Posts by wiredotter14

If you're looking to build a rig, yeah, grabbing an Intel Core architecture motherboard and pairing it with a used CPU actually makes sense.

The specs said it has DVI-D, which doesn't output an analog signal at all—so adapters are a total waste of time. You're going to need either a DVI-I port or a VGA (D-Sub) out.

Honestly, why there isn't any HDMI is a mystery. Maybe they saved $0.50 by skipping audio over HDMI and dodging those tiny licensing fees.

feraljackal21 from Microsoft:

It’s got a USB 3.0 header, so you can plug in the case ports

But if you're running a VGA monitor, you'll need a motherboard with a VGA port or at least a DVI-I output. This one only has DVI-D, which is why crimsonstag84 suggested that other board with the VGA output instead.

boldfox372 said:not bad looking... actually pretty cheap too :-) except for the OEM black ink $60, but what about the refill $4.75??! am I crazy or does something smell fishy here??!

nah, the price of refill ink mostly comes down to whatever chip is sitting in the cartridge—basically, you're paying for the chip, not the liquid.
I've got a printer where the cartridges don't even have chips, so I pick up 72ml bottles for about $5.00.

Nah, going with Intel means you actually have an upgrade path and better power efficiency

You can just order this online for delivery. No need to hit up a local store if it ends up being pricier at Microsoft

Regarding what crimsonstag84 said, you could easily throw in more Dell RAM, a new GPU, or even a better CPU—though honestly, that i3 is plenty beefy enough

crimsonstag84's setup has an SSD and a much beefier processor, yet it’s barely more expensive than the other two options. What's the catch?

Because maybe the VRAM isn't even a factor here... we really need more specifics to figure out the actual requirements.

crimsonstag84, price is solid, but the GTX 1060 is sitting right there. Honestly, they’ve got a bit more longevity, so I wouldn't call either of them a "best buy" just yet.

Heh, alright then. 😁

When I first picked up this rig with the Radeon HD4890, I figured I’d be replacing the whole setup in maybe 4 or 5 years—especially since Nehalem was about to leave the Core 2 duo and quad setups in the dust.

Now, this platform is almost hitting the decade mark, yet it could still handle "next-gen" resolutions.

Timothy Kim60 said:wiredotter14, I don't buy that Vishera is better than yours for gaming (hell, nobody really tests that stuff anymore). At 3.8GHz, you’ve got better single-core performance than that thing at 4GHz (which costs a few hundred more). Sure, its multi-threading is stronger, but that gap doesn't mean squat in gaming—Vishera just has way too many threads for what games actually need.

When it comes to overclocking, just get it off those low stock clocks. Once you push past 3GHz, you're fine enough.

The i7 920 is from 2009. Piledriver was back in... what, 2011 or 2012?
I thought that first generation Core was somewhere around there with IPC similar to Piledriver. Multi-threaded performance isn't my worry here; those 8 threads can still pack a punch.

Finally pulled off a decent overclock, though I was sitting at 3.2 before this.
But lately, I've been dealing with absolute nightmare I/O errors on my drives (both SSD and WD Green), and one HDD in that rig is already totally corrupted.
Decided the issue was the Intel SATA controller, so I picked up a PCIe x1 SATAIII controller and now everything is running smooth as silk.😁

Once I swap the thermal paste, hopefully these 3.8GHz temps drop below 84-90C.😵😵

Yeah... stock clock is garbage. That CPU is honestly one of the best overclockers ever made.😁
And if games keep heading where they're going—new APIs, more multi-threading, higher resolutions—these older processors might actually become solid upgrade platforms. For instance, an FX83xx at 4.5GHz could probably hold its own against quad core i7s, which was unthinkable back in the DX11 days (not to mention thinking about DX9 XD).

I've got a similar board. It’s already rocking USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gbps, so honestly, there isn't much you're going to gain by upgrading.

Timothy Kim60 said:Hardstyle

Your CPU at 4GHz is basically an FX 8350. Given your motherboard and cooler, you might hit 4.2 or 4.3GHz optimally, depending on the specific chip (obviously, aim for the lowest voltage that stays stable).

The first link doesn't give you hard data on bottlenecks, but you can see games will run great—it’s not a total mismatch.

The second link shows you'll hit a CPU bottleneck in single-core bound titles (like ArmA 3, Fallout 4, etc.), but those are the minority. ArmA 3 is a mess on its own, and I'm pretty sure Fallout 4 was one of the last AAA titles to be heavily single-core bound (using an engine that's just a modified version of some old, clunky junk from the 90s). Everything else is negligible. Even if there's a bottleneck at 1080p, your minimum FPS will stay above 60 or 70, which doesn't really matter anyway.

Even in those games where the FX bottlenecks at 1080p, the ratio improves drastically at 1440p. So your plan makes sense; that's usually how the benchmarks play out.

Raymond Anderson14 said:Would it definitely work if I just grabbed those two for my current setup? 🙂 If so, that'd be sweet... plus a second monitor would be great (1080p side - 1440p main).

The New Guy already explained everything. You should have checked the links.

Timothy Kim60 said:Probably. Especially if you've got that Core i7 920 overclocked. BTW check that other link above. Even in those games where the FX bottlenecks at 1080p, the ratio improves drastically at 1440p, so your plan makes sense—that's basically what the benchmarks show.

thanks for the link
Overclocked my Core i7 920 to 3.8GHz today and it's holding steady. Might need to repaste though; temps are hitting near 90 on Prime95 (it is summer, after all).
I guess my CPU is still slightly weaker than Vishere at 4.0GHz, but the bottleneck is actually pretty low at 1440p.

Got an SSD. An alternative to that combo would be a 1440p monitor plus maybe a Radeon RX 480. It'd cost a few hundred dollars less since I'd have to buy new RAM too, grab a new CPU+Mobo+GPU+RAM, and say goodbye to my X58 :'( and I'd still end up at 1080p, which I'm currently pushing fine on the Pitcairn (Grand Theft Auto V runs without issues on Normal, and can even handle High).

moral of the story....insisting on ultra settings is just throwing money away.

Hardstyler, if I were you, I'd definitely go for 1440p, especially if you're eyeing a GeForce GTX 1070. You only change two things—the GPU and the monitor—and you'll have a setup that's a whole class above. Otherwise, you won't really see the extra detail. 1440p is nearly double the resolution, and the GeForce GTX 1070 was practically built for it.

Just use your current monitor as a second screen; having dual monitors is great for work.

those two are $2500, right within budget 🎉

Let them try testing component by component. It might not even be the power supply; could just be one of those Titan cards acting up. They should try running with just a single Titan, unplug the DVD drive and all that other junk, and if the crashes keep happening after all that, then they can blame the PSU. For example, if it still crashes with only one Titan, or if both Titans work fine individually but fail when paired together.

Depends on what games you're playing. It might help, but honestly, you won't notice much difference on your current monitor. Try pushing the overclock a bit further; with that cooler, you should definitely be able to hit 4.2-4.3.

With that kind of cash, you aren't finding a motherboard and CPU combo that beats what you've already got. Honestly, there isn't anything worth plugging into that board anyway.
Have you tried overclocking? If not, get on it. If it runs too hot, just grab a decent cooler for $67

TNG...that’s why I’m pushing for 1440p if you actually have the cash to burn.
When it’s finally my turn to upgrade—once I’ve scraped enough together—I’ll probably grab a card around the $833 mark and pair it with a 1440p monitor. I'll squeeze every bit of life out of this i7 920 until it eventually gives up the ghost 🙂
Honestly, I think focusing on that will give me more bang for my buck than trying to overhaul both the CPU and GPU at once, especially since I can't justify spending that much for just my three setups.

I think there’s a huge crowd out there who doesn't actually realize what they're missing by sticking to 1440p. They just push for maxing out 1080p because marketing makes "Ultra Settings" look like the holy grail for everyone. For years, 1080p was the gold standard, and cranking up the settings actually felt worth it since you could see the difference. But nowadays? Tech has moved way past 1080p. All these insane graphical options being pushed for HD are basically useless at that resolution.

@smartic
plus he'll need a matching monitor

http://www.bestbuy.com/monitor-deals-led--8053771

or something similar

@TNG

fair point, but I think messing with tiny details kills the value proposition. Like you said, you basically need a GTX 1080 just to hold steady at 60FPS.
That’s why I think it's better to just aim for 144Hz or 1440p—you actually feel the difference compared to jumping from "very high" to those insane "ultra" settings.

BTW, what's your take on an overclocked FX chip for 1440p? I saw some benchmarks where it trailed behind a Skylake i5 running at lower clocks, but it still managed to stay above 60FPS in most games (pretty sure the card was a GTX 1070).