add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

Comments

Comments

Comment reply on Robeywankenobi's Completed Build: Xbox Project Scorpio Themed PC

  • 3 hours ago
  • 1 point

Excellent and possible feature material here.

I remember when this console launched I missed out on the Scorpio preorder - I was having doubts at the time since so many Xbox box titles are also on the PC and I had a PS4 at the time. Ended up getting one and it has given decent service. Runs Red Dead Redemption 2 better than a $5000 PC and is still the only gaming device out there that gives access to the original Red Dead Redemption (which I actually prefer to number 2).

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Which is better i9 9900k or i7 9700k"

  • 23 hours ago
  • 1 point

For gaming they are ostensibly the same performance wise until you come across a title that has hyper-threading. Read Dead Redemption 2 has benchmarks that err tremendously towards the i9-9900K with the i7-9700K giving some rather alarmingly low 0.1 % numbers. For most titles though the 9900K and 9700K are about tied and if not fall within the margin of error.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "How long will i5-6500 survive?"

  • 1 day ago
  • 1 point

Just checked the benchmarks for a i5-7600K CPU which is nearest to this i5-6500 I could find. Well, for Red Dead Redemption 2 the results are a disaster. While the CPU is capable of pushing over 60fps the real "CPU indicator" is not average frame rates but 1% lows. The 1% low for the 7600K is well under 30fps (under 20fps even) - basically the game will be near unplayable. With the 6500 it will certainly run worse than the 7600K. A Sandy Bridge 2011 i7-2600K outperforms the i5-7600K in this game. Hyperthreading advantages. If hyperthreading is going to be a feature with future gaming the i5-6500 is at a tremendous disadvantage.

If you have not bought that i5-6500 yet do not. While it is foolish to draw conclusions from one game, particularly if optimization may be an issue, this is one of those cross generation titles like GTA V was. This gives us a peek into the future. The i5-6500 does not seem to belong to that future. In context, I gave poor advise.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "1660ti for 1440p, is it wort it?"

  • 1 day ago
  • 2 points

So if I buy this card, will it be enough for 1440p 60fps

Certaintly for the vast majority of titles. Research key titles you wish to play and check benchmarks. Given you will likely play a wide range of games, some old, some new, some demanding, some not, you will be the best judge whether it is worth it moving to another tier for sake of one or two titles that may need medium settings to get 60fps. Most games though 60fps is well within range of this card at highest settings.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "How long will i5-6500 survive?"

  • 1 day ago
  • 1 point

Yup and thats the graphics holding back because the game hits over 100fps at 1080p. With 1% lows, the i9-9900K with RTX 2080TI yields a stuttering wretched mess of a game. On Xbox One X plays great. Our PC equipment is going to get absolutely clobbered by the Playstation 5.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "MSI 1080ti"

  • 3 days ago
  • 1 point

At $2000 someone will be laughing on their way to the bank and it will not be you. Take advice given, build your own rig better components. If you do not feel comfortable building your own post in the sale/want list a PC with your requirements with Specs you want and price you pay. You will receive a PM from someone here before long.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "1440 at 144hz"

  • 3 days ago
  • 1 point

At 1440p 144Hz I would say RTX 2080 Super would be a good choice. Depends on games though, some will run at 144fps with far lesser hardware, some require far greater GPU or CPU or both to run 144fps. Example, Assassin's Creed Odyssey no way will you get 144fps at 1440p no matter what chips you use.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "2700x vs. 3000 series"

  • 4 days ago
  • 1 point

I look at it this way. You probably will build or rebuild your PC every 4-5 years so one can view it being, from an economic viewpoint, a sum total now spread over 5 years. If the cash is tight, put it aside, save some more, then strike. You do not have to swayed by deals now. Deals happen all the time. If you really want 8 cores, and 8 of the fastest cores money can buy, then save up for an extra month or two and buy the 3700X. Who knows, once you have saved the extra $100, it may have a mini sale and you purchase with $30 off MSRP.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "I7-9700k vs I9-9900k"

  • 5 days ago
  • 1 point

[edit] OR what is the best cpu for gaming? (Thinking about pairing it along with a RTX 2080 super)

Overall the 9900K > 9700K no question about it. However, in a purely gaming application it seems they are a virtual tie since both OC nicely and it really would take a game that scales with hyperthreading for the i9 to eek ahead. There are not really many titles that do.

Ostensibly they should be considered identical performance wise for gaming. If all you want to do is game, save your money and go with the i7-9700K and purchase a better cooler. You will want a high performing cooler as well research what goes with your PC case.

Interestingly have a look at the i7-8086K. My own specimen is pure ownage. Just pushed it to 5.6GHz and it beats my own i9-9900K in several games that I tested. I am really surprised to see a 6 core beat an 8 core in gaming but there you go. Results do not lie. That said my i9-9900K cannot OC as high, I can push 5.3GHz before stability issues set in.

Anyway, my own rambling/musing apart, go ahead and get the 9700K and use the money you could have paid for a 9900K for a better cooler.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Question about 860 QVO 2TB Geeksquad refurb. $153.99"

  • 5 days ago
  • 1 point

Refurbs for most vendors is a fancy way of saying used and not even tested. In many cases I heard from a friend that customer buys, does not want, back on shelf. If customer return was initiated because of broken or faulty, they will not know that.

While the 860 QVO is a pretty low performing SSD, it is still better than an HDD and at that price is actually cheaper than Used specimens on eBay. If you purchase via Paypal you will be protected. Worst case you return and write a bad review. Best case is a working drive for quite cheap.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Is this 2tb NVMe for $200 a good deal?"

  • 5 days ago
  • 1 point

I read the Specs, not convinced on accuracy. Whatever the case, $200 for 2TB is not at all horrible and I would be surprised if it did not perform at least as well as the Intel 660p. Why not purchase it and let us know.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Best CPU for a $2k System budget?"

  • 5 days ago
  • 1 point

I think you misunderstood my comment, my bad, I did not communicate my point very well.

There is no CPU champion, performing best at everything. No such thing.

i9-9900K debatable for gaming? Averages, it is ahead. Case by case, depends. I have noticed some titles on a 240Hz monitor run faster with an i7-8086K vs my i9-9900K with both on their limits of overclocking. No question about it when i7-8086K hits 215fps and the 9900K hits 197fps. I know it is not a fluke. Of course silicon lottery and clock speeds, but pushing the 8086K it is quite some way ahead of my own 9900K. Online results show favorable correlation that i9-9900K edges the averages but that does not exclude the possibility of some titles being faster on another chip. The faster CPU can be considered subjective in context of titles one plays since some games can run faster with other CPU's. Averages are what they are, averages. Your average expenses do not mean you cannot go broke one month if you know what I mean.

It is self evident that a budget for 9900K is same for Ryzen 9 3900X give or take a few bucks. Case of win some lose some here. Certain heavily threaded tasks may run better with Ryzen. Pick your app or apps and choose CPU based on targets there. i9 impossible to factor in definitively without apps in mind.

Bang for buck. No brainer, if a gaming build get the i5-9400F or something like that. Will not win any benchmarking awards but sure as heck will game aptly for the measly price you buy it nowadays. 144Hz or less monitor, no better CPU for the price. Might run a little slower on CPU hogging titles like Battlefield but just about everything else will be blitzkrieg.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Starting to upgrade my current build, looking at new cpu's, need advice."

  • 6 days ago
  • 3 points

So i wanted to upgrade my cpu and the cpu im looking at right now is this https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i7-4th-gen-core-i7-4790k/p/N82E16819117369?Item=9SIA4RE7MW3844

eBay, used, maybe $150. Paying nearly $300 after tax and postage for this CPU is absolutely ridiculous nowadays. Go used.

That i7 will not offer a major upgrade on your i5. Small upgrade, yes. Big? Nope. If you want a major upgrade, time to retire the old for new.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Best CPU for a $2k System budget?"

  • 6 days ago
  • 1 point

I think the 9900k is the best at this budget?

For gaming, debatable, maybe....

For everything else, not necessarily either.....

Give us applications and what budget you plan on GPU, refresh rate of monitor etc... For gaming generally the GPU is what you want to spend the most on....

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Which CPU home office"

  • 6 days ago
  • 1 point

If you are not gaming try get an Intel CPU since they come with integrated GPU. The data you are processing is nothing that will make the CPU work hard - mostly single core processing. If you are using algorithms that require parallel computes then multicores can help - array processing, multivariate models and so on. If not, stick with a nice Intel CPU, something like the i3-9100 or even the i3-9400. Just be sure to get the non-F models since you want the integrated graphics to display on monitor. Depending on data sizes you may want more than 16GB Ram.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "How long will i5-6500 survive?"

  • 6 days ago
  • 1 point

Yup there is always that. A used 6700 or 7700 could always replace the old i5. With PC gaming it always pays to research benchmarks and performance. Most of the big AAA titles by the bigger publishers will be developed to run on both modest and advanced hardware. GTA V has been well within the realm of very modest PC gaming equipment since the turn of the decade. Red Dead Redemption will release with very reasonable and attainable performance goals.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "GPU Upgrade Recommendation"

  • 6 days ago
  • 2 points

I remember that Asus Sabertooth board. Pity they stopped making them for other chipsets.

Initial research has told me that the RTX 2060 SUPER is a good bang-for-your-buck choice currently, but would like to hear some other people's opinions. Thanks!

Yes, concur, good choice of GPU for 1080p. Just to ground your expectations - you should see a marked improvement in performance for most titles. Not all will hit 144fps though.

Alternative GPU to this is the RX 5700. Win some lose some affair. I vouch for the Nvidia card here.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "GPU Recommedation"

  • 6 days ago
  • 1 point

The difference between 1080p and 1440p is enough to make it difficult to answer this question. Without a reference monitor we can only guess.

144fps is complicated. Some games cannot run at 144fps no matter what. Some games might run at 144fps where your Ryzen 7 2700X misses the mark. Most games the 2700X will have no problem pulling 144fps. This is a CPU and Gaming Title issue.

As for Graphics - a good choice at 1080p is the RTX 2060 Super. But important to note some games will still not run at 144fps, even with an RTX 2080 TI. A good choice at 1440p is the RTX 2070 Super, and again, not all titles will hit 144fps. There are at least 20 games that are impossible to get to 144fps with current technology at 1440p or even 1080p. Just be aware of this. PC building should revolve around averages, not definites.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "How do I know if this GPU is compatible with my MB ?"

  • 6 days ago
  • 1 point

That GPU will work on that motherboard, guaranteed.

If it does not work on that motherboard, then either issue with PCIe slot being damaged or GPU is DOA. Nothing in theory suggests compatibility issue.

Overclocking does raise heat. EVGA would not bring a product to market that would overheat and cause issues to your system.

You will certainly increase heat in your build adding a GPU. No way around it. It is a co processor and like your CPU it is a VLSI circuit with a large number of semiconductor components drawing current.

Your GPU has plenty of power to hold the ship together. Maximum power draw will be with an i7-7700K and assuming only a mild overclock or none at all, you can expect up to 450W. You will be fine.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "2 way sli or one high end gpu?"

  • 6 days ago
  • 2 points

It not longer makes sense for gaming to utilize crossfire or SLI. On other applications, maybe. Gaming though, no way, no worth it. Get the best GPU you can afford. Ironically the few titles that do scale well with SLI also run at blistering fps with a single card making SLI a somewhat meaningless exercise. The titles that really need more GPU power, even more ironically, do not scale with SLI.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "1440 at 144hz"

  • 6 days ago
  • 1 point

In theory the resolution you play at does not affect the Maximum frame rate you can get. The maximum frame rate will be CPU dependent. This will be independent of resolution, be it 720p, 1080p, 1440p, 4K and so on.

Actual fps will depend also on the game, assuming you have chosen a GPU known to perform well at your resolution.

Getting 144fps will depend on the Game/Title in question because:

  • The graphical details and calculations involved may prohibit current gen GPU's from not bottlenecking a fast CPU at 1440p. GPU's output the graphics at a particular resolution on the screen, if the GPU cannot put a picture up once every 7ms you will not get 144fps.

  • Most titles do not scale linearly with threads / cores so games with extremely poor optimization will not run at 144fps irrespective of what CPU you throw in there. While CPU choice does matter there is no guarantee you will get 144fps. Bottom line 144fps is not achievable for some games with current cpu's.

We can generalize however thanks to the hard work of the community that tests CPU's.

Generally speaking regarding results for high fps gaming, from a variety of benchmarks and tests, your best CPU choices right now appear to be (ignoring specialized CPU's that also perform well for gaming like Intel's HEDT with an overclock):

  • i7 - 9700K

  • i9 - 9900K (or current variants, KS and so on)

  • i7 - 8700K / 8086K (Believe it or not performs great with a good overclock)

  • Ryzen 9 3900X (trades blows at the top with i9 and i7's)

  • Ryzen 7 3800X, Ryzen 7 3700X (again, trades blows at the top with i9 and i7's)

  • Ryzen 5 3600 or 3600X (do not look down at these chips they are barely slower than a 3700/3800X for the majority of gaming titles)

  • i5 -8600K/9600K (Like Ryzen 5, for vast majority of titles this CPU is fast, blazing fast with an overclock....)

My recommendation => Ryzen 9 3900X if budget is not limited. While the i9-9900K is slightly faster once you overclock it the Ryzen 9 is on a superior chipset. Better motherboards, better hardware, faster PCIe, lots of advantages including really really nice stock coolers. You will not find many haters of the AMD Wraith Prism Cooler. Intel Z390 boards are becoming scarce or overpriced. But you cannot ignore the Intel i9-9900K or i7-9700K. For gaming alone, with a board that supports high overclocking, and a good performing custom cooling loop, the fastest chips for gaming are still Intel. For the enthusiast, they are fun chips to play with. For the rest of folks, spending $1000 on a custom loop and then hours tweaking settings, not worth the time or effort. If sticking on stock settings, the Ryzen 7's and 9's hold better parity with Intel, win some lose some. Given the choice between two closely performing chips, get the chip that comes with the Wraith Prism Cooler.

If on a more streamlined budget, the Ryzen 7 3700X is the next best bet balancing cost, performance, and features.

Comment reply on TheStryder's Completed Build: LOUQE Ghost S1 Ash | Z390-I Gaming ITX | 9700K | 16GB DDR4 | RTX 2080 | SF750

  • 7 days ago
  • 2 points

Not sure how I missed this one but late to the show. Awesome build. With SFF's like this I appreciate the effort you gave. You must have spent hours planning and thinking. Trying to hide those PSU cables only to find out it is impossible. With builds like this I often wish that the pins were on the other side of the motherboard with it being elevated slightly (an inch or so of room underneath) so cables can go under and pop up on other side. Irrespective, the build is spectacular.

Comment reply on dalieu's Completed Build: Jay 1000

  • 7 days ago
  • 2 points

An oldie but a goodie.

Replace the GTX 1070 with GTX 980TI and this was my build for a couple of years. I believe the i7-4790K still works very well nowadays.

Comment reply on marcallendavis's Completed Build: First Build - Sorry it's white

  • 7 days ago
  • 2 points

This is immaculate. It is tidier than Queen of England's bedroom and more aesthetically pleasing than her in the buff. Excellent job!

Comment reply on Dyharris007's Completed Build: Winter Core P3 Build

  • 7 days ago
  • 2 points

Lovely white build. Be sure not to keep it outside, you will lose it in the snow.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "CPU fan"

  • 7 days ago
  • 1 point

Owned the 7700K for two years. Do not underestimate this chip's ability to heat a room even on stock settings. Get a decent cooler, air or liquid. You will need it. It is only 4 cores and if you are going to game, there will be some titles that will happily push this above 70% CPU usage. Expect throttling or blue screen o death with the stock Intel cooler. Light workloads you will be okay but if that is the plan the Pentium is up to that task as well and you can save your money.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "I5-9600KF vs 9400F for non OC build"

  • 7 days ago
  • 1 point

The 9600KF is a nice chip to overclock although without OC this dog loses it's bite. Get the 9400F in this case, you will not really notice the difference. If you lived on the extreme edge of 144Hz/165Hz/240Hz gaming I would say it definitely matters but were you into high refresh rate gaming you would not be looking at either of these chips in any case. Judging by new game requirements lately I am not too concerned about the future of the 9400F. There are some games that do scale with threads and will not run as fast with this CPU and there are games that will run horribly no matter what CPU you throw into the equation. I would say for the vast majority of titles you will be fine. Heck the old Haswell/Skylake locked 4 cores still run most stuff if you are not a connoisseur of high refresh rate gaming. The 9400F is a huge upgrade on these chips, you will be good.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Is 5400 / 5900 HDD okay?!"

  • 7 days ago
  • 1 point

I echo thoughts here. While large storage SSD's still cost an arm and leg (4TB for $600 or 7.68TB for well over a Grand, ouch) the good old 5400RPM HDD still serves a useful purpose for mass storage. There is no law why you cannot store your files on this drive and politely move a current game to an SSD. Will take forever to copy across, go for a walk or shopping while the PC transfers. In fact my internet download speed is faster than file transfer rate with HDD's LOL. But it is good to have a soft copy of something you have purchased.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "is 350$ a fair price for a very gently used i7-5930k"

  • 7 days ago
  • 1 point

Agreed with other comments. Older 6 core, lower performance than other 6 cores, worth no more than $150. That other's charge more, good luck to them, will sit for months.

Forget about initial retail price. This is not a collectors market, CPU's bought are for refurbs only, keeping alive the old. No telling how much a particular person will pay but they will buy cheaper over more expensive unless the cheap is with a zero feedback eBay account.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "How Long Will AMD's A4 Socket Support the Newest CPU's?"

  • 7 days ago
  • 1 point

Now is a tricky time to build new when it faces the recycle bin of history. DDR5 next year, next gen CPU's and GPU's next year. Choice is wait or buy now and make do. I personally think technology is always evolving and nothing lasts forever. Build now and upgrade when you feel performance is letting you down. There are still plenty of PC's out there with Haswell chips, DDR3 Ram, and Maxwell GPU's. If it aint broke....

I am trying to decide whether to go AMD (probably Ryzen 9 3900) or Intel (probably i9 9900k) for a new video editing build

If you build now either will do the job although I err AMD since Ryzen 9 3900X > i9-9900K for just about everything, including gaming.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Is i5-8600 enough an RTX 2060?"

  • 7 days ago
  • 1 point

Short answer = yes it will bottleneck.

Longer answer = bottlenecking is not removable or irreducible because no component operates with infinite bandwidth, reliability, or zero latency. Some CPU's are faster than others when going through a list of instructions. Some games are going to run at 144fps and some will refuse to do so, no matter what CPU you throw in there. CPU's do not offer miracle cure for poor optimization. It can help but ultimately not by much. You will be surprised at how poorly even CPU's like the i9-9900K or i9-9980XE run on some games and nothing can be done to speed it up. Your i5 should be a good match up with the RTX 2060. If some titles do not run as fast as you like, too bad, do not buy them or play on console. Us consumers should punish companies that released poorly optimized crap by not purchasing their products.

Bottom line, nothing about the i5-8600 and RTX 2060 screams that it is a bad match up. It is a very good match up and with the right games will perform just fine. As long as your GPU is up to the fps challenge at a particular resolution/settings you have going.

Comment reply on natewb32's Completed Build: OVERKILL Snow Ripper

  • 8 days ago
  • 5 points

Wow. For a first build you stand a good chance of getting featured. Outstanding work, 10/10.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "How long will i5-6500 survive?"

  • 8 days ago
  • 2 points

That is a good deal. Bump up the Ram and you will be set.

There are approximately 30,000 games on Steam alone. Add in GOG, Origin, and titles not attached to these platfom....

This i5 released in 2015 and at 4 years old now it is in it's dotage. It is limited but workable for all but a dozen or so titles. This number of course will grow in future. Looking at Red Dead Redemption 2 as an indicator though I am slightly less worried about this i5's future, at least for the next two years or so.

One thing for sure, at least 99% of titles out there will be playable with this CPU, I would even say 99.9% would not be too much of a stretch. 99.99% might even run full 60fps or more with minimal stutter. So basically we are talking about a handful of games, perhaps a dozen or so that will play poorly with this CPU. Before purchasing a particular title, research benchmarks online, if this CPU or anything similar does not perform to a reasonable standard, just do not purchase the game or get it on console instead.

I never understand why a build prerequisite is "Play all games in existence, past present future at .insert expectation.". It is unreasonable and impossible. Even the highly overated i9-9900K does not run all games at 60fps. Of course not. It stutters it's way through a small number of titles as well.

Despite consoles being taboo around here, in my opinion, you have to factor that this aspect is not going away, particularly considering the success Sony has had. With purported performance of the Playstation 5 rivalling today's $5000 PC, along with all the boons such as street cred or coolness factor at schools and we have a situation where in all probability this console will be in that Kid's hands sooner or later. No caveats either, Playstation 5 will get better exclusive titles along with everything else the PC does (with possible exception of Halo but with Microsoft releasing their exclusives to the Switch, who knows....). Chances are 9 in 10 if this kid is a gamer he/she will get a PS5 as well. No two ways about it, kids being kids, one toy replacing another.... do not overreach your budget on something that is objectively not achievable - the i5-6500 with a Vega 56 is plenty good enough. Better in fact than most people's PCs..... And when he/she does get their PS5, the PC will do a fine job with homework and a good chunk of tommorrow's games, whatever shows up in a Steam sale.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "price v. performance help me decide between i5 9600k v. 3600x v. 3600"

  • 8 days ago
  • 2 points

With no OC you may as well dump the 9600K. Nice CPU that plays nice with overclocking and potentially gives you a route to a cheaper motherboard but is not really a great purchase all said and done. Does not come with a cooler either. Also regarding motherboards I use word potential. They are slowly getting phased out and stocks are low and prices higher than normal.

The Ryzen 5 3600 on paper has best value proposition. Accounting for Cooler though I think the Ryzen 5 3600X is the better purchase.
Performance wise there is not a huge difference between two both chips and both certainly outperform a stock clock i5 9600K.

If you do not care too much about the cooling aspect, the Ryzen 5 3600 wins the value and performance proposition here.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Rtx 2060 1440p medium settings"

  • 9 days ago
  • 1 point

good nuf for 2560x1440 60fps?

Oh yes, and at high/ultra for the vast majority of titles as well.

Of course there will be a handful of titles that will not play nice and that 60fps target will need some tweaks on settings.

Comment reply on LmNoPg007's Completed Build: Cyberpunk 2019

  • 11 days ago
  • 1 point

Rather nice build here, striking colors and illumination. For sake of perfection, sleeved cables. Beyond that pretty epic. Spec wise you should be more than adequate to run the game. Hope that Cyberpunk works out to be as epic as anticipated.

Comment reply on sonaljit's Completed Build: Bunker

  • 11 days ago
  • 1 point

Where you put the Power Supply there should be room under the motherboard to bundle up extra lengths of cables. Same goes for case cables [USB and so on]. Use a cable tie or two down there, pull in all the slack, give it approx 20mins of work, and the build will look much better. The only cables that there is no way to hide in this case will be the PSU to HDD/SSD ones. For these, let there be some slack and carefully wedge on the top corners of the case and route along the L. There are no cable tie points up there but you can purchase a pack of six cable tie points (look like squares with a hole in middle) to stick up there and keep everything flush.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Reviews about my new gaming pc"

  • 11 days ago
  • 1 point

or will this hardware be outdated soon?

1080p/60Hz, nope you will be good to go. The games you list will run absolutely fine.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "BEST 1080p GPU ???"

  • 12 days ago
  • 1 point

Yeah 2060 Super. Meant that one. Not sure about futureproof but it is a better card.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "CPU upgrade?"

  • 12 days ago
  • 2 points

My personal thoughts are if it aint broke....

If you do feel the itch to upgrade the Ryzen 5 2600 will do it. You should see a reasonable uplift in performance across the board although I am inclined to think the RX580 will run out of gas at 1080p before the 2200G unless you like to play with settings super low and at high refresh rates.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "BEST 1080p GPU ???"

  • 12 days ago
  • 1 point

Hey guys, which card to you suggest for best ultra performance at 1080p 60Hz ? 1) I really want this gpu to last a couple years so maybe up to 4-5 years if possible

The RTX 2080 TI. Many folks will resent this comment but I have builds featuring the RTX Titan and RTX 2080 TI and at 1080p resolution games are already pushing rapidly down to uncomfortable territory - i.e. the 80fps and 90fps zone. 1% lows for sure getting below 60fps. I do hate to recommend the RTX 2080 TI but see no reason why to mask an obvious truth - next generation console games are going to kick the butts off our GPU's. 1080p will not be what we have become comfortable with. That said considering there are 1000's of games out there, the vast majority will run blazing fast at 1080p with far lesser hardware.

My recommendation. Perfection aside, being pragmatic, particularly at 60Hz, it will be foolish to invest too much. Go with a GTX 1660 Super / TI or RTX 2060. Some games might dip below 60fps, particularly in future, you can choose not to play these games or do so and tweak settings. Job done. At 144Hz you are in 2070 Super territory and even then, as I mentioned earlier, there is no telling how demanding next gen games will be. That 2070 Super might be fine, I err more towards the camp that suggests that newer titles are going to put a hurting on it.

Comment reply on dmh125's Completed Build: Mini Not-So-HotBox

  • 13 days ago
  • 1 point

A taller version of the Ncase. I like this one. Got all your bits in there with no compromises.

Nicely built as well BTW.

I assume you did not pay 500bones for 2TB 2.5" SSD. You can get a used 4TB for that.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Intel stock cooler question"

  • 13 days ago
  • 1 point

How good is it in terms of cooling performance

It does the job. Keep your case clean, do not clutter build, move wires out the way, have intake and exhaust fans. Pretty standard stuff when building a PC. Do this and the CPU will not break down, even under stress. Aesthetically not very pleasing and performance wise there are far better coolers. But if you are in a pinch it will work fine. After all most Store bought PC's come equipped with one and even with the shoddy workmanship that goes into them the PC's still run A-OK.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Core I5 9400f vs ryzen 5 3600"

  • 13 days ago
  • 1 point

I would usually be advising Ryzen 5 3600X considering overall package including cooler but looking at the price of the i5-9400F, one vendor @ $128 makes me rethink whether it is worth prioritizing performance over cost. The i5 is a very reasonable choice for a gaming CPU even at it's original MSRP. At six Benny's it is almost a steal.

A sub $500 somewhat decent gaming PC is within strike zone nowadays with the RX 570 being a value proposition at the same price.

Comment reply on TitoBridge's Completed Build: The Evil Factory

  • 13 days ago
  • 2 points

Looks nice to me, +1

Comment reply on BlackMachDown's Completed Build: Let’s cram a full computer into a case the size of a shoe box

  • 13 days ago
  • 4 points

Truth be told I hate this case I think it looks hideous

I agree I do not like the case either but you wanted a media center type build and got it. The case thus serves it's purpose - function over form. If having a certain outcome means sacrificing aesthetics, we must do what we must. Really nice PC cases in ITX form with full sized DVD/Blu Ray players are non existent or out of production.

and the cable management was difficult, especially with four sata peripherals plugged in

What did not help is that you decided to install a 2.5" SSD and two 4TB HDD's. You could have ditched the 2.5" SSD in favor of a m.2. 2280 drive which mounts on the motherboard while the 8TB storage could be ontained in one 8TB drive. Only two sata cable vs four counting the DVD player. Full ATX PSU that is non modular will also add to the pain of cable management particularly when half the cables are surplus to requirements. Caveat of full ATX is also full length cables where ideally you get some shorter lengths - less bundling up.

I like the build in principle. What a good idea. Movies and games in one stroke. I now want to build something similar.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "3700X or 2700X for 1440p gaming?"

  • 14 days ago
  • 2 points

One thing to factor in. We will be seeing a fairly big overhaul in the next couple of years. Intel will be releasing new chipsets as will AMD. Both will be DDR5 compliant. Many people at these junctures like to upgrade their PC's. You may/may not be one of them. Nothing at all wrong with counting pennies with this rig and saving up for next. No need to go for broke and outspend yourself. Worth a thought. Your monitor will last you years and years. PC hardware comes and goes. This is a tricky time to build a PC with future proofing in mind. State of flux, lot going down in next year or two before settles to a new Plateau.

only fps requirement being not dropping below 60 fps in 1% low. And those are pretty hefty requirements. I guess to meet them I would have to go 3700X and 2080 S.

My i9-9900K and RTX Titan cannot meet that either for a lot of the newer games coming out. Even at 1080p I would not bet on it. Do the best you can. There are 1000's of games, that a few do not play nice with hardware is too bad. We are under no obligation to buy these games. That said - as long as Red Dead Redemption 2 plays with consistent 60fps plus we will be good to go. All indications point to this being achievable with an RTX 2070 Super ;)

Comment reply on Forum Topic "3700X or 2700X for 1440p gaming?"

  • 14 days ago
  • 2 points

Short Answer: => Yes Ryzen 7 2700X with RTX 2080 Super should do it for newer titles over the Ryzen 7 3700X with RTX 2070 Super - at least at 1440p, at least if you want your graphics to look nice and you bump up settings. If you are going to mainly play eSports and do not care how the game looks I would say faster CPU. Forget the 3700X, go for i9-9900K overclock and not look back. Older games, i.e. DX 11, ditto, performance favors faster CPU since graphics not challenging for RTX 2070 Super. Then again, Ryzen 7 2700X does not struggle to keep pace with a 144Hz panel - at least for a great number of titles. The 3700X being faster is moot, what you do not see cannot be considered as part of the observable. If you are going to play a range of titles, i.e. AAA's, eSports, you name it, I recommend the MiniMax approach - that is go for Ryzen 7 2700X with RTX 2080 Super and establish a reasonable upper minimum bound.

Long Answer: => More complicated but still go for Ryzen 7 2700X with RTX 2080 Super.

Long term wise, a better more expensive CPU could end up a more frugal purchase since GPU's are inevitably going to be upgraded at least once before retiring a chipset. However, despite people getting all excited about the 3700X, the reality is it is not a major bump up on the 2700X. Then again, important to consider that everyone is different, one man's piece of trivia is another's ex cathedra.

In the GPU <-> CPU tradeoff there is no real right or wrong answer. When compromising it will always be a case of minimizing entropy.

The are some games that flat out will refuse to render at 144fps no matter what GPU you throw at the problem or settings you render at. Even if you moved over to a 5GHz all core 18 core CPU on liquid nitrogen your frame rates may not reach that target for a particular title. Result - No CPU on market will make that game run at 144fps. Solution? Ignore the game as an anomaly and factor it out.

In general the CPU fps limits are not dependent on settings or graphical resolution. On the other hand it is incorrect for people to think or advise that all a GPU does is write a few discrete voltages to the lovely little pixels on the screen at a resolution you set it at. The GPU does a heck of a lot more than just drive the pixels on a monitor. 1080p or 1440p does not mean easy picture, easy performance, easy meat.

In general 1440p resolution will be GPU limited for a number of CPU's. This is not a rule 100% across the board. Certainly some games just cannot run above 100fps no matter what CPU you throw at the problem, as will some games slack off with a 2080TI in SLI and refuse to budge past 90fps. One has to treat it as a random variable.

The issue is - how will compromising the CPU affect throughput relative to upgrading a GPU? Do we see net gain, net deficit, or parity?

There is no absolute answer. Some games will run better with the 3700X and RTX 2070 Super and others will run better with 2700X and RTX 2080 Super. On average, the Ryzen 7 2700X with RTX 2080 Super will outperform a rig with Ryzen 7 3700X and RTX 2070 Super. Not every single game, certainly. Across a number of titles, then yes, for enough of a majority to place GPU precedence above CPU.

Of course ideally you have the cash to settle the debate in favor of the 3700X and RTX 2080 Super - best of both worlds based on choice outcomes provided.

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube