In my book—and I think most people agree—you're better off prioritizing a larger SSD. Honestly, you won't even notice the speed difference unless you're running benchmarks; for any regular everyday use, it just doesn't matter.
Try a different approach to get started—just navigate directly to the folder where the document lives. If you're trying to open it through some Canon interface right now, it might just be glitching out.
I’ve noticed that the Z1 and Z3 Zalman cases have been pretty hard to find lately. However, luck seems to be swinging my way because there’s a whole new lineup of similar mid-range chassis hitting the market that I haven't seen before—specifically the BitFenix Nova, Kolink DeathClaw, Enermax Vostok ADV, Xigmatek Shockwave, Aerocool Aero-500, and the LC POWER 976W/976B models. There are also some older options floating around like the antec gx300 and gx505, the RAIJINTEK Agos, and the NZXT source 220. Of course, they're all scattered across just a handful of retailers here in the States.
Not quite. They might struggle a bit in certain high-end scenarios involving the absolute top-tier GPUs out there—though you probably aren't even looking at those. You didn't specify which Fortron model you're running, but generally speaking, they don't skimp on power delivery. Since you've got 700W, you can practically power any single-GPU setup. There is just one thing you really need to double-check: the physical dimensions of the card, specifically whether it actually fits inside your case.
To be specific—if you have an affinity for the GTX 970 or the R9 390, go ahead and grab one. In a game like GTA V, you might see a slight dip in FPS compared to what you'd get with a top-of-the-line processor, but it'll hold its own.
Michael Jackson10 said:By pure coincidence, I know of one setup running an AMD FX-8300. I'm not sure about the motherboard, but it's likely an ASRock. It’s got 8 GB of RAM, a Kingston Technology SSD (probably HyperX), and some mid-range graphics card. The power supply and case are total overkill, though, because it was originally meant to be some kind of office server: light software, web browsing, and a basic home-grade internal security camera app (which doesn't even work). Right now, it’s being used as an average office PC. Those programs ran perfectly fine on an Intel Core 2 Duo, and on an i3 build with that same software package, the CPU stays mostly idle or barely breaks a sweat... But on this AMD FX build, the system sporadically "freezes." Usually, there's just one program open, a browser with 3 or 4 tabs, and occasionally an email client. Everything runs smooth for a while, and then suddenly the whole thing just "freezes" for a second or two, or even the simplest task lags out... The problem is that installing all this business software isn't exactly easy, so there's no room to experiment or try reinstalling everything. There's a chance the initial setup just didn't go perfectly. The fact remains that the computer works flawlessly most of the time, and then these sporadic "ice ages" happen. It feels more like something you'd see on a single-core processor getting choked by a bunch of threads, yet this chip should have plenty of breathing room. And there's no pattern to it either: "I did this, and then I noticed *this* specific task caused a lag"... It's seriously mysterious...
Go for it! In this country, entrepreneurship is practically its own national pastime. You get your small business license for about $190, pay a few bucks in taxes... sounds like a pretty great initiative to me...
It could be one of two things:
- Turn off "Cool and Quiet." Sometimes specific RAM modules just don't play nice with certain motherboards. Watch out, this kind of nonsense happens due to compatibility issues.
- If the motherboard is absolute junk, it might be messing with the turbo boost (pushing high voltages unexpectedly).
That's the only thing I can think of regarding potential processor-related issues.
crimsonstag84 said:A buddy of mine was running an MSI 990FXA-GD65 paired with an FX 8120 on an H90. The VRMs were hitting 92°C at 1.35V and 4.3GHz, which caused everything to freeze up just three minutes into a Prime95 test because of some massive vDroop. I guess ASRock and MSI really struggled with their AM3+ boards.
We eventually managed to get it somewhat stable at 4.1GHz, though even that felt like pushing it. He was using an Antec case.
That budget DS3P will absolutely crush it.😁
This experience lines up perfectly with this:
(regarding AM3+ motherboard threads):
Stick with Gigabyte and stay away from MSI. I have their MSI 990 FXA-GD80, which is supposedly their top-tier board, but it’s total garbage. If their flagship is this bad, imagine how much worse the GD65 is. I'm done with MSI...
I owned that junk 990FXA-GD80; the board is stunningly beautiful—honestly maybe one of the best-looking AM3+ boards ever—but the voltage cap is stuck at 1.45, and even if it works at 1.450, it drops to 1.390. Since there's no LLC, I decided to just cut my losses and grab a Gigabyte.
I had a 990FXA-GD80 and it was a disaster... massive vDrop, voltage capped at 1.45 so you can't go any higher, unstable, etc. Just a mountain of bad experiences.
For me, the MSI FXA-UD3 and the ASUS M5A99X EVO have been perfect.
That image comes from a PC Expert review, but the issue is they were using a disastrous motherboard (and they probably didn't even bother hunting for the lowest stable voltage). They claim they pumped a brutal 1.5 V into the BIOS; at that voltage, that CPU basically becomes a power plant. Once you cross 1.400V, power consumption skyrockets—some people are hitting 4.7 GHz at those levels already.
As we mentioned, the overclocking platform used was an ASRock 990FX Extreme6 motherboard. Despite carrying the Extreme6 suffix, this board isn't really built for serious overclocking expeditions. It offers relatively low available CPU voltages, a total lack of Load-Line Calibration (LLC) options, weak voltage regulation, and mediocre cooling. Our first goal was finding the maximum stable frequency for our testing. Since we’re dealing with an unlocked processor, things are simplified enough that even a novice could jump into gaming with a setup like this. We settled on 4.7 GHz at 1.45 V (measured via multimeter on the underside of the board). While CPU-Z shows 1.488 V, the BIOS is set to 1.5 V—making it painfully obvious that there is significant voltage drop.
What a disaster of a board. It costs an arm and a leg, yet lacks even the most basic overclocking features found on a $187 (ds3p) motherboard. Unfortunately, if you're looking to overclock on the AM3+ socket, you really have to stick with ASUS or Gigabyte. Aside from them, even the "high-end" boards from other brands can't touch the mid-range offerings from the big players when it comes to OC.
At the heart of some $667 uncertainty. Prices will likely continue to slide since this card is still so fresh on the market—especially with AMD announcing more price cuts soon. That said, don't expect the Radeon R9 380X to be a massive leap over the Radeon R9 280X. I actually saw a Tom's Hardware review suggesting the Radeon R9 280X holds its own or even outperforms it in several titles. The Radeon R9 380X only really pulls ahead in games like The Witcher 3 or Dying Light, which is probably due to much better tessellation performance. Jay2cents has already run tests on the entire Nitro lineup (the 380, 380X, and Radeon R9 390), and his results show that an overclocked 380 performs almost identically to a stock 380X. All things considered, if those prices drop as expected, I think we're looking at a very popular GPU.
Nathan Moore6 said:I’m not making sweeping generalizations here. I own more AMD gear than Intel stuff, and since half my room is basically a hardware showroom, I actually know what I’m talking about. In my experience, NVIDIA drivers are always more polished, and their cards are just superior when it comes to heavy-duty tasks—which is exactly why they end up being better for gaming, too.
You’re generalizing here. It really all comes down to the specific software you're running. For instance, AMD GPUs tend to perform better when you're working in SolidWorks—and let's be honest, SolidWorks isn't exactly a video game. 😁
Here are the specific elements from that program. I can't see any link here. Could you please post it?, I can't see any link here. Could you please provide it? Back in the day, you could grab a 7750 for about $100, while a 780Ti would set you back closer to $700. It all comes down to the underlying architecture. Think back to when Bitcoin mining was absolutely exploding; that was a very specific type of computing task where an AMD card—specifically higher-end models like the GeForce GTX 7870—actually outperformed the 780Ti. People were making thousands of dollars just by mining with those AMD GPUs. At the end of the day, software performance is its own beast. There isn't one single rule that applies to everything, yet people love to generalize.
UPDATE: Here’s the data for the Bitcoin benchmark:
Nathan Moore6 said:Intel generally employs superior engineering talent across the board. While AMD is a fantastic choice for budget-friendly builds, if you’re looking to step up to something truly high-end and serious, you go with Intel.
That’s mostly true. Like I mentioned before, AMD just doesn't have anything to offer in the high-end segment right now; their last dedicated high-performance CPUs—excluding the APUs—were released practically three or four years ago. And these processors from... $667 They're basically just overclocked versions of the AMD chips. $333 Which are unlocked anyway. 😬 ).
To give you some perspective, I’ll share a quick real-life story. I once met this guy who makes a living filming weddings and various events—nothing fancy, just standard video editing work. His setup was an i5 3570K on a Z77 motherboard with a basic air cooler, 8GB of RAM, and absolutely no SSD. At the time, he could have opted for an AMD FX 8320, which would have been much better for his rendering workloads. More importantly, the price difference would have allowed him to pick up a budget 120GB SSD or an extra 8GB of RAM instead. That combination would have yielded a significantly better overall experience. Not everyone—even small business owners—has the budget to drop $1,500 or $2,000 on a high-end workstation. $0.00Look, we were talking about something more substantial here, and in that specific scenario, AMD was actually the smarter play. Like I’ve said before, everything is entirely relative. Now, when you consider that AMD isn't even in the same league as Intel—we're talking ten times the headcount, roughly eleven times the R&D budget, and significantly higher stock valuation—it becomes clear. This guy is basically just feeding us Wikipedia trivia, much like you and I are doing right now.
The Intel Core i5-4460 is generally the superior choice for gaming (almost without exception). Are you sure you can live with that decision? 🙂
Looking at the big picture—not just gaming performance—I honestly think the FX 8300 is the better buy (it offers more headroom, better multi-threaded performance under full load, and it's about 50% cheaper). But hey, that's just my two cents.
To make matters even worse, there was someone else who used to aggressively argue that the 280X was superior to the GTX 960 (specifically the 4GB version)—claiming it was basically on par with an R9 380 but with more VRAM since it's more powerful. Now, apparently, that's considered the "wrong" choice just because it doesn't have an Intel chip inside. He used to preach about getting the best performance at any cost, even if it meant building a slightly bulkier rig.
$86 there is the matter of the platform difference. For this price point, you're moving up one tier in graphics within the mainstream category. The CPU itself is 50% cheaper, yet you get a motherboard with 4 RAM slots, an ATX format, a VRM cooler, plus a budget aftermarket cooler (which can serve you for years through future upgrades).
Look, I know we're nitpicking between two solid setups now, but if we're going to play devil's advocate, let's at least be precise about it.
