Cheap Gaming PC Under $600

[FMod]

Why is everyone giving a guy in Australia links to a U.S site that doesn't ship overseas?

 

Because the point was to show that you don't have to build a $1,000-$1,500 super PC to match a console. There is a premium, but it's $600 vs $400, it's not huge.

 

 

Agreed. A good quad-core or even hexa-core will be far better than a mediocre octa-core, and the video card is far more relevant regardless. Next gen consoles have high numbers of cores, but each core is painfully weak.

 

As it stands, 8350 begins outperforming CPU like 3450 and even 3770K in newer engines. Crysis 3, Battlefield 3 in frame time.

 

That's not 'painfully weak'. If the point is to ensure performance in newer titles, rather than Oblivion derivatives, 8320 is the better CPU. If the multithreading trend continues, it will keep matching or outperforming non-overclocked i5 4-cores, the cheapest of which start higher.

 

PS4 and XB1 will be getting the next generation of cores. If 8150 vs 8350 progress is to be followed, they should be noticeably quicker. However, for thermal reasons, it's certain that they will be clocked lower.

 

At that point they should remain reliably matchable by HT-enabled 4-core desktop parts. Non-HT parts may encounter issues if newer engines aren't tuned for both options, but any natively multi-platform engine should run well on either.

 

 

Also the apus is a good start to, cheaper all in one which the latest consoles use.

 

The console APU is custom-designed, different and a few times more powerful. Existing APU won't come close to PS4, and are made worse off with the memory disparity.

Edited July 11, 2013 by FMod

[Vindekarr]

One of the issues here Fmod is that there is a significant disparity between what $600 USD will buy you in America and what $600 AUD will buy you in Australia. Yes, in America you could most likely rival a new-gen console with a PC around that price range. Not here. A lot of tech takes about a year to filter it's way here, and there are significant price premiums, plus when you account for currency, the budget is a fair bit below $600. It's the choice between a truly aweful PC(or a LOT of dumpster diving) and a very standard issue console.

[FMod]

It's the choice between a truly aweful PC(or a LOT of dumpster diving) and a very standard issue console.

Let me point out a few more possible savings.

PSU: Most cases come with PSU. Like I said, this combo is easily obtained for free.

HDD: People have stopped giving away older HDD I think, but still, you may be able to obtain junkier older 160-250GBs for free or near free and total the required volume.

Motherboard: Doesn't quite have to be the new 970 chipset.

CPU: FX-8320 is a big ticket item. Fusion based Athlons are really cheap and they are good.

 

All that makes a PC that is a bit shakier vs a console, but still, it's going to be very very far from awful. It's going to be a better than average PC in terms of performance. It might fall a bit short of PS4, but not by far. PC's versatility is, generally, worth it in that case.

 

 

And if you have no money, or, sorry, if you only have $500, how can you possibly consider a console? They are money sinks.

On PC, even mainstream games drop to $20 in no time, and these aside, there's a huge indie market and "pay what you want" deals. You can get with away spending very little past the initial hardware cost. In fact, there's enough outright free to play games to last you a lifetime.

 

Console games aren't only more expensive to begin with, they stay expensive. And there are no freebies. Get ready to shell out $60+ per game, non-moddable game that won't last you 10 years like Morrowind can for some people. Are you comfortable playing whatever comes free with your console, if anything even does?

 

If you can't afford a $600 USD in US PC, you can't afford to actually play a next-gen console either.

 

The PC platform is flexible; you only have to pay what you can pay. You can dump $5k into the tower, $10k into peripherals and $5k into a high-end MMO if you want to. Or you can get a fairly modern AM3 for $60 from someone upgrading, scavenge a case, snap in a $140 GPU, and keep playing freebies for years. The console platform isn't flexible, everyone has to pay about the same, and it's not just the initial sticker price.

Edited July 11, 2013 by FMod

[Vagrant0]

The thing with a <$800 PC is that usually some aspect of the hardware just can't be upgraded without having to overhaul the whole system. Sure, you can get a PC that might be able to play some current games at "reasonable" settings, but as soon as some new game comes out you'll probably be back at square 1. Additionally, most pre-built systems are just utter s#*&#33; in any pricerange. Companies that build computers usually cut corners with hardware to increase their markup relying on the fact that relatively few people actually open up their computers and know what they are looking at (nevermind those that use cases or fasteners that make it virtually impossible to look inside). From my experiences dealing with others that have bought, about every single instance has resulted in a computer suffering some fatal hardware failure within a year. Even for self-building in that pricerange, companies which make the hardware that actually lasts tend to stop producing it after some point instead of letting the price fall, so there is a certain pricepoint where you're on the threshold of quality parts or things which will fail horribly. Meaning that regardless of era, you're usually best going with a ~1000-1400 system unless you're looking to drop serious amounts of money.

 

My comment about consoles was not intended to start a whole Console Vs PC debate. It was merely to point out the fact that the majority of PC games being made these days are being designed for both PC and Console. Given that console hardware is fixed with each generation, you can use those specifications to predict what sorts of demands the next generation of gaming will need.

 

My point being, if you can only afford a $600 build, you're almost always best off just waiting and trying to pool your money and save more before even trying to make it work.

[Vindekarr]

Plus, do you really trust a PC made of given away/junk parts, with no warranty or documentation? if it ever breaks, there'll be nobody there to help.

[JimboUK]

 

Why is everyone giving a guy in Australia links to a U.S site that doesn't ship overseas?

 

Because the point was to show that you don't have to build a $1,000-$1,500 super PC to match a console. There is a premium, but it's $600 vs $400, it's not huge.

 

 

 

 

You do have to spend that down there, US$600 isn't enough to build anything reasonable at Australian prices, it will just be throwing money away, the OP should really continue saving up.

[FMod]

The thing with a <$800 PC is that usually some aspect of the hardware just can't be upgraded without having to overhaul the whole system.

 

The same applies to a $2,000 PC, a $4,000 PC, an $8,000 PC.

Let's look at what $600 gives you:

* AMD's AM3+ platform

* DDR3 RAM

* PCI-E graphics

* SATA hard drives

 

What $2k-$8k gives you:

* Intel's LGA 2011, single or dual

* DDR3 RAM filled

* PCI-E graphics in SLI or CFX

* Optionally water cooling

* PCI-E SSD, PCI-E sound

* SATA drives in RAID

 

If anything, it's the latter that is more difficult to upgrade. Your RAM slots are filled, you have to replace old sticks. Can't just add a new drive, have to backup your data and rebuild the array. Might not have ports for that drive, have to add a PCI-E card, that will interfere with your multiple GPUs.

 

LGA2011 will be replaced with LGA2011-3 in 2014 - similar, but incompatible, since it will be using DDR4 RAM. There ends its short life.

 

The thing is, PC platforms stopped significantly evolving a few years ago. We standardized on SATA and PCI-E, they are forward and backward compatible, there's no AGP to worry about anymore. All RAM has been DDR3 for quite a while.

 

AM3/AM3+ and LGA 1156/1155/1150 have been holding steady with only minor crawls forward in performance. And as for any next step, like DDR4, you aren't getting it today regardless of the price.

 

 

My point being, if you can only afford a $600 build, you're almost always best off just waiting and trying to pool your money and save more before even trying to make it work.

 

I would more accurately describe that situation as "you can afford a more expensive build, but only have $600 on hand".

In this situation, provided that you already have a reasonable machine, you are better off saving up for a better new one than trying to stretch your current cash.

 

Otherwise, building a $600 PC, provided that you live in North America or another place with good prices, isn't really a bad decision. It will require some picking around, but can result in a very reasonable build. For right now, today, Ivy Bridge is the best gaming platform, but if you're looking at stretching your PC's useful life out for as long as possible, FX-8300 might be better, and it's cheaper.

 

 

Plus, do you really trust a PC made of given away/junk parts, with no warranty or documentation? if it ever breaks, there'll be nobody there to help.

 

Are we talking about the $600 PC? The only "junk" part there is the box, and boxes don't need warranty.

 

About the $200 PC made from a $20-$100 used platform revitalized with a new GPU? Yes, if something breaks, you'll have to replace it. Just like in any other PC. Only difference is you aren't getting a refund/replacement from the manufacturer.

But you weren't going to get a shiny new PS4 for your $200 either.

 

[JimboUK]

Building PCs on the cheap is a false economy, you end up with a wallet vampire that is always in need of more money being spent on it. If money is tight then it's best to keep saving until you can afford to buy something that will last, blowing what little money you have on something that isn't going to last a year is madness. Next year the min spec for the majority of titles is going to increase and not by a little, a cheap system that struggles to play todays titles is going to end up being worthless.

[Vagrant0]

 

The thing with a <$800 PC is that usually some aspect of the hardware just can't be upgraded without having to overhaul the whole system.

 

The same applies to a $2,000 PC, a $4,000 PC, an $8,000 PC.

Let's look at what $600 gives you:

* AMD's AM3+ platform

* DDR3 RAM

* PCI-E graphics

* SATA hard drives

 

What $2k-$8k gives you:

* Intel's LGA 2011, single or dual

* DDR3 RAM filled

* PCI-E graphics in SLI or CFX

* Optionally water cooling

* PCI-E SSD, PCI-E sound

* SATA drives in RAID

 

If anything, it's the latter that is more difficult to upgrade. Your RAM slots are filled, you have to replace old sticks. Can't just add a new drive, have to backup your data and rebuild the array. Might not have ports for that drive, have to add a PCI-E card, that will interfere with your multiple GPUs.

 

LGA2011 will be replaced with LGA2011-3 in 2014 - similar, but incompatible, since it will be using DDR4 RAM. There ends its short life.

 

The thing is, PC platforms stopped significantly evolving a few years ago. We standardized on SATA and PCI-E, they are forward and backward compatible, there's no AGP to worry about anymore. All RAM has been DDR3 for quite a while.

 

AM3/AM3+ and LGA 1156/1155/1150 have been holding steady with only minor crawls forward in performance. And as for any next step, like DDR4, you aren't getting it today regardless of the price.

 

 

My point being, if you can only afford a $600 build, you're almost always best off just waiting and trying to pool your money and save more before even trying to make it work.

 

I would more accurately describe that situation as "you can afford a more expensive build, but only have $600 on hand".

In this situation, provided that you already have a reasonable machine, you are better off saving up for a better new one than trying to stretch your current cash.

 

Otherwise, building a $600 PC, provided that you live in North America or another place with good prices, isn't really a bad decision. It will require some picking around, but can result in a very reasonable build. For right now, today, Ivy Bridge is the best gaming platform, but if you're looking at stretching your PC's useful life out for as long as possible, FX-8300 might be better, and it's cheaper.

 

 

Plus, do you really trust a PC made of given away/junk parts, with no warranty or documentation? if it ever breaks, there'll be nobody there to help.

 

Are we talking about the $600 PC? The only "junk" part there is the box, and boxes don't need warranty.

 

About the $200 PC made from a $20-$100 used platform revitalized with a new GPU? Yes, if something breaks, you'll have to replace it. Just like in any other PC. Only difference is you aren't getting a refund/replacement from the manufacturer.

But you weren't going to get a shiny new PS4 for your $200 either.

 

 

 

The key difference is that in the $2000+ range, usually you're dealing with things in the top threshold where there aren't any alternatives other than 1 or two pieces once you have just a motherboard figured out. Also, in that range, a good portion of the money usually ends up being traced to your videocards, cooling system, or how many SSDs you happen to have setup in a RAID. Within what would be the "midrange" build area however, you usually have a good deal of options available for upgrading since there are more varieties of hardware within a similar class and can usually always just add a second videocard or switch out ram. Even still, within the top pricerange, you could still theoretically design a system that could be upgraded later on, if you have some reasonable knowledge of what sort of power or slot requirements were needed... Atleast for some things. But at that point, your hardware is pretty much top-notch, so why would you even need to upgrade? A top-tier system built with current hardware would last well over 10 years with current generation cycle, so really all you're doing is just replacing hardware as it fails. People building top-tier systems can usually afford to just build another system before then, or just buy replacement parts. Regardless, all this doesn't apply here.

 

As for a $600 PC in the USA still being good... I would say no. It still doesn't work very well in actual practice. Within that pricerange you're either stuck with such a shitty processor that running games becomes a joke, or your other hardware is just piss poor quality and everything goes to pot within 6 months. Seen it happen time and time again... Even if you're scavenging the harddrive, and powersupply from an old computer, it just doesn't work. At best you can maybe build a system that might run games which are a few years old... But even then you're pushing it. With UK/Aus prices however... Don't even think about it for a second. Not even if it means that you have no PC for months.

 

As for the whole "on hand" comment. I think you are forgetting those who do not have steady income, or those who are in a situation where they have some money coming in, but would have to decide between spending their extra money on social things or saving for a large purchase.

[JimboUK]

It's not just Australia, you wouldn't be able to put anything decent together here for $600 either, for £600 ($900) you could put together something average but why bother when £350 will get you a PS4? PC gaming on this side of the pond is very expensive in comparison to consoles.