Posts by Ashley Wood3

I feel as though I no longer have any need for university lectures; perhaps it would be more beneficial to unlock a small computer and finally learn something truly practical.

With a budget like yours, I honestly feel it would be a missed opportunity to settle for a gtx 1050, as its performance is quite underwhelming. An RX 570 offers a significantly more substantial boost, especially since you also gain access to FreeSync, though if you could manage it, an RX 580 8GB would truly be the ideal choice for your setup.

My only hesitation lies with that specific ASRock phantom model, which, in my humble opinion, is rather subpar when it comes to thermal management and noise levels; you would likely find much better satisfaction by selecting a higher-quality version of the 570 or perhaps even a 580 4GB.

And honestly, if we are going to be completely candid about this, one should also acknowledge that Intel's current success is largely a byproduct of rather distasteful business practices implemented at multiple levels. Back when things were relatively transparent, AMD was consistently undermining them, much like how ATI used to squeeze Nvidia. My contention is that over the next few years, AMD will likely seize control of the market precisely because they have managed to avoid making enemies in the corporate world—whereas Intel and Nvidia seem to cultivate a massive legion of adversaries, even if they manage not to provoke an outcry every single day. There is a very real possibility that AMD could eventually push them out of the picture entirely, clearing the way for those new yet familiar players who have been suppressed and marginalized until now.

Honestly, FreeSync is an absolute game-changer; it made a massive difference in my experience. When I was playing Metro or Dirt Rally on Ultra settings, the screen tearing was becoming quite unbearable, but everything just smoothed out beautifully once I enabled it.

I truly believe that pairing a Ryzen processor with an RX 570 and the specific monitor I mentioned would be an absolute bullseye. Alternatively, you could opt for that slightly more budget-friendly Acer Nitro model, though in my humble opinion, since half the enjoyment of a setup comes from the screen itself, it really pays to invest a little extra there. If your current budget allows for this configuration, I honestly don't think you need to spend any more time searching. As for an optical drive, you mentioned your laptop already handles those needs, so there is likely no reason to seek one out for a desktop. Furthermore, regarding Windows and Office, it seems like such a waste to pay full retail price when, as far as I can tell, Microsoft doesn't strictly demand that level of expenditure from an individual user.

Kimberly Gomez34, I have to say, that price point feels a bit steep. It might be worth considering $2333 installment plans, especially if she skips the monitor and other peripherals for now. To be perfectly honest, crimsonstag84's build is significantly more powerful than my own setup, yet it remains $200 more expensive, even when you account for a few minor shared advantages. Furthermore, the screen included there isn't nearly as good as the LG 23 MP68VQ, which I personally consider to be an absolute best-buy. Perhaps the most prudent approach would be to finance that specific configuration while purchasing the LG 23 MP68VQ outright with cash, given how much value it offers. If things get tight, maybe she could opt for a slightly more budget-friendly processor or adjust another component?

Oh, and I should also mention that the new nitro monitor looks like it could be quite a solid value as well.

1 * SilentiumPC Armis AR3 Black Case, includes 2x120mm fans
SKU: 29150648 - $133

1 * Fortron Hexa Plus 400W Power Supply, 80+, active, 12 cm
SKU: fsp-nap-hexa-400p - $117

1 * Gigabyte GA-B250M-D3H, 1151, iB250, D4, S3, U3, DVI, mA
SKU: gig-ga-b250m-d3h - $234

1 * Intel CPU desktop Pentium G4560 (3.5GHz, 3MB, LGA1151) box
SKU: BX80677G4560SR32Y - $222

1 * Patriot Signature DDR4, 2400Mhz, 8GB, CL15, Intel only!!
SKU: pat-pv48g24h-8g - 610, $0.00

1 * Asus GTX 1050 Ti 4GB GDDR5 Graphics Card
SKU: 0902242 - $518

1 * Adata 240GB SU650 SATA 3D Nand SSD
SKU: 0140881 - $139

1 * Lenovo 500GB 3.5 inch SATA HDD
SKU: LEN-PULLED500GB-08 - $80

1 * LG 23MP68VQ-P 23" Wide LED Monitor
SKU: LG-0594 - $461

Total: $2.00 with financing available, plus complimentary assembly and shipping. Please note this does not include Windows 10 (as I am quite uncertain of what they charge for their most basic version), nor does it include speakers, headphones, a mouse, a keyboard, or an optical drive should one be required.

I wasn't actually referring to a newer series of motherboards, but rather to a model that is significantly more robust than the Tomahawk or similar mid-range options; there are quite a few such high-end models available on the market. I am currently using a ProBook that serves my needs quite reliably, but if I were to purchase a new system today, I would certainly opt for something much higher in terms of build quality, longevity, and future-proofing. Regarding the Dell U2415 monitor, it is an excellent choice, and I suspect you won't find anything better for that specific price point and purpose. However, I am somewhat skeptical about investing in that high-speed Samsung SSD, as it might be $267 overkill for something that will likely offer you minimal to no tangible benefit. In my estimation, a standard, budget-friendly SSD is more than sufficient for the vast majority of tasks, provided that it actually meets its advertised performance specifications—for instance, hitting those 550 MB/s read/write speeds.

In my humble opinion, a standard SSD should be more than sufficient for most people's needs; perhaps it might actually be wiser to redirect those funds intended for a premium Samsung drive toward a higher-quality motherboard, a better monitor, or even an additional hard drive or basic SSD.
I must admit, I am somewhat perplexed as to why san would suggest looking into a Ryzen 8/16, as they seem rather inefficient from a value perspective when compared to the 6/12 options, which honestly provide plenty of power for just about any task you might encounter.

For roughly $3,000-$1100, you might be able to find a laptop with slightly superior hardware specifications, though I suspect the actual performance jump wouldn't be particularly monumental; furthermore, you would likely be limited to a 15.6'' screen, as those 17.3'' models tend to carry a much higher price tag. On the other hand, laptops in this specific price bracket are generally of top-tier quality in almost every conceivable aspect, from the display clarity to the tactile feel of the trackpad and keyboard. These modern designs lack flexibility as well, as they are often quite difficult to open up for cleaning or internal upgrades.

One major grievance for me is that batteries are now non-replaceable, and frankly, I wouldn't consider purchasing such a device solely because of that single flaw, regardless of its other shortcomings. Additionally, the battery life tends to be underwhelming, and running Windows 10 will absolutely drain them.

Even if you were to spend $1667, you would still encounter many of these same frustrations. To be perfectly honest, I am not entirely certain which specific model you are looking at, as I haven't had the chance to dive deep into the full technical reviews, but when it comes to these budget-friendly laptops, one really cannot expect much of anything.

If I may offer a suggestion, I would much rather recommend building a desktop; you could opt for a Ryzen 8/16 system (unless you find through some research that the specific software you rely on heavily prefers Intel). For memory, I believe 2x8GB at 3000MHz with CL16 timings offers the best value, and while a modest 400-450W power supply might suffice, it should at least be of decent, mid-range quality. I would advise allocating a bit more toward the motherboard—perhaps around $900-$333—to secure a solid mid-range option. If you decide to pick a dedicated graphics card, I would personally lean toward AMD and pair it with a FreeSync-compatible monitor. A 24'' 1080p monitor feels a bit lackluster to me; I find 23'' to be the upper limit of what is ideal unless size is your primary concern, and you can often save a significant amount of money just by choosing a slightly smaller screen size.

Alternatively, you could select a more affordable graphics card for now and focus your budget on the rest of the components and a superior monitor, perhaps something in the 24-27'' range with 2K resolution. In a year or two, you could simply upgrade to a newer offering from AMD; by then, the latest series should have been on the market long enough for prices to stabilize and drop, assuming there aren't any strange market anomalies, which, as we have seen over the last few years, are all too common.

True, though if you budget for $2167, a powerful processor paired with 16GB of RAM should still leave enough room for a decent graphics card, provided there hasn't been a massive spike in CPU prices lately. With an additional $667 in the mix, one might even be able to pick up a rather respectable 29'' ultrawide monitor.

Should the resolution prove insufficient, perhaps it would be a viable workaround to simply scale things up to 2K or 4K via software settings.

That particular consideration becomes quite significant only in countries where electricity costs are prohibitively high; otherwise, it remains a relatively negligible factor, provided one has invested in a reliable power supply and maintains at least a standard level of overall system cooling.

I find myself quite satisfied with this micro-ATX marvel; considering what I actually paid for it, I’d give it a solid 10/10. Honestly, I can't point to any real flaws, and it likely outperforms most cases that cost several times as much: https://www.amazon.com/therm...a-atx-46440231

Hannah Bishop4 said:I bumped up my pagefile size, and honestly, that fixed a huge chunk of the issues right away. I also grabbed another 8GB of RAM, so I’m finally running 16GB in dual channel instead of just 8GB in single channel (that actually dropped my CPU usage from hitting 90-100% down to around 70-80%). Everything feels smooth now performance-wise—no more frame drops. My GPU was always holding its max frequency, so that wasn't really the issue, but now the usage stays pretty much pinned at 100%, which wasn't happening before I tweaked the pagefile and added the extra RAM. The wattage is still fluctuating like it was before, though. I'm honestly stumped on why that's happening since every other metric shows everything is running exactly as it should. VRAM usage is sitting around 3-3.5GB in Battlefield 1, which seems totally normal. I haven't bothered testing a different power supply since things are working fine now, so I'm guessing those wattage readings are just being wonky.

It is quite an interesting observation; if Battlefield 1 running with 64 players is likely to consume somewhere in the realm of 5.5 to 6 GB of memory, then a standard, unoptimized installation of Windows 10—with all its various automated background processes running—could easily push that total usage up to 8 or 9 GB, if not higher.

I find myself wondering if those YouTubers are perhaps only displaying the power draw specifically for the graphics chip itself, while his readings show a slightly different range of 100 to 130W. My own card seems to be operating at a somewhat lower voltage due to being stuck on an x4 2.0 connection—which appears to be causing a mild bottleneck—but when I run Dirt Rally or Metro with the frame rate unlocked, the consumption aligns quite closely with his results, sitting right around 95 to 135W. If my memory serves me correctly, I also saw it pulling about 130 to 135W during the Superposition benchmark.

Hannah Bishop4, have you considered attempting to increase the Power limit by 50% yet? It might be worth your while to also verify the PCIe slot status within GPU-Z; there is a small indicator or perhaps a question mark located just to the right of the slot information section that can provide some clarity. Additionally, I was wondering if you are currently utilizing the High Performance power plan within Windows. It might also be prudent to look through your BIOS settings to see if any unnecessary, overly complex features are enabled that could potentially interfere with your overall performance—I personally found it helpful to disable a few such options myself, though I wasn't referring to the standard low power states, but rather other specialized settings. Finally, it might not be a bad idea to run a quick stress test on the graphics card itself just to be certain.

John Turner34 said:Or even our own eyes—honestly, there isn't a camera on this planet capable of matching that, not even close. And as for animal vision? There is absolutely no way artificial technology could ever replicate that level of natural perception.

While I suppose one could argue a high-end camera might technically surpass the human visual system in specific instances, we must remember that our own perception is inherently limited; we aren't necessarily equipped to judge the absolute fidelity of an elite imaging system, much like how a subpar monitor fails to accurately render color or contrast in certain lighting conditions. Furthermore, one has to consider the specialized capabilities of modern tech: the precision of extreme zooming, the grace of high-speed slow-motion footage capturing a hummingbird in mid-air, or even the utility of thermal imaging and advanced medical scanners that can peer through barriers with incredible accuracy.

In my humble opinion, it simply isn't worth the investment. The platform itself feels somewhat dated and lacks the necessary punch for modern demands, and frankly, 16 GB of memory seems quite excessive if you're just looking to play at Full HD resolution. As for the graphics card, its value is entirely subjective; whether it's actually "good" really depends on your specific gaming preferences and the graphical settings you intend to run.

I find myself wondering how you can justify such a high valuation for an RX 580? One could easily purchase entirely new, superior models that come with a full three-year warranty for somewhere between $2,800 and $967, though even that seems quite steep if we are being honest. In my estimation, that specific card is worth, at most, $600. Furthermore, an SSD would run about $130-$$50, and a motherboard would be roughly $233.

I would strongly advise you to back up everything that holds any significance to you onto external storage devices, ensuring you create at least two separate copies stored in two different locations. Once you have secured your data, you can proceed to format the partition or partitions and perform a clean installation of Windows. If you aren't already doing so, you might want to consider using Windows 7, as it is many times less of a headache than Windows 10, provided that you can successfully locate all the necessary drivers for your hardware.

While I certainly appreciate the thought behind this configuration, I find myself questioning the actual utility of such a processor; one must consider exactly what level of computational power is truly required here. If we can manage with something less demanding than a Ryzen 5 2600, then in my humble opinion, the Ryzen 3 2200g would be the most prudent selection. By opting for that, you could eliminate the need for a dedicated graphics card entirely, allowing those saved funds to be redirected toward a larger or perhaps more high-performance PCI-e SSD, or even just adding more RAM to the system.