# Top ten best gaming pc for under $700?



## CannonFodder (Dec 29, 2012)

I'm probably going to be looking for a new pc next semester and short question is what performance wise is the best gaming computer for under $700 and what are the specs? and do you think I should upgrade anyhow?  Links to where I could buy them online?

The computer I'm using right now is 2.8 ghz processor, 4 gb ram and 500 gb hard drive with a 1 gb video card.


----------



## Saga (Dec 29, 2012)

Im guessing were talking about a laptop here? No desktops?
Acer Aspire V3-571G-6407 with GT 630M graphics card. It costs just over 600 dollars at the moment.

Intel Core i5-3210M 2.5GHz, up to 3.10GHz
4GB of DDR3 memory installed
500GB (5400rpm) SATA hard disk drive
NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M 1GB DDR3
15.6" CineCrystal LED-backlit display 1366 x 768
Microsoft Windows 8 64-bit but could always be formatted and reloaded with windows 7.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 29, 2012)

cyanogen said:


> Im guessing were talking about a laptop here? No desktops?


Oh hell no.  Desktops for life.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Dec 29, 2012)

By 'Top Ten' do you mean you want pre-assembled models that you buy off the shelf?  You'd save money and have greater flexibility if you just ordered the parts yourself.

You'd want an Intel 'Ivy Bridge' i5 3570K CPU.  Bout $190-$220
A compatible Socket 1155 motherboard.  Prices here REALLY range from the low to the top end, you'd need to be more specific about your needs, but midish range would be around $100.
8GB of RAM, which is like... 30bux?  RAM is cheap.
Some PSU, 500w or better. $50-$70, assuming you don't have a PSU to recycle already.
HDD, that varies by size, but again you could have one to recycle.

After that, all else you need is a graphics card.  ATI or Nivida are fine, people have their own preferences and if $700 is what you want to spend just put the remainder of the budget towards GPU.

For a high end processor, I'd suggest avoiding AMD.  While I love AMD's low and midrange offerings, their high end stuff are basically gas guzzlers.  What an Intel CPU can do with 77w TDP, an AMD CPU needs like 125w TDP to do the same.  They just suck in electricity and spew out heat.


----------



## Vibora (Dec 29, 2012)

I'll ask my brother. He is a hardcore pc gamer.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 29, 2012)

AshleyAshes said:


> By 'Top Ten' do you mean you want pre-assembled models that you buy off the shelf?  You'd save money and have greater flexibility if you just ordered the parts yourself.
> 
> You'd want an Intel 'Ivy Bridge' i5 3570K CPU.  Bout $190-$220
> A compatible Socket 1155 motherboard.  Prices here REALLY range from the low to the top end, you'd need to be more specific about your needs, but midish range would be around $100.
> ...


I'm pretty used to building my own computers by this point.

Well crud.  Looking at your suggesting I should probably save up my money for a bit and then buy something better.  Thanks for the info though.

I should probably just upgrade my current computer again.  What is the best LGA 775 cpu I can buy on market?


----------



## AshleyAshes (Dec 29, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Well crud.  Looking at your suggesting I should probably save up my money for a bit and then buy something better.  Thanks for the info though.



Why save up for 'better'?  $200 for a CPU, $30 for RAM, $100 for Mobo, $65 for PSU, $50 for case, $200 for a graphics card, $50 for a HDD, that's like $695.  It's under your budget and it'll build you a pretty great system.  Well, pretty 'good' considdering you could alternatively spend $1500 on a graphics card alone if you really, REALLY wanted to.  But your budget is pretty reasonable to build a machine that could play most any game tossed at it, maybe not Crysis 3 at maxed out settings, but it'd be fine at medium.  And that's just ballparking it.  If you shop around, use a site that does price matching, you could probably spend a fair bit less, and again you could likely have parts you could recycle, like PSU, Case and HDD that'd also go to shave money off the cost

And, frankly, getting a high end LGA 775 CPU would cost you $200 as well.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 29, 2012)

AshleyAshes said:


> Why save up for 'better'?  $200 for a CPU, $30 for RAM, $100 for Mobo, $65 for PSU, $50 for case, $200 for a graphics card, $50 for a HDD, that's like $695.  It's under your budget and it'll build you a pretty great system.  Well, pretty 'good' considdering you could alternatively spend $1500 on a graphics card alone if you really, REALLY wanted to.  But your budget is pretty reasonable to build a machine that could play most any game tossed at it, maybe not Crysis 3 at maxed out settings, but it'd be fine at medium.  And that's just ballparking it.  If you shop around, use a site that does price matching, you could probably spend a fair bit less, and again you could likely have parts you could recycle, like PSU, Case and HDD that'd also go to shave money off the cost
> 
> And, frankly, getting a high end LGA 775 CPU would cost you $200 as well.


Ugh, I'm really on the fence.
Let me look this up and OooOOoh I spy with my little eyes a nvidia geforce gtx 660.

Okay I'm sold.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Dec 29, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Ugh, I'm really on the fence.
> Let me look this up and OooOOoh I spy with my little eyes a nvidia geforce gtx 660.
> 
> Okay I'm sold.



Now be smart and shop around.  I don't buy from US eTailers, but you shouldn't have much trouble finding one that price matches.  You can then use a service like PriceBat.com or something similar to search various eTailers online to find the best price, then submit those prices to where you're buying from for price matching.  This way you get the best deal not just from one site, but from MANY sites, while only making one order from a single site.  Why spend money that you don't have to spend?


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 29, 2012)

AshleyAshes said:


> Now be smart and shop around.  I don't buy from US eTailers, but you shouldn't have much trouble finding one that price matches.  You can then use a service like PriceBat.com or something similar to search various eTailers online to find the best price, then submit those prices to where you're buying from for price matching.  This way you get the best deal not just from one site, but from MANY sites, while only making one order from a single site.  Why spend money that you don't have to spend?


I've bought parts online before.  The only problem I've had before was the ups dumbfuck I've complained about in the past tossed a package of mine that was my ram sticks.

As for why I'm willing to spend $700.  While everyone else was on christmas break and me stuck here I put in a ton of applications for jobs that everyone rushes to try and get when the semester starts.  So when the semester starts people like me who realized, "hmm maybe I shouldn't wait until the last minute to turn in job applications and actually do them before anyone else makes a mad dash going 'please please please give me a job even though it's a month into the semester and I lack the foresight to apply earlier'" will be sitting pretty in a nice cozy job while all the other college students are going to complaining about not having jobs.


----------



## shteev (Dec 29, 2012)

You'd save more money going AMD, their top-tier processors are speedy enough for running games well - especially if you overclock them. Buying an AM3+ board will also allow you to get AMD's 8-core processors, as well. 

You really can't go wrong with a Phenom II x4. Intel may be faster, but not by much. And if you save money on the processor, you can get a higher end GPU, which will benefit you more for gaming.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Dec 29, 2012)

shteev said:


> You'd save more money going AMD, their top-tier processors are speedy enough for running games well - especially if you overclock them. Buying an AM3+ board will also allow you to get AMD's 8-core processors, as well.



But they arn't much cheaper.  The closest thing to the i5 3570k would probably be the AMD FX-8150 and in various benchmarks they sorta come out toe-to-toe, in some one does better and the other does better in other benchmarks.  But you have this massive disparity in in energy efficenty.  The FX series just sucks down juice and spews out heat at 125w, where as the i5 3570k is rated at 77w.



shteev said:


> You really can't go wrong with a Phenom II x4. Intel may be faster, but not by much. And if you save money on the processor, you can get a higher end GPU, which will benefit you more for gaming.



Except it's old and slow?  And AMD Phenom II X4 (Quad 3.2ghz) 955 is about half (More like 60%) as fast as an i5 3570k (Quad 3.4ghz) in terms of actual processing power.  'Not by much' is fairly inaccurate.


----------



## shteev (Dec 29, 2012)

AshleyAshes said:


> Except it's old and slow?  And AMD Phenom II X4 (Quad 3.2ghz) 955 is about half (More like 60%) as fast as an i5 3570k (Quad 3.4ghz) in terms of actual processing power.  'Not by much' is fairly inaccurate.



It's cheap and doesn't lag at all. I've got one at 3.8 gHz and I never notice any hiccups, at all. In real time performance, you can't notice any difference. Only when you're giving each processor a slew of work to do, you'll notice the difference - and a benchmark that does this really isn't realistic. A gaming build needs a more powerful GPU, so if you get a substantial CPU and spend more on your GPU, you'd be set. It doesn't even have to be a Phenom II, the FX-4300 is $70 cheaper and will run just as well as the i5.

Also, who cares about power or heat? This isn't a laptop.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Dec 29, 2012)

shteev said:


> It's cheap and, when overclocked, doesn't lag at all. I've got one at 3.8 gHz and I never notice any hiccups, at all. In real time performance, you can't notice any difference. Only when you're giving each processor a slew of work to do, you'll notice the difference - and a benchmark that does this really isn't realistic. A gaming build needs a more powerful GPU, so if you get a substantial CPU and spend more on your GPU, you'd be set.



And getting a decent CPU now ensures that the CPU isn't what holds the system back in the long term.  I argue that the Phenom II are just too freakin' old in the year 2012.  Benchmarks support this arguement, similar configurations with i5 2500Ks or i5 3570Ks (BOth are more or less the same thing, just one is newer at a smaller die size) vs various Phenom IIs puts the Phenom II at a disadvantage, with very modern games it's a signifigant disadvantage.  You're actually right though, it is cheaper, but when building a gaming PC you need to considder not just what something costs you now, but what keeping it up to date will cost you LATER.  With an a higher end AMD or Intel CPU, you'll get a lot longer life and ultimately higher value from a better CPU.  (THough this stops being true when you go into the big super high end CPUs).  The i5 3570K right now is considdered the vest CPU you can buy in terms of value and long term usability, though there's a good arguement for a AMD FX chip the Phenoms are out of the question for building a gaming PC that's to have any kind of long life.

Myself I have a slightly older i5 2500K, basically just the Sandy Bridge version of the newer Ivy Bridge i5 3570K and if this machine was solely going to be a gaming PC, even though it'll be two years old in May it won't need to be replaced for anotehr 2-3 years so long as the GPU is kept up to date.  (Though I'll replace it much sooner, but I'm getting into computer animation, so this workstation will have a Six core Intel moster a year from now, while the i5 2500k guts will be installed into a headless renderfarm box)

And congratulations on overclocking your Phenom II, meanwhile my i5 2500k is overclocked to 4.4ghz, can run circles around yours and I only paid $198 for it.



shteev said:


> Also, who cares about power or heat? This isn't a laptop.



Because grown-ups have other considderations, like their electrical bills, their HEVC costs to counter the mountains of heat that are ejected from their machines, and the ammount of noise the machine produces.  Also, if overclocking is your goal, something that's much more power efficent has more overclocking oveheard without needing third party cooling solutions to keep it from exploding.  This again adds to the value of the chip as a whole.  Why get a 77w i5 3570k?  Because you can overclock the hell out of it even using the stock Intel cooler.


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 29, 2012)

AshleyAshes said:


> and long term usability


And you just sold me to to the Ivy Bridge.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Dec 29, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> And you just sold me to to the Ivy Bridge.



Yeah, my i5 2500k, the ONLY reason I intend to replace it (And it'll keep being used, just demoted into sitting in a renderfarm box) is because I'm getting into computer animation.  Like, even on this great $200 CPU it took 13hrs to to render a 500 frame animation of 3 trucks falling from the sky and colliding with each other.  And those wern't even DETAILED models. :X  I just need more raw power, not just in the workstation but in other machines to help it render.  If it wasn't for that, I'd just upgrade my GPU in spring/summer, and keep this thing trucking till it was at least four years old.  (I mean, it has 32GB of RAM in it, that's not gonna be 'not enough' for a gaming PC for another 4-5 years even!)


----------



## shteev (Dec 29, 2012)

AshleyAshes said:


> And getting a decent CPU now ensures that the CPU isn't what holds the system back in the long term.  I argue that the Phenom II are just too freakin' old in the year 2012.  Benchmarks support this arguement, similar configurations with i5 2500Ks or i5 3570Ks (BOth are more or less the same thing, just one is newer at a smaller die size) vs various Phenom IIs puts the Phenom II at a disadvantage, with very modern games it's a signifigant disadvantage.  You're actually right though, it is cheaper, but when building a gaming PC you need to considder not just what something costs you now, but what keeping it up to date will cost you LATER.  With an a higher end AMD or Intel CPU, you'll get a lot longer life and ultimately higher value from a better CPU.  (THough this stops being true when you go into the big super high end CPUs).  The i5 3570K right now is considdered the vest CPU you can buy in terms of value and long term usability, though there's a good arguement for a AMD FX chip the Phenoms are out of the question for building a gaming PC that's to have any kind of long life.
> 
> Myself I have a slightly older i5 2500K, basically just the Sandy Bridge version of the newer Ivy Bridge i5 3570K and if this machine was solely going to be a gaming PC, even though it'll be two years old in May it won't need to be replaced for anotehr 2-3 years so long as the GPU is kept up to date.  (Though I'll replace it much sooner, but I'm getting into computer animation, so this workstation will have a Six core Intel moster a year from now, while the i5 2500k guts will be installed into a headless renderfarm box)
> 
> Because grown-ups have other considderations, like their electrical bills, their HEVC costs to counter the mountains of heat that are ejected from their machines, and the ammount of noise the machine produces.  Also, if overclocking is your goal, something that's much more power efficent has more overclocking oveheard without needing third party cooling solutions to keep it from exploding.  This again adds to the value of the chip as a whole.  Why get a 77w i5 3570k?  Because you can overclock the hell out of it even using the stock Intel cooler.



Shouldn't I be a gleaming example of long term usability? I did say that my computer runs well, no? It's not about the benches, it's about how it runs in realistic scenarios. Don't tell _me _that my CPU is too outdated when I'm the one that owns it and vouches for it. And I _did_ mention the FX chip, and how it's basically the same thing as the i5 except for less money, so thank you for further affirming my point that one doesn't need to spend the money on the i5 when the FX is just as good.

It's power usage is lower than the Phenom, as well - 95 watts, meaning you can overclock it to give its already-higher-than-the-i5 frequency a boost. It should also be mentioned that if you're is really power conscious, you can perhaps make sure you don't leave any lights on or any doors slightly open, because that'll make more of a difference in your electric bill than buying an Intel processor for your computer will.



> And congratulations on overclocking your Phenom II, meanwhile my i5 2500k is overclocked to 4.4ghz, can run circles around yours and I only paid $198 for it.



And I'm glad you made it a point to add some insult here - really shows that you're a grown-up, like you tried to convey earlier with your "because grown-ups have other considderations" argument. Nice spelling of "considerations", I might add.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 29, 2012)

I'm sorry but I'm going to agree about intel. AMD are becoming quite the power consumers. My electric bill went way down once my friend moved out with his Phenom II (and I'm the one who bought the parts for him!).

I run more devices now and it still is less power consuming than an AMD.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Dec 29, 2012)

shteev said:


> Shouldn't I be a gleaming example of long term usability? I did say that my computer runs well, no? It's not about the benches, it's about how it runs in realistic scenarios. Don't tell _me _that my CPU is too outdated when I'm the one that owns it and vouches for it.



And that's NOW, it' runs okay NOW, but when someone is spending the money on a new gaming PC, they'd like what they spend their money on to be relevent a lot longer than 'Right now'.  $20 says you won't be running that three year old processor in your machine two years from now.



shteev said:


> And I _did_ mention the FX chip, and how it's basically the same thing as the i5 except for less money, so thank you for further affirming my point that one doesn't need to spend the money on the i5 when the FX is just as good.



Just as good, except much less efficent.  Which is not 'Just as good'.  To many that's a signifigant caveat, it's also why then the FX series came out, they were on par (Actually a bit more expensive than) the comparable intel parts price wise but have been slashed since.  They arn't selling.



shteev said:


> It's power usage is lower than the Phenom, as well - 95 watts, meaning you can overclock it to give its already-higher-than-the-i5 frequency a boost. It should also be mentioned that if you're is really power conscious, you can perhaps make sure you don't leave any lights on or any doors slightly open, because that'll make more of a difference in your electric bill than buying an Intel processor for your computer will.



And those slower running 8XXX chips consume less power because they run slower.  You'll be consuming the same wattage when you clock them up to the speeds of their 125w brothers.  It doesn't offer any overclocking advantages over the 125w models.  I really don't understand why you're remarking that the clock speed is higher than that of an i5.  Clock speed doesn't matter for anything, except when comparing the speed of similar chips.  Just because the clock speed is faster on one chip doesn't mean it does more work than another chip.  That's why AMD needed 8 cores to go toe to toe with Intel's 4 cores.

Look, it's simple, your AMD Fanboyism isn't any use here.  You need to make the practical considderation and your arguements boil down to 'Buy a 3 year old processor that's half as powerful as current Intel processors because you can get it for $100' and 'AMD's parts are better cause they're like $30 less than Intels, at the cost of signifigantly more power consumption, more heat, and less overclocking headroom without third party cooling solutions.'  AMD used to make great top of the line CPUs, they even made great enterprise CPUs, but Intel is ruleing the roost right now and they offer the most reasonable and overall economical buy.  But this is only in the top teir.  AMD's Llanos and Trinity's offer great options in the midrange and their low powered chips like the E-350 and E2-1800 are great on nettops and netbook type machines.  I have an E-350 in my living room and my HTPC is an A6-3500, great for what they cost and have much better integrated graphics solutions than anything Intel offers.  But at the top end CPUs that'll be used in gaming machines?  Intel, Intel, Intel.


----------



## shteev (Dec 29, 2012)

Arshes Nei said:


> My electric bill went way down once my friend moved out with his Phenom II (and I'm the one who bought the parts for him!).
> 
> I run more devices now and it still is less power consuming than an AMD.



The entire computer was removed, though. Not just the processor. Perhaps he had other components that sucked power in there, as well?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 29, 2012)

shteev said:


> The entire computer was removed, though. Not just the processor. Perhaps he had other components that sucked power in there, as well?



We had similar specs otherwise.


----------



## shteev (Dec 29, 2012)

AshleyAshes said:


> Look, it's simple, your AMD Fanboyism isn't any use here.





AshleyAshes said:


> Intel, Intel, Intel.



And you're just the opposite - an Intel fangirl. 

Say what you want about the brand you prefer, the way things are is as follows: AMD is cheaper and nearly as quick as Intel. Intel is more efficient at processing than AMD, meaning their processors can be clocked lower and have fewer cores and still do the same amount of work, but they're a bit more expensive. This makes sense, no?

What doesn't make sense to me is your "longevity" argument. I was using my Phenom as an example of AMD's longevity, how an old CPU is still a viable solution today. I wasn't suggesting that it should be bought _now_, that's why I brought the FX-4300 up. The 4300 and the i5 are rough equals, the user will have similar experiences with both. Both of them will also last long because they're both hot processors now, so there really isn't any defining buying point for Intel. The only difference is that the AMD processor is cheaper.

Although, you might want to go with an Intel build because there are some nice motherboards for Intel processors.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Dec 29, 2012)

shteev said:


> And you're just the opposite - an Intel fangirl.
> 
> Say what you want about the brand you prefer



But I also said that I have various, current, AMD hardware employed in other roles and I think that hardware is excellent in those roles.  I then go to say that Intel being ideal for high end applications is only currently true, it's a role that AMD once held intil Intel abandoned Netburst, and it may very well change in successive generations?



shteev said:


> AMD is cheaper and nearly as quick as Intel. Intel is more efficient at processing than AMD, meaning their processors can be clocked lower and have fewer cores and still do the same amount of work, but they're a bit more expensive. This makes sense, no?



But efficency is ACTUALLY important to consumers and it's been one of the driving forces behind move to more and more energy efficent desktop hardware.  10 years ago hardware review sites didn't include energy efficency benchmarks in in their reviews, *now they do.*



shteev said:


> What doesn't make sense to me is your "longevity" argument. I was using my Phenom as an example of AMD's longevity, how an old CPU is still a viable solution today. I wasn't suggesting that it should be bought _now_



Actually, you did say to buy it now.



shteev said:


> You really can't go wrong with a Phenom II x4.



That's you, suggesting someone buy it, now, that's what you saying to buy it now looks like.  Do you see it?





shteev said:


> that's why I brought the FX-4300 up. The 4300 and the i5 are rough equals, the user will have similar experiences with both.



No, they arn't.  Here, look, benchmarks where an i5 3570K mops the floor with an FX-4300:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/4
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/processors/amd-fx-4300-1117775/review (Oh look, it's on par with an i3 in this one...)
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...615-amd-vishera-fx-6300-fx-4300-review-3.html  (Just keep flipping through the pages of this one)

It's not even slower than the i5's by an 'arguable margin' it's a HUGE difference.  It's at near or at the bottom in performance in most of the benchmarks while the i5's sit near the top just under the i7's and FX-8XXX's.  For you to say the FX-4300 is equal to an i5 3570k is so blatently wrong it's not even funny.


----------



## shteev (Dec 29, 2012)

Okay, right, yes.

I'm entirely wrong.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 29, 2012)

AMDs are also fine for illustration which is what my friend uses his for. You don't need an all powerful processor to do illustration. It's just less energy efficient.

I don't even recommend i7 to fellow artists even though I own one since the i5 is fine enough. I only recommend the i5 for fewer upgrades in the future. In other words, what's a good cpu for an illustrator for 5 years


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 30, 2012)

Okay now that I have it all sorted out for the most part, what graphics card should I get?  The computer I'm planning on building will use pci3 and my monitor is vga(don't laugh).  I can splurge a bit on this bit.  As long as it's under $400.

I'm looking for a graphics card that's at least 2gb, but I need to keep the voltage under 400v.  If the graphics card is around the $200 mark I can just buy a new monitor for it.


----------



## Saga (Dec 30, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Okay now that I have it all sorted out for the most part, what graphics card should I get?  The computer I'm planning on building will use pci3 and my monitor is vga(don't laugh).  I can splurge a bit on this bit.  As long as it's under $400.
> 
> I'm looking for a graphics card that's at least 2gb, but I need to keep the voltage under 400v.  If the graphics card is around the $200 mark I can just buy a new monitor for it.


 Did the nvidia kepler come out yet?


----------



## Lobar (Dec 30, 2012)

I have an AMD machine (built before Sandy Bridge) and these days I always advise getting Intel for a gaming machine.  It's not fanboyism, the price disparity simply is not what it was 3 years ago.  Sandy Bridge completely changed the CPU market and AMD is still playing catch-up.

If you're not planning on overclocking (though you should, it's damned easy), you can save a few bucks by getting an i5-3350P instead.

edit: here have a quick build


----------



## CannonFodder (Dec 30, 2012)

cyanogen said:


> Did the nvidia kepler come out yet?


Not yet.


----------



## shteev (Dec 30, 2012)

I thought the 600 series _was _Kepler?

And I'd say go with Nvidia - I've used both AMD and Nvidia GPU's and I was more satisfied with Nvidia. Plus you get technologies like PhysX and Cuda.

This 670 looks like a nice card, and I trust EVGA. (Solid cards, great customer support/warranties.)


----------



## Saiko (Jan 5, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Not yet.





shteev said:


> I thought the 600 series _was _Kepler?


Not the entire series (670M is Fermi along with a couple others), but most of them are Kepler, my 660M included.

I only just started understanding graphics cards and can't suggest a particular one, but look at the boost clock rates, not the core. The boost is what your card will actually perform to under load. Also check for DDR5 memory. And of course use comparison charts, particularly those showing price/performance ratios; so you don't pay $100 more for like one frame.


----------



## Dubkinz (Jan 12, 2013)

If you can manage to cough up a 100$ more you could get a Toshiba satellite P875. I have one, great for games and home work. The computer screen is 17.3 inches, i7 processor, 8GB of ram, and about six hours of battery life browsing the web at medium brightness


----------

