Advice300-500GBP Gaming PCPosted:

Dashii
  • Hide and Seek
Status: Offline
Joined: Mar 10, 20127 Year Member
Posts: 1,723
Reputation Power: 849
Motto: Graphic Designer
What is your budget and currency?
300-500GBP

What will you use the PC for?
Gaming Mostly - Looking for it to run games like Fortnite Minecraft Overwatch Apex etc at decent(ish?) settings if that's possible.

Do you need a monitor? If not, what monitor(s) will you be using?
I don't need a monitor included in this but the monitor I'm using is undecided at the moment.

Do you need a keyboard, mouse, or other peripherals?
None

Do you need an operating system?
I'll be getting Windows 10 but that's not included in the budget.

Will you overclock?
Not Planning on it.

Anything else we should know?
I would like it to be pretty aesthetically pleasing in terms of the case etc and with wifi but other than that, unless you guys have any questions, nope!

Thanks!
#2. Posted:
21
  • Moderator
Status: Offline
Joined: Oct 05, 20136 Year Member
Posts: 15,288
Reputation Power: 2700
Motto: It me, boss of PC sections.
PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: AMD Ryzen 3 1200 3.1 GHz Quad-Core Processor (£49.85 @ CCL Computers)
Motherboard: ASRock B450M Pro4-F Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard (£65.39 @ Amazon UK)
Memory: Team Vulcan 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3000 Memory (£71.69 @ Overclockers.co.uk)
Storage: Crucial BX500 480 GB 2.5" Solid State Drive (£48.93 @ Amazon UK)
Video Card: Asus Radeon RX 580 4 GB Dual Video Card (£134.99 @ CCL Computers)
Case: Deepcool MATREXX 30 MicroATX Mini Tower Case (£30.46 @ Scan.co.uk)
Power Supply: Corsair CXM (2015) 450 W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-modular ATX Power Supply (£52.99 @ AWD-IT)
Total: £454.30

Can up the R3 1200 to an R5 1600/2600 if you want. I'd be aiming to pair this sort of system with a decent 1080p144Hz monitor, like this one;
currys.co.uk/gbuk/computing/pc-mo...4-pdt.html
#3. Posted:
M9z
  • Vantage
Status: Offline
Joined: Jul 10, 20163 Year Member
Posts: 842
Reputation Power: 130
Another option in reply to the one above me is to remove the GPU entirely, and go for an APU, it's basically a CPU/GPU combo that acts as any other CPU would, fits in the same socket and everything, and Ryzen definitely had a few good ones that are budget friendly for the AM4 Socket type
#4. Posted:
Dashii
  • Hide and Seek
Status: Offline
Joined: Mar 10, 20127 Year Member
Posts: 1,723
Reputation Power: 849
Motto: Graphic Designer
M9z wroteAnother option in reply to the one above me is to remove the GPU entirely, and go for an APU, it's basically a CPU/GPU combo that acts as any other CPU would, fits in the same socket and everything, and Ryzen definitely had a few good ones that are budget friendly for the AM4 Socket type


Do you have a suggestion as to which? Thanks!
#5. Posted:
M9z
  • Blind Luck
Status: Offline
Joined: Jul 10, 20163 Year Member
Posts: 842
Reputation Power: 130
Dashii wrote
M9z wroteAnother option in reply to the one above me is to remove the GPU entirely, and go for an APU, it's basically a CPU/GPU combo that acts as any other CPU would, fits in the same socket and everything, and Ryzen definitely had a few good ones that are budget friendly for the AM4 Socket type


Do you have a suggestion as to which? Thanks!


Well the average price for the 4gb model of RX 580's is about $180, for a good one at least, and the CPU he recommended is the Ryzen 3 1200 which retails for about $60 as it is a bit of an older model, don't let that fool you though as it's still perfectly capable for some decent gaming, not gonna be 4k ultimate but it's capable of running smoothly.

If you can get a B450 that's 3rd Gen Ryzen ready, pre-loaded with the BIOS update that makes them compatible, or you have another CPU laying around you can use to just update the BIOS on this board to make it so, I'd recommend the Ryzen 5 3400G APU, but for a B450 to run it it, would need that BIOS update which requires a compatible CPU to begin with, or come prepared already for 3rd gen out of the box, but if that's not a possibility for you, I'd go for the Ryzen 5 2400g, it's also on sale right now on Amazon for about $120

I will say using an APU does cut performance, I think it'll get you about medium settings at 1080p resolution in most games aside from the super demanding titles such as The Witcher, but it's more budget friendly, and it's also one less thing that could possibly break, and one less point of failure, which on a budget is always my personal biggest fear lol

EDIT: I just noticed your currency is GBP, but I used Murica bills for my prices, so might have to convert those.

EDIT 2: However, if you do have the budget for the build listed above with the RX 580, DO IT, you cannot go wrong with it, I used a 580 for a good few years without problems. They run hot, but they're designed to, recently upgraded to a 5700 xt, also runs hot, but from AMD that's not that much of a worry as it's intended to red line, and keep on going lol
#6. Posted:
21
  • Moderator
Status: Offline
Joined: Oct 05, 20136 Year Member
Posts: 15,288
Reputation Power: 2700
Motto: It me, boss of PC sections.
M9z wrotethe Ryzen 3 1200... not gonna be 4k ultimate but it's capable of running smoothly.

This is not accurate. Demand lessens on the CPU as resolution increases, so 4k is easier on CPU than 1080p. You wouldn't really see/want an R3 1200 in a system paired with a 4k monitor, but it is perfectly capable for 4k, and is technically better for 4k than it is for 1080p. Hence why for 1080p240Hz, it's beneficial to have something like an i9-9900k.

M9z wroteThey run hot, but they're designed to, recently upgraded to a 5700 xt, also runs hot, but from AMD that's not that much of a worry as it's intended to red line, and keep on going lol

This also is not accurate. AMD GPU's are not "intended to red line" at all. Polaris(RX 480/580) and Navi(5700/XT) are actually pretty efficient architectures. Not quite as efficient as NVidia, but far better than pre-Maxwell NVidia and the likes of Vega.

There are 2 reasons people think AMD "run hot";
1- shitty reference coolers. I think everyone at this point knows that AMD's reference coolers(other than Radeon 7) are absolutely terrible. They're not doing themselves any favours by cheaping out and sticking to the blower style, but they know partners are gonna produce far better coolers anyway. Get an AIB AMD card and you shouldn't have much issue.

2- Sometimes, like with Vega, AMD crank the voltage right up. The reason they do this, is so that they can maximise the amount of silicon that will hit their rated base/boost clock speeds. More usable silicon = more money since they have more GPUs to sell. What this means, is that a pretty large percentage of cards are running at far higher voltage than necessary. This is why, especially with Vega, you see a lot of people actually raising clock speed(overclocking) AND lowering voltage(reducing temps).


OP;
I wouldn't bother dropping the RX 580. An APU isn't gonna be fun if you plan on doing any gaming really. You also aren't going to save much money by dropping the GPU and switching the R3 1200 for an APU, maybe 50-100 quid saved but the RX 580 will be a vastly better gaming experience. If you wanted the APU just to have integrated graphics, or to get the system up and running before you add a GPU, then I'd just get the R3 2200G. If it was me though, and I was spending more on the CPU, I'd go for more cores rather than integrated graphics, so an R5 1600/2600(like I already stated above).
#7. Posted:
M9z
  • Blind Luck
Status: Offline
Joined: Jul 10, 20163 Year Member
Posts: 842
Reputation Power: 130
21 wrote
M9z wrotethe Ryzen 3 1200... not gonna be 4k ultimate but it's capable of running smoothly.

This is not accurate. Demand lessens on the CPU as resolution increases, so 4k is easier on CPU than 1080p. You wouldn't really see/want an R3 1200 in a system paired with a 4k monitor, but it is perfectly capable for 4k, and is technically better for 4k than it is for 1080p. Hence why for 1080p240Hz, it's beneficial to have something like an i9-9900k.

M9z wroteThey run hot, but they're designed to, recently upgraded to a 5700 xt, also runs hot, but from AMD that's not that much of a worry as it's intended to red line, and keep on going lol

This also is not accurate. AMD GPU's are not "intended to red line" at all. Polaris(RX 480/580) and Navi(5700/XT) are actually pretty efficient architectures. Not quite as efficient as NVidia, but far better than pre-Maxwell NVidia and the likes of Vega.

There are 2 reasons people think AMD "run hot";
1- shitty reference coolers. I think everyone at this point knows that AMD's reference coolers(other than Radeon 7) are absolutely terrible. They're not doing themselves any favours by cheaping out and sticking to the blower style, but they know partners are gonna produce far better coolers anyway. Get an AIB AMD card and you shouldn't have much issue.

2- Sometimes, like with Vega, AMD crank the voltage right up. The reason they do this, is so that they can maximise the amount of silicon that will hit their rated base/boost clock speeds. More usable silicon = more money since they have more GPUs to sell. What this means, is that a pretty large percentage of cards are running at far higher voltage than necessary. This is why, especially with Vega, you see a lot of people actually raising clock speed(overclocking) AND lowering voltage(reducing temps).


OP;
I wouldn't bother dropping the RX 580. An APU isn't gonna be fun if you plan on doing any gaming really. You also aren't going to save much money by dropping the GPU and switching the R3 1200 for an APU, maybe 50-100 quid saved but the RX 580 will be a vastly better gaming experience. If you wanted the APU just to have integrated graphics, or to get the system up and running before you add a GPU, then I'd just get the R3 2200G. If it was me though, and I was spending more on the CPU, I'd go for more cores rather than integrated graphics, so an R5 1600/2600(like I already stated above).


As for the first statement you quoted, you're right, but also wrong in a way. I know demand on a CPU lessens when you push higher resolutions depending on your GPU, but I was talking about an APU alone, so when I said it's not going to run 4k ultimate, I was correct, no APU that I currently know of could run a game in ultimate detail in 4k.

And I did tell him if he had the budget to go with a regular CPU and GPU combo, but I was simply saying if he wanted to save even more, he could take the APU route and still get some decent game times until he was more financially able, didn't want him to sacrifice anything he needed just to game if there's the option for a temporary fix in the mean time.

And I'll have to look into the thermals of it but I've always known AMD CPU's and GPU's to run hotter in similar scenarios against Intel and Nvidia, and hit a higher top heat as compared to Nvidia before they thermal throttle, maybe something has changed though? I'll look into that, the 5700xt I threw in here I noticed does run a lot cooler than my old RX580 though so Navi definitely is a step in the right direction for them, and yea I don't mess around with reference blower style coolers, I'll rig something up with a CPU heatsink and duct tape, and some smaller heatsinks dotted around for VRM's before I ever run a reference blower style lol
#8. Posted:
21
  • Moderator
Status: Offline
Joined: Oct 05, 20136 Year Member
Posts: 15,288
Reputation Power: 2700
Motto: It me, boss of PC sections.
M9z wroteAs for the first statement you quoted, you're right, but also wrong in a way. I know demand on a CPU lessens when you push higher resolutions depending on your GPU, but I was talking about an APU alone, so when I said it's not going to run 4k ultimate, I was correct, no APU that I currently know of could run a game in ultimate detail in 4k.

"the CPU he recommended is the Ryzen 3 1200 which retails for about $60 as it is a bit of an older model, don't let that fool you though as it's still perfectly capable for some decent gaming, not gonna be 4k ultimate but it's capable of running smoothly."

The CPU he recommends is an R3 1200, that is not capable of "4k ultimate" is what you said. So no, I'm not "right, but also wrong".


M9z wroteI've always known AMD CPU's and GPU's to run hotter in similar scenarios against Intel and Nvidia

Depends entirely which 2 CPU's or GPU's you're comparing. Intel, NVidia, and AMD all have lots of different architectures they've used. Look at Bulldozer vs Ryzen. Ryzen is more efficient than Intel's current architecture, so it definitely doesn't run hotter than Intel.

As for the GPU side, the RX 580 was a GTX 1060 competitor and assuming coolers were the same/similar, temps between the 2 GPU's shouldn't be vastly different. Like I said, yes, NVidia are still more efficient on the GPU side but AMD aren't anywhere near as bad as they have been in the past- nor as bad as NVidia ave been pre-Maxwell.

This obviously isn't your fault you think that, it's a common statement when people are talking about PC hardware, "Oh, AMD runs hot and loud", but it just isn't accurate. It used to be in some cases, but nowadays, not so much. Other than the likes of Vega, which as I said was overvolted from factory to maximise usable silicon.

M9z wroteand hit a higher top heat as compared to Nvidia before they thermal throttle

I'm actually not 100% sure about this. AMD and NVidia both report different temps from different parts of the GPU now though, IIRC. So 80c on an NVidia GPU isn't the same as 80c on an AMD GPU. AMD displays the junction temp, which is technically more useful for making sure you don't throttle.

For thermal throttling, I think Turing is still the 85c range? I'm pretty sure around 85c has been NVidia's temp for a few generations now at which thermal throttling will start.
Navi I actually am not sure when it'll start to thermal throttle, but I think between 95-105c?
NVidia probably mention what their thermal throttle range is, at least they used to I believe. For Navi GPUs specifically, I'm almost certain GamersNexus has a video on when they'' start to thermal throttle and what temps are acceptable- I've not watched it though, hence why I'm not certain.
#9. Posted:
M9z
  • Blind Luck
Status: Offline
Joined: Jul 10, 20163 Year Member
Posts: 842
Reputation Power: 130
21 wrote
M9z wroteAs for the first statement you quoted, you're right, but also wrong in a way. I know demand on a CPU lessens when you push higher resolutions depending on your GPU, but I was talking about an APU alone, so when I said it's not going to run 4k ultimate, I was correct, no APU that I currently know of could run a game in ultimate detail in 4k.

"the CPU he recommended is the Ryzen 3 1200 which retails for about $60 as it is a bit of an older model, don't let that fool you though as it's still perfectly capable for some decent gaming, not gonna be 4k ultimate but it's capable of running smoothly."

The CPU he recommends is an R3 1200, that is not capable of "4k ultimate" is what you said. So no, I'm not "right, but also wrong".


M9z wroteI've always known AMD CPU's and GPU's to run hotter in similar scenarios against Intel and Nvidia

Depends entirely which 2 CPU's or GPU's you're comparing. Intel, NVidia, and AMD all have lots of different architectures they've used. Look at Bulldozer vs Ryzen. Ryzen is more efficient than Intel's current architecture, so it definitely doesn't run hotter than Intel.

As for the GPU side, the RX 580 was a GTX 1060 competitor and assuming coolers were the same/similar, temps between the 2 GPU's shouldn't be vastly different. Like I said, yes, NVidia are still more efficient on the GPU side but AMD aren't anywhere near as bad as they have been in the past- nor as bad as NVidia ave been pre-Maxwell.

This obviously isn't your fault you think that, it's a common statement when people are talking about PC hardware, "Oh, AMD runs hot and loud", but it just isn't accurate. It used to be in some cases, but nowadays, not so much. Other than the likes of Vega, which as I said was overvolted from factory to maximise usable silicon.

M9z wroteand hit a higher top heat as compared to Nvidia before they thermal throttle

I'm actually not 100% sure about this. AMD and NVidia both report different temps from different parts of the GPU now though, IIRC. So 80c on an NVidia GPU isn't the same as 80c on an AMD GPU. AMD displays the junction temp, which is technically more useful for making sure you don't throttle.

For thermal throttling, I think Turing is still the 85c range? I'm pretty sure around 85c has been NVidia's temp for a few generations now at which thermal throttling will start.
Navi I actually am not sure when it'll start to thermal throttle, but I think between 95-105c?
NVidia probably mention what their thermal throttle range is, at least they used to I believe. For Navi GPUs specifically, I'm almost certain GamersNexus has a video on when they'' start to thermal throttle and what temps are acceptable- I've not watched it though, hence why I'm not certain.


You're getting me all backwards with all this quoting back and forth lol. What I'm saying is the 1200, mixed with an RX 580, will not run in ultimate detail at 4k on most games, it was a sly joke on the hardware, as if saying "This Honda ain't gonna come first place in any races but it runs good." Or something similar lol, and truth be told I've been out of the PC game for a long long time until a few years ago when I did my 580 build, so hey OP, I can back the card up, mine was a 4gb version too, it did what I wanted it to, mine then was paired with a 1300x and performance for the games I wanted was solid, I'm sure a step down isn't gonna mess up much, it'll still be capable, but if your CPU does end up needing more juice, I'm fairly certain you can find an overclocking guide, but get an aftermarket cooler prior to that just to be on the safe side
Users browsing this topic: None
Jump to:


RECENT POSTS

HOT TOPICS