Here's a question for all the PC-knowledgeable folks:

I'm thinking about upgrading my PC. Currently, I have Intel i5 2300, 4 GB RAM and Radeon HP 6700-something as a GPU. My power source is 500 W and my current monitor is 1900 x 1080.

I'm thinking of adding 4 GB RAM, possibly another harddrive and a new GPU. Two questions:

1. Would my power source handle these additions?
2. What GPU should I buy? I'd like to buy a modern card that allows to run games with high system requirements. I'd also like to use the highest monitor resolution for games.

Any suggestions?

Do you have a max budget for these upgrades in mind?  Usually it's best to start with a number and then maximize what you can get for that amount of money.

Otherwise someone's recommendation of the latest GPU card that costs $800 isn't necessarily going to be super helpful if $500 is all you're looking to spend.

Not exactly knowledgeable, but adding a Price range should help those that are.

One thing I can offer is that you check sites like newegg.com for the best deals, perhaps even manufacturer's websites themselves for direct pricing.

Ha! I thought that this time around, I'd just say what I need and see how much it could cost...

Anyway, I don't have a very specific budget - but I think I'd prefer not to spend more than $300 bucks on a GPU.

For graphics cards on a budget, PC Gamer just put out an article on that the other day.

http://www.pcgamer.com/best-graphics-card-deals-today/

Newer cards, on higher ends, are physically bigger than in 2011 when the 6700 you have came out.  You may run into an issue of your case not being physically big enough to house the card, depending on it's design.  My old full sized case had when I upgraded it.  Had to get a "mini" version of the card.  I'm not sure if that's the case with $300 cards these days, but it's something to be aware of.

*EDIT* 500 Watts feels kinda low to me for a newer graphics card.  I'd consider an upgrade there.  You're riding the edge of feasibility with 500 watts.  It might work.  It might not.
This message was last edited by the user at 20:00, Thu 12 Jan 2017.

Modern GPUs use less power then older ones. I'm running 2x GTX980s in SLI and under-utilizing the large power supply that I originally bought when I had a rig running a single GTX690.

There are a lot of things to consider when calculating power supplies, and there are numerous calculators online that can help. Personally, I'd recommend getting one bigger than a site recommends. It allows for additions down the line without having to get another bigger one, and keeps it from potentially running at 100% all the time.

I've been out of the market for GPUs for awhile, but anything in a Nvidia 10 series should be quite good value for money and will be miles and miles ahead of a card that came out in 2011!

Also keep in mind that if the whole rig was built in 2011, you may well need to upgrade other components such as the processor to prevent a bottle neck elsewhere. No point getting a fancy new GPU if the rest of the computer can't utilise it.

Okay, I did some quick calculations with one online powersource calculator and it seems that a powersource of 700 W should be enough, right?

As for that PC Gamer article - drat, I have no idea what to make of it. I don't understand what's the difference between "best GPU" and "best high-end GPU". Also, I don't know if I really need the best GPU, or if I can do with something weaker...

Looking at the prices, a really good GPU (GeForce GTX 1070) + 4 GB RAM + a better powersource could cost me almost as much as I paid for my PC a few years ago! And it is a *good* rig...

I have been working on getting myself a new gaming rig as well and have been using this site to price out components.

https://elitegamingcomputers.c...ap-gaming-computers/

As someone who doesn't know a lot about hardware, it has been an easy to read guide to picking out what I want and what I might need. YMMV

The GTX 1060-6GB is a solid card for around your price point.

A 500W power supply, assuming you're running that GPU, 1 or 2 hard drives, 8 gigs of ram, and a few fans, should be ok.  Assuming the PSU isn't some complete no name garbage unit of course.

If you decide to make the jump to something a step up, like the GTX 1070, you'll certainly want to get a more powerful PSU.

Hm. How good is "solid", exactly?

As I mentioned, I'd like my new GPU to be able to run games in high resolution (1920 x 1080) - smoothly and with lot of details, effects etc. Also, I would like this card not to become obsolute too soon. My HP 6700-something seems to be unable to run new games anymore - and it's been only five years since I bought this particular PC...

http://www.gamespot.com/articl...review/1100-6441925/
http://www.ign.com/articles/20...0-gaming-x-6g-review

Those articles have a few good game based FPS benchmark tests to take a look at.

Most benchmark sites tend to just use specific benchmark software scores (like a 3DMark score), which is a great Apples to Apples comparison if you already know everything about how that apple will translate into gaming performance.  Not as helpful if you just want to know what sort of FPS performance you'll get in the latest game on max settings.

Generally a mid-range GPU card will be able to hang for a few years from when it's launched before you have to start dialing back settings way way back to have it run the latest games at acceptable frame rates.

Though after a cycle or two, it also becomes time to look at other components that are getting older and slower and utilizing older architecture that might not be designed to work best with the latest software.

Exactly :( The various articles I've seen talk about 1080p, FPS and so on. I have no idea how does that relate to my needs... :( Do I need 1080p or 720p, or nothing at all? Do I need 60 FPS or 120 FPS, or more..?



Would a mid-range GPU handle the high resolution I mentioned? And the various effects, high level of details etc.?



Drat. I have no idea how to judge that...

The more I look the more it seems I just can't upgrade my PC. It's too complicated and too costly...

1080p is standard HD.  Most computer monitors are at least 1080p resolution, or 1,920 pixels tall and 1,080 pixels wide.  It's the minimum resolution you should be aiming for.

Check the current resolution on your PC monitor, it should be at least those two numbers, or be able to be bumped up to reach them.

Even if your monitor supports higher resolutions you'll probably still want to game at 1080p with your current hardware/potential upgrade

FPS- frames per second.  This is how many times the game redraws what you see on the screen to fool your mind into seeing fluid animation.  Standard film movies are 24fps.  However for games 30fps is considered the minimum for achieving smooth game play and generally 60fps is what is considered the goal.

If you go with the 1060, I'm sure you'll be able to achieve a noticeable improvement in games you currently play (assuming you're not playing them at max on your current setup) and be able to play modern games at acceptable settings.

Then in another year or two start considering a CPU upgrade so you'll be ready for the next time you want to upgrade your GPU again.

Well, you've got 5-6 year old technology, depending on when in 2011 your components were created (assuming the components were put out to market in 2011).  For a gaming-specific PC, you're right on track to be looking at a large system overhaul to keep up with current games.  You can probably re-purpose some of the components (hard drive, RAM, CD/DVD/Blu-Ray drives), etc..., but I'd wager you'd find a huge increase in performance with a new processor and motherboard (because if you're replacing the processor in a 6-7 year old computer, you should probably do the motherboard at the same time), along with graphics card and upgraded RAM.

Yeah, it's a lot of cash to outlay.  I just had to build a new box within the last month or so.  But if you build it with good components, you'll get a good machine for 5-6 years without needing to make significant upgrades.  That's about what you can ask out of a computer built for gaming.  You don't have to buy the most expensive parts of course.  The links provided earlier for full builds looked pretty solid to me.  Think about those as viable options.
This message was last edited by the user at 20:23, Fri 13 Jan 2017.

Okay, so my monitor's default resolution is 1920 x 1080. So, how do I check if a given card allows for playing at such resolutin comfortably?



Hmmm... Are you sure that 30 FPS is *smooth*? I have a new game (Tyranny) that I tried running at 30 FPS and it looks rather... poor.

(not that this game is working satisfactory in other aspects - I actually can't play it, as it makes my CPU overheat. But that's another story...)



Could you define "acceptable"? If I'm to buy a new graphics card, I'd finally want a card that would make modern games look *good*. And one that would continue to make them look good for the next few years. I don't want to buy a card that would require me to scale down graphics from the start - and that would become obsolete in a year or two...



But these links propose using GPUs that aren't the newest generation... so, how long would such configurations remain viable? My intuition is to buy new, good components, because they seem to be the best... I know that a GPU from two years ago might still be viable now, but in a year or so, it can turn out to be too weak.

Agh. All of this is making my head hurt :( I checked some shops for new gaming PC and it seems I'm looking at an expense of $1300 - $1500. Considering that I'm making $400 - $500 month..!

That's part of parsing the reviews of prospective cards.  If you look most have examples of games and their FPS scores running on the card at various resolutions.



30 FPS is considered "smooth" as it's what a lot of console games run at, though that's starting to change as well.  But still, 30FPS was the standard for most XBox 360/PS3 games, and those play very good on their respective systems at that frame rate.

How something looks is generally not linked directly to frame rate.  A beautiful game that's running at 15 or 20FPS will look beautiful as it stutters and jerks about.

An game with ugly low resolution textures and low polygon count elements running at 60FPS is going to animate very smooth but still look ugly.



I haven't played the game you mentioned, so I don't know what might be going into it that causes it to look "poor" at whatever settings you were trying to run it on.

But we can look at the game, and what hardware it "recommends" on its store page to get an idea of where you might be lagging, based on this one example.

RECOMMENDED:
OS: Windows 7 64-bit or newer
Processor: Intel Core i3-2100 @ 3.10 GHz

Your i5-2300 should be performing significantly better than the i3 the game recommends.

Memory: 8 GB RAM

You've said you only have 4GB of RAM, and the minimum the game recommends is 6GB, so that's likely one factor as to why the game is running so poorly on your system.

Graphics: Radeon HD 6850

You said you have a "Radeon HP 6700-something", which puts whatever card you have squarely between the minimum card the developer says you need "Radeon HD 5770" and the "Radeon HD 6850".


So, when you play this game, while your CPU should be up to the task based on what the developer says you need, your GPU likely isn't allowing you to run it on max graphics settings without it running slowly.

The lack of adequate RAM is also likely causing issues depending on how much RAM the actual game needs to run properly, and how much is typically being used on your machine by other programs and processes while you're trying to play.



If your CPU is overheating while running at 100%, to the point where your computer reboots, or otherwise behaves abnormally, that's a cooling issue.  Your CPU should be able to run at full blast without cratering the entire system, even if there's much wailing of fans and gnashing of teeth which make it sound not super happy doing that much work.



I would define "acceptable" as "not all sliders set at minimum levels".  Your CPU is older, it's going to hold you back, even after you upgrade your quantity of RAM which is also fairly low for gaming (8GB is the minimum, 16GB is more in line with what a lot of games recommend).  How much it's going to hold you back is going to depend on what you're trying to play.

Tyranny, for example, has much lower minimum and recommended hardware specifications than Battlefield 1 even though they both released in the last quarter of 2016.




This is one of the reasons why Consoles remain popular.  You buy your XBox, everything that comes out for the console is going to run as well as the developer is able to make it whether it's the first year the console was released, or 5 years later, and you end up with no worries.

On the bright side, a high end PC tends to cost the same from year to year.  The top tier GPU is going to cost $600-$800 each year, no matter what.  It's just that as new, better, hardware is introduced, the old stuff gets cheaper and the new thing takes over its price slot.

So if you decide to save up for an entire new setup, the money you start saving now will generally get you the same level of rig once you've accumulated it and actually spend it.

Ah, I was not being precise. What I meant by "poor" was that the game wasn't looking smooth - the characters' movements were a bit jerky at 30 FPS.



Here's a question: could low memory be the reason for the overheating issue?



Really? I admit I don't know what to think about it. One person on the web told me that my card is slower than HD 5770. I wish I had the specs for my PC - I don't remember which of the HD 6700s I bought - and no PC utility can pinpoint that.



The weird thing? The game is not running slowly. It just generates a lot of heat. Even weirder? According to an temperature-reading app I consulted, it's the CPU that's overheating, not the GPU...



Well, the PCs not rebooting, but when I run the game, the CPU goes from 40 C to over 80C in a matter of minutes. I certainly won't risk playing the game with this happening...

I dusted the insides of the PCs as good as I could... Also, I tried other games and they aren't causing this kind of effect. So, I don't think it's a cooling issue...



What if I upgrade my RAM to 16 GB and put GTX 1070 as a graphics card? Would I be able to play modern games then - at good settings, specifically?

Window's Device Manager should list the specifics on your card under the "Display Adapter" subheader on the tree.



If your CPU under significant load is getting that hot, you should probably try and take care of that first as that's not normal.  The max operating temp for your CPU according to Intel is 72.6°C.  Once it reaches that temp it's going to try and protect itself by lowering its running speed, which means a big performance drop if you're gaming at the time.

You're right that you don't want to run it at those temperatures.  It will eventually damage the CPU.

So, before doing any upgrades, you need to fix the potential thermal issue.

You say that only the one game is causing that sort of heat build up.  It might be that the other games aren't as CPU intensive as that one is, or it could be maxing your GPU and CPU at the same time, causing more heat than your system is able to handle.

You could try a CPU stress testing application like Prime95 to make sure your CPU isn't overheating under a full load.

Instructions for using Prime95 can be found below
https://www.tenforums.com/tuto...s-test-your-cpu.html

Just make sure to follow them carefully, including having a way to actively monitor your CPU temp during testing so you can stop the test if it is getting into that temp danger zone.

If it is overheating then you need to figure out why.  Making sure there's clear path for cool air to come into the case and then enough flow to carry it out again, making sure all your fans are working optimally, and potentially reapplying thermal paste to the CPU to ensure the heat sink is conducting the heat away effectively.

If the issue isn't in the CPU, then you'll have to move on to checking the temps in your current graphics card.  It's probably easiest to run another game or two that you have and check the temp the GPU is getting to with those when they're at their most graphically intensive.

Then start up the other game that you know is causing issues and see how that compares.

AMD has a program titled "AMD System Monitor" that you might be able to use (and might have installed already as part of the card's software), or you could try a piece of 3rd party software like GPU Temp.

While cooling technology progresses, stepping up to a more powerful GPU is not always a guarantee that you won't be introducing a component that runs even hotter into your system.  You should always make sure your current build is thermally stable before introducing new components, so that if something does change, you'll better be able to know what caused it and what you can do about it.

I figure I'll chime in if you're still looking. I think the mention of a gaming console is good advice. It is a more manageable cost, particularly at your price point (A few months of saving), rather than spending the equivalent price for a single graphics card, which might not be sufficient to run games at a desired settings configuration.

A console is standardised, so you don't have to worry about compatibility, drivers, or upgrading within the life of the console (which lifetime-wise is increasing, it seems). You know, for certain, that games released for the console will play well with the system. THe main downside to a console is simply that you won't get as amazing visuals as you would a fully-outfitted PC. There are other limitations, but many limitations are being removed with the latest generation of consoles - you can watch films, and listen to music, among other things. The line between PC and console is blurring rather extensively.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts.

Okay, thanks. Some food for thought...

In the meanwhile:

Nauthiz, I tried running that Prime95 and I'm shocked! I started it and... it took only few seconds to jump to 99 C! I genuinely thought I was going to burn out my CPU... What the heck??? :(

Even if it's necessary to start all over again, there's never a reason to buy a console.  The unit out the door may be cheaper, but you pay out the nose for the peripherals, access to multiplayer servers, and the games themselves.

Gaming PCs can be built at any budget.  I'm no guru and thus have no idea how to solve the current problem, but I am a savvy consumer.  An Intel G4560, an RX 460, and 8 GB of RAM along with your case, motherboard, power supply and storage drive ought to clock in around 4 Franklins, and that computer will both smoke any console on the market plus be a computer, which is something you need anyway.

Why spend $300 on a console and then $300 on a cheap Wintel machine only to get something that's worse than spending $500 on one computer?

For Pete's sake $250 can get it done:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS1l2hrH4qQ

I'm actually laughing at that video and the linked parts list.

Yes, it can probably run Fallout 4.  But that's not a box that's going to last very long and is a stopgap measure at best.  Most of the parts are at least 6 years old (and some aren't even in production anymore), the CPU is weaker than the OP's current CPU, and it uses an offbrand, cheap graphics card.  The $33.00 motherboard is pretty bad too.

Yes, you can build a decent gaming machine on a budget (there was a link elsewhere in this thread that had some reasonable options).  But if you want a machine that's going to last a few or even several years, you really need to consider putting in some quality parts at the outset.  Buying computer parts that are 6+ years old as your starting point is terrible advice if you want your computer to remain competitive without constantly upgrading it.

Varsovian, it sounds like you might have an issue.

You could try re-running the test using an older version, version 26.6, of Prime95 that's more likely to emulate the conditions you're likely to encounter running games on your current hardware.  Apparently the latest version can overtax some older CPUs using unrealistic conditions, but there is some debate.

Still, might be worth 15 mins to double check.

http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=15504

But yeah, if your CPU is still running way too hot, either while you're running your game, or a testing program, you should troubleshoot for the reason.  That might involve some physical disassembly and reassembly of your hardware, so if you're not confident on that it might be best to find someone local who can do it for you.

Hmm. How do I troubleshoot for the heating issue, aside from dusting the insides of the PC off? I'm quite at loss here, admittedly...

It's possible that the thermal paste is old/worn and needs to be refreshed. If that doesn't help, and the fan has already been cleaned, you might want to look at a stronger fan. Just my 2 cents. I'm sure there are other things you could try, but I would personally start there.

If the machine is dust free, and there's no obstructions blocking air flow (either externally around the case or inside of it), and all your fans are working correctly (spinning freely at normal speeds) then as Darbbackwards said, the next thing is to pull out the CPU and its heatsink and clean it all up, then reinstall it with fresh thermal paste.

You can Google some videos on how it's done, I'm sure, if you think you might want to try it yourself.  It's not difficult, but it can be tricky the first few times you do it.

Otherwise you'll need to find someone local to do it for you as I suggested in my other post.

Thanks. I'll take a look into all of this...

Now - let's say that I manage to deal with the heat problem. Now, let's go back to the original question. In fact, let's make it two questions:

1. If I want to upgrade the current PC to play modern games at high quality, what should I buy?

2. If I was to buy a completely new PC, what kind of configuration should I be looking for?

1. The GTX 1060-6GB, plus an upgrade to 8GB (16 would be better) of RAM will get you running a lot of games that came out last year, and likely the ones coming out this year.  How well they run, is going to depend a lot on the game.

However in all cases your processor is going to hold you back.  It's just old at this point, and while still plenty functional, it isn't some flavor of i7 that a lot of new AAA visually intense games are listing as their "recommended" hardware.



2.  Unless you're dropping the cash for a new system in the next month or so, any configuration given now will likely be outdated by the time you actually make the purchase.

So, if you're thinking of going for an entirely new system, figure out how much you're willing to spend.  $500 is generally the minimum you can get away with (especially if you're re-using a case, hard drives, etc), but to get something that will run the "newest" games at "max" and continue to be viable for the next few years, you'll probably looking at $700-$1000.

Once you've got your budget saved up, given your objective and the metrics you're looking to use to judge achieving said objective by, I'd say start looking at games that have come out recently, or that are coming out within the next few months.

Look at the "recommended" system requirements to get an idea of what the developers think it will take to run their games at a level of quality they consider acceptable to experience their product.  Use those as a guideline to make sure the hardware you're planning on buying meets or exceeds those recommendations.

I see. And let's say that, somehow, I end up having money to buy a completely new PC in a month or so... what would a good configuration be?

I realize it's rather unlikely, but I'm still curious...

Oh, and one more question: how much disk space does Windows 10 need? I've looked at some PCs at one shop and they were all built with two hard drives: a small one for the system and a big one for the rest of data. Some of these PCs had their small disks at 120 GBs. Is this enough for Windows 10 or not?

I'm asking, as on previous PC, I actually ended up running into the problem of Windows XP having used up all of the free space at the system partition. So, on my current PC, I installed the system on the 1 TB drive to be on the safe side...
This message was last edited by the user at 23:36, Mon 23 Jan 2017.

The configuration would depend on your needs, of course.  From what I can see you like to game on your PC, so the fastest, meanest, most RAM-equipped video system would be a plus, as would be a Solid-State Drive for the system drive.

I won't even get into the Intel vs. AMD debate, because that is bordering on political/religious talk.  Just get as much CPU power as you can afford, and choose a system that has an upgrade path for more CPU power later.

120 GB of operating system storage should be good for the near-term, but something in the 250 GB class or higher would be better.  That way you'd have some room for storing game data that needs to move quickly.

Get a big, fast (>= 7,200 RPM, SATA 6 GB/s or SAS) conventional or hybrid hard drive for your Data Storage drive.  (Hybrid drives combine a small SSD with a larger conventional hard drive in one package to improve data transfer and caching performance.)

I don't know that I'd go with a power supply greater than 750W unless your video subsystem needs the extra power (and, if so, lucky you!)

Well, assuming you're not looking to drop $4k+ for the absolute latest hardware, and not having an actual budget to work with, and knowing your requirements are to "play games at max" settings and to have it last a few years.

Something running an Intel Core i7-6800K, an Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080, and 16GB of the fastest RAM the board will support (and preferably with open slots for future expansion) are what I'd throw into a machine that's upper tier at the moment without getting too far out of reach.




Those machines are likely outfitted with a Solid State hard Drive (SSD) and a traditional HDD.  SSDs have read speeds of at least 2x that of a traditional drive.  That means your machine will boot up very quickly, you won't be bottlenecked when gaming by your machine's inability to read data from the hard drive as fast as you need it, and the loading times of games on the SSD will be reduced.  The downside is that at the moment they're still pretty pricey/GB of storage capacity.

Microsoft says Windows 10 requires 20GB of storage.  Your average AAA visual blockbuster title requires around 50GB of storage.  Therefore it is recommended that you actively manage where you put things when you're using an SSD as your main drive alongside a conventional drive, only storing programs (like games) that you know need that fast speed, while storing everything else (Office programs, music library, etc) on the conventional drive.

The "hybrid" drive that horus mentioned is a way to sort of split the difference.  They use both types of technology and migrate your frequently accessed data to the faster technology while keeping the less frequent stuff on the older format.  They're a good choice for someone who wants the potential to take advantage of a bit of a speed boost, but still retain the "fire and forget" usage style.

While the SSD will help keep load and boot times to a minimum, and I would recommend using one as part of a new high end system build, you do need to be prepared to do some manual work to keep things running smoothly, so the performance really won't be a ton of help if it means untenable quality of life changes.

I see. Thanks, that was very helpful. :)

One small question: would there be a significant difference between i7-6800K and i7-6700K? I've been looking at one shop and I found a PC that seems to have the configuration you specified, but with i7-6700K.

Something else to stay aware of if you get one of those two-harddrive systems that I ran into -- since the SSD drive will be the C: drive, since it has all the system stuff on it, that is where everything will most naturally go.  As Nauthiz said, you have to `actively manage' it to make sure you store everything else on the other drive.  (I wouldn't call it a "quality of life" change, but you do have to pay attention.)

Especially because apparently, being `close to full' is Bad for an SSD drive.  I don't know why, I just took Windows' word for it.  But know that when you get an SSD drive, you have to knock off about a quarter of its capacity just to keep empty.

It's totally a first-world-problem kind of thing, which is to say, it's not actually a problem at all.  But it's good to know about ahead of time.

And... I looked at a benchmarking site, it looks like the 6700 is actually a bit better than the 6800 for most purposes.  But according to that site, the newer 7700 is around the same price as a 6700 and a little bit faster, so maybe worth looking for that?  But it's only an 8% difference, so if you've found a good one with the 6700, that should be, you know... fine.  It's fine.  Nothing wrong with it.  You'd have been totally happy with it if you hadn't just found out there was something better.

Okay, please tell me one thing, then: do games require to be installed on the system drive these days? Because I'm not a total noob and I know that, if I game asks for the install location, I can choose something different than the default setting :) The question is, is it possible these days? Or do games automatically install to the system drive?

And here's another question: are PCs these days sold with or without OS install disks? The current PC came with pre-installed OS, but no disk. Which means I have no way of re-installing the system if anything goes wrong. Is it a standard practice these days? And should I buy a PC with OS pre-installed, or a PC with no OS and buy my own OS set?
This message was lightly edited by the user at 17:53, Tue 24 Jan 2017.

As to where games install:  it depends on the game.  The developers generally take an installer "library" and adapt it to fit their ideas.

The PC without disks thing is a rising trend:  it saves money and eases distribution for the vendor.  In most case, there will be a restore partition and/or a utility on the disk that allows the user to make a set of restore disks.  Some of these only allow one copy of the OS to be made.  With Win 10 it may be that, with your registration, you can download the OS from Microsoft, but I don't really know (I run Linux).

Failing that, free imaging tools like Clonezilla Live and Redo Backup, or commercial products like Acronis or Norton Ghost will allow you to image your system to an external hard drive or DVDs.  Then, if things go south, you at least have hole to climb back out of.

The only reason I would buy a system without OS is to put something different on it like Linux or one of the BSDs.  If you're going to run windows, let the system vendor do the integration work for you - they generally get it as right as a Windows system can be, and the cost of the OS is bundled into the cost of the system.

On a Windows 10 computer you can create a recovery USB to use to reinstall if needs be:

https://answers.microsoft.com/...52-9952-8bac34abc6c5

Note that the required space refers to actual space, not the size of the USB stick - when I created my recovery drive it said it required 16GB, but my "16GB" USB drive only had 14.3GB available, which wasn't enough - I had to use a 32GB drive in the end.

Alright! Today, I did something I've been long afraid to do: I unscrewed the CPU fan in my PC and I applied some fresh thermal paste.

It... works, actually - the PC isn't overheating anymore :))) Even Tyranny doesn't cause a catastrophic temperature raise (although it does make the PC run noticeably louder)... So, let's say that the overheating issue is fixed.

Now - as I said, the CPU is i3-2300. Let's say I refrain from buying a whole new PC and just install GeForce 1060 and upgrade RAM to 8 or 16 GBs. Would I be able to play modern games at good quality level?

Sorry that I'm asking about this again... just trying to see what the options are. I'd have trouble getting $1000 currently, but $300 for a better GPU and more RAM is affordable...
This message was last edited by the user at 17:14, Tue 31 Jan 2017.

Honestly, with a CPU like that, I'd seriously consider a new build.  Processor power isn't as important for games once you cross a certain threshold, but that threshold is probably at least a midrange i5.

In reply to GreyGriffin (msg # 38):

What GreyGriffin said.  For gaming, you will definitely want more CPU than you currently have, especially for MMO, FPS, and any other game genre where being fustest with the mostest is important.

Hmm. Okay then, speaking of CPUs - what would you advise to buy, i7-6700 (3.4 GHz) or i7-6700K (4.0 GHz)? I gather that the second one is probably better, but would the first one be good enough?

Also, speaking of graphic cards: GeForce 1060 or GeForce 1070? As I mentioned, I don't to play in 4K or anything... I have a 1920 x 1080 screen and I only need this resolution.

In reply to Varsovian (msg # 40):

You would be the one best equipped to answer the question of which was better.  Faster CPUs tend to drive up the cost of other components, too (RAM, motherboards, and peripherals all need to be matched well to the CPU to perform at their best).

For this reason, choice of CPU is often a trade-off to make the overall system more affordable.  If the board supports both CPU and does not require a great deal of component upgrades in the meanwhile, go for the faster one.  If the CPU upgrade drives  up the price of the system to intolerable heights, scale it back just a bit and see what happens before you plunk down any money.

Okay, so I did some reading on various benchmarking sites. It seems that I really should buy GeForce 1070 if I want to make sure most of the games would work good on high settings. As for the CPU, I've read that i5-6600 should be enough, as games are more GPU-reliant these days...

So: i5-6600 + GeForce 1070 + 16 GB RAM + 2 TB HDD. I can get this for about $1400. Does it sound like a good configuration?

So much depends on your use case.  Find the games you want to play with the highest system requirements and compare.

As for price, if you are in the US and building yourself, you can probably get it cheaper, but cheaper is not always better.  What motherboard, case, and PSU are you looking at?  (Motherboards vary widely as to implementation and quality, as do PSU and cases.)

Good Hunting,
D

Admittedly, I don't know the details of the components... I was using a configuration builder at one big and reliable tech shop I know. The builders allows to modify a pre-designed configuration - unfortunately, it doesn't give the details regarding the manufacturers etc. But I do trust the shop not to sell builds made with crap components...

I guess I could try to choose the specific components myself and order such a PC built, but I don't know enough of hardware to be sure that such a configuration would work... I think I'd prefer to stick with modifying an existing configuration based on options provided by the shop - I built my current PC that way and I had no trouble with it. Although that was at another shop I can't use nowadays...

In reply to Varsovian (msg # 44):

That's a valid approach.  If you have a relationship with a vendor you can trust, go with it.

Okay, here's a somewhat related question:

My old PC. Do you think it would be possible to sell it? If so, how much should I charge for it, if I was to be honest? It's still not a bad PC and it would be enough for someone to watch movies, do image editing, browse the web etc, as well as run even some relatively recent games. The only downside is that it's not a new rig...

In reply to Varsovian (msg # 46):

Possible to sell... I gotta be careful here, no mention of where or how to sell it. (Commercial traffic ist verboten here.)

Sure, if the system is still in working condition, you may be able to sell it, but all things for a price, Effendi.

I get how you may wish to sell this system to defray part of the cost of building another, but set your expectations realistically, based on the system's age, condition, and outfitting.

Something you may consider is donating the system to a charitable cause you can support and taking the tax write-off.  I don't want to get into too much detail here, but that might be a win-win, depending on your situation.

Good Hunting,
D

Of course. I don't intend to sell it here, ask for directions etc. Just asking for opinion whether such a PC is sellable at all.



Oh, I know that - that's why I'm asking. :) I want to know what's realistic with a PC like that.



I don't think we have this kind of tax write-offs here, I'm afraid... Although donating the PC to a charity is a good idea in general.
This message was last edited by the user at 22:39, Sat 11 Feb 2017.

To figure out what's realistic, look in your area for prices of similarly equipped systems and their conditions.  If yours is in reasonably close to the same condition and equipped as well, then it might be able to command close to the same sale price.  A lot depends on where and how you sell it...

Good Hunting,
D