Economy build for a friend.

[Shadows]

So a buddy of mine has never really been into PC gaming, but is really interested in PS2, and was asking me what it'll cost for a gaming PC.

I'll put it together for him, and the budget for this isn't a fixed number. I just want to show him what it'll cost to make a PC that can run the game. I'm looking for advice on what parts to use for a system that can run the game at a playable framerate at low settings. I'd like to see the lowest price PC we can build to accomplish this. One factor to keep in mind though: I want this system to have room for upgrades. If he decides, down the road, that he wants to sink some money into it and make it run silky smooth FPS at medium - high settings, it needs to be feasible.

No bells and whistles. No special features. Just a system to play PS2.

He has a monitor, mouse, and keyboard. Just need the case and everything that goes inside of it.

It'll be run at as low a resolution as necessary for smooth FPS. His monitor is a 5 or 6 year old 22 inch LCD, but I don't know much beyond that.

Has a copy of windows xp 32 bit.

He's coming from console gaming, with little knowledge of PC hardware so probably no overclocking here.

The purchase would probably be made in 2 months.


Thank you, for any input.

[NumbaOneStunna]

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($94.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: MSI 970A-G46 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($76.98 @ NCIX US)
Memory: G.Skill 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($28.99 @ Newegg)
Hard Drive: Western Digital Caviar Blue 500GB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($59.55 @ NCIX US)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 560 Ti 1GB Video Card ($174.98 @ NCIX US)
Case: NZXT Source 210 (White) ATX Mid Tower Case ($32.00 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Corsair 500W ATX12V Power Supply ($39.99 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: Asus DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS DVD/CD Writer ($16.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $524.47
(Prices include shipping and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2012-07-30 00:59 EDT-0400)

The Geforce GTX 660 should be out within 2 months, possibly you could switch that out for the 560ti for around the same price.

EDIT: If you want to go with a MicroATX board you could save like $20, but alot of people frown on MicroATX so I did not include that. Also, you can skip the optical drive to save some more money, I myself havent used an optical drive on my main PC in years. You dont need a 500watt PSU either, but it was only like $4 more from the 430watt.

EDIT2: As far as upgrades are concerned. The motherboard is AM3+ so it SHOULD support Piledriver bases CPU's when they release. The powersupply should be fine unless you decide to go SLI, in which case it should still be (barely) enough for 2 560 ti's. The ram you can always upgrade for cheap if you ever need more than 4gb. (WinXP 32bit is limited to 4GB) You can also always add in an SSD in the future too. But the #1 thing you are going to need to update is that OS, WinXP does not support DirectX 11, which alot of newer games now require.

[Bags]

PS2 wont require DX 11. At least I don't think they've said it will.

[Coreldan]

Very unlikely if they expect to run it on 4-5 year old systems as their low end

[Mutant]

I would be surprised if there was no dx9 code path. But BF3 did drop it so its not unprecedented.

PS2 might be DX10+ only (most GPUs were dx10 5 years ago). Which would not work (well-it can be emulated) on XP.

[Goku]

I'm pretty sure SOE would of come out awhile ago saying this game won't be DX9. At least people could move towards 7 before the game comes out.

[NumbaOneStunna]

Originally Posted by Bags

PS2 wont require DX 11. At least I don't think they've said it will.

An increasing amount of future games will be DX10 and DX11.

Surely the guy isn't going to play ONLY PS2, so he would need to upgrade from WinXP when he decides to play one of those games. (Like Battlefield 3)

[Rbstr]

on your build numbaone:
An i3 2100 @ $120 is going to be better than the BD according to our rankings chart.

Plus the upgrade potential is far superior...instead of topping at 10% or whatever better than a bulldozer with a pile driver, he can go to an i5.
I'd also just get one 4gb stick...dual channeling doesn't really give you all that much and it leaves you with better opportunity to add more.

The big problem with not going to win7 is you're stuck in 32bit wasting extra memory.

[NumbaOneStunna]

Originally Posted by Rbstr

on your build numbaone:
An i3 2100 @ $120 is going to be better than the BD according to our rankings chart.

Plus the upgrade potential is far superior...instead of topping at 10% or whatever better than a bulldozer with a pile driver, he can go to an i5.
I'd also just get one 4gb stick...dual channeling doesn't really give you all that much and it leaves you with better opportunity to add more.

The big problem with not going to win7 is you're stuck in 32bit wasting extra memory.

The only thing that concerns me about the i3 is that its only Dual Core. A little birdie told me that PS2 is highly multithreaded and will use at least 4 cores. Also, this same birdie told me for a 100% fact that PS2 runs amazing on his Phenom II X4 955.

With that being said, I would rather have the Phenom II than an i3. But yes, the upgrade path to i5 is certainly better if he goes Intel. The price would be $30 higher if he chooses to go with an i3 and an acceptable motherboard.

I don't forsee the op ever upgrading to 16gb ram, therefor I would rather have the 2 sticks for dual channel.

[Rbstr]

Dual core, but it does hyperthread.

Besides that, running well on a Phenom II has no bearing on how it runs on an i3...except we know the i3 is better in almost everything. I, again, refer you to the CPU chart. The 955 and 965 are two bins below the i3 2100. (Few even recommend the Phenom when held strictly to that price point, they actually prefer the SB Pentiums!)

If you really think the Phenom has a chance at being a better choice in PS2...you need to wait until concrete numbers are available in open beta. Otherwise, all the other available data paints it as a fairly poor choice.

[NumbaOneStunna]

Originally Posted by Rbstr

Dual core, but it does hyperthread.

Besides that, running well on a Phenom II has no bearing on how it runs on an i3...except we know the i3 is better in almost everything. I, again, refer you to the CPU chart. The 955 and 965 are two bins below the i3 2100. (Few even recommend the Phenom when held strictly to that price point, they actually prefer the SB Pentiums!)

If you really think the Phenom has a chance at being a better choice in PS2...you need to wait until concrete numbers are available in open beta. Otherwise, all the other available data paints it as a fairly poor choice.

Hyperthreading actually makes gaming worse, its the reason why people who buy i7's for gaming turn it off. You should know this.

I would rather spend the $30 instead of "upgrading" to an i3 to buy a better GPU, he could get a 570 for around $30 more, which would actually make a difference because lets both face the facts, neither an i3 or a Phenom II is going to bottleneck a 560ti.

For gaming GPU > CPU > Ram > HHD/SSD

[Rbstr]

Yeah, I should know that...if it wasn't just an example of the inability of people to do the research, because it's a wash at best:
http://www.overclock.net/t/671977/hy...ading-in-games.
http://www.benchzone.com/page.php?al...ce_part1&pg=14
But that's not really part of the argument. I was simply stating it did hyperthreading.

The argument is that Intel makes much more sense as a CPU here. It does not only from a performance standpoint but an upgradeability standpoint. Pretty much everything available points to the Intel cpus being better at gaming.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...mark,3120.html
Makes a pretty clear case for the Pentium G630 (a $70 chip) over the 955. (Admittedly the 965 gets 300mhz over the 955.) Then the i3 simply trounces it, not even the X4 980 wins that.

The only question that matters then is "In PS2, does quad core offset the advantage the budget Intel CPU's have everywhere else?"
Well, we just don't know, and we'll have to wait.

Which is a recurring theme: If we're building a budget computer, especially those that make the claim of "being only for PS2", we really need to get some info on which parts are most effective.

[NumbaOneStunna]

Originally Posted by Rbstr

Yeah, I should know that...if it wasn't just an example of the inability of people to do the research, because it's a wash at best:
http://www.overclock.net/t/671977/hy...ading-in-games.
http://www.benchzone.com/page.php?al...ce_part1&pg=14
But that's not really part of the argument. I was simply stating it did hyperthreading.

The argument is that Intel makes much more sense as a CPU here. It does not only from a performance standpoint but an upgradeability standpoint. Pretty much everything available points to the Intel cpus being better at gaming.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...mark,3120.html
Makes a pretty clear case for the Pentium G630 (a $70 chip) over the 955. (Admittedly the 965 gets 300mhz over the 955.) Then the i3 simply trounces it, not even the X4 980 wins that.

The only question that matters then is "In PS2, does quad core offset the advantage the budget Intel CPU's have everywhere else?"
Well, we just don't know, and we'll have to wait.

Which is a recurring theme: If we're building a budget computer, especially those that make the claim of "being only for PS2", we really need to get some info on which parts are most effective.

Nothing you said matters in the slightest, I did not even read it. You know why?

Because neither CPU is going to be a bottleneck for a 560ti, so CPU selection does not matter. It would be much better for the OP to spend the money on a better video card.

I guarantee you my Phenom rig will outperform your i3 any day of the week hands down, no contest.

[Eyeklops]

Originally Posted by NumbaOneStunna

Nothing you said matters in the slightest, I did not even read it. You know why?

Because neither CPU is going to be a bottleneck for a 560ti

This is really a game dependent issue. No way to tell where PS2 is going to fall yet (CPU or GPU limited). Not even people in early beta can really tell, mainly because nobody will know until the servers reach full population/load.

[Bags]

That one guy with the sunglass avatar that's a PS2 team poster seemed to hint that it's hard to use a lot of cores when writing software.

cycles mchurtz or something.