What are you talking about with a GT 930? The GTX 950 was basically the floor for entry-level cards back then (and now we've moved on to the 10xx series). We aren't seeing any more actual new low-end GPUs; if anything comes out, it’ll just be a rebranded version of old tech.
If that GT 730 uses the Kepler architecture instead of Fermi (since there are three different versions), then technically it counts as a "DX12 card."😁 But let's be real—that doesn't mean you can actually run a single DX12 game on it.
Calling a GPU "DX12 compatible" is a massive generalization—pretty much everything on the market today supports it to some degree, but finding a passive model is actually quite rare.
People over on PC Gamer are debating this too, but the general consensus is that it’s a scam. This guy and his shop have everything listed at "too good to be true" prices. Nobody wants to risk ordering from them—if anyone actually pulls the trigger, someone should definitely let us know what happens 😁
As for the RX 460, it's pretty clear it's going to become the budget GPU sitting right under the $333, which is awesome. We might even see 4GB models priced where the 2GB versions are today. Honestly, even the current prices for the 2GB versions feel like a solid deal
Here's the deal: they were originally $360 charging for the 4GB version (back when you couldn't even find it). $360 is definitely the actual price for the 2GB model—no question about it. At that price point, it's an absolute no-brainer.
The Gigabyte model doesn't even have a 6-pin connector. Personally, I’d opt for one that uses a pin—you get much more headroom and better overall stability.
By the way, grab the 2GB version. They don't carry it downtown, and if they do, the price is likely a mistake. The only place where the 4GB version actually has a reasonable price tag is at Micro Center.
Also, just a heads up:
The GTX 1060 3GB cards are overpriced, but you can snag a great deal on a genuine GTX 1060 if you look closely.click
In my opinion, manufacturing the GTX 1060 actually costs more than producing the GTX 480. You have significantly more hardware involved—more VRAM, a wider bus, better die architecture, and higher specs—plus you're dealing with that 14nm process...
By the way, they just hit the shelves. You can find the 3GB version of the 1060 in stock now, ranging from $219 up to $767 currently.
It might happen in three or four months. Right now, they have the MSI Gaming 8GB listed downtown, but it’s currently out of stock—and even then, it’s priced at $830, which is basically the top-of-the-line model anyway.
Getting these $566 for a reference GTX 1060 is actually a pretty solid deal.
LC Power is really stepping up their game—their new Gold series is fully modular, and based on the pricing we're seeing over in Europe, it shouldn't break the bank here in the States.
Either step up to a higher-tier laptop entirely, or opt for one with a more powerful GPU—which is the real dealbreaker for gaming. It’s got an IPS screen, sure, but they swapped out the SSD for an HDD... If you can live with that, go for it (it makes significantly more sense in my book). You can always throw an SSD in later.
Personally, I don't think the price difference is worth it. If that's the case, I'd honestly rather just save up a bit longer until I can grab the Fractal R4. I haven't heard anything about that shop.
edit
The link you shared shows some pretty decent cases too, specifically up to $167 (brands like NZXT, Corsair, or Cooler Master).
Most decent cases these days come with dedicated liquid cooling mounts. Honestly, space is tight; you won't be able to squeeze an air cooler like a hyper 212 in there.
+ It’s pretty pricey, and you only get two pre-installed fans (whereas the Z3 + and Deathclaw both pack three). It’s not much of a bargain. Plus, plenty of people complain about the build quality and thin materials used by Thermaltake.
Are you talking about dual processors? Or Dual Channel? That’s when two sticks work together as a pair.
By the way, I’d steer clear of that "AMD only RAM" stuff—I'm guessing you're browsing eBay? There's no guarantee it'll actually work with your setup, so you're better off sticking to standard modules.
Over at Micro Center, the Cooler Master Aviator and Octagon models caught my eye too, though I'm not entirely sure if they're worth the extra premium.
If you want to step up a couple of classes above all those, you really can't beat the Fractal Design Define R4 (but you'll have to check $200 for that)
analogtiger19 said:Looking at these links, the only logical takeaway is that an i7 delivers higher FPS in most scenarios (sometimes significantly, sometimes not—but does anyone actually care about the difference between 80 and 90 FPS? Though, honestly, based on your link, there’s practically no difference here). That was never the debate. And yeah, even an i3-2100 won't completely bottleneck a GTX 980Ti (in AC Syndicate, the core load hits 96-98%, so if we want to be pedantic, you could call that a bottleneck)...
Let me sum this up, because I feel like I'm failing to get my point across. 😬 Does an i7 give you more FPS than an i5? Yes. Do I think a 70% price hike is justified for a measly 25% boost in specific situations? No. 🙂
You can't determine the absence of a bottleneck just by looking at those CPU load percentages. I've seen people running AMD Ryzen systems with only 35% CPU load while still being heavily CPU bottlenecked. You can tell by the FPS; an Intel Core i3 will deliver roughly 130% worse performance compared to a top-tier processor like an Intel Core i7 Extreme.
There are two other factors to consider here:
- I suspect anyone dropping $0.00 on a PC (or $2833 regardless) is going to find staying at 1080p/60Hz quite difficult. - And even if they do stay there, as juretherebel mentioned, some games are much more demanding than others. This won't last forever. Next-gen consoles are arriving within the year.
I actually got into a debate once with that guy from the science studio (back before Pascal was even released). He was testing CPU bottlenecks using an Intel Core i5 paired with a GTX 970. I told him straight up: that isn't a good GPU for testing CPU bottlenecks. To get meaningful results, you have to eliminate the GPU bottleneck entirely by using a high-end card; otherwise, you can't actually see the difference between processors. His response was basically that he didn't feel like testing high-end GPUs on mid-range CPUs, plus he focuses on budget builds and value components—you'll never hear him recommend the most expensive cards. I told him, "Fine, I don't love high-end gear either, but your test isn't relevant because the GPU is acting as the primary limiter." He missed the point. Soon enough, a card like the 980Ti will drop in price and move into the "value" category, and those same users will be pairing them with Intel Core i5 chips. Think about how much CPUs have advanced in the last 4-5 years compared to GPUs. GPU progress has outpaced CPUs by several times, all while becoming more affordable. Meanwhile, games are getting harder on processors, and multi-thread optimization is improving across the board. He ignored that logic, arguing again that no sane person is going to buy a $600 GPU and a $200 CPU. But look at the reality: now you can grab that NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 for $1233 (whereas 980Tis were over $2000 until recently, and used ones are under $1167). I imagine by the end of this generation, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 will drop to at least $1000 right before it disappears, making it incredibly accessible.
analogtiger19 said:That’s why I used the term "significant" bottleneck... saying one exists is one thing, but calling it significant is a whole different story. I’d honestly love to see some data where an i5 2400 actually hits a wall with a card in the range of the GTX 1070 we talked about. I'll try to dig up some info myself while I wait for the game to start, but if you’ve already got a link, feel free to drop it 😬
Look, in more and more games, the performance gap between an i5 and an i7 is way beyond a mere statistical error. Take Fallout 4, for instance—click (there's a 15-25% difference between i5 and i7 of the same generation, depending on your resolution) when paired with a 980Ti (which is basically the same tier as a GTX 1070). Then you have Watch Dogs and Assassin's Creed Syndicate—click, click (both sources suggest a measurable gap even between quad-core and hexa-core i7 setups). Or look at The Witcher 3 during CPU-bound segments (Core i7 4790K hitting 65.0/84.4 vs. Core i5 4690K at 52.0/79.2)—that's a 23% difference in minimums. And don't get me started on those massive 64-player multiplayer matches like BF3 & BF4, or Crysis 3. You won't find a decent benchmark online for it, but I remember a crowd of people obsessed with bottlenecks claiming an i5 3xxx would throttle anything above a GTX 770/280 x, even those specific cards.
I'm definitely hitting a bottleneck, so I'm just waiting for Intel to drop the Skylake- architecture processors before I commit to a full platform upgrade. Regardless of how much I overclock, this CPU is going to be a bottleneck in almost every modern AAA title; my only real escape is moving up to an i7.
The issue now is that a 10-15% or even a 20-25% performance delta in the GPU world can represent the jump between entire classes of hardware—it's easily a difference of a few hundred dollars.
analogtiger19 said:I'm not sure if you guys are being serious about this i5 vs i7 "futureproofing" talk, or maybe I just missed something... are you seriously trying to tell me that an i5 2400 from 2011 would noticeably bottleneck a modern GPU today? (Five and a half years later). 🤔
Of course it would. Sure, the game might run okay, but that doesn't mean there isn't a bottleneck present.