So I ordered all the parts for a new rig:

 

Asus M5A97 r2.0

AMD FX-6300 3.5 ghz (4.1ghz)

Kingston Fury White Series (2x4) 8 GB Ram

AMD Radeon r7 250 GPU

 

+ more but those are the main specs.

 

I was wondering if I'd be able to play with some good ENBs...

I know I bought a cheap $85.00 GPU but I'll upgrade it at a later time.

 

Right now I have a Laptop:

 

Intel i7 4500u 1.8 (turbo 3.0ghz)

Nvidia Geforce GT 740m

8GB Ram

 

 

With the laptop I can't play with any ENBs, only HIGH settings.

I also crash quite a few with too many mods...

 

 

I'm hoping it will be different with the Desktop computer..

 

 

please let me know. :)

 

Edited September 29, 201411 yr by stephen993

So I ordered all the parts for a new rig:

 

Asus M5A97 r2.0

AMD FX-6300 3.5 ghz (4.1ghz)

Kingston Fury White Series (2x4) 8 GB Ram

AMD Radeon r7 250 GPU

 

+ more but those are the main specs.

 

I was wondering if I'd be able to play with some good ENBs...

I know I bought a cheap $85.00 GPU but I'll upgrade it at a later time.

 

Right now I have a Laptop:

 

Intel i7 4500u 1.8 (turbo 3.0ghz)

Nvidia Geforce GT 740m

8GB Ram

 

 

With the laptop I can't play with any ENBs, only HIGH settings.

I also crash quite a few with too many mods...

 

 

I'm hoping it will be different with the Desktop computer..

 

 

please let me know. :)

I wouldn't call it a "rig" with those stats. CPU is weak, GPU is weak, RAM is fine. You won't be maxing details, certainly not with any ENB's running. In theory your laptop is on par with what you ordered. If you're going to buy another graphics card, don't go too high end because the weak CPU is going to bottleneck what it's capable of.

Sorry if I seem harsh, but you asked. It's "okay". Your motherboard is built to fit CPU chips from the year 2009, if that's any frame of reference for you. And this is a comparison of my two year old graphics card vs. the one you picked. http://www.hwcompare.com/15325/geforce-gtx-670-vs-radeon-r7-250/

Edited September 29, 201411 yr by unr3al

I don't know where you get your information, but I can get a Radeon r9 270x and it would run perfectly fine.

Thanks anyways bud.

You will surely be able to play if you get an R9 270x, I doubt the 6300 will bottleneck the card. The 6300 is not the best processor you can get, you could get an 8320 or 8350 if you want one to fit your motherboard, but you will be able to play on high settings I think (with the 270x+6300 or better processor).

Edited September 29, 201411 yr by theninja45

honestly, I would go with Intel for the core. Many people support them and say their better.

honestly, I would go with Intel for the core. Many people support them and say their better.

The only problem is that people cannot afford the expensive Intel Core. They are like $50-$100 more than the equivalent AMD, and then the motherboard is usually like $150 to $200. No one needs to spend that much on a motherboard at all.

I don't know where you get your information, but I can get a Radeon r9 270x and it would run perfectly fine.

Thanks anyways bud.

I gave you a link to see where I get my information, if you chose not to look at it because you don't like what I'm telling you, then that's your problem. Stepping up the video card will obviously improve the frame rate, but I suggested you don't overspend because your CPU is going to bottleneck the true performance of a heavy duty graphics card. So my suggestion is to not overspend on it. You can choose to take it or leave it.

 

 

The only problem is that people cannot afford the expensive Intel Core. They are like $50-$100 more than the equivalent AMD, and then the motherboard is usually like $150 to $200. No one needs to spend that much on a motherboard at all.

 

That all really depends on what you buy. A motherboard that would fit my CPU will only cost around $120 or something at this point, maybe less. People shouldn't be buying motherboards for less than $100 unless they enjoy buying replacements annually. CPU's will depend on the grade. I got one of the best quad cores I could get at the time and it was about $300 for the chip. Getting a decent one would have been $150 which isn't unreasonable in my opinion. Intels are more expensive but they perform better generally speaking. It all depends on how picky you are. I'm very picky and have high standards.

Edited October 1, 201411 yr by unr3al

I gave you a link to see where I get my information, if you chose not to look at it because you don't like what I'm telling you, then that's your problem. Stepping up the video card will obviously improve the frame rate, but I suggested you don't overspend because your CPU is going to bottleneck the true performance of a heavy duty graphics card. So my suggestion is to not overspend on it. You can choose to take it or leave it.

 

 

 

That all really depends on what you buy. A motherboard that would fit my CPU will only cost around $120 or something at this point, maybe less. People shouldn't be buying motherboards for less than $100 unless they enjoy buying replacements annually. CPU's will depend on the grade. I got one of the best quad cores I could get at the time and it was about $300 for the chip. Getting a decent one would have been $150 which isn't unreasonable in my opinion. Intels are more expensive but they perform better generally speaking. It all depends on how picky you are. I'm very picky and have high standards.

 

I bought a r9 280 3G and sent back the r7 250 and i've built the desktop and I play GTA IV with CryENB v2 on max settings no problem. Lol, sooooooooooooooo............................

I bought a r9 280 3G and sent back the r7 250 and i've built the desktop and I play GTA IV with CryENB v2 on max settings no problem. Lol, sooooooooooooooo............................

Congratulations, you're playing a game from 2006 at reasonable details with 20+fps less than I'd get on a computer I built 2 years ago. You still wasted your money on your graphics card, but enjoy.

Congratulations, you're playing a game from 2006 at reasonable details with 20+fps less than I'd get on a computer I built 2 years ago. You still wasted your money on your graphics card, but enjoy.

Lmao, you're getting off by trying to bring someone down.

 

I'm playing Arma 3 on Ultra with 40fps+.............. *VERY CPU INTENSIVE GAME*

 

You sir need to just accept the fact, that I'm too happy to bring down.

 

 

LOL

 

I'm enjoying, thanks champ. ;)

 

 

--Also the game came out in April of 2008?, soo...like I said, I don't know where you get your information? 

 

Must be searching on wiki. lol

 

..and if i'm not mistaken closer to 2009 for PC.

Edited October 4, 201411 yr by stephen993

 

Lmao, you're getting off by trying to bring someone down.

 

I'm playing Arma 3 on Ultra with 40fps+.............. *VERY CPU INTENSIVE GAME*

I think you're reading a little too much into it. You just don't like negative feedback, but that's your problem. 40fps is just above what television gives you, the ideal FPS for a shooter game is 60fps, but in either case it's ARMA. It's based on an old military simulator, so you're not impressing me.
 

 

You sir need to just accept the fact, that I'm too happy to bring down.

 

I'm glad you're happy. My assessment still stands, and numbers don't lie.
 

 

--Also the game came out in April of 2008?, soo...like I said, I don't know where you get your information? 

 

Must be searching on wiki. lol

 

..and if i'm not mistaken closer to 2009 for PC.

 

My mistake on the date, the game engine is from 2007, not 2006. You laugh a lot, almost as if you're nervous or insecure.

Edited October 4, 201411 yr by unr3al

"LOL,"

 

Ok I'm just going to move on from your dead-end logic. 

I'm happy with what I purchased, 

oh, and I love the Arma series. ;)

 

Thank you for your opinion though . (:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

 

Oh & #'s do lie,

 

 

1+1 = 4828929

Edited October 4, 201411 yr by stephen993

As long as the person who bought the rig is happy with what they got, then it's not my place to start an argument just to tell them they're wrong. He seems pleased as punch, so it is what it is.

I would also suggest a nice water or air cooler if you are going to do some overclocking. I recently(today) overclocked my FX-8350 to 4.8Ghz. I could probably push it to 5 but I don't want to push the voltages too high because my load temps reached 62C and that is about as high as I want to go as of now. The FX series is great for overclocking and I highly recommend it. It is quite easy to do it in the BIOS. According to Cinebench, my 8350 is fairly close to the i7-4770K in the render test. To me, your build looks fine. :) The thing is, older games are not optimized for multicore processors. This is where hyperthreading in Intel CPUs is helpful. Newer games that are being optimized for multiple cores will really take advantage of that FX-6300.

 

"LOL,"

 

Ok I'm just going to move on from your dead-end logic. 

I'm happy with what I purchased, 

oh, and I love the Arma series. ;)

 

Thank you for your opinion though . (:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

 

Oh & #'s do lie,

 

 

1+1 = 4828929

 

Hate to say it, but Unreal has some good points. But if you're satisfied with it, then more power to you.

 

But to piggyback on what he said, it would have been ideal to futureproof your pc. I never understand why people pride themselves on here by getting a new pc so they can play GTAIV with an ENB. The engine is ancient. I'd rather brag about playing games like BF4 on ultra. Or for ultra modern, how about Shadow of Mordor with the Ultra HD pack? Point is, it doesn't prove much to say your play GTAIV on high. But if it floats your boat, then set sail.

Since you're happy, I'm going to lock this. Bashing our members will get you nowhere. 

Nothing to see here!

---

This topic has been closed by LCPDFR.com staff.
If you feel that this topic has been closed in error, please report this post.