The 750 Ti is a solid choice, provided you can actually find one with a warranty still intact. It's more efficient—lower power draw, better performance. That said, for what you're paying, you might be better off hunting down a beefier HD7870 or an AMD Radeon R9 270 instead.
Also, what kind of CPU and power supply are we talking about here? I'll need the specific model names.
It might even be designed that way on purpose—the first thing anyone checks when they suspect something is fishy is the Task Manager. 😬 They're evolving. It’s just like those crypto miners that run while the PC is idling; the second you move the mouse, they settle down. At this rate, if those steps don't work, the best move might just be to crash the entire OS.
Drew Sanchez82, are you still dealing with that issue under full load? Just so you know, a full load problem isn't related to overclocking. You're likely looking at a virus or some malware that's hijacking your GPU for mining, like this kind of thing or this type of scenario .
Honestly, you're getting way more bang for your buck with the AMD Radeon R9 270 compared to the NVIDIA GTX 660. Let's face it—in this specific price bracket, NVIDIA just can't compete. Plus, for basically the same amount of cash, you could snag an AMD Radeon R9 280 instead.
It’s total overkill. In the US, you don't even see people pushing CPUs to their overclocking limits because there are high-end boards out there that are easily 50% cheaper. And then you go and pair it with a non-K CPU? That makes no sense. Honestly, it feels like throwing money down the drain. Besides, what does being "good for gaming" even mean? It’s a myth—it’s just something companies use for marketing or branding purposes.
That’s why you’re the target audience for these kinds of motherboards. They look flashy, the price isn't astronomical, and they're basically just standard B85 boards—just with inflated prices because of the aesthetics and those fancy heatsinks (you can find basic B85 models starting at $400-$150 up to about $500-$200 if they're more feature-heavy)
Look, if you’re passionate about it, go for it. If not—like I mentioned in that other thread—it’s probably smarter to get real and buy something that actually fits your budget. Does an Asus Maximus VII Hero make a PC look pretty? Sure. But honestly, obsessing over that is a bit childish. People building $10,000+ workstations aren't worried about aesthetics like that. Just be careful you don't blow your whole budget on two or three overpriced "swag" components only to end up stuck with a Celeron on that socket...
You can definitely go ahead and buy them all at once if you're ready to build right away. For example, you could grab the case first to serve as your foundation, get the power supply installed, and then move on to mounting the CPU, motherboard, and RAM as a single unit... It just doesn't make much sense to sink money into a component only to have it sitting on a shelf for six months.
That works. You can also follow crimsonstag84's lead and hunt for a high-quality 50-$33 power supply on eBay whenever you feel like it, but a generic one bundled with a $83 case is perfectly fine.
Honestly, those figures look great compared to how bad things used to be... Not long ago, you could pick up 8GB for under $100, but once prices spiked, there was a period where you couldn't even find anything under $200, let alone slightly above it.
"There are a variety of factors contributing to the overall trend of price increases in memory. First, we are in a chip shortage situation. The number of semiconductor companies producing DRAM has shrunken to three major players (Intel, Micron and Samsung). Some of these [suppliers] have switched their focus to produce more NAND Flash and mobile DRAM (e.g., eMMC and multi-chip packing) as demand has exploded for mobile phones and tablets.
DRAM is also in a transitional period as it switches to 25nm wafers and the move to smaller dies always takes time. When all these factors combine, it creates a perfect storm for rising commodity prices."
In my book, anything under 25-30fps isn't really gaming—it's just pure torture. That being said, there's always a chance Grand Theft Auto V could see some better optimization down the road.
Adam Moore3 said:Back in 1950 🤣 CLICK 🙂 I mean, it isn't some massive global disaster right now, but yeah, you basically threw a few hundred bucks down the drain. 😵
That's just an RMA for a GPU with a 6-month warranty.
It’s probably one of those units that leaked oil and/or fried a capacitor.
I didn't find those extra activities particularly engaging, even though they accounted for a good chunk of those 47 hours—you know, just driving around aimlessly, messing about, collecting loot, buying properties, or customizing your character. To me, the actual missions are where the real substance lies. That said, it's precisely that freedom to wander without a strict agenda that makes the game such a massive hit; it attracts a huge crowd of casual players who aren't traditional gamers, people who might only touch this title once in a blue moon and nothing else.
Singleplayer for six years? I have things written down right here—I put in 47 hours just to finish one, and maybe 20 hours for Vice City. As I get older, I just don't find myself interested in those kinds of games anymore.