Posts by Sean Garcia3

Robin Young7 said:Oh, and heads up—the PSU in the link is wrong. I'm actually running a Corsair CV450.

We figured the power supply was junk right away, so we swapped it out for better, higher-quality units that come with a 5-year warranty. We also went with a single 8GB stick of RAM instead of two 4GB sticks. Since that motherboard only has two slots, using one stick leaves you an open slot for an upgrade later on; if you use both 4GB sticks now, you're basically maxed out. Besides, whether it's one stick or two doesn't really make a difference anyway.

Larry Ortiz5 said:AMD offers better value for the money. That doesn't mean their card is actually better than Nvidia's; Nvidia has better tech, better architecture, and better drivers, which is why they charge more. Please don't mix those things up. You ask for advice and then try to act like a know-it-all just because you've owned both AMD and Nvidia and think you're an expert. Just because the Nvidia GTX 970 only has "just" 3.5GB of VRAM doesn't make it a bad card, and it doesn't mean nobody will buy it anymore. It's plenty good for 1080p and even higher resolutions, just not for 4K. And what's this about CPUs? You're talking about processors now for some reason...

That whole driver argument doesn't hold water with me. I have two setups at home—one in the living room and one in my bedroom. One is an Intel and Nvidia build (GTX 760 and a 4670k) and the other is AMD (x4 750 and an R7 265), so I can tell you firsthand: I haven't had any issues with drivers.
Just because Nvidia has more features doesn't mean anything; they don't exactly change the gameplay experience. At the end of the day, you look at FPS, so you can pretty much ignore the rest.
If being $100 cheaper in the mid-range, or up to $150 less in the high-end segment, isn't enough of a reason for you to go with AMD since those cards are actually more powerful, then I don't know what to tell you besides that you're talking nonsense.

Don't get me wrong, the Nvidia GTX 970 is a great card. I was actually thinking about picking one up myself, but when you're spending that kind of cash, the product needs to be absolutely flawless so people don't $1000 trash it.

And yeah, I can "act like a know-it-all" because I earned my own money. It didn't just fall from the sky, and my parents aren't buying my components for me, so I actually know the value of a dollar.

Larry Ortiz5 said:Personally, I’m not sweating it. I’ve got the card mentioned right here, and even without a massive monitor resolution—since most people just game at 1080p anyway—you won't run into issues. Sure, if you're pushing 4K, you might have problems, but let's be real: a card like this isn't built to handle 4K on standard settings without stuttering regardless.

EDIT: This might come off as a bit cocky or rude, and look, I’m not exactly a die-hard fanboy for either Nvidia or AMD, but in most cases, Nvidia just brings more punch to the table while pulling way less power than Team Red. Once AMD drops their new series and releases cards meant to compete with the Nvidia GTX 970, they’ll likely be sucking up way more electricity. It’s always been like that. Nvidia is pricier, sure, but there’s a reason for it.

Let’s not kid ourselves here. If we're being honest, my money is usually on Intel and Nvidia over AMD, but you really have to look at certain things objectively.

Power consumption is one thing, but don't confuse it with raw performance. You aren't going to notice the difference in your electric bill, and anyone running a decent rig isn't using some bottom-of-the-barrel power supply that can't handle a high-end card. Besides, those older Nvidia 700 series models weren't exactly saving a ton of juice; that efficiency jump really started with the 900 series, and we still have to wait and see how AMD responds to that.

Just compare any AMD card to its Nvidia counterpart in the same tier. Almost none of them beat Nvidia in pure strength, except maybe for the GTX 780 Ti or Nvidia GTX 980, for which AMD hasn't released a direct rival yet.
And let's be clear: AMD cards are consistently much cheaper while offering better bang for your buck in terms of raw power. If we were judging based solely on price-to-performance, AMD would take a massive lead, but if we're strictly looking at cards within the same performance bracket, AMD actually offers a much wider variety.

Check out these examples and tell me if I'm wrong:

AMD R7 260 / AMD R7 265 is stronger than Nvidia GTX 750
AMD R7 265 is stronger than Nvidia GTX 750 Ti
AMD R9 280 is stronger than Nvidia GTX 760
AMD R9 280 x is on par with Nvidia GTX 770
AMD R9 290 is stronger than Nvidia GTX 780

We’re still waiting on the new AMD lineup, so it’s too early to compare them against the latest Nvidia stuff, though AMD's older cards still hold their own quite well.
And honestly, that damn PhysX is useless. Hardly any games even use it. I actually screwed myself by picking an Nvidia GTX 760 over an HD 7950 Vapor X just because of it.

Bottom line: Intel wins when it comes to CPUs (though AMD still holds the edge in the budget segment), but AMD takes the win when it comes to GPUs.

Look, I've already scrolled through all those threads. All I'm saying is that while it's true there aren't many games hitting that 4GB VRAM limit right this second, things are shifting fast. Next-gen titles are dropping constantly, and they're going to change the game. My goal with this card is simple: I want peace of mind for the next two years. I want to crank everything to max settings and pull around 40 FPS without having to stress about a single thing.
That $1000 was hard-earned; it didn't just fall from the sky for me to blow it on a GPU with compromises. Right now, I've got an Nvidia GTX 760 in my rig, which is still a total beast. Aside from the last few major releases, I've been able to max out almost everything and play without a hitch. Honestly, I’d rather just hold out until AMD drops their lineup. It’s tradition for them to have the beefier cards anyway, so I don't mind waiting. I can easily knock out the titles I haven't played yet on my Nvidia GTX 760 through 2014—there's at least ten left—and then move on to the heavy hitters once I upgrade.
Bottom line is, I'm a sucker for ultra settings and I need everything on max, so I'll probably just hang tight for a few months until AMD makes its move.

Alright folks, I've got $1000 sitting in my pocket right now and I was leaning towards picking up an Nvidia GTX 970. But honestly, I've been second-guessing myself all day because I saw some reports about this card having issues actually utilizing the full 4 GB of VRAM. Apparently, it only really uses 3.5GB of VRAM, which apparently tanks performance in games that demand more. Meanwhile, the Nvidia GTX 980 doesn't seem to have that headache. From what I read, the VRAM on the Nvidia GTX 970 is split into two parts—one part is 3.5GB that stays active, and then there's another 0.5GB that only kicks in when a game pushes past that 3.5GB limit. I have zero clue how much truth there is to that, but I'm seriously considering just waiting for AMD to drop their next series. I have a feeling they might build something that absolutely crushes Nvidia's new lineup, maybe something hitting that level of power we saw with the AMD R9 290/290 x.
I’m no genius here, so does anyone have any advice or actually know what's going on with this situation? Also, if you guys already own an Nvidia GTX 970, have you actually run into this issue yourselves?

1 x AMD Radeon R9 270
1 x Fortron 500W Power Supply, Hyper, PPA5005003, 12cm fan
1 x DDR3 8GB (1x8GB) Kingston Fury, 1866MHz, CL10

Total:$840 Micro Center free shipping!
If you don't have a decent cooler, you seriously need to grab at least this one unless you’re looking to overclock because that stock cooler that comes with the processor is garbage—it'll be loud as hell and your CPU will just overheat.

Roger Mitchell4 said:👍 I’m picking up a budget rig in about 6 months (Ryzen 5 3600, some basic motherboard, GTX 260x, 8GB RAM), which is why I was asking. So, if I have 8GB of RAM, will Windows 32-bit only actually use 3.2?
Which one should I go with, Windows 8 or 7?
Congo is built for gaming! 😁

Personally, I ran Windows 7 64-bit and now I'm on Windows 8.1 64-bit. Honestly, I can tell you that 8 is faster and just works better.

Man, just grab this bundle and you're basically set right away 😉

1xGigabyte RX 580

1xAMD FX-8320 Box 3,5GHz - 16MB Cache - 125W BOX

1xGigabyte GA-970A-DS3P motherboard

1xCosmo Cool LC-CC-95 - CPU cooler

1xKingston Technology ValueRAM 8GB DDR3 1600MHz Module

1xXFX PRO550W

1xWD Blue 1 TB SATA

1xLC-Power PRO-923B - Red Captor

Total: 5 items $59 Free assembly and shipping from the local shop!
If you sign up for the PC Expert forum, you get a 3% discount, which brings the total down to $1674 😁

GTX 960s just hit the shelves at Futura

EVGA iChill GTX 960

Inno GeForce GTX960 OC 2GB GDDR5 128bit

And honestly, they priced these things so high right out of the gate that they're basically a bad deal, especially when you look at the $633 r9 280x

hahaha 😂 🙏

Why is it that so few games actually use PhysX? Is there any chance we'll see more of them down the road?
For instance, I ended up grabbing a GTX 760 instead of the Sapphire HD 7950 Vapor X specifically because of PhysX, yet so far, the only game where I've actually gotten to mess around with it is Metro: Last Light.
It honestly feels like a waste that the software gets so little love; those effects are actually pretty cool, and everything just looks way more immersive and alive when you have it turned on.

Alexander Moore67 said:I'm building a PC right now and I'm short about $133 so I was wondering if you could lend me some cash since it's nothing to you. I'll pay you back when I can...

If we were actually friends, I wouldn't care, but since we aren't, sorry, not happening...
Honestly, why are people getting so worked up? Like I said before, just read my last sentence. From here on out, if anyone finds something unclear and feels the sudden urge to comment just to be difficult, please just do that.
To me, $133 isn't a huge amount. I get that it might be for someone else, but you can't exactly know what someone else's budget looks like. I gave a rough example and explained myself—if people can't grasp that, that's on them.

Timothy Kim60 said:If the GTX 960 hits $200 in the States, there's no way we see anything lower than $567
here.

Like I said, I'm looking at around $1700--$600 though I doubt it'll go higher since the upcoming GTX 960 Ti shouldn't cost more than $800 anyway, especially with the GTX 970 sitting right below it at $1000. Plus, I'm low-key impatient to see what AMD brings to the table with the new series; they'll probably pull some crazy move with 6GB of VRAM or something. 😁

Well, honestly, that wasn't exactly a shocker given how much power that GTX 970 pulls.

I mean, I'm not exactly expecting it to crush the R9 280 by much—maybe a tiny 1-2 fps bump at most. What I’m actually looking for is a lower price point so it can actually compete with the R9 280 or even the 285, maybe sitting around the $170-$$600 mark. My main reasoning is that since the GTX 960 Ti is coming out for it, it should probably land about 5-6 fps ahead of the GTX 770, especially with 4GB of VRAM. I'd guess the price would land somewhere near $230-$$800.

Robert Rodriguez2 said:The point is, every single time you agree to a build, you somehow manage to blow past the budget by $100, $200, or even $500. It doesn't matter what the actual limit is—you just ignore it and pick whatever you feel like, completely disregarding what the OP actually asked for.

Look, we’re building this PC based on what the OP actually asked for, not based on what I want, what you want, or whatever random idea some tenth person has in their head. If you need to go over budget, just do it—that’s honestly the easiest part of this whole process.

Don't... I'm just not feeling it.

Adam Moore3 said:Just because you think $150 isn't a huge amount doesn't mean it's pocket change for the OP. If they really wanted to just toss $1167 at the rig, they would've just said so instead of putting "3000" right there in the title... Plus, they already mentioned they're running a 500W PSU for a future upgrade.

Look, it's all good, no need to get defensive. Just read my last sentence. 😉

Honestly, you’re better off just stretching the budget a little bit $133 so you actually get a decent case, a 1TB hard drive that'll outpace that Toshiba, 8GB of RAM, and a solid 500W power supply. Throw a GPU in later and you're golden. I don't see the point in being cheap here—it's not like we're talking massive amounts of money, and it makes a huge difference for the whole build. You'll thank yourself later.
Bottom line: this is just an example. If you really don't want to break the bank, pick one of the cheaper builds listed above!

Here’s how it looks:

1xIntel Core i5-4440 https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i5-4440-processor/p/N82E16816136372122

1xASRock H81M-HDS https://www.newegg.com/asrock-h81m-hds/p/N82E16813131234

1xKingston Technology ValueRAM 8GB DDR3 1600MHz Module https://www.newegg.com/kingston-technology-valueram-8gb-ddr3/p/N82E16817215345

1xSeagate BarraCuda 1TB SATA HDD, Serial ATA III, 1000 GB https://www.newegg.com/seagate-barraCuda-1tb-sata/p/N82E16822351234

Total: 2 $268 On Newegg, if you sign up for the PC Expert forum, you can snag a 3% discount, bringing the total to $907 (plus free shipping)!

1xFortron Hyper 500W, 80+ http://www.futura-it.com/catalog/computer-components/power-supply-hyper-500/

1x Zalman Z3, USB3.0 black, 3x120mm http://www.futura-it.com/catalog/computer-cases/zalman-z3/

Total: $232 Futura-it.com

So, the specs for the GTX 960 finally dropped. I'm curious what you guys think—is this thing actually going to hold its own against the R9 280, or is it just going to be a step down? Also, any idea what kind of price tag we're looking at?

http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/news/...?storyid=11652

http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/news/...?storyid=11646

silentcobra3 said:Hey,

Is the Cooler Master Hyper 212 actually better than the Corsair Arcadia?

The issue is I can't find any decent reviews for the Cooler Master Hyper 212 (not that there are many anyway), so I figured I'd just ask you guys: should I go with the Cooler Master or the Arcadia?

The Cooler Master Hyper 212 is the better case. You basically get four fans right out of the box, whereas the Arcadia only gives you one. It's generally built better too and is easily the current best buy. The only difference between the Z3 and the Z3+ is that the Z3+ has a clear side panel; everything else is identical.