Post: My gaming specs (Is this any good?)
Options
03-13-2015, 10:08 AM
#1
beastinRAPPER
< ^ > < ^ >
AMD FX6300 3.5GHz 6 Core Processor
Gigabyte GA78LMT-USB3 mATX AMD Motherboard W HDMI and 6 USB ports 2 are USB 3.0
Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GB DDR3-1600 Ram
WD Blue 1TB Hard Drive 7200RPM
Integrated Radeon HD3000 Graphics
500W* Power Supply
24X DVDRW DL Drive
Basic Keyboard, Mouse and WiFi USB adapter
03-19-2015, 11:52 AM
#20
ResistTheSun
In Flames Much?
03-20-2015, 06:04 AM
#22
Oneup
Guest
Originally posted by sotgun
Lol.
OP should just wait a little longer for prices to go down all around. That build overall for gaming just won't cut it.
If anything go for AMD 8350.
OP should just wait a little longer for prices to go down all around. That build overall for gaming just won't cut it.
If anything go for AMD 8350.
Uh what? Realistically he just needs a video card. That's really the most important thing he is missing. If he got one of those he would be fine. I think people are out of touch when it comes to processors and what is really required.
You don't need the best of the best to play a game and more cores != more performance if the software doesn't know what to do with the extra cores / threads.
It's generally better to have less cores at a faster speed then more cores at a lower clock when it comes to playing games. Well you also get into architecture but that's another thing.
Hell you can still see Core 2 Quads performing just fine and those chips are almost 9 years old.
03-20-2015, 04:53 PM
#23
Originally posted by 1UP
Uh what? Realistically he just needs a video card. That's really the most important thing he is missing. If he got one of those he would be fine. I think people are out of touch when it comes to processors and what is really required.
You don't need the best of the best to play a game and more cores != more performance if the software doesn't know what to do with the extra cores / threads.
It's generally better to have less cores at a faster speed then more cores at a lower clock when it comes to playing games. Well you also get into architecture but that's another thing.
Hell you can still see Core 2 Quads performing just fine and those chips are almost 9 years old.
You don't need the best of the best to play a game and more cores != more performance if the software doesn't know what to do with the extra cores / threads.
It's generally better to have less cores at a faster speed then more cores at a lower clock when it comes to playing games. Well you also get into architecture but that's another thing.
Hell you can still see Core 2 Quads performing just fine and those chips are almost 9 years old.
Can not disagree. I just thought OP could strive for a better overall build. As in longer future-proof.
The following user thanked sotgun for this useful post:
03-22-2015, 03:19 AM
#26
Rawr
Can’t trickshot me!
Originally posted by 1UP
You don't need the best of the best to play a game and more cores != more performance if the software doesn't know what to do with the extra cores / threads.
It's generally better to have less cores at a faster speed then more cores at a lower clock when it comes to playing games. Well you also get into architecture but that's another thing.
And that's why Haswell > Piledriver for gaming PCs.
Copyright © 2024, NextGenUpdate.
All Rights Reserved.
