Would any of you actually buy a car or a PC at Kroger? 😬 The selection isn't anything special; once you get past $153, you can find plenty of 1TB portable drives at any hardware store for instance,
Usually, these things come with a 3-year warranty, though I wouldn't be surprised if Kroger only offers one year.
Well, $333 you can still track down an HD7950 (R9 280) if you look hard enough. It might not be a guaranteed find every single day, but that’s pretty much the standard market rate. It reminds me of how back in the day, you could snag a 280x (HD7970) for that exact same amount of cash.
Personally, I wouldn't even bother messing around with used hardware in a situation like this; I’d just grab an NVIDIA GTX 750 Ti from Asus. I'm not quite sure which 270 you're referring to, but here's the reality: 1) those two cards are essentially identical in performance, 2) you're looking at a shorter warranty and potentially a subpar cooling solution, 3) there's always that nagging risk of getting scammed by a shady seller, and 4) if I were actually going to take a gamble on the used market, I'd be hunting for much more powerful cards for that kind of cash, because this isn't exactly a steal.
Then you're looking at a 19" monitor. The power supply should handle any of those GPUs just fine. It wouldn't be a bad idea to overclock the CPU, too; since all the graphics cards are priced pretty similarly, you won't have to lose much sleep over a potential bottleneck. Grab it while it's still available (otherwise, they’ll be $67 more expensive, and if you go with an Asus model, even more than that)
Look, that’s just some YouTuber, and those up there are reviews from four major tech outlets. It could be another valid angle if it holds water—basically, improved AMD drivers versus Intel's struggles. But honestly, I’m not totally sold yet.
Broadwell uses DDR3, whereas Skylake (which moves to DDR4) actually features an integrated GPU that's weaker than both Broadwell and those AMD options. It's important to note that Intel and AMD handle their GPU architecture quite differently; Broadwell pulls its performance from that expensive L4 cache (128 MB of eDRAM) combined with a significantly larger iGPU footprint thanks to the advanced 14nm process—where the processor and iGPU essentially split the die fifty-fifty. Because of this, AMD's integrated graphics from those specific generations aren't actually more powerful (you can see that in the links provided above); they might be more efficient, since they squeeze slightly lower performance out of a smaller area on a 28nm process using fewer transistors and cores, all while being found in much more affordable processors. One guy actually gave a pretty entertaining and vivid explanation of this using horses and donkeys here.
But look, nobody really cares about the "how"—the bottom line is that they are more powerful. It's just that Intel chose to offer them in high-end chips, making them more of a trophy feature for premium processors, and honestly, the people buying those rigs usually have a dedicated GPU anyway .
When you start talking about performance, things get a little complicated because modern games and updated drivers change the math entirely. Back in the day, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti was clearly superior, but nowadays, the AMD Radeon R7 260X is right up there—it might even pull ahead since the AMD Radeon R7 360 sits just above it click. That said, if I had to pick a winner, I’d lean toward the 750 Ti. Just a word of warning: stay away from that specific EVGA model with the single red fan. I've heard the cooling on that one is absolute garbage; two guys on another forum actually had to swap in aftermarket coolers because it was so bad. I'm not sure how the dual-fan version holds up, but it should be decent. If you happen to go with the 260X, definitely steer clear of the XFX Core Edition with the single fan ovaj
Those cards should perform flawlessly on a 17" monitor (maybe 1280x1024?)
Adam Moore3 said:It’s honestly hilarious how people love to make fun of something like an FX 6300. Around here, that's considered a solid mid-range CPU that you'll find tucked away in just about every budget build for around $300.$1333They’re talking about some bottom-of-the-barrel, low-end CPU that you’d only find in a budget rig built in a basement—the kind of junk you'd probably beat with a baseball bat. 🍿 How on earth are they planning to fit a GTX 960 and an FX 6300 into a $500 build? 😲
They went with a cheap motherboard without any aftermarket cooling, plus a basic case and PSU combo, and they even slightly blew the budget. They even threw in an SSHD. Honestly, they basically gutted the rest of the build just to squeeze out every bit of performance for gaming by prioritizing the CPU and GPU.
The whole thing was just meant for laughs, but they clearly didn't appreciate it. They even went as far as saying it’s actually a more than solid gaming PC—it exceeded their initial expectations. Regarding the CPU, the consensus was that while it might not be the best choice if you were pairing it with dual GTX 980s, it’s perfectly fine given we're running a GTX 960. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that logic. The issue is that these guys exclusively chase high-end gear, mostly sticking to 2011-v3 builds, so naturally, budget-friendly setups don't really excite them. You can tell they don't even know how to mindlessly throw together a budget build for a specific price point—something any average guy on this forum could whip up in his head. They just don't think about it that way because they rarely encounter it.
Anthony Hall4
Bryan Taylor6 is absolutely right here. In this specific situation, your best bet is to pick the CPU that allows you to pair it with a more powerful graphics card.
I think they might have tweaked Far Cry 4 (and maybe even Dragon Age: Inquisition) to make them playable on dual-core setups, though you can't really bank on that since it's all thanks to the modding community.
If you've been watching Linus Tech Tips, you'll notice he avoids dual-core processors for a reason—I believe I've seen him mention it at least twice. They tend to prioritize an Athlon over a Pentium, and if that's not an option, they'll go for an FX 6300 before touching an i3.
(And man, what a total mess of a build; just a basic stock cooler and nothing else. 🤣 )
Certain games just stutter heavily when you try running them on a Pentium—think Watch Dogs, GTA V, and stuff like that.
I’m not saying it’s weak—it’s actually the most powerful integrated GPU we’ve seen so far. The problem is that if you look at those first two reviews, you get two completely different stories. One makes it look like it’s closing in on the GTX 750, which would be incredible (maybe just a testing fluke or that trick I mentioned earlier), while the other review claims it’s worse than a GTX 750 with DDR3 memory in the same game, which is just plain bad. Again, likely a mistake, since it outperforms that card in almost everything else. Since both reviews dropped at the same time from sites owned by the same person, you can't really blame it on biased results.
edit
It’s only after seeing a third opinion that we can actually draw a reliable conclusion:
Since it sits about 7-15% above the integrated graphics found in the 7850K and 7870K—which are already just slightly behind a GTX 750 with DDR3—it's safe to say the Intel HD Graphics performs roughly on par with a GTX 750 using DDR3.
I definitely agree that it makes no sense for them to exclude this from Pentiums, i3 chips, and the rest of the lineup.
analogtiger19, that Iris isn't actually all that powerful; those benchmarks on that hardware site are basically an optical illusion. You can see they tested the dedicated GPUs on an Athlon, dropping the resolution to put maximum strain on the CPU—using a really demanding title where a discrete card just can't keep up. There’s also a real possibility they just messed up the testing process. Take a look ovdje; in GTA V, it actually performs worse than the R7 240 2GB DDR3 when running on that same processor. At the end of the day, no integrated GPU is even in the same league as an HD 7770 or a 250X . In almost any other game, it outperforms the R7 240 DDR3 by about 30-60%. It just goes to show how much of an outlier the GTA V scenario really is.
I’m with NESHO95 on this one. I don't see what makes this site any more special than any other retailer out there. Most shops offer pre-built configurations, and most allow you to tweak them if you really want to—back in 2006, I actually customized a pre-built rig at my local neighborhood computer shop. You can build from scratch using individual components everywhere, too. There's nothing unique about their selection or their pricing, and their customer service and warranty support are total wildcards. 🤷
cosmiceagle8 said:Look, I just want to cut down about 20 minutes of footage and get it ready to upload to YouTube. Editing the entire concert isn't really my goal here.🙂
To be honest, the real time-sink won't be the editing itself, but rather sifting through all that massive amounts of footage to decide what actually makes the cut. That's where the real creative work happens...
It should technically be capable of handling everything, but let’s be real—it's going to feel incredibly sluggish compared to a high-end rig loaded with an i7, 16GB of RAM, and so on...
Generally speaking, anyone dropping ten grand or more is usually an enthusiast who knows exactly what they’re looking for. They aren't just buying blindly; if they don't know the specifics, they're actively seeking expert advice. People don't just throw that kind of cash at the first pre-built rig they see without doing their homework. When you're dealing with that much money, you don't just wing it—you research, you ask questions, and you make sure you know exactly what specs you need to get your money's worth.
In theory, you're looking at a total draw of about 350W, and even then, that assumes both the CPU and GPU are pinned at full load—which rarely happens during actual gaming; you'll usually see it dip below 300W. Since that EVGA 450 W unit provides 408W on the +12V rail, you should be perfectly fine.
Typical pre-built setups (usually a total disaster since they don't even list the specific components). Think Radeon R9 390 paired with a cheap, low-end power supply 😬
For playing Diablo 3, you don't even need a high-end GPU; if he wants, he could prioritize a stronger CPU instead, then just pick up a better graphics card later as an upgrade if he decides to tackle other titles down the road. That said, if his sole focus is strictly D3, I don't see any real necessity for an upgrade—the setup mentioned above would handle it just fine.
Exactly. If you're looking at a GeForce GTX 970 and a Radeon R9 390 at the same price point, most reviewers—myself included—would probably lean toward the other option. But when the GeForce GTX 970 hits a price like this? You grab it if you need it. You simply won't find better value for your money elsewhere.
There might be more deals like this coming down the pipeline. We saw something similar over at Best Buy recently where both the ASUS Strix and the ROG Strix GeForce GTX 970 models were dropped below $280 with discounts.