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 "I need help with my phanteks evolv shift!!!"

  • 3 days 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"

  • 3 days ago
  • 2 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?"

  • 3 days 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?"

  • 3 days 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"

  • 4 days 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”!"

  • 5 days 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.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Core i9 9900k or 9900kf"

  • 5 days ago
  • 1 point

You are protected anyway. There is no guarantee with electronics you receive a product that works. In theory you should be A-OK.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Old GPU"

  • 5 days ago
  • 2 points

Pair with an old CPU and you have a back up rig or a media center PC for the lounge.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "2080 ti worth it"

  • 5 days ago
  • 1 point

Pretty much confirmed that Nvidia will be releasing Fall 2020. AMD will be dropping their RTX 2080 TI killer as they call it in March this year.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "HEDT gaming thoughts, I would like more input with my idea."

  • 5 days ago
  • 1 point

If you want a rig for bragging rights and to appear on benchmarking charts, buy a batch of Threadrippers and play the silicon lottery. Do not bother with gaming benchmarks. HEDT will lose to an overclocked i9-9900K everytime in a 1080p 300Hz test. Pick the best chip, then go for broke. Sell the chips that do not make the grade. I have a friend that does this. Go for it, this is the core of the enthusiast scene. My prior comment thought you were a gamer. I will delete that comment.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Theorys"

  • 6 days ago
  • 3 points

I was wondering, if a single-core or dual core CPU had excellent single-thread performance, would it be good for gaming?

Single core? Hyppthetically if it was a single core of a 9900K with a clock speed of 20GHz, it would probably trade blows with a modern quad core CPU. Give it a clock speed of 40GHz and we are drifting to i7-9700K territory. Problem though - unfeasible design. Realistically if one limited a modern CPU to a single core, yeah it would run games just do not expect to see silky smooth frame rates and tolerable 1% lows. I am sure a lot of games would be playable though. The trouble is the last single core CPU was a decade ago, a different time, different chipset. Getting Windows 10 up and running would be your first hurdle to jump.

Dual core, depends. 2c/2t there are plenty of videos online. Several modern titles run surprisingly well, some modern titles run with major issues. The Celeron N4900 is probably the best CPU in this class but I would never recommend it for gaming, even on the most budget conscious rig. I had a dual core i3-7350K for a while. I OC'd that to 5.2GHz and it was a surprisingly capable 2c/4t chip. I would argue a tremendous number of titles are playable with this CPU, I certainly tried it out on a number of titles and they ran well. In saying that, still does not get my recommendation.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "1950x / 2950x or 9900k or... SLI 1080 ti"

  • 6 days ago
  • 1 point

It pays to be patient. You can dump a lot of funds now on an ad hoc solution only to inevitably upgrade 12 months from now or you can wait. A new generation is coming - everything, CPU's GPU's DDR5 Ram you name it. A few things to be aware of in the rapidly changing world of PC technology:

SLI is dead, not dying, not keeping itself alive on a slow drip, actually fully and completely dead. With three companies (including Square Enix / Bethesda) that currently support SLI saying they no longer plan to include this feature in games the one or two companies left might well follow suit - particularly with AMD not offering crossfire with any of their products. Nvidia have already suggested they may remove SLI on future products. No two ways about it. Do not waste a fortune SLI'ing two 2080 TI's. The 3080 TI is due for release by Fall this year - is a single GPU option that will offer a 50-100% bump in performance according to some tech sources. Forget SLI, it is only mildly interesting for games that already support it and, ironically, those games already do not require much GPU power to run. You do not need two 2080 TI SLI to get Fallout 4 to max out a 165Hz monitor - it will be a CPU limitation.

As for CPU platforms, wait for AMD and Intel to actually release new products and not rehashes of their now ancient architectures. Lake has been around for 6 years and Ryzen been around 3 years. Both are outdated and irrelevant if you have futureproofing in mind.

Just wait it out.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "CPU Advice Needed."

  • 7 days ago
  • 1 point

What I mainly do is high fps gaming at 1080p.

High is subjective. To some 144Hz gaming is high fps, to others, pushing 240Hz or 300Hz panels is where it is at. Check the benchmarks of titles you want to play and then look at the monitor you have. If your CPU pushes fps above the refresh of the monitor you have (or within 10fps or so) I would not bother upgrading since the returns visually are going to be diminishing or non existent. You must also take the time to see if your GPU plays nicely with the fps you desire. There are plenty of games that require more GPU grunt than you think at 1080p.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Is GPU water cooling noisy?"

  • 9 days 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"

  • 9 days 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?"

  • 11 days ago
  • 0 points

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?"

  • 11 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?"

  • 11 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"

  • 15 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"

  • 16 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"

  • 16 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"

  • 16 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"

  • 16 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"

  • 16 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."

  • 19 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."

  • 19 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"

  • 20 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?"

  • 20 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?"

  • 20 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"

  • 20 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?"

  • 21 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?"

  • 22 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?"

  • 23 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"

  • 27 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"

  • 27 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"

  • 1 month 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"

  • 1 month 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"

  • 1 month 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"

  • 1 month 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."

  • 1 month 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.

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