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 "Is GPU water cooling noisy?"

  • 1 day ago
  • 1 point

Two options are:

GPU+Waterblock in a custom loop

GPU with Liquid Cooling All in One.

GPU with All in one solution has a pump mounted on the GPU or, rarely, on the Radiator itself.

Custom loop, GPU is just in a waterblock.

The waterblock is not noisy, the pump is. In a custom loop, most D5's or DDC's with PWM are fairly quiet unless you are pushing your system hard.

All in one solutions are variable, some are noisy, some are not. In custom designs, a noisy pump is not the GPU's fault.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Single Threaded Performance"

  • 1 day ago
  • 2 points

Single Core Processor has good Single threaded performance

Something like the Pentium 4 3.8GHz will have comparable single threaded performance with the Dual Core Q6600 which was one of the higher end chips knocking around 2008 or so. Older games designed around the era where single core CPU's and dual core CPU's were common will still run today although you might have to check what Windows Edition you need to install.

I do not recommend Windows 10 or even 7 for that matter with a CPU like that.

Modern games, assuming you work around potential DirectX problems, might be playable but nothing too heavy. You will be limited to older GPU's like the 8800 gt since anything more capable will be bottlenecked by the CPU anyway frame rate wise. No point upping the ante here - if a game looks and runs like s#%% at 720p bumping up to a 1080p capable card is going to achieve nothing other than run prettier graphics at the same lousy frame rate.

If money is stopping you getting something better my advise is this: Get that old Windows 7 era Intel Core i5 machine. Probably will be a locked Sandy Bridge CPU. Not that great but absolutely far far superior to a single core CPU like the Pentium 4. A cheap cheerful refurb, $50 - $80. Add your own GPU - get an older GTX 600 series or 700 series for quite cheap and you have a machine that would be leaps and bounds beyond something like the Pentium 4 with 512MB Ram and a GT 8800. One machine will struggle with any game post 2008, the other machine will handle pretty much every game you throw at with perhaps one or two exceptions. I have seen plenty of Goodwill $20 towers sporting Sandy Bridge i5's. If mobo is goosed replacing is not that expensive given demands for this generation of motherboards is low.

If however you are just curious about Single Core Performance or are building a Vintage PC, then disregard my advise.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Bottleneck AMD Rzyen 9 3950x?"

  • 3 days ago
  • 1 point

Linus is an AMD shill and will say whoever and whatever pays the most. I used to like his channel but it is full of misinformation. The 3950x does perform better than 9900K on workstation tasks, 32 threads vs 16. The nearly 4 year old Threadripper with 16 cores also beats the 9900K on many of these tasks. Linus does not give perspective.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Get this good deal or go Ryzen?"

  • 3 days ago
  • 3 points

Ryzen -> Better bang for buck, similar or better performance compared to Intel at price point. For heavily threaded workloads (not too many of these are likely to be of importance to you), Ryzen might be a better choice with 12 and 16 core mainstream processors.

Intel -> Can usually overclock quite nicely. K-series chips are arguably better for applications like gaming particularly when overclocked. i7-9700K/9900K tend to top gaming performance charts, particularly when blazing at 5GHz plus.

While most people will recommend AMD nowadays my personal opinion is you cannot go wrong with either. I err towards Intel mainly because I enjoy tinkering about.

At end of day though it is up to you to research benchmarks for the software you want to use. Decide what you can live with. The CPU ideally should not be something you will switch out for a number of years. If you are fairly relaxed and are not building a PC for professional workloads, i.e. your tasks are limited to gaming, microsoft office, Youtube, Netflix etc, then consider the Ryzen 5 3600 as a potential alternative to the 9700K. Largely worse performance but $120 cheaper than the i7-9700K and you will never know the difference in most applications. Well worth a consideration.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Bottleneck AMD Rzyen 9 3950x?"

  • 3 days ago
  • 1 point

Every component and every part of a system will offer a bottleneck given nothing scales infinitely. Question is always if the bottleneck will matter.

You should be researching benchmarks for the software that you will use and note how different CPU/RAM/GPU combo's stack up. Get the best you can afford and if there is a bottleneck according to a bottleneck calculator, too bad, you cannot get better than whats available. Even if you decided not to purchase, the next generation of products will have bottlenecks always, this is a guarantee. Dump that bottleneck calculator, it is useless. Go with real world results you can live with and purchase based on that.

If this is a gaming rig the bottleneck will be GPU because the CPU is way overkill for this application. Gaming is not that demanding on a CPU. Even old 4 cores like the 7700K can still handle this application. For gaming the GPU bottleneck is the right kind of bottleneck - means when a better GPU comes along, replace it and you have years of upgradeability.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "3600x or 2700x for longevity"

  • 7 days ago
  • 1 point

If choice must dictate, get the console to game on and use a functional desktop for everything else.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "3600x or 2700x for longevity"

  • 7 days ago
  • 1 point

I am sure the developers will be using as much resources as they can get away with. While there is nothing preventing them from adding in assembly subroutines, write directly to silicon, I doubt the time will be spent on that level of optimization given the demands from higher ups who are paying the developers hefty salaries to work on these games. It is probably unlikely we will see the best of the consoles, iterative improvements over time more likely, like this gen pretty much.

Sure a game engine could use all 16 threads of the CPU. Conventional wisdom says a good gaming CPU today should be six or eight core. If you are an AMD user then a 12 core like the 3900x gives you better eight core performance anyway and it could be seen as a worthwhile investment. This is just conventional wisdom. My wife runs a 4 core i7-7700K and I have yet to see 100percented on all threads. Less means less performance but not no performance. Artitecturally the PC and Console are not the same, a PC will not have access to blazing fast GDDR6 on it's main bus for instance. Even if we assume that developers take to 8core/16thread norms, a 4core/8thread can still run. CPU's are not like weightlifters, go a few LB's over max and no go.

Edit:-> Anyway Gilroar pretty much got it spot on with the clock speeds. We will not be seeing Zen2 8c/16t CPU's operating at a nice near 4GHz clock all cores. Given the miniscule size of consoles and low profile cooling (no liquid cooling loops here or even air coolers that deviate from very low profile) I am thinking to keep everything nicely performing without dangerously high thermals, AMD are probably going to work around 2.5-2.8GHz. That would be my guess. An 8 core/16thread CPU with 2.5GHz all cores might match up with an i7-7700K like wife's OD'd to 5.2GHz. As long as the application does not excessively use hypethreading the old Kaby Lake i7 will hang ten. This in a PC application, of course, Console vs PC should never be compared on a hardware level because they are not the same. Would be like comparing a Gorilla to a Dog and wondering which would be a better pet.

Console vs PC crowd is worse then ever

Thats a shame I will be sure to steer well clear of those forums.

Must fix that PS4 and FAST

PS5 will be back compatable with PS4. Yes HZD and it's DLC is phenomenal. That's a hard one to come down off. Witcher 3 is awesome as well.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "3600x or 2700x for longevity"

  • 8 days ago
  • 1 point

Is Console vs PC still a thing? I remember this topic raging for years during the PS3/Xbox360 era, I would have thought it have died down by now. Most PC gamers, at least those that really love their games, would invest in a console or two anyway. After all, if you did not own a PS4 you would have missed epic titles like God of War, Bloodbourne, Horizon Zero Dawn, Persona V just to name a few. Even the Switch looks like a must have console to own - Zelda Breath of Wild, Mario Odyssey, Fire Emblem etc. Xbox harder to defend since Microsoft have lost their minds and are releasing IP's on both Switch and PC, although Xbox One X does run Red Dead Redemption 2 very nicely while my 2080TI equipped PC does not for some reason or other. I wont find out either, I got a refund on the game it ran so poorly.

I predict this generation will be similar to the second to last generation. When the PS3 grounded there was nothing in the PC market that could compete beyond some SLI rigs. Sure most ports were playable but it was not always pretty or satisfying. Not until GT9800 showed up anyway and that was roughly halfway through the PS3 life cycle. In terms of Rasterization I have no doubt todays GTX 2080 equipped PC will put a hurting on the PS5/new Xbox. But Ray tracing is new tech, we have no idea how advanced AMD are with this aspect in their R&D. Could very well be the PS5 launches with 10 times the Ray Tracing power of a 2080TI, or AMD keep to form with their GPU business very underwhelming and the PS5 ending up being a glorified PS4 PRo - true 4K machine. The truth will be somewhere in the middle, probably. Either way I am buying the PS5, whether the hardware racks up or not I do not care. Bloodbourne 2, a new Horizon Zero Dawn, I am sold already.

The PC Vs Console crowd, if the same today as way back when, I keep out. It is just a hobby, stuff.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "3600x or 2700x for longevity"

  • 8 days ago
  • 1 point

I believe the PS5 and new Xbox will be 12Tflops of goodness. They will be powerful machines for sure. Just like every Gen though, there will be games devs will settle for 4K 60fps. To be honest 4K 60fps is really impressive on it's own.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "3600x or 2700x for longevity"

  • 8 days ago
  • 1 point

I edited my comment. I jumped the gun. I read some of your older comments, you are a nice fellow. I apologize.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "3600x or 2700x for longevity"

  • 8 days ago
  • 3 points

For most this gen, a dual core cpu has been enough for many of the console ports, a four core certainly enough. Last gen, single core cpu's were been enough. PC titles are ports of consoles. They are essentially redeveloped for PC, not cut and paste of assets with some minor tweaks here and there. I have no idea why people compare PC's to Consoles. They are not even remotely the same thing at all.

4K 120Hz is CONFIRMED by both companies Both said MULTIPLE times 8K@60,however anyone with sanity assumes that 8K is just for the movies or something since even Dual RTX Titans combined with the still MIGHTY Core i9 9900K tend to struggle @8K.

The new Hellblade that is coming out on next gen Xbox, a guy made a vid and frame counted 30fps. Maybe that is the fps of the video rather than the game. Maybe they will quadrauple the frame rate come to launch. 4K 120fps does not mean all games either. The specs tend to be glass half full rather than empty - talk about max output achievable for some titles. Reality is that devs are going to face a heck of challenge getting some titles running at 60fps at 4K. 8K? Depends on game. Always depends on game. Next gen no different to this gen. Always the same. There will always be the title where 4K 60fps on console will have to be dialed back to meet spec. Same always for every generation.

//////////////////////////////////////////// Editited out a snippity comment///////

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Cpu upgrade."

  • 10 days ago
  • 1 point

Gaming and Steaming I would say the Ryzen 7 2700X here. It will probably hang 10 with a 3700X once you start pushing all the cores and hyperthreading. Advantage of the 2700X is much lower price, disadvantage is it is an older CPU on older chipset.

Suggestions for Ryzen 9 3900X also bring in the i9-9900KS at around the same budget. I recently bought and sold the Ryzen 9 3900X I was very interested to find that my lowly i7-8086K and it's overclock comfortably ran games at several fps to 10's of fps higher than the 3900X. This without streaming though.

Given how well the 8086K performs in gaming the i9-9900KS might be worth a look here. It's reputation as best performing CPU for gaming might not be purely speculative/fanboyism given what I experienced with an 8086K.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Cpu upgrade."

  • 10 days ago
  • 1 point

it's a i7 6700k oced to 4.5ghz but it's just not cutting it in newer AAA games

My wife has a PC with i7-7700K and it is yet to hit the wall in a game and she plays all the newest stuff like Outer Worlds, Red Dead Redemption 2 and so on. The 7700K and 6700K are nearly equal so it is a surprise your system is not performing. Make sure there is no problem because when you upgrade you will want to sell this PC (or at least the motherboard+CPU+Ram). The last thing you want is someone to file a SNAD via Paypal once they assemble and struggle to run modern games.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "i7 9700K, i9 9900K, or Ryzen 9 3900X"

  • 12 days ago
  • 1 point

The i9-9900K or Ryzen 9 3900X is a nice step up. While the Ryzen has more cores and benches higher, in many practical applications it will be hard to tell the difference. Overclocking is a nice feature you have with the 9900K while AMD have all but made Overclocking redundant on their platforms. Either way though you cannot go wrong they are both great chips.

My last build was 2011 with the i7 2600K

If you had told me in 2011 that this CPU would still be up to most challenges today in 2020 I would have thought you were nuts.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Reasonable Upgrade From I5 6600k?"

  • 12 days ago
  • 2 points

what benefit does Intel bring to the table right now when compaired to Ryzen?

None, you are just paying more for roughly the same performance with Intel. Intel is more fun if you are into overclocking though.

i5 6600k, 16gb ram and a Gigabyte GTX 1060 6gb

Not many upgrade paths here CPU wise regarding WOW factor. Diminishing returns unless you count fps by the 100's and have a monitor that can support it. Upgrading GPU will be more meaningful but the GTX 1060 6GB is still a pretty good GPU for a 1080p display and probably most your titles are not going to need RTX 2080 levels to run smooth at 1080p.

Stick with what you have unless you decide to upgrade your monitor.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "i7-4770K should I upgrade?"

  • 12 days ago
  • 1 point

While the i7-4770K is old there are many folks still happy with their i7-4790K's and i7-7700K's. The 4770K will handle most workloads of today, including gaming, without breaking sweat. While no longer the top CPU of the day not being the best at something does not equate to bad.

If this is a gaming rig I would upgrade the GPU before the CPU. I imagine a 2013 GPU, even good ones at the time like the GTX 680 or GTX690 (or 780/780TI if you built late 2013) would find some modern titles a hard rendering job at 1080p let alone higher resolution.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "3700X or RTX 2070 Super"

  • 12 days ago
  • 1 point

If you are gaming I would suggest a CPU/GPU combo with better GPU is a smarter purchase. In the CPU world, once you hit a decent 6core/12thread CPU there are diminishing returns going higher. If you have a 60Hz - 165Hz monitor you gain very little moving up from a Ryzen 5 3600 but might gain significantly jumping from the 2060 to 2070 super. This even at 1080p given the demands of current titles.

In the GPU world going up a tier or two makes a bigger impact overall to your gaming unless.... you have a 240/300Hz refresh monitor and are willing to dump a ton of cash into playing eSports titles like CSGO or Fortnite at 300fps plus. If you fall in this category I would suggest an i9-9900K or i7-8086K.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Will Desktop Ice Lake CPU's fit in Coffee Lake CPU sockets?"

  • 13 days ago
  • 2 points

I would not hold your breath for Ice Lake. From what I have read the lower tier Intel models i3/i5 get a nice bump while i7/i9 we talking 5-7% at most. In context if you have the latest i7 or i9 Ice Lake is looking like a very good chipset to sit it out. Nothing is stopping you using the same case and gear and switching out for an AMD chipset. It is going to take Intel a couple of years to get up to speed, R&D takes time. In any case I see no reason why a modern i7 or i9 will not cope with the demands of tomorrow. The only thing that will happen is they will lose their status to AMD as "top dogs for gaming" if they have not lost already. Being in second or third place does not equate to bad, this is not a 100m sprint.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Will a 2700 Bottleneck a 2060 Super?"

  • 14 days ago
  • 2 points

I want to get the 2700 and the 2060 Super, I was wondering if the Cpu will bottleneck the GPU.

Yes certainly the 2700 could bottleneck the 2060 Super. Whether it matters or not depends on the game, your in game settings, resolution of monitor and it's refresh rate.

I personally would not worry about it, research the frame rates you want for the games you want to play. If the CPU and GPU tick the boxes go for it. For most modern games I would figure that the GPU will bottleneck framerates but if you like to play older titles as well and have a super high refresh rate monitor that could easily affect CPU choice.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Plan to upgrade GPU, should I upgrade CPU as well?"

  • 15 days ago
  • 2 points

If you keep your current 60Hz monitor I would have thought that would ultimately be your frame limit right there.

Hard to say how Cyberpunk would push the CPU, I would guess it should run fine on your 6600 CPU. On the other hand, if it is anything like Red Dead Redemption 2, many of us will purchase the game on console instead due to bad porting.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Frame rate drops in games since i got a new CPU"

  • 19 days ago
  • 1 point

Monitor the CPU temps and clock speed using software. If it gets too hot you problem might be the CPU cooler / thermal paste / intake and exhausting of air out of case. Worth monitoring the GPU as well since either component will cause frame drops.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "8 cores new 6 core"

  • 19 days ago
  • 1 point

Apples to oranges comparing consoles to pc's. Consoles have been multicore for over a decade and that never stopped a dual core CPU running most games fine. It is also incorrect to think that a game designed to gobble up 8 threads will tank on a 6 thread CPU. Right now I have yet to find a game that does not run smoothly on an i7-7700K and many people have been writing the obituary for this CPU. In my experience, runs em just fine, probably will continue to do so for years. Not the best CPU by a long shot but not having the best does not mean a bad experience. I do not see Civic drivers complaining that they are not driving Lexus.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "is 9100f good with rx 580 or do i need a better CPU"

  • 21 days ago
  • 1 point

is 9100f good with rx 580 or do i need a better CPU

If you are worried about bottlenecking I do not see the 9100f being an issue. While the gaming industry will inevitably move towards 6 or more cores and multi/hyper threading people seem to believe if an application performs well with 8 threads that it will not run or will tank on a CPU that only has 4 cores / 4 threads. This is not really true. As long as your gaming goal is not 144Hz plus gaming a 4 core CPU like the 9100f will largely be up to the task for all but poorly optimized games that run slowly even with 16 core CPUs.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "AMD vs Intel"

  • 26 days ago
  • 2 points

AMD and Intel have historically traded blows. Some generation/product cycles AMD has had the better product, othertimes it is Intel. Throughout most of the 2010's, Intel had the better CPU's. This dominance started fading in 2017 and in 2019, as things stand, AMD are quite significantly ahead of Intel, so far ahead that AMD probably have two or three product lineups that are going to put tremendous distance between itself and Intel, bigger than any gap between Intel and AMD that existed in the middle of this decade. Intel's response has been to ditch about half a decade of R & D and making new hires to foster a new direction. Intel will take about 3-5 years to respond with CPU lineups that will finally relegate the disaster that is Coffee Lake into the bin of history. For now and the forseeable future, AMD should be the ONLY consideration when buying a CPU.

why do people prefer Intel over AMD?

Intel have spend most of the decade with a superior chipset and lineup. Intel rightly were the preferred CPU - consumers should wish to buy a better product, at least in theory. I suspect that many "Intel Best" folks today do not keep up to date (i.e. they do not know AMD have moved past Intel).

Fans support their favourite and I couldn’t find a good source to tell me which one is better.

The CPU war is not as tribalistic as the console war. You might be hanging around the wrong forums. While this aspect exists in the PC hobby space, most prioritize between best bang for buck or best perfoming for applications at hand. Be it Intel or AMD, I doubt most people do not care.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Ultra Small Transistors"

  • 26 days ago
  • 1 point

Once you shrink the Transistor too much Quantum Tunneling will become a problem. You cannot beat the rules of Physics. Chip designers will either have to find a new material and a new way of making a transistor or go for Quantum Computing.

Comment reply on SirWalkMan's Completed Build: The "Big Easy"

  • 28 days ago
  • 1 point

I would like to see this build featured. Very nicely done. 1%'er specs, beast for gaming and other tasks, and solid choice of components. I am not a fan of the Kingpin Price but they have always been this way since the 700 series. Overall hope to see this featured this is definitely one of the better builds I have seen in 2019.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "To build or not to build?/?/? That is the question."

  • 29 days ago
  • 1 point

if I should bother to upgrade this old HP envy i7 3820 or not

If this is just a second computer, keep it as is, house in a new case if you want. Save your money and upgrade your graphics card instead for your primary machine.

Do not think the i7 3820 must necessarily perform bad. It will show it's limitations in high refresh rate gaming but if you are just going to browse the web, stream video, or do things like Word/Excel and so on you will be absolutely fine as is. Heck if you just want a second gaming rig 1080p/60Hz it will be fine for that as well as long as you stick a GPU in there.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Upgrade from i5 4690k"

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

You are going to be getting Ryzen suggestions from the vast majority of this forum. Intel's star has dimmed considerably since you built your PC, Ryzen has been a better buy for over three years and, with the Ryzen 3000 series, you have CPU's that actually beat Intel clock for clock across the board every benchmark including gaming. Overclocking is the only thing keeping the i7/i9 competitive.
Even though you asked specifically for an i7, since you have to update your system entirely, it is hard to recommend an i7. Think of it like this: An i7-8700K or 9700K will cost well over $300 even used. The humble Ryzen 5 3600 costs under $200 and it's 6 cores/12 threads consistently beat the i7 (both 6 and 8 core) in most benchmarking. Only reason why Ryzen 5 3600 sits slightly under Intel i7 in the pecking order is because of overclocking. Things change massively in favor of Ryzen when looking at the 3700X/3900X. I highly recommend considering AMD for your next build. It will be 5 - 10 years before Intel catch up given their next chipset is looking... very underwhelming...

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Best GPU for 1080p, 144hz Gaming"

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

I'll be gaming at 1080p, 144hz. I'd like to get at least 144 stable FPS.

That depends on which games. Some games do not like to run at 144fps no matter what GPU or CPU you throw in there. Some games of course can run well above 144fps with 2013 tech. So it is always a question of titles rather than GPU. In general most games, perhaps 99% of the entire Steam Library will run well over 144fps (unless frame locked to 60) with a GPU like the GTX 1060 or 1660. If you want to run some contemporary AAA titles at 144fps or more at 1080p, that could be quite difficult even with a 2080TI. It is all about the particular games you want to play and balancing out a GPU in that regard.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Does the 1660 need more than 500 W PSU"

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

500W PSU is plenty for the rig. PSU's only provide the amount of power that the components draw. No rules of Physics are broken so do not worry about the concept that a 500W PSU could conceivably go above that.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Is AMD the way or not? 3600x or i7 9700k"

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

For 1440p gaming

3700X vs 9700K almost does not matter since most monitors of this resolution are 60-144Hz. If a title cannot run at these low refresh rates with the 3700X it will not on the 9700K either. That the 9700K may cough up a couple of percent over the 3700X should not factor in your choice.

I'll be using Photoshop with possibly Zbrush or blender

3700X will be faster in bench tests, real life application, it depends on the scale of your operation - i.e. professional rendering (in which case you would be asking about Threadripper Vs W3175 etc type CPU's). Smaller scale loads, 3700X Vs 9700K is similar to the gaming discussion, a few percent in favor one over the other.

Choice path => Ryzen is a newer more refined chipset than the Intel Z390 - which is ostensibly dead or in it's death throes. Motherboards are way overpriced with poor availability. Ryzen is a no brainer choice here in my opinion. I would not even consider Intel a viable option until they ditch Lake.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "What GPU would you pair, with this build?"

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

I would say 2070Super and a decent 1440p/144Hz Monitor would be the best match up going today. Monitor styling more subjective since some folks like 27", some like 31", others like ultra widescreen.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "What GPU would you pair, with this build?"

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Monitor - refresh and resolution. Without this your GPU selection includes the GT 1030 and the Quadro RTX 6000.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "AMD or Intel for Second PC Build"

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Get whatever is cheapest they will all work well for gaming. Factor in net cost - Mobo Ram CPU. Saving more here equals more for a GPU.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Will the RTX 2060 SUPER Be Compatible with My PC?"

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Or use the money to buy a much better card and purchase your cousin a normal gift, like a giftcard for Amazon Prime etc.

Alternative solution - give your cousin your old PC, you keep the new one....

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Does speed matters?"

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Yes RAM speed does matter. Clock speed is only one aspect of it and not all RAM sticks are equal.

Quite honestly it would have to be one heck of a deal for me to choose 2666 over 3000 for Ryzen. 3000MHz and 3200MHz sticks are cheap today. I scored a couple of 32GB CL 16 sticks for the measly cost of $90 and the 2 x 8GB model was $70. Unless your friend is giving away that 2666 for free or for the price of postage I would say thanks but no thanks.

Newegg have some fantastic deals for CL16 3200MHz Ram and Ryzen likes this RAM as well.

If it was an Intel Chipset and I had a H or B series motherboard I would have a radically different opinion.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "What Ryzen"

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

If you are not worried about maximizing the throughput of a 165Hz/240Hz monitor and are happy to game 60fps - 144fps (and of course higher depending on title) then the Ryzen 7 2700 would be a solid choice and frees up more funds for a better GPU or better monitor.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "** What CPU for has the best value - performance - future proof ? **"

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

If you avoid typical "Workstation" loads many would argue you do not need more than 6 - 8 cores. Many Workstation tasks, rendering, modelling etc scale with cores. I work in R&D and simulation models I have even a 28 core overclocked W3175X is too slow and I highly doubt new Threadripper will help improve things much either. If you do not work in these areas a processor with more than 8 cores right now is overkill. But... things change and evolve. Software and game development teams, once the median is 6-8 core hyperthreaded processors, will likely scale their applications.

The CPU for the Playstation 5 will be slow compared to high end desktop models. If we assume 35W TDP max, it will be a down clocked 2700X or 3700X. The coding models/function calls will not be the same for Windows. Consoles have been 8 core CPU's for years (well two blocks of four, weird architecture) and most gaming ports use 2-4 cores. That said we should anticipate that 6-8 thread/core usage will be common in future as ownership of such chips becomes common. It makes it easier for teams responsible for porting - less code to tweak.

Matching core counts to tasks in a one to one manner is not optimal since our PC's are always running dozens of background tasks. If you choose a 12 core Ryzen 9 3900X it is not a terrible idea even though many would consider it overkill.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "** What CPU for has the best value - performance - future proof ? **"

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

If gaming is going to be the main feature and you are not investing in 240Hz or 300Hz panels (i.e. you can live with frame rates between 60 and 165fps) your main up-gradable for the foreseeable future will be the GPU. While faster and better CPU's, particularly with DDR5 Ram, are inbound, if you are gaming, an i9-9900K or Ryzen 9 3900X will date slower than the rendering power required by the GPU. If you have a moderately powerful rig right now, stick until next gen AMD/Intel launch. If you do not have a high performing PC there is no sense in waiting. Buy and build now and keep an eye on benchmarks in future titles for upgrading your GPU. Moore's law is pretty much dead, shrinking transistors is hitting quantum tunnelling effects, the CPU advancements as we know it will be settle to steady state in next 3 or 4 years.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Is GTX 970 getting older?"

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

There is an old maxim - if it aint broke dont fix it.

GPU's live in terms of dog years. There will be a time you will have to put it down. Unlike a dog, no need to dig a hole in the ground when it croaks.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "** What CPU for has the best value - performance - future proof ? **"

  • 1 month ago
  • 5 points

High end today is mid-end tommorrow which is low-end the next day. Future proofing might have been something in the Sandy - Bridge to Kaby Lake era where improvements were somewhat iterative/diminishing. With Intel and AMD now playing tit for tat we are going to be treated to multicore multithread behemoths. Who knows where it will settle down? 128 cores? Build a computer today, best you can afford, use it and enjoy it. Replace old chipset with new when and if circumstances require it. You might get 1 year use out of it before changing, you might get 10 years. This is up to you.

I would go for the Ryzen 9 3900X build myself. If you have the dough, splash it on the best you can afford. Gaming is one application, particularly if streaming, where you will be glad you chose the 3900X. If not streaming, Gaming performance levels out somewhat with the 3700X. The 2700X is a bit behind but not at all shabby.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Cpu Decision"

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

This is true, but dropping a 5700 XT or 2070 Super in there would make it decent and with the resale value at a conservative $150, the marginal cost is only around $250.

That is correct. I slightly overlooked the performance of the 6700K. The i7-6700K is actually still reasonable today if you game without streaming. If all you did was switch out GPU's you have a rig that can game pretty much most stuff at whatever settings/resolutions you choose, i.e. you could get 4 years of pretty much top level gaming out of it.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Cpu Decision"

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

You raise some very nice points. Nice to meet a fellow who has been in the hobby for 20years plus. I built my first in 1998, 3DFX Voodoo 2 and Pentium 2. I wish I still had it as a keepsake, a relic from yesteryear. Starcraft and my dial up modem was my high school hobby.

In 2016, you got a 6700k and a 980 ti. While a 980 ti is showing its age now, it still goes for about $150-200 on eBay and is an ok performer at that range. The 6700k is perfectly acceptable as well.

At 1080p today this top rig three years ago is a middling performer - a PC today with similar specs is a Ryzen 5 2400G and a GTX 1660 Super. While certainly a very reasonable 1080p build considering the 10's of thousands of games on GOG/Steam, there are newer AAA titles where 60fps at 1080p is a challenge at high settings. Add in 1% lows and it is suddenly looking limited. Not the rig's fault of course, in 2016/17 games that used more than 4 threads or gave a 980TI 1% lows below 60fps at 1080p were rare/nonexistent. Yet here in 2019 we find a handful of titles where an i9-9900K/2080TI build is looking limited for 1080p. It is all relative though. Some folks see 60fps as a magic marker, others like myself consider 60fps a poor outcome when factored against cost - i.e. you have spent four or five times the cost of a console to achieve what it could at 1080p.

It's unlikely DDR5 will come to mainstream desktop until 2021 and the performance difference won't be seriously noticeable until a couple years after that. AMD may choose to throw it on to X670 if possible

I read a couple of articles about 3 weeks back that suggested 2020 being a likely launch. They did not indicate when we will see actual Ram sticks for a desktop, I just assumed we would see the next gen Intel / AMD launch with DDR5 compatibility. You are probably right, I remember DDR2-3 and DDR3-4 transitions being anything but instant, at least for those that followed it.

he only shorter cadences I've heard of are super serious professional video renderers and the like and they're buying stuff better than the 3950X

Gaming is capriciously malevolent with CPU's. I remember the FX 8350, a glorious 8 core CPU, being outperformed in gaming by a Dual Core i3 or even Pentium (that one Skylake chip that could be overclocked). Unbelievable it could be the case. The 3950X while undoubtedly completely overkill for gaming, 3 or 4 years from now you never know. I doubt it given the consoles will be getting what is a lower TDP version of the Ryzen 2700X. But still, console vs PC is apples to oranges, hard to say how the industry will move.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Cpu Decision"

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

"future proofing" build

Build the best PC you can afford today and upgrade it as and when necessary. The PC hobby is lossy, your hardware depreciates rapidly and gets quickly outdated. The best PC built 3 years ago is struggling with games today.

There are a few changes happening and we are right at the end of a generation. AMD and Intel will be moving on next year. DDR5 Ram will be coming shortly. Next gen VGA's will be much more geared for Ray Tracing. Gaming developers will have much more powerful Console hardware to develop their games (which get ported to PC). We have no idea how and what will be utilized. Now is the worst possible time to attempt "future proofing". You can sink $750 on the 3950X and three years from now it could be barely adequate. You cannot plan for these things. Assemble a budget, get good components, enjoy your PC, upgrade when you need to upgrade. Components like your fans, cooling blocks, Power Supplies, and to a degree, your SSD/HDD and so on can last a long time. You will go through 2 or 3 motherboards/CPU's/GPU's before replacing these.

Another example of why future proofing being redundant is the GPU. According to an article I read, rasterization will be consigned to the history bin - all that lovely silicon optimized for Matrix level math/Transformations will be redundant. Your 2080TI will be utterly incapable of coping with the demands of tomorrow which is using different methods for generating graphics. In this respect the 2080TI will be blown away by a budget $100 GPU in the next 2/3 years.

Your PC, if you build now, is always halfway future proofed. Your motherboard/Ram/CPU/GPU are not and you should expect to replace them in the next couple of years due to aforementioned changes in the industry.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Intel Core i7-9700K vs Intel Core i7-8700K"

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Is there a significant difference between these two processors?

Nope, only a small difference. The vast majority of tasks we put our PC's through everyday do not come anywhere near pushing these chips to maximum. This includes gaming. I suspect the 9700K will outbench the 8700K pretty much across the board but they will level out with hyperthreaded tasks. When I say outbench do not assign a large number to it.

If you are interested in gaming, quite honestly, the 8700K with a bit of silicon lottery is the best gaming chip out there. My own i7-8086K (basically the same as 8700K) beats my i9-9900K hands down on gaming. I am an enthusiast overclocker and the i9-9900K running 5.2GHz all cores is no match for the i7-8086K Oc'd to 5.6GHz.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "New cpu questions."

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

I just want to make sure it will be enough for him to start streaming his games on twitch etc?

Yes should be good to go. With the way the Ryzen chips schedule and allocate tasks there may be a few issues with gaming titles that use more than 4 cores. Worst case your son can turn down settings and use the GPU to encode. For most games I do not see a problem. Overall the Ryzen 7 3700X is a good chip for the task.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Intel i7 9700k vs Intel i9 9900k"

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

As an Addendum to this post, if one plans to build a fancy cooling loop, you can seriously overclock these Intel chips. All it takes is a good case with airflow and a custom loop venting through a 360mm heavy duty radiator. I can drive my i9-9900K past 5.5GHz but a $800 liquid cooling solution is not going to be for everyone. This applies to several Intel chips. I tried an i3-8350K and got a stable 5.4GHz clock, an i5-9600K with such an overclock is not to be sniffed at. Will bench perhaps a couple of fps shy of the i9-9900K. No overclocking, then at this time of writing, Intel offers nothing that Ryzen does not outside of paying Intel Tax, as if Intel were a luxury brand like Hermes or Louis Vuitton....

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Looking for CPU/platform recommendations"

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

Within the next 12 months we will see new DDR5 RAM mainstream and new Intel and AMD chipsets. I imagine you would have quite a choice particularly if Intel up their game.

If this PC is really proving to be a bugbear and you can hardly take it anymore then perhaps X570 motherboard and Ryzen 9 3950X or 3900X would be a fairly logical move. I would avoid the 9900K, a good purchase a year ago, not so much today.

If possible see if you can hold tight. We are at the crossroad where a new generation is moving in to replace the old. While I generally recommend build today worry about tomorrow the problem here is we are not mid-generation but at the end of one.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "GPU Suggestions"

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

I feel the 5700 is overkill for a moderate build with Ryzen 5 2600x.

For most titles, particularly older ones, I would agree. For newer AAA titles, not so much. 1080p is getting pushed hard, even the RTX 2080 TI is struggling to keep 1% lows above 60fps and is nowhere near averaging 144fps. I would say right now the 5700 is a good fit for your build.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Upgrading my existing CPU that will last me ~5 years"

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

One of the main things I want to consider is that I want my CPU to perform well for at least 5 years.

There is no question the CPU will perform in 5 years as it largely would today. The issue of "performing well" is hard to answer given in five years the average/middling CPU could be a 32core 64 thread monster with 5GHz all cores and single threaded scores double or triple what AMD currently have. In 5 years the 3700X could be where the i3-4130 is today - i.e. washed-up, good only for browsing/light tasks. Alternatively the 3700X could be where the i7-4790K is today, i.e. 5 years from the now the 3700X is mostly relevant and up to handling the workloads of tomorrow outside of niche applications (which it is not suited to in any case). Right now, hard to say. Just build a computer for today and worry about tomorrow when and if it comes.

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