It's impossible to say. They came down from the completely unreasonable prices they were at last month before settling where they are now. They seem to be gradually inching down at ~$10 a week for each model over the past few weeks. If the trend continues, it will probably be a couple months before things are the way they were before, although, as Gilroar mentioned, things may never return to the pre-crash state, but new generations will alleviate the problem eventually.
The i3 is a bit faster in most areas. Personally, I would bump up to the Ryzen 5 1400, which gets you simultaneous multithreading, which basically allows the 4 cores to function as eight, which can improve performance in multithreaded applications very significantly, and can also help with multitasking, although it won't improve the actual amount of work the CPU can do. If the $150 for the R5 1400 is too much though, I would go for the i3.
They're still pricey, but you couldn't find one below $400 last week, so it's an improvement. Things should gradually get back to normal.
so then the paste is pointless.
Unless you're delidding, you won't need that thermal paste. The cooler comes with it pre-applied.
people are buying them as fast as they can make them. With the RAM shortage right now, their production is bottlenecked to a degree.
or you live near a microcenter :)
You'll already be able to overclock a 1050 ti as far as the silicon will go with a decent air-cooled model. Water blocks are expensive and for the price of a 1050 ti and a block, you could have a 1060 3GB.
they're stocked separately on the EVGA website. I think they're trying to allow their most loyal customers to buy cards. Right now the only cards that you can buy through it are 1080 ti models, though.
It's impossible to tell what will happen. Companies might ramp up production if it continues that long. If things are still like this at the end of Q1, then yeah, probably buy it, but otherwise I'd wait.
I sold my 970 for $200. Personally I think $150 is more fair for a 770.
My advice will be wait. Although it may seem like it will never happen, prices can and will go back to normal, and if you buy now, you'll be kicking yourself in six months when 1070s are going for ~$400 again.
Seriously considering selling my 1070 for $750 and buying a 1080ti when the market goes down. I'm definitely gonna get rid of my old 970 now.
There are probably a lot of people who are used to AMD not being competitive, as they weren't for a year or two on the CPU side of things before Ryzen came around. Nowadays AMD definitely has some great products and if I had to build a sub-$1000 PC tomorrow I'd use a Ryzen 5 1600, no question about it. Two years ago, that wouldn't have been the case, though, because the only mid-range CPUs AMD had were the FX series, which were pretty awful.
The others have mentioned good RPGs, so I'll mention two non-RPG offline games that I love. Kerbal Space Program is fantastic and addictive if you are at all interested in rockets/space, and Star Wars Empire at War is my favorite RTS, and there are tons of great mods for it (I usually use a mod called republic at war). I'd recommend trying those two out. I have over 500hrs in both.
My guess is that, as Juhni said, your BIOS is out of date. Z68 boards require a BIOS update before being used with Ivy Bridge CPUs.
Then that's quite a bargain for $64. i3's in the past have shown themselves to be quite capable in many games, so a ~$40-$50 price reduction on that level of performance is awesome.
I'll be really interested to see how these perform. Traditionally, to get 4 threads from an Intel CPU, you'd have to pay $110-$120 for the lowest-end i3. With the cheapest new pentium being market at $64 having hyperthreading, this could really shake up the very-low-budget build category, where AMD has traditionally dominated.
I have the PH-TC12DX and I can assure you it was worth $50. It's dead silent and keeps my 4790k in the mid 50s under gaming load and the low 60s under a stress test
My guess would be that the guy ran the CPU-Z validation test 1000 times and this was the one time that it didn't crash. Either that or he completely won the silicon lottery and got a chip that barely needs any voltage.
The 620 is old, outdated, and was never made to be a gaming card in the first place. A more valid comparison would be the GTX 1050 vs the RX 460.
As of right now, AMD isn't really competitive in the CPU department unless you're on an extremely tight budget. On the GPU side, they have some good cards for the money. The RX 480 is competitive with the GTX 1060, while the RX 470 slots between the 1060 and 1050 ti Nvida cards. Personally, I'd go Nvidia+Intel right now if you have $700 or more to spend on a tower. Keep in mind that this is all subject to change as new parts come out.
have fun and I wish you many hackusations lol
That's a bit on the warm side but still completely safe for your computer. Get your OS installed and everything set up, and then see if it persists.
There is no rigid order in which it has to be done, but generally I prefer to install the CPU, RAM, and CPU cooler on the motherboard before it all goes in the case.
This. G-sync most improves your experience at 40-50ish frames per second, when you're getting some screen tearing, but aren't at a high enough framerate to use V-sync without it causing stutter. I remember trying a G-sync 4K monitor at a demo at pax last year (I think it was an Acer but I don't remember) and being amazed at how smooth the gameplay looked in far cry 4. I read the specs next to the desktop the monitor was plugged in to and saw that it was only a single GTX 970 powering a damn hard to run game at 4K. I then noticed the framerate counter in the corner. I was getting mid 40s to low 50s in FPS, but it looked almost as smooth as a solid 60FPS. In competitive games, you'll still be at a disadvantage because you're still getting fewer frames, but in single player or non-competitive multiplayer you'll have a hard time telling the difference.
My verdict is: If you mostly play competitive games that require a high framerate, you're better off investing in a GPU that can get the best framerate possible and pairing that with a cheaper non-g-sync 1080p high refresh rate monitor. However, if you play single player games or less competitive multiplayer games like Battlefield, then a higher resolution monitor with G-sync can really help. I've been saving for one myself.
Frost is awesome. I played as her last night and got so many kills. Her SMG is one of the best defender weapons.
I'd look at phanteks. I have a PH-TC12DX and it's completely silent and keeps my 4790k nice and cool.
Usually they'll toss it over my head. I do fine as Blitz but for some reason I'm terrible as montagne.
The AK-12 is a god gun. Fuze's gadget is also excellent in a lot of situations.
No. I'm just saying that I don't like the fact that your gun doesn't move at all, but the bullets move in a pre-programmed pattern. The inherent flaw with the gunplay is CS is that there's no way to add in real recoil.
I always do better with blitz. I get killed by C4 without fail every time I play Montagne.
It just always feels like you don't have enough control. R6S gunplay is built from the bottom up for skill, with low spread and tons of recoil.
uhh, what? Vagabond have you been getting enough sleep man? Lol I think what you meant to say is that the motherboard doesn't affect performance.
Depends on what you like in a game. CS:GO's gunplay mechanics always felt wonky to me. The original CS was a mod for half life, so the gunplay was never built around being ideal for competitive play. I always disliked the fact that the "recoil" isn't actual recoil, just spread with a pre-programmed pattern.
You can trade them on steam. The money goes into your steam wallet.
A friend of mine got some skin that was worth like $750 a few years back (I don't know what it is cuz I don't play CS) and he bought me a free copy of Far Cry 4 because he wanted someone to play co-op with. It was pretty sweet.
Kerbal. Space. Program.
The single most addicting game known to man. I built up 400 hours in a month and a half. I am now qualified as an astrophysicist.
Just buy it. It's not that expensive. Usually it goes on sale in the winter sale, so it'll be even cheaper then.
You don't have to match any of the AMPs. If the power supply is standard ATX size, literally any PSU in that market with the appropriate wattage (likely not much in this case) will work. The amp ratings for each rail are the maximum levels of current, and are not constant. The PSU adapts the amount of current as the computer needs it.
If you just want to recover files from it, don't boot off of it. Just boot off of your normal boot drive and then see if you can see the files on it in file explorer.
I love these themed builds. Great job, it looks great.
Look at the link I posted above. That's roughly a 35% decrease in performance going down from an i5-6400 to an i3-6100.
I don't hate i3s at all, I actually think they're pretty good. I had an i3 in my desktop at work for a while (my boss let me swap it for a spare Xeon we had lying around) and it ran everything I needed just fine paired with a 750 ti. Most of the intensive stuff I did was CS:GO (we have a CS server at the office and play after work) and it was great for that, however, if I were to add a more powerful GPU play a CPU intensive game on it, the i3 would likely be the limiting factor.
Here's what I'm getting at:
In many games an i3 will bring down framerate, especially minimum, to a level that most people consider unacceptable.
Yes, obviously at some point something is holding you back, but there is a difference when my CPU holds me back when I stare straight at the sky in BF4 and get 150FPS and when the OP's minimum dips below 60 and ***** up his V-sync because he bought an i3 instead of an i5. In this case, the bottleneck caused by the CPU could actually have an effect on the experience he has gaming, which is why I'm bringing it up.
It depends on what you count as performing well. It's the same reason you don't see many people recommending very low end GPUs like the GT 740 and such. The reason is that another $50-$100 will give you a drastic increase in bang for buck. Same thing here. The i3 does make sense in many situations and is still a versatile CPU for a cheaper setup, but I can't recommend pairing it with a card that it will bottleneck.
Yes, but in this case it will have a very significant impact in the majority of games. Considering an i5 is less than $100 more, it makes sense to buy one as you'll end up with a more well-rounded rig.
But it has nothing to do with price. The point I'm making is that an i3 will bottleneck a 1060 in a lot of games. The fact that the 1060 is cheaper than the 980 has nothing to do with the fact that they'll both be slowed down by an i3.
Unpopular opinion here, but that's cutting it too low in terms of CPU performance. Conventional wisdom is that an i3 and an GTX x60 sku Nvidia card is a good pairing, but you have to remember that CPUs have been making very small performance gains over the last few years, while GPUs have had relatively large performance increases between generations. A 1060 is roughly equivalent in terms of performance to a 980, and I don't think anyone would recommend an i3 and a 980.