (albeit at huge power draw), games are starting to be developed with multiple cores in mind, and it's cheaper to boot. 

I personally have a bias against the 4670k itself because of the VRM on the chip. This (potentially) hinders overclocking performance, so I see the K series as less valuable as compared to how I treated the K series in the 3XXX CPUs. 

For reference, I have a 3570k in my day to day system. And I wouldn't have chosen anything else because I don't use hyper threading, and I wanted strong single core performance because it mattered more back then. But now that games are moving towards multi-core usage, it's a lot less important. 

[paulsterio]

Arguably indeed. Do you seriously think single core performance is more relevant in modern and future titles? If so I won't bother arguing. People that have i5 chips and adore Intel will probably not agree with you.

 

Single core performance, for now, is going to be one important factor. I quoted a graph from AMD once, showing the 8350 against the 4670K. it shows that the 4670K wins. 

 

 

This is in BF4 with Mantle, probably as ideal as it gets for AMD.

 

Across the board, the 4670K also wins. 

 

 

Quote BF4 all you want, but it is one game. The majority of games still do not use 8 cores. Yes, they are becoming more multi-threaded, but most games don't even leverage 4 cores well, let alone 8. 

 

I am not an AMD hater, for all I care, I want AMD to be competitive with Intel and vice versa, this competition drives down prices and loosens monopolies and encourages innovation and development. Intel's chips become better and cheaper, AMD's chips become better and cheaper as well. This is how competition should be. 

 

However, at the moment, AMD is NOT competitive with Intel. You can cherry pick benchmarks and say "hey look, 8350 is better", but across the board, the 4670K is the better chip, with a better architecture. 

[helping]

text

alright, you win this round. 

[paulsterio]

Typically between comparable motherboards the 990FX chipset will be cheaper.

 

Where? I generally find Intel boards cheaper.

[paulsterio]

alright, you win this round. 

 

It's not about winning. I'm not in a competition with you. It's not like I'm Team Intel and you're Team AMD and I get anything out of Intel being better. 

 

All I am saying is that the data shows that Intel's 4670K is a better chip than AMD's 8350. There is no "opinion" or "speculation" on this, it is all numbers. If Intel has better numbers all around, then Intel is better. That is what science experiments are, controlled experiments, controlled conditions and unbiased measures of the hypothesis. 

[Vitalius]

It's not about winning. I'm not in a competition with you. It's not like I'm Team Intel and you're Team AMD and I get anything out of Intel being better. 

 

All I am saying is that the data shows that Intel's 4670K is a better chip than AMD's 8350. There is no "opinion" or "speculation" on this, it is all numbers. If Intel has better numbers all around, then Intel is better. That is what science experiments are, controlled experiments, controlled conditions and unbiased measures of the hypothesis. 

And your point? 

You are ignoring that regardless of which one is better, one is cheaper than the other to reflect this. And the point was to cut down on cost where it could be afforded, right? 

It doesn't matter which one is better. It's not about arguing which one is better. It's about whether the price difference is worth the performance difference. And it is.

[brob]

looking through local stores, all within a 10 minute drive from eachother I came up with this, which also saves on shipping from the first list I had

 

CPU - i5 4670k - $275

Motherboard - Asus z87-A - $199

Ram - Corsair Vengeance 8GB Kit(4GBx2) DDR3-1600 - $109

HDD - Seagate barracuda 1tb - $68

SSD - Samsung evo 120gb - $107

GPU - Asus gtx 770 - $435

PSU - Corsair rm550 - $145

 

$1338 without a case, which is his choice

 

I would suggest a different psu. Seasonic, XFX and Antec HCG are good choices. Other than that it's a quality build.

[WoodenMarker]

I would suggest a different psu. Seasonic, XFX and Antec HCG are good choices. Other than that it's a quality build.

The RM550 is pretty good..

[brob]

The RM550 is pretty good..

 

I never said the RM550 was bad, just that I believe there are better choices. http://www.jonnyguru.com/modules.php?name=NDReviews&op=Story&reid=363, http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Corsair/RM650/

[Antistatic12]

For big or heavy products Mwave AU usually has better shipping costs. I got my 900D from them.
it may be cheaper to get the case and a few bigger items through them and get the rest form PCCG. Just as PCCG shipping can be insane sometimes especially with cases.

Just do the calculations and see whats cheaper.

[SkilledRebuilds]

A friend of mine is wanting to get a gaming pc and let go of is iMac...

I've come up with this for him but he wanted to stay under $1400, where should I cut back a little?

He wants to play games like dayz and bf4 and have room to upgrade in the future

9dbbf7982ef04a8b7c1a2b62450f4299.png

Instead of that $260 Motherboard, use this one.

MSI Z87-G45 Gaming Motherboard @ $199 http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=138_1491&products_id=23721

 

So he can use the $60 to put towards his $349 760 GPU budget and get this below.

Galaxy GeForce GTX 770 GC 2GB $399.00

 

Enabling a Higher GPU (especially without a CPU sacrifice) = Better for Gaming, If that motherboard doesnt have certain features you like, then read up more on comparing models...

What made you choose the $260 board in the first place...? Reading up on other boards with the same features with less of a price can get you sparingly a better build.

^All info taken from PCCG

[WaavinHicks]

Thanks for all your help guys, the PSU doesnt need to be an RM series, just I use a RM850 in my build and im happy with it but being a budget build if theres another PSU that can perform just as good or better for cheaper, im all for it!

[TheSLSAMG]

All I am saying is that the data shows that Intel's 4670K is a better chip than AMD's 8350.

Better in single threaded applications, but multi threaded applications is where the i5 falls victim to the 8 cores.

[brob]

Better in single threaded applications, but multi threaded applications is where the i5 falls victim to the 8 cores.

 

One problem with the "multi-threaded" argument is that people buy cpu to address their needs not the other way around. Another is that the FX-8350 does not outperform the i5-4670K in all multi-threaded applications. Those that also benefit from more powerful cores for example, still favor the i5-4670K. When a majority of benchmarks favor one cpu over another, unless one is only going to use the system for very particular tasks one should take the benchmarks as a whole. By that I mean, if one were only going to use a system to compress data and/or do AES encryption the FX-8350 would be a better choice than the i5-4670K. Otherwise the i5-4670K is the better choice from a performance perspective.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=837

 

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i5-4670k-4670-4570-4430_4.html#sect1

 

Price of course has to enter the equation when deciding on a build. The fact that an FX-8350 is currently about 16% less than an i5-4670K and it's motherboards tend to be similarly less expensive than Z87 make it an attractive option in a number of situations. In gaming systems for example, the cpu is generally quite lightly loaded hence performance of the cpu is nowhere near as critical as that of the gpu so an FX-8350 may be an optimal choice. Depending on other factors like case preference (motherboard size) motherboard features, and other application requirements.

[Panda of the Shadow]

 

$100 over but whatever 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

 

CPU:  Intel Core i5-4670K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($275.00 @ PCCaseGear) 

CPU Cooler:  Noctua NH-D14 65.0 CFM CPU Cooler  ($88.00 @ CPL Online) 

Motherboard:  Gigabyte GA-Z87X-UD4H ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($249.00 @ Mwave Australia) 

Memory:  Kingston Beast 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory  ($115.00 @ Mwave Australia) 

Storage:  Samsung 840 EVO 120GB 2.5" Solid State Disk  ($109.00 @ CPL Online) 

Storage:  Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  ($69.00 @ PCCaseGear) 

Video Card:  EVGA GeForce GTX 770 2GB Video Card  ($429.00 @ Mwave Australia) 

Case:  Fractal Design Define R4 w/Window (White) ATX Mid Tower Case  ($155.00 @ PCCaseGear) 

Power Supply:  Corsair RM 750W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply  ($189.00 @ CPL Online) 

Total: $1678.00

(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)

(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-02-10 11:57 EST+1100)

 

More like 278$. 

[paulsterio]

Better in single threaded applications, but multi threaded applications is where the i5 falls victim to the 8 cores.

 

Except it doesn't actually have 8 cores. I doubt a lot of people actually understand the difference between floating point operations and integer operations let alone AMD's module architecture. 

 

AMD's model will significantly beat Intel when it comes to Integer operations, measured in MIPS, however, it will lose to Intel when it comes to floating point operations, measured in FLOPS. Let's take a look at this. 

 

The benchmark I would like to draw attention to is Cinebench. http://anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=837

 

I'll put them here too:

 

8350 - Single 4319, Multi 23437

4670K - Single 7335, Multi 25519

 

Finding out Intel's Multiplier, we get 25519/7335 = 3.5

Finding out AMD's Multiplier, we get 23437/4319 = 5.5

 

Thus, we see that AMD's eight core "module" is actually nowhere near 8x the performance of a single core, unlike Intel's four cores being four cores. This shows that video rendering is more biased towards FLOPS rather than MIPS. If we look at something which uses MIPS, such as the 7z benchmark, we will see that AMD beats out Intel handily. 

 

However, the truth is, most of computing is not purely MIPS. If it was, yes, AMD would be a good option, but the problem is Intel's single core performance is just way too strong, (7335-4319)/4319 = 70% better. 

 

It is too simple to say "single threaded" and "multi threaded", especially when "multi threaded" means "more than one" thread, it does not mean "eight threads". Either way, Intel's 4670K beats the 8350 on Cinebench multi-threaded, so I don't see how your claim can be substantiated at all. 

[WoodenMarker]

Except it doesn't actually have 8 cores. I doubt a lot of people actually understand the difference between floating point operations and integer operations let alone AMD's module architecture. 

 

Thus, we see that AMD's eight core "module" is actually nowhere near 8x the performance of a single core, unlike Intel's four cores being four cores. This shows that video rendering is more biased towards FLOPS rather than MIPS. If we look at something which uses MIPS, such as the 7z benchmark, we will see that AMD beats out Intel handily. 

You can't say they're not cores just because Intel does things differently. 

They're 8 cores even if they're not all separate. Leave it up to AMD to decide how many cores their cpus have.

[paulsterio]

You can't say they're not cores just because Intel does things differently. 

They're 8 cores even if they're not all separate. Leave it up to AMD to decide how many cores their cpus have.

Do you even know what an FPU is?