Alexander Moore67 - which setup is going to deliver better gaming performance (in at least 99% of scenarios): an FX 8300 paired with an R9 280X, or an Intel Core i5-4460 with an R9 380? Also, does the heavy lifting happen on the CPU or the GPU? To be clear, both builds are assembled correctly, so there won't be any errors with either one.
You're talking nonsense. How exactly are you supposed to wear out a motherboard if the overclocking voltages end up being lower than the factory defaults? For instance, if you have a 3.5GHz clock at 1.35V stock, but when you're tweaking it, you hit 4 GHz at maybe 1.28V—depending on the specific silicon lottery outcome. And this whole idea about AMD overvolting? That applies to basically every AMD processor from the last decade.
AMD held the upper hand back in the day, starting from the first Athlon through roughly 2006—the era of single-core dominance and those first dual-core chips. During that stretch, they were truly outperforming Intel technologically, even if they weren't winning the market share battle. They managed to stay competitive during the Phenom II years, too, but once they released Bulldozer and Intel countered with Sandy Bridge, the market share swung heavily toward Intel... So, when you're looking at Intel, especially for a high-end PC, the comparison with AMD is almost moot because AMD simply doesn't offer a comparable high-end lineup. That said, all this talk about 3D development and high-end workstations is total off-topic noise for a thread focused on a budget 4-core gaming build.
Building a rig with $200 GPU isn't quite the same thing as what graniteharbor85 suggested. It’s like if you had bought an HD6670 or a 7730 back in 2015 or 2016; those cards were barely cutting it for the heavy hitters even then, so you’d be completely stuck trying to run anything modern today.
A gaming laptop is going to give you significantly less bang for your buck, and honestly, a PS4 is also weaker by comparison.
Sure, this specific user might find 16GB worth the investment, but let’s be real: who is actually running a dozen browsers with 20+ tabs open simultaneously while running a high-end game and several background apps? For someone just browsing casually, 4GB is basically pocket change, and even a standard AAA gaming rig should comfortably sit at 8GB—provided you aren't trying to run heavy rendering software, Photoshop, or fifty different video tabs in the background at the same time. 😬)
We conducted our testing on an A88X-PRO motherboard using an updated BIOS to support the newer APUs. We utilized Corsair memory clocked at 2400MHz, which also allowed us to benchmark GPU performance across various memory speeds.
Besides, you can't find any 2133MHz RAM that's actually cheaper anyway.
You could always just overclock that HyperX : Quote : The Kingston HyperX Fury:
The Kingston HyperX Fury overclocked very well, after upping the voltage to 1.65 volts we were able to get it to 2400MHz with CL11 timings. The kit did very well to get that far so we weren’t too surprised when the system wouldn’t boot at 2600MHz, even 2400MHz was more than I expected given the fairly “mid-range” nature of these modules.
By doing nothing more than raising the voltage to 1.65 V, the Kingston HyperX Fury kit ran happily at 2200 MHz, it doesn’t get much easier than that! It easily passed a run of HyperPi 32M at this setting… perhaps we have a DDR3-2200 MHz kit in disguise? Could be.
1600x900, full details during all that absolute chaos
The only catch is that 2133MHz RAM. It would be a smart move to overclock them; according to reviews, those Kingston Fury sticks can hit 2133MHz pretty easily. Or you could just swap in this instead. Generally speaking, games will run much better with a Celeron paired with a dedicated GPU, but since League of Legends is quite CPU-intensive, a Quad Athlon might actually be the better play. You can always pop a dedicated GPU in later down the road.
It’s possible he’s hitting CPU throttling. From what I can tell, he’s only monitoring temperatures rather than actual processor clock speeds. It’s interesting that it hits a wall right at that recommended max temp of 61.5°C. Have him run a stress test using OCCT—there’s a specific graph for that too—to see if the clock speed actually drops (say, down to 1.4GHz) after running for a while once the heat reaches its peak.
If that isn't the culprit, try benchmarking the hard drive—use HDD Tune to check its benchmark, health, and run an error scan. If the drive is fine, then we're looking at a software issue: maybe the game is poorly optimized, the settings are pushing the GPU too hard, there's a glitch in macOS, or some background process is hogging all the resources...
I'm all for it, provided raw performance is the top priority—which, let's be honest, it almost always is.
His other move would be to just hold out for the 380X. If he bumps up his budget like he mentioned, he'll likely land one, even if it starts off feeling a bit overpriced at launch.
We have right here one of the beefiest GTX 960 Gigabyte G1 models featuring 4GB of VRAM, alongside an EVGA SSC and just a standard Sapphire GTX 970. Based on the video, I’m assuming some newer drivers were being used at the time; the GTX 960 performs about 25% better in titles like Battlefield 4, Crysis 3, and Far Cry 4, and roughly 17% better in Metro and Tomb Raider. The real kicker for the GTX 960, though, is the 3-year warranty and much lower power draw—we're looking at roughly 120W compared to the 200-210W range during heavy gaming sessions.
Turn it on if you want things to stay cool and quiet while idling. You should probably just switch it off when you're overclocking (meaning, hunting for those stable voltages) and running stress tests.
HPC Mode (High Performance Computing) - HPC Mode is a setting in the BIOS that prevents the CPU from lowering and locking its clock rate under load in certain conditions. In some benchmarks, HPC Mode can increase performance by about 6%, but these performance improvements are only realized in benchmarks like HPL. Dell tested this setting for the AMD Interlagos server based CPUs and saw very little performance increase outside of HPL benchmarks. HPC Mode did however increase power consumption and power draw for very little benefit.
You didn't mention Load line calibration (LLC), which is what you use to smooth out those voltage fluctuations under load, though it does bump up temps slightly. Generally speaking, it's more worth it to leave it ON.
That power supply is bottom-of-the-barrel quality; it isn't even hitting 750W. Honestly, I’d bet anything they paired it with a low-end motherboard like an ASUS Prime or maybe a budget ASRock model. My advice? Steer clear of those pre-built configurations... Here is a revised suggestion instead:
1 x Intel Core i7 Series 8300 3.3GHz, 16MB, 125W, LGA1155, FD8300WMHK 1 x Gigabyte 970A-DS3P, AM3+, AMD 970 SB950, 4x DDR3 2000(O.C.)/1866 1 x Corsair CC Series, 92 mm, Hydraulic bearing, 800-2200 rpm, 1 x HDD Seagate 1TB, Serial ATA III, 7200 rpm, ST1000DM003 1 x DDR3 8GB (2x4GB) Kingston, 1866MHz, CL10, Kingston Fury 1 x Zalman Z1 mid tower case. 199(W)x432(H)x457(D)mm. MB standard 1 x Thermaltake 600 W, Hyper, PPA6003302, 12cm ventilator 1 x Samsung DVD Writer, DVD±RW, 24x DVD±R ,8x DL , 40x CD-R 1 x Gigabyte GTX960 OC, 4GB GDDR5 128bit, GV-N960OC-4GD
$1719 adm
You could still tweak this further (drop the burner, grab a better 500W unit, etc.).
The layout is a bit messy (motherboard, CPU...). Have you already pulled the trigger on this, or are you still deciding? There is absolutely no scenario where an Intel Core i7 series makes sense here.