New to buying computer, a few questions

[carefreewill]

I'm buying a new computer for myself for the first time, and I have a few questions that have come up. I've researched a bit, but I either get "depends what you want to do with it" with a technical explination of differences that I get lost in, or a vague "can have problems". I'm looking to get a good, mid-level gaming PC that'll last me a few years. I don't need it to run anything new at top spec (I'm not aiming to run the new metal gear for example), but I'd like it to be fairly future proof (I've got my eye on XCOM 2, though there's no system requirements out yet)

Thus far, based on my own research and some friends advice I'm getting 8GB of RAM, and I'm aiming to get a 1920 x 1080 resolution monitor. I've got an idea of what level of processor and graphics card to get.

First, for the processor, Intel or AMD? What I've read seems to say AMD is better value in the range I'm looking at, but doesn't work as well with a dedicated graphics card as Intel. I'm leaning more towards Intel in this, but I'd appriciate knowing exactly what is meant by "doesn't work as well with dedicated graphics cards".

Second, nvidia geforce or AMD radeon? My friends have said get nvidia, citing problems with AMD cards, and the online advice is fairly the same as above; radeon is cheaper for equivalent, but "something something" get nvidia. My current system has a radeon card, but I never had any say in that purchase, and I've got no context to understand if a different card would have been better. It's worked fine so far, but based on the current advice I've got I'm leaning towards an nvidia geforce, am I wrong?

Third, is 1GB of RAM on the graphics card going to be enough? I can't spring much beyond to 2GB, and what I've read suggests that less RAM in a better card is prefferable. What is the measure of a "better card" in this regard? I'm looking at the graphics clock and the memory clock right now, but I'm not sure how big a difference between the numbers needs to be for it to outweigh the difference in RAM. Is the GPU cores number listed useful?

Finally, what to do about the hard drive. I've been looking at the options and I've narrowed it down to three options within my budget. I can just get a HDD, the cheapest option, I can get a hybrid SSHD, or I can get a smaller 120GB SSD and a bigger HDD to hold my games. I can't find much on the hybrid drive that isn't marketing fluff, so I'm not sure if it's worth it. Two drives, one solid state and one hard disc is an option I've seen a couple times along with justification, has anyone got that setup. If either of those options is good, I'll do that rather than just a hard disc.

[SundownKid]

AMD CPUs are inferior to intel, they are only good if you absolutely cannot afford to buy an i5-4460. (In other words, in sub $500 builds) And only because some games wont work with dual cores.

For GPU it's more of a toss-up as Radeon cards are more powerful in lower price points. But AMD drivers are known to be worse and the cards are quite loud and power guzzling compared to Nvidia Maxwell architecture.

You should try to get 4GB of VRAM on the GPU if possible. 2GB is acceptable if you can't afford it, below that is bad.

For the hard drive, get a 1TB HDD first, then get an SSD if you can afford it to hold your OS and various games you want to put on it.

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/hngDgs

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/CzTdVn

[76561198135154379]

Dude, keep it nice and precise next time. TL;DR

- 8GB RAM
- Intel is better than AMD, assuming no price barriers. Fact.
- I dunno what the hell "doesn't work as well with dedicated graphics cards" means. If you plug in a graphics card, it takes priority unless you do some fudging in your BIOS.
- Pick whatever you want. NVidia and AMD bother offer good cards. It's like asking "Toyota or Honda?"
- Graphics cards these days come with at least 2GB of VRAM. At 1080p, it won't be an issue except maybe in rare, intensive games.
- Get a 250GB SSD + whatever sized HDD. No hybrids.

[Spyder]

SundownKid の投稿を引用：

AMD CPUs are inferior to intel, they are only good if you absolutely cannot afford to buy an i5-4460. (In other words, in sub $500 builds) And only because some games wont work with dual cores.

For GPU it's more of a toss-up as Radeon cards are more powerful in lower price points. But AMD drivers are known to be worse and the cards are quite loud and power guzzling compared to Nvidia Maxwell architecture.

You should try to get 4GB of VRAM on the GPU if possible. 2GB is acceptable if you can't afford it, below that is bad.

For the hard drive, get a 1TB HDD first, then get an SSD if you can afford it to hold your OS and various games you want to put on it.

sub 500? lol only a kaveri can be builty with that.

OP disregard this poster, AMD can handle anything and at a cheaper price, which allows room for more video which in the end is better for gaming

[_I_]

amd cpu cannot handle arma3
if hes on a $500 budget, an i3 is the way to go to get a better gpu

[vadim]

carefreewill の投稿を引用：

First, for the processor, Intel or AMD?

Read this article: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106.html
Typically, they write such a review each month.

carefreewill の投稿を引用：

Second, nvidia geforce or AMD radeon?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107.html

As a rule of a thumb: don't buy AMD CPU. They are obsolete (all FX line at least 3 y.o.) and based on extremely unfortunate microarchitecture. AMD has NO gaming CPU atm. At all.

They realized their mistakes a long ago, but they did not have the money to quickly develop new microarchitecture. Their next (and last, if also would be unsuccessful) processor Zen copies many solutions Intel, including SMT instead of failed CMT.

But things with video cards are different: AMD's GCN is relatively old architecture, but it was really very good when it was released and still OK (ofc it inferior to Maxwell or even Kepler, but whats the matter? Its cheaper). AMD graphics has good performance per $ value and I prefer their middle range cards over Nvidia (AMD has not any competitive solutions neither in the lowest nor in the top segments of the market).

[Spyder]

_I_ の投稿を引用：

amd cpu cannot handle arma3
if hes on a $500 budget, an i3 is the way to go to get a better gpu

Correction nothing can handle arma reported even by i7 owners....

[[AU] Tabris:DarkPeace]

ARMA 3 runs fine on my slightly overclocked Core i5-2500k. (Quad Core, No HyperThreading).

With a GeForce GTX 770 OC 4GB WindForce Edition video card and only 8GB of 1600MHz RAM atm.

Upgrading to 32GB of 1866MHz RAM soon though.

Oh, and I have my OS and pagefile on a Samsung 830 SSD.

Maybe having a Creative SB Recon 3D sound card also helps!?

[vadim]

Spyder の投稿を引用：

Correction nothing can handle arma reported even by i7 owners....

And nothing can handle, say, assasin's creed unity?;)
Its a pity, but with my i7 I never had any problems with these games (on my other account, this is on Linux computer).

[Spyder]

Arma 3 could not get 60 fps on even high end i7s so plz go blow smoke somewhere else

[vadim]

Spyder の投稿を引用：

Arma 3 could not get 60 fps on even high end i7s so plz go blow smoke somewhere else

Wrong
http://www.hardwarepal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ARMA-3-CPU-Benchmark.jpg

[Spyder]

vadim の投稿を引用：

Spyder の投稿を引用：

Arma 3 could not get 60 fps on even high end i7s so plz go blow smoke somewhere else

Wrong
http://www.hardwarepal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ARMA-3-CPU-Benchmark.jpg

Ohh and a 4 core amd getting over 100.... when before even an 8 core at 5 gs couldnt get 40
they must have improved cpu game engine performance

[vadim]

Spyder の投稿を引用：

Ohh and a 4 core amd getting over 100

That is MEDIUM settings, if you haven't noticed. But that doesn't matter, you should notice another thing: even 4-core AMD CPU (FX-8350) gives less FPS than cheap dual-core i3.
In ALL 8 games which were tested in this article: http://www.hardwarepal.com/best-cpu-gaming-9-processors-8-games-tested/

[Spyder]

vadim の投稿を引用：

Spyder の投稿を引用：

Ohh and a 4 core amd getting over 100

That is MEDIUM settings, if you haven't noticed. But that doesn't matter, you should notice another thing: even 4-core AMD CPU (FX-8350) gives less FPS than cheap dual-core i3.
In ALL 8 games which were tested in this article: http://www.hardwarepal.com/best-cpu-gaming-9-processors-8-games-tested/

i3 get more performance then 8 core amd? even if true in ONE game? want a cookie or is bohemia adding certain intel extensions....

[vadim]

Spyder の投稿を引用：

i3 get more performance then 8 core amd? even if true in ONE game? want a cookie or is bohemia adding certain intel extensions....

First, its well-known fact that all FX CPU has i3 performance level. Too bad you didn't know that. Second, There is NO 8-core AMD PC CPU. Only console (Jaguar-based). FX-8350 has FOUR cores. Fantasies about 8 core is marketing hype and nothing more. Probably you never learned IT. Third, I gave you link - there are 8 game tests in that article. Not "ONE game". Feel the difference?