Adam Moore3 said:Yeah, looks like you've covered all the bases, except for testing it in a different rig. If everything runs fine with both your old card and the integrated graphics, then the problem is almost certainly that new card you just picked up. You should definitely try it out in someone else's PC before you deal with the headache of a warranty claim.
On a side note, what made you go with that specific GPU? It’s really only good for getting an image on your monitor—and honestly, your integrated graphics or even that old card could probably handle that if they were working right.
Exactly. Either swap it out for something actually useful within that same budget, or put a little more cash toward a decent card if you actually plan on gaming.
So, does the PC function normally when you use a discrete graphics card instead of the integrated one? If it works fine like that, then the chip is essentially DOA (dead on arrival), and you should just file a warranty claim.
fadedsailor17 realizes that these new budget GPUs are absolute trash when it comes to actual performance. You honestly can't run anything demanding on them—at least not if you want decent frame rates at 1080p. Their price-to-performance ratio is abysmal; just take this video as proof.
Both AMD and Nvidia have essentially pulled the plug on that entire tier of hardware. The weakest card in the 3xx lineup is the R7 360, which goes for about $267, while the entry point for the GTX 900 series is the GTX 950 at roughly $130-$$467 (assuming they don't release a refreshed chip for the GTX 750Ti for $333 once current stock dries up). In some cases, the integrated graphics found in modern processors actually outperform these cheap dedicated cards. Most of these low-end options from the old 2xx and GTX 700 series are nothing more than rebranded leftovers from the HD 7xxx, HD 6xxx, or even the GT 6xx and 5xx series.
If possible, via $1000 (excluding the burner), starting with 8GB of RAM
1 x Intel Core i3 Processor 3.10GHz 1 x Gigabyte Motherboard, ASUS ROG Motherboard, 2 x 1.5V DDR3 DIMM 1 x DDR3 8GB (1x8GB) Kingston, Corsair Vengeance, 1866MHz, CL10 1 x Seagate 1TB HDD, Serial ATA III, 7200 rpm, ST1000DM003 1 x FORTRON 400W Power Supply, Intel Core i7, 12cm fan 1 x MS VOYAGER midi tower case without power supply 1 x MSI NVIDIA GeForce GT 360 2GD5 OC, GDDR5 128 bit, (R7 360 2GD5 OC)
What’s interesting is that the motherboard doesn't explicitly list support for that specific processor model click, which honestly makes zero sense since it supports nearly identical chips (it really ought to work). Bottom line: as long as you aren't running into any RAM compatibility issues, I’d definitely recommend flashing to the latest BIOS just to be safe.
Forget about using an optical drive. Do you have a USB stick lying around—maybe an 8GB one? If not, just borrow one for a couple of hours. You can make the OS bootable by using this program, then just head into your BIOS and set the USB as your primary bootable device, and you'll be good to go!
I once installed Windows 7 on an old LGA 775 socket motherboard, and everything worked perfectly—and still does—even though there were absolutely no official drivers available for Windows 7...
Regarding the case, the only thing you lose with the newer tech is the front-panel USB 3.0 port (though you still have full access to the USB 3.0 ports on the back of the motherboard). Just decide for yourself how much of a dealbreaker that actually is.
I took a quick glance at the photos from the Notebookcheck review yesterday, plus checked out some battery replacement videos on YouTube, and I’m still scratching my head over whether you can actually swap out the 🤷 . In theory, there shouldn't be any reason why the SSD isn't removable, but I haven't seen any proof of it anywhere—there aren't any visible screws or a way to pop the cover off...
Honestly, it all depends on the specific game and whether it supports launching from an external source. You’ll just have to test it out yourself, because there aren't any set rules for this type of thing.
Wait, let me get this straight—you wouldn't even consider gaming on a PC with those specs?
I’d just buy everything brand new, honestly, because what I’m running right now is practically prehistoric (I strictly game on PS3/PS4).
My computer is mostly just for browsing the web and watching movies and stuff like that.
In that case, you don't need a PC in that price bracket at all! Especially since you definitely don't need a GPU like an $600—truth be told, you don't need any dedicated graphics card besides integrated ones.
Well, you really need to hunt for the specific sweet spot for your particular processor... That’s exactly what I meant by a "decent" undervolt—not just some generic voltage that works for everyone, but finding the lowest level your specific chip can actually handle without crashing.
Anyway, there are plenty of threads dedicated to this topic. Check out click, click, or click. Most of the common questions, like which settings you need to disable in the BIOS, have already been answered there.
silentwalker28 said:I'm curious if I could actually hit something like 3.8 or 4 GHz with this cooler. People claim you can reach 4.7, but that sounds like total nonsense to me.
Hitting 4GHz is very likely, just as people say—especially if you follow the golden rule of undervolting properly. With an FX 8300, reaching 4GHz usually requires about 1.28v to 1.318v; at least, that’s what I've observed personally using that specific board. Of course, you might find better silicon if you get lucky with your chip. It really comes down to individual standards—specifically, which stress tests you run and how long you push for stability.
The FX 6300 should land somewhere right around that same sweet spot.
Honestly, I wouldn't call that much of a deal. Just look at this one, or this Dell E5 model that comes with a 4-year warranty—plus, you can barely get 8GB of SODIMM for even $100 more than that. You’d actually end up with a better processor and a stronger graphics card than what you linked . Think about it this way: if you grab something like this featuring an i5 and 8GB of RAM, then just toss in a budget-friendly 120GB SSD (like a Patriot Blast or HyperX, for instance), you'll come out ahead.
I heard they recently swapped out an APU for a quad core from the same generation and architecture, claiming the "internal structure" didn't support Windows XP 🤣
Honestly, they didn't really screw anyone over with that suggestion since the quad was a better value anyway, but that "reasoning"? OMG
IBM just isn't playing in the same league as those three companies mentioned above (if we're being brutally honest based on experience). They deal with complaints constantly (check out these recent ones; they supposedly used to be better). That doesn't mean they're untrustworthy—I actually recommend them quite often myself—but if we’re being strictly precise, their service isn't top-tier compared to the best of the best.
Matthew Alvarez said:if something isn't available, they provide high-quality alternative solutions.
I really can't agree with that; in fact, that might be their biggest weakness. At least from my own experience with everything I've ordered, they have NEVER provided the best or most cost-effective alternative when an item is out of stock. It was always something subpar (like a more expensive, inferior DDR3 graphics card) or just whatever they happened to have sitting in the warehouse at the moment. One guy once sent a request to all the relevant shops to build a PC within a specific budget; the guy from Future sent the best proposal, the runner-up was Best Buy, and everyone else (IBM, Centro, etc.) suggested incredibly overpriced and inefficient components.