Posts by Kimberly Gomez34

Something like that

It’s perfectly normal for the GPU fans to spin up when you first boot the PC. Are you saying it's taking an unusually long time to start up? Did you change any settings or hardware recently that might have triggered this? To me, a faulty power supply sounds like junk, but I guess it's hard to say for sure without testing it.

As for a graphics card, check out this — the price point and performance should be a great match for your current build. Just one thing: if you decide to grab it, make sure you definitely get the DDR5 version.

jadepanther30 said:Thanks! I'm heading out to pick it up tomorrow...

Honestly, for $100 those two are definitely your best bet...

However, I'm not sure if you realize that in terms of raw power, those cards are actually weaker than that old 8800 GTS you had, which was a beast back in its day. For those casual online games, they are more than enough. But, if your son happens to run any heavier titles installed on macOS, he's going to feel the performance dip. If that’s not the case, though, go ahead and grab one of those small, modern cards.
Otherwise, if you want something in that same ballpark as what you used to have—or maybe even a bit stronger if your previous card was an Nvidia GeForce GT 730 with DDR5--

http://www.bestbuy.com/details/product-link

Let's be real: even this isn't much by today's standards, but it's the bare minimum for playing actual modern games (not just those browser-based ones).

You didn't give me much detail regarding the PC specs—like the power supply, the case, or the storage—but I'll give you a ballpark estimate. The tower alone is worth roughly $333. It really depends on the specifics, especially the monitor. If it isn't a high-end model with an IPS panel, you're looking at the cheapest new 22" displays priced under $233. Given that, trading up for that laptop makes sense if you can swap it, provided you're looking at the price point rather than gaming performance, as others have already pointed out. Otherwise, you could easily find a brand new machine with 4GB of RAM for about $833 at a place like Best Buy
.

Right up to $367
If only NVIDIA

If ATI—actually, if AMD

The Spaniards really know how to craft a killer movie, especially when it comes to thrillers and horror. You should definitely check out The Hidden Blade

crogamer -
cpu $67
gpu $33
ram 100-$43
motherboard—honestly, I haven't a clue, just aiming for $50 max

These are realistic prices, though many people would try to ask for more (it’s just a question of whether they could actually find a buyer)

silentviper56 said:I'm also wondering if there will be any bottlenecking with the 7870 or GTX 660 when paired with my
- Intel Core i5-3350P 3.1

No, there won't be. As for the performance gap—just remember that you get what you pay for. It's pretty simple as that.

No. You're better off putting your money toward one high-quality graphics card. Besides, that motherboard isn't exactly built for a Crossfire setup anyway:
2 x PCI Express 2.0 x16 slots (PCIE2 @ x16 mode; PCIE4 @ x4 mode)

Look, if you aren't obsessed with every little detail or needing Full HD resolution, just grab that 6670 DDR5 low-profile card and you'll manage to get some gameplay out of it.

Here, check out this video—plenty of these clips featuring the 6670 DDR5 show it running on dual-channel setups very similar to yours.

These are the most powerful low profile options out there.

Even better, if you can track one down somewhere: -

Sam Roberts said:would you really trade $133 for two used 2GB sticks at $800?? I'd rather just spend $83 on a brand new 4GB DDR3 1600 kit

I wouldn't. We are talking about DDR2 1066MHz here, not DDR3. Go ahead, try to find any listing for 2x2GB DDR2 desktop RAM for $50. These things are getting hard to find; you can barely find them for $200$83 anymore.

And by the way, I'm not saying it's a good deal—I'm just saying those are unfortunately the prices out there right now.

It’s a bummer, honestly—exactly 150. There was a time when you could easily snag a 2x2GB kit for $67, but those days are long gone.

The "3" is definitely an error. As for the 4 and 5, everything could be shifted right by at least one column to make sense.

And honestly, who knows what hardware they actually used for testing? (For instance, some multiplayer titles just absolutely murder performance) Or what specific criteria they applied? They might consider anything less than a constant 99% to be a bottleneck—even if it just dips to 95% or falls below 90% occasionally. That kind of thing happens even with top-tier processors in something like Battlefield 3 multiplayer. It’s especially suspicious if they didn't test all the CPUs on the exact same games. For example, the 7950 and an i5 were likely pushed hard on the newest, most demanding titles, but I highly doubt they tested the E4400 and a 3870 on something like Far Cry 3 multiplayer. I suspect they might have used games more aligned with that generation's era.

Take this one guy's setup as an example:
An Athlon X2 4400 plus a 3850 DDR3 (both overclocked, which everyone would agree is a standard combo—and it really is)—but in today's CPU-heavy games, the processor is pinned at 100% constantly while the GPU sits at 35%. That is a massive bottleneck. Yet, when another guy uses that same GPU with an E4600 @3GHz, he sees a solid bottleneck in most modern games...

It’s crucial not to confuse a GPU bottleneck (where the graphics card is the limiting factor) for someone watching these tests—especially when the weakest cards show up in red. For instance, if an 8800GT shows up as red for a certain i5 setup, all that means is the graphics card is being pushed to its absolute limit. If you see the CPU sitting at 40% utilization while the GPU hits 99%, the processor actually has enough headroom to handle much beefier hardware. In this scenario, the GPU is the bottleneck for the CPU, which is exactly what you want to see—you want that graphics card working at full capacity.

Basically, you’re looking to ensure the CPU isn't the bottleneck for the GPU (for example, if the CPU is pinned at 100% while the GPU is struggling at just 70%). You should check this during demanding games for that specific configuration; the more taxing the game, the better the test results will be. Of course, if I throw an old, lightweight game like Commandos 2 at it, it wouldn't be surprising if both components breeze through it with massive FPS while barely using a third of their power.

A lot of this also depends on how well the game is optimized and what’s happening on the screen at the moment (like a loading screen, for instance). To check for bottlenecks, you can use a program like Playclaw3.

Why wouldn't it be good? 🤷
Based on the data (using an I5 760 in the same rig), you'd be looking at the 7870, gtx 580, or the gtx660Ti running without any bottlenecking. Then you have the 7950 (the i boost version) and the gtx670, which would show a minor bottleneck.
Keep in mind, those numbers below are without any filtering (like AA or AF)—once you toggle those on, the GPU utilization actually climbs even higher. So, both the 7950 and the gtx670 should pass just fine. And all of this is strictly at stock settings, no overclocking involved.

EDIT
Something feels off here—look at the third row: the athlon x4 740, Phenom 960T, and Q9550. According to the table, they can handle anything from a gtx 260 up to a 4890 or 5750. Yet, in the very next row, testing the gts 450, gtx 650, 7750, or 5770 already results in a slight bottleneck.😕

It might be a mistake because that should technically be the "sweet spot" combination—especially since the following row is marked yellow for a mild bottleneck (like the gtx650Ti or 6870), though those should work too. They don't even list a perfect match on this table; it’s almost certainly an error.

Aside from that specific part, everything else seems pretty credible to me.

Here’s something useful for everyone. Some German engineers ran some bottleneck testing.

screenshot of the chart - unfortunately, quite a bit is cut off
here is another one

red means a massive bottleneck
orange means a noticeable bottleneck
yellow means a minor bottleneck
green means the perfect pairing

video teaser for the show

Pay close attention when it mentions a GPU bottleneck relative to the CPU (for example, a 4850 being a bottleneck for an I5 3570K)

EDIT—looking closer, that third row of processors definitely looks suspicious.

It would technically work, but here's the catch: that budget-friendly series from Corsair is pretty low-end—I’m pretty sure they use some cheap, knock-off capacitors in those models. I’d steer clear if I were you. If you're looking at Corsair, the CX line is a step up, but honestly, you should aim for the TX series. You really need to vet the build quality, the efficiency rating, and most importantly, how much actual power it delivers on the 12V rail compared to what's printed on the box.
In this specific price bracket, this unit is the gold standard for both reliability and raw power:

fadedorca66 said:If you aren't worried about the price tag, then the Titan is your winner:

http://www.newegg.com/p/product_info.php?c...ducts_id=12801

🙏

Robert Rodriguez2 said:unless we count that new 650TI Boost Edition... but that hasn't even hit the US market yet.

Then there's the 7790 coming out, which should bridge the gap between the 7770 and the 7850—a spot currently occupied by the gtx 580.

http://www.pcekspert.com/articles/1033.html