Is Intel HD Graphics Enough for Gaming? (Intel pentium g3258)
Tags:
-
Graphics Cards
-
Intel
- HD
-
Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
CryingLegend
July 31, 2014 1:37:31 AM
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2241145/radeon-5...
Relating to this post. Please keep it to one thread if it shares a theme like graphics.
Relating to this post. Please keep it to one thread if it shares a theme like graphics.
-
Reply to Novuake
m
0
l
Related resources
- Is the integrated graphics in the Intel Pentium G3258 sufficient for HTPC use? - Tech Support
- Intel Pentium G3258 with gtx 970 or i5 4430 with gtx 760(or 960 when its out) For gaming? - Tech Support
- $500 gaming build with Intel Pentium G3258 - Tech Support
- How to overclock Intel Pentium G3258 + GIGABYTE GA-B85-HD3? - Tech Support
- HiHestating between 2 builds (for gaming)Which sounds better,Intel i5 4670 and a r9 270xOr a pentium g3258 overclocked - Tech Support
In answer to BOTH questions (http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2241145/radeon-5...) NO! Your PC (based on the CPU you listed) is made for 'general use' / cheapness. Meaning, can I get on youtube? Can I get email? Can grandma facebook on this? YES absolutely. You want to game on PC you need to pay big bucks especially for 2014 titles, which is BOTH CPU side and GPU side, which puts you around $1000 in parts and software (OS not locked to this PC maker).
Considering the heavy costs, majority of people pursue two paths 1) suck it up and don't play until they get enough money up for a proper "Gaming Rig" 2) invest in a PS4 so they can play any game out in the marketspace, and MANY of the titles (including AC4 among others) in PC standard 1080p (1920x1080 display) at 60FPS! (amazingly).
Considering the heavy costs, majority of people pursue two paths 1) suck it up and don't play until they get enough money up for a proper "Gaming Rig" 2) invest in a PS4 so they can play any game out in the marketspace, and MANY of the titles (including AC4 among others) in PC standard 1080p (1920x1080 display) at 60FPS! (amazingly).
-
Reply to Tom Tancredi
m
0
l
At the "Joe Clueless Consumer" I seen it on Youtube standards (which in reality is a 1080P 50FPS on HIGH graphics minimum) I would say you were incorrect. if you mean 'it plays' as in 800x600 40FPS or better on low crappy graphics level is a MINUMUM of 'enough to play any game' standard then your right, but I wouldnt' waste $600 on a PC with such low 'standards', as that $600 would BETTER be spent instead on a PS4 which can play 1080P 60FPS on HIGH graphics for the newest Assassin's Creed among other titles.
When comparing these differences, it seems cost effective to just go console at that level, then to 'waste' money on such low 'standards' to JUST 'play a game'.
When comparing these differences, it seems cost effective to just go console at that level, then to 'waste' money on such low 'standards' to JUST 'play a game'.
-
Reply to Tom Tancredi
m
0
l
So you are saying that an I5 + R9 / GTX760 class graphics card isn't capable of near 60FPS higher than medium settings @ 1080p.
You clearly are very out of touch with current pricing and graphics requirements for games at 1080p.
To prove my point, here is a more than capable gaming machine that can near max any game @ 1920*1080.
And getting it down to 600$ would not be that difficult either.
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant
CPU: Intel Core i5-4590 3.3GHz Quad-Core Processor ($189.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-HD3 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($70.97 @ OutletPC)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-2133 Memory ($76.50 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($52.91 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: Sapphire Radeon R9 280 3GB Dual-X Video Card ($199.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: XFX TS 550W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($59.99 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: Lite-On iHAS124-14 DVD/CD Writer ($12.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $663.34
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-07-31 05:26 EDT-0400
So all I am saying. 1000$ PC is nice and dandy, but its not a MUST to be spending that much just to play at 1080p.
You clearly are very out of touch with current pricing and graphics requirements for games at 1080p.
To prove my point, here is a more than capable gaming machine that can near max any game @ 1920*1080.
And getting it down to 600$ would not be that difficult either.
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant
CPU: Intel Core i5-4590 3.3GHz Quad-Core Processor ($189.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-HD3 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($70.97 @ OutletPC)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-2133 Memory ($76.50 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($52.91 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: Sapphire Radeon R9 280 3GB Dual-X Video Card ($199.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: XFX TS 550W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($59.99 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: Lite-On iHAS124-14 DVD/CD Writer ($12.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $663.34
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-07-31 05:26 EDT-0400
So all I am saying. 1000$ PC is nice and dandy, but its not a MUST to be spending that much just to play at 1080p.
-
Reply to Novuake
m
0
l
Well my assertion is based on facts. First off a R9 280 is a relabelled 7950 (http://www.anandtech.com/show/7828/amd-announces-radeon...) which is NOT the same thing as a R9 280X (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/05/19/am...) which arguably performs much better and also costs more (http://pcpartpicker.com/part/visiontek-video-card-90065...).
Now performance on what your providing, per Techspot your 7950 aka R9 280 gets no more then 55 on MEDIUM settings at 1080p (http://www.techspot.com/review/827-watch-dogs-benchmark...) which is NOT what you said " that can near max any game @ 1920*1080" . Medium settings is NOT close to ULTRA (maximum settings) and still even at MEDIUM it can't get 60FPS. Now you may be mixing it up with a R9 280X which COULD perform at HIGH but still NOT MAXIMUM to get 60FPS (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/05/26/w...).
So for arguments sake we toss in the 280X instead, bumping the price up another $60, so now your at over $720, and you didnt' even include the cost for a new copy of Windows ($100 roughly http://pcpartpicker.com/part/microsoft-os-wn700615). Remember the OP has a 'off the shelf OEM' which means the Windows is tied to ONLY that hardware, nor did you include a proper case with it, probably figuring the OP could reuse the current PC case ? That is a dangerous assumption as many OEMs purposefully make the case design specific and 'non-standard' so for example the OP couldn't put in that PSU or any other PSU except the ones the OEM made for the case which may be limited down to the normal 'under 300W' cheapo ones (look up the numerous PSU won't fit threads if you dont' believe me).
So lets say all is well with the case anyway, your still talking with the added costs differences (as I noted) your now into at least $850 with the additional charges, taxes and shipping without a case (ohh look near the $1000 I said!) AND that is taken for also granted the OP has even the SLIGHTEST clue how to install a PSU. Joe Average Consumer barely can plug in a mouse, and wouldn't be the best to rely on 'build it yourself' design, especially the HIGH risk they screw up and 'break' something DOUBLING the cost by having to fork out a replacement.
As I said before, and now demonstrated with different CITED RESOURCES: Current and soon to be released games to meet the 'I saw it on Youtube standard' 1080P 50FPS on HIGH or more is around $1000 . The ONLY viable alternative that is COST EFFECTIVE (performance vs $$$ spent) is a PS4, as it performs more times at the "I saw it on Youtube Standard' than the Xbox One (http://www.ign.com/wikis/xbox-one/PS4_vs._Xbox_One_Nati... http://www.gamespot.com/videos/gs-news-xbox-one-defends... ) as compared to wasting $400 on a very low end PC hardware that can't even get Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare much less any of the other titles to even RUN on the hardware, much less have to compromise so much to 'just play it' which would look terrible (low graphics) constant low performance (single digit FPS) and terrible viewability (800x600 anyone?).
Now performance on what your providing, per Techspot your 7950 aka R9 280 gets no more then 55 on MEDIUM settings at 1080p (http://www.techspot.com/review/827-watch-dogs-benchmark...) which is NOT what you said " that can near max any game @ 1920*1080" . Medium settings is NOT close to ULTRA (maximum settings) and still even at MEDIUM it can't get 60FPS. Now you may be mixing it up with a R9 280X which COULD perform at HIGH but still NOT MAXIMUM to get 60FPS (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/05/26/w...).
So for arguments sake we toss in the 280X instead, bumping the price up another $60, so now your at over $720, and you didnt' even include the cost for a new copy of Windows ($100 roughly http://pcpartpicker.com/part/microsoft-os-wn700615). Remember the OP has a 'off the shelf OEM' which means the Windows is tied to ONLY that hardware, nor did you include a proper case with it, probably figuring the OP could reuse the current PC case ? That is a dangerous assumption as many OEMs purposefully make the case design specific and 'non-standard' so for example the OP couldn't put in that PSU or any other PSU except the ones the OEM made for the case which may be limited down to the normal 'under 300W' cheapo ones (look up the numerous PSU won't fit threads if you dont' believe me).
So lets say all is well with the case anyway, your still talking with the added costs differences (as I noted) your now into at least $850 with the additional charges, taxes and shipping without a case (ohh look near the $1000 I said!) AND that is taken for also granted the OP has even the SLIGHTEST clue how to install a PSU. Joe Average Consumer barely can plug in a mouse, and wouldn't be the best to rely on 'build it yourself' design, especially the HIGH risk they screw up and 'break' something DOUBLING the cost by having to fork out a replacement.
As I said before, and now demonstrated with different CITED RESOURCES: Current and soon to be released games to meet the 'I saw it on Youtube standard' 1080P 50FPS on HIGH or more is around $1000 . The ONLY viable alternative that is COST EFFECTIVE (performance vs $$$ spent) is a PS4, as it performs more times at the "I saw it on Youtube Standard' than the Xbox One (http://www.ign.com/wikis/xbox-one/PS4_vs._Xbox_One_Nati... http://www.gamespot.com/videos/gs-news-xbox-one-defends... ) as compared to wasting $400 on a very low end PC hardware that can't even get Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare much less any of the other titles to even RUN on the hardware, much less have to compromise so much to 'just play it' which would look terrible (low graphics) constant low performance (single digit FPS) and terrible viewability (800x600 anyone?).
-
Reply to Tom Tancredi
m
0
l
First off while we both agree, and even per Forbes cited, the Porting of the code to PC failed, still WDs is the standard to beat and is tested against, and most of all EXPECTED to be played by Joe Consumer (please remember WHOM the OP is, not Jane SuperGeek, but someone whom doesn't even know 'what a g3258' thingy is).
Lets take the #2 game then: BF4 (both games I listed are the 'standard to test against' FYI) and "ohhh look" the 7950 aka R9 280 you cited when on Ultra 1080P (max any game @ 1920*1080) does what? 30FPS http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchm... . Again dropping down to HIGH (not MAX) and we just get 62.
Now before you go and say "Oh your just citing ONE place!" as your next excuse here http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2013/11/27/ba... Even better analysis, and we see the r9 280 akak 7950 (which is actually modded with Boost) does between a respectable 55 to 68 ON HIGH, again NOT the same thing as your claim "max any game @ 1920*1080".
WAIT IT GETS BETTER! Let's try Metro Last Light; and "max any game @ 1920*1080" http://www.techspot.com/review/670-metro-last-light-per... --- OOPS guess not, seems even the Titan, 7970, 680 and 660 are barely able to run the game much less your provided R9 280. Well let's see WHERE the R9 280 I mean 7950 actually is.... http://www.techspot.com/review/670-metro-last-light-per... Well we drop DOWN to only HIGH level and oop.. still can't be doing 60FPS, we are maxing at 55. So again we need to drop down to MEDIUM http://www.techspot.com/review/670-metro-last-light-per... and now we are cranking out the FPS!
Shall we continue with more then 'one horribly coded game' to prove the point? I AM NOT Exaggerating sooooo much, you are actually the one "very out of touch with current pricing and graphics requirements for games at 1080p" (AGAIN the Noob/Joe Consumer I saw it on Youtube standard 1080P HIGH 50FPS MINIMUM 'I am satisfied it plays right' standard - NOT MY STANDARD, but the 'rest' of the consumers out there standard).
With the release of BF4, the gaming community changed, period. Programming for BF4 set a new 'standard' ALL games now follows (see WDs, COD:AW, AC:Unity, etc. requirements) that demands HEAVILY on BOTH CPU and GPU. Many Many posts on here you will see 'just get a R9 290x is all you need for your upgrade' while the person is on a cheapo Walmart Celeron PC, because they "clearly are very out of touch with current pricing and graphics requirements for games". All games after BF4 (which is 2013 titles and forward) have had the same heavier demands, which require higher standard hardware, when purchased total around $1000 for a desktop, and near $2000 for a comparable laptop for a full system (aka your not trying to put a r9 290x on a Celeron running DDR2 RAM and a near full 120GB 5400RPM drive and wondering why your game is still 'slow'). That is the facts, as demonstrated.
Lets take the #2 game then: BF4 (both games I listed are the 'standard to test against' FYI) and "ohhh look" the 7950 aka R9 280 you cited when on Ultra 1080P (max any game @ 1920*1080) does what? 30FPS http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchm... . Again dropping down to HIGH (not MAX) and we just get 62.
Now before you go and say "Oh your just citing ONE place!" as your next excuse here http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2013/11/27/ba... Even better analysis, and we see the r9 280 akak 7950 (which is actually modded with Boost) does between a respectable 55 to 68 ON HIGH, again NOT the same thing as your claim "max any game @ 1920*1080".
WAIT IT GETS BETTER! Let's try Metro Last Light; and "max any game @ 1920*1080" http://www.techspot.com/review/670-metro-last-light-per... --- OOPS guess not, seems even the Titan, 7970, 680 and 660 are barely able to run the game much less your provided R9 280. Well let's see WHERE the R9 280 I mean 7950 actually is.... http://www.techspot.com/review/670-metro-last-light-per... Well we drop DOWN to only HIGH level and oop.. still can't be doing 60FPS, we are maxing at 55. So again we need to drop down to MEDIUM http://www.techspot.com/review/670-metro-last-light-per... and now we are cranking out the FPS!
Shall we continue with more then 'one horribly coded game' to prove the point? I AM NOT Exaggerating sooooo much, you are actually the one "very out of touch with current pricing and graphics requirements for games at 1080p" (AGAIN the Noob/Joe Consumer I saw it on Youtube standard 1080P HIGH 50FPS MINIMUM 'I am satisfied it plays right' standard - NOT MY STANDARD, but the 'rest' of the consumers out there standard).
With the release of BF4, the gaming community changed, period. Programming for BF4 set a new 'standard' ALL games now follows (see WDs, COD:AW, AC:Unity, etc. requirements) that demands HEAVILY on BOTH CPU and GPU. Many Many posts on here you will see 'just get a R9 290x is all you need for your upgrade' while the person is on a cheapo Walmart Celeron PC, because they "clearly are very out of touch with current pricing and graphics requirements for games". All games after BF4 (which is 2013 titles and forward) have had the same heavier demands, which require higher standard hardware, when purchased total around $1000 for a desktop, and near $2000 for a comparable laptop for a full system (aka your not trying to put a r9 290x on a Celeron running DDR2 RAM and a near full 120GB 5400RPM drive and wondering why your game is still 'slow'). That is the facts, as demonstrated.
-
Reply to Tom Tancredi
m
0
l
I just grabbed my popcorn and watched this debate unfold.
@OP
No, it will not run games, but it will overclock nicely. That processor is a good buy as long as you update the BIOS to support overclocking. Then buy something simple like a Radeon R7 260 or an R7 250, which should run games at decent settings at decent resolution.
@Thetwobickeringposters
The OP asked a simple question.
@OP
No, it will not run games, but it will overclock nicely. That processor is a good buy as long as you update the BIOS to support overclocking. Then buy something simple like a Radeon R7 260 or an R7 250, which should run games at decent settings at decent resolution.
@Thetwobickeringposters
The OP asked a simple question.
-
Reply to Shadowblade2652
m
0
l
Incog
July 31, 2014 12:53:49 PM
I am sorry but right of the gate you are wrong, I can easily blow past 50FPS on a crap game such as watch dogs on a 7950, to an inexperienced user I guess this applies but not for anybody that's in the know, facts are wrong period.
Now performance on what your providing, per Techspot your 7950 aka R9 280 gets no more then 55 on MEDIUM settings at 1080p (http://www.techspot.com/review/827-watch-dogs-benchmark...) which is NOT what you said " that can near max any game @ 1920*1080" . Medium settings is NOT close to ULTRA (maximum settings) and still even at MEDIUM it can't get 60FPS. Now you may be mixing it up with a R9 280X which COULD perform at HIGH but still NOT MAXIMUM to get 60FPS (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/05/26/w...).
So for arguments sake we toss in the 280X instead, bumping the price up another $60, so now your at over $720, and you didnt' even include the cost for a new copy of Windows ($100 roughly http://pcpartpicker.com/part/microsoft-os-wn700615). Remember the OP has a 'off the shelf OEM' which means the Windows is tied to ONLY that hardware, nor did you include a proper case with it, probably figuring the OP could reuse the current PC case ? That is a dangerous assumption as many OEMs purposefully make the case design specific and 'non-standard' so for example the OP couldn't put in that PSU or any other PSU except the ones the OEM made for the case which may be limited down to the normal 'under 300W' cheapo ones (look up the numerous PSU won't fit threads if you dont' believe me).
So lets say all is well with the case anyway, your still talking with the added costs differences (as I noted) your now into at least $850 with the additional charges, taxes and shipping without a case (ohh look near the $1000 I said!) AND that is taken for also granted the OP has even the SLIGHTEST clue how to install a PSU. Joe Average Consumer barely can plug in a mouse, and wouldn't be the best to rely on 'build it yourself' design, especially the HIGH risk they screw up and 'break' something DOUBLING the cost by having to fork out a replacement.
As I said before, and now demonstrated with different CITED RESOURCES: Current and soon to be released games to meet the 'I saw it on Youtube standard' 1080P 50FPS on HIGH or more is around $1000 . The ONLY viable alternative that is COST EFFECTIVE (performance vs $$$ spent) is a PS4, as it performs more times at the "I saw it on Youtube Standard' than the Xbox One (http://www.ign.com/wikis/xbox-one/PS4_vs._Xbox_One_Nati... http://www.gamespot.com/videos/gs-news-xbox-one-defends... ) as compared to wasting $400 on a very low end PC hardware that can't even get Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare much less any of the other titles to even RUN on the hardware, much less have to compromise so much to 'just play it' which would look terrible (low graphics) constant low performance (single digit FPS) and terrible viewability (800x600 anyone?).
Tom Tancredi said:
Well my assertion is based on facts. First off a R9 280 is a relabelled 7950 (http://www.anandtech.com/show/7828/amd-announces-radeon...) which is NOT the same thing as a R9 280X (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/05/19/am...) which arguably performs much better and also costs more (http://pcpartpicker.com/part/visiontek-video-card-90065...). Now performance on what your providing, per Techspot your 7950 aka R9 280 gets no more then 55 on MEDIUM settings at 1080p (http://www.techspot.com/review/827-watch-dogs-benchmark...) which is NOT what you said " that can near max any game @ 1920*1080" . Medium settings is NOT close to ULTRA (maximum settings) and still even at MEDIUM it can't get 60FPS. Now you may be mixing it up with a R9 280X which COULD perform at HIGH but still NOT MAXIMUM to get 60FPS (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/05/26/w...).
So for arguments sake we toss in the 280X instead, bumping the price up another $60, so now your at over $720, and you didnt' even include the cost for a new copy of Windows ($100 roughly http://pcpartpicker.com/part/microsoft-os-wn700615). Remember the OP has a 'off the shelf OEM' which means the Windows is tied to ONLY that hardware, nor did you include a proper case with it, probably figuring the OP could reuse the current PC case ? That is a dangerous assumption as many OEMs purposefully make the case design specific and 'non-standard' so for example the OP couldn't put in that PSU or any other PSU except the ones the OEM made for the case which may be limited down to the normal 'under 300W' cheapo ones (look up the numerous PSU won't fit threads if you dont' believe me).
So lets say all is well with the case anyway, your still talking with the added costs differences (as I noted) your now into at least $850 with the additional charges, taxes and shipping without a case (ohh look near the $1000 I said!) AND that is taken for also granted the OP has even the SLIGHTEST clue how to install a PSU. Joe Average Consumer barely can plug in a mouse, and wouldn't be the best to rely on 'build it yourself' design, especially the HIGH risk they screw up and 'break' something DOUBLING the cost by having to fork out a replacement.
As I said before, and now demonstrated with different CITED RESOURCES: Current and soon to be released games to meet the 'I saw it on Youtube standard' 1080P 50FPS on HIGH or more is around $1000 . The ONLY viable alternative that is COST EFFECTIVE (performance vs $$$ spent) is a PS4, as it performs more times at the "I saw it on Youtube Standard' than the Xbox One (http://www.ign.com/wikis/xbox-one/PS4_vs._Xbox_One_Nati... http://www.gamespot.com/videos/gs-news-xbox-one-defends... ) as compared to wasting $400 on a very low end PC hardware that can't even get Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare much less any of the other titles to even RUN on the hardware, much less have to compromise so much to 'just play it' which would look terrible (low graphics) constant low performance (single digit FPS) and terrible viewability (800x600 anyone?).
-
Reply to Incog
m
0
l
Shadow the hedgehog
August 1, 2014 12:21:00 PM
CryingLegend said:
I'm going to buy a pc and I've planned to use the Intel HD graphics, my question is, can it play games like planet side 2 and Tera rising. If not what GPS do u recommend (very cheap one)Nope
You can play high games but in 5-10 fps Don't choose intel hd graphics but if you want you can choose intel hd 3000 or 4000 or 5000
intel hd 4000 the best you can play high games but in medium settings FPS=20-30 in low settings FPS= 40-50
intel hd 3000 you can play high game but in low setting FPS=15-30 maybe
intel hd 2000 you can play medium games in low setting FPS=?
intel hd graphics you can't play any high games without lagging FPS=5-15
so choose intel hd 4000
-
Reply to Shadow the hedgehog
m
0
l
4banger1234
October 9, 2014 2:30:13 PM
This is an older thread, But this is my first time posting on toms hardware, first off I have been building computers for ten + years (gaming) and the reason I am successful @ it, is what i have learned is ... Computers can be as expensive or as cheap as you want. budget is important, but the gpu is everything. A $600 build in canada , will get you playing any game on high to ultra settings for parts only.(not including the cost for someone to build it).The g3258 will overclock really well. I have used this gem on a couple of builds and it performs excellent. (with a good gpu).@ Tom Tancredi, you sir are funny...lol.
-
Reply to 4banger1234
m
0
l
4banger1234 said:
This is an older thread, But this is my first time posting on toms hardware, first off I have been building computers for ten + years (gaming).... but the gpu is everything. ....@ Tom Tancredi, you sir are funny...lol. For Pre 2012 games, you are absolutely right (probably where most of your building times have been) but since the release of BF4 (2013) and other numerous titles since then, you are very INCORRECT, the GPU isn't everything. The GPU does not calculate the trajectory of shots and how to add weight to the bullet over 'distance' nor weather conditions, or more to the point if it was the 23rd shot as compared to the 3rd shot from your gun. The GPU does not manage the physics of your knife slashing at a solid wood door as compared to using your M203 fired grenade at the door and has a totally different effect / outcome. The GPU no ways controls the coordinated attack by NPC forces putting down suppressive fire to let the sniper scope you out for a head shot. The GPU does not process the real-time location of each player in a multiplayer game, to provide on the mini-map. And many many other things, the GPU does NOT do, which are the key differences to 'current' and future titles of games, which means (as I noted) the need for a EQUALLY Powerful CPU to the GPU. The GPU is NOT everything.
-
Reply to Tom Tancredi
m
0
l
4banger1234
October 10, 2014 12:46:01 AM
@ Tom Tancredi, blah,blah, blah....bf4? not that I ever would because I love a pure game, bf4 was a great game , And I stress WAS. there is a thing called aimbots or something all kinds of cheaters and cheats that will do any of that mumbo jumbo you mentioned. Again not that I would. Anyway you are once again missing the point. budget build. and on a budget a good gpu is key... once again you made me laugh . hehehe. focus
-
Reply to 4banger1234
m
0
l
Best solution
4Banger/Rob:
I went way overboard on this thread to prove some points that appear to be missed repeatedly so let me highlight the most important points BEFORE you respond again to consider:
1) OP +95% of the posters here are Joe/Jane 'Dumb' consumer; NOT - DIY/Nerd/Geek/Tech/I can solder parts you/me/other responders are. Given this: KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE before responding;
Consider THIS is a Truism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZcIa_lGCZg
2) OP +95% of the posters here don't know which is a USB or HDMI jack, much less what those 'stand for'. Keep that in mind , I understand making 'generalities' to KISS (Keep It Stupid Simple), but when these 'people' use that as "The Word!", that is misleading as well with over-broad statements Novuake/4Banger were making. As I pointed out there is a WORLD of difference between saying R9 280 and a R9 280X when talking gaming; so that is where I will challenge something.
3) OP +95% of the posters here use the 'I seen it on Youtube' standard as the basis for ALL they know. They saw it on Youtube so it is TRUE! Youtube is TV and TV doesn't lie (quick someone get me cake!). As I outlined above the Youtube standard is "1080P 50FPS on HIGH graphics minimum" they do NOT realize they are seeing, BUT expect 'ALL' PCs to perform because ALL PCs are the same thing, same box, same 'stuff' (they see magical incantations). So when OP of this post or the other thousands post about their 'budget gaming' really they want a CONSOLE like 'plug in press on and it plays like youtube' experience on the $100-$200 PC should cost in their perception.
4) OP +95% of the posters here are constantly 'misinformed' by knee-jerk 'opinion' responses, based solely on one person's perception, not on actual FACTS. A FACT is something that can be by yourself/OP/others independently verified and 'repeatable' outcome; so in my posts to validate ANY opinion I have, I post different links to different reviewers that can afford to get a $1200 TITAN card 'free for review' and provide some actual 'numbers' than "I can so get a 9500GT to give me 300FPS on a 4K display!" BS we see constantly posted / youtubed. Thus you / OP / whomever can see for yourself the 'truth', rather then flame-bait-war back and forth about what YOU believe VS what I believe.
So if you take these and use them as 'the glasses' the OP is posting in, you will see that it isn't 'simple' for them, they are literally way over their head with what they 'want' as compared to what they are 'willing to do', and most of all 80-95% have totally unrealistic (misinformed) ideas / demands because they 'impulse' do things then actually taking 'the time' to sit down with due diligence and understand what it is they need to do to achieve the 'wants' and what they will have to 'settle for'.
I went way overboard on this thread to prove some points that appear to be missed repeatedly so let me highlight the most important points BEFORE you respond again to consider:
1) OP +95% of the posters here are Joe/Jane 'Dumb' consumer; NOT - DIY/Nerd/Geek/Tech/I can solder parts you/me/other responders are. Given this: KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE before responding;
Consider THIS is a Truism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZcIa_lGCZg
2) OP +95% of the posters here don't know which is a USB or HDMI jack, much less what those 'stand for'. Keep that in mind , I understand making 'generalities' to KISS (Keep It Stupid Simple), but when these 'people' use that as "The Word!", that is misleading as well with over-broad statements Novuake/4Banger were making. As I pointed out there is a WORLD of difference between saying R9 280 and a R9 280X when talking gaming; so that is where I will challenge something.
3) OP +95% of the posters here use the 'I seen it on Youtube' standard as the basis for ALL they know. They saw it on Youtube so it is TRUE! Youtube is TV and TV doesn't lie (quick someone get me cake!). As I outlined above the Youtube standard is "1080P 50FPS on HIGH graphics minimum" they do NOT realize they are seeing, BUT expect 'ALL' PCs to perform because ALL PCs are the same thing, same box, same 'stuff' (they see magical incantations). So when OP of this post or the other thousands post about their 'budget gaming' really they want a CONSOLE like 'plug in press on and it plays like youtube' experience on the $100-$200 PC should cost in their perception.
4) OP +95% of the posters here are constantly 'misinformed' by knee-jerk 'opinion' responses, based solely on one person's perception, not on actual FACTS. A FACT is something that can be by yourself/OP/others independently verified and 'repeatable' outcome; so in my posts to validate ANY opinion I have, I post different links to different reviewers that can afford to get a $1200 TITAN card 'free for review' and provide some actual 'numbers' than "I can so get a 9500GT to give me 300FPS on a 4K display!" BS we see constantly posted / youtubed. Thus you / OP / whomever can see for yourself the 'truth', rather then flame-bait-war back and forth about what YOU believe VS what I believe.
So if you take these and use them as 'the glasses' the OP is posting in, you will see that it isn't 'simple' for them, they are literally way over their head with what they 'want' as compared to what they are 'willing to do', and most of all 80-95% have totally unrealistic (misinformed) ideas / demands because they 'impulse' do things then actually taking 'the time' to sit down with due diligence and understand what it is they need to do to achieve the 'wants' and what they will have to 'settle for'.
-
Reply to Tom Tancredi
Share
-
Reply to RobCrezz
m
0
l
4banger1234
October 10, 2014 12:58:12 PM
Tom Tancredi, the point some poster miss inma. op said: I'm going to buy a pc and I've planned to use the Intel HD graphics, my question is, can it play games like planet side 2 and Tera rising. If not what GPS do u recommend (very cheap one). Not all people have the money or want to spend the money to start off with. Instead of scaring people away from the fun of pc gaming,we should offer Helpful advice. that is why people ask these types of questions. You are just using google to try and sound superior, so I will try and keep it simple stupid for you. We all had to start somewhere.
-
Reply to 4banger1234
m
0
l
4banger1234
October 10, 2014 1:16:51 PM
Related resources
- Will msi z97 gaming 3 motherboard support intel pentium g3258 out of the box? solution
- Intel pentium g3258 gaming performance solution
- SolvedIs pentium g2020 is good for avg gaming????and how is intel hd graphics??? solution
- SolvedIntel pentium g3258 and r9 280? solution
- SolvedAMD FX 6300 vs AMD A8 6600k vs Intel Pentium g3258 solution
- SolvedPentium G3258 enough for a budget gaming/productivity PC? solution
- SolvedIntel Pentium G3258 - Comes with a GPU inside ? - Questions solution
- SolvedIntel Pentium G3258. solution
- SolvedCan an Intel Pentium g3258 3.2ghz fit in a e5500 2.8ghz slot? solution
- SolvedQuestion about Intel Pentium G3258 Anniversary Edition solution
- SolvedIntel Pentium G3258 or Athlon X4 860K? solution
- SolvedCan you get decent FPS with an Intel Pentium G3258? solution
- SolvedIntel Core i3-4130 VS FX 6300 VS Pentium G3258 solution
- SolvedIntel Pentium g3258 overclocking issue with Gigabyte z97n-WIFI. solution
- SolvedUnable to overclock Intel Pentium G3258 on MSI Z97 PC Mate solution
- More resources
Read discussions in other Graphics & Displays categories
!
There isnt a world of difference between the 280 and the 280x, maybe 10%...