Since your motherboard lacks a SATA 3 interface, there's really no point in dropping cash on a high-speed SSD; this one will work perfectly fine for you. Also, just like darkowl72 mentioned, you might actually see more of a boost from adding another 4GB of RAM. Check your current usage—if you're consistently hitting the 75-80% mark, you'll definitely feel the slowdown, and some extra memory would be a lifesaver.
My link works fine. If you're having trouble with Adam Moore3's, try right-clicking instead of just clicking the dot. Anyway, that GPU isn't going to work with your PC anyway.
Running games? That means you'll need something low profile, likely with very low power draw to accommodate that weak power supply (240 Watt active PFC 87%/90%/87%).
Honestly, there isn't anything worth buying until you hit $167; your only options right now are some cheap, low-profile DDR3 junk. My advice? Don't buy a thing until you can save up for this level of hardware if you actually want to get into serious gaming.
The Athlon-X4-860K uses an AM4 socket, and even if he manages to get it running on his motherboard, it wouldn't really be worth the investment. Honestly, that boost just isn't worth the hassle.
Gary Barrett said:It’s exactly what I thought—you just can't play Dying Light. Even Grand Theft Auto V acts up; one day everything runs smoothly, and the next, it’s impossible to even move without stuttering or seeing the FPS tank down to 5 or 10. As for Far Cry 4, I can only manage to run it on low settings if I want decent frame rates, and Watch Dogs is the same story. I wasn't sure if the bottleneck was the RAM or the processor, but I'm going to pick up a 4GB stick of RAM and see how things shake out.
It's like you picked a lineup of the absolute worst offenders in that regard. Just as I suspected. Dying Light used to have some serious issues with memory leaks and CPU usage, though apparently, patches have significantly cut down the RAM consumption. Far Cry 4 supposedly got fixed via patches too—there was this weird bug where loading would hang on a single core unless you alt-tabbed to kick it into gear. Same goes for Watch Dogs, and those cracked versions of Grand Theft Auto V had their own set of headaches... On top of all that, these games are incredibly demanding. You can't afford to be picky about settings; you really need to hunt down some tweak guides and stuff like that. Bottom line: you'll need to patch your games and definitely add another 4GB of RAM. Everything you mentioned was basically a half-baked product when it first launched. All that's missing from this list of disasters is AC: Unity, which was arguably the worst of them all, or how they actually pulled the latest Batman game from shelves because it was so unfinished.
You can take it. This is it. Other retailers carry the G1820 model as well. $87) ili This is what I have. What’s just a tiny bit more powerful than a Celeron and offers a slightly better integrated GPU? I'm looking for an alternative to the Intel Core i3-4170. $321...an SSD. Take this one, for example. Is it better to go with one of the cheaper options, or...? Hey. It’s newer, it’s faster, and you get a 5-year warranty—plus, that's where all your Windows OS and software will live.
Here is a more budget-friendly option from Micro Center
They offer free assembly, there’s a chance at a 3% discount, and you get a full 2-year shop warranty.
Basically, the main trade-offs are that the case lacks a USB 3.0 front panel header (though you still have the rear ports on the motherboard), and the processor isn't unlocked for overclocking. The SSD is optional, and you can swap in a different case if you prefer. If you need a hair dryer to cool it down, just click here
You're getting a motherboard with four RAM slots and a dual-channel 2400MHz kit to help with graphics performance—useful if the kid wants to play games, but even if they don't, you aren't paying an extra premium for it. Plus, you can always add a dedicated GPU later on.
It’s definitely a process; you’re essentially looking at swapping out almost the entire PC in two distinct stages. Honestly, it’s much easier on the wallet than trying to drop a massive lump sum all at once when you're starting from scratch.
Gary Barrett
Could you specify which games you're looking to play? Are you running into actual performance issues where things won't launch, or are you just chasing better graphics and higher FPS?
Based on the system requirements, that CPU should handle most titles—assuming we're talking about an Intel Core i3-2100, which usually sits right at the minimum requirement for the heavy hitters. The GPU should hold up too. However, if you want smooth gameplay (not necessarily maxed settings or insane frame rates), that 4GB of RAM is going to be your bottleneck in several titles—specifically Dying Light, Watch Dogs, Grand Theft Auto V, the last couple of Call of Duty entries, and maybe a few others.
Prioritize RAM for certain games, then move on to the CPU, and finally tackle the GPU. Right now, your graphics card is your biggest bottleneck. You could follow crimsonstag84's advice, or just save up some cash and grab a new GPU down the road when you're ready.
Adam Moore3 said:Hmm, you're in a bit of a bind. This is the classic issue with the FM2 platform. You can't drop in a beefier graphics card because the processor holds you back, but if you want to upgrade the CPU, you're forced to swap out the motherboard too—since upgrading within this existing platform doesn't really get you anywhere. And even if you jump to a whole new platform and processor, you won't see a massive boost in gaming performance anyway, because your current CPU is already maxing out that GPU and doing a decent job for solid gaming.😬
Honestly, switching motherboards isn't as bad as it sounds once you run the numbers. For instance, motherboards are pretty affordable right now; you can find an A68 chipset board for around $50—which isn't even entry-level since it includes USB 3.0 and SATA 3 as standard features—and that comes with a 3-year warrantyfor example. An Athlon 840 goes for about $167, and when you look at the overall cost of the $267 platform, nobody is spending a fortune on the processor alone. The only real headache is the hassle of selling your old gear, but since new boards aren't expensive, you won't take a huge hit financially. When you look at it that way, it's actually a pretty cost-effective platform. Just push it as far as it can go, then sell it off.
You might be able to find some boxy ones here and there, like this:
But honestly, they're way overpriced for such a laughable resolution. They're too small, have TN panels, and all that. Plus, like I mentioned before, they just aren't the right choice for watching movies.
That’s been the industry standard for monitors for about eight years now. Plus, if you’re planning on binge-watching movies or series, getting a screen with a 4:3 aspect ratio would be a total mistake—the image would look tiny, or if you tried to stretch it to fit, you’d end up cutting off huge chunks of the action on the sides. You also have to consider that this is an IPS panel: you get much better color reproduction and you won't deal with that annoying washout when you're viewing the screen from an angle.
electricharbor30 said:I mean, honestly, shrinking the die just basically cancels out any potential gains... if there were actually a meaningful difference in speed, they wouldn't be slapping the "Intel HD Graphics" label on it; they’d call it something like 4300, 4600, or Iris or whatever. Even if there was some tiny little improvement tucked away in there, it would probably just end up benefiting the Braswell chips anyway. Usually, these processors are only sold as being maybe 10% faster than the previous generation, so I guess it's all pretty much the same thing in the end.
Have you been smoking something? 🤣
Those aren't even the same graphics chips, and the processors aren't even in the same league. That's like saying a go-kart is better than a Formula 1 car just because it's newer and more fuel-efficient.
The issue with running four GPUs is simply the processor's PCI lanes. That's exactly why the 5820k $1067 only offers 28 lanes, whereas the 5930k provides 5 quad-core setups and more than 40 lanes, even though the core count remains the same. You also have to account for the fact that high-end rigs like this usually pack in M.2 or PCIe SSDs, which also eat up those precious lanes.
Regarding the cards themselves, they really ought to be using reference coolers that exhaust air directly out of the case. If you stack them one on top of the other, they’ll just suck in the hot air from the card below, causing the top ones to overheat progressively.
Your best bet is to reach out to this guy and get his take on what actually makes sense for your budget. He’s one of the few true professionals in the US who knows these programs inside and out; he can tell you exactly what gives you the most bang for your buck regarding GPU performance, power draw, and everything else. He specializes in GPU rendering and runs a Xeon setup with 40 lanes and 4 GTX 780s.
Basically, if that icon has an 'X' through it but your laptop is working fine via Wi-Fi, it means you actually have internet access. The issue is likely just a loose cable or some specific network settings on your desktop PC.
Does that router have any phone jacks on it? Also, what exactly is inside that splitter—that little plastic box?
I didn't quite follow what you meant regarding the symbol. In my experience, if the network was already configured properly—meaning you aren't dealing with a brand-new router or anything like that—everything should just click into place once you connect it all up.
You'll end up seeing a symbol like this:
EDIT
To post an image, you first need to upload it somewhere, like Imgur. From there, you can just paste one of the links they provide (if it's a file from your hard drive); if you're just using an image from the web, simply grab its direct URL and drop it here.
Alternatively, just tell me the specific model number of your router. You can usually find it printed on the label on the back or underneath the device.
