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 "Graphics card + Cpu"

  • 11 hours ago
  • 1 point

Save money and keep CPU you have. Upgrade GPU from 1060/3GB to 1660S. Job done. Beautiful graphics, highest settings, and the i7-6700 is well capable of allowing you to enjoy 60fps gaming.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Graphics card + Cpu"

  • 12 hours ago
  • 1 point

would a 700w 80 plus bronze be enough for it?

Easily enough. I hope you do not have to pay too much because the PSU market is going crazy with stock shortages and pricing.

Btw I currently own a 1060 3gb with an i7 6700 is it worth it the upgrade

Upgrading is subjective because gaming builds should be concentrated on getting the most out of your monitor. If you were rolling a 1080p 60Hz the upgrade path will have some impact on your visuals. A 1440p 144Hz the upgrade path could be enormous and well justify the cost - particularly the GPU side of things. CPU not quite as much because the i7 6700 is still a capable chip.

RTX 2080 Super would bottleneck with either R5 3600 or R7 3700x

You will only bottleneck if you gun for 720p or 1080p gaming and have a monitor capable of refreshing at 240Hz or 300Hz. This should only be a concern if you are building a rig with such a monitor. Practically, ignore all bottleneck calculators and advise related to bottlenecking. Instead take a handful of games you want to play and research gaming benchmarks with the CPU and GPU you want. If your monitor is up to the task (resolution and refresh rate) then you will be able to fashion a build to meet your needs. There will always be titles you end up playing that wont quite play as nice, in which case adjusting settings is always an option. But if you go for a 3700X/2080S/16GB CL16 DDR4 combo, you will be playing 1080p-4K gaming about as well as you reasonably can with today's technology. Whether it is overkill or not will depend on what monitor you are using.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Gaming CPU vs GPU better"

  • 1 day ago
  • 4 points

The GPU renders the frames that the CPU gives it. If you had a GPU of high enough throughput then your frame rate cap is set by the CPU. GPU's generally limits frame rates because you are giving it workloads where the CPU must idle - i.e. wait until the GPU finishes it's rendering.

Example - RTX 2080TI build at resolution 720p or 1080p settings low. Frame rate limit most likely to be CPU bounded.

Example - GTX 1650 build with resolution set to 4K and settings high. CPU will be idling and frame rate limit certainly due to GPU.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Gaming CPU vs GPU better"

  • 1 day ago
  • 1 point

Go with the i3 and GTX 1660S then. I cannot think of any titles where 1080p 60Hz will not be doable even with all settings maxed out. Money saved can go to other crucial areas of build, such as power supply with more wattage than you need, a good motherboard and so on. When you upgrade your monitor one day then you can upgrade CPU and GPU when needed without having to change motherboard or power supply and all your wiring etc.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Gaming CPU vs GPU better"

  • 2 days ago
  • 3 points

CPU will determine the maximum frame rate a game can run at and has no impact on graphical fidelity. If you want good graphics then get the best GPU you can afford. All the CPU's you chose are fast and more than capable of delivering high frame rates. Even the i3, which is quite similar to the i7-7700K, is a good chip for a gaming build. There is no imbalance with any of the build options presented here.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Ryzen Refresh XT Market Impact"

  • 3 days ago
  • 1 point

The purported Ryzen 4000 series is where I would expect to see the current 3000 chips to drop significantly in price. As for 3900XT vs 3900X, if they hit the market at the same MSRP, you can expect an initial launch price of $499 although they could adjust that down slightly given Intel's new i9 is $529. Chances are the regular 3900X will hold at $419 or perhaps move down to $399. You are unlikely to see a 3900X priced at $350 or less for a while, save for the used market less the cooler.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Oldest CPU"

  • 5 days ago
  • 1 point

I remember this CPU alright. I had one in a build way back when. At a guess somewhere around 2008/9 before I upgraded for a Quad. I wonder how the e8400 holds today against a modern Celeron. 2 cores / 2 threads I think mine was 3GHz, memory kinda hazy.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "GTX 1060 Founders edition"

  • 5 days ago
  • 1 point

Most screw sets you can buy for PC building/upgrading will have what you need. I have dismantled and reassembled many GPU's and if I am missing screws I have found 99% of the time something that works in those kits.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Ryzen Upgrade"

  • 5 days ago
  • 1 point

Currently have a Ryzen 7 3700x with B450 Motherboard, would you guys wait for 4th gen or see if the CPUs for current 3rd gen Ryzen's drop. I've been considering to upgrade to a 3900x.

Why do you want to upgrade? If you are just gaming the difference between the chips is negligible. For the vast majority of activities you will be running on diminishing returns. It is your money, upgrade all you want, but personally if I were you I would stick with what I have. If you want better graphics for instance, the CPU will make nearly zero difference here, upgrade GPU instead. The higher end CPU's in both Intel and AMD lineups are way overkill for gaming. GPU's on the other hand - depending on your monitor, differences can be large enough to justify an upgrade.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Worth upgrading from I7 7700k to Intel 10 series?"

  • 6 days ago
  • 3 points

if it was a massive upgrade

For gaming, no, nothing today is an enormous upgrade over the 7700K. It will soldier on for a couple more years pulling nice numbers. Inevitably every dog will have it's day but in your case with your rig, I would be a passive observer next generation until the mid gen refresh (so called super or mid gap TI's). You were smart to sit this generation out. Mid Gen next generation might be a nice time to pull the trigger. By then AM4 and anything 14nm Lake based by Intel will be history.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Good price to sell an i5-6500"

  • 6 days ago
  • 1 point

If you have the cooler and box you might get over $100. Just a CPU in a baggie then probably $60 - $70 would be my expectation.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Worth upgrading from I7 7700k to Intel 10 series?"

  • 6 days ago
  • 2 points

I Currently have an I7 7700k in my PC that i use mainly for gaming and streaming and was wondering if it would be worth it to upgrade to the new intel 10 series for Strictly Gaming at High FPS (mainly 1440p / some but not much 4K) and streaming here and there.

Gaming+Streaming will kick the 7700K's silicon butt and you will definitely be dropping a lot of frames here. Without streaming, the Kaby Lake i7 is amazingly capable still and is only slightly behind any of the top performing CPU's in gaming, particularly when you overclock it. You will still get blazing fast fps with it with your GTX 1080TI.

My recommendation: Sell it and make bank. Still a $300+ chip used in some auctions. Flip it while it is still worth something and then reinvest. While Comet Lake offers little over Coffee Lake or Ryzen 3000, and thus consequently the i7-7700K insofar as gaming is concerned, if people are crazy enough to pay $300 for a 4 year old CPU I say take advantage of it. A year from now and people wising up, that $300 CPU you might not even be able to give it away.

I will not advise you to steer clear of Comet Lake if that is what you want. Technology changes regularly but right now advising Ryzen 3000 refresh over Comet Lake is like advising someone to buy a Lexus over a Beamer. At this stage it is basically who gives a ****, they all in the ballpark, same goes for Coffee Lake. If you want a gaming rig, eeny, meeny, miny, moe. One chipset gives 180fps on a particular game, another gives 183fps on another game. It is like birds fighting for crumbs, get what you want.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Pricing: Pull Trigger on 3900X"

  • 6 days ago
  • 1 point

The market is just so fluid right now that I have cold feet on buying all my higher price parts

But you also have to combat availability issues as well. Snooze you lose is the current trend. I had to purchase a necessary part for triple the MSRP all because I decided to watch while surveying other options. If I needed the 3900X now I would not wait. It could be end of the year before you find what you want for the price you want and by then Ryzen 4000 will be around the corner which would make a 3000 part purchase even more difficult.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Pricing: Pull Trigger on 3900X"

  • 6 days ago
  • 2 points

The $419.99 on Amazon currently seems like a really good bang for your buck deal but I'm just worried it will either

10 left in Stock on Amazon. Pull the trigger.

PC supplies are in short order right now. Terrible time to build a PC if you want to pay MSRP. My advise is pull the trigger.

The opposite, the price will drop even further in the coming weeks

With Ryzen Refresh in a couple of months prices will go down a bit - but nothing near like what was seen when the 2600 was in freefall hitting under $100 or the 2700X hitting the $150 mark. Demand will increase and often the newer chips will be out of stock or have sketchy stock for a few months. That could impact existing stocks of the 3900X. With the Ryzen Refresh offering slightly higher clocks you probably wont be losing much. Probably would be a i7 -8086K vs i7-8700K. Not a huge difference.

Besides if you bought the Ryzen 3900X for $420 now, then it drops to $350 in six months, you still had six months of use for that chip. I do not know why folks count change on a major PC part when many think nothing of spending $4 a day on a Star Bucks coffee or ordering a $20 pizza once a week. It is all a waste of money because the $4 adds up, as does the $20.

play the wait-and-see game for a few more weeks to try and get a better deal

In a non Covid world I would suggest waiting. In a Covid world it is impossible to see outcomes related to availability. You can chance it and it works out. You can chance it and find both the refresh and current 3900X out of stock everywhere and on eBay with a price premium. Both are outcomes that are not outside the realm of possibility.

Buy now. 3900X is an awesome chip today and it will be awesome tomorrow. Inevitably it will be available for $350 and below at some point in the future. Whether that future is the near future is anyone's guess.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "CPU/GPU Bottleneck"

  • 7 days ago
  • 1 point

Would it be ok playing with that bottleneck

Ignore the bottleneck calculators out there. They are largely meaningless. The only difference between inserting the RTX 2060 over your current GTX 760 will be the fidelity of your graphics - you should now be able to game with higher settings. The maximum frame rates your CPU can deliver will be independent of the graphics card. Research the games you want to play and see if your CPU can hit your target fps, be it 60fps or 144fps and so on. Chances are for most titles it can deliver at least 60fps.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "1080ti still viable?"

  • 7 days ago
  • 2 points

Nope probably not. If you purchased a 600W or greater PSU that will be enough for just about any CPU and GPU - outside of perhaps Comet Lake i9 or HEDT CPU's and Power hungry Intel/AMD GPU's like Radeon VII or Titan. Cooling wise the stock cooler on a 1080TI should be enough in most PC cases. You might run into thermal issues with cases like Dan Case or NCase but I suspect you are not building a mini SSF format.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Is the 2600 even worth it?"

  • 8 days ago
  • 1 point

Unless you really want to spend that extra $20 on your GPU, or just save it, is the 2600 worth it

For $20 less, no. For $80 less, that depends on who you ask. For the vast majority of people the 2600 is overkill. For gaming the 2600 is perfectly adequate, particularly when large numbers of people own 60Hz monitors. Then there is the niche market which we occupy where that 10% performance increase is significant enough that many would pay more to get it.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "AMD RYZEN 5 3600"

  • 8 days ago
  • 1 point

I was just wondering what is the intel equivalent to the AMD Ryzen 5 3600?

Locked i7-8700 probably. 6c/12t. Can OC the Ryzen 5 but generally AMD have them manufactured near their limit. May as well be considered a locked chip given very little headroom exists typically. But there is also silicon lottery....

Performance wise, trades blows with a locked i7-8700.

In gaming, up against an Intel K chip like 8700K or even the i5's that can be overclocked, it will lose on the majority of titles fps wise. Against the locked i5's it will trade blows.

It is hard to compare i5 and Ryzen 5 because Intel's coffee lake was weird in that the i7 and i5 had the same number of cores except one offered hyper threading. Coffee Lake then offered an 8 core i7 and the i9 then busts out and is more in line with Ryzen's R7 tier. Now Ryzen having a 9 tier makes it hard to apply an apples to apples approach.

In the pantheon, Ryzen 5 is AMD's version of the Intel i5, the so called mid-tier consumer CPU range they offer. For gaming, the i5 and Ryzen 5 can compete well with Ryzen 7 or i7 so this hierarchical model means very little in this application. The Ryzen 5 and i5 will always be popular chips for gaming PC's.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "AMD Ryzen not compatible?"

  • 8 days ago
  • 1 point

Is it worth doing that or just sticking with an i7-7700k processor?

I take it you currently own an i7-7700K. It is still quite a capable chip for gaming. If you are finding some applications chugging it is often not the CPU at fault. If you built in 2017 that is 3 years of use. A good cleaning tool will speed up your machine, delete old registry items, redundant apps and so on. Upgrading makes most sense when using applications or gaming on titles that perform noticeably better with 6 or 8 cores. In the 7700K case there are not too many titles where a Ryzen 7 will yield a huge fps increase. For most it is diminishing returns.

But if you do want to upgrade, good news is the i7-7700K, particularly if you kept the box, will probably flip for $300 on eBay depending on where the wind is blowing. That is pretty good scratch and will almost dead even trade with a new Ryzen 7. Your overhead cost is the motherboard (which can be hit or miss availability wise) and your CL17 3600 Corsair Ram is a good match up with Ryzen so you do not need to replace. Overall you are in a good place. You probably will need to get a new Windows 10 (Microsoft by and large do not move installs from one machine to another). You are unlikely to get much joy inserting your OS drive into a new motherboard and expect Windows to autorepair/download drivers and correspondingly boot. At least not from Z270 to X570.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "AMD Ryzen not compatible?"

  • 8 days ago
  • 1 point

Not too likely. Kaby Lake i5 still sells for over $150 particularly the K edition. For 2 years there have been 4c/4t processors that compete with it in the sub $100 range. The 7700K will hold onto it's inflated price for a while yet. Dual cores like the i3-7350K from Kaby Lake still fetch well over $100 used. The public have a morbid fascination with Kaby Lake.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Buy now or wait for new gen GPUs?"

  • 8 days ago
  • 2 points

Do I buy a 2070S/2080S now or buy a cheaper card now($70 range) and wait for the 3000 series and AMD RDNA 2 cards?

Your conundrum, even if the launches happen in a timely manner, will be availability. Certainly you will be able to pick up one of the new cards on launch for a massively inflated price. There is always that option. For the rest of us, particularly those of us that do no check stock listing sites every 5 minutes to get your dibs, you will have to wait two to four months after launch for stocks to settle. Throw in CoVid uncertainty (regarding manufacturing in quantity) and you need a crystal ball.

If you feel uncomfortable getting a RTX 2070S/2080S now given that the next gen RTX 3060 will likely trade blows for a lot cheaper, pick up a GTX 1650S or a used GTX 1070 to tide you over until the next gen cards are generously stocked and priced. That way you will enjoy your gaming library meanwhile for not too great an out of pocket cost.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Best HDD for storage of games"

  • 8 days ago
  • 2 points

Reviews are misleading because there is bias in the sampling. People are more likely to write a negative review than take the time to write a positive review. I have a Seagate Barracuda in one of the builds, 3 years old, lots of reading and writing, still going strong. Yes some drives are better than others but you hit diminishing returns. I stumped up a couple of hundred for a WD Black 4TB HDD and cannot say definitively that it appears better than other drives I have owned. Besides, your case usage will not be a 24/7, like video monitoring or server related.

If, like me and plenty of others, you use an HDD for bulk storage and any immediate games or applications are moved to a faster SSD Sata/NVMe then do not overspend on an HDD. Diminishing returns and the money saved could go elsewhere, i.e. a bigger NVMe for instance or better cooler and so on. I would not worry too much about reliability.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Still Viable CPU?"

  • 9 days ago
  • 1 point

Oh yeah SFF all the way, never going back to ATX again. Not sure what anyone wants to do anymore with 3 PCIE x 16 slots you see on ATX boards. Never did like alternating my Ram slots either or be left feeling incomplete because I did not go with 4 sticks of RAM....

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Still Viable CPU?"

  • 9 days ago
  • 1 point

I have weird PC fetishes ;) :hide:

Comment reply on Forum Topic "1080ti still viable?"

  • 9 days ago
  • 1 point

Hey all, considering getting my hands on a GTX1080ti

I am still using my Titan XP for gaming and it is doing an awesome job at both 1080p and 1440p (and 4K proper as well). It will show it's age on titles that will be entirely rendered by Raytracing. This wont be for a while though. Given the GTX 1080 TI is similar or slightly faster than the Titan XP in gaming, you will be in the same boat as me in a few years. For now though, plenty of power for the next 2 years or so. RTX cards are low on availability - usually my advise would be to buy new but with stocks running out or low everywhere we are in for a lean few months. Get what you can when it is available. What is here today is gone tomorrow.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Still Viable CPU?"

  • 9 days ago
  • 1 point

Still Viable CPU?

Yes it is decent. Since you already have it, keep. If you were looking to build from scratch the $250 plus the 6700K commands makes it very expensive given AMD have a 4c/8t and Intel a 4c/8t i3 inbound for less than half the money for roughly the same performance.

As tempting as it may be to flip, the PC building market is on it's way to months of shortages and scalpers taking advantage of it. Supplies are running out fast. I just noticed that Noctua have sold out of just about everything.

Get on your bike and build now. Build fast. It could be months or years or perhaps never before things return to normal. Do not procrastinate. My favorite site for PC building supplies, a liquid cooling item I wanted, stock of 30, sold out just this morning 24 hours after I decided to keep an eye on it. Move it. Build now, do not waste time.

I have a Intel Core i7-6700K 4.0GHz Quad-Core Processor 6th gen. Is this a CPU I can still get a gaming motherboard as a core for a new system?

Yes, as long as you do not get roped into the ITX form factor. Good Z170 boards and Z270 boards in ITX form are so horrifically overpriced it is not funny. $200 for a used board? Nope, no way. Full ATX = different and there are some decent boards knocking around still.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Comet Lake or WAIT?!?!?!? HELP"

  • 12 days ago
  • 3 points

I been really loving about what I'm reading about the 10900k however

For gaming it is slightly faster than the i9-9900K.

16 PCIE lanes has me thinking about waiting

It is enough without major throttling even for SLI.

The build I'm slowly building is eventually going to be a SLI config whether its the two 2080 Ti or 3000 series gpu.

No point for gaming. I do not think even one developer now is going to code titles to take advantage of SLI. SLI could be used in some workloads outside of gaming though. Whether you can force SLI via 3rd party software in gaming titles that do not scale with it I do not know. I SLI'd two RTX 2080 TI's and although the build looked attractive it was pretty much a useless feature outside of three games that I did not even play.

AMD strikes back with in the Fall of 2020

AMD are not going to null and void their Threadripper so no changes for AM4 other than slightly faster CPU's.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "First build, choosing my cpu and motherboard first"

  • 12 days ago
  • 2 points

Either CPU would be a good choice. When building new get the better of two choices if you can afford it. May as well because the CPU is not something one should wish to upgrade.

Fair warning - now is a horrible time for an ITX build, run a mile from the X570 ITX which seemed to have doubled in price. Power Supplies in SFX format are a joke. I could sell my SF750 PSU for $350 - $400 now. I also notice that most of the good boards for X570 are out of stock or at inflated prices.

So why am I telling you this? Simply because you are building now at a time where stocks are thinning out and prices escalating. Intel may be coming out with a new chipset but that probably will not mean a whole lot because unless you are on internet 24/7 continually refreshing pages you probably will not be able to purchase anything for a while here. Last I checked there were still a few decent Z390 boards on Newegg for MSRP. Although now a last gen chipset, the i9-9900K is not going to freefall down a list of great CPU's and might even drop in price. Worth a thought.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Should I buy used?"

  • 13 days ago
  • 1 point

I probably would not wait until next gen if you are ready to go PC wise less GPU. When a new gen releases availability is low for the first couple of months and the previous gen games still hold their value - no cheap RTX 2080's for a while I am afraid. I recommend that if you were after a card with the power of a GTX 1080, buy a new 2060 Super instead. You pay a little bit more but you get a warranty with the new card.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Will I benefit from 144hz?"

  • 13 days ago
  • 1 point

If my graphics card can only produce 100FPS then is there any benefit in buying a 144hz monitor

The fps will be set by your CPU. The GPU only caps fps limit if you are running frame rendering tasks for a resolution and setting that is beyond it's capability. Turn down settings/resolution. If you are going by benchmarking - i.e. someone with an i9 or R7/R9 that benches that GPU for a particular title at high settings then all you will have is a measure for one game. If, say, that benchmark showed 100fps for game X, it does not mean the GPU will stick at 100fps for game Y or game Z. Also changing settings for Game X will no doubt yield an increase in fps (given CPU's often used are quite capable of capping the fps limit for most games above 144fps).

To answer your question - yes there is a benefit in buying a 144Hz monitor.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Gtx 1070, or gtx 1660 super?"

  • 14 days ago
  • 2 points

Go with 1660 Super brand new. Used market = can pick up a brilliant used GPU that will last the pace. Also can pick up a P.O.S. that dies 4 months into use. One option is deterministic the other has added noise.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "1080ti Amp Edition or 2080?"

  • 14 days ago
  • 2 points

Zotac 1080ti Amp Edition (11GB) for $500 and get a 2080 (8GB) for $600, just $100 more

No point, unless you want to play the few games that support raytracing with better performance or the aesthetics of the card make your build look nicer and you feel it is worth the hassle to wheel and deal for it.

May as well sit this gen out and passively observe how things unfold with next gen regarding how many games are going to use the RTX features. If not too widely adopted, the 1080TI is powerful enough to run through another gen even. Unless you upgrade your monitor - always a good time to upgrade GPU when a new monitor comes into your house.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Should I buy used?"

  • 14 days ago
  • 2 points

Unless you urgently need the GPU I would wait. The current 2060Super trades blows with the GTX 1080 for around $100 more than you are paying in CAD but it is a new versus used. If the next gen launches a GTX 2660 (next iteration of 1660 if they keep with the silly naming) model that trades blows with a GTX 1080 then that would end up $100 less in CAD than what you are paying for a used 1080. Even if it does not work out like that, the price on used market will drop for a 1080. Inevitably. It will be two gens old in a few months. Still a great GPU by the way, the 1080 is still going strong.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Need help with upgrading to see if its worth it."

  • 14 days ago
  • 2 points

I dont know if its my non upgraded cpu causing low fps or not help would be appreciated

It depends on the resolution and settings you are trying to run. While the RX 580 is a very capable 1080p (and even 1440p depending on game) card some games could chug on high settings. Conversely while the FX-6300 should run the vast majority of games at 60fps with the RX 580 at 1080p, there are titles where definitely the CPU will hold you back where locking on 60fps might be challenging. Then there are 1% lows... Only way to know for sure on your rig which is holding up is to dial back settings. No FPS improvement or limited, then CPU.

I do not know what games you are playing but if the titles are chugging along for you at 1080p it is more likely the CPU is holding things up.

There is nothing on your motherboard I would upgrade to FX chip wise. Certainly not the FX 8350. Sometimes it is best to retire the old for the new. Not sure why you went with 24GB Ram but the RX 580 is salvageable, it is a decent card. Upgrade mobo + ram. You can do it without dropping too much cash. 16GB CL16 3200 Ram is still quite nicely priced and you can pick one of the cheaper Ryzen's up without dropping too much either. Mobo wise it will depend, some have gone up considerably in price even used.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Which is better for gaming; RTX Titan, or 2080ti?"

  • 15 days ago
  • 1 point

I thought the 2080ti was faster for gaming but someone told me differently and said to go with a titan

Tell him/her that DrLitch on PcPartpicker thinks this is the worst advice he has heard in a long time.

There are certainly reasons to purchase an RTX Titan but gaming is not one of them. Some 2080TI's that are nicely overclocked hit parity or run faster than a stock RTX Titan insofar as gaming is concerned. Someone who needs a workstation class GPU for his work but also games, the RTX Titan may not a horrible choice. For a pure gamer the RTX Titan is one of the worst GPU's you could purchase for gaming given that: (1) There is no guarantee it will outperform the RTX 2080 TI in an overclocked situation, (2) Even if the RTX Titan slightly outperforms a particular RTX 2080 TI this 2-3% will cost you more than double the price. 2-3% can be considered within any reasonable margin of error regarding measurement, and (3) The next Gen of RTX cards are a few months away. High probability the "80" non TI of the upcoming generation will school the RTX Titan. This for perhaps $700.

RTX Titan is a huge waste of money for gaming.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "RTX 2070 Super + i7 6700 (Non K): CPU Bottleneck possible on 1440p?"

  • 15 days ago
  • 1 point

But there's one thing i'm still doubting. i have a Intel Core i7 6700 @3,4 ghz. A decent CPU. I do wonder if this powerful RTX will bottleneck my CPU.

Yes there will always be a bottleneck. It can move between CPU and GPU depending on settings and resolution and vice versa. The monitor you choose will depict whether or not a CPU bottleneck will matter.

My monitor is a 1440p with 60Hz refresh rate.

Your bottleneck will be your monitor (unlikely the GPU) although with your CPU there might be one or two titles that will chug below 60fps, particularly the 1% lows. But you cannot accommodate for all games, as long as the games you play run at 60fps or above you need not worry about those that you have no intention of playing.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Upgrade from I5-6600k for QHD / over 60Hz gaming?"

  • 15 days ago
  • 1 point

Now I am playing Assassins Creed Odyssey but only get average FPS about 50Hz in FHD medium-high setting.

That is one of the demanding games out there. Not many rigs can push past a 144Hz monitor's refresh rate at 1080p let alone 1440p. It is a demanding game and it punishes PC hardware like few other. I think this game is definitely GPU bound because my wife can still get over 60fps with an i7-7700K which is not that much faster than your i5-6600K for gaming. I use a 6 core i7 with Titan XP and do not even reach halfway to my 1080p 240Hz monitor's refresh rate. Assassin's Creed is a poor choice to spend a lot of money on an upgrade. It is one game along with a handful that even a 16 core Ryzen with 2080TI in SLI will push lower framerates than you might assume. Go for average performance out of a handful of games. I would never build a PC to satisfy a requirement for one game because there will always be that one game that does not play nice.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Upgrading my i7 4790k"

  • 15 days ago
  • 2 points

But in games like rust i get terrible fps, pretty sure its cause im still using ddr3 and and i7-4790k

My nephew uses an i5-4690K with a 1060 and pulls around 80fps plus in Rust. That was two years ago and I do not play Rust so cannot say if they have overhauled the gaming engine inbetween. My nephew has not complained about frame rates with his rig. Not sure how RAM hungry Rust is but I imagine 16GB is enough.

That said I do not know what you mean by terrible fps. I would have thought 80fps is plenty for a game like Rust. If you are not getting over 60fps I would say a fault exists somewhere in your system. You computer has had years of usage and years to accumulate plenty of apps. Maybe time for a massive software cleanup. Perhaps too many CPU hogging resources running at the same time as your game. Worth checking out. Make sure your GPU is used to render the game. Check to see if all your RAM installed is still there. Not uncommon that one stick kicks the bucket. Running on a single channel 8GB would definitely slow things up for instance. If you run other games well then maybe there is an ingame setting that could be disabled that would massively enhance your fps. See how much usage your GPU gets and check the CPU. 100%, 70%....

You will get plenty of comments suggesting you dump your i7 board for a Ryzen CPU rather than investigate and troubleshoot what might be a fixable problem in your PC. I recommend investigating and troubleshooting and failing that... replacing old with new. The i7-4790K is only around 10% behind the i7-7700K which itself is only around 10% behind the i7-8700K in gaming, which is itself about equal to or potentially faster than the Ryzen 7 3700X in gaming. Some games upscale better than others but there are not that many games that do scale from 8 threads to 16 threads giving 30% or more improvements. Chances are high you do not stand to gain that much moving to a new chipset for the games you play.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Should i keep my Asus ROG Maximus XI Hero (Wi-Fi) board that i won from a giveaway and buy a 9700K or....?"

  • 19 days ago
  • 1 point

As tempting as it may be to sell, eBay is a lottery. What if you sell the board, the guy claims it does not work, and then sends you his broken board in return? Not that this would happen to you but that it could happen should dissuade you from selling the board at a cut price (you are unlikely to get much more than 80% of MSRP on eBay for it). What you going to lose with a 9700K vs 3700X? That the 3700X is a slightly better CPU could be negligible if gaming is going to be the main utilization. Even in other situations, if you were after a workstation build, you would be talking about the 3900X or 3950X and not the 3700X. You may as well keep and purchase the 9700K or 9900K.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "AMD or Intel in 2020?"

  • 19 days ago
  • 2 points

AMD or Intel in 2020?

Right now, even with gaming, they are quite similar. With Intel's next CPU purportedly giving a 5% single core speed boost (their overall performance will be heavily biased by hyperthreading on i7's, i5's and i3's while the flag i9 model will boast two extra cores) the actual numbers will be fairly meaningless for gaming. Essentially Intel are merely applying a new coat of paint to old and outdated technology. AMD on the other hand, are coming with 15-20% boost to the single core speed. As per the old Atari Jaguar slogan, do the math.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Bottleneck question"

  • 21 days ago
  • 1 point

I currently am running a ryzen 2600 and a gtx 1060 6gb. I want to upgrade to an rtx 2070 super.

This build was featured on LinusTechTips and it is a Ryzen 2600 paired with RTX 2070. Not the super version but close enough.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkiIW0Twj3U

Would this cause a bottleneck with my 2600?

Yes there will be a bottleneck. Graphics settings and resolutions move the bottleneck from the GPU to CPU and vice versa. This is true for all PC's no matter what components are inside. A good gaming PC setup has a CPU chosen to match or exceed the refresh rate of your monitor while GPU choice is gauged on being able to provide the quality settings and resolution on the games you want to play. I say games you want to play because one cannot build a rig capable of satisfying a fidelity and fps requirement for every game - games are software and not all software is created equal. In any case, if you build sensibly, the games you play will run at your desired fps and quality settings. The bottleneck has not gone away. One can turn down settings to the point that no further frame rate improvement can be observed - i.e. frame rate becomes independent of quality settings. Caveat? Depends on monitor. The refresh rate of the monitor is the observed fps limit. For a well designed system, tweaking down settings from your default high to low to bump up the FPS one would be attempting to go beyond what the monitor could display. That a bottleneck can exist is of limited consequence.

I cannot advise further because I do not know what monitor you are using.

Usually if you move up a couple of tiers with the GPU a new monitor is behind the move. While graphics requirements inevitably get more demanding, the bar has not moved up that high since the GTX 1060 was in it's prime.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Should I upgrade my 8600k?"

  • 21 days ago
  • 2 points

I currently have an i5-8600k. I'll put my current build below, but I'm going to be upgrading to a 2070 super or 2080 super. I'm worried that it'll be bottlenecked. I'll be gaming at 1440p 165Hz

The vast majority of games do not scale significantly with cores or hyperthreading and you might find diminishing returns with higher end CPU's for a number of games although examples exist where the difference could be significant even in the sub 165Hz cases. In many instances, the 8600K will keep pace with the likes of 3700X and other AMD/Intel CPU's. You should research benchmarks for titles that you currently play. If the titles you play cannot hit that 165fps with the 8600K then yes plan a build that can achieve your goals. If the 8600K can reach those targets for the titles you do play then if it aint broke....

Irrespective, you cannot plan for every title and some games wont run at the fps you desire no matter what CPU or GPU you throw in there. Hedging bets will cost a lot of money for performance you may not enjoy (i.e. title scales with cores/hyperthreading but you will not buy or play that title).

Many CPU's on the market are overkill for gaming. That people recommend them with impunity either is through ignorance or fashion. You do not have to follow suit. Getting performance from your rig should be based on the refresh rate of your monitor, it's resolution, and whether the games you play and enjoy can reach that potential. If your current set up achieves that, stick. If not, research. Make sure the replacement CPU can also hit the target fps for the games you like otherwise the endeavor will appear fairly fruitless.

Finally, bottlenecking gets thrown around a lot and hyped by many that have little to no understanding of the electronics or software. The reality is bottlenecking is a consequence of physics and every electronic system, be it high end or low end will have that saturation curve. One should not actively look at eliminating bottlenecks which cannot be eliminated under all circumstances, rather look to see if a PC is able to reach it's performance objectives for a particular monitor in question. With the monitor your bottleneck whatever happens electronically in your PC, bottleneck or otherwise, is of limited consequence. At the end of the day, if your CPU is idling while the GPU is rendering the frame (GPU bottleneck) but you are still pushing frames > 165fps or conversely the GPU is idling while the CPU is still running through it's instruction set (CPU bottleneck), if you are pushing frames > 165fps the bottleneck will not affect the fidelity of your application. If one set a target of building a bottleneckless PC there is no such thing. Nonexistent. Even the 64 core Threadripper with RTX Titan in SLI is bottlenecked somewhere.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "intel i7-8700 vs Ryzen 7 3700"

  • 22 days ago
  • 1 point

Better Options? That is subjective. In terms of pure performance then yeah, the 3700X is not as benchmark friendly as Ryzen 9 3950X or Threadripper. You have to have the workloads for these chips to justify performance. Would be like spending $2000 on a fishing pole but you cannot fish. Could do just as well tying a hook to string.

The thing is this:

i7-8700K is a fast CPU. You are not upgrading from a Haswell or Skylake i7. The CPU you have is only two years old and it is still one of the fastest CPU's on the market. The Ryzen 3700X is faster in many applications, save for perhaps gaming and applications that do not heavily multi-thread. You might gain 15-20% in Adobe Premiere for instance but lose 5-10% in another application heads up.

You are not upgrading moving from a i7-8700K to a Ryzen 7 3700X. It is a lateral move with some improvements. A real upgrade would be going from i7-8700K to the Ryzen 9 3950X for instance but in this case, if you did not use the cores or put the chip to proper workloads for it, you gain next to nothing. Intra-generational moves are tricky and mostly I suggest consider the frugality aspect - what you get performance wise over what you have worth the money?. It works well for those that buy cheap in beginning (i.e. an i3-8100 or Ryzen 3) and then bump up later. You already bought the best CPU going in 2018 and even the i9-9900K is not that much better either.

If you want to upgrade for the sake of it, go ahead. No harm. Ryzen 7 3700X is a very good CPU, like the i7-8700K. I understand the AMD itch. The motherboards are nice and the Ryzen chips just feel right in your hands compared to the feeble LGA 1151. Practically though, do not expect a massive uplift in performance from Ryzen. How you want to spend your money it is up to you. If you have your heart set on the Ryzen 7 3700X, it is not my place to tell you what to do with your money. You certainly will not be making a mistake moving to AMD, the issue of frugality and performance differences is the only thing I wish to mention. If you have the money and want to go with the Ryzen 7 3700X, then go ahead and do it. It will be an excellent build no doubt.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "How do you feel about birthdays?"

  • 24 days ago
  • 1 point

With most my family I have a simple arrangement for Birthdays and Christmas. You do not buy me anything and in kind I will buy nothing. Does not apply to children in the family we will throw big celebrations.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Ryzen 9 3950X vs. Ryzen 9 3900X"

  • 24 days ago
  • 2 points

For $300 more dollars what am I gaining with the Ryzen 9 3950X and what am I losing by going with a Ryzen 9 3900X

This is an age old problem, a product line that offers diminishing returns for 99% of people but there are niche corners of workstation usage that can exploit the offerings of the 3950X. When personal income is correlated to Workstation usage (there are plenty of people that are analyst's, graphic designers and so on) they can put the cores to work and thus benefit from the chipset. For the vast majority of people, particularly those that game, the CPU requirements are extremely modest in comparison. A cheap Ryzen 5 1600 or i5-8400 is usually plenty good enough - 6 cores, not very high clock speed, yet you still have a fantastic gaming chip.

if I were to build a PC custom I wouldn’t be rushing to upgrade it for a few years so I’d want overkill stuff

Throwing cores at the problem is not likely going to future proof anything. If you are a gamer or just general user (youtube, web browsing) a 6c/12t or 8c/16t is all you need. Unless AMD/Intel drastically improve IPC, a Ryzen 7 3700X today will be where the venerable i7-2600K is today - still oddly usable despite being 9 years old.

You throw cores at a problem if you have a problem that is resolved with cores. Otherwise you are just throwing money at a useless feature. Would be like hunting rabbits with a 12G slug. Dead rabbit, no meat.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "intel i7-8700 vs Ryzen 7 3700"

  • 25 days ago
  • 1 point

intel i7-8700 vs Ryzen 7 3700

Going from i7-8700K to Ryzen 7 3700X is hardly an upgrade in my opinion, even if you throttle both CPU's to 100%. Yes there are benchmarks that you probably looked at that support the concept that the Ryzen 3700X is nearly twice as fast as the 8700K but benchmarking does not mean that will find that to be the case. I bought an i9-9900K as an upgrade to the i7-8086K and found it was marginally faster at best (and that only for a few usage cases) and ended up selling it for more than I paid (when Intel were having supply demand issues).

If you want a meaningful upgrade move from 6 cores to 12 cores or to 16 cores. Since this is an intra generational move, do not expect a huge uplift. I have no idea if rendering time = money for you, the concept that a minute is worth several hundred's dollars. If not stick with what you have. If yes there are better options worth exploring than the 3700X. It is not uncommon in this game you spend money to make money. If this applies to you, do the smart thing and invest money on a much bigger performance uplift. You get what you pay for.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "ryzen 3000 still worth it or wait for intel 10 gen or maybe new amd?"

  • 28 days ago
  • 1 point

ryzen 3000 still worth it or wait for intel 10 gen or maybe new amd

Of course Ryzen 3000 is worth it. Any of these will be good choices no doubt but it depends what you plan to do with your PC. Pick your poison but do so without getting restless thinking you must upgrade immediately.

Investment in new always needs to be leveraged against the old. What PC you using now? Knowing this will help folks offer constructive advise since maybe you do not need to upgrade for a while. What are you packing?

Comment reply on Forum Topic "ryzen 3000 still worth it or wait for intel 10 gen or maybe new amd?"

  • 28 days ago
  • 1 point

hahaha top comment of the day this site needs more humor.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Here is the final info for the 10th Gen Intels!"

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Another Kaby Lake style launch? A one-off chipset except this one is not even back compatible. Iterative improvement over coffee lake like Kaby was to 1st gen Skylake (perhaps 10c/20t qualifies as more than an iterative improvement over 8c/16t if you have the workloads for all those cores).

I am surprised some are excited about this launch. Might be okay for a first time builder having a choice between Comet Lake and AM4/AM4+. If you already have a Z370/390 build or have invested in AMD's Ryzen, I cannot fashion a reason why Comet Lake would seem like a worthwhile upgrade.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "3600 much of an upgrade from the i5 2500k?"

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

3600 much of an upgrade from the i5 2500k?

General answer - yes, quite a reasonable upgrade. Specific answer - depends. Gaming centric - monitor must be > 60Hz to enjoy results although even if stuck with 60Hz you will see some improvements to stutter if it does occur in gaming currently with your i5-2500X. Non gaming centric, i.e. general usage - a new motherboard with NVMe drive will speed up boot times otherwise difference between CPU's in light tasks will be 30% or so. Not Earth shattering. Workstation loads that scale with cores/threads, difference could be higher than 100% in performance.

I would need to budget for a better CPU as I won't see a huge performance upgrade over the i5 2500k?

Nowadays, unless you are building a rig that has different requirements to a gaming rig, the Ryzen 3600 is somewhat a budget CPU but do not confuse budget with low performance. The difference between the 3600 and a $500 CPU in gaming performance might be a few percent or negligible. Builds for gaming should be dominated around choice monitor and most common monitors used for gaming are not going to be help back potential wise by a contemporary six core CPU like the Ryzen 5 3600 - get a GPU to render the frame rates you want at your chosen resolution. In your case with a 1440p monitor I would err towards something like the RTX 2060S for 60Hz refresh or RTX 2070S for 144Hz. Although RTX 2060S as well for 144Hz, depends how you tweak settings and what games you are running. You should always research benchmarks for the titles you want to play and build a PC that does the honors.

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