So here's what I got for about $425: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/14MDA

The Trinity processors are the best budget gaming option right now. It will Crossfire with that video card, and you should be in business.

Switch that 2.5" HDD for a 3.5" HDD and you should be able to get 500 - 750GB (maybe even 1TB) @ 7200RPM for about the same price

Thanks, that looks great.

Sure would like to know if it would run Skyrim on ultra settings though, at a reasonable frame rate (30+ FPS). That would be interesting to see.

After seeing the test results linked above, right now I'm staying away from AMD again (or still) but if anyone has seen a system similar to this with some benchmarks to look at, I would reconsider.

Do you folks think this system would run Skyrim on ultra settings with a reasonable frame rate?

Like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41HTKLjCw9s

LOL!!

Didn't know there would be an exact match out there.

Thank you.

I think I'm sold, just going to wait now until my finances can handle the $500 hit.

Thank you very very much for the build, if that youtube is accurate and he's not lying about ultra and frame rates, this does indeed fit the bill.

Don't know why that was his one and only demand, but he (my nephew) just said he wants it to run Skyrim on Ultra settings. I think it's because he has played Skyrim on his Playstation 3 and apparently he didn't get good frame rates on the PS3 so I guess that's sort of become his personal "benchmark" if you will.

Yeah, I was totally shocked that it was the first Youtube vid I found when looking for Skyrim on that CPU. Keep in mind that he was getting those framerates while capturing video, so the framerates will likely be even better.

The reason your nephew was unhappy with the PS3 version is that it's capped at 30FPS with the relative quality of medium PC settings.

if the PSU is 750w, there should hardly be any problems without SLI/Crossfire set + insane overclocking.

I'm not going to defend AMD. Intel makes better processors for multitasking. You asked about a single game application, which the build I described I use, and which gets over 30 fps in Skyrim with maxed settings.

If you go with intel it's no sweat off my brow, it's not like I work for AMD. I just use them because for the cost versus performance of an AMD system versus an Intel system, I saved a LOT of green going AMD. To compensate for its lackluster performance of multitasking, I spent $45 on 8 gb of DDR3 RAM.

It all depends on what you want to do and how you want to do it. There is no superiority complex or justification in my liking my Phenom processor, other than it cost a LOT less than the Intel equivalent when money was really, really tight.

Yes, and go for an inferior in pretty much every way AMD CPU! It can be done if you get the parts already used, or perhaps find good deals.

This benchmark shows Intel winning over AMD. Tom's $500 PC from last year even included a Pentium G860 and got good Skyrim frame rates. Vishera may be better than the older AMD CPU's, but I think that a Core i3 would be a good choice for Skyrim. If you get AMD, I think that the APU's are a waste, just get a discrete CPU and a discrete GPU.

In any case, Skyrim doesn't see to be too demanding, and $500 looks like it can easily satisfy it.

My apologies, I didn't mean that to be directed at you, as I never even thought of you when I wrote it (in fact, I didn't really think of anyone in this thread when I wrote it, I was thinking of past conversations with big time AMD enthusiasts). I didn't recall you being some big advocate for AMD, but if you perceived it as such, then the fault is mine and I need to do better. I'm sorry.

My "rant" in that post was directed at the over the top defenders of AMD that I have seen here (and elsewhere) and it wasn't even really meant to be an attack, just a plea for a response to those facts. Because it wasn't just one game, it was two on that page, and as I understand it, there were several others that site did that had similar results (the AMD processors being on the bottom of the performance chart) and I wonder what the "response" is from those folks, you know???

Again, sorry if it was perceived as personal remark at you, as that wasn't my intention and it's up to me to communicate better so as not to have that happen.

My bad.

ADDED IN EDIT: (This is also not directed at you CymTyr, as I respect and understand where you're coming from.)

But I found this today, now it's a year old, which I guess makes it ancient in this industry, but these are the kinds of findings that I have a hard time wrapping my head around the big time AMD CPU enthusiasts because I think it appears to me that the only real gain in AMD's is, as CymTry rightly said above, is it's PRICE.

It would be up to each individual to determine whether the drop in performance is worth the price, but I don't think there can be any more debate about the performance, unless, again, I'm missing something and someone knows what a good response to this would be. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-10.html

Is the performance advantage this crystal clear regarding Nvidia graphics cards versus AMD graphics cards or is it just CPU's????

Look, I admit I expected some loss in performance when considering AMD, as that's the way the world works, if it's cheaper, there's a reason, but I wasn't prepared for the level of the loss. As the quote above states, they can't recommend any AMD CPU at any price point. That was what I was seeing when I was looking at the link above and some of the links from that link.

I hope AMD improves because if they don't, and we're left with Intel and Intel only, then it's only a matter of when, not if, Intel's become absolute garbage with no competition forcing them to innovate. Same goes with Nvidia based graphics cards.

It should be possible to rig something together for that price point, but bear in mind, even on super expensive computers going for maximum fps and graphics capability, he'd still see some noticeable drops in certain situations. And unless he goes mod heavy, he might not get what he wants to see, or rather what he thinks "ultra settings" actually mean. For instance, at relatively close distance, windmills will still materialise out of the "invisible fog".

But for all intents and purposes, game looks great under those conditions.

By the way, THANK YOU TO EVERYONE for responding.

And I am sorry if my rant or reaction to some of these test results got under the skin of those involved in the Intel vs AMD debate, it wasn't my intention, it was just genuinely my gut reaction.

I've learned an awful lot in this thread, which is as usual when I post something here at gog dot com. This may be a gaming site, but I find the overall level of knowledge here to be enormous compared to other sites, and I am just grateful once again for those sharing that knowledge.

I hope you folks won't get tired of sharing it because I'm sure it's not just me that's learning from threads like this. I would bet that there's a hundred others reading that gain something. You guys rock for helping so many people.

OFG don't worry about it. I didn't take it as a personal affront or anything like it. :) I was just saying for the price to performance ratio, for me, AMD wins. ;) G'luck with the build.

Your graphics card will most likely eat half of that money. With the motherboard, proc, memory, and hard drive to go seems unlikely to me at ultimate settings to not pass $500. Then again I no longer build AMD rigs as they are just underpowered and I have had problems with their newer CPUs. My last great AMD Chip was the K6-2, but that was what a decade ago.