What is your computer specs?
>i5-2500K, 560Ti, 8GB ram
>>28978191
shitty laptop
>>28978191
i5 4670K, 16GB RAM, GTX 980
i5 760
Radeon 6950
4gb ram
Too poor and don't care enough to upgrade it.
i5 6500, 8GB RAM, R9 380x
i5-4460
8gb Ram
Nvidia Geforce GT 720
>>28978191
sandy bridge is so good I still don't need to upgrade more than 5 years later.
Might do it this year though. Would also be nice to have two pretty good computers
intel e8400, 4 gb ram, nothing special. i was thinking of building something with a core 2 quad and a low powered video card but idk where i'd get the 200 bucks i'd need.
Pent 4 630, HD 7450, 4GB RAM
I7, 8gb ram, gtx970
what do you guys do with your computers?
>>28978191
The so-called 'specs' are literally the looks of the computer world. Instead of the personality (administrative security, proper text configuration, conventional paths, updating) of your computer, you care about a bunch of irrelevant numbers (hardware models, which are basically the dick/bra size of your computer).
>>28978191
no way, I have that setup! I only have the poorfag 1GB 560ti though.
i7 2600k
R9 290
24gb ram
>>28979053
browse chans, watch porn, watch anime/manga, read articles, watch youtube entertainment/standford-lectures & play vidya.
>>28979100
Processor affects responsiveness, RAM affects number of tabs you can open without killing responsiveness.
Games have floors for both, and get better framerate/details as the graphics card gets better.
>>28979100
In other words, I don't even know and I don't even care. If my PC has insufficient hardware, then, unless I've just magically become smarter and into some heavy scientific modelling that I didn't even notice, it means either that I'm into dumb shit such as games, or that I'm doing something wrong (like trying to edit a document with a bloated web editor rather than an ASCII one).
>>28978779
Who /intelhd4000graphicd/ here?
>>28978191
i5-4460 @ stock GHz
GTX 660
8GB RAM
>tfw bought it for gaming but dont play any demanding games anymore
if i were to buy new pc with big $$$ budget i'd get top-line GPU even if all i do is just browse stuff
>>28979235
Yes well, as long as simply disabling JavaScript improves most sites' readability AND speed, I'll think of software solutions before thinking of throwing money into a hardware upgrade.
>>28979100
>>28979250
>>28979320
>samefag thinks he can prove his argument is right
you're wrong and please, heck off
2gb ram, snapdragon 801 :^)
>>28979352
What samefag? I literally said 'in other words'.
2x Sapphire Tri-X R9 290x
i7 4790k @ 4.8ghz
16GB ram
128GB SSD for boot and a 2 4TB drives for storageI only play Japanese visual novels and MMOs these days.
>>28979320
>as long as simply disabling JavaScript improves most sites' readability AND speed, I'll think of software solutions before thinking of throwing money into a hardware upgrade.
With you there 100% on that point, though non-retro gaming still has regrettable requirements and higher FPS is always more enjoyable
I'm >>28979235 and >>28979006 btw
>>28978191
i5-4440/gtx770/8gb ddr3 1333/os x 10.9 hackintosh
>>28979408
I know I know, I was half joking in my dismissal of games. If I had the hardware to, any modern game would probably blow my mind, it's been so long that I played one. I'm just saying that most people think 'more power' rather than 'less bloat' as a solution.
>>28979479
>any modern game would probably blow my mind
*with its visuals
It's a refurbished office PC with a new GPU I bought for $30
Q9400
gtx470
4gb DDR3
>>28979053
Dark Souls 1
>Core i5 6500
>AMD R9 M380
>16GB of RAM
>5120x2880 27" 10-bit wide gamut IPS display
