Wireless Network Adapter
Built a machine to play BF4 with my son in law. Runs smooth and fast.
Could of done way better for the price.
To be entirely fair, the i3-4360 performs better than the FX-8320 in most games. Exceptions being the rare octa-core ones, like Crysis 3 or BF4.
Not true at all
That is entirely true. Would you like me to link benchmarks?
After overclocking the 8320, you get an 8350's performance. Sure, link some benchmarks. The i3 will obviously win in any single core benchmark.
Here are some benchmarks in real games, of the i3-4340 easily beating the FX-8350. I couldn't find any data on the i3-4360, but the only difference is that the i3-4360 is 100mhz higher.
To address everyone's concerns about the i3, the Haswell i3s are considerably capable in gaming. In case you've all forgotten, it's the same core inside the rest of the Core i and Xeon E3 lineup, at a higher clock than some entry level i5s such as the 443/4440/4460. This all translates into good gaming performance, and IPC that no FX CPU of the Vishera series can hope to match below at least 4GHz. If there's a CPU that can bottleneck the GTX 770 in 1080p BF4 at stock speeds, it'll be the FX-6300, and the FX-6300 does just fine. Heavy video editing is also not a purpose for this build. And for the last damn time, the FX-8350 is not an 8-core CPU. It has 4 Piledriver CMT modules.
That being said, the i3 is a terrible choice in this build. The only reasonably priced Haswell i3s are the i3-4130/4150 and i4-4330. The others are hopelessly overpriced for a 100-200mhz baseclock increase that does not make any difference in multithreaded games. And BF4 is an example of such a game. It's not that the i3-4330 cannot handle BF4; it is far superior to comparable CPUs such as the FX-4350 and perhaps on the same level as the FX-6300 in BF4 strictly. But this i3-4360 has no place in a $1290 build.
It, and its stock cooler, also look extremely awkward next to the $170 Sabertooth and 16GB of Vengeance Pro RAM. BF4 does not need 16GB of RAM (but if you really want it then I can understand), and the i3-4360 completely defeats the purpose of the Z97 board. If Z97 was a cheaper route than H97, then I would completely agree; this is not the case here. On the other hand, I can understand getting a Z97 board and a cheap Haswell CPU so a Broadwell upgrade to a better processor is completely possible.
I do, however, agree with your choice of 840 EVO for this build. Any build $1100-1200 and above should include an SSD.
Not a fan of Corsair CXM. At all. It works, but it's not a good PSU. By a long stretch.
This guy has the right points.
Actually, the i3-4360 doesn't just have a couple hundred mhz increase. The reason the price shoots up so fast after the i3-4150 is because everything higher increases the L3 cache as well. The i3-4360 has a 30% higher L3 cache than the i3-4150, in addition to the 200mhz increase. Although it doesn't entirely justify the price increase, it's not quite as basic of a change as it appears to be.
And after looking at benchmarks extensively before deciding on an i3-4360 for my build, even the i3-4150 readily outperforms the FX-8350 in many games.
Your other points, I agree with.
I meant that the jump from 3.5GHz to 3.7GHz is completely unjustified because the i3-4330 at 3.5 costs about $125 while the i3-4360 at 3.7 costs $159; another $30 and one could afford a i5-4590.
I agree with what you're saying though, the 4MB of L3 is why the i3-4330 still looks more appealing than the i3-4150 even though the 4150 is cheaper and newer. Not to mention that the i3-4360 still only has 4MB of L3 which further un-justifies its price.
I think people are giving you way too much **** for getting an i3 when they perform just fine. Plus 1150 motherboards (especially 9 series ones) have a lot of great features that aren't available on AM3/AM3+ which is the usual for this price point.
There are a couple things you could have done better though. Assuming that this computer is just for gaming, you could have gotten away with 8GB of RAM and save yourself $70. I personally would have spent a bit more to get a Maximus VII Hero motherboard because of the great onboard audio it comes with, but that's just preference, and there's nothing wrong with the Sabertooth.
This is a great build, and I think it's getting some uncalled for criticism because of the processor. It has great cable management, it has a nice aesthetic, and most importantly it'll perform great. Good job :).
I agree. Especially since it takes an FX-8350 to even match an i3-4360, and even then the i3 usually wins.
Why the i3 for a system of this price? It's a bit unbalanced if you ask me.
I disagree, it's a great CPU. But the Motherboard is just too expensive and no need for 16GB RAM.
It's a great CPU. If he were to get a less expensive motherboard and 8 GB RAM an i5 would have been a much better choice and would have still been cheaper.
You should have gotten 8gb of RAM and spent the extra cash on an i5.
FOr a good i7, it cost less then 350$
i7 is useless for gaming
Bragging rights are meaningless.
I agree that you could've saved money on the MOBO and RAM and used it for a better CPU, perhaps i5 but I disagree with people saying you don't need a SSD. Any computer today should have a SSD if you have the funds. Anyway, I gave you a +1, although there were some areas you could have balanced a bit more, it is a good build and should allow you to have fun with the kid.
Good build, note sure why you're getting crap for buying an i3. Only thing I question at all is the ram.
Although I do think you may have been better off with something like this: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/x9L4Bm
for pure gaming.
So much criticism. I researched this build for a while. The build is for my son in law to join me in rounds of BF4. I chose the i3-4360 because it ranks very high in the current CPU hierarchy chart (Tom's hardware chart) and saved $200 on the build. I chose 16gb of ram vs 8 just because I was forward thinking and didn't want to put anything in the ram slots that would be less than the board's ultimate 32gb for future expansion. 16gb costs just 50% more than 8gb. I'm an Asus fan and Nvidia fan. We all have our preferences. For now I can honestly say this machine runs like a beast and I would challenge anyone to notice the difference playing on it vs the I7-2600k/GTX 670 I have in my build. I own an Asus Sabertooth Z77 board and am a fan. OBVIOUSLY I was keeping the price reasonable for my son-in-law but I did give him a 50% discount on the parts and helped him with his first build. Once you close the case, trust me this machine is great. It's $1200. If the CPU can't keep up with future mult-core games it'll Craigslist easily. Thanks for the...advice? Well it's already built Debbie Downer. I can throw the same thing back at you....do you honestly think, in a blind test you'd know you're running this I3-4360 vs an I5/I7....it's very doubtful you could humanly detect the difference.
Ok. I have to say something. You mentioned 50% discount. That means the difference in a 4 core processor (i5) at the least was 225$ (I could stand corrected. He paid you 80$ essentially for the I3. Now what would be another 30$ out of his pocket for "possibly" running along with the future proofing of the "Core" of the machine? I do realize you have hyperthreading, I do. We are listening. And for the record. I've never said the build was bad my friend.
i disagree with you. With that 16GB of RAM, you've wasted over over 40$, which you probably never utilize (except you're video editing, but then i3 will bottleneck it), while an i3-4360 and an i5-4460 has only 30$ difference, hear it? ONLY 30$ with TWICE the cores and MUCH faster.
The i3-4360 performs the same as the i5-4460 most of the time. The $30 difference is relatively small, but totally unjustified all the same.
No, the i5-4460 is not much faster. In fact, there's a high chance that depending on your system, it can lose a few frames to the i3 because of its low clock. Even its max turbo clock is a couple hundred MHz below the i3's baseclock.
Yes. I compared the i5-4460 and i3-4360 heavily before I bought the i3, and the i5-4460 is only ahead in very rare, limited circumstances. In many games the i3 is actually marginally ahead, not that it'll really matter since neither the i5-4460 nor i3-4360 will bottleneck a 770.
A bit unbalanced, But still a great and powerful build in my opinion. +1
I would've saved $100 by going with 8GB of ram and spend the extra on an i5.
Why i3 in a 1500 dollar build?
I thoughty the i3 was in there cause you were waiting for the Retail Edge...
Why did you choose the i3?
This is imbalanced. Atleast give that rig an i5-4690k
to all those who berated every part... it would make sense to just switch out the CPU.
Why would I switch it out when (and I'm being quite serious here) it runs everything currently just as well as my i7-2600k? Not in reference to benchmarks but yes, in reference to any noticeable difference. Rather, I think we'll get a few year's of use out of it. This processor ranks very high: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html
im not against you for using an i3, its a message to the others im sending... like the top commenter who said to basically change every part
Pretty neat build, overspent on your motherboard. Alot. I don't like CX series power supplies, since I think they're not as good as they're said to be. Other than that good build your i3 isn't the main issue, but if you would've gotten 8gigs of ram and a cheaper motherboard, since you can't oc your i3 anyway and the sabertooth is more than then all i3 and that's not a good balance.
Imo something like this would've done a lot better nad you would've gotten a 1tb storage disk aswell. Also if you didn't need the 1tb you could just not spend that money and saved a bit.
The 290 beats the 770 and it's nearly the same price, so the saved money from the motherboard and ram went towards a higher quality power supply, a better graphics card and a better cpu and it's less that this build.
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant
that prosser doesnt match the build at all. It should have at least and i5. Also u dont need that fast of a ram
I agree about the CPU, but DDR3-1600 is NOT too fast. I would consider DDR3-2133+ too fast for this rig.
DDR3-1600 is pretty standard now a days, no need to get faster just for gaming "unless its an APU build with no dedicated graphics".
So im not sure what this RandomPinto is on about, did he want him to get 1333 or even slower? i personaly dont see his logic.
While BF4 is optimized for multi-core processors, your processor is probably bottlenecking your GPU with only dual-core. btw. How much FPS do you get with 1080p and max settings?
i3s have 4 logical cores. It doesn't quite the same performance per thread as an i5, but it shouldn't be bottle-necking a 770.
This build is one huge no. You could have got an FX 6300 or 8320 with 6 or 8 cores for BF4. That 16gb or RAM is completely useless for gaming and will only play a role if you use advanced editing software and/or video rendering. That 2gb 770 is going to bottleneck BF4 because BF4 needs 2.4gb of VRAM to run smoothly. A Radeon R9 280X would have been a MUCH better choice. The SSD and Sabertooth are your personal preference but you could have saved money by getting a different mobo and a hybrid drive that you could have used for a 4gb 770. This build needs work
I can say with certainty, after hundreds of hours on BF4 with a 2gb vram card...the game runs very smoothly and does not bottleneck with 2 gb vram card.
It would be so much better with a 3gb card. You just don't know
wow. yeah, you're right. I just don't know and neither do the other thousands of BF4 players out there know how much they're missing out by playing BF4 with a measly 2gb of vram. Thanks for saving us all. I'm gonna send my gtx 770 back right now and purchase the 4gb version thanks to your advice. I can't wait to compare the difference and will report right back here when I'm thrilled with the improvement in game play the 4gb card is sure to give me.
Sure it runs smooth on 2gb, but the extra 560mb in the 4gb version will make it run smoother. Also the R9 280X would still be a better choice due to AMD optimization.
if it runs smooth....how would it run smoother? could you explain this? i play BF4 on max settings with my GTX 680 2GB and it has no hesitations and i got the resolution at 1920x1080.
Just would like to know how you gather the extra vram makes that much of a difference, atleast in BF4.
The i3-4360 outperforms both the FX-6300 and FX-8320 in most games. The GTX 770 also outperforms the R9 280X, although the 280X has a better price/performance ratio.
OP built this PC for BF4. BF4 is optimized for AMD 8 core processors
Oh, sorry. I forgot he'll apparently never use the PC for anything besides one specific game. /sarcasm
Regardless of what game he plays, CPU makes virtually NO difference. For most games only really make use of up to 4 cores/threads, and won't work them very hard. That said, 4 cores out of 8 of the 8320 are about equal to the 2 hyperthreaded cores of the i3, plus you get the extra 4 to handle other tasks (hardcore chrome tab abuse, anyone?). I think you might be a little a biased against AMD, my friend.
I've seen benchmarks of the FX-8320 regularly dropping to 40 fps in games where a strong i3 stays at 60. It's not biased against AMD to acknowledge that a haswell refresh i3 has great performance, and Piledriver CPUs from 2012 have a hard time keeping up.
These "Next gen games" are already using over 2gb of VRAM. Watch Dogs uses over 2gb and the PC port of GTA V will more than likely use more than 2gb maxed out. If OP spend that kind of money on a gaming rig, he should have got a 3gb or 4gb card
Games use as much VRAM as they have access to. A game can easily use 2.8GB on a 3GB card, then scale down to 1.8GB on a 2GB card with only a 1-3 fps loss. It's only Watchdogs with heavy antialiasing that actually needs more than 2GB at 1080p.
I beg to differ. According to your logic, all the world's 2GB R9 270X/GTX 760 owners must be getting atrocious performance then.
It isn't that way. VRAM usage, especially in BF4, is not defined as a specific number. If you have 2GB, BF4 will find the best way given to fit in the 2048MB limit. If you have 3GB, BF4 will try to fill all of 3GB.
Even if he has a 4GB GTX 770, it makes 0 difference for him because he's not running an SLI setup. Go check the 2GB vs. 4GB comparisons for literally every mid to high end card released this year and last year; absolutely no improvement in any game in a single card setup.
According to my logic, all 2gb 760/270x owners are getting SLIGHTLY less performance at maximum settings when compared to people with 3-4gb cards, and that's a fact.
Yes, benchmarks indicate 2GB owners are getting on average 2-4 fps lower. I wouldn't consider than worth an extra $50-$100 for the 4GB version.
"SLIGHTLY less performance"
Yeah because, slightly less performance is worth spending the extra money......
The R9 280x is cheaper actually. Or you could get the Sapphire toxic 280x that trades blows with the GTX 780 for $400
you're gonna get bottleneck so hard