The Standard PC

[Wolfram23]

Always start at Tom's Hardware. They have whole forums dedicated to building PCs and even specific posts for building $500 gaming rigs. Also you can mention being interested in the ability to upgrade and they will take that into consideration.

Another bonus about using Tom's Hardware is that you will get answers from PC users not people contributing nothing but whining and steering you away from your original request.

Exactly. It's one of the best places to go to get help with stuff like this. The Escapist, not so much. It's a little too full of console fans here, or at least people who know very little about building PCs.

Jezebel are you a regular at Tom's as well?

 

[Ralen-Sharr]

Also, AMD + nvidia = full retard, all these fancy tests websites run apparently showed that you loose like 30% of power. It makes sense since AMD and ATI are closest bros (didnt AMD buy them up recently?). The same goes for intel and nvidia.

Show your sources and fancy tests, or it's bullshit.
And intel and nvidia are not close.

I would really like to see these tests as well. I've run AMD/Nvidia for a long time and have never fallen short of where I should be on benchmarks.

 

[JezebelinHell]

-snip-

Exactly. It's one of the best places to go to get help with stuff like this. The Escapist, not so much. It's a little too full of console fans here, or at least people who know very little about building PCs.

Jezebel are you a regular at Tom's as well?

Nah, too much to keep up with on a regular basis. I just need to know the places to go when I require info. Between Tom's and Passmark (http://www.cpubenchmark.net/) I can figure out what I want/need within whatever budget I have, minus the whining.

 

[veloper]

Also, AMD + nvidia = full retard, all these fancy tests websites run apparently showed that you loose like 30% of power. It makes sense since AMD and ATI are closest bros (didnt AMD buy them up recently?). The same goes for intel and nvidia.

Show your sources and fancy tests, or it's bullshit.
And intel and nvidia are not close.

Yes they are? They advertise each other, for fucks sake.

As for sources and fancy tests, maybe my information is outdated, but I am sure you are quite capable of executing a google search.

Im sorry if I touched a nerve, but I did go out of my way to say that all of this information could be false since I am by far no expert on the subject. You could have come out and said, look, you are wrong, and this is why, next time someone asks you will be able to give better information. Instead you opt to adopt a rude tone, say I talk "Bullshit", etc. This gives me a good idea of what kind of person you are (hint: its not the kind I like to talk or debate with). So good day, and feel free to flame me or whatever.

Yes I'm rude, but atleast I'm not spreading FUD with no factual basis.

 

[Private Custard]

Yeah, whatever. Again, I said I could be wrong and everything and asked to be corrected politely. But since you arent even capable of doing that and would rather talk like an anti social, whatever.

A polite correction from me then. I'm running "full retard" AMD/nVidia and have only found one game so far that can be problematic.......FSX. Especially when you throw in all the addons to bring it more up to date (Real Environment Xtreme, FS Global worldwide mesh, more accurate landclasses, texture-laden aircraft etc etc..)

Spoiler: full retard mode!

Any fool can plug a shiny new GPU into their PCIe slot and make pretty much every modern game hugely better. But if you want to know if you have a well sorted system, try and get FSX, made in 2006, to run right. It's seriously CPU dependent. People with GTX580s and i7 2600k's OC'd to 4.6Ghz can still have trouble!

 

[rmb1983]

So I hear all the time about the "The (300-500) PC That Can Run (Crysis/Just Cause/Underwater Basket Weaving) On Highest!!!!11!1" which gets me wondering.

One huge setback to PC gaming is that shopping for a PC or any component of said PC is a big hassle, so I want you, savvy Escapist PC Gamers, to help develop the PC Gamer's answer to the console.

PC gamers have always had their "answer" to consoles. At any rate, it's far too easy, now, to pick up a halfway decent system even from a retailer in a reasonable price range, so building one in the price range you mentioned isn't all that hard. Cutting out labour costs can give your rig quite a bit of punch for your money.
The system specs you have look more than feasible. Remember, always aim for deals, synergy, and a decent grade. If you're going to honestly aim for a balls-to-the-wall system that can handle everything on the market at full-max settings, you're going to spend far more money than you need to. I built a barebone system 6 years ago, and it still runs recent games on near-max settings with a solid 60FPS. Hell, it runs StarCraft II at about 75% max settings, and clocks ~70FPS, during heavy load times. That said, I was aiming to build a reasonable system. I could have bought better parts, but I also would have ended up shelling out 1.5k, and didn't really want to spend that much at the time.

Post your idea for an entry-level gamer's PC that can play just about anything with at least console-level graphics.

Apples and oranges, nevermind that console tech is several years old, so you don't want to build off that, anyway. A better stipulation is "This year's AAA games."

Thats why I suggested going with either nvidia and intel or AMD and ATI (although thinking about it, maybe nvidia would be a lot better since ATI drivers are known for being a bit moody).

Also, this.

And despite my 15-year love affair with AMD/ATI, yes, ATI's drivers can be quite moody, indeed.
Also, Intel's chipsets are better options for the price, right now, so you can largely ignore AMD, and as a result, ATI.

 

[Private Custard]

Yeah, whatever. Again, I said I could be wrong and everything and asked to be corrected politely. But since you arent even capable of doing that and would rather talk like an anti social, whatever.

A polite correction from me then. I'm running "full retard" AMD/nVidia and have only found one game so far that can be problematic.......FSX. Especially when you throw in all the addons to bring it more up to date (Real Environment Xtreme, FS Global worldwide mesh, more accurate landclasses, texture-laden aircraft etc etc..)

Spoiler: full retard mode!

Any fool can plug a shiny new GPU into their PCIe slot and make pretty much every modern game hugely better. But if you want to know if you have a well sorted system, try and get FSX, made in 2006, to run right. It's seriously CPU dependent. People with GTX580s and i7 2600k's OC'd to 4.6Ghz can still have trouble!

Ill go get FSX, whatever it is, and take a look.

Like I said, I do remember some tests saying most rigs with AMD and nvidia ran worse. Obviously if you know your way around PCs its not a problem to get good performance. But since the thread was more about entry level PCs, it might be better to give people something hassle free where you dont need to spend any time at all fiddling around in graphical settings. Thats why I suggested going with either nvidia and intel or AMD and ATI (although thinking about it, maybe nvidia would be a lot better since ATI drivers are known for being a bit moody).

FSX = Microsoft Flight Simulator X. It's the biggest bastard I've ever encountered, mainly because it's badly coded, so you need an epic rig if you want the best out of it. It'll see your 4.6Ghz overclock, laugh and keep on coming!

I originally bought my machine with an X6 1055T and GTX 460 as it was the cheapest option for a hex-core system. I got into FSX and soon realised that, even though my machine would deal with Bulletstorm maxed out, Crysis 2 maxed out, C&C with 3000 juggernauts on screen etc, the CPU just wasn't strong enough for FSX.

For general gaming, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the AMD CPU/nVidia GPU combo. The AMD for the value, the nVidia cards for the drivers and software. For anything seriously CPU dependent (such as simulators), I'd advise a Sandy Bridge (i7 2500k is only £160 and will oc to 4.5 easily, compared to an AMD 965 at £100 that will have trouble getting to 4Ghz), a decent cooler and some serious overclocking. I've ordered an i7 2600k (£230ish) for the simming, but that sort of money isn't needed for everything else.

Most people will neither notice or care about the difference if they use a budget CPU.

 

[Aisaku]

I thought that the xbox WAS pc's answer to the console! XD

Now, seriously, as a moisture farmer in a backward country I've got to say that using the internet for info and sale prices is the best thing you can do when building a PC. Even if you don't know much, you're better off figuring things out yourself than putting yourself in the hands of strangers. Kinda like it is with cars.

 

[Wolfram23]

lol @ comments about Nvidia not working well with AMD CPUs, or that Intel and Nvidia magically work better together than Intel and Radeon cards.

That's 100% bullshit.

AMD CPUs are simply worse than Intel's offerings right now, which means whether you use Nvidia or AMD Radeon cards on it, it will not perform quite as well as on a modern Intel system. But put either card in an Intel system and they both work fine.

Do not take that into account.

What you should take into account is the merits of Nvidia versus Radeon head to head, looking at features, power, and pricing.

 

[Private Custard]

Eh, you obviously now a whole lot more about computers than I do, but how do you say in english, I take that information and respect it? Haha. Not sure how to translate it. But yeah. If you say intel + AMD = fine for gaming, I will believe it and say I was in the wrong.

It's not really about right or wrong, there are so many variables when building a PC, and what software you plan on using.

I know a guy on YouTube that uses intel processors and ATI cards, and he gets amazing results. I use the opposite to him and do just as well now. An entry level system that is required to get fairly decent settings on everything can't be built to too low a budget. £500 is easily achievable, but it's usually just the start!

Here's what I'd do for £500

AMD 965 quad - £100
EVGA GTX 460 - £120
Asus M4A89GTD Pro - £87
Coolermaster Storm case - £69
Corsair 600w PSU - £60
Corsair XMS3 4Gb - £32

Total - £468 (use your current HDD to save cash at the moment). This leaves £32 for general stuff, such as cable ties, wires, thermal paste etc.