> The important piece of information that article is missing is that the PC isn't
> "Amazing" until you overclock that $75 CPU over 4GHz. I have a similar setup (with a
> better Z87 motherboard) in my MAME cabinet that overclocked to 4.5GHz. You can see
> MAME benchmarks here...
> The "Amazing" part is that you can build a system so powerful with so little money.
> If money was unlimited, you could definitely build a better PC.
> Also, the info is a little out of date. I'd definitely go with a GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
> 4GB video card for $150 instead of what they suggest...
> Most modern PC games lean HEAVILY on the video card, so you can get away with cheaper
> CPUs if they're overclocked. Some newer games are beginning to really take advantage
> of quad core CPUs (and higher core counts) so in those cases, having a dual core
> Pentium G3258 is going to hurt you.
I've noticed a lot of recent games really seem to need a quad core tho. I recently had to repair an old system so threw a 1050 Ti in there. While games can render most scenes at 60fps on max detail with no problems they also frequently pause and stall when you move about while the game does actual CPU dependent tasks like AI and resource management. This doesn't happen on a quad core machine of similar age. Not a RAM problem either fwiw.
So just be aware, dual core is only going to get you so far with PC gaming, no matter how well it overclocks.