Posts by wiredotter14

Whatever, buying new isn't much more expensive anyway.
Look up the individual component prices, knock 20-30% off the top, and see if that works—depends on the warranty, I guess. You always get a worse deal when you buy the whole bundle at once.

An i3-6100 might give you a 10% bump in those strictly single-threaded apps, but honestly, the i5 is way better overall. It really comes down to what you're actually trying to do and what kind of budget we're talking about here. You probably don't have two different motherboards just sitting in a drawer so you can swap them out depending on your mood.

HP laptops now featuring 1+2 year warranties

For anyone looking at an HP but was put off by the 🙂 standard 12-month warranty

Nice find.

Did you grab that on Craigslist? How many bucks did it set you back?

crimsonstag84 said:Xeons support ECC memory, maybe a handful of niche instructions, but that's about it. For any actual desktop use, there isn't much of a difference.

The whole Core i7 lineup supports ECC. 😵
I bet they just don't give i5/i7 full support just to push people toward the Xeon platform.

mellowtiger83 said:I

Look, you've gotta be able to run some games, even if it's just on low settings, older FPS titles and stuff like that. And

If there's any way you can, try to aim for something like this

If there's any way you can, try to aim for something like this

http://www.craigslist.org/video-cards-listing-19003474

which is basically the Space Shuttle compared to the other options

fadedorca66 said:You could grab a used AMD Radeon HD 7770, for example.

I think that card requires a PCI-e power cable, which he doesn't have.

P.S.
Maybe his power supply has a Molex connector, gotta check.

crimsonstag84 said:True enough... though you've also got those Xeon options on the 2011-v3 socket. All the -E chips are unlocked.

I've looked at those Xeons, which is why I'm asking. The advertised i7s look pretty much identical—cores, cache, socket, all that. Guess the difference is just architecture and some Xeon-specific features.🤔

Timothy Kim60 said:Better grab a 2011v3 CPU (6 cores, 12 threads). Broadwell-E is right around the corner anyway. Skip the GTX 970 and just wait for Pascal.

So, are those Broadwell-E i7s basically just Xeons built for overclocking?

Maybe this is a dumb question, but

Are you absolutely certain there isn't integrated graphics on that CPU?
The Clarkdale chips on the 1156 socket actually had it. If this is some basic Microsoft Office machine, it might already have integrated graphics built-in.

Bryan Taylor6 said:Look, overclocking an 840k, 860k, or 870k isn't exactly rocket science. You just bump up the multipliers, grab a better cooler... and you're done.

I was checking out the minimum requirements for GTA V the other day, and it calls for a 4-core processor....

Anyway...

Minimum specifications:
OS: Windows 8.1 64-bit, Windows 8 64-bit, Windows 7 64-bit SP1, Windows Vista 64-bit SP2* (*NVIDIA video card recommended if running Vista OS)
Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.40GHz (4 CPUs) / AMD Phenom 9850 Quad-Core Processor (4 CPUs) @ 2.5GHz
Memory: 4GB
Video Card: NVIDIA 9800 GT 1GB / AMD HD 4870 1GB (DirectX 10, 10.1, 11)
Sound Card: 100% DirectX 10 compatible
HDD Space: 65GB
DVD Drive

Recommended specifications:
OS: Windows 8.1 64-bit, Windows 8 64-bit, Windows 7 64-bit SP1
Processor: Intel Core i5 3470 @ 3.2GHZ (4 CPUs) / AMD X8 Ryzen 7 @ 4GHZ (8 CPUs)
Memory: 8GB
Video Card: NVIDIA GTX 660 2GB / AMD HD7870 2GB
Sound Card: 100% DirectX 10 compatible
HDD Space: 65GB
DVD Drive

http://www.rockstargames.com/newswir...d-system-specs

That’s why I said if they're going to overclock, just get an Athlon.
But maybe they won't bother. They need to decide if they actually will or not.

Quads have the edge in certain games, but an i3 holds its own.


In this clip, you've got an i3 6100 against an FX6300, both at stock. They're pretty close.
Plenty of sources show an i3 works fine for multi-core titles. Obviously, an overclocked FX8xxx or an i5 would be better.

So, overclocking an Athlon or an FXa makes sense, but if there's no overclock, there's no real advantage.

P.S.
I'm sticking to my guns: low-end Intel isn't a great upgrade path because you'll end up needing a new cooler and a beefier power supply later anyway. Plus, short-term, you're stuck with a mediocre chip on an expensive motherboard. To me, the best moves are either grabbing an Athlon (overclock it immediately, call it a day, decent enough build) or going with an i3/Pentium and then picking up a used i5 later while offloading the dual-core.
This route wouldn't cost more than an Intel upgrade because:
-A used i5 can be found for $15-$433
-You can sell the i3 for a bit, say $20 $200
-No need to buy a 120mm cooler
-You save money upfront on the motherboard and maybe the PSU.

Robert Rodriguez2 said:I figured putting a quad core in his build gave him a cheaper way to upgrade later. Anything on AM4 is going to be a dead end soon anyway.

I skipped Intel because upgrading later costs a fortune, and honestly, that i3 just feels off to me, regardless of the 2core + hyper threading.

I get where you're coming from, but the OP needs to clarify what they actually want regarding this question.

So:

-Are they planning an upgrade?
-Do they plan on overclocking?

First off, if there’s no overclocking involved, then AMD doesn't even have a seat at the table here. Better to put the cash into a new platform with a decent i3 rather than wasting money on an AMD chip that'll just run at stock—especially since you'd be paying extra for a cooler ($33 which isn't cheap in a build like this)
In my opinion, the i3 6098p beats those quad-core AMD chips at stock frequencies, hands down. I've looked at plenty of benchmarks for CPU-heavy games, and i3s usually match or beat quad/hexa AMD setups.
If you start overclocking, though, AMD can definitely bite back and outperform an i3 or even an i5 for the same or less money.

The idea of a weak AMD build being an "upgrade path" doesn't sit right with me. Sure, the price looks okay, but if they actually follow through on an upgrade, they'll end up selling their processor for pennies, having a leftover cooler they'll get next to nothing for, and then needing to buy a new one anyway (if they move up to a Ryzen 7 Liquid Cooled, it's not exactly some low-power rig).
An ASUS 500W PSU would work, but if they go Intel, they could probably get away with a cheaper power supply.

As a "no-upgrade" build, it's fine, but I'd honestly just go with a Ryzen.
If they want to OC, I'd go Ryzen.
If they want both OC and an upgrade path, go with a Ryzen.

If they only care about the upgrade path without overclocking, I'd go with Coffee Lake—either an i3 or a Celeron depending on how fast they want to upgrade and what they intend to play.

If they aren't doing OC or upgrading, personally, I'd stick with the i3 for the modern platform; even if it's just "meh," it still holds its own in most CPU-intensive games. Though a Ryzen would be fine too.

With any Intel build, you can use a lower-end power supply compared to what you'd eventually need for a Ryzen 7 platform.

That's my two cents. In these tight-budget situations where everyone is thinking about ten different things, the user really needs to state exactly what their goals are and what they're willing to do.
It's pointless to build an upgrade path if the person never intends to open the case, or to prep for overclocking if they aren't actually going to do it. And there's no point building for OC if you're just going to have to swap out half the parts later.

Robert Rodriguez2 said:If he picks that one instead, I'm out. 👍

Why go for a Core i7 instead of a Ryzen?

If they're actually looking at an upgrade path, they should grab the i3 6098 which is $296, especially since that Core i3 is $237 with a cooler. For $59 more (honestly, the gap is smaller because you need a better motherboard for a Ryzen than for Coffee Lake), you get a chip that'll crush a Core i7 in most multithreaded games—not to mention having an actual upgrade path regardless of which power supply you buy (Ryzen 7 aren't toys anymore)

Yeah, it’s mostly just about saving a few bucks. You aren't going to feel a 10-15% clock speed boost anyway. 4460 is plenty for a build like this.

It's basically the same thing—both clearly used
I’m guessing you can test the first one, but with the second, you won't know if it actually works until it's fully assembled

Also, if you grab that second one, you might want to pick up a fire extinguisher too; it'll really drive up the value of your build
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=power+supply
You could probably get one without any certifications and be fine

Or just pick a different power supply altogether

Which series is that PSU?
Jokes aside, it would probably be fine, but if there's any way to avoid using a used Corsair, do it. Better to go with something less powerful but actually reliable

What's the question?

For $600+
http://www.amazon.com/super-flower-gold-psu

And this one’s a decent deal if you want modularity, plus it comes with a 5-year warranty
http://www.newegg.com/fortron-power-supply-500w

Personally, I’d go with $667 this one


Newegg
In my opinion, the Celeron handles most everyday tasks better than that AMD chip.
If you're willing to shell out a little extra, crimsonstag84's build is definitely the superior choice—though I'd probably swap in that Superflower power supply instead. It comes with a 3-year warranty and is highly efficient.

How much gas does an average car actually burn?
Most people are looking at somewhere between 20 and 40 mpg/62 miles, so you're averaging about 30 mpg/62 miles

Computers pull anywhere from 100 to 400W (if they're old school), plus another 100W or so for those bulky CRT monitors

Is it even worth trying to overclock these cards (380 up to 390)?

You need something low-power. This might cut it.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/graphics-card-listing

For that kind of cash, you can find beefier cards around $67, but they're all old relics that pull way too much power (like an old Radeon 3850 or whatever)