The "PC Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
As you may know, I'm saving for a new graphics card and I'm looking at the GTX 960 as a good card for the money that also works well with a standard 500w PSU.
But....what if I saved a bit more and bought a new PC? My CPU is not great, it's an A8 APU and it's struggling at times, the motherboard is creaky and only an FM2 and won't take anything other than the APUs due to the wonderful knobbling HP do on their Bios. So I'm thinking here's a challenge, find me a PC (on Amazon as I have vouchers making up some of my money towards it, or take £150-£200 off the maximum price) that will; a) run all the latest games at high settings or thereabouts (not necessarily ultra), b) costs less than or around £500 and c) looks pretty.
This is the best I've come up with so far:
Go!
But....what if I saved a bit more and bought a new PC? My CPU is not great, it's an A8 APU and it's struggling at times, the motherboard is creaky and only an FM2 and won't take anything other than the APUs due to the wonderful knobbling HP do on their Bios. So I'm thinking here's a challenge, find me a PC (on Amazon as I have vouchers making up some of my money towards it, or take £150-£200 off the maximum price) that will; a) run all the latest games at high settings or thereabouts (not necessarily ultra), b) costs less than or around £500 and c) looks pretty.
This is the best I've come up with so far:
Go!
Page:
Chill chas ;¬)
In no way was the quote aimed at you!
In no way was the quote aimed at you!
DL wrote:
chasfh wrote:
[i]
What a complete load of nonsense.
Not my nonsense chas but Dave James's from PC Gamer :¬)[/i]
Doesn't make it any less ridiculous.
The wrong combination of GPU and CPU REGARDLESS OF THE MANUFACTURER can spoil a pc. To write off an entire manufacturer's range in such a fashion is ludicrous and irresponsible, and any journalist doing so should be ashamed of themselves.
It's laughable, really.
Anyone who knows my Steam user name could, by now, have watched me play on my "hamstrung" pc, I'm not keeping it a secret! But that's quite obviously beyond reasonable, it's far easier to write off what I say as nonsense, to post "quotes" from other sources to "prove" that I'm exaggerating/ lying/ delusional.
At the end of the day, who is it that's played over 50 hours on Arkham Knight without issue? The fact that I'm still ranked first for "Gotham's Greatest" on Steam should probably tell you something.
chasfh wrote:
[i]
What a complete load of nonsense.
Not my nonsense chas but Dave James's from PC Gamer :¬)[/i]
Doesn't make it any less ridiculous.
The wrong combination of GPU and CPU REGARDLESS OF THE MANUFACTURER can spoil a pc. To write off an entire manufacturer's range in such a fashion is ludicrous and irresponsible, and any journalist doing so should be ashamed of themselves.
It's laughable, really.
Anyone who knows my Steam user name could, by now, have watched me play on my "hamstrung" pc, I'm not keeping it a secret! But that's quite obviously beyond reasonable, it's far easier to write off what I say as nonsense, to post "quotes" from other sources to "prove" that I'm exaggerating/ lying/ delusional.
At the end of the day, who is it that's played over 50 hours on Arkham Knight without issue? The fact that I'm still ranked first for "Gotham's Greatest" on Steam should probably tell you something.
chasfh wrote:
What a complete load of nonsense.
Not my nonsense chas but Dave James's from PC Gamer :¬)
What a complete load of nonsense.
Not my nonsense chas but Dave James's from PC Gamer :¬)
DL wrote:
I'll throw this quote into your 'equation' pb ...
"Can anything in my current pc limit my graphics card ...
'The CPU.
If you've got an Intel processor from the last 4 years, going back to Sandy Bridge, you shouldn't be concerned.
But AMD chips can hold you back ... either an APU or AMD FX CPU can hamstring your card' "
Garin is quite right, a good bare bones system will serve you well.
I run a GTX 970 4GB on an i7 4790k
What a complete load of nonsense.
I'll throw this quote into your 'equation' pb ...
"Can anything in my current pc limit my graphics card ...
'The CPU.
If you've got an Intel processor from the last 4 years, going back to Sandy Bridge, you shouldn't be concerned.
But AMD chips can hold you back ... either an APU or AMD FX CPU can hamstring your card' "
Garin is quite right, a good bare bones system will serve you well.
I run a GTX 970 4GB on an i7 4790k
What a complete load of nonsense.
DL wrote:
I'll throw this quote into your 'equation' pb ...
"Can anything in my current pc limit my graphics card ...
'The CPU.
If you've got an Intel processor from the last 4 years, going back to Sandy Bridge, you shouldn't be concerned.
But AMD chips can hold you back ... either an APU or AMD FX CPU can hamstring your card' "
Garin is quite right, a good bare bones system will serve you well.
I run a GTX 970 4GB on an i7 4790k
I've done a lot of research on this and it really depends on the game. Some games are more CPU intensive and some are GPU intensive. Some, therefore, will have very little to no impact from running one of the lower AMD CPUs or, indeed, between an i3 and an i7, others can show up to a 20% difference, but these are mostly games that are very physics based.
APUs will, of course, make more difference as they're not built for hefty CPU work and have to share some resources with the on board GPU. Otherwise I'd keep my case, motherboard and current APU and just add a graphics card, it would be a lot cheaper.
No, I'm buying something that will need to last me many years so I need a motherboard that will be upgradable, GPU that can cope in 2 years time and decent CPU now. That's why I'm going to save for the Skylake CPU and motherboard. DDR4, USB 3.1, faster PCI access and fully upgradable CPU.
I'll throw this quote into your 'equation' pb ...
"Can anything in my current pc limit my graphics card ...
'The CPU.
If you've got an Intel processor from the last 4 years, going back to Sandy Bridge, you shouldn't be concerned.
But AMD chips can hold you back ... either an APU or AMD FX CPU can hamstring your card' "
Garin is quite right, a good bare bones system will serve you well.
I run a GTX 970 4GB on an i7 4790k
I've done a lot of research on this and it really depends on the game. Some games are more CPU intensive and some are GPU intensive. Some, therefore, will have very little to no impact from running one of the lower AMD CPUs or, indeed, between an i3 and an i7, others can show up to a 20% difference, but these are mostly games that are very physics based.
APUs will, of course, make more difference as they're not built for hefty CPU work and have to share some resources with the on board GPU. Otherwise I'd keep my case, motherboard and current APU and just add a graphics card, it would be a lot cheaper.
No, I'm buying something that will need to last me many years so I need a motherboard that will be upgradable, GPU that can cope in 2 years time and decent CPU now. That's why I'm going to save for the Skylake CPU and motherboard. DDR4, USB 3.1, faster PCI access and fully upgradable CPU.
I've just seen a Skylake PC with a 970 in and a nice case for £770.
Now if I can just get the rest of the vouchers topcashback owes me...
Now if I can just get the rest of the vouchers topcashback owes me...
I'll throw this quote into your 'equation' pb ...
"Can anything in my current pc limit my graphics card ...
'The CPU.
If you've got an Intel processor from the last 4 years, going back to Sandy Bridge, you shouldn't be concerned.
But AMD chips can hold you back ... either an APU or AMD FX CPU can hamstring your card' "
Garin is quite right, a good bare bones system will serve you well.
I run a GTX 970 4GB on an i7 4790k
"Can anything in my current pc limit my graphics card ...
'The CPU.
If you've got an Intel processor from the last 4 years, going back to Sandy Bridge, you shouldn't be concerned.
But AMD chips can hold you back ... either an APU or AMD FX CPU can hamstring your card' "
Garin is quite right, a good bare bones system will serve you well.
I run a GTX 970 4GB on an i7 4790k
Obviously, it would be better if you could stretch to the 970 but failing that stick with the R9. We've always had ram creep on graphics cards, but the consoles are forcing the issue a bit now so I don't think 2gb gives any sort of future proofing.
I'm a bit out of touch with UK pc component suppliers, Novatech and Overclock both have barebones systems that'll match your spec and price. Its been a long time since I bought anything from either of them though. Hopefully DL or another can name some more current reliable suppliers.
I'm a bit out of touch with UK pc component suppliers, Novatech and Overclock both have barebones systems that'll match your spec and price. Its been a long time since I bought anything from either of them though. Hopefully DL or another can name some more current reliable suppliers.
Dr. Garin wrote:
pb wrote:
[i]Dr. Garin wrote:
[i]Then what is the problem?
£400 will buy you a i5 barebones that leaves you £150-£200 for your graphics card? Get a R9 380 or a GTX 960, I doubt you'd be unhappy with either.
I gues s I'm stuck in the graphics card element, really. So much conflicting information. Thr R9 380 looks a better bet with the extra ram but the 970 is supposed to edge it, but then more games are needing more than 2GB
I'm guessing an i5 4460 will be enough for most games on the CPU front?[/i]
Yes, I doubt you'll go wrong with any i5 though as long as its current or last gen.
You shouldn't buy a GPU with less than 4GB at this point. a 4GB 960 will cost about 20 pound more than the R9 380. I think the R9 is slightly faster (although its older tech). Main plus point of the 960 is power consumption I'd guess. I cant think of any good reasons to go with the 960 really.[/i]
Was looking at the 4gb 960 and they were saying the memory usage wasn't as good. I think the decision is down to; 960 2gb, r9 380 4gb or 970 4gb.
I'd go for the 970 if I could find the extra £100 and the 380 only comes with a AMD 6300 processor in the packages I've seen
pb wrote:
[i]Dr. Garin wrote:
[i]Then what is the problem?
£400 will buy you a i5 barebones that leaves you £150-£200 for your graphics card? Get a R9 380 or a GTX 960, I doubt you'd be unhappy with either.
I gues s I'm stuck in the graphics card element, really. So much conflicting information. Thr R9 380 looks a better bet with the extra ram but the 970 is supposed to edge it, but then more games are needing more than 2GB
I'm guessing an i5 4460 will be enough for most games on the CPU front?[/i]
Yes, I doubt you'll go wrong with any i5 though as long as its current or last gen.
You shouldn't buy a GPU with less than 4GB at this point. a 4GB 960 will cost about 20 pound more than the R9 380. I think the R9 is slightly faster (although its older tech). Main plus point of the 960 is power consumption I'd guess. I cant think of any good reasons to go with the 960 really.[/i]
Was looking at the 4gb 960 and they were saying the memory usage wasn't as good. I think the decision is down to; 960 2gb, r9 380 4gb or 970 4gb.
I'd go for the 970 if I could find the extra £100 and the 380 only comes with a AMD 6300 processor in the packages I've seen
pb wrote:
Dr. Garin wrote:
[i]Then what is the problem?
£400 will buy you a i5 barebones that leaves you £150-£200 for your graphics card? Get a R9 380 or a GTX 960, I doubt you'd be unhappy with either.
I gues s I'm stuck in the graphics card element, really. So much conflicting information. Thr R9 380 looks a better bet with the extra ram but the 970 is supposed to edge it, but then more games are needing more than 2GB
I'm guessing an i5 4460 will be enough for most games on the CPU front?[/i]
Yes, I doubt you'll go wrong with any i5 though as long as its current or last gen.
You shouldn't buy a GPU with less than 4GB at this point. a 4GB 960 will cost about 20 pound more than the R9 380. I think the R9 is slightly faster (although its older tech). Main plus point of the 960 is power consumption I'd guess. I cant think of any good reasons to go with the 960 really.
Dr. Garin wrote:
[i]Then what is the problem?
£400 will buy you a i5 barebones that leaves you £150-£200 for your graphics card? Get a R9 380 or a GTX 960, I doubt you'd be unhappy with either.
I gues s I'm stuck in the graphics card element, really. So much conflicting information. Thr R9 380 looks a better bet with the extra ram but the 970 is supposed to edge it, but then more games are needing more than 2GB
I'm guessing an i5 4460 will be enough for most games on the CPU front?[/i]
Yes, I doubt you'll go wrong with any i5 though as long as its current or last gen.
You shouldn't buy a GPU with less than 4GB at this point. a 4GB 960 will cost about 20 pound more than the R9 380. I think the R9 is slightly faster (although its older tech). Main plus point of the 960 is power consumption I'd guess. I cant think of any good reasons to go with the 960 really.
Page: