EDIT: Sold for $65 to fwipsy without the HD4870 Video Card I'm trying to clear out all of my remaining DDR3/1150 parts in one bundle and have priced it accordingly. Everything except the i3 CPU and the video card in this bundle, came from a storage locker auction that appears to have been from a low-end bitcoin mining rig. The i3 CPU was previously running in my TS140 before I upgraded it and the HD4870 was just laying around looking for a new home. Everything works like it should and has been tested together. Just add your case, power supply and drive. Note: The Pentium G3320 doesn't support 1600MHz RAM, so if you want to use that CPU with the included parts, you'll need to use the Crucial or PNY RAM. TIMESTAMPS
AsRock H81 Pro BTC
Used / Working / Box Included
Intel Core i3 4330 3.5GHz Dual Core (54w TDP)
Used / Working / Installed
Intel Pentium G3320 3.0GHz Dual Core
Used / Working
Stock Intel Cooler
Used / Working
Crucial DDR3 1333MHz 4GB Kit (2x2gb)
Used / Working
G.Skill DDR3 1600MHz 2GB Kit (2x1gb)
Used / Working / In Packaging
PNY 4GB DDR3 1333MHz (1 Stick)
Used / Working
Sapphire Radeon HD4870 512mb Video Card
Used / Working
Price: $80 Delivered via Verified Paypal [Sold for $65 to fwipsy without the HD4870 Video Card] (includes USPS Priority shipping within the lower 48 states) Location: 92399 If interested, please leave a comment and PM me.
Console gaming is hardly different from PC gaming, and much of what people say about PC gaming to put it above console gaming is often wrong.
I’m not sure about you, but for the past few years, I’ve been hearing people go on and on about PCs "superiority" to the console market. People cite various reasons why they believe gaming on a PC is “objectively” better than console gaming, often for reasons related to power, costs, ease-of-use, and freedom. …Only problem: much of what they say is wrong. There are many misconceptions being thrown about PC gaming vs Console gaming, that I believe need to be addressed. This isn’t about “PC gamers being wrong,” or “consoles being the best,” absolutely not. I just want to cut through some of the stuff people use to put down console gaming, and show that console gaming is incredibly similar to PC gaming. I mean, yes, this is someone who mainly games on console, but I also am getting a new PC that I will game on as well, not to mention the 30 PC games I already own and play. I’m not particularly partial to one over the other. Now I will mainly be focusing on the PlayStation side of the consoles, because I know it best, but much of what I say will apply to Xbox as well. Just because I don’t point out many specific Xbox examples, doesn’t mean that they aren’t out there.
“PCs can use TVs and monitors.”
This one isn’t so much of a misconception as it is the implication of one, and overall just… confusing. This is in some articles and the pcmasterrace “why choose a PC” section, where they’re practically implying that consoles can’t do this. I mean, yes, as long as the ports of your PC match up with your screen(s) inputs, you could plug a PC into either… but you could do the same with a console, again, as long as the ports match up. I’m guessing the idea here is that gaming monitors often use Displayport, as do most dedicated GPUs, and consoles are generally restricted to HDMI… But even so, monitors often have HDMI ports. In fact, PC Magazine has just released their list of the best gaming monitors of 2017, and every single one of them has an HDMI port. A PS4 can be plugged into these just as easily as a GTX 1080. I mean, even if the monitoTV doesn’t have HDMI or AV to connect with your console, just use an adaptor. If you have a PC with ports that doesn’t match your monitoTV… use an adapter. I don’t know what the point of this argument is, but it’s made a worrying amount of times.
“On PC, you have a wide range of controller options, but on console you’re stuck with the standard controller."
Are you on PlayStation and wish you could use a specific type of controller that suits your favorite kind of gameplay? Despite what some may believe, you have just as many options as PC. Want to play fighting games with a classic arcade-style board, featuring the buttons and joystick? Here you go! Want to get serious about racing and get something more accurate and immersive than a controller? Got you covered. Absolutely crazy about flying games and, like the racers, want something better than a controller? Enjoy! Want Wii-style motion controls? Been around since the PS3. If you prefer the form factor of the Xbox One controller but you own a PS4, Hori’s got you covered. And of course, if keyboard and mouse it what keeps you on PC, there’s a PlayStation compatible solution for that. Want to use the keyboard and mouse that you already own? Where there’s a will, there’s a way. Of course, these aren’t isolated examples, there are plenty of options for each of these kind of controllers. You don’t have to be on PC to enjoy alternate controllers.
“On PC you could use Steam Link to play anywhere in your house and share games with others.”
PS4 Remote play app on PC/Mac, PSTV, and PS Vita. PS Family Sharing. Using the same PSN account on multiple PS4s/Xbox Ones and PS3s/360s, or using multiple accounts on the same console. In fact, if multiple users are on the same PS4, only one has to buy the game for both users to play it on that one PS4. On top of that, only one of them has to have PS Plus for both to play online (if the one with PS Plus registers the PS4 as their main system). PS4 Share Play; if two people on separate PS4s want to play a game together that only one of them owns, they can join a Party and the owner of the game can have their friend play with them in the game. Need I say more?
“Gaming is more expensive on console.”
Part one, the Software This is one that I find… genuinely surprising. There’s been a few times I’ve mentioned that part of the reason I chose a PS4 is for budget gaming, only to told that “games are cheaper on Steam.” To be fair, there are a few games on PSN/XBL that are more expensive than they are on Steam, so I can see how someone could believe this… but apparently they forgot about disks. Dirt Rally, a hardcore racing sim game that’s… still $60 on all 3 platforms digitally… even though its successor is out.
See my point? Often times the game is cheaper on console because of the disk alternative that’s available for practically every console-available game. Even when the game is brand new. Dirt 4 - Remember that Dirt Rally successor I mentioned?
Yes, you could either buy this relatively new game digitally for $60, or just pick up the disk for a discounted price. And again, this is for a game that came out 2 months ago, and even it’s predecessor’s digital cost is locked at $60. Of course, I’m not going to ignore the fact that Dirt 4 is currently (as of writing this) discounted on Steam, but on PSN it also happens to be discounted for about the same amount. Part 2: the Subscription Now… let’s not ignore the elephant in the room: PS Plus and Xbox Gold. Now these would be ignorable, if they weren’t required for online play (on the PlayStation side, it’s only required for PS4, but still). So yes, it’s still something that will be included in the cost of your PS4 or Xbox One/360, assuming you play online. Bummer, right? Here’s the thing, although that’s the case, although you have to factor in this $60 cost with your console, you can make it balance out, at worst, and make it work out for you as a budget gamer, at best. As nice as it would be to not have to deal with the price if you don’t want to, it’s not like it’s a problem if you use it correctly. Imagine going to a new restaurant. This restaurant has some meals that you can’t get anywhere else, and fair prices compared to competitors. Only problem: you have to pay a membership fee to have the sides. Now you can have the main course, sit down and enjoy your steak or pasta, but if you want to have a side to have a full meal, you have to pay an annual fee. Sounds shitty, right? But here’s the thing: not only does this membership allow you to have sides with your meal, but it also allows you to eat two meals for free every month, and also gives you exclusive discounts for other meals, drinks, and desserts. Let’s look at PS Plus for a minute: for $60 per year, you get:
2 free PS4 games, every month
2 free PS3 games, every month
1 PS4/PS3 and Vita compatible game, and 1 Vita-only game, every month
Exclusive/Extended discounts, especially during the weekly/seasonal sales (though you don’t need PS Plus to get sales, PS Plus members get to enjoy the best sales)
access to online multiplayer
So yes, you’re paying extra because of that membership, but what you get with that deal pays for it and then some. In fact, let’s ignore the discounts for a minute: you get 24 free PS4 games, 24 free PS3 games, and 12 Vita only + 12 Vita compatible games, up to 72freegames every year. Even if you only one of these consoles, that’s still 24 free games a year. Sure, maybe you get games for the month that you don’t like, then just wait until next month. In fact, let’s look at Just Cause 3 again. It was free for PS Plus members in August, which is a pretty big deal. Why is this significant? Because it’s, again, a $60 digital game. That means with this one download, you’ve balanced out your $60 annual fee. Meaning? Every free game after that is money saved, every discount after that is money saved. And this is a trend: every year, PS Plus will release a game that balances out the entire service cost, then another 23 more that will only add icing to that budget cake. Though, you could just count games as paying off PS Plus until you hit $60 in savings, but still. All in all, PS Plus, and Xbox Gold which offers similar options, saves you money. On top of that, again, you don't need to have these to get discounts, but with these memberships, you get more discounts. Now, I’ve seen a few Steam games go up for free for a week, but what about being free for an entire month? Not to mention that; even if you want to talk about Steam Summer Sales, what about the PSN summer sale, or again, disc sale discounts? Now a lot of research and math would be needed to see if every console gamer would save money compared to every Steam gamer for the same games, but at the very least? The costs will balance out, at worst. Part 3, the Systems
Xbox and PS2: $299
Xbox 360 and PS3: $299 and $499, respectively
Xbox One and PS4: $499 and $399, respectively.
Rounded up a few dollars, that’s $1,000 - $1,300 in day-one consoles, just to keep up with the games! Crazy right? So called budget systems, such a rip-off. Well, keep in mind that the generations here aren’t short. The 6th generation, from the launch of the PS2 to the launch of the next generation consoles, lasted 5 years, 6 years based on the launch of the PS3 (though you could say it was 9 or 14, since the Xbox wasn’t discontinued until 2009, and the PS2 was supported all the way to 2014, a year after the PS4 was released). The 7th gen lasted 7 - 8 years, again depending on whether you count the launch of the Xbox 360 to PS3. The 8th gen so far has lasted 4 years. That’s 17 years that the console money is spread over. If you had a Netflix subscription for it’s original $8 monthly plan for that amount of time, that would be over $1,600 total. And let’s be fair here, just like you could upgrade your PC hardware whenever you wanted, you didn’t have to get a console from launch. Let’s look at PlayStation again for example: In 2002, only two years after its release, the PS2 retail price was cut from $300 to $200. The PS3 Slim, released 3 years after the original, was $300, $100-$200 lower than the retail cost. The PS4? You could’ve either gotten the Uncharted bundle for $350, or one of the PS4 Slim bundles for $250. This all brings it down to $750 - $850, which again, is spread over a decade and a half. This isn’t even counting used consoles, sales, or the further price cuts that I didn’t mention. Even if that still sounds like a lot of money to you, even if you’re laughing at the thought of buying new systems every several years, because your PC “is never obsolete,” tell me: how many parts have you changed out in your PC over the years? How many GPUs have you been through? CPUs? Motherboards? RAM sticks, monitors, keyboards, mice, CPU coolers, hard drives— that adds up. You don’t need to replace your entire system to spend a lot of money on hardware. Even if you weren’t upgrading for the sake of upgrading, I’d be amazed if the hardware you’ve been pushing by gaming would last for about 1/3 of that 17 year period. Computer parts aren’t designed to last forever, and really won’t when you’re pushing them with intensive gaming for hours upon hours. Generally speaking, your components might last you 6-8 years, if you’ve got the high-end stuff. But let’s assume you bought a system 17 years ago that was a beast for it’s time, something so powerful, that even if it’s parts have degraded over time, it’s still going strong. Problem is: you will have to upgrade something eventually. Even if you’ve managed to get this far into the gaming realm with the same 17 year old hardware, I’m betting you didn’t do it with a 17 year Operating System. How much did Windows 7 cost you? Or 8.1? Or 10? Oh, and don’t think you can skirt the cost by getting a pre-built system, the cost of Windows is embedded into the cost of the machine (why else would Microsoft allow their OS to go on so many machines). Sure, Windows 10 was a free upgrade for a year, but that’s only half of it’s lifetime— You can’t get it for free now, and not for the past year. On top of that, the free period was an upgrade; you had to pay for 7 or 8 first anyway. Point is, as much as one would like to say that they didn’t need to buy a new system every so often for the sake of gaming, that doesn’t mean they haven’t been paying for hardware, and even if they’ve only been PC gaming recently, you’ll be spending money on hardware soon enough.
“PC is leading the VR—“
Let me stop you right there. If you add together the total number of Oculus Rifts and HTC Vives sold to this day, and threw in another 100,000 just for the sake of it, that number would still be under the number of PSVR headsets sold. Why could this possibly be? Well, for a simple reason: affordability. The systems needed to run the PC headsets costs $800+, and the headsets are $500 - $600, when discounted. PSVR on the other hand costs $450 for the full bundle (headset, camera, and move controllers, with a demo disc thrown in), and can be played on either a $250 - $300 console, or a $400 console, the latter recommended. Even if you want to say that the Vive and Rift are more refined, a full PSVR set, system and all, could cost just over $100 more than a Vive headset alone. If anything, PC isn’t leading the VR gaming market, the PS4 is. It’s the system bringing VR to the most consumers, showing them what the future of gaming could look like. Not to mention that as the PlayStation line grows more powerful (4.2 TFLOP PS4 Pro, 10 TFLOP “PS5…”), it won’t be long until the PlayStation line can use the same VR games as PC. Either way, this shows that there is a console equivalent to the PC VR options. Sure, there are some games you'd only be able to play on PC, but there are also some games you'd only be able to play on PSVR. …Though to be fair, if we’re talking about VR in general, these headsets don’t even hold a candle to, surprisingly, Gear VR.
“If it wasn’t for consoles holding devs back, then they would be able to make higher quality games.”
This one is based on the idea that because of how “low spec” consoles are, that when a developer has to take them in mind, then they can’t design the game to be nearly as good as it would be otherwise. I mean, have you ever seen the minimum specs for games on Steam? GTA V
Actually, bump up all the memory requirements to 8 GBs, and those are some decent specs, relatively speaking. And keep in mind these are the minimum specs to even open the games. It’s almost as if the devs didn’t worry about console specs when making a PC version of the game, because this version of the game isn’t on console. Or maybe even that the consoles aren’t holding the games back that much because they’re not that weak. Just a hypothesis. But I mean, the devs are still ooobviously having to take weak consoles into mind right? They could make their games sooo much more powerful if they were PC only, right? Right? No. Not even close. iRacing
CPU: Intel Core i3, i5, i7 or better or AMD Bulldozer or better
Memory: 8 GB RAM
GPU: NVidia GeForce 2xx series or better, 1GB+ dedicated video memory / AMD 5xxx series or better, 1GB+ dedicated video memory
These are PC only games. That’s right, no consoles to hold them back, they don’t have to worry about whether an Xbox One could handle it. Yet, they don’t require anything more than the Multiplatform games. Subnautica
So what’s the deal? Theoretically, if developers don’t have to worry about console specs, then why aren’t they going all-out and making games that no console could even dream of supporting? Low-end PCs. What, did you think people only game on Steam if they spent at least $500 on gaming hardware? Not all PC gamers have gaming-PC specs, and if devs close their games out to players who don’t have the strongest of PCs, then they’d be losing out on a pretty sizable chunk of their potential buyers. Saying “devs having to deal with consoles is holding gaming back” is like saying “racing teams having to deal with Ford is holding GT racing back.” A: racing teams don’t have to deal with Ford if they don’t want to, which is probably why many of them don’t, and B: even though Ford doesn’t make the fastest cars overall, they still manage to make cars that are awesome on their own, they don’t even need to be compared to anything else to know that they make good cars. I want to go back to that previous point though, developers having to deal with low-end PCs, because it’s integral to the next point:
“PCs are more powerful, gaming on PC provides a better experience.”
This one isn’t so much of a misconception as it is… misleading. Did you know that according to the Steam Hardware & Software Survey (July 2017) , the percentage of Steam gamers who use a GPU that's less powerful than that of a PS4Slim’s GPU is well over 50%? Things get dismal when compared to the PS4 Pro (Or Xbox One X). On top of that, the percentage of PC gamers who own a Nvidia 10 series card is about 20% (about 15% for the 1060, 1080 and 1070 owners). Now to be fair, the large majority of gamers have CPUs with considerably high clock speeds, which is the main factor in CPU gaming performance. But, the number of Steam gamers with as much RAM or more than a PS4 or Xbox One is less than 50%, which can really bottleneck what those CPUs can handle. These numbers are hardly better than they were in 2013, all things considered. Sure, a PS3/360 weeps in the face of even a $400 PC, but in this day in age, consoles have definitely caught up. Sure, we could mention the fact that even 1% of Steam accounts represents over 1 million accounts, but that doesn’t really matter compared to the 10s of millions of 8th gen consoles sold; looking at it that way, sure the number of Nvidia 10 series owners is over 20 million, but that ignores the fact that there are over 5 times more 8th gen consoles sold than that. Basically, even though PCs run on a spectrum, saying they're more powerful “on average” is actually wrong. Sure, they have the potential for being more powerful, but most of the time, people aren’t willing to pay the premium to reach those extra bits of performance. Now why is this important? What matters are the people who spent the premium cost for premium parts, right? Because of the previous point: PCs don’t have some ubiquitous quality over the consoles, developers will always have to keep low-end PCs in mind, because not even half of all PC players can afford the good stuff, and you have to look at the top quarter of Steam players before you get to PS4-Pro-level specs. If every Steam player were to get a PS4 Pro, it would be an upgrade for over 60% of them, and 70% of them would be getting an upgrade with the Xbox One X. Sure, you could still make the argument that when you pay more for PC parts, you get a better experience than you could with a console. We can argue all day about budget PCs, but a console can’t match up to a $1,000 PC build. It’s the same as paying more for car parts, in the end you get a better car. However, there is a certain problem with that…
“You pay a little more for a PC, you get much more quality.”
The idea here is that the more you pay for PC parts, the performance increases at a faster rate than the price does. Problem: that’s not how technology works. Paying twice as much doesn’t get you twice the quality the majority of the time. For example, let’s look at graphics cards, specifically the GeForce 10 series cards, starting with the GTX 1050.
1.35 GHz base clock
2 GB VRAM
This is our reference, our basis of comparison. Any percentages will be based on the 1050’s specs. Now let’s look at the GTX 1050 Ti, the 1050’s older brother.
1.29 GHz base clock
4 GB VRAM
This is pretty good. You only increase the price by about 27%, and you get an 11% increase in floating point speed and a 100% increase (double) in VRAM. Sure you get a slightly lower base clock, but the rest definitely makes up for it. In fact, according to GPU boss, the Ti managed 66 fps, or a 22% increase in frame rate for Battlefield 4, and a 54% increase in mHash/second in bitcoin mining. The cost increase is worth it, for the most part. But let’s get to the real meat of it; what happens when we double our budget? Surely we should see a massive increase performance, I bet some of you are willing to bet that twice the cost means more than twice the performance. The closest price comparison for double the cost is the GTX 1060 (3 GB), so let’s get a look at that.
1.5 GHz base clock
3 GB VRAM
Well… not substantial, I’d say. About a 50% increase in floating point speed, an 11% increase in base clock speed, and a 1GB decrease in VRAM. For [almost] doubling the price, you don’t get much. Well surely raw specs don’t tell the full story, right? Well, let’s look at some real wold comparisons. Once again, according to GPU Boss, there’s a 138% increase in hashes/second for bitcoin mining, and at 99 fps, an 83% frame rate increase in Battlefield 4. Well, then, raw specs does not tell the whole story! Here’s another one, the 1060’s big brother… or, well, slightly-more-developed twin.
1.5 GHz base clock
6 GB VRAM
Seems reasonable, another $50 for a decent jump in power and double the memory! But, as we’ve learned, we shouldn’t look at the specs for the full story. I did do a GPU Boss comparison, but for the BF4 frame rate, I had to look at Tom’s Hardware (sorry miners, GPU boss didn’t cover the mHash/sec spec either). What’s the verdict? Well, pretty good, I’d say. With 97 FPS, a 79% increase over the 1050— wait. 97? That seems too low… I mean, the 3GB version got 99. Well, let’s see what Tech Power Up has to say... 94.3 fps. 74% increase. Huh. Alright alright, maybe that was just a dud. We can gloss over that I guess. Ok, one more, but let’s go for the big fish: the GTX 1080.
1.6 GHz base clock
8 GB VRAM
That jump in floating point speed definitely has to be something, and 4 times the VRAM? Sure it’s 5 times the price, but as we saw, raw power doesn’t always tell the full story. GPU Boss returns to give us the run down, how do these cards compare in the real world? Well… a 222% (over three-fold) increase in mHash speed, and a 218% increase in FPS for Battlefield 4. That’s right, for 5 times the cost, you get 3 times the performance. Truly, the raw specs don’t tell the full story. You increase the cost by 27%, you increase frame rate in our example game by 22%. You increase the cost by 83%, you increase the frame rate by 83%. Sounds good, but if you increase the cost by 129%, and you get a 79% (-50% cost/power increase) increase in frame rate. You increase it by 358%, and you increase the frame rate by 218% (-140% cost/power increase). That’s not paying “more for much more power,” that’s a steep drop-off after the third cheapest option. In fact, did you know that you have to get to the 1060 (6GB) before you could compare the GTX line to a PS4 Pro? Not to mention that at $250, the price of a 1060 (6GB) you could get an entire PS4 Slim bundle, or that you have to get to the 1070 before you beat the Xbox One X. On another note, let’s look at a PS4 Slim…
800 MHz base clock
8 GB VRAM
…Versus a PS4 Pro.
911 MHz base clock
8 GB VRAM
128% increase in floating point speed, 13% increase in clock speed, for a 25% difference in cost. Unfortunately there is no Battlefield 4 comparison to make, but in BF1, the frame rate is doubled (30 fps to 60) and the textures are taken to 11. For what that looks like, I’ll leave it up to this bloke. Not to even mention that you can even get the texture buffs in 4K. Just like how you get a decent increase in performance based on price for the lower-cost GPUs, the same applies here. It’s even worse when you look at the CPU for a gaming PC. The more money you spend, again, the less of a benefit you get per dollar. Hardware Unboxed covers this in a video comparing different levels of Intel CPUs. One thing to note is that the highest i7 option (6700K) in this video was almost always within 10 FPS (though for a few games, 15 FPS) of a certain CPU in that list for just about all of the games. …That CPU was the lowest i3 (6100) option. The lowest i3 was $117 and the highest i7 was $339, a 189% price difference for what was, on average, a 30% or less difference in frame rate. Even the lowest Pentium option (G4400, $63) was often able to keep up with the i7. The CPU and GPU are usually the most expensive and power-consuming parts of a build, which is why I focused on them (other than the fact that they’re the two most important parts of a gaming PC, outside of RAM). With both, this “pay more to get much more performance” idea is pretty much the inverse of the truth.
“The console giants are bad for game developers, Steam doesn't treat developers as bad as Microsoft or especially Sony.”
Now one thing you might’ve heard is that the PS3 was incredibly difficult for developers to make games for, which for some, fueled the idea that console hardware is difficult too develop on compared to PC… but this ignores a very basic idea that we’ve already touched on: if the devs don’t want to make the game compatible with a system, they don’t have to. In fact, this is why Left 4 Dead and other Valve games aren’t on PS3, because they didn’t want to work with it’s hardware, calling it “too complex.” This didn’t stop the game from selling well over 10 million units worldwide. If anything, this was a problem for the PS3, not the dev team. This also ignores that games like LittleBigPlanet, Grand Theft Auto IV, and Metal Gear Solid 4 all came out in the same year as Left 4 Dead (2008) on PS3. Apparently, plenty of other dev teams didn’t have much of a problem with the PS3’s hardware, or at the very least, they got used to it soon enough. On top of that, when developing the 8th gen consoles, both Sony and Microsoft sought to use CPUs that were easier for developers, which included making decisions that considered apps for the consoles’ usage for more than gaming. On top of that, using their single-chip proprietary CPUs is cheaper and more energy efficient than buying pre-made CPUs and boards, which is far better of a reason for using them than some conspiracy about Sony and MS trying to make devs' lives harder. Now, console exclusives are apparently a point of contention: it’s often said that exclusive can cause developers to go bankrupt. However, exclusivity doesn’t have to be a bad thing for the developer. For example, when Media Molecule had to pitch their game to a publisher (Sony, coincidentally), they didn’t end up being tied into something detrimental to them. Their initial funding lasted for 6 months. From then, Sony offered additional funding, in exchange for Console Exclusivity. This may sound concerning to some, but the game ended up going on to sell almost 6 million units worldwide and launched Media Molecule into the gaming limelight. Sony later bought the development studio, but 1: this was in 2010, two years after LittleBigPlanet’s release, and 2: Media Molecule seem pretty happy about it to this day. If anything, signing up with Sony was one of the best things they could’ve done, in their opinion. Does this sound like a company that has it out for developers? There are plenty of examples that people will use to put Valve in a good light, but even Sony is comparatively good to developers.
“There are more PC gamers.”
The total number of active PC gamers on Steam has surpassed 120 million, which is impressive, especially considering that this number is double that of 2013’s figure (65 million). But the number of monthly active users on Xbox Live and PSN? About 120 million (1, 2) total. EDIT: You could argue that this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, sure, so if you want to, say, compare the monthly number of Steam users to console? Steam has about half of what consoles do, at 67 million. Now, back to the 65 million total user figure for Steam, the best I could find for reference for PlayStation's number was an article giving the number of registered PSN accounts in 2013, 150 million. In a similar 4-year period (2009 - 2013), the number of registered PSN accounts didn’t double, it sextupled, or increased by 6 fold. Considering how the PS4 is already at 2/3 of the number of sales the PS3 had, even though it’s currently 3 years younger than its predecessor, I’m sure this trend is at least generally consistent. For example, let’s look at DOOM 2016, an awesome faced-paced shooting title with graphics galore… Of course, on a single platform, it sold best on PC/Steam. 2.36 million Steam sales, 2.05 million PS4 sales, 1.01 million Xbox One sales. But keep in mind… when you add the consoles sales together, you get over 3 million sales on the 8th gen systems. Meaning: this game was best sold on console. In fact, the Steam sales have only recently surpassed the PS4 sales. By the way VG charts only shows sales for physical copies of the games, so the number of PS4 and Xbox sales, when digital sales are included, are even higher than 3 million. This isn’t uncommon, by the way. Even with the games were the PC sales are higher than either of the consoles, there generally are more console sales total. But, to be fair, this isn’t anything new. The number of PC gamers hasn’t dominated the market, the percentages have always been about this much. PC can end up being the largest single platform for games, but consoles usually sell more copies total. EDIT: There were other examples but... Reddit has a 40,000-character limit.
This isn’t to say that there’s anything wrong with PC gaming, and this isn’t to exalt consoles. I’m not here to be the hipster defending the little guy, nor to be the one to try to put down someone/thing out of spite. This is about showing that PCs and consoles are overall pretty similar because there isn’t much dividing them, and that there isn’t anything wrong with being a console gamer. There isn’t some chasm separating consoles and PCs, at the end of the day they’re both computers that are (generally) designed for gaming. This about unity as gamers, to try to show that there shouldn’t be a massive divide just because of the computer system you game on. I want gamers to be in an environment where specs don't separate us; whether you got a $250 PS4 Slim or just built a $2,500 gaming PC, we’re here to game and should be able to have healthy interactions regardless of your platform. I’m well aware that this isn’t going to fix… much, but this needs to be said: there isn’t a huge divide between the PC and consoles, they’re far more similar than people think. There are upsides and downsides that one has that the other doesn’t on both sides. There’s so much more I could touch on, like how you could use SSDs or 3.5 inch hard drives with both, or that even though PC part prices go down over time, so do consoles, but I just wanted to touch on the main points people try to use to needlessly separate the two kinds of systems (looking at you PCMR) and correct them, to get the point across. I thank anyone who takes the time to read all of this, and especially anyone who doesn’t take what I say out of context. I also want to note that, again, thisisn’t “anti-PC gamer.” If it were up to me, everyone would be a hybrid gamer. Cheers.
Wanna Build a Hybrid Value/Performance PC? No Budget; Preferably $900-$1,700 PLS Help!
Wanna Build a Hybrid Value/Performance PC? PLS Help! Ok so, I have never built a PC and have a relative baseline of knowledge on computer parts. I’ve been learning about specs, different parts, and how pc’s can be specifically built for specific purposes over the past 3 weeks. So if you do want to help, know that I’m not ENTIRELY clueless, and that I’m not here to waste your time. With that being said, let’s get into it. Intro: I’m looking to build a pc. I have a 2013 Macbook Air. Base model, but with 256gb of ssd. The Laptop isn’t exactly satisfying my needs anymore, and so here I am. What I will use this pc for: I’m going to be browsing and streaming video with up to 100 tabs open at once. I’ll be gaming playing 1st/3rd person shooters (Battlefield, PUBG) and LoL. I might get into strategy games like Ashes or Civ 6; maybe action/adventure as well. Idk yet. I MIGHT have some LIGHT content creation (Youtube), but honestly I will probably be too lazy and time consumed to waste energy here. W Sony Vegas I will most likely have multiple browsers and tabs open and gaming at the same time. I will probably also be using 2 monitors at a time as well (Multi-display is preferable) MUST HAVE SPEC(S) FOR THE PC: Wifi Compatibility - I’m in the other corner of my parents’ house and won’t move out for a year or so. So this is a MUST HAVE. Period. Value (I seriously do not want to waste my money. I need bang for buck. MIND YOU, I am also willing to spend it if the value is there.) This is also a MUST HAVE. Btw I don’t give a shit about rbg or color schemes. lol let’s build a sleeper…. Preferred Specs: Value - I have come to find over the past 3 weeks that I care for this A LOT. I have no budget, but don’t want to spend more than $1,500 - $1,800 on the PC alone. Only the PC. Doesn’t include Monitor, keyboard, mouse, desk, chair, ect. Longevity - I want to get a good, Upper-mid tier pc that won’t need GPU or CPU Upgrading for 4-6 years. Solid Graphics - I am not going to buy any processor with lesser power than a Geforce GTX 1060. The 1060 and 980 are as low as I’ll go. Right now I’m looking at a 1070 or 1070 Ti, maybe a 1080, probably not a 1080 Ti. Upper Class CPU - I don’t care if it’s AMD or Intel. Ryzen is SLIGHTLY better with content creation and is slightly cheaper, but remember, I’m here for Gaming. I’m more than fine with intel if i get more bang for buck. Currently looking at Ryzen 5 2600X. I’M OPEN FOR SUGGESTIONS AND BETTER VALUE OPTIONS! Ram - I hate to shovel out money here, but i will. DDR4 8GB @2400 Min 16GB Max SSD - Currently Looking at a Samsung Evo 850 (I think, can’t remember) Motherboard - I will probably be upgrading this PC overtime, So I kind of want a mid-tier Motherboard that can support future upgrades Compatability - No shit. Need a compatible motherboard and compatable parts Additional Air Fan(s) - I want my pc cool man…. Not spending money here Monitor - At least 144hz, lower input latency, 1080p is fine. I don’t need 1440 or higher. I know this also plays into what the CPU and GPU are capable of. I don’t care for curved or wide monitors either. Don’t care. Power Supply: 650W Gold 550W Gold might be fine though. I’m not planning on overclocking, but if I become interested over the years, I’ll just upgrade this. Cable Management - Who doesn't want this nowadays? Non-Preferred Specs: Liquid Cooling - I will upgrade to this over time Customized Case - Eh. Take it or leave it. I won’t spend more than $100 here. Hard Drive - I don’t care really. 1Tb, 2TB, 3TB. I actually bought a 2TB HDD that has never been used for my PS4, so if I can use that for the PC then cool. I might have to look that up, or get informed. I assume it’s possible and easy. RGB - Idc GSYNC/FreeSync - Eh, yeah this is nice when playing Shooters, but it costs too much extra for such a minuscule impact Sound Card - LMAO. Don’t Bother Headset - Have one Mouse - Have a Corsair MMO mouse. IDK what it’s called. Cost about $55 (Gaming) Chair - Not necessary and I have one anyways Yes, I have left some components out. So in the end, Im looking for either a budget option between $700-$1,200 or just a solid gaming PC between $1,200-$1,700. I’ve tried going to local stores, but i’ve been getting quoted $200-$500 just to build the pc, which is absurd. I’ve also looked into Pre-built Pcs because of bitcoin and precious metal mining racking up GPU and Ram Prices. If you’re interested here are the PC’s I’ve been looking at and semi-decent pricing:
So yeah that’s where I am. I can currently build a PC like #4 for around $1300 Brand new, even though I have no fucking clue as to what I’m doing, Which would save about $100-$130. On a side note: Im currently thinking about building a value pc for $700-$900 as an entry level pc, and then building a stronger one over the years. I also would love for my Pc to be mobile given my current living situation. With those two things being said, Would a Mini PC be a decent option? NOW, Keep In mind I’m Playing League with a 2013 MacBook Air @ 25-35 FPS Average going as low as 6FPS (Yes…Fucking Six…) with Constant App crashes on a BLAZING Intel HD 5000 GPU, 1.3GHz Intel Core I5-4250U, and 4MB DDR3 @1,600Mhz of Ram. Yeah. Kill me….. I’m Looking at these currently: https://store.zotac.com/magnus-en1060-plus-i3-zbox-en1060-p-u-i3Magnus EN1060 PLUS I3 SKU: ZBOX-EN1060-P-U-I3 https://store.zotac.com/magnus-en1060k-zbox-en1060k-u Magnus EN1060K SKU: ZBOX-EN1060K-U At first glance I thought they looked like shit, but I can take them anywhere, and are cheaper than buying a laptop with the same specs. To Wrap It Up: Is it worth it to buy a pre-built with the market conditions? Is it worth it to buy a budget Mini-PC given my living conditions and Lifestyle? (I’m always going over to friends’ dorms and apartments for the weekend as well. I forgot to mention that) Or do you guys wanna help craft a VALUE gaming pc capping out at $1,700? That sounds like the most fun to me personally. PLEASE HELP! I’m easy to work with and will POUR over any information you guys give me. I Love to learn, I take spending my money seriously, and I need some serious help here. Maybe you guys could school me on what to look for when comparing CPUs as well. I’ve noticed that base speeds aren’t everything, but cores and threads aren’t always everything either.
6 GPU Setup, Starting Build Tomorrow Any advice is appreciated
So i recently Purchased Asus Z170-Pro Motherboard Intel Pentium G4600 Ballistic sport Lt 4Gb 2400 2 Corsair RMx Series 750W 2 Zotac GTX 1070 Ti 8gb 2 MSI GTX 1080 8g 2 ASUS GTX 1080 Turbo GTX 8g *Edit since i was trying to get the main part done before the GPUs i primenowed Motherboard ASUS PRIME Z270-A LGA1151 DDR4 CPU Intel 3.70 GHz Core i3-6100 3M Cache Processor (BX80662I36100) i wanted to test an older Asus Z170-pro with an older 850 EVGA power supply that i had from a computer that failed and i was not 100% if it was motherboard or power supply so wanted to use this as a chance to see if i still had a good Motherboard or PSU lying around. I have alot of computer parts lying around as well so everything i need is here. I also am using Nicehash at my wok computer with a 1050ti 7700k 24/7 free elec geting about 1.50 a day and my home computer 980ti 6700k at about 3-3.50 a day so that well help in getting back to even. Everything together was about 3500 I am hoping to get 100% money back in 6-8 months depending on bitcoin prices overall. The reason i jumped in so late is i figured this equipment is still valuable to at least 50% of its current value in 6 months so i really only need to make back 1750 to be really profitable. I have read alot of information. I am assuming stock will get me to my goal in 6 months an tips on getting the most out of these 6 cards? it is also december so i have a free supply of cold air to help. new to mining not computer building. I have built 8 computers this year so this is not really different its just the Bios setup. Just wanted advice on my particular cards and see what people have to say that have used this same type of equipment.
Quad core CPU a necessity? Or is a dual core sufficient when you are building an ITX PC specifically to take to LANs.
I have never been able to get a straight answer on this (even after searching this forum). I have personal friends tell me "dude you NEED a quad core CPU. Don't be cheap." But I just want to build a simple LAN PC that is portable and efficient and runs games smoothly at 1080p settings and high FPS. This isn't some 8k-rendering, bitcoin-mining, protein-folding monster. I already have a home PC. Here's my concept build below (I have a custom case/PSU, so ignore the fact that they are not listed): PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant
For the last 6 years, I’ve been gaming on a laptop that I originally bought for college, but it just isn’t cutting it anymore. My standards are pretty low (I usually play old games at the very minimum settings @ 20fps or so), but my friends have been playing a lot of Fortnite lately and my computer just can’t run it. A friend of mine offered me his old graphics card, and I’ve tried to make a budget build that I can eventually upgrade if needed (I know graphics cards are super expensive right now because of bitcoin, but I might pick up a newer one once the prices go down). Besides Fortnite, the newest game I play is Heroes of the Storm. The rest are all older games like WoW, Diablo 3, and Borderlands 2. I’m trying to keep the build under $500, and I’m purchasing all of my parts in the US. Items that I marked as purchased I either already own or I am receiving from friends. I’d really appreciate any feedback or suggestions, because it’s been a couple of decades since I’ve built a computer. PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant
I know the build lacks a wifi card, but I connect directly to my router via Ethernet so I don’t anticipate needing one. Oh, and I know the stock cooler would work fine for the i3, I just wanted to get a quieter fan since I’m sensitive to prolonged loud noises. Once again, any help, suggestions, or feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Have you read the sidebar and rules? (Please do) Yes What is your intended use for this build? The more details the better. Gaming If gaming, what kind of performance are you looking for? (Screen resolution, FPS, game settings) Will be upgrading from a GTX 630M & 3rd gen i7 laptop, so not to fussed. 1600x900, high present preferred (really doesn't need to be ultra) at 60 FPS. What is your budget (ballpark is okay)? About $700 In what country are you purchasing your parts? Australia, in-store at MSY Post a draft of your potential build here (specific parts please). Consider formatting your parts list. PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant
Plus a cheap $29 case: http://www.msy.com.au/saonline/pc-components/13862-shaw-gt-gm5-gt-gaming-five-gaming-usb30-tower-case-without-psu.html Getting from MSY since I can just pick it up locally and their prices are better than the others listen on PC Part Picker (though for some reason they don't list MSY) Provide any additional details you wish below. Going with the G3258 over an i3 because after doing some research, for most games not multi core optimized the performance gains are very small. And a lot of the tests I have seen were comparing them at 1920x1080 @ Ultra or high settings. I'll be at 1600x900 @ High settings so I think I should be able to get at least a solid 60 FPS on most modern games? Went with the 750 Ti as I honestly just prefer Nvidia over AMD/ATI and the lower power consumption, heat, noise ain't bad over the ATI equivalent. I know I could go with a lower PSU using a 750 Ti (think 300W maybe?) but they only cheaper ones MSY has are these very weird looking brands ($19 for 685W? lol no thanks) and I just want to pick everything up in one go. Will be my first system build in at at least 5 years. Overall I think its pretty good for that price and considering i'm upgrading from a laptop, I'm sure I will be amazed at just about anything. Also leaves some room to upgrade to an i3/i5/i7 and a better video card in the future. And no I wont be doing any bitcoin mining (bitcoin mobo, bitcoin suited video card..)
Hello fellow shibes (am I doing it right?) I'm a new dogecoin lover. I'm from Venezuela. You might know (or not, probably not) we are in a pretty bad economic situation. We have shortages of everything, from food to electricity. Seriously, google 'Venezuela's toilet paper shortage'. I mean, we have a higher inflation than Syria. They are on war. We aren't. So the government has taken a lot of bad decisions, one of them is control the foreign currency exchange. We can only be eligible to buy $300 per year. And only if you have credit card. Banks don't give credit cards regularly to college students. Being a college student myself, with no credit card, I knew cryptocurrencies were the only way. So I started with bitcoin. I couldn't mine nothing with my old pentium 4. So I abandoned the whole thing. After a year and a couple of months of working here and there, I finally got my brand new Intel core i3-2100 (I know is not very new to you, but as I said, we have shortages of everything. Stores don't have new things in stock. Specially computer parts. SO DIFFICULT TO GET A RAM.) and I said: fuck it! Let's go to the moon! So here I am, just wanted to say hi and ask you if you think I can mine with my new cpu? (No gpu, tho. I cannot afford one) TL;DR Hi! I'm new. I'm from Venezuela. I have a core i3, do you think I can mine with it?
[Discussion] Convince me why I should or shouldn't play the waiting game for building a PC!
If you don't want to read my novel, read just the first and last paragraphs, please! For maybe a year now, I've been planning on building a new PC from scratch. I set my rough build date for sometime later this summer, but now I'm getting caught up in the waiting game. There is always something better around the corner... the AMD 300 series, Skylake, Zen, etc. My goal is to build something that will last me 3-4 years playing at 1080p, ~60FPS. However, if I could build something for a bit cheaper and simply upgrade it after 2 years or so, that's just as viable, but it complicates things a bit more. I could buy the Xeon E3 1231 v3 and be virtually guaranteed to have it last 4 years or more (although at risk of having it feel ancient by the time Intel is pushing out their 8000 series CPUs), or I could wait for Skylake and get an i3 (and the newest 1151 mobo) that is (hopefully) less than half the price and simply upgrade it to an i5 when things feel sluggish. But if Skylake doesn't perform significantly better than the Haswell Xeon, wouldn't I just be wasting money? And if DX12 drastically improves the gaming performance of all 6-8 core processors, will we see their prices rise, and will I be kicking myself for not taking advantage of purchasing an 8-core AMD processor that will cost me half of what an Intel 8-core costs? I'm more aware that GPUs generally become obsolete more quickly than CPUs, so I'm already factoring in the inevitability that even a highish end GPU (a 970, 290 or 290x) would probably need to be upgraded within 2 years depending on trends in graphics/drivers. I toyed with the idea of planning to SLI/crossfire when I feel it's necessary, but after 2 years, odds are it'd be simpler, more efficient, and potentially more cost-effective to simply get an updated single GPU. Toss in the potential for curveballs like bitcoin mining, rapid price falls in memory hardware (RAM or SSD), or simply some massive hardware improvement and you really won't know whether the same performance will cost you half or double the price a year down the line. Bottom line is it's really hard to judge trends in gaming hardware, and the many different future scenarios makes me constantly second guess what I should do. Can anyone out there convince me of the best course of action? Should I postpone until Skylake/Zen, or just build now and hope that they don't make my PC feel prematurely obsolete?
i have access to intel core i3 pc with 6 gb ram and integrated graphics card. internet connection of 1mbps. how good is it for mining bitcoin? how much bitcoin can i mine in a day or a week. which will be good for me to mine? in a pool or individual? i dunno how it works. questions may seem odd.
Prices include shipping and discounts when available.
Generated 2012-04-03 18:04 EDT-0400
This build is going to be for playing Minecraft/hosting a server (Maybe Some WOW in the future), lots of reddit, and maybe some Bitcoin mining. Since I am a poor, poor man, my budget is limited to $500, and this build will be built in a month (On my birthday). I'm aiming for the most bang for buck.
Looking at making a rig dedicated solely to mining cryptocurrency (DogeCoin). Doge is a little different from Bitcoin - so ASIC miners won't work. I'm really just trying to squeeze as many R9 280Xs into a computer as I can, without bottlenecking them. My question is: will my CPU or RAM bottleneck? Are they overkill? The first option is this: PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-01-20 14:40 EST-0500
I know it would be more cost-effective to just get two of the Mk. 1 build, but I think the plan might be to only get a single R9 280X, and then add the rest individually as I get the cash. Plus 4-way CX is sick-nasty.
PowerColor AX7870 2GBD5-2DHPPV2E Radeon HD 7870 GHz EZ Edition 2GB 256-bit GDDR5 Video Card
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.
Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-04-14 20:02 EDT-0400
Thoughts that influenced my choices:
I'm going to set up those WD Reds in Raid-6 (or ZFS, we'll see how FreeNAS plays with everything else)
Whatever I choose above, it's going to be encrypted. Because that, I'd prefer the AES-NI instruction set for the CPU, so Core i3s are out.
I'd like to set everything up with Xen/KVM/VMware, so I can have multiple servers (one for the NAS, one for the miner, a few for generic play toys)
All VMs and such will be on the SSD for performance.
I've already got that 7870 LE for some casual bitcoin mining. Because of that, the thought is I'll want IOMMU (VT-d or AMD-vi) on the Mobo and CPU for direct VM access to the hardware
Because I've got 5 HDDs, an SSD, and a DVD-RW, I'll need at least 7 SATA connectors. With the Intel Mobo, the thought is to have the 5 HDDs on 3GB/s and the other two on 6GB/s. I've seen some other posts talking about SAS which seems like it might be useful, but I'm unfamiliar with that.
The CPUs chosen are because they have the AES instruction set, IOMMU, and are under 70W TDP for some token low-power effort.
The smaller case is preferred but not required, so I shot for Micro-ATX and the Fractal Design case. I really like the Fractal cases.
The Power requirements according to PC Part Picker are around 400-440W. I went for the lowest power PSU I could find with modular design. I'm terrible with cable management. :)
So I guess I'm after some help and suggestions. Am I on the right track for what I'm after? Are any of my requirements not realistic or unnecessary? Do you have any better suggestions? Thanks for the help! edit: formatting, typos.
Hi all. I'm trying to break into mining, using (trying to use) GUIMiner with Slush's pool. When I try to run it with slush's server info preloaded, the terminal reads
2013-12-11 03:33:43: Running command: poclbm.exe :@api2.bitcoin.cz:8332 --device=0 --platform=0 --verbose -r1 2013-12-11 03:33:43: Listener for "Default" started 2013-12-11 03:33:43: Listener for "Default": WARNING: ADL missing (no AMD platform?), temperature control is disabled 2013-12-11 03:33:43: Listener for "Default": 11/12/2013 03:33:43, started OpenCL miner on platform 0, device 0 (Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-2330M CPU @ 2.20GHz) 2013-12-11 03:33:44: Listener for "Default": api2.bitcoin.cz:8332 11/12/2013 03:33:44, checking for stratum... 2013-12-11 03:33:44: Listener for "Default": api2.bitcoin.cz:8332 11/12/2013 03:33:44, diverted to stratum on stratum.bitcoin.cz:3333 2013-12-11 03:33:45: Listener for "Default": api2.bitcoin.cz:8332 11/12/2013 03:33:44, Setting new difficulty: 3 2013-12-11 03:34:19: Listener for "Default": api2.bitcoin.cz:8332 11/12/2013 03:34:19, Setting new difficulty: 1
(with the worker info stripped) and doesn't budge from there. I never get a hash rate, just eternal "Connecting...". When I run the server as "Other" and manually insert Slush's address, I get
2013-12-11 03:39:48: Running command: poclbm.exe :@http://api.bitcoin.cz:8332 --device=0 --platform=0 --verbose -r1 2013-12-11 03:39:48: Listener for "Default" started 2013-12-11 03:39:49: Listener for "Default": 11/12/2013 03:39:49, need more than 1 value to unpack 2013-12-11 03:39:50: Listener for "Default": WARNING: ADL missing (no AMD platform?), temperature control is disabled 2013-12-11 03:39:50: Listener for "Default": At least one server is required 2013-12-11 03:39:50: Listener for "Default": Traceback (most recent call last): 2013-12-11 03:39:50: Listener for "Default": File "Switch.pyo", line 45, in __init__ 2013-12-11 03:39:50: Listener for "Default": File "Switch.pyo", line 60, in parse_server 2013-12-11 03:39:50: Listener for "Default": ValueError: need more than 1 value to unpack
and that's where it stays. Running on CPU off of Windows 7. Any help would be appreciated.
Effectively nothing ..Even in an year..If you're thinking of making money by mining bitcoins let me tell you that because of its popularity more and more people are doing it and it's difficulty is exponentially increasing hence making it almost i... Older Intel Integrated Graphics may support OpenCL on the CPU only, so they are no good for mining crypto coins unfortunately. Below you can find a list of the supported integrated Intel graphics processors that can be used for OpenCL mining: 4th Generation Intel Core Processors with: – Intel HD Graphics 4200/4400/4600/5000 – Intel Iris ... Nb85 Bitcoin Mining Rig Motherboard With 6pci-e Slot,Intel Core I7 I5 I3 Lga 1150,Ddr3x2 1600mhz,For Ethereum Eth Miner 6 Gpu , Find Complete Details about Nb85 Bitcoin Mining Rig Motherboard With 6pci-e Slot,Intel Core I7 I5 I3 Lga 1150,Ddr3x2 1600mhz,For Ethereum Eth Miner 6 Gpu,Bitcoin Motherboard,Nb85 Motherboard,Lga 1150 Motherboard from Motherboards Supplier or Manufacturer-Shenzhen ... CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i3 6100U ... Much better CompuBench 1.5 bitcoin mining score: 26.34 mHash/s: vs: 1.78 mHash/s: More than 14.8x better CompuBench 1.5 bitcoin mining score: Higher clock speed: 2.3 GHz: vs: 2 GHz: Around 15% higher clock speed: Significantly newer manufacturing process: 14 nm : vs: 22 nm: A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler ... Bitcoin Mining Rig Motherboard With 6pci-e Slot,Intel Core I7 I5 I3 Lga 1150,Ddr3x2 1600mhz,For Ethereum Eth Miner 6 Gpu , Find Complete Details about Bitcoin Mining Rig Motherboard With 6pci-e Slot,Intel Core I7 I5 I3 Lga 1150,Ddr3x2 1600mhz,For Ethereum Eth Miner 6 Gpu,Bitcoin Motherboard,Nb85 Motherboard,Lga 1150 Motherboard from Other Computer Accessories Supplier or Manufacturer-Shenzhen ...
How to mine $1,000,000 of Bitcoin using just a laptop ...
Mining Bitcoin is as easy as installing the mining software on the PC you already own and clicking start. Anyone can do this and see the money start rolling ... MINERIA CASERA DE BITCOIN CON INTEL CORE I3, I5, I7 BITCON - V8 ... Bitcoin Miner, Ethereum Mining , Mineria en la Nube o Casera? BITCOIN V43 - Duration: 27:04. TradingLatino 134,339 views. 27 ... Mining BTC With: CPU AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X 3.4 GHz 16-Core 32 Threads & Dual Nvidia GEFORCE GTX 1080 Ti Fanpage facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Lit... Please subscribe and like WHO'S STILL MINING COMMENT PLEASE #Asrock h110 Pro BTC motherboard gen 7 does not work on new core i3 start my new story learning quick about mining computers. HP 15 Core-i3 7th G (8GB/1 TB HDD/Win 10/15.6-inch Full HD) BUY LINK : https://amzn.to/2Xorje5 Lenovo Ideapad 330 Intel Core i5 8th Gen 15.6-inch Full HD (4GB+16GB Optane/1 TB HDD/Win 10 ) BUY ...