Need help with budget build.

[Jeevous]

Looking to build a PC in about a month or two. I'm thinking about going with a lower end PC and upgrading it over time. Budget will be around 600 US dollars. Just going to be gaming with this PC. Thinking about going with an i3 6100 so I can upgrade to an i5 6600k or possibly even i7 6700k in the future. How would an i3-6100 perform in games at 1080p? I want a PC with a good upgrade path. I would consider Zen but I don't want to wait until October. Also looking at a RX 480 as a possibility just waiting for benchmarks. All help and advice is greatly appreciated! 

[Shahnewaz]

Welcome to the forums! Could you tell us your budget and country of residence?

And do you have any old PC? If yes, their specs please.

[JTMarch86]

Welcome to LTT! 

You picked a great forum

 

As far as your build goes;

You really should go with a quad core as your minimum. Dual cores (even HT ones) can bottleneck video cards. 

I'm mainly an Intel/nvidia guy, but if you're short on cash, AMD is the way to go.

I just did this build for a guy earlier today. He wasn't gaming, but I picked everything so you could simply grab something like a RX480 and be good to go. 

 

You could do this build (maybe get a better case) and grab the 8gb RX480 and be right at $600. 

http://pcpartpicker.com/user/Jtmarch86/saved/kdNXsY

 

 

 

 

[Zyndo]

I3 6100 and RX 480 would be able to play most games at high-max settings at smooth framerates at 1080p (in many cases you may be able to get 60 fps). You are going to run into some issues with CPU intensive games, but its a pretty short list when it comes to games in that category. As far as future compatibility goes, Kaby lake (the next CPU generation coming out from intel) is rumored to be on 1151 socket, so you should be able to upgrade to that from skylake in the future if you feel you ever need to do so.

 

http://pcpartpicker.com/list/J9TFd6

 

That build should do you well. Cheap enough to fit your budget and suggested parts, yet has enough money spent in the right areas to allow future upgrades with minimal cost. Quality motherboard can crossfire if you want (but not SLI), and your PSU has enough power to crossfire 2 480's. Your board has enough connectivity that you should not feel outdated as it can accept all current USB, M.2, plenty of SATA ports and PCIE. Your case selection is loved all over the world for its price, features, and reliability. treat it well and it should outlast every other part on this list. As a bonus, everything here is color co-ordinated black (except that blue stock intel cooler sticker, no real workaround for that without a slight budget increase for an aftermarket cooler)

[Zyndo]

9 minutes ago, JTMarch86 said:

You really should go with a quad core as your minimum. Dual cores (even HT ones) can bottleneck video cards.

I have a 980ti Xtreme Gaming overclocked to 1450MHz+. an I3 6100 does not bottleneck that in any of my games (although i do not have any particularly CPU intensive games, and MOST games are not CPU intensive). I only experience bottleneck when I go down to a Pentium G4400, and even then the 980ti is running at about 85%-100% depending on the game (which is more than enough to keep my framerates in the 50-60 fps range @ 1080p)

 

The RX 480 is not as heavy to carry as a 980ti. an I3 6100 will do him just fine for MOST of his games.

[JTMarch86]

6 minutes ago, Zyndo said:

I3 6100 and RX 480 would be able to play most games at high-max settings at smooth framerates at 1080p (in many cases you may be able to get 60 fps). You are going to run into some issues with CPU intensive games, but its a pretty short list when it comes to games in that category. As far as future compatibility goes, Kaby lake (the next CPU generation coming out from intel) is rumored to be on 1151 socket, so you should be able to upgrade to that from skylake in the future if you feel you ever need to do so.

 

http://pcpartpicker.com/list/J9TFd6

 

That build should do you well. Cheap enough to fit your budget and suggested parts, yet has enough money spent in the right areas to allow future upgrades with minimal cost. Quality motherboard can crossfire if you want (but not SLI), and your PSU has enough power to crossfire 2 480's. Your board has enough connectivity that you should not feel outdated as it can accept all current USB, M.2, and plenty of SATA ports. Your case is loved all over the world for its price, features, and reliability. treat it well and it should outlast every other part on this list. As a bonus, everything here is color co-ordinated black (except that blue stock intel cooler sticker, no real workaround for that without a slight budget increase)

That's a good build but you will run into that cpu bottleneck and no ssd. 

Do you prefer intel or amd?

I personally prefer Intel but AMD is usually the way to go if  you have a tight budget. 
If you want to go with Intel, use Zyndo's build, but replace the hard drive with something like this:

https://amzn.com/B00M8ABEIM

240GB ssd for super cheap. 

 

 

If you are ok with AMD the A10 6800k APU is a good quad core at 4.1ghz

I would replace the case with something like that NZXT S340 though. 

The one I built was targeted at $350 or $550 with RX480. 

If you replace the case and add the RX480, you would be slightly under $600. Or  slightly over with the 8gb model. 

 

 

[JTMarch86]

9 minutes ago, Zyndo said:

I have a 980ti Xtreme Gaming overclocked to 1450MHz+. an I3 6100 does not bottleneck that in any of my games (although i do not have any particularly CPU intensive games, and MOST games are not CPU intensive). I only experience bottleneck when I go down to a Pentium G4400, and even then the 980ti is running at about 85%-100% depending on the game (which is more than enough to keep my framerates in the 50-60 fps range @ 1080p)

 

The RX 480 is not as heavy to carry as a 980ti. an I3 6100 will do him just fine for MOST of his games.

I respect your opinion, but benchmarks have shown that it does bottleneck cards as low as 680. 

GTA V, Crysis 3, Witcher 3, all of those lose fps with the 6100. 

 

You used to be able to get by with a dual core with HT about 5 years ago when devs really hadn't started optimizing their games to take advantage quad cores and above, but that has changed. 

 

[JTMarch86]

Also, your build says you have an i7 6700k. Did you have the i3 6100 in that setup before? 

 

But anyways, Linus himself has done a video on this topic. And came to the same conclusion. 

 

Honestly, I'd just save up a little longer to get the i5 6600k. it's worth it

[Zyndo]

34 minutes ago, JTMarch86 said:

I respect your opinion, but benchmarks have shown that it does bottleneck cards as low as 680. 

GTA V, Crysis 3, Witcher 3, all of those lose fps with the 6100. 

 

You used to be able to get by with a dual core with HT about 5 years ago when devs really hadn't started optimizing their games to take advantage quad cores and above, but that has changed. 

 

(I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and hope you understand the difference between losing fps due to a weaker CPU and bottlenecking a graphics card)

 

You're absolutely right. when it comes to those three games, he will probably bottleneck his GPU a bit with a 6100. Other than those 3 games, try to name another CPU intensive game. Compared to ALL the other games out there, that list is a VERY small one. and even with the bottleneck, its not like it becomes thoroughly unplayable. we aren't talking him getting choppy framerates from normally 50-60 fps or anything like that. for a 600 dollar system he won't get 60 fps+ in every game out there at max settings. My build is tailored for the traditional gamer who doesn't play ONLY those 3 games. Heck I don't even own those games and I do a lot of gaming

 

I'm not saying hes home-free with a 6100. I'm saying that MOST of the time a 6100 is enough. and in the situations it isn't, well that's what he gets for wanting a 600 dollar computer. If he COULD afford better, he obviously could go with an i5. but he cant very well do that on a 600 dollar budget that he also wants future compatibility with.

 

34 minutes ago, JTMarch86 said:

I respect your opinion, but benchmarks have shown that it does bottleneck cards as low as 680

Its not an opinion. Its personal experience. I used my 6700k and turned off cores, turned them down, and simulated the specs of both a i3 6100 and Pentium G4400. (this works and scales almost perfectly because they're based on the same architecture). I played games such as Tomb Raider 2013, The Division, World of Warcraft (in 25 man mythic raids) Total War, and so on. I played EVERY game I owned at completely maxed graphics on all of these games (and I mean MAXED, not just ultra preset. even the settings that don't make sense like maxing AA). Not a single one of my games took the GPU utilization down from 100%, and not a single one of my games fell below 60 fps in any situation, with the exception of WoW when we popped heroism on some fights(but even then we're talking 40 fps, it never got choppy on me)

 

 

No I have no personal vendetta against AMD, I just have no experience with their CPU's. If he wants to go that route, hes certainly capable of doing so, although I do not know what sort of future compatibility (if any) he could get with that side of the force.

 

37 minutes ago, JTMarch86 said:

That's a good build but you will run into that cpu bottleneck and no ssd.

As I mentioned earlier, a 600 dollar computer wont do everything. SSD is the wrong way to go in a budget gaming system. don't get me wrong, SSD's are awesome, I have one in my system and I love it. But making a 600 dollar machine, for gaming, then having only enough space to put a handful of games on it doesn't make any sense. The only advantage a SSD has in 99.9% of games (with the exception of maybe a game like GTA V) is quicker loading screens. The only advantage an SSD has on the operating system is load times. If he doesn't mind waiting an additional couple of seconds on a load screen, or an extra second or two to open a browser, then a HDD is exactly what he should get.

 

SSD's are awesome, but that doesn't mean HDD's are inadequate by any means.

 

If he REALLY wants SSD performance in windows, he could always get a SSHD like http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/product/ftPfrH/seagate-internal-hard-drive-st1000dx001

That should fit into his budget, allow better windows navigation, and still keep his capacity for gaming storage.

[Zyndo]

Btw, according to Passmark CPU benchmarks, the 6100 is better than the a10-6800k in both single core and overall performance (I know its a synthetic benchmark with arbitrary scoring, but still something to look at). This is likely due to the 6100's newer and better architecture/technology. (Core Count)x(Frequency) isn't EVERYTHING when it comes to CPU's and GPU's

 

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1935&cmp[]=2617

[JTMarch86]

Ok, Your first comment.

The difference between bottlenecking and losing fps due to a low cpu

What I'm talking about is If you take a GTX 980 with an i7 6700k and get say 60fps in a game. 

Then you take the same system with the GTX 980 and put the i3 6100 and you get 8-10fps less. 

THAT sir, is what we call a bottleneck. When you lose performance due to a component's limitation. 

That's why people tell you, do not get a $600 video card and a $100 cpu and expect games to run smooth.

You will hurt what the video card is capable of and not to mention bad stuttering. 

(this has been proven time and time again)

 

As far as the 3 games I used as examples. 

I choose those 3 games because they are extremely popular games and a large majority of gamers own them, if not at least 1 or 2. 

They are also NOT known to be specially cpu-intensive games. It's not like I choose Warhammer or Cities:Skylines which are extremely cpu intensive. 

 

And please do not act like those 3 games are outliers in the gaming world. They are very similar to MANY AAA games out now as far as graphic fidelity and how their engines work and utilize todays consumer's machines. Just because you do not have them, does not mean that is common, or that YOU are the average gamer.

 

About your comment about you turning your cores down and all that to make it similar to an i3. no, it is NOT the same. at all. even if you turned off all cores except for 2, and left HT on and reduced the core frequency and boost clock, it would still not be all the same. Instructions Per Cycle is NOT the same between those processors. AND the i7 has a HUGE cache compared to the i3. And that is something you cannot turn off and it does affect performance. 

 

If you do a simple google search about i3 6100 gaming bottlenecks, you will find plenty of real world benchmarks of this. Where they took the ACTUAL i3 6100 and compared it to other cpus, from old to new. And with multiple different video cards. 

Those benchmarks clearly showed a decrease in fps. anywhere from 10-40%. And when you are playing a game that your video card can only pull 50fps when not bottlenecked, a 10fps loss is a big deal. 

 

So I'm sorry, I am going to trust the real benchmarks I have seen using the real cpu's with muiltiple examples across multiple different games, not someone who tried to make his much more powerful cpu more similar. (and one who didnt benchmark popular or highly played games at that)

 

Now it comes down to the system choices. 

 

Your system was not bad, as I said. However, the ONLY reason I would go with that i3 6100 is if the OP knew he would be able to upgrade to an i5 (at minimum) within a few months. If not, then it's not a good choice. Choosing a cpu that is having a very hard time NOW is only going to get much worse over time. 

 

Intel cpu's are engineered to be more efficient than AMD's. However, they are much more expensive. If you want to build a GAMING pc for under $600, you really need to go with AMD. intel simply cannot compete with the price to performance ratio than AMD does. 

 

The A10 6800k APU is a quad core that runs at 4.1GHz, It's fast and has great on chip features. 

Also, AMD does not change sockets as often as Intel does, so technically the upgrade path would be better with AMD. If he did want to upgrade the CPU (which he would not need to for at least 5 years), he would most likely only have to purchase the cpu, and not a new motherboard as well.  

 

As far as storage goes. No, 256gb isn't a ton of storage. But it's totally worth it. One of the biggest bottlenecks in pc's nowadays is the mechanical hard drive.

Whereas an average HDD does 60-100MB/s, the 240gb drive I suggested for $70 does 480-500MB/s. Windows would load within seconds, games load faster, not only at the start, but also inside the game. They use less power, less heat, theyre smaller, and more durable. 

Also, It's easier to start with a SSD and add an extra 1TB HDD for extra storage later, than it is to put your OS on the HDD, then buy a SSD later, and have to reformat everything and reinstall all your stuff. 

 

He can grab the ssd and buy a 1TB for $45 a month later. Way before he would run out of space. Thats a very simple upgrade. 

 

Also, I build custom computers for a living. This is what i do. I'm A+ and MCSE certified and have a degree in Data Communications and Networking. 

I'm not talking out of my ass here. I don't share info unless I'm sure it's correct. 

 

What it comes down to is this:

 

With my build + RX480 8GB, he would be right at $600 AND be able to run ALL current games at 1080p on ultra at 60fps or higher. 

 

[JTMarch86]

And no, you can't trust a synthetic benchmark like that. Especially one that can't even get simple information right. It thinks the A10 6800k is a dual core with HT lol. 

When it comes to single core to core efficiency, yes the 6100's cores are technically more powerful than the 6800k's individual cores, but the 6800k has 4 and the i3 only has 2. 

Games still dont use Hyperthreading well. That is why we do not see any improvement between an i5 quad core without HT and an i7 a quad core WITH HT in gaming. 

It's because games are programmed to use physical cores. It costs a lot of time and money to develop games specifically to take advantage of HT. Especially when the majority of PC users do not have HT on their cpus. 

 

Games just run best on a quad core. You know this. 

 

 

 

[JTMarch86]

Also, LTT did a video about this. You can watch it here: 

But he used 5960X and shut off cores/HT. Keep in mind the 5960X is an Enthusiast architecture (Haswell-E). It has a lot more bandwidth and cache than Skylake CPU's have, ESPECIALLY when it comes to dual cores. The numbers here would be even worse for a real dual core. And he shows plenty of examples of 1080p games where the dual core with HT has trouble getting to 30fps. Sometimes as much as 35% less fps than a quad core without HT. 

 

 

 

[Herman Mcpootis]

get this and wait for the Rx 480.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-6400 2.7GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($179.99 @ SuperBiiz) 
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H110M-A Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  ($49.99 @ Amazon) 
Memory: Kingston FURY 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory  ($29.99 @ SuperBiiz) 
Storage: Hitachi Ultrastar 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  ($44.95 @ Amazon) 
Case: Deepcool TESSERACT SW ATX Mid Tower Case  ($38.99 @ SuperBiiz) 
Power Supply: Corsair CXM 650W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply  ($49.99 @ Micro Center) 
Other: Rx 480 ($199.99)
Total: $593.89
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-06-28 03:56 EDT-0400