join with help building a 1000 dollar budget gaming pc

[Call Me Dubstep]

So I know many are going to debate whether to go with AMD or Intel for CPU, and AMD or Nvidia for Graphics card. Looks the bottom line is, What is this computer going to be used for, Just strictly gaming, or are you going to be using it for other applications that require a good graphics card like cad, and video editing. Personally, either way, with what you have i would go for an Unlocked Intel I7, 16gb of 1866mhz ram, a nice ssd and hard drive, and a Nvidia gtx 980, a good 600-700 watt ( 700 is a bit over kill), and a Asus, Gigabyte, or Asrock motherboard that supports overclocking which is like the z97-87 and so on. You got quiet the budget, dont just cheap out IMO, and go for amd. I currently own a I3 3325 with a gtx 760 and 8gb of ram, 120gb ssd, and 750watt powersupply( thought i was going to upgrade in near future but it turns out i didnt need it) , the thing runs like a dream. Make sure you use the SSD as your boot drive and your shit can be put on the Hard drive. If you want me to price out something for ya I can when i get home.

[AstoSoup]

I probably do an equal number of builds, Intel vs. AMD. You can search benchmarks all day and will be hard pressed to find one that states an i5 is faster than an FX-8350. There are Intel nut huggers and AMD nut huggers, always has been, always will be. I am neither and while I admit AMD kind of tops out in performance where Intel keeps accelling, the price accells too. When he wanted an "awesome gaming build" for under $1000, AMD came to mind as the wisest choice to keep processing power, while keeping the budget under $1000. Ultimately, the OP can do what he want's and if he can afford it, an i7 would reign supreme, for sure. The i5's on the other hand, while they will probably play most games, will strain to do so. Aside from benchmark results, user reviews... the i5 just does not have the logical cores to stay with multi threaded apps. Again, it's the OP's decision but from a 15 year veteran of PC repair, gaming and gaming PC's, get either an i7/GTX-970 or FX-8350/R9-290. You will kick yourself in the behind if you buy a quad core i5 and try to play large, demanding games.

[omg_spoon]

Ssds are super nice but id rather spend that money on a vid card imo. Ssd can usually wait. Even if its like a 128gb, that money can usually bump you up to the next tier of gpus

[Call Me Dubstep]

I probably do an equal number of builds, Intel vs. AMD. You can search benchmarks all day and will be hard pressed to find one that states an i5 is faster than an FX-8350. There are Intel nut huggers and AMD nut huggers, always has been, always will be. I am neither and while I admit AMD kind of tops out in performance where Intel keeps accelling, the price accells too. When he wanted an "awesome gaming build" for under $1000, AMD came to mind as the wisest choice to keep processing power, while keeping the budget under $1000. Ultimately, the OP can do what he want's and if he can afford it, an i7 would reign supreme, for sure. The i5's on the other hand, while they will probably play most games, will strain to do so. Aside from benchmark results, user reviews... the i5 just does not have the logical cores to stay with multi threaded apps. Again, it's the OP's decision but from a 15 year veteran of PC repair, gaming and gaming PC's, get either an i7/GTX-970 or FX-8350/R9-290. You will kick yourself in the behind if you buy a quad core i5 and try to play large, demanding games.

My only thought is if you try and build a decent PC now... do it now and not wait and keep upgrading the thing every 3 months. Buy everything now and game now on highest settings you want.

[AstoSoup]

Ssds are super nice but id rather spend that money on a vid card imo. Ssd can usually wait. Even if its like a 128gb, that money can usually bump you up to the next tier of gpus

If you are going to wait on a SSD, at least get a SATA 6Gb/s physical drive. A SATA II interface will slow even the most powerful CPU/GPU's down.

[omg_spoon]

The i5's on the other hand, while they will probably play most games, will strain to do so. Aside from benchmark results, user reviews.. You will kick yourself in the behind if you buy a quad core i5 and try to play large, demanding games.

The only time my i5 has ever been strained is playing a 12 cpu 24 city state epic map size civ 5 game.

Never had any problems with games.

Most people don't need an i7 and that's pretty well known.

[omg_spoon]

Ssds are super nice but id rather spend that money on a vid card imo. Ssd can usually wait. Even if its like a 128gb, that money can usually bump you up to the next tier of gpus

If you are going to wait on a SSD, at least get a SATA 6Gb/s physical drive. A SATA II interface will slow even the most powerful CPU/GPU's down.

Yeah I have one.

Ps I load games just as fast as my friends with ssds. Half a second behind doesnt matter when most games have a few second warm up period.

[yurvalentine]

AMD vs Intel is all about application. Intel has and does do better with single threaded applications, which includes a huge amount of games. AMD chips use hyperthreading to create virtual cores, which is great for multithreaded applications. For video editing and other similar programs the 8350 will run laps around an i5, for most other applications the i5 takes the cake. This also applies to the i5 vs i7. For anything that doesn't use more than 4 cores they will perform the same, but once the 4 cores get used up the i7 jumps ahead.

Now threading changes a lotfrom program to program, which is why benchmarks will be all over the place. But for anything other than Adobe and video editing the i5 is going to be faster and/or more efficient than the AMD. Same applies to the i7.

[AstoSoup]

AMD vs Intel is all about application. Intel has and does do better with single threaded applications, which includes a huge amount of games. AMD chips use hyperthreading to create virtual cores, which is great for multithreaded applications. For video editing and other similar programs the 8350 will run laps around an i5, for most other applications the i5 takes the cake. This also applies to the i5 vs i7. For anything that doesn't use more than 4 cores they will perform the same, but once the 4 cores get used up the i7 jumps ahead.

Now threading changes a lotfrom program to program, which is why benchmarks will be all over the place. But for anything other than Adobe and video editing the i5 is going to be faster and/or more efficient than the AMD. Same applies to the i7.

All very true, however the i5-4690k is about $100 more than the FX-8320. Also, Intel motherboards with a Z97 chipset are more expensive as well. I guess it comes down again, to budget. The most crucial part of a gaming system is the GPU. By saving $150 using AMD, you will get equal performance and be able to spring for a better GPU. I didn't know the GTX-970 was so cheap now, so in this case, Intel may not be a bad idea. Pair that 970 with the 4690k and you won't have to worry about much in the way of gaming, but you may break your budget. And as stated above, any photo or video editing, CAD programs, etc, you will fall behind with the i5. So I guess at this point, it's a toss up on what your better value is. I PERSONALLY, would go with an FX-8350 and a R9-290. With the 16Mb of cache on the 8350 and the lightning fast core clock on the R9-290, you will crush games all day. The i5/970 would be awesome too, don't get me wrong...but why pay more for the same performance? Like I said, up to you. Intel DO run cooler and last longer, it's all about cost at this point.

[Krakin]

An SSD will with no doubt be better than any hard drive.

It's not just game load times, but with pixel rendering and texture quality SSDs help access that information much better allowing a more stable frame-rate with very low frame times.