$800 budget build PC

[7Priest7]

If you are certain you want to get a 760 or higher,
Get RS600-PCARE3-US, or any similar non apfc psu.

If you insist on getting a overpriced intel cpu, the one pp mcguire recommended is $200(OVERPRICED) and requires 85watts.
You really should look into AM3+ cpus(fx series) and am3+ motherboard, they are better specs for less $.
The FX-6100 is ~$100 and would give six cores running at 3.3GHz.
The FX-8150 is a eight core with 3.6GHz and is ~$190-~$230.
With the i5 that pp recommended you would only get a quad core at 3.1GHz.
There are quad core 3.1GHz am3 cpus, they cost more due to how long ago they were last manufactured.

The 4GB 760 that pp recommended does not specify it's wattage, it uses a 6-pin and a 8-pin assuming they are standard 75W and 150W it may use up to 225W.
Those are the two highest wattage consumers for your system they would total up to 310 watts, giving you at least 290 watts for the less hungry components.

If you go with the PSU I mentioned at the top, you will be able to use non pure sine wave UPS's.

 

[PP Mguire]

And that i5 which is cheaper than the fastest AMD CPU (the 8350) is also faster in 90% of tasks at hand compared to that same CPU. I suppose you didn't skim the review I linked prior? More cores doesn't make up for less IPC. You're also linking Bulldozer (Zambezi) based processors which are even slower than the Vishera based 6300 and 8350. The term "overpriced" for Intel is for fanboys and ignorant people anymore because nobody with a low budget will look at their actual expensive processors based on the Socket 2011 platform.

I also don't know why you fully insist this guy gets a UPS. Hardly anybody that simply games and browses the internet needs a battery backup. The Seasonic I linked is also of much better quality than the Cooler Master you are recommending he get for a needless battery backup.

 

[efee24]

See, I used to always think that more cores were better. But when I really looked into it and compared the I5 and the 6300 and the 8350 I realized that PP Mguire was right. The I5 is a ton faster than even the 8350 at gaming and certain single threaded tasks. While only just a little bit slower at other multi core tasks. I dont know if I'm saying this all right haha.. but I decided to go with the I5 even though my last build I used AMD a few years back. I guess it's time to try something new

And for the PSU, I don't need a UPS. Where I live our power grid rarely shuts off or anything. Unless there is anything else good about that UPS power supply besides a small battery in it? o:

 

[PP Mguire]

The biggest advantage of a UPS is surge protection and clean power but for a normal user a good surge protector and a quality PSU is a better investment.

 

[Trotter]

If you are certain you want to get a 760 or higher,
Get RS600-PCARE3-US, or any similar non apfc psu.

If you insist on getting a overpriced intel cpu, the one pp mcguire recommended is $200(OVERPRICED) and requires 85watts.
You really should look into AM3+ cpus(fx series) and am3+ motherboard, they are better specs for less $.
The FX-6100 is ~$100 and would give six cores running at 3.3GHz.
The FX-8150 is a eight core with 3.6GHz and is ~$190-~$230.
With the i5 that pp recommended you would only get a quad core at 3.1GHz.
There are quad core 3.1GHz am3 cpus, they cost more due to how long ago they were last manufactured.

The 4GB 760 that pp recommended does not specify it's wattage, it uses a 6-pin and a 8-pin assuming they are standard 75W and 150W it may use up to 225W.
Those are the two highest wattage consumers for your system they would total up to 310 watts, giving you at least 290 watts for the less hungry components.

If you go with the PSU I mentioned at the top, you will be able to use non pure sine wave UPS's.

I will be the first to tell ANYONE that I prefer AMD over Intel, but I will also admit that AMD lost the performance crown several years ago when the Core series came out from Intel.

Eight cores may be more cores but the performance is just not there, period. I may not like it but the truth is the truth.

The only reason to go with AMD now is either to upgrade with them if you already have a motherboard for them, or personal preference. The wattage tale just re-emphasizes the difference with Intel giving you more for less power and less heat.

Enough of the arguing. Let it rest.

 

[carnageX]

The biggest advantage of a UPS is surge protection and clean power but for a normal user a good surge protector and a quality PSU is a better investment.

I'd say the biggest reason to get a UPS is if you live in an area with a lot of thunderstorms/lightning, or in a house/apartment with less-than-spectacular wiring. That's about the only reason I have both of my UPS's.

 

[7Priest7]

Brownouts, read about em!
You are in the middle of a moba match, it is neck and neck, like most of us you live in a populated area, a brownout/(other power anomaly) occurs, the match is lost.
Enough said, a ups for gamers protects the os files from becoming corrupt and allows a gamer to play through a brownout.

It's incredibly funny how PP McGuire gets so upset about everything anybody says that he does not agree with.
He can get more cores at higher Ghz for less money, that is a fact.
He stated he is going with intel, that is his choice.
All options should be presented allowing the individual to make a informed decision.
CPUs do not matter as much for gaming, that is a fact, he could do just as well with a cheaper AMD for gaming.
I've been very happy with my Phenom II x4 throughout the last 3+ years, I have never had FPS/other issues caused by it.

The OP will ultimately deciede if he wants/needs a ups, I am simply giving him information so he can make that decision with more facts.
If he buys a PSU with APFC he will have to spend MUCH more if/when he decides to get a UPS.

 

[carnageX]

It's incredibly funny how PP McGuire gets so upset about everything anybody says that he does not agree with.
He can get more cores at higher Ghz for less money, that is a fact.
He stated he is going with intel, that is his choice.
All options should be presented allowing the individual to make a informed decision.
CPUs do not matter as much for gaming, that is a fact, he could do just as well with a cheaper AMD for gaming.

It may be a fact that the CPU has more cores and a higher frequency, but more cores and higher frequency have little to do with the actual performance of CPU's nowadays. It's more about the underlying architecture of CPU's nowadays rather than just simply having "more cores and higher frequency". Looking at benchmarks is more important than simply comparing cores/frequencies.

Certain aspects of CPU's matter for gaming, but for the most part, you are correct - games don't require super-demanding CPU's. It's productivity programs / the OS that would benefit more from a more powerful CPU.

 

[7Priest7]

Certain aspects of CPU's matter for gaming, but for the most part, you are correct - games don't require super-demanding CPU's. It's productivity programs / the OS that would benefit more from a more powerful CPU.

^ This, the OP explicity stated his intent for the PC would be gaming/web browsing.

What I will be doing with this computer.. playing modern games, video editing, and a looot of general multitasking.

He is free to choose AMD/intel but for his purposes he would probably be just as good with a cheaper AMD.
Having more cores would be advantageous for the "general multitasking."
With the video editing, if he means encoding, then yes get a intel, if he means creating videos/editing videos he would see no significant performance increase by having a intel.

 

[carnageX]

Having more cores would be advantageous for the "general multitasking."
With the video editing, if he means encoding, then yes get a intel(I'm just presuming that a 3.1 ghz x4 i5 can match a 4.2ghz x4 FX-4170 which I find hard to believe), if he means creating videos/editing videos he would see no significant performance increase by having a intel.

Like I said, it's more about underlying architecture nowadays; not purely cores/frequency. Which is why Intel performs better than AMD's, because they have a better architecture nowadays. Back before the Core 2 Duo, AMD was top. After that though, AMD has been having a hard time keeping up with Intel's R&D improving architecture.