Gaming PC Upgrade Ideas

Well, it might make a difference depending on what you're playing. A buddy of mine who runs a GTX 1070 actually swapped out his overclocked i5 4670K for an i7 4770K, and the jump was pretty noticeable. He mentioned that entering Novigrad in The Witcher 3—you know, that specific scene the guys over at Digital Foundry are always benchmarking—used to cause major stuttering and frame drops below 60 fps, but with the i7, he’s seeing minimums north of 70 fps.

Before that upgrade, he switched his RAM from an 8GB 1600MHz kit to a 16GB 2400MHz DDR3 kit, and he saw a boost there too. He even looked at some benchmarks from Eurogamer to confirm. It seems like everything scales much better with more RAM if you've got a high-end GPU driving the bus.

From what I understand, overclocking hits a wall eventually—but if you’ve got decent cooling, everything should run stable. Any further clocking requires bumping up the voltage and all that other junk that just heats the CPU right up. Obviously, your thermal headroom and specific cooler type dictate how high you can push the clock. And at the end of the day, the whole thing needs to stay rock-solid under load. Overclocking exists because the multipliers are unlocked, but Intel doesn't guarantee longevity or stability when you start messing with it. That's my take, anyway. Thermal stress and those constant spikes in workload are definitely going to shorten a processor's lifespan—especially if someone tries to pull max performance using some pathetic, cheap aftermarket cooler.

It's fine; my whole family uses this PC and since I'm not home all the time, I'm not risking much with OC. My CPU stays on the ASUS default turbo mode, and I'm using more than enough cooling for that.
My plan is to pick the fastest possible CPU compatible with my board and maybe try a little turbo OC, staying within that near 100% safety zone.

Ugh, I haven't visited the ASUS pages in years.
Update BIOS
Version 3603(Only for WinXP & Vista)
2012/11/2717.52 MBytes

My BIOS is 0902 from Sep/2011.

So what now? This BIOS version isn't meant for Windows 10 64-bit.

shadowwolf15 said:From what I understand, overclocking hits a wall eventually—but if you’ve got decent cooling, everything should run stable. Any further clocking requires bumping up the voltage and all that other junk that just heats the CPU right up. Obviously, your thermal headroom and specific cooler type dictate how high you can push the clock. And at the end of the day, the whole thing needs to stay rock-solid under load. Overclocking exists because the multipliers are unlocked, but Intel doesn't guarantee longevity or stability when you start messing with it. That's my take, anyway. Thermal stress and those constant spikes in workload are definitely going to shorten a processor's lifespan—especially if someone tries to pull max performance using some pathetic, cheap aftermarket cooler.

It's fine; my whole family uses this PC and since I'm not home all the time, I'm not risking much with OC. My CPU stays on the ASUS default turbo mode, and I'm using more than enough cooling for that.
My plan is to pick the fastest possible CPU compatible with my board and maybe try a little turbo OC, staying within that near 100% safety zone.

Ugh, I haven't visited the ASUS pages in years.
Update BIOS
Version 3603(Only for WinXP & Vista)
2012/11/2717.52 MBytes

My BIOS is 0902 from Sep/2011.

So what now? This BIOS version isn't meant for Windows 10 64-bit.

The version of Windows you're running doesn't matter for the BIOS.

shadowwolf15 said:From what I understand, overclocking hits a wall eventually—but if you’ve got decent cooling, everything should run stable. Any further clocking requires bumping up the voltage and all that other junk that just heats the CPU right up. Obviously, your thermal headroom and specific cooler type dictate how high you can push the clock. And at the end of the day, the whole thing needs to stay rock-solid under load. Overclocking exists because the multipliers are unlocked, but Intel doesn't guarantee longevity or stability when you start messing with it. That's my take, anyway. Thermal stress and those constant spikes in workload are definitely going to shorten a processor's lifespan—especially if someone tries to pull max performance using some pathetic, cheap aftermarket cooler.

It's fine; my whole family uses this PC and since I'm not home all the time, I'm not risking much with OC. My CPU stays on the ASUS default turbo mode, and I'm using more than enough cooling for that.
My plan is to pick the fastest possible CPU compatible with my board and maybe try a little turbo OC, staying within that near 100% safety zone.

Ugh, I haven't visited the ASUS pages in years.
Update BIOS
Version 3603(Only for WinXP & Vista)
2012/11/2717.52 MBytes

My BIOS is 0902 from Sep/2011.

So what now? This BIOS version isn't meant for Windows 10 64-bit.

So, your logic follows the idea that "thermal stress" supposedly shortens the component's lifespan. While there isn't a single relevant scientific paper that empirically proves that specific claim, let's just play along with the theory for a moment. The catch here is how long that "lifespan" actually is from a human perspective. For example, a heavily overclocked chip might have a lifespan of, say—let's call it—24, 47, or 89 years, whereas a non-overclocked one might last 24 years and 8 months, 49 years, or 92 years. But let's be real: nobody is going to be using a computer for that many decades anyway.

It’s the same deal as when kids start a thread saying "my processor is burning," only to find out their i3 is sitting at a perfectly fine 49°C under load. 😁
Just because 49°C is hot for a human doesn't mean it's hot for a processor. The same applies to this whole "shortened lifespan" argument regarding thermal stress, electron migration, and whatever else. In my opinion, it's much better for someone to tell you, "Hey, it's stable at this clock and this voltage," which saves you hours of testing, rather than lying and claiming it was "never overclocked." It reminds me of an acquaintance of mine with that i7 4770 I mentioned earlier; I was grabbing a beer with him when he got a call from some guy on Craigslist. He told the guy, "It's never been overclocked, it just ran on its Turbo Boost," while he was actually selling a K-series CPU equipped with an aftermarket cooler. 🤣

Just grab the ASUS EZ update from the ASUS motherboard site for 7 64-bit and you can use it to update the BIOS

Kimberly Gomez34 said:So, your logic follows the idea that "thermal stress" supposedly shortens the component's lifespan. While there isn't a single relevant scientific paper that empirically proves that specific claim, let's just play along with the theory for a moment. The catch here is how long that "lifespan" actually is from a human perspective. For example, a heavily overclocked chip might have a lifespan of, say—let's call it—24, 47, or 89 years, whereas a non-overclocked one might last 24 years and 8 months, 49 years, or 92 years. But let's be real: nobody is going to be using a computer for that many decades anyway.

It’s the same deal as when kids start a thread saying "my processor is burning," only to find out their i3 is sitting at a perfectly fine 49°C under load. 😁
Just because 49°C is hot for a human doesn't mean it's hot for a processor. The same applies to this whole "shortened lifespan" argument regarding thermal stress, electron migration, and whatever else. In my opinion, it's much better for someone to tell you, "Hey, it's stable at this clock and this voltage," which saves you hours of testing, rather than lying and claiming it was "never overclocked." It reminds me of an acquaintance of mine with that i7 4770 I mentioned earlier; I was grabbing a beer with him when he got a call from some guy on Craigslist. He told the guy, "It's never been overclocked, it just ran on its Turbo Boost," while he was actually selling a K-series CPU equipped with an aftermarket cooler. 🤣

Signed, sealed, delivered. There's really no point overthinking processor purchases. For all you know, the previous owner was a hardcore overclocker, and neither you nor the folks at Intel would ever be able to tell.

Honestly, the best listings are the ones that use phrases like "like new" or "well-maintained." It’s a chip, not a vintage Mustang. What does "well-maintained" even mean for silicon? Like, what, were they supposed to take the heatsink off every night, polish it up, and reapply paste?

fadedorca66 said:Signed, sealed, delivered. There's really no point overthinking processor purchases. For all you know, the previous owner was a hardcore overclocker, and neither you nor the folks at Intel would ever be able to tell.

Honestly, the best listings are the ones that use phrases like "like new" or "well-maintained." It’s a chip, not a vintage Mustang. What does "well-maintained" even mean for silicon? Like, what, were they supposed to take the heatsink off every night, polish it up, and reapply paste?

🙏, those are the most ridiculous ads in my opinion😁. And the claims about things never being overclocked and being bundled with Noctu gear... please.

Regardless, it doesn't matter. If the processor still functions, there's no question of damage. I did once have a cheap chip that worked, but incorrectly—likely a cache issue. I only realized it after swapping out absolutely every other component. Buying a different CPU finally solved the problem.
But that was ages ago, so it’s irrelevant to modern processors. We were dealing with a Pentium 200 mmx back then, so you can imagine how long ago that was.🙂

I downloaded suite ii for ASUS, and after installing it, the screen has been stuck on the same thing since yesterday
Warning! +3.3V 2.960V WTF

He says your 3.3V rail is running low, but honestly, software readings are pretty much useless anyway, so you probably shouldn't sweat it too much.

If you actually want to know what's happening with that 3.3V rail, I guess the only real way is to grab a multimeter and test it directly on the power supply.

fadedorca66 said:He says your 3.3V rail is running low, but honestly, software readings are pretty much useless anyway, so you probably shouldn't sweat it too much.

If you actually want to know what's happening with that 3.3V rail, I guess the only real way is to grab a multimeter and test it directly on the power supply.

Thanks. Which part or connector actually carries that 3.3V line?
Does the PSU have specific rails for the motherboard, GPU, drives, or what else?

I decided not to start an entirely new thread here, since my question is directly tied to this specific discussion.

My current rig consists of:

Intel Core i5-4570 s1150
Gigabyte GA-H87-HD3, 1150
Corsair 2x4GB DDR3 1600 C9—so, 8GB total.
EVGA Supernova 550 GS
KINGSTON SV300S37A240G SSD
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1070 8 GB GDDR5 256 bit PCI-E 3.0 x 16 Windforce OC

I also have a secondary machine sitting around, running an old Athlon II on an ancient ASRock motherboard with DDR2 memory. It’s been serving its purpose as a necessary evil for basic tasks, but honestly, I’ve reached a point where I desperately need a more capable computer to handle my actual work.
The primary machine listed above is currently being used by my sons as their main gaming PC.

So, I find myself at a bit of a crossroads: should I just pick up something modest, like a Pentium G4560 along with a compatible motherboard and RAM, to upgrade that secondary machine? Or, should I bite the bullet and overhaul the main system entirely—swapping out the motherboard for something that supports DDR4 and installing a much newer processor (ideally an i7, specifically one of those unlocked K-series models)?
Personally, I’m leaning heavily toward the second option, though I suspect it might be a bit of a headache. I would greatly appreciate any suggestions or advice you all might have regarding that path.

That said, I am certainly open to hearing about any other viable options you think make sense.

Upgrading a secondary unit would probably give you more bang for your buck... what do you actually do for work? What kind of software are you running?

Btw., is that a quad-core Athlon II?

It’s essentially this: AMD Athlon X2 dual Core Processor be 2300.
Up until now, I haven't really needed much power because my life has mostly revolved around Word—just churning out articles for local news outlets. However, starting January 1st, things are shifting; I'll be expected to handle photo editing and design promotional materials since one of our colleagues decided to move on. I have absolutely zero experience in that department, and frankly, looking at this machine, it feels ancient.
The real headache is that even with my current workload, the computer is painfully slow, though I suppose I could tolerate that when it's just typing. But if I'm trying to process graphics? God, I imagine the frustration would be absolutely maddening.

Alright... maybe this works:

Intel Pentium G4560 processor
Intel Pentium G4560 GIGABYTE Main board desktop Intel B250 (Socket LGA1151,2xDDR4,HDMI,DVI-D,D-Sub,1xPCIEX16/2xPCIEX1) B250-DS3H_bulk
2x Crucial DDR4 4GB 2400 MHz P/N: CT4G4DFS824A
Adata 120GB SU650 SATA 3D Nand SSD

Total: $725 Centro

Thanks.
I suppose I’ll head in that direction then, following the path laid out before me.
As for the next big leap in upgrading this gaming rig, looking back at the discussions here, I see the consensus leans toward swapping out my current setup for an i7 4770 and throwing in some higher frequency RAM to round things out—and apparently, that should do the trick.

Kimberly Gomez34 said:So, your logic follows the idea that "thermal stress" supposedly shortens the component's lifespan. While there isn't a single relevant scientific paper that empirically proves that specific claim, let's just play along with the theory for a moment. The catch here is how long that "lifespan" actually is from a human perspective. For example, a heavily overclocked chip might have a lifespan of, say—let's call it—24, 47, or 89 years, whereas a non-overclocked one might last 24 years and 8 months, 49 years, or 92 years. But let's be real: nobody is going to be using a computer for that many decades anyway.

It’s the same deal as when kids start a thread saying "my processor is burning," only to find out their i3 is sitting at a perfectly fine 49°C under load. 😁
Just because 49°C is hot for a human doesn't mean it's hot for a processor. The same applies to this whole "shortened lifespan" argument regarding thermal stress, electron migration, and whatever else. In my opinion, it's much better for someone to tell you, "Hey, it's stable at this clock and this voltage," which saves you hours of testing, rather than lying and claiming it was "never overclocked." It reminds me of an acquaintance of mine with that i7 4770 I mentioned earlier; I was grabbing a beer with him when he got a call from some guy on Craigslist. He told the guy, "It's never been overclocked, it just ran on its Turbo Boost," while he was actually selling a K-series CPU equipped with an aftermarket cooler. 🤣

I can't speak for silicon (though I know higher temps mean better conductivity and more current), but when it comes to electrolytes drying out or solder joints—where expansion and contraction eventually lead to fractures (those dreaded cold solder joints)—heat definitely plays a role. That’s why I try to keep my gear as cool as possible.

Luckily, computer components become obsolete long before they actually die, so maybe it doesn't even matter that much.