$487 Budget Gaming PC That Plays It All

Gamers Nexus: "Welcome to another monthly installment of our budget gaming PC builds! Last month we posted our ‘$437 Cheap Bastard’s build,’ so now it’s time for something a slight bit more powerful. For just under $500, you should be able to play most games out at high settings (with the exception of Battlefield 3, for which we’d recommend this build)."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
2037d ago Replies(8)
aquamala2037d ago

Why does it need to play games at high settings? Console players are playing bf3 and witcher 2 at about the equivalent of low to med settings in pc

geth1gh2037d ago (Edited 2037d ago )

Not true.

You guys are below the lowest pc settings. Sorry to break it to you.

I'm not being a fanboy these are facts, look it up. Dice said they had to scale bf3 way back on the consoles.

Not to mention there other factors to consider. Take for example you get max of 24 players online while we get 64 in bf3.

Jazz41082037d ago (Edited 2037d ago )

Unless cdprojectred is lying the 360 is playing witcher 2 at least at med settings. From experience playing both the pc and 360 version the 360 looks damn good for its age.

Moncole2037d ago

And you can get 200 players in Mount and Blade.

Dee_912037d ago

well since bf3 is the only game ever made ..

Bladesfist2037d ago

and 1000 players in planetside 2

geth1gh2036d ago (Edited 2036d ago )

Bf3 is one of the most graphically advanced games on the market.

Therefore its easiest to show the vast distance between a console and a pc.

Other games show this as well, such as the witcher 2, batman: arkham city, skyrim, gta 4 (icenhancer), etc...

BF3 is a favorite of mine and I played it for 2 months on the 360 before I picked up my legit pc.

Therefore I have a lot of experience when it comes to comparing it on the 2 platforms and thats why its one of the first games that pops into my head in this ludacris console vs pc debate.

Also if you guys want to talk about player count, there's a reason mmos are only truly successful and truly playable on the pc. Mouse and keyboard is a big reason but player population is probably the biggest.

Dee_912035d ago

@geth1gh yea its makes sense to compare "vast distance between a console and a pc" with a game that was designed for the pc.

geth1gh2034d ago (Edited 2034d ago )

Wtf? If a game is made for a console, well that WILL be the limiting factor. How is it supposed to look any better on the pc unless the devs do something about it?

What kind of logic is that man?

Dice actually stated that they got the MOST out of the console versions because they built it on the pc and then tried to get every last drop of performance out of the consoles to make it look as close as possible to the pc counterpart.

So that makes it the perfect comparision..

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 2034d ago
NeXXXuS2037d ago

You mean the one that plays it all on low-mid settings?

STONEY42037d ago (Edited 2037d ago )

An HD 6850 would actually run pretty much everything out there maxed out at 1080p. It is far from a low-mid settings GPU, despite being a "budget GPU" compared to the current cycle.

neoandrew2037d ago

Maybe high, but not maxed out on 1080p also the cpu is to weak to help with that.

STONEY42037d ago (Edited 2037d ago )

You're right about the CPU. Ehh. An i3 2100 would be less bottleneck-ish and still in that price range.

neoandrew2037d ago

About the CPU? You can't play maxed out in 1080p i many games with this rig.

ninjahunter2037d ago

A 6850 is more than enough to max out any game at 1080p, setting aside AA which isnt that important at that high of a resolution. The CPU on the other hand is too weak to pull off 60 fps in any of the recent graphics juggernaughts. this is definatelly a 30 fps system.

Khronikos2037d ago

Don't kid yourself. At that high of a resolution lol. It is 1080p. Nothing special. You can see jaggies a mile away n 1080p because of the sharpness and resolution. AA is important at any resolution inside of 4K.

I can not even play my PC games without AA because they are so annoying to look at. Up the resolution and you just see the flaws all the better.

Sieg2037d ago

Coming from a early adopter of a 6850, I got to say that it's not enough at this point. Despite I got it for $200 USD when it first came out and another one $150 8 months ago. Two of them paired with a 3930k trying to play Witcher 2 on high, vertcical sync off, ubersampling off, and aa on at 1080p was not that impressive by my book. Then I upgraded to two 6970s(got them for 230 each, amazon pricing mistake lol) and it's much better. But in this context in my opinion, a 6850 is good but it's showing its' age. At this time, a $500 trying to play most games on high at 1080p and get decent fps is kinda hard to do. I play games at 5760x1080 and tried to do it with two 6850 and I immediately got disgusted and threw back in my 6970s. I agree with the cpu being a bit weak though.

STONEY42036d ago (Edited 2036d ago )

"You can see jaggies a mile away n 1080p because of the sharpness and resolution. AA is important at any resolution inside of 4K."

Jaggies are a byproduct of resolutions that are lower than the display's native resolution. 720p with 16xAA looks worse than 1080p and no AA, you can try it with any game. Upping the resolution is the single most determining factor in reducing the amount of jaggies. This is why "downsampling" is the most effective type of anti-aliasing.

With 4K on a reasonably sized screen, the pixels are probably so tightly packed together that the inherent jaggies would be extremely hard to see. If you had a *theoretically* 200 inch TV at 4k, you'd see them clear as day.

If you have a GPU that doesn't do well at 1080p, then don't get a 1080p monitor and get something like 1680x1050. Running that resolution on a monitor with it as the native resolution looks miles better than that same resolution on a 1920x1080 monitor. Always use your native resolution.

ninjahunter2037d ago

That triple core is cutting it a bit close, I really wouldnt trust much under an i5. But seems about accurate that this would max out just about anything available at the moment.

xAlmostPro2037d ago

In my eyes if you're going to make a gaming pc you go all out, yes your budget may be low but in that case save for longer, that's what i done.

Don't get me wrong i don't have a super computer but i made sure it ran everything i wanted it too, bf3 runs half high half ultra at 1080p 60fps so that's decent enough.

Ended up costing around £650, since doubled ram, next up is to go sli with my gpu :)

SneeringImperialist2037d ago

Same here, it took a while to save up to get a decent gaming PC but i knew that if i was going to make one it may as well be as powerful as possible. mine ended up about £650 to; well worth the wait IMO.

Show all comments (102)
The story is too old to be commented.