Would This PC Be Acceptable?

Lendova · July 19, 2016

I can add atleast 4 more games right now, which not going to hold 30 fps on any FX. But with a 30 fps limit, an octa core FX is equally good as a quad core FX (or a dual core pentium G?).

Versh · July 19, 2016

a note:

I had a fx 8350, Get a good case with a good ventilation, they tend to warm up quite

Also with a 980/970 you'll need more than 500W

windpl · July 19, 2016

If they wont hold on any fx, then then wont hold on any i3. I don't really see what point you want to make.

Rayblue · July 19, 2016

Overkill. Unless you want the insanely high end and plan on making a lot of screenshots.

guk · July 19, 2016

If high-end Skyrim modding matters to you, DO NOT get Windows 10. Or make a separate partition for Win 7 / 8.1.

Reason#1: Win10 is capping the "total available video memory" for all DirectX9 applications at 4064MB. That's not the VRAM of your GPU, but the VideoMemorySizeMB in ENB which you can also see somewhere in the Windows hardware tabs. So if you're dreaming of the perfect screenarcher Skyrim with 4K textures everywhere in 2160p, you're not going to get that with Win10 unless Microsoft fixes this problem.

Reason#2: Skyrim ENB runs unstable on Win10, unexplicable glitches and FPS drops are common.

Reason#3: SweetFX doesn't work under Win10. Which means that some of the best screenarcher ENBs that depend directly on post-processing effects from SweetFX are not available on Win10. And even worse you have to enable Temporal AA just to get some kind of acceptable anti-aliasing, which causes catastrophical "ghosting" on any moving objects.

skyrimsucks · July 19, 2016

i use i7, but even 4th gen i3 will beat fx as link i posted imply. u need high end cooler and high end mobo that can deal with high tdp and still u will get subpar performance with much more heat and used energy. in some integer loads fx will beat even i7 but those are applications that are not floating point focused (like 3d render). overal i3 is cheaper and superior.

what bothers me is that ppl think fx are 8 core cpus. they are not. they fooled customers with ghz and false core count.

skyrimsucks · July 19, 2016

"octa core" fx are quad cores with false marketing bullshit. fx are even weaker in foating point performance than phenom 2 serie.

*pinky6225* · July 19, 2016

Each to there own i suppose, for me overkill is water cooling and SLI/Crossfire, but if i was taking the time and effort to build a pc i'd expect it to atleast fulfill the recommended specs for games for 3 years from when i built it so again i'd say over a 3 year period the dif between i5 and i7 (or respective AMD CPU's) is lunch money

Lendova · July 20, 2016

Actually, they do. Plus, an upgrade is still possible later if its become necessary.

windpl · July 20, 2016

Good for you then, you should said that on start so we would not waste time.

Lendova · July 20, 2016

http://www.loverslab.com/topic/64298-would-this-pc-be-acceptable/page-2?do=findComment&comment=1614719

Comrade Isbariya · July 20, 2016

Boo, just stopped by to throw in my 2 cents

I'm on an AMD FX 8 core processor @ 4 Ghz (generally the same that the OP mentions xD) altogether with an AMD HD 7950 with 4GB of vRam - and there is nothing I can complain about. No-thing!

Skyrim, highly modded, deadly heavy on scripts, ran with high res textures, denser grass, even more grass and flora and textures, and fully enhanced cities (trees and bushes and grass and flowers eeeeeverywhere!) runs smoothly and I have to cap the frames to 58 via ENB to prevent havoc physics.

If you compare intel and AMD there will always be flaws on either side. If you go for max stats - no matter if you'll actually need it or use it in the end, go and waste your money on intel. If you're more into an affordable rig that does what you want it to, stick with AMD. It's as easy as that imho.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Intel is bad or worse than AMD in any kind, AMD just offers the better price for their products.

I've been with Intel and nVidia for ages, until my rig died on me and I had to get a new one, and had to decide between Intel and AMD - and I did lack the money for Intel/nVidia, while I could have a rig just as good choosing AMD - and it held its promises,

Even that good, that I kept using AMD for my actual rig.

And on a final note: If Intel and AMD were religions... you know what I'm trying to say, no? ^^

Lendova · July 20, 2016

Well, everybody is free to spend their money on whatever they want.

I leave these here:

http://pclab.pl/art67575.html

https://youtu.be/JQuisg6paL8?t=120

windpl · July 20, 2016

I'm not biased, amd is better pref/price in low/middle tier. If you want high end there is only Intel but that comes with price.

Darkening Demise · July 22, 2016

Where do I go to find out how much power my PC is using of my PSU? This way I can detect what GPU to put into my current model: HP Pavilion p7-1254. I was thinking of a 750ti 2GB.

I've finally decided on a basic build that will run things decently (now to wait 20 more years for a dead end job opportunity to come to Murica The Land of Oppression).

New Build

Intel Core i5-4570 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor

ASRock H97 Anniversary ATX LGA1150 Motherboard

EVGA GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2GB Video Card

NZXT H440 (White/Black) ATX Mid Tower Case

EVGA SuperNOVA GS 550W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply

Gigabyte GC-WB867D-I PCI-Express x1 802.11a/b/g/n/ac Wi-Fi Adapter

Total: $592.90

LordJerle · July 23, 2016

Funny, I have an 8350 and I can run Ark, one of the most unoptimized games on the planet, in ultra for all settings, and have a perfect framerate.

RitualClarity · July 24, 2016

Which one worked for you? I never had luck with them. Too much interference but I was told that at the time I tried them (years ago) they wern't as good as they are today.

skyrimsucks · July 25, 2016

that wont happen even on quadro titan setup, unless 20 fps dips is "perfect framerate". i wouldnt think ark is that cpu heavy, its fairly empty until u crowd area with ai or play multi. if u got 980 ti im sure its mostly around 40-50 which is playable.

LordJerle · July 25, 2016

I average about 40-50 FPS on my rig...

Clearly you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

*pinky6225* · July 25, 2016

I'm on my second set which is a TP-LINK TL-PA251KIT AV200+ Multi-Streaming Powerline Starter Kit with AC Pass Through (UK Plug Only) (https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B005KTM2G6/ref=tnp_emaildp_1) and its been in almost constant use since October 2014 as i recall i've only had to re-sync them a couple of times (like once or twice a year)

They seem to last roughly 2 to 3 years from my past experience - from what i've read a capacitor can go in one of them which renders the pair useless unless you want to buy a capacitor seperately and fit

RitualClarity · July 25, 2016

Heavily used routers can also go out in 2 to three years. They still work but the performance starts to degrade over that time on many of the retail versions. Still it sounds impressive especially for TP-LInk (can't help but think of TP = tolet paper lol from back when they were horrible cheap pieces of crap compared to others. ) I have been seeing them improve their quality over the past few years as other companies have as well.

Likely won't work with me anyway. Apparently there are some electrical "static" in my system. I have to have UPC and other devices for computers and such at my place. Power isn't clean. Maybe I might look for some similar model here on clearance at electronic stores to see how the work. Surely based on your statement they would be massively better than they were a few years ago regardless of my specific situation.