Since there isn't much of a performance gap between the 2GB and 4GB models in most scenarios, you could easily squeeze in a cheaper 240GB SSD alongside the HDD instead.
It’s likely they're running SolidWorks, CATIA, or something similar. Honestly, the 460 is the obvious choice for that budget for several reasons: it fits the price point perfectly, those specific programs tend to play nicer with AMD Graphics (assuming that's what we're looking at), and Nvidia's budget options—like the 750ti or the GTX 950—don't even offer a 4GB version, making their 2GB cards a poor value for money.
If you ditch the HDD and that smaller SSD, you could fit this inside.
electricbadger9 said:It’s a bummer they don't have it in stock 😬
They probably just forgot to list if it's a single or a dual fan setup 😁 Plus, the cooler on that thing looks like total garbage
Regarding that GTX 1060 in the link (which is actually a 1050ti 😬), the price isn't bad at all. However, you'd be smarter to offload it within the first year while demand is still high and before the VRAM gets completely trashed by modern titles . BTW, I saw a video on YouTube where a GTX 1060 with 8GB was running Deus Ex—using about 6.8GB to 7.1GB of VRAM 😬
Kimberly Gomez34, your posts on this forum are consistently off-topic. We’ve even gone as far as opening specific threads and moving your comments just to keep things organized, but it feels like a losing battle! Please, stick to the appropriate threads.
Regarding your question, you seem to be spinning your wheels. You need to pick a budget first; once you do, we can actually suggest something that fits your specific needs. Comparing one CPU against another based solely on price points and generations doesn't get you anywhere. You've bounced from Pentium chips to i5s, and from Sandy Bridge all the way to Skylake... Think of a processor as just one single piece of a larger puzzle. At this rate, none of the hardware we've discussed would even work for you because they wouldn't fit within your actual budget.
I don't have the exact dimensions handy—since they aren't listed on the official BenQ website—but I'm fairly certain it'll fit if you lower it like this. You probably won't even need to drop it that far, but it’s always better to be 100% sure before you commit. Generally speaking, if you're eyeing a 27" model, having a pivot function is a total game-changer. If not, even a 24" or 25" setup isn't too shabby either.
It’s not exactly a complex build, but here is what you can get for similar money:
1 x Intel Core i3-6098P, 3.6GHz, LGA 1151 1 x MSI H110M PRO-D (LGA 1151, DDR4, USB 3.1, SATA III, DVI, Audio, LAN) Micro-ATX 1 x Kingston 8GB 2133MHz DDR4 Non-ECC CL15 1Rx8 1 x AMD Radeon RX 460 2GB, 128bit GDDR5 1 x Zalman Z3, USB 3.0 black, 3x120mm fans 1 x Fortron Hyper 500W, 80+ rated
Total: $1142
it futura
Think of it this way: the processor has more raw power and the platform is more modern (utilizing the 1151 socket and DDR4 memory). While the graphics card performs similarly, it belongs to a newer generation, meaning it's more efficient and budget-friendly. You also get a superior case equipped with three fans, along with a higher-quality power supply backed by a 5-year warranty.
Right now, you can snag a Fractal R4 case at a really great price
Also, if you're stuck without an HDD, maybe consider picking up a 480-525GB SSD instead? If you're planning to run games off it, it makes much more sense. Honestly, why even bother with an HDD? Are you just running out of storage space for everything else?
Look, I think 24" isn't a bad call for 1440p right now (especially since people are pushing 4K on 15" laptops these days), but if you can swing a 27", that’d be the better move.
Is 19.5 inches really a dealbreaker? How about this one?
Otherwise, your perfect solution is this 25" model—it's IPS and the price is solid. With the stand, the height is barely over 16.5 inches.
EDIT
Or you could just grab something like this with a pivot function and just lower it as far as you need it to go.😁
Nah, nothing from AMD even managed to touch the IPC Nehalem sto
Regarding resolutions, it’s always been the same deal: the higher the resolution, the less noticeable the performance gap becomes between different CPUs
wiredotter14, I honestly don't buy that Vishera outperforms yours for gaming (I mean, who even benchmarks these things anymore?). With your setup sitting at 3.8GHz, your single-core performance actually beats hers at 4GHz (even if she's paying a few hundred bucks more). The only area where she has an edge is multi-threaded tasks, but that gap is practically irrelevant when you're gaming—Vishera just has way more threads than any game actually needs today.
Regarding the overclocking, the main goal is just getting it away from those low stock speeds. Once you've pushed past 3GHz, you're already heading in the right direction.
If you pick up a monitor like that, I don't think it's overkill to pair it with even a GTX 1070 if that's what you're aiming for. If you decide to stick with 1080p and FX, then a GTX 1060 will do the trick. However, if you want to stay at 1080p but step up to a GPU like the GTX 1070, you might want to look into upgrading your platform (like an i7 or similar)
If you actually followed what wiredotter14 and I were discussing, you'd realize it's much smarter to just pick up a 1440p monitor click instead of trying to overhaul your entire PC build . With a GTX 1070, your CPU is going to be a bottleneck in plenty of DX11 games at 1080p. Things look a lot better once you jump to 1440p, and if you went all the way to 4K, even a GTX 1080 wouldn't hold you back. The first one is still a decent value if you're looking at the $1267 (price-to-performance ratio), whereas the GTX 1080 really isn't .
Running your CPU at 4GHz puts you right around an FX8350 level. Given your motherboard and cooling setup, you might realistically push it to 4.2 or 4.3GHz depending on how lucky you got with your specific chip—just make sure you hunt for the lowest possible voltage that keeps everything stable.
The first link doesn't give you specific data to pinpoint a bottleneck, but it does show that your games will run great; essentially, it proves you aren't dealing with a totally mismatched pair.
In the second link, you'll see that you'll hit a CPU bottleneck in single-core intensive titles (like ArmA 3 or Fallout 4), but those games are the exception, not the rule. ArmA 3 is a mess on its own, and I'm pretty sure Fallout 4 was one of the last major AAA titles to be heavily single-core bound—it uses an engine that’s basically just a modified version of an old, clunky engine dating back to the 90s. Everything else is negligible. Even if you do hit a bottleneck at 1080p, your minimum FPS should stay above 60 or 70, which honestly isn't even a big deal.
wiredotter14 said:I think I'll get more out of this than upgrading both my CPU and GPU since I don't have enough cash to cover all three.
That's likely true, especially if your i7 920 is already overclocked. By the way, check that second link again. Even in those games where the FX causes a bottleneck at 1080p, the performance gap narrows significantly at 1440p. So, your plan actually makes sense; that's pretty much what the benchmarks suggest.
Basically, they’re telling you your current build is pretty well-balanced. In theory, there is still some room to "future-proof" this specific platform. For instance, if you sold your CPU for roughly $500-$200 and added an $133 up to an Intel Core i7-3770K—overclocking it to 4-4.3GHz (assuming you have a decent aftermarket cooler)—then sold your GPU for $$333+ to grab an $433 like an NVIDIA RTX 3060, and maybe bumped up the RAM a bit (though 6GB is fine for now), you could upgrade. But the real question is: does any of that actually make sense when your current setup is already solid? You can still run most upcoming games without needing an immediate overhaul. It might be smarter to just ride this configuration for a while and then swap out the entire platform once whatever is next becomes relevant—be it Intel Core architecture, Kaby Lake, Cannon Lake, Zen, or whatever new NVIDIA or AMD cards hit the market down the road.
If you’ve got extra cash burning a hole in your pocket, I’d suggest investing in a large SSD if you don't have one yet. At least you can migrate that drive to your next build.
It’s crucial to note whether you're checking those temperatures while under a full load—specifically right before the system restarts, whether you were mid-render or deep into a gaming session. I’d suggest testing it with just one GPU installed. This should lighten the load on the power supply (though I have my doubts that's the root cause), and you'll certainly get lower temps than when you have two cards sandwiched together right next to each other.
Sapphire Ed mentioned he's been chatting with several developers who claim they design games specifically to run on high settings. According to them, that’s the sweet spot where you get the best balance of performance and visual fidelity. Anything beyond that—whether it's labeled very high, ultra, or epic depending on the title—is mostly just unnecessary eye candy. It doesn't actually provide a massive jump in quality; it just cripples your frame rates and serves as a way to push people toward buying high-end GPUs. The problem is, most enthusiasts who drop serious cash on hardware don't see it that way. If someone goes out and buys a $1267 for example, the first thing they want to do is crank every single setting to the absolute max. It doesn't make sense to most buyers to shell out all that money for a GPU and then intentionally turn down the graphics. That's just how it works, and honestly, that's exactly what keeps this entire industry running
Have you double-checked your CPU and GPU temperatures yet? Thermal throttling can definitely cause sudden shutdowns under heavy load. This is a major investment, and you really shouldn't be guessing when you need to be 100% certain before making moves.