New Desktop PC

Sorry, Monkeh, I missed your post.

I get the impression the answer is no and yes! :LOL:
 
Sponsored Links
Call me an old fuddy-duddy, but is there going to be a fantastic difference to my son in playing games on the already-mentioned £160 machine and something like this one?

The £160 computer won't play the FPS games mentioned. It would probably handle Minecraft but that would be the limit.

EDIT: Sorry - too slow typing!
 
Call me an old fuddy-duddy, but is there going to be a fantastic difference to my son in playing games on the already-mentioned £160 machine and something like this one?

It's about 2.8 x the price!

Or is there a middle ground?

Am I being a skinflint?;)

Graphics capability of that £160 machine:
battlefield-2.png


It's effectively the 'HD Graphics 2500', but probably actually slower. And that's with every single setting turned down.

Now, let's look at that HD 7850 you've selected:

17_bat3.png


One will happily play on very high settings at 1920x1080, and one will be a slideshow. ;) It's not even a comparison, as the £160 literally can't even run many games. They just won't work.

The 6670 from the previously mentioned PCW heap will just about tolerate Battlefield 3 at that res if you turn some settings down.

7850 is also a bit old, though. On the AMD side, an R7 260X is a more modern alternative. nVidia has the rather nicely performing GTX 750 Ti in that price bracket.
 
Always thought MS and to a lesser extent others missed a trick here. Surely it would have been a great idea to modularise the OS so that in the scenario that you want a games platform you can run a super lean and mean "games" version of the OS, rather than lob it on top of a general purpose one. Ok I know DirectX and other stuff tried to alleviate the problem and of course the OS and indeed CPU can't act as high end GPU's but in a games platform scenario, you want/need as much bang for your bucks as you can get. (don't say get a dedicated games console!)
 
Sponsored Links
Always thought MS and to a lesser extent others missed a trick here. Surely it would have been a great idea to modularise the OS so that in the scenario that you want a games platform you can run a super lean and mean "games" version of the OS, rather than lob it on top of a general purpose one. Ok I know DirectX and other stuff tried to alleviate the problem and of course the OS and indeed CPU can't act as high end GPU's but in a games platform scenario, you want/need as much bang for your bucks as you can get. (don't say get a dedicated games console!)

There isn't a lot you can do to make it more 'lean'. A few services you can disable and, well, unless you start totally rewriting things..
 
Call me an old fuddy-duddy, but is there going to be a fantastic difference to my son in playing games on the already-mentioned £160 machine and something like this one?

The reason a gaming computer jumps up by another £150 minimun is two factors.

A reasonable low end gaming graphics card adds another £80-£100, and a graphics card also requires a more expensive power supply, which adds another £20-£50, after that it is a few more pounds here and there for ancillary bits.

That is why you see such a jump in cost.

Honestly, building PCs is 90% slotting things into the one hole

Yes, but it is not for everyone, you still need to research buying the right bits, and at the price range we are talking about it is only a £20-40 difference.

The 6670 from the previously mentioned PCW heap will just about tolerate Battlefield 3 at that res if you turn some settings down.

I'm not particularly attached to that model, I'm simply pointing out you can buy a £400 system that will play modern games, but yes, not at high settings.
 
Always thought MS and to a lesser extent others missed a trick here. Surely it would have been a great idea to modularise the OS so that in the scenario that you want a games platform you can run a super lean and mean "games" version of the OS, rather than lob it on top of a general purpose one. Ok I know DirectX and other stuff tried to alleviate the problem and of course the OS and indeed CPU can't act as high end GPU's but in a games platform scenario, you want/need as much bang for your bucks as you can get. (don't say get a dedicated games console!)

There isn't a lot you can do to make it more 'lean'. A few services you can disable and, well, unless you start totally rewriting things..

Hmmm, I really dont think that is true! but as it is off topic I'll leave it!
 
and a graphics card also requires a more expensive power supply, which adds another £20-£50, after that it is a few more pounds here and there for ancillary bits.

A decent power supply capable of managing up to a GTX 760 or so easily is £40. I wouldn't spec lower even for a non-gaming machine, quality low power PSUs aren't easily available nor worth the small saving (£10 or so).

Also, this is a DIY forum.

Shame on the OP for not building a wooden PC case and soldering bits together.

Quite! *hides amp he hasn't built a case for yet*
 
[Draws deep breath]What would be your spec for a basic gaming machine then?[/Draws deep breath]
 
[Draws deep breath]What would be your spec for a basic gaming machine then?[/Draws deep breath]

What you've put together isn't a bad start.

I'd drop the CPU down to an FX4350 if going the AMD route, the extra cores on the 6300 won't help much, the clock speed is more useful. Not much in the price though.

I'd grab a substantially more modern motherboard, such as the Gigabyte GA-970A-DS3P. There's nothing in the price at that level (actually, it's a tad cheaper). You'll need a bigger case than that Core 1000 to support that though. There aren't many choices in mATX for current chipsets.

GPU needs to be upgraded to something from this generation.. R7 260X or a GTX 750 Ti at that price band, but I'd prefer a 760, much much more future proof (and £80 more expensive). The 750 Ti seems to be a better performer than the R7s, let alone that old clunky 7850.

Kingston RAM is fine (I tend to prefer Crucial, but at the end of the day any name brand is fine), you've done well with the power supply, EVGA 500W (there's a 500W and a 'Bronze' 500W which is slightly more efficient, and £8 more expensive) supplies are perfectly fine for the money (I tend towards modular ones from Corsair for a few quid more, tidier).

Don't forget a proper heatsink, especially with an FX4350, Hyper 212 Evo for £25 will set you straight.

Beyond that, you get to scrap the entire rig and start buying Intel CPUs, high end GPUs, SSDs, and serious power supplies. Once you start that ball rolling, nearly every major component costs three figures.

Oh, you might want an optical drive, although I'm nearly at the point of scrapping mine. DVD drives (writers all, find me a DVD-ROM outside of the cheapest OEM tat these days, I dare you) are about £12 now. One able to read Bluray is about £40. I've been buying Pioneer for years with ups and downs.

Alltogether, that plops you in the £450 region, sans OS.
 
Naughty monkey, I think you'll drown him in techno babble.

And stock coolers are fine.

[Draws deep breath]What would be your spec for a basic gaming machine then?[/Draws deep breath]

1. Are you prepared to self assemble and install the OS, or do you want to buy pre-made.

2. How much can you afford, £400 is 'enough', but £500 is much better.
 
And stock coolers are fine.

Aftermarket coolers are much finer, especially for a 125W CPU.

Well yea, but we have a budget buyer here, they are not necessary.

I also object to any processor that needs that much juice, but I suspect that argument would bore the OP.

Well you'll have to fork out for an Intel to get better performance at lower power. I'm all for that, but it's a lot more money.

I'll always recommend a decent heatsink for anything but the lowest power chip.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top