Submitted by Lelldorianx 1131d ago | article

$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)." (PC, Tech)

« 1 2 »
itsLugia   1131d ago | Spam
aquamala  +   1131d 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
geth1gh  +   1131d 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.
#2.1 (Edited 1131d ago ) | Agree(11) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
Jazz4108  +   1131d 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.
#2.1.1 (Edited 1131d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report
Moncole  +   1131d ago
And you can get 200 players in Mount and Blade.
Dee_91  +   1131d ago
well since bf3 is the only game ever made ..
Bladesfist  +   1131d ago
and 1000 players in planetside 2
geth1gh  +   1129d 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.
#2.1.5 (Edited 1129d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
Dee_91  +   1129d 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.
geth1gh  +   1127d 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..
#2.1.7 (Edited 1127d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
NeXXXuS  +   1131d ago
You mean the one that plays it all on low-mid settings?
STONEY4  +   1131d 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.
#3.1 (Edited 1131d ago ) | Agree(12) | Disagree(10) | Report | Reply
neoandrew  +   1131d ago
Maybe high, but not maxed out on 1080p also the cpu is to weak to help with that.
STONEY4  +   1131d ago
You're right about the CPU. Ehh. An i3 2100 would be less bottleneck-ish and still in that price range.
#3.1.2 (Edited 1131d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
neoandrew  +   1131d ago
About the CPU? You can't play maxed out in 1080p i many games with this rig.
ninjahunter  +   1131d 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.
Khronikos  +   1131d 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.
Sieg  +   1131d 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.
STONEY4  +   1130d 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.
#3.2.3 (Edited 1130d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
ninjahunter  +   1131d 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.
xAlmostPro  +   1131d 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 :)
SneeringImperialist  +   1131d 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.
Mikhail  +   1131d ago
I have a PS3/360 and my advice is that when getting a pc, one must go all out like the poster above me. Besides, you can spread the cost when building a pc. Buy a cpu with onboard GPU then buy the high end GPU later on ($300 or greater GPU). Well, that's what I did with my build.
Omega Zues  +   1131d ago
Yeah, hate to argue but I've actually built some DIY builds for $500-$700 range and ive yet to max out some of today's games. Some settings on high but for others its going to be around med settings. Still look fantastic of course and some great perks to starting up your own rig as you can always upgrade down the road.
Khronikos  +   1131d ago
Yeah, people need to look at spending 1k for a system that will only need a GPU update. Quality parts are very important in PCs. Don't make you purchase worthless in 4 years time. The only thing I will upgrade in 5 years time is my GPU and I am fine with that for spending 1200 and getting Windows and Office free along with 2 games. I have top of the line components and only my 560ti is the weak spot but I am waiting till next series from Nvidia after 680 to upgrade.
mastershredder  +   1131d ago
500 bucks? Yeah, if you want to putt arround on a Kia-computer. Building these low-cost setups is not worth the short-lived muscle flex they offer. After a year or two they grow a beer belly and become a slouch.
drosera1  +   1131d ago
This is a 30fps @ 720P system for sure. The fact they brag about it playing games at "max settings" is a joke. The Witcher 2 will run at around 30fps at 720p on this system, but that doesn't matter as their rig has no monitor, keyboard, mouse or Windows so that's the least of the worries.
Lelldorianx  +   1131d ago
Please refer me to the words "max settings" in that article. Cheers.
bubwright  +   1131d ago
just buy a console. so much easier!!!!! then all you have to do is check that it says ps3/xbox on the case!
ChandlerConsuelo59   1131d ago | Spam
MeatAbstract  +   1131d ago
It's a myth that you have to spend a lot of money on an amazing PC to get the best out of it. It's also a myth that the machine will need to upgraded constantly.

My PC is 3 to 4 years old. The only thing I've changed is the RAM and thats it. It played Witcher 2 great. No, it's not all ultra high stuff, but it's mostly high and it looks great.
DragonKnight  +   1131d ago
Then it's not a myth. If you're playing Witcher 2 at "mostly high" that's not "getting the best out of it." That's settling for what you have. You want the best experience? Then you have to pay the price for it. But the thing is, you won't hear that. You'll hear "this will beat consoles" as though that's some kind of grand goal being achieved. If you're happy with beating the visuals of consoles, fine, but don't call it "getting the best" when you're not able to play at max.
drosera1  +   1130d ago
Agreed, playing The Witcher 2 at sub-par settings is like buying a Ferrari and then giving it to your Gran to drive around at 20mph.
MeatAbstract  +   1130d ago
Well no, I'm getting the best out of what my machine can offer. And I'm happy with that because it looked fine. I wasn't sat there wailing going "IT'S NOT THE BEST IT CAN BE, BOO HOO HOO" No, it looks great, why complain?

Also, I'm predominately a console gamer (feel free to look through my comments on this), I just recently hooked up my PC up to a TV to play some PC games.

I just hear people complain that 'I can't play PC because they're too expensive, my machine couldn't run that' or 'I need to upgrade it all the time'. No, you don't. If I was currently on my PC I'd happily drop a few pics and let people judge for themselves exactly what Witcher 2 looks like running on a Radeon 3870x2, a pretty old graphics card now.
RankFTW  +   1131d ago
What a crap PC.
Jason143  +   1131d ago
$580 without crossfiring. just built it. destroys witcher and bf3. bottom line. Spend the money. That next game will demand it hehe
SkyGamer  +   1131d ago
I for one like the idea of games being too much for current PC systems. I guess that is one thing I like about PC gaming. Think of it like politics:

Console gaming is like socialism, Everyone one gets one configuration and you get a similar performance.

PC Gaming is like conservative, You get to dictate the performance. The more you spend and tweak, the better the performance. All the hard work pays off.

I am looking to upgrade my computer soon. Probably will keep my Antec 902 with all the fancy fans and lights but new mobo, ssd sata3, new ram, new cpu and new video card.

Thinking about the highest 8 core amd with 32 gb ram and a gtx680 with option to go sli later. Oh and a 240 gb ssd sata3.

Current config, 1100t hexacore, 16 gb ram, gtx470.

People fail to realize that yes this new config will cost me money, I will be able to recoup most of the cost by building another computer and selling it. Have done it for many years, thanks to you Neverwinter Nights 2!
BraveToaster  +   1131d ago
To the people who think this won't play it all, what won't it play?
Ulf  +   1131d ago
Crysis 2, Witcher 2, Crysis 3, BF 3, PlanetSide 2, Firefall, Guild Wars 2, etc. etc. will all suffer with this build.

Anything released in the coming year and beyond, basically, plus some stuff that was released in the past year.
#16.1 (Edited 1131d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
BraveToaster  +   1131d ago
It will run every single one of those at probably 60 fps if you tweak the settings right. Sure, might not be max settings but if you're coming from a console do you really care? Also most console players aren't even used to 60 fps so they could crank up the settings and not care when it runs worse.
Darknite  +   1130d ago
You know nothing about pc gaming so shut up.even a 8800 gt from 2007 can play crysis 2 and bf3 well.also it can play anygame that has console versions.and gives much better graphics than consoles.also pc is not just for gaming.so pc is the better investment.throw ur consoles out of windows and get a pc.
LordAtrocity   1130d ago | Personal attack | show
Ulf  +   1131d ago
More BS from journalist PC fanboys looking for site hits.

That CPU sucks (weaker than an i3? Come on). Also, too little memory (4 GB?)

At least the GPU is decent this time, and they took note of the fact that the OS costs $100+, and isn't included in the pricetag.

I can accept a $650 gaming PC that "does it all", because the OS is included, and the CPU isn't a$5, but this one doesn't cut it.
#17 (Edited 1131d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
Darknite   1130d ago | Personal attack | show
kingduqc  +   1131d ago
I don't get people, sure you can build a sub 500$ pc, but with a decent budget 800$ish you can build some real decent pc that will play all the games.

i5 3570k, an average Z77 motherbord 8 go of ram, a gtx 560 ti or 7950 if you got better budget and you got one stronk machine to play games on.
khellendros1  +   1131d ago
Damn guys, why in the hell you so nasty to Lelldorian, lol? Not everyone has to play games on max settings. This article was obviously made for people who were interested in getting started in gaming on PC or wanted a simple rig. Not for all of you who have been playing on PC for 20 years. Sure you could spend $500 on an i7 and $400 on a video card but not everyone wants to spend that much money. Sure he should have added the cost of Win 7 but still I say thanks Lelldorianx.
one2thr  +   1131d ago
Pffffttt.... After looking at my rig, I can say thats a $900+ well spent :)
NnT3291  +   1131d ago
If youre going to build a gaming PC, build a good one that last for 3 -4 years. With $500 , just get a console.
Bladesfist  +   1131d ago
The bang for buck of that is better than getting a current gen console as they will both become obselete soon and that PC will run your games a lot better
DarkSymbiote  +   1131d ago
You call a $487 worth of gaming hardware "budget PC"? No thanks.
Eyesoftheraven  +   1131d ago
My Phenom ii x4 955 @3.5ghz and CF 5870s @ 900/1200 run everything except for Crysis 2 DX11 smooth and that's because of either poor drivers and/or poor optimization. Witcher 2, BF3, Metro 2033, Crysis 1 all run fine maxed completely out.
#23 (Edited 1131d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
sylina123   1131d ago | Spam
chukamachine  +   1131d ago
I find BF3 is only more demanding in Multiplayer. Not SP.

I have an i5 2500k,8gb ram, 6870.

I play BF3 in 1080 and in mp get 50+ fps. In SP, it's over 60fps all the time.

imo, BF3 looks better then crysis1,2.
#25 (Edited 1131d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
Omnislash  +   1131d ago
My PS3 was 300 bucks in 2009. Why would I want to pay 500 bucks for some PC that can play BF3 and will become obsolete next year?
Sieg  +   1131d ago
because you don't build a pc to play game ONLY. You can actually do work on it. My 60gb bc ps3 is sitting out in my living room collecting dusts because I invest in a decent pc that can play blu ray, play games on high setting, and allow me to do works. No pc that build this year will be obsolete the next year. Sure new parts come out but you DON'T have to upgrade. Trust me, if PS3 were upgrade able, you and me would spend money upgrading it just like a pc.
TheModernKamikaze  +   1131d ago
I have a PC that plays it all... just.. not ... smoothly... lol.
ipe  +   1130d ago
Whats the point exactly of this?
just go and buy 200 console and with huge library UNLESS u need pc atm and u dont have much cash.
This pc ll strugle with games in 2 years( if cheap as* parts are going to last u that much, in 20 years god knows how much parts i went through from gpu to motherboard.)

If u re going full speed with pc buy 600 or so machine that ll be worth it and last enough.
Johnny_Cojones  +   1130d ago
Nothing against the author, but yuck.

If you're building a gaming PC right now you don't want to go with these specs.

We're a year or so off from a new console gen, so even console ports are likely to get more demanding.

Either sink an extra $200 into a rig, or wait until next year.
ACEMANWISE  +   1130d ago
I see many people are complaining about this author's budget PC so I'll talk a bit about the topic.

I'm not a PC gamer. My brother is and he's been an avid one since the early '90s. It has been at that point in time that we essentially separated in the gaming world.

From my point of view I think PC gaming is just as flawed as console gaming....just in different ways. Every time I read about PCs (or any software surrounding it) I hear so many conflicts in opinion on the performance and quality of any said topic that nobody's viewpoint is of any help at all.

After 17 years the same conversations still come up and I seem to have a reasonable conclusion concerning it. PCs are broad, diversed, and generalized
pieces of hardware and software that exist in an industry that moves in real time. Everyone has their own experiences which seems to be the only answers available in the community. One person says it works great and the other says it doesn't. The only thing everyone seems to look toward that has any form of reliability is hardware specs. Now let me tell you why this is unreliable as well.

Hardware specs are only as useful to the limits of compatability that governs it. This may include compatability with other hardware or with software. Time and human error are the biggest factors governing this and, to me, seem to be reliable factors for diminishing the reliabiliity of that information. Time naturally makes everything obsolete (hardware, software, and your opinions) and is done so by design. It keeps everyone in the PC industry lost and fragmented so that the industry can control it to their will.

One may feel a sense of control by obtaining "future proof" hardware but in the end you all lose....each and every time. Why? Well, your sense of control and freedom exists in the "here and now" when making choices about anything relating to the PC and it's industry. You cannot control, however, the future, even with professional insight because you're connected to a tech that is moving in real time by means of online control and software control. We can go back in time if you wish to the early '90s and read the discussions presented therein. What you will all find is that the past generation was stuck in a time loop from which they never broke free. Learning from this, you may realize that in 3 years these same issues arise again. It is through these false beliefs of knowledge and control (and the lack of foresight and hindsight) where a cycle of repetition of discussions begins and ends. Think about it.
« 1 2 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
New stories

7 Reasons Splatoon Is For Babies

13m ago - Splatoon is released today for the Nintendo Wii U, and by all accounts it's a great game. But... | Wii U

Toro Review | GameSpew

13m ago - Rich at GameSpew writes: "Having never watched nor being familiar with the intricacies of the “sp... | PS4

See what games are coming out in 2015

Now - Visit our release calendar to see what games are coming out in 2015. | Promoted post

Massive Chalice: The Xbox One Strategy Game You’ve Been Waiting For?

13m ago - XB1: Is Massive Chalice the Xbox One strategy game we've been waiting for? X-ONE has had its hand... | Xbox One

After 55 Hours of Xenoblade X, I Finally Got My Mecha

19m ago - Richard Eisenbeis: "Then I promptly broke it." | Wii U

DirectX 12: A Game Changer for Xbox One and PC?

19m ago - Gamespot: "So much hinges on the potential of DirectX 12. Here we analyse how gamers and devel... | PC