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 Forum Topic "2060 and 2070 shortage (Best Buy)"

  • 3 days ago
  • 2 points

If you are worried about deliveries Newegg have a delivery option that includes delivery to a FedEx location near you. You just drive there and pick up in that case.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Need help in deciding the right CPU for gaming (AMD vs INTEL)"

  • 3 days ago
  • 2 points

I have heard tell that streaming and gaming on a 2700X vs 3700X/3800X is pretty close to a tie - due to the way that cores are utilized. For just gaming alone no question 3700X is faster but throwing in streaming it looks like the 2700X might be competitive here. Price wise the advantage certainly goes to the 2700X. Future upgrading? In my opinion it is nice to have but whether one utilizes it is another matter. I do not plan for the future in this sense, at least not when DDR5 and new chipsets are just around the corner with performance perks.... unknown. 2700X with a x570 mobo is not a bad idea and if it works out in future that applications scale impressively with the new chipsets and DDR5 you can decide then whether to go new or scour the used market for a 16 core 4000 series for 200 of your future dollars. Either way you win.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Time to upgrade an i7 4790k?"

  • 3 days ago
  • 3 points

I think it may be, but I would to hear your thoughts.

It depends on what you are doing with your PC. If you are just gaming and doing typical light tasks like browsing or word processing I would not be worried about the concept that several better CPU's exist on the market.

The day the i7-4790k is considered a weak chip for gaming and other light software applications will be the same day that the i7-7700K is also lumped into the same category, along with the majority of first and second gen Ryzen and many of the Coffee Lake CPU's. We have not reached that point yet. At this time of writing the 9 year old Sandy Bridge i7-2600K can still ably run most applications today including modern games. Old does not mean redundant.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Need help in deciding the right CPU for gaming (AMD vs INTEL)"

  • 3 days ago
  • 2 points

There's no requirement to run any game at the highest available visual quality settings.

Yeah there is no rule that says everything has to be maxed out. In many, if not most, cases, if the game has good clean graphics at highest settings it will also have awesome graphics at medium. In context the 2070S is a very solid choice for 1440p resolution.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Need help in deciding the right CPU for gaming (AMD vs INTEL)"

  • 4 days ago
  • 1 point

You probably going to find a lot of titles will be limited by the RTX 2070 Super than CPU at that resolution. But it depends what you will end up playing. If you stick to modern AAA's, big graphics requirements, you will probably wont get to see frame rates approaching 155fps. In this particular set up, unless you game at a semi pro/pro level with eSports titles, I would save money and go with the Ryzen 7 2700X. If you generally gravitate towards eSports and want your games running over that 155fps limit I would be tempted to consider the i9-9900K but the Ryzen 7 3700X will be only a few fps behind. I think CPU choice should just come down to games you play. If like me you do not enjoy the multiuser combat arenas and enjoy single player campaigns on modern titles, you will not see much gain going higher than the Ryzen 2700X. That is, if like me, you like to max out graphics settings on more demanding games.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "1080-ti or 2070-S If You can get for same price?"

  • 5 days ago
  • 1 point

1080TI is nearly 4 years old. 2070 Super around 1 year old. 2070 Super trades blows or outperforms 1080TI. No brainer choice. Now if the 1080TI was $300 I would have a different opinion.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Threadripper 3990X"

  • 5 days ago
  • 1 point

What are everyone's opinions of this AMD processor on steroids?

If you need a processor like the Threadripper 3990X then buy it. Niche product outside of professional work. Without serious overclocking overhead I would probably rather play with a 28 core W3175-X or 18 core 10980XE and see when the blue screen of deaths happen. Most of us do not need even a 12 core processor let alone 64. Kudos to AMD though, they have Intel well beat and have a product lineup that is gloatworthy. Whether this translates to worthwhile ownership is subjective outside of bragging rights.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "how much can i sell my PC for?"

  • 5 days ago
  • 2 points

If you are having issues you would need to disclose them in any sale otherwise you will just end up dealing with a return. Due to the number of people wishing to sell and then upgrade now, the chances of someone willing to pay market value for a rig with issues is slim. Your best bet is to part what you have out. You can ascertain the value of parts from searching eBay completed listings since eBay will in great likelihood be the medium in which you will flip your PC. You could make about $800, perhaps up to $900 or so if you skillfully list and attract bidders/buyers. As a complete unit without issues, $700 or under. As a complete unit with issues, you might have to take $500 or less depending on the issue. It is always more profitable to part out than sell complete.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Help with Best cpu for my build"

  • 5 days ago
  • 1 point

When upgrading a CPU, particularly for the sole purpose of gaming, you need to include the monitor as part of this, particularly for the titles you want to play. At the end of the day, if the monitor refresh rate is below the fps of a gaming title on a particular CPU, spending money on a better CPU will change the frame rate but your eye will not see it. Although a faster CPU could well raise the bar on the 1% lows it depends on how low the 1% lows are as well for a particular title. Research the fps with the games you mostly play and compare with your monitor. If your fps on average is lower than the refresh of your monitor then it might be worthwhile investing in another CPU.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Need help in deciding the right CPU for gaming (AMD vs INTEL)"

  • 6 days ago
  • 3 points

What LIVE_AMMO suggested.

Quite honestly today nobody has any reason to look at an Intel CPU unless:

  1. The Intel CPU is available for a deal - i.e. the 8700K you were looking at but for Ryzen 5 2600X price.

  2. You want to overclock and are willing to pay for the gear to do so.

Then you have the threads/cores issues. Intel 6c/6t and 8c/8t CPU's have a lot of people spooked that they will be unable to keep up if applications become multi threaded. I personally think they will be fine for a generation or two but it is inevitable they will end up being too limited as will all our CPU's today. Think of it this way - a locked 4th gen i5 from 2013/4 is only today starting to look a little limited. That is 6/7 years of usage and many of us here upgrade every year or other year. A Sandy Bridge i7 from 2011, something like 2600K is arguably still very usable today - performance wise a sniff under something like the Ryzen 5 2400G. The question of lastability is not one of if but when.

If you want the best performing gaming PC you can afford, right now, then no question the i9-9900K and i9-9700K are the top two. Pull the overclock, invest in the cooling solution, run the 9900K or 9700K at 5GHz plus and that is about as good as it gets today CPU performance wise for low threaded tasks like gaming. The Intel vs Ryzen debate settles into single digit frame rate differences for most titles if you stick with stock settings or mild overclocks.

If you are not too concerned about overclocking then just go with the Ryzen. Get the Ryzen 7 3700X and do not look back. For purely gaming I would say the Ryzen 5 3600X would get it done as well and you will barely know the difference. Even the very reasonably priced 2700X runs gaming titles without breaking sweat. Unless you game at 144Hz or above you are playing with diminishing returns stepping up.

My apologies i don't know much about chosing the correct hardware.

No need to apologize. It is a lot of money and you are just trying to make a good choice given the many possibilities.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Time to upgrade a 6700k?"

  • 8 days ago
  • 1 point

epically boasted Cyberpunk 2077

I am very worried Cyberpunk 2077 will not live up to expectations. Way too much hype. It looks awesome though so maybe this one will not disappoint.

I would not be concerned about your hardware for this game, it is coming out on vanilla PS4 and Xbox One as well I am sure if the game is reasonably well optimized for PC even a GTX 1060 6GB will run it high settings at 1080p. Your 1070 should handle it 60fps plus maxed out settings less Ray Tracing.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Intel and AMD"

  • 9 days ago
  • 2 points

I will expatiate a bit. All platforms right now are dead end. That is if dead end implies a halt in support and development or upgrade potential. We are approaching a new generation. With DDR5 adoption on next Gen AMD and Intel Chipsets (Ryzen 4000 is not next gen) due approx 12 months from now, any build you do today your PC upgrade path is likely going to lead you to the newest technology in the future. That means the flood of used AMD 3950X's and 4000X's on the market could be deemed as having limited appeal. The appeal of at least one more upgrade will vary user to user of course. Many enthusiasts upgrade their PC's yearly to own the latest and greatest, many do not mind hanging ten with what they have even if their CPU/GPU combo's might stutter through some games, others may see an upgrade path in two years, even on the used market as being a significant boon to ownership of said chipset.

As for 6core/6thread processors, it is speculative how gaming developers will increase core usage and hyperthreading usage. Right now, 6 core / 6 thread CPU's and 4 core / 8 thread CPU's are fine for all but the poorly optimized gaming titles out there (i.e. like Red Dead Redemption 2 where the Xbox One X Version is hugely superior). In future who knows? We might all be flipping our 8core/16thread CPU's due to poor performance or maybe a 6 core will be okay. I definitely find it hard to recommend any of the Intel CPU's right now outside of perhaps the i9-9900K. I would say something like the 2700X is a good investment.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "3950x or 9900KS for gaming, video editing, photo editing, streaming and recording. Which one would I benefit more from?"

  • 9 days ago
  • 1 point

I mostly game, stream, and record

You might see a small uplift from the 3950X if running numerous applications while gaming. All your workloads will likely run great on both CPU's.

Way I see it:

My choice, if I were satisfied either chip would be within any reasonable MOE from each other performance wise for the applications I wanted to use, would be dictated by the nature of the build itself. The Intel CPU, particularly the 9900ks, would really benefit from the time, expense, and care that comes with a custom liquid cooling loop if you plan to really overclock the chip. The 3950X, with limited overclocking overhead, is easier to tame where many all in ones or air coolers do a splendid job. You may consider Intel i9-9900Ks being the cheaper option but this completely vanishes once you go for custom liquid cooling.

The Ryzen 9 3900X would be perhaps more suitable for your workloads and price wise is similar to the i9-9900Ks. Performance wise you will not know the difference between 3900X and 3950X unless you have the workloads for it. Gaming, Steaming etc, not too much. May as well be a tie.

My advise - Intel if you plan to liquid cool no matter what. AMD, particularly the 3900X, if you plan to keep costs down because custom cooling is going to run you $500 or more.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Upgrade from GTX980?"

  • 11 days ago
  • 1 point

1080p 144hz monitor // Current card EVGA gtx980 sc Z170 chipset motherboard i7-7700 cpu 16gb ram Win10 I don't OC.

I am assuming you are writing because something appears unsatisfactory with performance. Perhaps on one title you notice many dips, perhaps several. In a generic sense your rig should handle 1080p well with a few titles here and there requiring some tweaks to in game settings. Whether you hit 144fps will depend on the game, the graphics demands, and/or CPU. I personally would stick if for the most part you are happy. Changing hardware is good and fun when investing in newly released hardware. With CPU's and GPU's looming on the horizon, penned later this year, I would hang ten and scope out my options when the new chips release.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Can I put an RTX2070 Super in an older computer?"

  • 11 days ago
  • 1 point

The i7-920 is pre Sandy Bridge so some games might run sluggishly because of it. Assuming you are happy with a 1080p output at 60Hz and you predominantly play titles 2015 or earlier I would imagine you would be very satisfied with a modern GTX 1050 TI of the low profile variety or any cheap Kepler or Maxwell GPU. GTX 960, GTX 760, GTX 670, and so on would be good and cost effective purchases that would probably run just about any title you throw at it if you tweak with settings. Older games will likely run faster than your monitor refresh. You could probably go higher but I am uncertain how i7-920 handles itself. I had a Q6600 back then and jumped to Sandy Bridge so did not get to put the i7-920 through it's paces. I know for sure the Q6600 on modern titles is a bust. That said the i7-920 was considered a much better CPU back in the day.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Can I put an RTX2070 Super in an older computer?"

  • 11 days ago
  • 1 point

Mostly gaming. But I'm still enjoying older games (currently playing Soma. Bioshock Infinite next) How do I know what's the best Video card I can use on this system (before something else becomes the bottleneck, I guess?) And can I just buy a 2070 Super, use it on this system until I'm ready to switch it over to my new build? Does that make sense?

Wow I am impressed the old i7-920 is still going strong. The answer to your question about installing an RTX 2070 is "yes in theory".

The pragmatic approach is this:

If you are playing mostly older titles these will run just as intended on older hardware. Why not invest in an old but still operational GPU, i.e. something like the GTX 670 or 680? They will not cost much on eBay, if your case supports, just install. Play the games you want (most newer titles will also likely run). Let this rig tide you over for the time being. Later this year some new hardware will be dropped on the market by AMD and Nvidia, scope out some build options then, and have the latest and greatest you can afford. As for the cost of the old Graphics Card - if the GTX 680 gives you a few months of gaming, then weigh in the number of hours with the cost. Chances are the Card will provide you with enjoyment costing a fraction of a cent per hour when retired. It is not expensive.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Time to upgrade a 6700k?"

  • 11 days ago
  • 1 point

"blowing anything out of proportion" = my bad grammar/English sentences I actually used this phrase in incorrect context. "Misunderstood" would have been more appropriate to use in my description. Apologies since the way I wrote it could be seen as rude and that was not my intention.

GTX 1070 was released in 2016 it will be 4 years old this summer. While a fantastic card there are several titles released past 12 months or so that will not run at 60fps with highest settings at 1080p. This is of course expected - the old being supplanted by the new. It is subjective where to draw the line and it will be down to the individual user. Hence my advise - it is a good 1080p card but do not expect every game to play well at 1080p with it. That you can play the games you want at 1080p or higher with blistering fast frame rates means you chose the GPU for the games you like to play wisely. Another user with a different preference for games may have a different experience. This is not a one shoe fits all.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Time to upgrade a 6700k?"

  • 12 days ago
  • -1 points

There are over 100,000 titles on the PC alone. A 10 year old video card will play most of them. So will a dual core PC with HD graphics.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Time to upgrade a 6700k?"

  • 12 days ago
  • 1 point

with any game ... addendum - > that you have played.

Generally a measure for a GPU is it's capability with "the most demanding games" without dropping frames below 60fps. If we are going to talk averages or a random spread of games, you will mow through most titles at 1440p with a 10 year old PC.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Time to upgrade a 6700k?"

  • 12 days ago
  • 1 point

Do not blow what I said out of proportion. There are over 100,000 PC games and 99.9% of them will be playable with a dual core processor and it's HD on board graphics. We are not talking about whipping through a bunch of games at high frame rates.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Time to upgrade a 6700k?"

  • 13 days ago
  • 1 point

either of these two components just outdated or in need of an upgrade?

If you are largely satisfied with the end result then there is no need to change anything. The day will come for an upgrade but whether it is now or in future is up to you..

Performance spikes on CPU's are common under load particularly if the PC is running other tasks. The i7-6700K is an old CPU- now in it's fifth year. Old does not mean bad or urgently needs upgrade. The GTX 1070 can and will struggle at 1080p for some gaming titles but for most it will be more than adequate.

At 1080p I think you can still get a couple of years out of this equipment. I would hold off upgrading if I could - not while we are so close to a new generation of PC gear. With Nvidia and AMD dropping new cards later this year and next year we will see DDR5 compatable boards and new chipsets from AMD and Intel I would avoid anything with Z390 or X570 if you can.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Intel i5 9600k or AMD Ryzen 3600x?"

  • 14 days ago
  • 1 point

AMD Ryzen 3600x?

People always recommend the AMD chip with a mind for an "upgrade path" - considering Intel dead and AMD fully alive and conscious. This upgradeability is only a factor if in the next 12 months or so you will plan an upgrade based on improved economic circumstances. If you intend to build and stick for longer than two years with it, the odds of you wanting to upgrade on what will soon be a dead platform will diminish to around zero.

As an example, the Intel i7 7820X, when it came out in 2017, it was the fastest 8 core on the market and was a desirable chip to own. Ryzen 7 2700X beat it one year later for less than half the price, the Ryzen 7 3700X runs some applications twice as fast as the Intel i7-7820X another year later. How far down the hill do you think the i7-7820X has tumbled?

The same will happen with the Ryzen 9 3950X which will be one cpu upgrade you could do if you invested in AMD's X570 chipset. Come late 2022 / early 2023 you will not even be able to give these away. People always recommend "you can always upgrade to it in future" forget that in that hypothetical future nobody in their right mind would want to throw good money after old and bad.

Again using the i7 7820X analogy - you could not even give one of these CPU's away today. Even if you added in a free X299 motherboard.

Intel i5 9600k or AMD Ryzen 3600x?

With prior advise in mind, pick what you can afford now, use, enjoy, and replace when the time comes for a new PC. Leveraging between gaming and virtual machines, I say the Ryzen 7 2700X is still the best bang for buck CPU on the market. It literally does fall under "Jack of All Trades". The Intel i5-9600K is not a bad CPU for an overclocker and it will run games very nicely for at least a couple of years if not more.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "from i7 6700k to Ryzen 3700x"

  • 15 days ago
  • 1 point

I've read that my CPU is bottlenecking my GPU by more than 25%. thank you for your inputs.

Any existing bottleneck wont really matter on a 60Hz monitor or TV. It will be a while before the i7-6700K will not be capable of meeting a 60fps expectation. My wife has the 7700K and every game I have tested or played ran beyond 60fps even demanding titles. If it takes one to turn down graphics settings to hit 60fps then you can be sure it is the GPU causing the issue.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "CPU/GPU matching for a combination gaming/compute machine"

  • 17 days ago
  • 2 points

Ahh yes I must add onto the point that was made here: Since you have been a long time out of the game, things have changed. AMD chips, while overclockable, offer little to nothing or even worse performance doing so - at least on the 3000 series. While it is in the PC builder's best interests to keep the CPU running as cool as possible your cooling solution need not be elaborate like Liquid Cooling. Liquid cooling for an AMD chipset is largely conducted for sake of looks. Intel on the other hand, if you plan to overclock, necessitates a liquid cooling solution. AMD not so much. Since air coolers, particularly good ones run huge and need a huge case with at least 170mm of clearance, a liquid cooling solution offers a higher priced but smaller footprint solution as long as you have a slot for a radiator.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "CPU/GPU matching for a combination gaming/compute machine"

  • 17 days ago
  • 2 points

You have researched well. Yes an X570 board and one of 3700X or 3900X would do very nicely for gaming and simulations. GPU wise, keep going with the 1080p gaming and get the RTX 2060 Super. If you decide to go with 4K gaming Nvidia and AMD have new cards coming out by end of year that will expand your 4K gaming options.

It appears to me that a 2060 Super or a Radeon 5700 would suffice for 1080p gaming for the foreseeable future,

Yes indeed. Correct. Both excellent choices.

but that locks me out of 4K gaming to a large extent. Do people tend to get acceptable performance on 4K from something like a 2070 Super/2080 Super

Absolutely, just tweak settings to get everything running nicely.

or does one have to step up to the 2080 Ti?

I would wait for next gen Nvidia. Should get 2080TI performance or close to it out of that generation's 70 Super series card - assuming they keep the naming going. Get a 2060 Super for now and upgrade to the next gen's affordable 3070/3070 super equivalent which should do 4K nicely. Cards should be on the market by end of this year or early next depending which rumor mill sources you read.

I'm looking to future-proof a bit, which is driving me toward AMD Ryzen chips since x570 boards offer a pretty clear upgrade path.

Not really, one release upcoming then nothing. While it is tempting to think this is a two shot process it only is if buying now and upgrading in a few months when AMD dump the new CPU's on the market. With most folks keeping their CPU for 3 or 4 years by the time you want to upgrade, the x570 chipset and CPU's that will run on it will be long outdated. This will make the build one shot. I really would not advise buying a Ryzen 3700X today only to upgrade to a 4700X for a 15% bump in performance. Chances are eight in ten or higher you will want to get some life out of the 3700X/3900X and then upgrade to a more modern CPU and chipset in the future. Bit like being stuck with a Kabylake board and an i5 today. As tempting as it would be to ugrade to the i7, the only logical upgrade is an entirely new Chipset. You will find yourself in that predicament in 3/4 years - and to be honest it is a fun predicament.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "i5 4670k - still room to upgrade GPU, or wait and rebuild?"

  • 18 days ago
  • 1 point

I reckon your GTX 780 / i5 4670K combo would likely still run Cyberpunk 2077 at 1080p without too much problem. This assuming the game is well optimized. Here is hoping Cyberpunk arrives in better shape than Red Dead Redemption 2 (raising beer in hope).

The GTX 780 / i5 4670K is still a capable gaming rig although as you noted an upgrade is not a terrible idea but neither absolutely essential at this time of writing.

If you are otherwise happy with this rig with games you are currently playing, why not hang ten and wait to see what's up with Cyberpunk 2077 when it launches? It does not take long to build a gaming PC for starters. Secondly who says Cyberpunk on the PC will even be playable (i.e. RDR2 level of optimization where a 2080TI/9900K cannot turn over a fluid 60fps at 1080p)? Thirdly, let me just say the unthinkable as well: What if Cyberpunk actually sucks as a game and all this hype is for nothing? We cannot even say with 100% certainty the game will be good.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "6 core or 8 core for gaming pc in a dual pc setup"

  • 19 days ago
  • 1 point

If you stream with encoding on the CPU give yourself some wiggle room. Go with the Ryzen 7 2700X. Quite honestly unless AMD really deliver the good's on their Ryzen 4000 series (I expect a 10-15% jump over 3000) it would be debatable whether you would even need to upgrade at all. The Ryzen 7 2700X was and still is a very good CPU. Just pick a motherboard that gives you that option to upgrade, even if there is a good chance you will move onto something else when the need to upgrade arises.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "AMD and Intel"

  • 19 days ago
  • 1 point

all of the computers ive built have been intel. this was when intel was stomping AMD. im building my sister a PC now and im thinking about using AMD. Although i am a worst case scenario of "creature of comfort." I just feel weird thinking about switching to AMD because i really love practicing Brand loyalty. would it be stupid not to build with AMD right now? medium-light multitasking, gaming while streaming and discord. shes tossed me a 6k budget so price really isn't a problem.

Futureproofing advise should be dismissed with impunity. You cannot and will not be able to futureproof anything. Advice suggesting that AMD have a 4000 series incoming is wonderful for those that feel the need to upgrade every year. You seem like you are building a PC one shot.

A one shot build does not need to consider potential upgrades. You will treat it like a car. Buy, drive, and replace.

Even if you did decide it would be an option worth including - as in adding a degree of freedom to the build, then what? If you decided to invest in a Ryzen 3000 build and purchased, say, an R9 3900X, I highly doubt there will be anything in the 4000 series worth upgrading to with any sense of urgency. 10% - 15% IPC improvements over same number of cores? Great for AMD, they can boast they beat Intel across the board. Does not translate to anything particularly meaningful in gaming and general tasking. By the time you/your sister will want that upgrade, there will be newer and better chipsets out. Throw out futureproofing as a concept, it is fools gold to the goldsmith.

While AMD and Intel are dropping new products this year (GPU and CPU), they will also drop products next year, year after, year after.....

Whatever you build now will be outdated in 12 months. It is a fact with this PC hobby - if you desire the best, you will be changing CPU's/GPU's or even chipsets every 18 months or so, even sooner depending.... This is a build for your Sister. What does she want? Does she want a good performing PC now that performs well in a few years or does she want to keep up the Joneses around here and on Reddit?

AMD Vs Intel. AMD offer better bang for buck and more cores for that buck. Intel chips can be overclocked nicely, at least some of them like 9900K. You can invest in a liquid cooling solution and build a very beautiful rig for your sister. With Ryzen liquid cooling is for looks only, you cannot overclock those chips well. With the 9900K water cooling and tower choice come in tandem. Performance? Gaming and lightly threaded tasks Intel wins handsomely because of overclocking. My Intel i7 8086K OC'd to 5.5GHz will put a hurting on the Ryzen 9 3950X in 1080p gaming on a 300HZ monitor. The converse is true regarding highly multi threaded activities, AMD are much faster than Intel here. With your sister's requirement I would say middle ground is safe ground. Any modern 8 core 16 thread and above.

I do not recommend throwing money after cores unless there is a specific software being run that scales performance wise with cores. We wont need 16 core CPU's for the time being for gaming or general tasks. Those that claim that we do need it are the same folks that claim a Smoothie a day will keep the Flu or Coronavirus at bay.

I also recommend not spending her out of house and home, even if she is generous with her money. If she just wants to game and do some web browsing etc, then you do not need to spend $6K. You do not even need the best. Get her a nice 1440p 144Hz monitor, pair a GTX 2080 Super with that, and chipset wise - go i9-9900K on Z390 if you feel like building a busy and inventive liquid cooling build. Otherwise just go for a Ryzen 7 2700X or 3700X and get a nice Noctua Air Cooler or perhaps all in one liquid cooler and save your sister a bunch of money. Either way she has one heck of a powerful rig.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "I7-9700k or I7-8086k?"

  • 19 days ago
  • 1 point

I have a i7 - 8086K, best gaming CPU I have ever used. Better than my i9-9900K in fact. Reason I will attribute is silicon lottery - I have it set at 5.5GHz in a liquid cooled system and it pulls higher frame rates than any other CPU I have tested. On a 240Hz monitor, as glorious as the smooth gameplay feels, it is hard to appreciate a 20fps boost over another CPU when both are blazing 200fps plus.

But to be realistic, outside of lucking out on a chip that overclocks like a champ, the i7-8086K is discontinued (and overpriced), average samples barely run faster than a Ryzen 5 3600X which is half the price, and it trades blows (or slightly underperforms) against a good i7-9700K/KF sample both of which are cheaper.

I have no idea about your budget or what requirements you have that gravitated you towards the 9700K or 8086K. For pure gaming, yes, right at or near the top. But what is performance anyway? 144Hz monitor, get cheaper CPU's like Ryzen 7 3700X or R5 3600, they wont perform as well in most gaming scenario's but a 144Hz monitor will not care, the extra frames juiced out of an 8086K or 9700K wont be seen anyway. Monitor should dictate choice - any monitor 165Hz or below do not waste your money chasing the most expensive and delicate silicon your money can buy - it will be wasted in gaming on such a monitor. 240-300Hz on the other hand is at an extreme edge of gaming, a niche, it might make sense to overspend on an overclockable Intel chip.

If your requirements fall more in line with CPU intensive tasks (gaming is not a CPU intensive task at all, even modern titles that use 8 threads have no issue running on any 4core/8thread CPU let alone 6cores and above) then you might be better off looking at the i9-9900K or the Ryzen lineup starting with the Ryzen 7 3700X up to 3950X.

If you plan on gaming and streaming the requirements may as well be the same for a typical workstation - half your cores/threads will be eaten up encoding. May as well get 8core/16thread CPU and up.

Hope this helps.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Ryzen 3700x , what gpu to get the best out of your money?"

  • 21 days ago
  • -1 points

You do not need much more than an RTX 2060 for this game at 1080p. RTX 2060 Super, done deal. Limit will be 3700X and if that does not cut it consider the 8086K or 9900K and a liquid cooling loop.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "2070super or 2080super"

  • 23 days ago
  • 1 point

I’m stuck between choosing from these two gpu I’m gonna be gaming at 1440p 144 and I’m looking for any suggestions

Last gen the GTX 1080 was considered the futureproof 1440p card. There are games out right now where the GTX 1080 is more 1080p that 1440p capable - at least on high settings.

I will recommend the RTX 2080 Super even though the 2070 Super will get the job done right now.

Also comes down to games. Not all games made equal in this regard.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "3600 vs 9600kf"

  • 24 days ago
  • 1 point

I'll purely be gaming, no more no less

9600kf with a nice overclock for your scenario.

If overclocking is off the menu and you will not be counting frames in the 100's, I would check out the older Ryzen 7 2700X as a possible purchase. Slightly cheaper, comes with stock CPU cooler, and performance wise slightly more robust with cores/threads albeit in gaming it benches a bit lower in a number of titles. That said, with/without overclocking the 9600kf I doubt you would notice a huge difference unless you had a monitor with refresh rates > 165 hz and you avoid gaming titles that love to run at low fps no matter what GPU/CPU you throw in the mix.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Ryzen 9 3900X vs Intel i9 9900K ?"

  • 25 days ago
  • 1 point

While the Ryzen 9 3900X is the better overall CPU by some distance, if you are mainly focussed on gaming the i9-9900K with Silicon Lottery will probably be the better purchase. To get performance out of the 9900K will require an adequate cooling solution and overclocking. Ryzen 9 3900X vs i9-9900K with a hefty 5.3GHz overclock is an easy win for the 9900K in a gaming scenario. Without overclocking buy the Ryzen.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Future thoughts of 3080 graphics card"

  • 28 days ago
  • 1 point

For the price, certainly. That would not be a terrible choice if your monitor is good enough.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Under performing."

  • 29 days ago
  • 1 point

I benched my Laptop on that software yesterday. Came in way under expectations as well. Run AAA games fine. I believe userbenchmark pummelled my poor Intel HD graphics chip ignoring the GPU completely - CPU ran hotter than normal, downclocked, voila. Your CPU also has an onboard graphics chip. Given your shoddy GPU benchmark, it would not surprise me if you had the same thing happen to you.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Future thoughts of 3080 graphics card"

  • 29 days ago
  • 1 point

Hey I was debating to get the 2080 ti cause I heard in June the 3080 is coming out and it’s said to have better ray tracing less power hungry and even cheaper than the 2080 ti so I was wondering if I should wait to see what it offers or just go with 2080 ti

Cant tell at the moment. June is also mentioned, other's put it more towards a Fall release. Whatever the case nothing seems to indicate that the 3080 is going to be a steal. I can also tell you that when the card debut's it will take a while before we see the MSI/Gigabyte/Asus versions of them. Add to the fact stock shortages (people always seem to be in a massive rush to add a new GPU) and inflated prices, why not just wait until next year.

I cannot in good conscience recommend a 2080TI. Not given the prospect of it being a $500 card on the used market by the end of this year.

AMD have something coming up, apparently going to stick it to Nvidia. While we have heard this before a million times, perhaps AMD will finally deliver the goods. AMD will not come with Nvidia tax either. If you get 2080TI performance for $700 I say go for it.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "2700x vs 3800x"

  • 29 days ago
  • 3 points

You advise me to save $25 on the 3700X vs the 3800X. But then say that a twice the price processor is better even if it's a small performance increase.

It's not about money. Get newer. As for 3700X vs 3800X you cant control the silicon on the chips. There are individual benches where a 3700X beats the 3800X and of course vice versa. They are both pretty similar. With both being lousy overclockers and hard to seperate in terms of real world results it hard to recommend the 3800X as an exclusive purchase.

If you went with a good X570 mobo and 3700X and 16GB Ram you have a killer PC. Add in a decent GPU and it will be a while before you will want to upgrade. Nevermind too much that technology advances, there is always something better coming out, always something better out there. If you research the 3700X and it ticks all your boxes, go for it. If you want to spend the extra $25 on the 3800X go for that if you want. If we were to play a game like - "name me as many CPU's as you can that are better than the 3700X" the game will last less than 3 seconds. Not many CPU's better than 3700X, certainly none in it's budget range.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "RTX 2080 TI in my older system?"

  • 29 days ago
  • 2 points

Would a RTX 2080 TI work fine with my system?

Yes of course, a 2080 TI will do what it is supposed to do. You are obviously worried about a CPU bottleneck. I would not be concerned with it at all unless you are into competitive gaming on the highest possible refresh rate monitors. Then there is the issue even with 16 thread CPU's or 32 Core CPU's that certain games refuse to budge past 90fps with pathetic 1% lows no matter what GPU/CPU horsepower you throw at it. Those games should be an easy decision regarding purchasing - get them on console or do not play them in any shape or form. People should stop supporting companies that release broken or poorly optimized crap. I never understood the "lets reward the kid when he misbehaves" crowd. The 8 thread CPU you have should handle most gaming tasks you throw at it, barring perhaps an oddball title here and there that requires more resources than the game is worth to run. No need to cover all bases yet.

Intel Core i7 6700K 4.0GHz \ NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB \ 16GB DDR4 3000Mhz Memory \ Realtek High Definition Audio \ SanDisk Extreme PRO 960GB SSD \ Windows 10 Professional 64-bit

This one is hard to answer. That is quite a good PC right there. Unless you are giving 4K gaming a try I would be inclined to save my money and see how Intel/AMD/Nvidia products stack up next year and perhaps go for a full upgrade if it is worth it. Right now your computer is pretty decent I would stick unless you really do not like the performance at your gaming settings or apps you are trying to run.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "2700x vs 3800x"

  • 29 days ago
  • 3 points

3700X over 3800X and use the money saved, even if $25, on a nice meal. The difference between both CPU's is trivial.

would the difference between gen 2 and gen 3 be noticeable?

Not necessarily for most applications. Matlab or a C++ simulation going full tilt on one thread with multiply accumulate operations you may notice a slight difference in execution time with the faster core of a 3800X. Deal breaker/maker? Depends. Applications utilizing numerous cores/threads, margins break closer towards parity, slight edge to 3800X. Hard to quantify this aspect. For some folks if an application runs one microsecond faster it is a game changer, for others one microsecond is what it is, a unit of time that ostensibly is trivial.

Gaming, unless you have a fast refresh rate monitor you will not notice the difference. If you have a 60-144Hz monitor, the 3800X moving around more frames wont matter because you wont see 'em.

Still I advise getting newer CPU over older even if more expensive. I do not go to the car lot if I have a 2020 328i in mind and then drive away with a 2015 328i even if both vehicles are quite close in performance.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Upgrading my old PC"

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Invest in a low profile or single slot GPU. You can get a PNY GTX 1650 that will probably work. Upgrade RAM to 16GB and you will probably see a nice overall uplift to your gaming. CS:GO though is not very demanding, even for an old PC. I would imagine if you have a 60Hz monitor that CS:GO will still run with what you have.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "3900x should use wich Graphics Card?"

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

Video Gaming?

Get best GPU you can afford if you are using a 1440p or 4K panel. Do not underestimate 1080p either, lots of titles are pushing it.

Not Video Gaming:

Only you can answer that looking at benchmarks and software you plan to use.

Comment reply on decidence's Completed Build: Lian Li Metal

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Obviously this will be featured, 10/10 build and the tubing is both challenging and gorgeous.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "3700x v 3800x?"

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Assuming the $15 difference is totally worth the upgrade?

$15 can still get you a pretty good Pizza. 3700X + $15 Pizza vs 3800X? I will take former over latter.

There is no real difference between 3700X and 3800X. The numbers are superficial and real world applications wont care if the 3800X is one clock cycle ahead.

If you are going for Louqe Ghost S1 I would be careful about CPU choice. No point having power you cannot realistically use.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Ryzen 5 1600 12nm or i7-7700K"

  • 1 month ago
  • 3 points

Keep in mind the last time this system was upgraded was 4 or 5 years ago, and probably wont be for another 4 or 5 years.

My problem with the i7-7700K, even though a cost effective solution requiring no motherboard upgrade, is that you are still replacing a 4 core processor with another one. The 7700K is not really a huge upgrade. It will maybe uplift performance by 30%-40% and it would be generous to assume it would scale as such to actual applications.

While the Ryzen 5 1600 is not really faster than the 7700K the AM4 platform gives you upgrade options all the way to the Ryzen 9 3950X if you get the right motherboard and make the right bios update. If you are strapped for cash now you might not be in future, particularly three years from now where the Ryzen 9 3950X will be as cheap as chips on the used market. Just a thought.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "I need help with my phanteks evolv shift!!!"

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Noctua Slim fans, A12 x 15mm. Not aesthetically pleasing but 40% smaller than the fans you have. You can improve looks and add RGB with the Phanteks Lux Halos fan frames.

I have never owned this GPU but I do have the case. I liquid cool mine and to fit in an extra radiator that clashed with the GPU I had to get slim fans instead of regular thickness.

Also as Radox Suggested, you have flexibility with the GPU bracket - there are some screws there, take them out and you can shift or re-orient your GPU if needed.

If I can get a 30mm Radiator, 15mm Fan, and a monstrous 2080TI Gigabyte Aorus Waterblock in there I am sure the Zotak card will be doable.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Which RTX card for 1080p144"

  • 1 month ago
  • 3 points

In a generic sense, I would not look at anything lower than RTX 2060 Super at 1080p/144. Preferably more, i.e. RTX 2070 Super. That does not mean everything runs high settings and 144fps or more. That is impossible.

Games should dictate choice.

eSports and most popular titles, the RTX 2060 will do the job.

Modern titles at highest settings (ignoring one or two outliers like Assassin's Creed or Red Dead Redemption 2) - RTX 2070 Super and even that might not be enough.

Every game at 144fps or more at 1080p? No GPU can overcome either Cpu limitations or horrible optimization. You can SLI two RTX 2080 TI's and throw in the latest Threadripper CPU and not see frame rates that will blow you away. It is what it is. Some games are just not well optimized for PC. Avoid these and play those games on console instead.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "What kind of CPU should I get?"

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

For $300plus used I would take a hard pass on the 7700K. Not much is gained by moving from a 4 core i5 to a 4 core i7. Run some benchmarks on this i5, it is an old chip but by no means a slow chip.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Ryzen 5 3600 or Ryzen 7 2700X?"

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Gaming or light usage - Ryzen 5 3600

Gaming + Streaming - Ryzen 7 2700X

Workstation - Ryzen 7 2700X

The Ryzen 5 3600 is faster in lightly threaded workloads, the Ryzen 7 2700X is faster in heavily threaded workloads. No clear winner here although if gaming is the main reason for this rig then go with the 3600.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Video Editing HEVC 264/5 Intel i9-10980XE OR AMD Threadripper 3970X"

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Intel i9-10980XE or AMD Threadripper 3970X.

If you have the money, get the Threadripper 3970X. The difference between the two is far too great to ignore. Remember this:=> The Ryzen 9 3950X crushes the Intel i9-10980XE in benchmarks, gaming, you name it. It also has two less cores. The 12 core Ryzen 9 3900X also wins on many benchmarks. Why on Earth would you choose the aging Intel platform nowadays? The chipset is ancient now and it shows. The only worthwhile endeavor here would be the X299 Itx board by Asrock if you wanted a small form mini itx workstation. Outside of this little niche, no way, Ryzen all the way.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Please help a “noob”!"

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

Oh yeah the Ryzen 3 1200 would handle that GPU and then some.

I hate to do this but will. In the bargain basement of CPU's, you must consider the Ryzen 5 1600 as a possibility. For the price, 6 very good cores and 12 very good threads. It is a modern CPU with all the bells and whistles less integrated graphics. The b350/x370 motherboards are not horribly priced. Get that 16GB Corsair RAM and then with the GTX 680 you have a very game worthy PC - from GOG titles all the way to modern AAA's running pretty much at 60Hz at 1080p save one or two.

Well worth a thought.

But yes the Ryzen 3 1200 will not break sweat on most games.

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