Which Desktop is Best for Gaming?

[mark5916]

@Ironman5000

 

You could go with the configuration 4 as well. (if your budget is your concern)

The AMD FX-4300 has a bit lower performance than the i3 in some games, and in other games the performance should be equal.

 

So as a second choice you could just go with conf. 4.;)

[Ironman5000]

5 it is, might as well pay the bit extra if it's gonna perform better, and tbh can't wait to see the back amd.

 

Thanks very much everyone this has been most helpful :thumbsup:

[kalikka]

Honestly, not getting a SSD to a modern PC is equal to shooting yourself in the leg with a shotgun.

When I fixed the software issues on my dads laptop that was running on a HDD, I nearly went insane with how slow it was. I went as far as replacing the HDD with a 120gb SSD just to get rid of the slowness.

 

It's not about fps or anything like that, it's just that the whole system is a complete slowpoke when the OS is installed on a HDD.

[mark5916]

Honestly, not getting a SSD to a modern PC is equal to shooting yourself in the leg with a shotgun.

When I fixed the software issues on my dads laptop that was running on a HDD, I nearly went insane with how slow it was. I went as far as replacing the HDD with a 120gb SSD just to get rid of the slowness.

 

It's not about fps or anything like that, it's just that the whole system is a complete slowpoke when the OS is installed on a HDD.

 

> Honestly, not getting a SSD to a modern PC is equal to shooting yourself in the leg with a shotgun. <

 

Running games on an HDD some years ago, was not a BIG problem, so why is it now ???

 

If you have a fast RIG, with or without an SSD, the game should run fine...

 

> When I fixed the software issues on my dads laptop that was running on a HDD <

 

Having the same software problems running on an SSD, will not make the software run faster, only because the drive is an SSD. !!!

 

-------

 

Having an SSD its' a good choice for many reasons, but not having one it's not a disaster... :wink:

[Ironman5000]

Having looked around it appears that those with a built-in SSD are out of my price range so i'll make do with one suggested, i've no doubt the performance might not be quite as epic but as long as I can play FO4 with anything above low/mid graphics settings then i'll be a happy chappy :D

[mark5916]

You will be able to play it at 1080p and getting acceptable frame-rates (if your tweak your settings a bit.) :wink:

Edited November 10, 2015 by mark5916

[Ironman5000]

Oh FFS number 5 has only gone and been discontinued - http://www.ebuyer.com/store/Computer/cat/Gaming-PC/subcat/Intel

 

So do I settle for number 4 now, or is an alternative with the same specs (or better) for around the same price?

[mark5916]

From your 5 choices, as number 5 is not available anymore, number 4 should be the next one.

 

However if you can find a better CPU with the same GPU (GTX 960) from number 4, that would be the best. !!!

[obobski]

Honestly, not getting a SSD to a modern PC is equal to shooting yourself in the leg with a shotgun.

When I fixed the software issues on my dads laptop that was running on a HDD, I nearly went insane with how slow it was. I went as far as replacing the HDD with a 120gb SSD just to get rid of the slowness.

 

It's not about fps or anything like that, it's just that the whole system is a complete slowpoke when the OS is installed on a HDD.

 

This kind of superlative hyperbole isn't constructive imho (especially when based on vague anecdotes and not quantified data). There is no "magic secret sauce" to having an SSD - it can improve disk-related operations as it offers higher throughput and lower latency than some other storage solutions; faster storage *can* be a benefit for certain tasks and that's been true since the beginning of fixed storage on PCs (and I say "can" instead of "will" because it really depends on the application and what it needs, and how the operating system handles storage - most modern operating systems do a great deal of buffering and prefetch to improve performance, for example). However it does absolutely nothing (at all) for computationally bound tasks (e.g. "frame rate") - just because the thing can "start up" faster does nothing beyond letting it "start up" faster, and the same goes for (in a gaming context) things like level loads. Honestly I'd dump the SSD over any other significant component (e.g. graphics, CPU, memory, PSU) if budget is a consideration - you can throw as many top of the line SSDs as you want at a Pentium Pro with S3 VIRGE graphics and it will still never run Skyrim, Windows 10, etc but a Broadwell Core i7 with GeForce GTX 980 with a mechanical hard drive will happily do both (and a lot more). (and yes, this is a hyperbolic example, but so is "not having this piece of computer hardware is equivalent to attempting suicide with a gun")

 

 

As far as the remaining systems, #4 and #6 both look good to me. #6 has a better CPU (at least for gaming), and while the GTX 750 isn't the fastest kid on the block, it's not a slouch; #6 also appears to have a better warranty (I care about things like this, you may not). #4 has a better graphics card, but I'm somewhat skeptical of how useful that will be with the FX-4300.

 

Out of curiosity: any reason you don't build the machine yourself? What's your overall budget like as well?

Edited November 23, 2015 by obobski

[Ironman5000]

Actually screw it i'll pay extra for a step up - http://www.ebuyer.com/722003-cyberpower-armour-elite-iv-gaming-pc-ecc01284 :cool:

 

That should suffice yes?

Edited November 23, 2015 by Ironman5000