1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Build Advice Decent but budget build for BF4

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by HelloDelly, 16 Sep 2013.

  1. HelloDelly

    HelloDelly New Member

    Joined:
    13 Sep 2013
    Posts:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey people,

    I'm new to this forum so sorry if I have posted in the incorrect place.

    Just wanting some advice on making a build. I'm wanting to make a budget PC for the amazing BF4.. I was contemplating on buying it for the 360 but when it comes to BF I think it just wouldn't be the same as I have played 2 and 3 on PC up till now..

    Anyways...

    I used to share my dads PC, but as I'm moving out next week this will no longer be an option. so, currently all I have is a gfx card which is a GTX 560 Ti, I'm not wanting to run at full spec (ofc). just enough if you get me..

    If anyone knows of anywhere to get cheap parts, second hand or new, please let me know :blush:

    Adele :lol:
     
  2. Neogumbercules

    Neogumbercules New Member

    Joined:
    14 Aug 2004
    Posts:
    2,464
    Likes Received:
    29
    I can't advise you on where to purchase these items since I'm not in the UK, but I see a lot of people on here suggestion SCAN.

    I'd say a decent budget rig that would play BF4 well would start with...

    Intel Core i5 4430 Haswell CPU.***

    Choose a socket 1150 mobo with the H87 chipset. Can't really OC at all with the non-K designated CPU so you don't need the Z87 mobos. Asus, Gigabyte, MSI brands all well regarded. Asrock boards are OK too and usually run a little less expensive.

    4GB of DDR3 1600 RAM should do you fine. If you can get 8GB for not much more, then go for it. Corsair is my personal brand of choice.

    Any SATA hard drive that suits your capacity needs, you can get those cheap

    Corsair CX600 PSU should be enough for a mid-spec machine and any future upgrades. You can probably get away with less though. Maybe a 450 watt. In terms of price it's probably not much of a difference though, so if you can live with it, go for the higher wattage. Another PSU spec to look out for is the amount of amperage on the 12v rail. More=better. If you ever end up upgrading your graphics card you might need one with a stronger 12v rail.

    Find a case you like. In the budget realm they aren't terribly unique, except for the ULTRA cheap ones, which you should avoid. I like Fractal Design, Bit Fenix, Antec, Corsair, Cooler Master.


    *** If you can stretch your budget a little bit, go for the 4670k. That CPU has a lot of headroom because you can overclock it. Keep in mind if you do decide to do this then you need to change your motherboard as well to one that is sporting the Z87 chipset.
     
  3. AlienwareAndy

    AlienwareAndy New Member

    Joined:
    7 Dec 2009
    Posts:
    3,421
    Likes Received:
    70
    So go out and buy a derped locked CPU? nah.

    If you want good BF4 performance then go for a 8320/8350 with a decent 8+2 board.

    Way cheaper than the Intel set up and will give it a nice bloody nose.
     
  4. Fishlock

    Fishlock .o0o.

    Joined:
    22 Nov 2004
    Posts:
    1,081
    Likes Received:
    36
    Just thought I'd chuck this in here:

    [​IMG]

    You'd be silly not to get 8GB RAM from the off in my opinion. The 560ti will be more than enough, although what resolution will you be running?
     
  5. Neogumbercules

    Neogumbercules New Member

    Joined:
    14 Aug 2004
    Posts:
    2,464
    Likes Received:
    29
    I was under the impression that even Ivy Bridge i3 CPUs were running circles around AMD in gaming applications.
     
  6. teppic

    teppic New Member

    Joined:
    18 Jul 2011
    Posts:
    1,026
    Likes Received:
    31
    The other way around.

    BF4 is also optimised especially for the 8320/8350 CPUs.

    This is the kind of thing that happens with modern multi-threaded games,

    [​IMG]
     
  7. AlienwareAndy

    AlienwareAndy New Member

    Joined:
    7 Dec 2009
    Posts:
    3,421
    Likes Received:
    70
    There's a video on Youtube that puts the 3570k against the 8350 and they come out with like 1 FPS difference.

    Even BFBC2 loves the cores :)

    Also. A 560ti won't be more than enough. I had a GTX 470 with 1.2odd gb of vram and with any sort of aliasing it fell on its face. I would say that a 1gb 560ti will be about enough for medium settings, but it'll still put the current consoles to shame.

    For a smooth experience in BF3 with no input lag* you need 1.5gb vram for reasonably high settings.

    * anything less and BF3 and I would imagine BF4 will start using your paging file on your hard drive for textures which is total arse. You end up being a second or two behind what goes on on the screen. For high with FSAA I would say you need a 6970 2gb minimum.

    Not any more. Your 8 core AMD Piledriver is right up there with your 3570k and 4670k. Anything released this year pretty much supports the architecture perfectly now and there are hot fixes out for the operating systems to stop the problems that they had in the past (dumping cache, poor optimisation, core parking etc). Windows 8 has it natively and there are two patches for Win 7.

    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2645594
    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2646060

    Even a 6300 will pee on a I3 now. If you want a nice cheap gaming rig that can perform then AMD all the way now. I would only recommend Intel if you specifically needed it for something other than gaming.
     
  8. teppic

    teppic New Member

    Joined:
    18 Jul 2011
    Posts:
    1,026
    Likes Received:
    31
    I'd try to get a 7950 (they're under £200) - 3GB VRAM and BF4 will run best on AMD GPUs.

    Maybe 2nd hand if it's too much new.
     
  9. AlienwareAndy

    AlienwareAndy New Member

    Joined:
    7 Dec 2009
    Posts:
    3,421
    Likes Received:
    70
    I think most of the stuff coming out now will perform better on AMD GPUs, simply because AMD decided to spend their money on getting the devs onboard.

    A very wise move.
     
  10. teppic

    teppic New Member

    Joined:
    18 Jul 2011
    Posts:
    1,026
    Likes Received:
    31
    Yeah, all the major games used to have the nvidia logo at start up - now they're switching to AMD.
     
  11. Neogumbercules

    Neogumbercules New Member

    Joined:
    14 Aug 2004
    Posts:
    2,464
    Likes Received:
    29
    Oh that's good to know. Would be a good money saving option then. Good to see AMD clawing back. I wonder how Steamroller will perform then.
     
  12. AlienwareAndy

    AlienwareAndy New Member

    Joined:
    7 Dec 2009
    Posts:
    3,421
    Likes Received:
    70
    Steamroller is going to be awesome. A sad swan song it seems but yeah, apparently it's 15% faster than PD which was 15% faster than BD.

    Add 15% on to PD and you pretty much have a 4770k beating solution. If they can keep the price under £200? it'll be a great CPU to have.

    Mind you not that I'm complaining. I love my 8320 it's a fantastic CPU :)
     
  13. rollo

    rollo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    7,706
    Likes Received:
    99
    Crysis 3 is the anomoly in the game list. Any Modern cpu will play most games more than fine as they are still not whats holding back your fps. Your still better off putting budget towards the GPU than you ever will be the cpu in a gaming only rig.

    Out of curiosity how does a 6300 beat a 8150 by 5 fps, Considering a 8350 is the same chip just clocked higher. and its a whole 10fps above it something is wierd about that chart.

    6300 is a nice chip for the price its at and will perform great when games support its cores. Just be noted that not all games do, If you goal is for bf3 and bf4 only in pc gaming then thats great chip for it. If you want to play stratagy games its not a great chip for it.
     
  14. mrbungle

    mrbungle Undercooked chicken giver

    Joined:
    20 Sep 2004
    Posts:
    5,301
    Likes Received:
    164
    The reason why the 6300 finished higher is largely due to its better clock for clock performance and the fact that most games aren't going to use more than 4 threads efficiently.

    Id imagine the reason why the FX8350 performs better than the 6300 is due to when loaded with 4 cores it will perform better than the 6300 due to the way the cores are designed.
     
  15. AlienwareAndy

    AlienwareAndy New Member

    Joined:
    7 Dec 2009
    Posts:
    3,421
    Likes Received:
    70
    Here's the thing though, it isn't.

    There are loads of games out (and pretty much all that are coming) that support it properly.

    I used to have a Xeon E3 1220 (I5 2400 more cache yada yada) and my 8320 batters it.

    Games that I own that support it?

    Tomb Raider.
    BFBC2.
    BF3.
    Hitman - Absolution.
    Crysis 3.
    Crysis 2.
    Far Cry 3 / Blood Dragon.
    Sleeping Dogs.

    In anything else? well it's mostly Unreal Engine of some sort and I get more than adequate FPS numbers.

    As I say though it's not so much the now that matters. It's what's coming.
     
  16. AlienwareAndy

    AlienwareAndy New Member

    Joined:
    7 Dec 2009
    Posts:
    3,421
    Likes Received:
    70
    And let's see how it fares when compared to the 3770k in older games...

    http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-fx-8350-8-core-black-edition-processor-review_2055/15

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Seriously? I rest my case man. The 8320 can do the exact same as the 8350 and it costs around £110. Couple it with a decent board and you are looking at £200 for both. In the future?

    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

    We approached a number of developers on and off the record - each of whom has helped to ship multi-million-selling, triple-A titles - asking them whether an Intel or AMD processor offers the best way to future-proof a games PC built in the here and now. Bearing in mind the historical dominance Intel has enjoyed, the results are intriguing - all of them opted for the FX-8350 over the current default enthusiast's choice, the Core i5 3570K.


    I'm sorry man but tbh if you bought an Intel CPU for gaming now and paid the premium for gaming you would be, quite frankly, barking mad.

    If you want to fly in the face of pretty much every game developer then that's your call. Personally? it's them that know far more about this stuff than we do.
     
  17. Parge

    Parge the worst Super Moderator

    Joined:
    16 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    12,889
    Likes Received:
    554
    Someone has clearly spent a lot of time convincing themselves that they made the right decision.

    Those graphs are clearly a very poor measure of CPU performance – they show a 5800k as being there or thereabouts as fast as a 3770k. The games and setup they are testing is most likely GPU limited – which leads to the classic bunching affect shown above.

    If we go to a proper hardware site (or here) and look at their numbers, rather than taking throwaway comments from Eurogamer at face value, you'll see that the 3770k beats the 8350 in every test - let alone the 5800k.

    In fairness, I'd still recommend the lower end AMD parts to someone on a budget (6xxx series particularly) - but if you are spending more, the Intel parts still make more sense to me - especially as they are so easy to OC!
     
  18. HelloDelly

    HelloDelly New Member

    Joined:
    13 Sep 2013
    Posts:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    wow.. totally overwhelmed with the responses!:jawdrop:

    Thank you!

    Thought i'd add this is what I was looking at getting personally.. but if it needs tweaking or changing in your opinion let me know..

    I5 1156 cpu
    Gigabyte motherboard, not sure what one just one that will of course support the stuff I want and also a preferable gfx upgrade in the future.
    most definitely 8gb ram.
    1tb HDD and also a ssd for my windows install, min 128gb.
    Novatech 600watt PSU.

    so still not an AMAZING build.. but a little beefy. :naughty:
     
  19. AlienwareAndy

    AlienwareAndy New Member

    Joined:
    7 Dec 2009
    Posts:
    3,421
    Likes Received:
    70
    What you are showing there is nothing but a bunch of old games. Skyrim? engine is just a rehash of the engine that ran Fallout 3 and FONV/etc. It does not support more than two cores. Diablo 3? again, does not use a modern engine.

    All you are doing there is the same old wallbash "Hey, come check out my single core performance !".

    I will reiterate. Single core performance is not something we should give a crap about.

    At the end of the day we should be demanding that software supports our hardware properly yes? well that means true multi threaded support.

    Because otherwise those extra two cores we paid for with the quad core CPU we bought are going to waste yes? Thus, as I keep saying, we need to stop hanging on to what was important in 1998 and focus on the future.

    When I said that AMD had released Bulldozer in an autistic fashion (in the last big ding dong) was that they released an 8 core CPU to a world that still feverishly wanked over single threaded performance. Thus, what was deep down quite a good CPU when used correctly it was nothing but a technical showpiece.

    That's the sort of thing I would care about. I can quite easily ignore the fact that it simply doesn't work correctly and focus more on what it does offer. 8 cores, that when supported properly offer terrific value for money.

    AMD tried all sorts of marketing tricks with Bulldozer but the sad fact is the world didn't care. The game developers did not suddenly think to themselves "Hey ! we should spend a little time implementing this new amount of cores into our game engines so that it works properly !".

    They simply carried on doing what they were already doing- IE - knocking out console games and then poorly optimising the code to run on a PC using brute force from the hardware to get the engine running. At which point you would need two cores, the faster the better. And this saw results that favoured Intel hardware, as their CPUs had the better single threaded performance.

    However, make that engine support and see more cores? AMD begin to claw their way back.

    As for Eurogamer?

    Look man I can't make this any clearer. They spend their lives reviewing games and speaking to the people who make them. In my opinion that leaves them in better stead to garner the facts, and, talk about it directly with those developers.

    That means they are in a position to ask the sort of questions that they asked when they wrote that article. And when every developer comes back and says "Better to get the technology that will be running in the next gen consoles" then that's good enough for me.

    Because quite frankly it's them (those developers they asked) whose mercy we are at.

    Any of the recent AMD Evolved titles work swimmingly on AMD's 8 core CPUs. Funny that !

    So yes. Some older games will run better on just a dual core Intel CPU. That's not something to gloat about, it's the sad reminder that we have been held back by shitty little plastic boxes with woefully underpowered hardware in them.
     
  20. Harlequin

    Harlequin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    7,071
    Likes Received:
    179
    anand reviewed ultra high end cards on amd and intel cpu`s - and within a few fps they were the same (other than shogan for example).
     
Tags:

Share This Page