ps4 or computer

[meepboop]

I was wondering If I should build a computer for Christmas. I only have $500 but I have a good set up

• AMD FX 6300 3.6 Ghz
• 16 GB ram
• AMD R460 4GB or MSI GeForce GTX 960
• 1 TB or HDD
• 128 GB ssd

I've heard this is the best setup fro $500 but I've seen a couple different builds. Now for my next question, Is it worth the money to build a gaming computer If I already have a ps4. I'm not sure I If I should just use my money on other games instead. please help me because I'm not sure. I want to build the computer because sounds like a fun experience and It would also help me get work done faster because I wouldn't have to wait for loading time.

 

[beers]

What current computer do you have?

 

[meepboop]

https://www.amazon.com/HP-Special-15-an050nr-15-6-Inch-Laptop/dp/B015W7OTGG

 

[beers]

wouldn't have to wait for loading time.

What loading time are you waiting on now?

For productivity there's no real reason to buy another computer, that laptop is pretty capable. You can throw a SSD in it for additional speed.

 

[meepboop]

it can be slow some times and cant run games well

 

[AMD_man]

it can be slow some times

Like beers said, that can be solved with an SSD, assuming you mean slow like "Chrome takes 20 seconds to open".

cant run games well

That´s what the PS4 is for, unless you want to play other games as well. In that case the answer to the post is pretty clear.

 

[Geoff]

https://www.amazon.com/HP-Special-15-an050nr-15-6-Inch-Laptop/dp/B015W7OTGG

That has integrated Intel 520 graphics, it's not going to play games well.

I say it depends where your friends are. Do you have friends that play PC games? What about PS4? Remember it cost money to get the most out of PS4 online gaming, and generally the games are more expensive.

 

[Cisco001]

Is there a reason you have a laptop initially?

If you are likely to use laptop more, how likely will you using desktop?

I just wonder if it worth to sell your laptop for $200 - 300, then top up the fund for laptop with discrete GPU/ desktop.

Personally won't get FX6300 now, unless it is cheaply from ebay.

 

[meepboop]

I have the laptop for school and some of my friends play ps4 and some pc games

 

[opencircut74]

If a new computer is what you are debating over, you can get a decent computer that can play games at respectable framerates here- https://pcpartpicker.com/list/DQmmNN. This build uses 4 physical cpu cores and a brand-new gpu to get the best of your money. It includes the operating system and a 240GB PNY ssd.

 

[AMD_man]

If a new computer is what you are debating over, you can get a decent computer that can play games at respectable framerates here- https://pcpartpicker.com/list/DQmmNN. This build uses 4 physical cpu cores and a brand-new gpu to get the best of your money. It includes the operating system and a 240GB PNY ssd.

Get ready for the "AMD sucks" storm.

 

[Geoff]

If a new computer is what you are debating over, you can get a decent computer that can play games at respectable framerates here- https://pcpartpicker.com/list/DQmmNN. This build uses 4 physical cpu cores and a brand-new gpu to get the best of your money. It includes the operating system and a 240GB PNY ssd.

Get ready for the "AMD sucks" storm.

AMD doesn't suck, but investing in such an outdated platform right now is not a good move. You are much better off going with an Intel i3 Skylake CPU.

 

[opencircut74]

AMD doesn't suck, but investing in such an outdated platform right now is not a good move. You are much better off going with an Intel i3 Skylake CPU.

This is not necessarily true. The x4 845 is is only 8% worse when it comes to multi-core speed, a must for modern games. Also, the budget does not allow a better CPU. Most games are more heavily GPU, which is why core 2 duos can play overwatch at 50 fps, given a decent graphics card is installed. The SSD and RX 460 are great for gaming on a budget, as they are fast and powerful. The CPU is not outdated, as it's architecture was released in 2013, a time where we still had graphics intensive games such as the ones we have now. The i3 is hyperthreaded, but having four physical cores will always be better than 2.

 

[Geoff]

This is not necessarily true. The x4 845 is is only 8% worse when it comes to multi-core speed, a must for modern games. Also, the budget does not allow a better CPU. Most games are more heavily GPU, which is why core 2 duos can play overwatch at 50 fps, given a decent graphics card is installed. The SSD and RX 460 are great for gaming on a budget, as they are fast and powerful. The CPU is not outdated, as it's architecture was released in 2013, a time where we still had graphics intensive games such as the ones we have now. The i3 is hyperthreaded, but having four physical cores will always be better than 2.

My point still stands, the Skylake platform has much greater upgrade-ability than the ancient FM2+ platform. I mean heck, it still uses DDR3.

 

[Darren]

The core efficiency of a i3 6100 vastly outweighs the supposed benefit of having 4 true cores. Dual with HT and much better core efficiency is way better off than the Athlon. I'm a diehard AMD fan and would take that i3 any day of the week. More than anything buying FM2+ in 2016 is foolish and prevents you from doing any future upgrades without a whole new platform.

 

[AMD_man]

Well actually AMD does suck. It´s always behind Intel and owes it´s success to the low prices they offer, which comes in handy when on a budget but an Intel+NVIDIA combination has no match. This is kind of off topic though.

 

[Geoff]

Well actually AMD does suck. It´s always behind Intel and owes it´s success to the low prices they offer, which comes in handy when on a budget but an Intel+NVIDIA combination has no match. This is kind of off topic though.

The new Zen processors are looking to be a significant competitor, even besting Intel's comparable CPU's in early benchmarks.

 

[Darren]

The new Zen processors are looking to be a significant competitor, even besting Intel's comparable CPU's in early benchmarks.

Not only that but back in the 2000's AMD definitely had the edge against Intel. It's just since probably the Phenom days they've lagged behind with Bulldozer and Vishera being the more recent feeble offerings.

 

[AMD_man]

The new Zen processors are looking to be a significant competitor, even besting Intel's comparable CPU's in early benchmarks.

What do you mean by comparable CPUs?

I think AMD is behind on terms on technology and development. Just now using 14nm transistors. The same happened in 2011 when they launched the Bulldozer. Intel had been using 32nm since 2008 (with the Nehalem architecture). I like AMD, but it´s really hard to compete with specialized monsters like Intel and NVIDIA at the same time. Only AMD can do that and of course that is more than huge. But is still only good on low budget choices. If you have the money you should always go Intel.

 

[beers]

If you have the money you should always go Intel.

Change your name.