A good budget build with Core i3 10300 can be achieved, but performance may be limited.
A good budget build with Core i3 10300 can be achieved, but performance may be limited.
It seems you're weighing options for a mid-range gaming build around $700-$800. You're planning a base setup with a $500 budget, aiming to finish before fall school, and then adding a used 1070 or 1080 later. Typically, I focus on Ryzen for this kind of project, but AM4 boards are scarce. That pushed me toward the i5 9400, which is $160 and has good motherboard availability. However, LGA1151 isn’t an option, so upgrading to a Coffee Lake i7 would be necessary. The i3 10300 matches your price point, comes with stock motherboards, and performs similarly to the i5 9400 in games—though it uses LGA1200, which supports newer CPUs. It has fewer cores but offers flexibility for future upgrades if you need more threads or higher performance later. If you want extra cores, a 10th or 11th gen i5 could work. The article you shared suggests non-K 10th gen CPUs might be overclocked on non-Z chipsets—this claim is debatable and should be verified carefully.
Consider choosing an AMD Ryzen 3 3100 or 3300X if you can afford it. For me, AMD offers better value, and using a good B450 board would support the 4000-series chips.
The main issue is the Ryzen 3 3300x isn’t available anywhere and the motherboards are too. Even though it’s $30 less than the i3 10300—which UserBenchmark says performs about 5% better overall—I wouldn’t think it’s that much more valuable, especially if I have to pay extra for an AM4 board.
UserBenchmark isn't reliable. The 3100 or 1600AF are likely better choices, let's go!
I’m looking for one of those CPUs—either the 1600AF or the 3100—and ideally a matching motherboard, at a fair price. The 1600AF is priced above $160, while the 3100 starts around $200.
There are several trustworthy methods to evaluate CPU and GPU performance, such as benchmarking tools, real-world testing, and comparing specifications.
If you're looking to purchase immediately without delay, I'd examine the i3-10100 closely. It's in stock for $129 and competes well against the 3300x in performance, often winning or drawing within a few frames. Thanks to its lower cost, it retains value better, so future upgrades won't erase much of its worth. In fact, it's only about $130. Paying $300 for a 1080 would be a significant overpayment soon; next-gen Nvidia cards will arrive, and the 3060 should outperform the 1080. @Slayer3032 the i3 is rated 4/8, not 4/4. Also, note he mentioned he wouldn't buy a video card initially—so unless he already owns one, none of the AMD options make sense.
I compared it to the 7700k since the 10300 offers more clocks than the 6700k. I strongly advised against anything in the 9th generation lineup. The newer Intel IGPU looks promising and reasonable, though I’m unsure if it’s compatible with LGA1200. I didn’t lean heavily toward AMD suggestions because the 10th gen is still competitive compared to the 9th, but that’s my overall view right now. My goal was to avoid rushing into something just because it’s the only option available unless you really need it immediately. With the inconsistent availability and Nvidia shifting priorities since the mining boom, I don’t expect Ampere to deliver a significant performance boost. I believe the 3060 will likely sit between $400 and $500 at launch until AMD introduces more compelling RDNA2 cards.
I don't think that's entirely accurate. The 2060 was only $50 more than the 1060 on launch, but iirc had a significantly larger die (so it actually costs more to produce). Since this is a node shrink, on top of the fact we wont see a larger die, we won't see the price increase we saw before. AMD cards are historically disappointing. I don't imagine this will be any different.