Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Same integrated graphics as yours and not lot of processing difference in games but I'd double-check the price-difference on 8600 vs 8400. I like ASUS or Gigabyte - talk to them about compatibility or check their specs.
That would be a bad thing, and make for a much shorter gaming lifespan.
If anything I would spend another 50 to get the 8600 and hope to ride a bit longer on the 15% effective difference.
I would try to get a budget card asap, just for the enjoyment factor. If the 1050TI were still cheap or a 1060 (not so cheap, last I looked).
I get what you're saying. I'm not in any way a fan of integrated graphics and often the AGPUs are junk but as high of leaps as the games are taking in CPU and GPU demands, if the OP downgrades to a lower tech (than 8th gen Intel) it might lead to a situation of not even being able to play games in a much shorter course. Personally, I'd probably go the route you suggested and while that has always worked for me it seems mid-range gaming PCs have shorter and shorter lifespans. Now if it will be 6mos. or more to add a GPU, it might be worth rethinking the purchase.
that will run fallout 4
It's not hype. I never waste the money on the latest CPU. I still run a i5-4790. That doesn't mean that games aren't more demanding and at an acclerated rate. If you think saving $100 or so to get a CPU that is already on the recommended specs by all means, good luck with that.
8700k on the otherhand is considerably more. I would wait until the price drops. If he's not getting a GPU for 6 mos, as it now looks, yes it would be better to build a gaming rig but he'll need to cross his fingers he can run games in 1-2 years.
I don't even think a 6700K is much cheaper than what he's after and those integrated graphics probably won't work, only the 8xxx series. A good solution if used for temporary purpose as the CPU/motherboard is the foundation, wheras GPU is not.
A 6700k costs more than an 8400, yet would not be compatible with a better CPU down the road (the motherboard). In either case that doesn't leave enough for a GPU either. So we're talking a much lower system to cover a GPU. One that won't likely be sufficient for 3 years.