my dog just died yesterday, and this hit me really close...

Wrong channel, creator is BBSNYPUR.
www.youtube.com/user/BBSNYPUR

if only you read good VNs

Take.

First off, I specifically said the REFERENCE COOLER models overheat. As for power efficiency, you're looking at only the power bill, while with more efficient hardware you don't need an as beefy power supply, let alone save it from working hard and shortening it's lifespan. Secondly, the R9 290 sits in a much too awkward spot inbetween the GTX 960 (which is a lot cheaper, and right in the hells in terms of performance, and I shouldn't even have to mention power efficiency) and GTX 970 (which for a tad more bucks is much more powerful), and both the 960 and 970 have better bang for buck. Even with AMD's price cuts, I don't see their high end cards (280X / 285 / 290 / 290X) being worth it compared to the 960 and 970. Now stop and think. Are you gonna spend [this much] on an R9 290 which has an old and inefficient architecture, or another card like a 960/970 that is much more efficient, runs cooler, and gives you more bang for buck? And when I say efficiency, I also mean performance / heat, because power doesn't just mean the electrical bill, as more power = more heat.

As for dual core CPU's, you are so wrong and don't even know half of it. "shockingly small amoutn of games don't support more than dual cores". That is games that NEED a quad core to simply run AT ALL out of the box. Despite how powerful the G3258 is overclocked, it's 2 cores hold it back in a lot of games. Not just new games like shown here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxUPJdcChzE
Even before 2010, I tested games from all the way back to 2007 (Crysis for example). I put a GTX 285 toegther with a Core 2 Duo E8400 against the Core 2 Quad Q9550 which are very close in single thread performance (so no bias here), and the quad core helped boost performance (and get right of hitches/stutters) in many games. Games have long ago performed better on quad cores than dual cores, they're just now starting to REQUIRE it. Hell, why do you think just about any decent gaming PC at least has 4 cores? They're not there for nothing. Sure not all 4 cores will be fully used, but it's a hell of a lot better than 2.

As I said, I'd pick a hyperthreaded i3 (2 core, 4 thread) or a proper quad core i5 for gaming any day over a pentium, the extra price being well worth it.

And if you think games "never use more than 4 cores/threads", you are so wrong. GTA 5 is already pretty heavy on my 5820K that is overclocked, and uses all 12 threads pretty evenly. The only thing is I wouldn't pick a CPU with many, but weak cores like an FX-6300 or FX-8350. In that price range and i3 or i5 makes much more sense for gaming.

First off, I specifically said the REFERENCE COOLER models overheat. As for power efficiency, you're looking at only the power bill, while with more efficient hardware you don't need an as beefy power supply, let alone save it from working hard and shortening it's lifespan. Secondly, the R9 290 sits in a much too awkward spot inbetween the GTX 960 (which is a lot cheaper, and right in the hells in terms of performance, and I shouldn't even have to mention power efficiency) and GTX 970 (which for a tad more bucks is much more powerful), and both the 960 and 970 have better bang for buck. Even with AMD's price cuts, I don't see their high end cards (280X / 285 / 290 / 290X) being worth it compared to the 960 and 970. Now stop and think. Are you gonna spend [this much] on an R9 290 which has an old and inefficient architecture, or another card like a 960/970 that is much more efficient, runs cooler, and gives you more bang for buck? And when I say efficiency, I also mean performance / heat, because power doesn't just mean the electrical bill, as more power = more heat.

As for dual core CPU's, you are so wrong and don't even know half of it. "shockingly small amoutn of games don't support more than dual cores". That is games that NEED a quad core to simply run AT ALL out of the box. Despite how powerful the G3258 is overclocked, it's 2 cores hold it back in a lot of games. Not just new games like shown here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxUPJdcChzE
Even before 2010, I tested games from all the way back to 2007 (Crysis for example). I put a GTX 285 toegther with a Core 2 Duo E8400 against the Core 2 Quad Q9550 which are very close in single thread performance (so no bias here), and the quad core helped boost performance (and get right of hitches/stutters) in many games. Games have long ago performed better on quad cores than dual cores, they're just now starting to REQUIRE it. Hell, why do you think just about any decent gaming PC at least has 4 cores? They're not there for nothing. Sure not all 4 cores will be fully used, but it's a hell of a lot better than 2.

As I said, I'd pick a hyperthreaded i3 (2 core, 4 thread) or a proper quad core i5 for gaming any day over a pentium, the extra price being well worth it.

And if you think games "never use more than 4 cores/threads", you are so wrong. GTA 5 is already pretty heavy on my 5820K that is overclocked, and uses all 12 threads pretty evenly. The only thing is I wouldn't pick a CPU with many, but weak cores like an FX-6300 or FX-8350. In that price range and i3 or i5 makes much more sense for gaming.