Let’s be honest: nobody in their right mind is going to bother with that specific upgrade if we're just comparing CPUs within the same class. For instance, why would anyone swap out a Devil's Canyon i5 K for an i5 K Broadwell? It doesn't make sense. Now, if someone starts with a Celeron or a Pentium on a Z97 board and eventually jumps up to an i7 K—that's a legitimate upgrade path. But swapping one i5 for another? If you're a gamer, you aren't touching that for years to come.
James Fisher11, you’re talking absolute nonsense. If you actually want better gaming performance, just swap out your graphics card... Throw in an SSD while you're at it and you're good to go.
The V300 SSD just isn't in the same league as what we used to see; if you're looking for a budget drive, it's okay, but don't expect miracles. Click here for a better option—it comes with a 5-year warranty. You could also save some cash by switching up your power supply (maybe go with a Fortron Hex or similar), and if you can swing it, grab an R7 250 GDDR5 graphics card instead, because honestly, that other card just isn't worth the money...
They clearly aren't the same thing. http://www.fsp-europe.com/profession...ghs_85plus.php
As for this cheap Fortron unit, there isn't even any info on its rating. It’s likely not 80+ Bronze—probably just some low-end, budget-tier component...
You can actually see it right there in the photo—that little heatsink sitting next to those black blocks near the socket. It’s an incredibly useful feature on AMD boards, especially if you're looking to push some overclocking. In my experience, high-quality boards like this always outperform those budget AsRock options when you're working with AM3+ sockets.
Adam Moore3 said:What's the difference? It's the same garage, just equipped differently, right? 🤷
Not quite. This one features a VRM cooler, handles overclocking much better, and is actually slightly cheaper (well, normally it isn't, but Best Buy has some totally nonsensical pricing right now)...
As for the RAM, go with the cheapest option. There really isn't a "better" versus "worse" scenario with memory in practice unless you're running an APU.
You can grab two of these, or if the motherboard has 2 slots (cheaper Intel boards), you could also go with this one. Of course, for gaming, you'll manage to scrape by even with 4GB of RAM (at least for now, depending on what you play).
Adam Moore3, why would you even consider putting that board next to this ? Also, I’d much rather grab a standard R9 270 from EVGA for $53 less than the 270X; those cards from Amy Vaughn12 just aren't available.
A buddy of mine dealt with a similar bottleneck—he was running a lower-end CPU—and he used either a 3850 or a 3870 back in the day. I’m pretty sure he was playing MW3 on that setup. Later, he upgraded to an HD7750 DDR5, which is slightly more powerful than a modern Radeon R7 250 DDR5 but sits just below a 250X. Even with that, the game runs flawlessly in multiplayer mode.
No biggie—if you've got the budget, you might as well grab the gtx 750. It pulls less power than the 250X, so your current PSU will handle it easily, and honestly, it's just more punchy.
David Sanders4 said:EVGA offers a 5-year warranty while Gigabyte gives you 3... though don't quote me on that. ...
Nobody offers a warranty that long for a GPU here in the States; EVGA usually sticks to 2 years.
You might want to give it a shot—with a build like that, you could easily handle Modern Warfare 2, and you should even be able to run Modern Warfare 3 quite smoothly.
I didn't quite follow you—are you trying to install Windows from a DVD? Did you go into the BIOS and make sure the boot priority is set to the optical drive instead of the hard drive?
That hawk gtx 760 from eDigital through two sellers? It's a solid card, but honestly, it isn't worth nearly that much. You'd be better off grabbing a gtx 770 for just a bit more money. Since you were looking at the r9 280, those Sapphire ones are still available click.
For web browsing, YouTube, and strategy games, even a Pentium or an i3 would be perfectly fine for you... If you want to max out your budget, an i5 will fit:
1 x Intel Core i5-4440 Processor (3.10GHz,1MB,6MB,84 W,1150) Box 1 x Asrock s1150 H81M-HDS - Intel H81, M-ATX, dual Channel 2 xDDR3 1 x CORSAIR 430W Power Supply, CX Series 80+ Bronze, EPS12V v2.3, 80+ 1 x MSI GTX750 1GB DDR5, N750-1GD5 1 x Zalman ZM-T1 PLUS micro tower case. 189(W) x 427,5(H) x 364(D)mm
$993
Do you also need a monitor (I noticed you didn't include one in your list) and a case?
The CPU might be slightly overkill for what you actually need, but if you're planning to ride this PC for years to come, it could be a smart move. With a stronger graphics card, you'll be able to play all the modern titles—though you could also go with an i3 paired with a more powerful GPU. That includes newer versions of those classics you mentioned, like Starcraft 2, Red Alert 3, and so on...
EDIT
Now, if you truly only care about those old-school games like Red Alert 2, Warcraft 3, Starcraft 1, etc., then you are essentially throwing money away on a brand-new rig. Those ancient titles can be crushed by a prehistoric PC. If you really need a new machine just for that, you should probably just grab a Celeron like the $100 g1820. It’s more than enough power for those games, and since it has integrated graphics, it'll handle them easily while saving you a massive amount of cash.
David Sanders4 said:I don't see why anyone is acting surprised by this guy's setup with an HD7770 and a Pentium. That card is far too weak to handle Crysis3 on its own...
He’s just confused because his frame rates aren't matching the benchmarks or reviews from other people using an HD7770 in this game. The issue is the CPU; having only two cores in a title like this creates a massive bottleneck. However, for 99% of other games out there, that combination works perfectly fine.
David Sanders4 said:Crysis 3 suffers from massive FPS fluctuations. I'm definitely not the only one who noticed during the "Welcome to the Jungle" mission where performance literally gets cut in half... especially when you're dealing with a weaker CPU.
Crysis 3 is the definition of a multicore-heavy game; it's incredibly CPU-hungry even in single-player, almost like a tech demo. It's the kind of scenario where a quad-core FM2 Athlon might actually "beat" an i3—even though the i3 is generally better for gaming overall.click(An AMD Phenom II at 3.7 GHz still holds its own reasonably well)
Speaking of which, check out this gameplay video at the end: 😬 click
Just look at this guy and how surprised he is. 😬
Games like this are still the exception. Most standard titles, like Thief or Splinter Cell, can be easily handled by a basic i3; they aren't significantly worse off compared to running an i5 or i7 paired with a high-end GPU.
Exactly. The whole goal is to offload more work from the CPU through APIs like Mantle or DirectX 12. We’re still in the early stages of this evolution, so things will definitely improve, even if games themselves continue to demand more processing power over time. 😬
At the end of the day, we really need to see how this plays out in actual gameplay scenarios...
By the way, here is another massive hit that doesn't absolutely murder your CPU scaling.
Obviously, it isn't a heavy-hitter, so it won't serve as a definitive benchmark. However, I'd argue that titles like Max Payne 3 and Diablo 3 are much higher quality than Crysis 3 and far more relevant since they actually have a massive player base.
Larry Ortiz5 said:...but without a graphics card, meaning you buy everything except the AMD Radeon R7 265, and once you've saved up enough love, you just buy a much stronger GPU instead.
That approach makes zero sense if the goal is actually gaming—specifically, if he wants better performance than what he has right now.
If he were to change just one thing, he'd be much better off even if he "overkilled" the GPU—say, by grabbing a 280X or an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770. Even with a bottleneck (which varies depending on the game), compared to his current setup, in something like Max Payne 3, there wouldn't be any noticeable BN; he’d see a massive jump in performance because the CPU will give him everything it's got... and then he can upgrade the CPU later. That would be going "balls out." As it stands, if he grabs the Intel Core i5 and sticks with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650, his gaming performance won't move the needle at all. He wouldn't gain anything; at least this way, he'd actually be helping himself.
Following a standard plan—just grab the AMD Radeon R7 265 and change nothing else—is the way to go. It isn't worth changing the whole platform just for that. At the very least, that card is twice as powerful as his current one, making it a relevant upgrade regardless.
But was that actually tested using high-end cards? That second link uses an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 while running Crysis 3 Multiplayer, which is easily one of the most CPU-intensive scenarios out there. With an AMD Radeon R7 265, he wouldn't notice any real difference—maybe a tiny variance in multiplayer performance between Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Crysis 3, or Watch Dogs, since that's where the AMD Phenom II 955/965 starts to struggle alongside an HD7850 or HD7870. For 99% of all other games, it would be absolutely identical.
In certain titles, it honestly won't matter if he's running that Phenom or an Intel Core i7, even with a high-end GPU. http://www.techspot.com/review/537-m...nce/page7.html
It really just boils down to what kind of games he plays and how well they are optimized.
If you ask me, it's better to just pull the trigger on this upgrade now. He'll get some solid mileage out of this combo for a while, and once it finally hits its limit, he can just swap everything out for something significantly more powerful later on.
