Question about Console-Competitive builds.

[_tylermatthew]

Hey all! 

I'm pretty new around here, so hopefully I'm doing things correctly. This also seems like a very busy thread... so we'll see how this goes. =]

Here is the Idea: I have a lot of friends considering buying into this latest generation of consoles, and I'd love to at least provide them with a good alternative in PC gaming!  ...now, I know the idea here for the most part is to build drool-worthy shrines of glory that GabeN himself would smile approvingly down on... but I want to provide my friends an in to the WONDERFUL world of PC gaming via a competitive product! 

Here are the parameters:

Similar upfront cost to console -- I know the sells - cheaper games, no Live subs to pay for, forever backwards compatibility, etc... but sometimes people just WILL spend $500 but WONT spend $750, even if the get it back in a year. 

Similar performance -- the last thing I want to do is give someone a PC that UNDERPERFORMS A CONSOLE. Blasphemy.

similar size and weight -- Now, this one is obviously a little less important, but I do love the idea of cramming it all into a mini-ITX shape to really sell it.

Will be buying legitimate copies of windows -- (is 7 or 8 best for gaming right now?) What I do for myself is my own business, but I'm not going to hand over less than legal stuff to friends. 

Not including peripherals -- mice and keyboards are cheap, and most have them. I haven't researched controller alternatives, but I'd like to have that... and HDMI to TV, since that's what people are used to.

(I'm not planning on selling it, BTW. free builds for friends, they pay cost. they get into PC gaming, I get to tinker and play! win win!)

So, I've seen a lot of videos recently highlighting this type of build, and most of them revolve around an AMD APU, and result in a build similar to http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2iTM6 ...but from what I've read, these aren't exactly the most graceful of performers, which leads me to my question:

Is it totally crazy to suggest a build like this? http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2j0F2 I mean, yes, we've just stepped back into ancient history with the 'pentium' ...but being able to slap a 7790 (or for a little more a 650Ti) into the mix, I mean, I KNOW on a GPU level either of these will blow the "8670D" GPU built into the A10 out of the water. But will the old dual core processor and less RAM slow it down too much? I mean, in the end, how much CPU intensive activity goes on in any given game? With the APU I know I need fast RAM to get the most out of it, but if I'm just playing games, and I have a dedicated GPU, shouldn't 4gb be enough? On the other hand, the A10 is a decent 4-core performer that would be further boosted by the high speed RAM... so which would be better? 

Let me know your thoughts below! I guess if no one knows, I'll just have to build both and see what happens! HAHAHA *doesn't have a grand lying around* ...or maybe we should coerce Linus into doing it. 

-Ty 

Edit: formatting

[whatthe_fuzz]

Save your friends $100. You can install win7 and use a full trial for ~4months without a key. 

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

 

CPU:  AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor  ($109.99 @ Newegg) 

Motherboard:  Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3 ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($94.98 @ OutletPC) 

Memory:  G.Skill Sniper 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory  ($52.99 @ Newegg) 

Storage:  Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  ($59.98 @ OutletPC) 

Video Card:  EVGA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost 1GB Video Card  ($114.98 @ SuperBiiz) 

Case:  BitFenix Merc Alpha (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case  ($29.99 @ NCIX US) 

Power Supply:  Corsair CX 600W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply  ($54.99 @ Microcenter) 

Total: $517.90

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

(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-12-12 00:59 EST-0500)

[MdX MaxX]

In my opinion, it's hard to justify a $500 PC, especially when that price includes Windows, and especially if your friends want to play the latest titles.

 

An $800 PC will take you SO much further.  I mean, after buying Xbox Live/PS Plus, a game or two, a compatible headset, your friends will end up paying $700-$800 upfront on the consoles anyway.

 

But yeah, if you truly can't convince them, I'd say hold out on the Windows key and put a few more bucks into the parts as whatthe_fuzz suggested, or you know, just let them buy the consoles.  If they're happy with playing on the consoles then so be it.

[Billango]

Guys... We got it with a GTX 660.

 

READ THIS: You can get the Windows 7 operating system that is in the list now for 79.99, but its just a deal, so it will expire sooner or later. Even if you're not buying all the parts now, get this OS now.. It's probably the cheapest you're going to find it completely legitimately. http://promotions.newegg.com/neemail/latest/index-landing.aspx  .

It really doesn't make a difference for gaming if you use Windows 7 or Windows 8. Just a preference of the OS.

 

So here is the list:

CPU: AMD Athlon II X2 370K 4.2GHz Dual-Core Processor  ($54.99 @ Amazon)

Motherboard: MSI FM2-A75MA-P33 Micro ATX FM2 Motherboard  ($54.99 @ Microcenter)
Memory: G.Skill Sniper 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($52.99 @ Newegg)

Storage:  Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($59.98 @ OutletPC) 
Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 660 2GB Video Card  ($179.98 @ SuperBiiz)
Case: DIYPC DIY-6811BK (Black) MicroATX Mid Tower Case  ($23.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: LOGISYS Computer PS575XBK 575W ATX12V SLI Ready Power Supply ($29.98 @ Newegg)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 (OEM) (64-bit)  ($79.99 @ Newegg)
Total: 536.89
 

Sorry it was a little over. You can probably go to a local Best Buy or Microcenter and find an open box or refurbished hard drive and save some cash there. If you cut the RAM down to 4GB you could get closer to that $500 price point. Good luck with the PC building.

[_tylermatthew]

@whatthe_fuzz @MdX MaxX -- Ya... i agree with both of you.

I have one friend specifically that I'm kinda using as a sounding board, and he says that having an OS upfront is a lot more appealing (more plug and play) BUT... that said, it's definitely an enticing option that I will offer people. 

I also will 'offer'/suggest better builds... but for this one friend specifically anything too much over the cost of a potato box one just isn't an option, and it's an interesting unique 'problem' to create a 'solution' for. 

@Billango Nice! I like that option... According to http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html the 370k is below the G16xx's in performance, so here's another 660 build http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2jhvD
 

Here's an interesting 4-core setup.. http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2jgtH <-- Edit: would save some dollars on win 7.. forgot to update. 



now, as per the original question, considering the suggest build's I'm getting back, -- is it better to sacrifice CPU performance in order to get greater GPU performance? will that CPU support the GPU enough for the trade-off to be 'profitable' in performance? specifically compared to the APU?

Edit: wording

[_tylermatthew]

double post. sorry.

[GSC123]

Maybe I'm wrong but as of right now aren't the consoles (specifically the ps4) a pretty good bang for your buck? For example, I've actually read some articles where people have compared the graphics of the new killzone to crysis 3. For those two games to even be put in the same ballpark should raise some eyebrows, because the ps4 costs $399 whereas the cost of a pc to run crysis 3 at 60 fps on 1080p  with ultra settings... well... I think it would cost a decent amount more than $399.  I do believe pc is superior to the consoles because of its ability to be freely customized with newer and better hardware that is always just over the horizon.... where as for consoles, what you bought is what you will continue to use for many years later. The only thing improving is the ability of the developers to optimize their games for the consoles.

 

 

In summary, I think it would be hard to impress a friend with a $500 pc if you were to  compare it to the new consoles today. I think where a $500 pc would shine would be 5 years down the road when people are still buying the same console and paying around $300 to $400 for what would be considered by then to be ancient hardware.

[WoodenMarker]

now, as per the original question, considering the suggest build's I'm getting back, -- is it better to sacrifice CPU performance in order to get greater GPU performance? will that CPU support the GPU enough for the trade-off to be 'profitable' in performance? specifically compared to the APU?

Edit: wording

Depends on the game. Some are more cpu heavy and others are more gpu reliant.

Maybe I'm wrong but as of right now aren't the consoles (specifically the ps4) a pretty good bang for your buck? For example, I've actually read some articles where people have compared the graphics of the new killzone to crysis 3. For those two games to even be put in the same ballpark should raise some eyebrows, because the ps4 costs $399 whereas the cost of a pc to run crysis 3 at 60 fps on 1080p  with ultra settings... well... I think it would cost a decent amount more than $399.  I do believe pc is superior to the consoles because of its ability to be freely customized with newer and better hardware that is always just over the horizon.... where as for consoles, what you bought is what you will continue to use for many years later. The only thing improving is the ability of the developers to optimize their games for the consoles.

You don't need to run ultra at 1080p to get better graphics than the console.

Cloud gaming may be what makes upgrading your console's hardware not that big of a deal. 

[GSC123]

Depends on the game. Some are more cpu heavy and others are more gpu reliant.

You don't need to run ultra at 1080p to get better graphics than the console.

Cloud gaming may be what makes upgrading your console's hardware not that big of a deal.

For the standard multi-console releases (bf4, cod, ac, etc.) I would totally agree, but I have come across people saying stuff like "only rivaled by crysis 3 on ultra settings at 1080p" when talking specifically about the new kill zone for the ps4. I will say that I have yet to personally play either game so I feel my opinion shouldn't hold much weight. I also haven't looked to much into cloud gaming, which seems like something I might want to start reading up on haha.

[_tylermatthew]

@GSC123 I think you're right -- I'm not going to convince anyone on graphical performance alone. (though, I'm really interested to see how well a 660 would fare in comparison, since we've managed to squeeze that into a couple of possibilities.) This article http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/156273-xbox-720-vs-ps4-vs-pc-how-the-hardware-specs-compare lays out in pretty clear detail their hardware and the comparable PC equivalents. There's no way I'll get the performance that a comparable GPU and a superior processor (at least in the sense that developers will optimize to make the best use out of all 8 of those cores) running through 8gb of 5000mhz RAM will. 

The biggest sell, at least with my guinea pig, was just showing him the VAST amounts of MODs for Skyrim, (knowing a PC in this price point may struggle to run many of them) showing him Nvidea Shield and G-Sync and other upcoming technologies that will be PC exclusive, backwards compatibility and the vast library of emulators available.. etc. 

@WoodenMarker less vaguely, will a PC with, say, an older dual core processor, but a GTX 660 for the most part outpace an A10 setup? Or will it still pretty much vary by game? (I know I'm kinda asking you to guess here, depending on your actual hands-on experience.) I find it interesting that most sub-$500 build vid's out there build with the A10, (maybe because they want to show new stuff instead of lots of old stuff?) but I'm really wondering if (and my extremely uneducated and experience-lacking guess would be that) any of the builds suggested above would trump it in real-world FPS performance on most games. 

I definitely wish I could afford to test it myself... if I can convince this friend to pull the trigger, (I'm not pushing that hard at all right now, considering my own uncertainty at the moment) then I would pretty thoroughly benchmark the build before handing it off. Heck, he'd probably have a blast watching and learning through the process. 

Thanks all for the thoughts.

[_tylermatthew]

You don't need to run ultra at 1080p to get better graphics than the console.

 

...Especially considering neither console actually generates 1080p graphics nativly.

 

 

@GSC123 [...]but I have come across people saying stuff like "only rivaled by crysis 3 on ultra settings at 1080p" when talking specifically about the new kill zone for the ps4.[...]

...and considering what that article said about the hardware involved in these consoles, I'm pretty confident it runs it no better than any PC with an 8-core AMD and a 7790 with some amazingly fast ram would. while I'm sure optimization is working wonders to boost it above such a comparison, I am ALSO sure that it isn't performing anywhere near what the 4770k+780ti required to get 60fps ultra Cry3 is. (actually, according to http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_780_Ti/13.html more like 48-50) 

edit: relevant quote added

[WoodenMarker]

@GSC123 I think you're right -- I'm not going to convince anyone on graphical performance alone. (though, I'm really interested to see how well a 660 would fare in comparison, since we've managed to squeeze that into a couple of possibilities.) This article http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/156273-xbox-720-vs-ps4-vs-pc-how-the-hardware-specs-compare lays out in pretty clear detail their hardware and the comparable PC equivalents. There's no way I'll get the performance that a comparable GPU and a superior processor (at least in the sense that developers will optimize to make the best use out of all 8 of those cores) running through 8gb of 5000mhz RAM will. 

The biggest sell, at least with my guinea pig, was just showing him the VAST amounts of MODs for Skyrim, (knowing a PC in this price point may struggle to run many of them) showing him Nvidea Shield and G-Sync and other upcoming technologies that will be PC exclusive, backwards compatibility and the vast library of emulators available.. etc. 

@WoodenMarker less vaguely, will a PC with, say, an older dual core processor, but a GTX 660 for the most part outpace an A10 setup? Or will it still pretty much vary by game? (I know I'm kinda asking you to guess here, depending on your actual hands-on experience.) I find it interesting that most sub-$500 build vid's out there build with the A10, (maybe because they want to show new stuff instead of lots of old stuff?) but I'm really wondering if (and my extremely uneducated and experience-lacking guess would be that) any of the builds suggested above would trump it in real-world FPS performance on most games. 

I definitely wish I could afford to test it myself... if I can convince this friend to pull the trigger, (I'm not pushing that hard at all right now, considering my own uncertainty at the moment) then I would pretty thoroughly benchmark the build before handing it off. Heck, he'd probably have a blast watching and learning through the process. 

8 cores are not necessary to match up with the consoles because a core or two (Don't remember for sure) is being reserved for the playstation os while a pc has access to all the cores. 

Also, the cores used in consoles are quite slow.

 

The dual core with the 660 would probably be better than the A10 in the majority of games as a 7750 already beats the apu. However, there will be games that will simply not run reasonably with the dual core. 

If you want to get a cheap system together, I recommend trying to push for a 750K/760K and a 7850 or settling with a 7790. That should be a decent gaming experience. 

[WoodenMarker]

...Especially considering neither console actually generates 1080p graphics nativly.

 

...and considering what that article said about the hardware involved in these consoles, I'm pretty confident it runs it no better than any PC with an 8-core AMD and a 7790 with some amazingly fast ram would. while I'm sure optimization is working wonders to boost it above such a comparison, I am ALSO sure that it isn't performing anywhere near what the 4770k+780ti required to get 60fps ultra Cry3 is. (actually, according to http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_780_Ti/13.html more like 48-50) 

edit: relevant quote added

The ps4's performance with optimizations make it perform somewhere between the 7850 and 7870.

[_tylermatthew]

8 cores are not necessary to match up with the consoles because a core or two (Don't remember for sure) is being reserved for the playstation os while a pc has access to all the cores. 

Also, the cores used in consoles are quite slow.

 

The dual core with the 660 would probably be better than the A10 in the majority of games as a 7750 already beats the apu. However, there will be games that will simply not run reasonably with the dual core. 

If you want to get a cheap system together, I recommend trying to push for a 750K/760K and a 7850 or settling with a 7790. That should be a decent gaming experience. 

 

Ya, like 1.75ghz or somewhere in there. 

So this then! http://http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2jsFd 

Wahoo! I'm very tempted to just order it and benchmark it to see if it's reasonable to offer up to potential converts... or is this a build type already well covered elsewhere? 

thanks for the help @WoodenMarker

[WoodenMarker]

Ya, like 1.75ghz or somewhere in there. 

So this then! http://http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2jsFd 

Wahoo! I'm very tempted to just order it and benchmark it to see if it's reasonable to offer up to potential converts... or is this a build type already well covered elsewhere? 

thanks for the help @WoodenMarker

That looks fine.

[GSC123]

...Especially considering neither console actually generates 1080p graphics nativly. edit: relevant quote added

I know bf4 runs at 900p native (720p Xbox 1), but I'm pretty sure cod, kill zone, and ac4 run at a native 1080p?

The ps4's performance with optimizations make it perform somewhere between the 7850 and 7870.

Oh snap, that is WITH optimization? I didn't know that.... The only thing I've heard is xbox one is ~7850 and the ps4 is ~7870.... I guess I have been misinformed though

SIDE NOTE: Anybody that hasn't checked out a 1080p gameplay video of Killzone: Shadow Fall should watch one, it really it pretty impressive... at least it was for me, but I might just be easily impressed

[_tylermatthew]

@GSC123 you're probably correct about the resolution.. I'm basing the statement purely off the tagged article, and it didn't mention whether or not output resolution was scale-able per game.  

I haven't seen any gameplay yet... and now I will go do it! (though youtube's terrific compression will surely enhance the experience so very much)