To Build or To Buy or To Buy & Upgrade?

[marlowe221]

That said, I am looking hard at an i5 of some kind. I am really attracted by the FX-6300 but it's not quite as clear what to do when it's time to upgrade in X number of years. Intel seems to make upgrading a bit easier.

If you plan to keep the setup for a while, I wouldn't worry about the upgrade path. If you're buying a new CPU every time a new series comes out, or are swapping things out all the time to overclock or something, that's one thing.
For most people, buying every few years or more, chances are a new CPU will also mean a new motherboard, and probably new RAM too.

Another question - form factor. Any reason to NOT go with a micro-ATX set up? I'm only going to use 1 GPU and no overclocking (that's above my pay-grade at this point). I do need to cram in a wireless card and optical drive but that's pretty much it.

No major reason not to. You may be able to find a board that has an optional wireless module available instead of using a card slot.

Yeah, I plan to keep the set up as long as it is practical to do so. Given the kinds of games I like to play, I have serious doubts that upgrading on the bleeding-edge schedule will be necessary for me. I will almost definitely be on an every-few-years upgrade schedule.

That being said, it kind of pushes me back towards the FX-6300. I can also afford a lot more GPU if I go with that one (looking at the GTX 760 specifically) - which I'm sure is more important in a lot of ways.

[Hazerd]

That said, I am looking hard at an i5 of some kind. I am really attracted by the FX-6300 but it's not quite as clear what to do when it's time to upgrade in X number of years. Intel seems to make upgrading a bit easier.

If you plan to keep the setup for a while, I wouldn't worry about the upgrade path. If you're buying a new CPU every time a new series comes out, or are swapping things out all the time to overclock or something, that's one thing.
For most people, buying every few years or more, chances are a new CPU will also mean a new motherboard, and probably new RAM too.

Another question - form factor. Any reason to NOT go with a micro-ATX set up? I'm only going to use 1 GPU and no overclocking (that's above my pay-grade at this point). I do need to cram in a wireless card and optical drive but that's pretty much it.

No major reason not to. You may be able to find a board that has an optional wireless module available instead of using a card slot.

Here, watch this video on ATX vs Micro ATX:

Premium "Gaming" Motherboards - Are They Worth it? ATX vs ITX Z87 Test

[marurun]

I suggest going with an i3. I have a several year old machine and have found my graphics card more often than not to be the real bottleneck.

Some games can use more than 2 cores, but I don't know that this is really widespread, yet. Games lend themselves less to multi-core loads than other types of system-intensive software (like graphic and video work).

I think 2 stronger cores (Intel) is definitely going to give you a longer gaming live than 3-6 weaker cores (AMD).

Further, Intel CPUs and motherboard chipsets are much better about power management, which can help make sure there's more headroom for your video card and less power consumption (and possibly fan noise) on the whole.

More advice I can give:

Get an aftermarket cooler with a larger fan to keep noise down. Also get a case that accommodates larger fans. Larger fans can move the same amount of air while spinning a little more slowly and thus creating less noise.

[marlowe221]

All of this leads me to another design question.

I totally get that I should spend more money on the CPU and GPU than anything else. But which of those two should I prioritize? Would it make more sense to pair an i3 with a GTX 760 or would it make more sense to pair an i5 with a GTX 660?

Just trying to figure out where the best place to use my limited dollars is.

[isiolia]

For a lot of current gaming, it makes more sense to put the money into the GPU, as that's where the bottleneck is more likely to be. It'll often take setting the bar low (low resolution, low settings, etc), or pairing with a lot of graphics power to really see a lot of difference between CPUs.

It can depend some on the game though. As I mentioned, Civilization V is one that's known to really benefit from a quad core CPU (and Intel, for that matter).

A slightly-dated article demonstrating this can be found here. You can see there that Civ V scales with the CPU even with one (high end) GPU. The other games are almost all practically indistinguishable with a single GPU, and only start seeing CPUs differentiate themselves with multiple GPUs. Of course, that's at 1440p, where practically no GPUs have an easy time. Comparing at 1680x1050 might be a different story.

That's basically just gaming though. If you'll be using the machine a fair bit outside of that, then distributing more of the budget into the CPU makes sense.

[alexis524]

to the OP, I'm kinda in the same boat. I came across a sub-reddit on reddit, r/buildapcforme
where I got the help I was looking for. I filled out a short form that asked me some questions about
what I wanted to use the PC for, my preferences, my budget, etc., and got a reply within a few hours
that listed out each component that is compatible with links right to store with the lowest price that I could order from. That was last week
and I have ordered most of my parts. I just have to order my video card and RAM and I should be up and running in no time.

That site was a godsend since I was overwhelmed with all the choices, components, and variants of parts. I really had no idea where to start and
it made it very easy for me. Check it out, maybe it can help some more in addition to all the great advice already given here. Best of luck.

[marlowe221]

For a lot of current gaming, it makes more sense to put the money into the GPU, as that's where the bottleneck is more likely to be. It'll often take setting the bar low (low resolution, low settings, etc), or pairing with a lot of graphics power to really see a lot of difference between CPUs.

It can depend some on the game though. As I mentioned, Civilization V is one that's known to really benefit from a quad core CPU (and Intel, for that matter).

A slightly-dated article demonstrating this can be found here. You can see there that Civ V scales with the CPU even with one (high end) GPU. The other games are almost all practically indistinguishable with a single GPU, and only start seeing CPUs differentiate themselves with multiple GPUs. Of course, that's at 1440p, where practically no GPUs have an easy time. Comparing at 1680x1050 might be a different story.

That's basically just gaming though. If you'll be using the machine a fair bit outside of that, then distributing more of the budget into the CPU makes sense.

I was chuckling when I read that article - not because I thought it was ridiculous or anything. It's just that where I am at right now, EVERYTHING is a massive upgrade.

Basically, at my budget level (including a copy of damned Windows) I could go one of two ways:

1. i5-4430, paired with a GTX 750 Ti 2GB (or similarly priced GPU)

Or,

2. i3-4150 (or similar), paired with a GTX 760 2GB (or similarly priced GPU)

Which would you recommend for the kind of games I like to play and why?

I'm trying to get my head around all this and I certainly appreciate all the helpful replies I have received so far. If this forum had a reputation system, I would +rep you all!

[isiolia]

I would try to find a way to make the i5 work, price-wise. Strategy games are some of the first I can think of to roll in quad-core support. Others you mentioned can utilize it too (Witcher 2 for instance).
I think it's just the more forward-thinking way to go in general. What's recommended one year can become required the next, and plenty of games recommend quad cores now.

For a GPU, unless you are set on nVidia, you might check out the AMD R9 270 (not 270X, though that's good too). Sapphire, particularly, has a model in the $165-170 range, which would make it not all that much more than a 750 Ti, but it performs a lot closer to the 760.

[marlowe221]

I would try to find a way to make the i5 work, price-wise. Strategy games are some of the first I can think of to roll in quad-core support. Others you mentioned can utilize it too (Witcher 2 for instance).
I think it's just the more forward-thinking way to go in general. What's recommended one year can become required the next, and plenty of games recommend quad cores now.

For a GPU, unless you are set on nVidia, you might check out the AMD R9 270 (not 270X, though that's good too). Sapphire, particularly, has a model in the $165-170 range, which would make it not all that much more than a 750 Ti, but it performs a lot closer to the 760.

Thank you for your patience with my n00b-ness.

So 4 cores for strategy games; it certainly makes sense that a 4X game (turn-based or real time) would be kind of processor intensive.

GPU - I'm not married to nVidia necessarily. I've just had a lot of frustration with AMD-based graphics cards in laptops I've had in the past, including the one I own now. I mean it works well enough for a mobile graphics card, but "switchable graphics" and an almost total lack of driver support have been an aggravation over the past few years I've owned this machine.

But if the AMD-based Desktop GPUs are generally free from those problems, well, I am an open-minded guy. I have no experience with nVidia cards at all - I've just always heard they were a little easier to get along with.

[isiolia]

I've had good and bad luck with both ATI/AMD and nVidia graphics cards, so, I just tend to look at it as where the current value is for the price range. nVidia does have a reputation for solid drivers, but I didn't have problems with the past couple AMD cards I had either (4850, 6870). Currently, I have a GTX 670 though, so, take that as you will

Desktop GPUs tend to be a bit less annoying, since it's rarer for them to be tied to a particular OEM's version of the drivers. You can just get the latest unified driver and go.
I've seen very mixed results from hybrid graphics too, but almost all from nVidia (whose chips were also a root cause of many an HP dv series or Macbook Pro black screen problem).