It looks like the settings got disabled for non-Z series motherboards. Apparently, you’re stuck having to manually reconfigure your overclock every single time you boot up now. If you want to avoid that headache, your best bet is to just grab a Z97 board—it'll run you about $100.
I'm not entirely sure what your specific requirements or budget look like, but if you're already looking at spending roughly $267, you could actually jump into a completely new platform—think something like a modern entry-level setup with a decent processor, an H81 motherboard, and 4GB of DDR3 RAM.
In extreme scenarios, you might run into some slight bottlenecking, but for the most part, it’s not an issue—especially since it’s been overclocked. According to the PC Gamer tests comparing the GTX 960 and the R9 280, there wasn't any massive difference between various processors (Athlon 860, i3, i5, i7...) when playing moderately demanding titles like BioShock Infinite or Civilization. Personally, I'd lean toward the 280 because the 660ti only has about 1.5GB vs 0.5GB of extra VRAM, plus that HD7950 actually holds up even better against it today than it did back in the day.
They’re pretty much neck and neck (though the GTX 950 might pull ahead slightly depending on the specific game or which driver version you're running), but honestly, the biggest selling point here is that the other one comes with a longer warranty. Either way, both cards represent the absolute ceiling for your CPU, so you really can't go wrong with whichever one you pick.
The 8320e is definitely the better value for you; since your motherboard supports it, you'll get much better performance when you're streaming. You overpaid for that GPU—for what you spent, you could have picked up an RX 580 for even less money.
Honestly, it’s not even worth losing your cool over. I think paying two grand for a chip like that is way too much, especially if you’re planning on streaming and stuff. In reality, your graphics card is going to be your biggest bottleneck here.
If we're talking about a dedicated gaming rig, why wouldn't someone go for a non-K CPU—say, an Intel Core i5-4460 on an LGA 1150 socket paired with a non-Z motherboard—and just stick with 8GB of RAM? It seems like a logical way to budget if the ultimate goal is just to snag an NVIDIA GTX 970 or an R9 390 rather than overspending on parts that won't boost performance much at that level.
Grab an E3-1231 v3 paired with a decent B85 or H97 motherboard. You could even go for the LC-CC-120 setup; everything should fit perfectly within your budget.
Exactly. Like we already heard, SSD prices are set to plummet this year. It’s honestly a shame that those 480GB to 512GB drives are still holding onto such high price tags.
I can't find anything under that specific model name. Honestly, for that kind of money, getting a PL/AD-PLS panel and a 24" screen feels like a total rip-off.
Everything looks solid except for that monitor choice in the first build—what was the logic behind that diagonal size and resolution back in 2016? If an $850 budget $300 is overkill for a 22" VA panel, you should at least grab the most affordable 1080p model in the 21-22 inch range that features a DVI output.
It probably would work. It’ll suit you just fine, whether you're running games on an HD 5670 DDR5, an HD 6670 DDR5, a GTX 650, an HD 7750, or an HD 7730.
Since you’ve already got a decent GPU under your belt, I agree with the guys here—just hang tight for those 14/16nm cards. With that 280, you aren't going to miss out on any games in the meantime.
Adam Moore3 said:A bit off-topic, but does anyone have any actual news on Pascal? They mentioned a release in Q1 2016, but we're already halfway through February and I still haven't heard anything concrete 😕
I posted a link in the news section earlier. Regarding Pascal, there was some talk about a Titanka coming in 3-4 months, but based on what people who are following this closely are saying, it doesn't look like NVIDIA will drop Pascal anytime soon. It seems more likely that Intel's Polaris (formerly known as Volcanic Islands) will hit the market first.
Undervolting AMD's Radeon R9 Fury for Better Efficiency
With this tweak, the card almost matches the efficiency of the GTX 980 in terms of performance per watt; in fact, it actually outperforms it in two out of nine games tested.
Anthony Jackson2 said:So there are two ways to go about this: either grab something more powerful like a 7870 now and then upgrade your CPU later, or just stick to the plan.
Exactly, provided it fits your budget. Honestly, if you're sticking with a 17" monitor, it probably only runs at 1280x1024, making an HD7770 (R7 250 x) perfectly adequate. However, since you mentioned upgrading your monitor soon (there are plenty of decent options starting from around $300), that GPU is already borderline insufficient for many 1080p titles—much like your dual-core setup, which I know you'll be upgrading anyway. On paper, the HD7870 is considered the baseline for demanding upcoming titles, and the real question is how long it will remain playable before it hits that "minimum spec" wall in practice. It’s better to invest now so you don't have to spend more money
WTF? You're actually mocking him just because he wants to rely on actual reviews and real-world experience instead of your nonsensical theories? 😵
If that isn't straight-up spamming, trolling, or just being obnoxious, I don't know what is. If we were talking about a 270X versus a GTX 960, you'd probably still be arguing that the first one is superior based on some imaginary math... No need to even reply; that idiot has already been thoroughly shut down, and you're clearly on the right track toward 🙂
BTW, Nvidia and AMD graphics cards use the exact same manufacturing process and come from the same factory (TSMC).
This GPU is a familiar face from the HD7870 series, featuring 1,280 stream processors across 20 compute units, along with 80 texture units and 32 ROPs. On the Toixic, it’s been overclocked to a base clock of 1100 MHz, hitting a boost clock of 1150 MHz (which is its constant operating speed). The 2GB of GDDR5 memory runs at 1500MHz, sitting about 100 MHz above the stock reference specs.
Try setting it to 925-1050MHz / 1400MHz. You might also want to try swapping out the drivers—it's a long shot, and you probably don't even need to repaste since it clearly isn't overheating—but the hardware itself likely failed (typical artifacts). Your only real DIY option is this. Lately, I've recommended the oven method to a few guys dealing with artifacts, and it worked 100% of the time. However, they were all using ancient GPUs that weren't worth much even if they were working perfectly, so they had nothing to lose. Since you're dealing with a slightly more serious, newer GPU, you'll have to decide if the risk is worth it.
Most tutorials suggest that C&C doesn't play nice with overclocking settings, though some people claim you can just toggle it on "once you've found a stable overclock" and run it without any issues 🤷. Personally (usually when working with different processors), I've never bothered turning C&C on after an overclock.