Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Build A Balanced AMD-Based Gaming PC On A Budget

Tags:
  • Build Your Own
  • Desktops
  • AMD
Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
May 29, 2014 1:00:27 AM

We’re revisiting an age-old question with a modern twist: can you build a balanced gaming PC with a sub-$100 CPU and not be limited by graphics performance? When you pick the right parts, a capable machine is easily within reach for very little money.

Build A Balanced AMD-Based Gaming PC On A Budget : Read more

More about : build balanced amd based gaming budget

May 29, 2014 2:47:43 AM

It does not make sense to spend $80 on a case for a budget entry system why all the focus on eye candy at additional cost ? for the money you can get better hardware such as fx-6300 setup with better graphics card that's what i would be worried about while on a budget.
Score
14
May 29, 2014 4:37:20 AM

The minimum version is a trully great budget build, while the Red Devil is more ITX luxury build. An SSD and $80 case on a gaming budget? ;p
Score
5
Related resources
May 29, 2014 4:43:43 AM

Nice article, but I guess it's really important for readers to understand that the extra stuff is completely optional and the main point is #415 gets you a very decent (if not Good) gaming PC.
We have $315 spent on eye candy, SSD and a little bit more thermal headroom, which is 76% of the 'cheap' budget.

Personally, I would only get the SSD. Maybe the MB with Wifi if I'm building something really small and would like to avoid cable clutter. Definately not gonna spend $50 on a bit more mhz, neither $55 on a case for cheap hardware,
Score
9
May 29, 2014 5:38:05 AM

Error on page 4, paragraph 9: sticker -> stickler
Score
3
May 29, 2014 5:54:51 AM

Now the trick is to benchmark both systems. Let's see if the "Bare Bones" build can keep up with the eye candy Red Devil build. I doubt there's a huge difference in performance, or perceptible noise levels. For a system that costs almost twice as much you might be able to be handle cost by going for functionality instead of looks. 240Gb SSD (or potentially more), better CPU or better GPU, though to each his own.

For bonus points it would be nice to compare the budget build to a console in the same price range, but alas an Apples to Apples comparison isn't possible.
Score
3
a b À AMD
May 29, 2014 6:00:00 AM

I really want to like articles like this. I lurk at the "budget" end of the spectrum myself, and some of the analysis on this one is really good, but I absolutely agree with Zeh; so much optional stuff was covered that it really distracted from what I expected to be the main point.
I would have liked to have seen the bottom dollar build done first, followed by a discussion of what upgrades or enhancements might be substituted.
Also, at least a few benchmarks are needed, if only to show that yes, this is a competent gamer, especially if "good" but less-than "UltraMaxOhWOW" settings are used.
Score
5
May 29, 2014 6:01:50 AM

Nice article. This is definitely the way to present gaming system design, especially with graphics card selection based on CPU scaling. I really think the "Best Gaming CPU/GPUs for the $$" series could benefit from this approach. Instead of separating the CPU/GPU, you really want to look at the best combo's for the $$.

I think you handled the "baseline" vs. "Red Devil" options well. The great thing about a budget build is not necessarily being a race to the bottom, but it's all about saving money so you can spend some on smart components that will add to the enjoyment of building and running the PC. With the case selection, that's a smart selection. Who wants to build a PC in a case that you're going to want to replace in 6 months? Perhaps you could have offered a cheaper alternative, but I like the choice to spend the extra $$ on the case.

The only letdown I have is on memory scaling. There is a very long thread of debate in the Best CPUs for the $$ article about how strongly memory scaling impacts the 760K CPU because of its lack of L3 cache. The key seems to be that you also need to overclock NB freq. Because there are simply no reviews out there with a fully overclocked 760K platform, I was really hoping when I saw this article that the memory scaling would have been included.

@Damric - if you're reading this article, perhaps you can chime in.

Overall though, this is a great read! I can't wait to see a OC'd 760k vs. the upcoming OC'd Pentium in a budget shootout. If this is done, you really need to look at game selection and analyze games that optimize for more cores vs. the single-threaded performance in which the Pentium will excel.

Score
5
May 29, 2014 6:10:58 AM

On the GPU selection page at the top it should read "Finding the Right GPU" not "Finding the Right CPU".

Also, is there a reason we completely dismissed the r7 265?

In fact it seems like you looked over a LOT of good value choices for a budget system.

Tom's Hardware selections for a lot of their tests lately have had weird hardware choices....
Score
1
May 29, 2014 6:21:52 AM

Also, I wanted to add that your builder installed the PSU the wrong way, the fan should be facing the vent on the bottom, not the metal plate below the motherboard.
Score
1
a b À AMD
May 29, 2014 6:48:34 AM

Thanks, TH for bringing this platform to the light.

A few things I'll add:

The baseline build is fine. Pretty much every member of the Overclock.net 750K/760K fan club is pushing an HD 7850/7870 (R7 265/R9 270), so the build is balanced very well, but slightly favoring the GPU, which is good. The Super Flower PSU is not available in the USA. SF does not ship here. You can get SF Golden Green PSUs rebranded as Rosewill Capstone though. I have one in my 760K rig, imagine that :) 

Now, on the enhanced build I say go with the 760K for $10 more.. What you get with this CPU is the improved Richland memory controller. It's even better than the ones in the FX Visheras. Good 2133CL9 or 2400CL10 is not that much more expensive, at maybe $10 more. This combination will make up for lack of L3 cache, as THE RAM will have close to the same latency as the L3 cache on the FX chips. You can verify this in Sandra or AIDA memory and cache latency tests.

$40 for a CPU cooler is way too much to pay for a CPU this cheap, as at this point you might as well have gone with a faster i3 which can use the stock cooler. You shouldn't pay more than $12-18 for an aftermarket cooler, just something with some basic heatpipes will do. The TX-3 would be perfect at $18. No need for fancy TIM, just use the included stock thermal grease.

And again, fix the PSU listing, as SF doesn't ship to the USA.

Thanks again.
Score
9
May 29, 2014 7:00:13 AM

its still not "gaming" with no gpu, 750ti minimum.
Score
-12
May 29, 2014 7:07:26 AM

So this leaves you with the upgrade paths to -> Nothing. Could you do a comparison of this machine vs a Haswell Pentium model of somewhat similar price? Something like the 3420 or 3440? At least then in a year or two you could grab an i3/5/7 and a video card and rejuvenate your old machine.
Score
-2
a b À AMD
May 29, 2014 7:11:41 AM

Traciatim said:
So this leaves you with the upgrade paths to -> Nothing.


Wrong. FM2+ is alive and well. Soon the Steamroller based Athlons will be coming, and there will also be Excavator APUs and CPUs on this chipset. AMD has already confirmed this.

Score
2
May 29, 2014 7:14:16 AM

Traciatim said:
So this leaves you with the upgrade paths to -> Nothing. Could you do a comparison of this machine vs a Haswell Pentium model of somewhat similar price? Something like the 3420 or 3440? At least then in a year or two you could grab an i3/5/7 and a video card and rejuvenate your old machine.


I'd like to know how many people actually upgrade their CPU without also upgrading their motherboard. My guess is its a pretty small minority. Within a year, it's too much to spend to upgrade let say from a $140 i3 4130 to a $220 i5. Within two years, you're probably wanting a new motherboard if you really want to upgrade. I think the best "upgrade" path is to buy the best "platform" you can afford now and then upgrade components later.

In this case, the "buy now" is the baseline components in this article. The upgrade path is those extra components that make up the Red Devil build.
Score
4
a b À AMD
May 29, 2014 7:46:47 AM

This article is purely a teaser. We all want to see the benchmarks..yesterday!
Score
5
May 29, 2014 8:31:50 AM

vertexx said:
Traciatim said:
So this leaves you with the upgrade paths to -> Nothing. Could you do a comparison of this machine vs a Haswell Pentium model of somewhat similar price? Something like the 3420 or 3440? At least then in a year or two you could grab an i3/5/7 and a video card and rejuvenate your old machine.


I'd like to know how many people actually upgrade their CPU without also upgrading their motherboard. My guess is its a pretty small minority. Within a year, it's too much to spend to upgrade let say from a $140 i3 4130 to a $220 i5. Within two years, you're probably wanting a new motherboard if you really want to upgrade. I think the best "upgrade" path is to buy the best "platform" you can afford now and then upgrade components later.

In this case, the "buy now" is the baseline components in this article. The upgrade path is those extra components that make up the Red Devil build.


I do on tons of machines I've had. It's not quiet as common anymore since the CPU's from the same sockets in the past few years don't have much performance difference if you already have a pretty performance rig, but in this case the low budget you can get in to a decent rig now and in 2-2.5 years upgrade it to a used i5/i7 and a new-ish video card and you'd extend this rig out to 4-5 years for a budget of 500 bucks every 2-2.5 years.

Sure, FM2+ is going strong now. I'll only believe the new CPU's that get released for it are a worthy upgrade from the 750k when I see the real processors and see benchmarks from multiple sources. I certainly don't trust AMD enough to buy stuff with the hopes their new releases, but right now you have a defined upgrade path with the Pentium->i3/5/7 route. If AMD happens to follow the 'efficiency is good' route that has been teh trend in CPUs these days you might end up with things that perform about the same as the 750k but just use less power and are just slightly faster, kind of like people with current sandy/ivy bridge rigs (like myself) who want to upgrade but have nowhere to go.

Score
0
May 29, 2014 8:38:00 AM

So, you spend $80 on an Athlon X4, and another $40 on a CPU cooler to be able to overclock it so that it can perform equal to a stock $125 i3? Sounds like a waste overall trying save $5 ($120 vs. $125). Not to mention the increased wattage draw as a result.
Score
5
May 29, 2014 8:51:13 AM

I feel that the build is pretty good. $300-400 is a good target for a budget system. I would also like to see the "durable" option, where I feel parts of the Red Devil covered it well
Score
0
May 29, 2014 9:19:20 AM

Vlad Rose said:
So, you spend $80 on an Athlon X4, and another $40 on a CPU cooler to be able to overclock it so that it can perform equal to a stock $125 i3? Sounds like a waste overall trying save $5 ($120 vs. $125). Not to mention the increased wattage draw as a result.


Yep - good point, but this route is much more fun! And who wants to show off a stock cooler?

(I'm with you though, because if you're not overclocking you can skimp on the motherboard and do something for ~$60 for a real budget build. Plus, you have less power & cooling required).

It all depends on what the user wants. If you want to tinker, then this build is great. If you want lowest budget period, then I think the intel route is still better. Heck, my youngest son's PC is a pentium G on an H81 ITX board with a hand-me-down AMD 7850. It's built in a Silverstone SG05 using a 300W FMC SFX PSU. That build was really cheap (especially since I'm making him run Linux on it.... haha). It's a perfect Steam box.
Score
2
May 29, 2014 9:31:39 AM

vertexx said:
Vlad Rose said:
So, you spend $80 on an Athlon X4, and another $40 on a CPU cooler to be able to overclock it so that it can perform equal to a stock $125 i3? Sounds like a waste overall trying save $5 ($120 vs. $125). Not to mention the increased wattage draw as a result.


Yep - good point, but this route is much more fun! And who wants to show off a stock cooler?

(I'm with you though, because if you're not overclocking you can skimp on the motherboard and do something for ~$60 for a real budget build. Plus, you have less power & cooling required).

It all depends on what the user wants. If you want to tinker, then this build is great. If you want lowest budget period, then I think the intel route is still better. Heck, my youngest son's PC is a pentium G on an H81 ITX board with a hand-me-down AMD 7850. It's built in a Silverstone SG05 using a 300W FMC SFX PSU. That build was really cheap (especially since I'm making him run Linux on it.... haha). It's a perfect Steam box.


Yeah, I used to be an AMD only user until recently. Intel had really dropped the ball on them with their sandy/ivy/haswell line. For tinkering, I prefer the i5/i7 k series CPUs now (it was Opterons before that). If going cheaper, then I'm looking at ARM systems such as the Raspberry Pi or Beaglebone black.

BTW, nice case choice for your son. Silverstone makes really nice mini-itx cases. I'm rocking a Raven RVZ01B with water cooling myself. Perfect for a Steam box or just LAN partying in general.
Score
0
May 29, 2014 9:33:30 AM

AMD Athlon X4 750K among other choices are dumb, I think Toms has dementia

Score
-2
May 29, 2014 9:43:28 AM

Not sure who priced the R9 270 at $150. This price range is the R7 265 which is a great card. Possible the best performance per dollar over the R7 260X.
Score
0
a b À AMD
May 29, 2014 9:49:01 AM

elbert said:
Not sure who priced the R9 270 at $150. This price range is the R7 265 which is a great card. Possible the best performance per dollar over the R7 260X.


elbert said:
Not sure who priced the R9 270 at $150. This price range is the R7 265 which is a great card. Possible the best performance per dollar over the R7 260X.


Looks like R9 270 is $130 to me.

http://www.ncix.com/detail/club3d-radeon-r9-270-royalqu...

Score
0
May 29, 2014 9:58:37 AM

I got an r9 270x for 120 and a fx 6300 for 99 dollars the asus m5a97 r2.0 for 55 dollars and the corsair carbide 500r for 99 dollars
Score
0
May 29, 2014 12:06:43 PM

I'd like to see an entire article based on "The quest for the right graphics card."
Score
2
May 29, 2014 12:22:38 PM

I think the biggest takeaway from this is that, almost immediately after release, people can spend console money on a PC instead that will perform better. That should not have happened so fast.
Score
2
May 29, 2014 12:24:49 PM

As a bare minimum there is no way I could possibly recommend a $25 PSU. You are just asking for trouble. This is one of the most critical parts of the PC and should not under any circumstances be "skimped out on". It does say this in the article but the baseline build list a $25 one, not good advice.
Score
4
May 29, 2014 2:05:03 PM

I don't fully understand the purpose of this article when we already have the System Builder Marathons that TH does on a regular basis. If you're looking for 'gaming on a budget', does anyone really has THAT much of an allegiance or dislike of one CPU vendor over another?
Score
0
a b À AMD
May 29, 2014 2:12:04 PM

After the experiment of the Celeron a year or so ago, I am rather curious as to what can be done with the new 25W quad-core Kabini. PcPer built a system with a GTX750Ti that appeared to be viable, but I'd like to see more tests.
Score
1
May 29, 2014 3:08:25 PM

SinxarKnights said:
As a bare minimum there is no way I could possibly recommend a $25 PSU. You are just asking for trouble. This is one of the most critical parts of the PC and should not under any circumstances be "skimped out on". It does say this in the article but the baseline build list a $25 one, not good advice.


I agree there. Notice when they talk about power supplies that at they only mention the $65 super flower on the higher build and that they state "but this is probably the one place where you want to spend a little more." Nice little way of them trying to 'sneak' the $25 unit in without having to justify the choice.

Now in that regards, at the 350watt range they're using, I noticed that there actually are some decent midrange PSU units listed on NewEgg's site within $20-$30. At $20 there's the Rosewill RV350. At $30, there's a Rosewill, Antec, and Cooler Master model. Those could potentially go on sale every once in a while, which could bring it down to the $25 range. But for highend at that wattage, you're looking at $40+.
Score
1
May 29, 2014 3:39:19 PM

very interesting layout.

the best advice i can give about buying a computer is to keep your options open (no fanboyism), and to buy over the course of 2 months through deals. You'll find that you can easily shave 2-300 off of your build and not have to make compromises.
Score
0
May 29, 2014 4:32:48 PM

you know what could have been good?if AMD A10 7850K would have cost $125-$140 and it could dual graphic with all the R7 graphics family such as 260X.it could have been a great chance to make AMD APUs actually worth considering for gaming...but as it stands it is an incompatible over priced piece of hardware...i don't know for what reason it only dual graphics with R7 250 and 240 and not even the 250X!!when it dual graphics with R7 250 it's still not strong enough for an entry level gaming PC...other than that i would say this is a pretty good build if you have no upgrade in mind but if it's me i would say save up a little while longer and go with Intel platform where you can later upgrade your stuff....
Score
-2
May 29, 2014 10:01:30 PM

i just made this build 4 months ago (different case (cooler master), CPU cooler (Gammax 300), and different SSD (Seagate 600)) and its perfect for 1080p.
It needs some Tweaking in WoW (in capital cities) and Starcraft 2 4v4 (need to lower CPU settings in game). Thats it :) 
Score
0
May 29, 2014 10:35:36 PM

The baseline system is a good value but the "red devil" is more for someone who either runs games with low hardware reqs or is a very casual gamer. Most people would prefer to spend that $730 on the significantly faster hardware that extra money would enable rather than going for an SSD, expensive case case, better power supply, etc.
Score
1
May 29, 2014 11:26:45 PM

the price difference is $315... which equals to a significant upgrade to both CPU and GPU that could probably double the system's performance.

so what was this article about?
why not change your topic to 'how to spend 175% of the base price to build a PC that's smaller, more stylish and red' or 'how to give all hardware manufacturers an equal business opportunity when you build your PC'? -_-a
Score
1
May 30, 2014 9:30:15 AM

When I saw the headline of this article, "Build A Balanced AMD-Based Gaming PC On A Budget" , I was exited.

An article on a budget AMD system. Complete with an actual build and benchmarks.

WRONG!

It seems that not only did you fail to build and test the system you advertised. But the system you do offer is an overpriced insult to the people who are truly trying to build a budget gaming PC.


Worst build article in a long while Tom's.
Score
0
May 30, 2014 10:12:53 AM

lanceton said:
the price difference is $315... which equals to a significant upgrade to both CPU and GPU that could probably double the system's performance.

so what was this article about?
why not change your topic to 'how to spend 175% of the base price to build a PC that's smaller, more stylish and red' or 'how to give all hardware manufacturers an equal business opportunity when you build your PC'? -_-a


lesmore2222 said:
When I saw the headline of this article, "Build A Balanced AMD-Based Gaming PC On A Budget" , I was exited.

An article on a budget AMD system. Complete with an actual build and benchmarks.

WRONG!

It seems that not only did you fail to build and test the system you advertised. But the system you do offer is an overpriced insult to the people who are truly trying to build a budget gaming PC.


Worst build article in a long while Tom's.


C'mon guys, do you really have to be Dicks about it? The article name is "Building a Balanced AMD-Based Gaming PC on a Budget", not "Build the cheapest ugliest PC you can". If you want that, there are plenty of "Cheap Bastard" build solutions on other sites.

For those with any intellectual capacity, the author actually provided some details on rarely presented information on CPU/GPU balancing. He also presented a build that can be enjoyable to build and enjoyable to own. There is more to PC enjoyment than simply best numbers at the lowest price. I think he did a great job at building a stunning looking, well performing, and enjoyable PC, on a budget.

Sure, any monkey can go to PCPartpicker and find a cheaper build. And any monkey can Google 750k/r9 270 performance and find articles that throw together a system and provide many pages of performance charts. That's not the point here, but you obviously missed that.

Score
0
May 30, 2014 10:47:11 AM

Should have used the Prodigy-M, still has the same exact size but would have given much more ease of installation and "eye candy display." Not that a build that is in this price range should have something this crazy imho. Core 1000 and call it good.
Score
-1
May 30, 2014 10:49:17 AM

Would also have been better off with an i3 or lower end i5 with stock cooling and a better video card than the "bling."
Score
1
May 30, 2014 11:28:53 AM

I hate to rain on the parade but having dabbled in this area a bit recently, every time I now see the words budget and itx mobo/case together, I get a nervous twitch and grumpy. Budget and itx are generally not compatible.

Why led lighted ram sticks that won't be that visible with a window due to the vid card? Without a window... its even more ridiculous for a "budget" system. If you want red lights, get a red led case fan. Why choose an itx board at all in the prodigy case? They make a micro atx version now that would work well for a gaming build with 1-2 data drives. The money you save on mobos covers buying a better cpu or vid card or heatsink/fan. I'll stop here as others have done better at pointing out the problems.

The red devil build is more of a budget beauty build or perhaps a flashy build and almost twice the price of the budget one.
Score
1
May 30, 2014 11:54:13 AM

Quote:
lanceton said:
the price difference is $315... which equals to a significant upgrade to both CPU and GPU that could probably double the system's performance.

so what was this article about?
why not change your topic to 'how to spend 175% of the base price to build a PC that's smaller, more stylish and red' or 'how to give all hardware manufacturers an equal business opportunity when you build your PC'? -_-a


lesmore2222 said:
When I saw the headline of this article, "Build A Balanced AMD-Based Gaming PC On A Budget" , I was exited.

An article on a budget AMD system. Complete with an actual build and benchmarks.

WRONG!

It seems that not only did you fail to build and test the system you advertised. But the system you do offer is an overpriced insult to the people who are truly trying to build a budget gaming PC.


Worst build article in a long while Tom's.


C'mon guys, do you really have to be Dicks about it? The article name is "Building a Balanced AMD-Based Gaming PC on a Budget", not "Build the cheapest ugliest PC you can". If you want that, there are plenty of "Cheap Bastard" build solutions on other sites.

For those with any intellectual capacity, the author actually provided some details on rarely presented information on CPU/GPU balancing. He also presented a build that can be enjoyable to build and enjoyable to own. There is more to PC enjoyment than simply best numbers at the lowest price. I think he did a great job at building a stunning looking, well performing, and enjoyable PC, on a budget.

Sure, any monkey can go to PCPartpicker and find a cheaper build. And any monkey can Google 750k/r9 270 performance and find articles that throw together a system and provide many pages of performance charts. That's not the point here, but you obviously missed that.


While us budget gamers would like our PC's to be presentable to the public. We all know that what is displayed on the screen is what is most important and could care less about the "mess beneath the desk", as long as it is functional.

My main problem with the article was that it failed to build and test the base system it implied in the headline.

Most of the articles on Tom's give us hard data we can trust and rely on. This one didn't even come close to the quality Tom's normally gives us.

I have lots of questions about this budget build but none of them got answered.

a couple of them are...

Can the stock cooler keep this chip cool enough for gaming? Many reviews on newegg say it can't, and if not, the price of a decent cpu cooler makes buying an i3 a much more sensible option.

Is the GTX 750 (non ti) an option? On most of the Tom's graphics charts it beats the 260X and is about the same price.

Please Tom's, don't make us go to lesser sites to get the info you normally give us. Cause we will




Score
0
a b À AMD
May 30, 2014 1:44:20 PM

Jeeze, there's so many Debi-downers in this comment section, I wouldn't doubt it if TH never does another review again.

Seriously, if you guys need benchmarks, ask around. Plenty of people are running similar hardware. But don't hate on the article. Sure, it has a few mistakes, like the fact that you can't buy that model PSU in the USA, but overall it was a good read. The author even made two builds, with build number one being very tight, and build number two was like a commercial for a sup'd up rice burner :) 
Score
2
May 30, 2014 2:30:53 PM

One important caveat: Budget builds are most budget friendly around Black Friday/Cyber Monday, when you can conceivably build a comparable system for 2/3 the price. For example, I built the below system for my sister (saw some bargains while shopping for parts for my own build) this past November. Including monitor (but less the SSD), this system came out to $692.12. On a side note, I also used the BitFenix Prodigy for this particular build.

http://pcpartpicker.com/b/v2cfrH
Score
1
May 30, 2014 2:44:04 PM

Maybe I'm a bit näive, but at $80 for the CPU + $120 for a card (total $200) a high-end AMD APU such as the A10-7850K (@$170) would cost less. The motherboards would be equivalent price to this system, and the memory, HD, case & power supply would be identical. I don't think I've seen an actual comparison using the AMD APUs.
Any thoughts?
Score
0
a b À AMD
May 30, 2014 3:11:30 PM

NoCaDrummer said:
Maybe I'm a bit näive, but at $80 for the CPU + $120 for a card (total $200) a high-end AMD APU such as the A10-7850K (@$170) would cost less. The motherboards would be equivalent price to this system, and the memory, HD, case & power supply would be identical. I don't think I've seen an actual comparison using the AMD APUs.
Any thoughts?


In theory you would be right.

However in practice, it's not even close. I compared the best overclocked A10-7850K score in the 3dmark database to my score with an Athlon 760K + HD 7850.

(Right Click and open in image in new tab if it's too small).


http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/1458979/fs/2187757
4838 to 1926...APU not looking so good.

Even at stock clocks I scored over 3800, about 2x the overclocked A10.
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/1458822
Score
0
May 30, 2014 3:31:35 PM

NoCaDrummer said:
Maybe I'm a bit näive, but at $80 for the CPU + $120 for a card (total $200) a high-end AMD APU such as the A10-7850K (@$170) would cost less. The motherboards would be equivalent price to this system, and the memory, HD, case & power supply would be identical. I don't think I've seen an actual comparison using the AMD APUs.
Any thoughts?


From what I can remember, I think Tom's ran some tests that showed CPU + discrete card combos performed significantly better than APUs at similar price points.
Score
1
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!