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 "2 way sli or one high end gpu?"

  • 2 months ago
  • 2 points

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

Comment reply on Forum Topic "1440 at 144hz"

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • i7 - 9700K

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 2 months ago
  • 2 points

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

Comment reply on dalieu's Completed Build: Jay 1000

  • 2 months ago
  • 2 points

An oldie but a goodie.

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

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

  • 2 months ago
  • 2 points

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

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

  • 2 months ago
  • 2 points

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

Comment reply on Forum Topic "CPU fan"

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

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

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

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

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

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

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

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

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

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

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

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

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

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

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

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

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

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

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

Short answer = yes it will bottleneck.

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

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

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

  • 2 months ago
  • 5 points

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

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

  • 2 months ago
  • 2 points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 2 months ago
  • 2 points

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

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

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

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

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

good nuf for 2560x1440 60fps?

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

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

Comment reply on LmNoPg007's Completed Build: Cyberpunk 2019

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

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

Comment reply on sonaljit's Completed Build: Bunker

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

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

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

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

or will this hardware be outdated soon?

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

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

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

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

Comment reply on Forum Topic "CPU upgrade?"

  • 2 months ago
  • 2 points

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

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

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

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

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

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

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

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

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

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

Nicely built as well BTW.

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

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Intel stock cooler question"

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

How good is it in terms of cooling performance

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

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

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

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

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

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

  • 2 months ago
  • 2 points

Looks nice to me, +1

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

  • 2 months ago
  • 4 points

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 2 months ago
  • 2 points

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

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

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

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

  • 2 months ago
  • 2 points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 2 months ago
  • 2 points

TBH I think the GPU is going to be the most important choice here. If scrimping a little on the CPU means a letter grade upgrade on the GPU I would go for this. I have not heard or seen anything out there to suggest the 2700X is not at least capable of 144fps for the vast majority of titles. I think your monitor or gpu will hold back that CPU. Thus in all honesty, unless you have other goals/software uses, I would say the 2700X will hold you over. I really hate to say this but.... the 3700X is slightly redundant at it's price with the 2700X half that and still freely available. Many i7-4790K owners felt the same when Sky Lake i7-6700K and Kaby Lake i7-7700K released. The $350 7700K was a hard sell to that crowd in that it did not offer enough to make it worth the price or hassle. Conversely, when buying new, it is nice to have the latest and greatest. On the other hand nothing wrong with being frugal when you have a choice between the 2700X and 3700X. They are both great CPU's, the 3700X is 10-20% faster across the board but double the price. How much is 10-20% worth? For gaming at a demanding resolution, not that much.

Comment reply on Calibur45's Completed Build: First Open Loop - 2019 PC

  • 2 months ago
  • 2 points

A soft tube build has not been featured in a long time. I hope to see this on the front page. Very tastefully done. Soft tubing is still great and comtemporary despite a large shift toward hard tubing. I look at it this way - soft tubing is a very economical method of getting fluid where it needs to go. At the end of the day people must realize this fact: RIGID TUBE FITTINGS ARE NOT FREE! At $15-$30 for some adapters it is easy to spend $200 on fittings. A pack of six compression fittings. $50-$60.

With a soft tube build you save a bundle and hard tubing offer's no advantage in terms of thermals. It is just aesthetics but in your case this soft tubing build rivals many hard tuber's.

Your build has inspired me to rethink my position on soft tubing. I still have some soft tubing parts left over, might play this weekend with it....

Comment reply on Hurimo's Completed Build: My PC

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

I like the looks of this one. No nothing looks empty here, people make an error in thinking every space needs to be filled with something. The more room in the case = more room to breath. This is the sort of build if you installed a cooler with more heft you could push the 5.3GHz plus barrier silicon lottery permitting.

Comment reply on Hurimo's Completed Build: My PC

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

:D LOL. + 1 for lightening up the mood ;)

Comment reply on b0by's Completed Build: silent box

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

You might be able to tidy up the cables by routing some of them under the motherboard. CPU fan cable can go under the heatsink/fan around the CPU slot.

The components will get warm, air flow is at a premium in such a small build. The only thing blowing air in there is your CPU fan and there is no way and nowhere to install any intake/outlet fan. You have little to nothing to create pressure to cause air flow. I think this case may have been designed with passive cooling in mind.

Not that I recommend it, you might get a thin blu ray/dvd player in there. Turns office build into a multimedia center.

Anyway good build, +1. I like the Pentium CPU, it is a nose under a Kaby Lake i3-7100. You get two cores and four threads, plenty for office work. You could probably emulate with this as well and play some games ;)

Comment reply on a_pc_has_no_name's Completed Build: Infinity Cube

  • 2 months ago
  • 2 points

Nice rig. There is room in there for a custom loop if in future you want to upgrade.

Good build overall.

Comment reply on travsmitty's Completed Build: Double Duty

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

You have done the PC Building Community Proud :D

All A-OK here, hope others support your build and it gets showcased.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "GPU for a 240hz monitor"

  • 2 months ago
  • 1 point

Obtaining 240fps is one where every part of the system comes into play including Ram.

To answer your question - I would get the more powerful card, always. RTX 2080 Super over the 2070 Super hands down. 1440p and 240Hz requires incredible PC hardware, perhaps beyond the current technology out there. If 240fps is deemed critical, then consider spending double on getting the RTX 2080 TI now and upgrade when Nvidia release their next generation TI model in March 2020.

For current technology, keep expectations reasonable. I have an i9-9900K and RTX 2080 TI and cannot make 144fps on a great number of games. Getting 240fps is going to require some investment into other parts of your PC as well, such as upgrading CPU, Ram, you name it.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Replacing GTX 780?"

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

If you happy with a used card, check out maybe a used GTX 1060. Will not cost you an awful lot and will perform similar to, if not quite significantly better, than the GTX 780. A used RX 580/RX 590 will be similarly satisfactory. We could be in the $120 - $170 zone here depending on many factors.

In new options, a GTX 1660 will be a significant step up on the 780 for approximately $220 give or take.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "3600 vs 2700x"

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

With streaming component I err slightly towards the 2700X. As a gaming component, I lean slightly towards the 3600. To be honest both are pretty solid choices. If counting pennies means less one way but more towards a VGA I would go with the 2700X and more affordable mobo. But that's just me.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Looking to upgrade to Kaby lake or Zen next year?."

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

The current Zen chips are good and waiting for a small bump next year is not worth it.

As for Kaby Lake, should not be an option. Used prices are high and Zen has well overtaken it. Even with the largest overclock on the i7-7700K you can manage it still falls well behind the Ryzen 3600 in multi core performance while gaming wise it is slower in many instances. In those instances that it happens to be faster, it is not by much at all. Either way, not really worth it in my opinion. However if you can snag a used specimen for $100 or so it that 7700K will handily outperform the i5-6500.

I personally would go with a Ryzen 6 or 8 core offering.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "9700K vs. 3700X - Gaming & Streaming"

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

i7-9700K is an overated chip for the money. A lot of the so called benchmarks are fake or rigged. Not the best chip for gaming or applications that scale with cores.

The 3700X for some reason wont schedule all threads but it should still be a step up on the i7-9700K. Performance wise it should beat the 9700K in both gaming and streaming.

I would avoid Intel for now. Dated platform and most manufacturer's are no longer supporting the Z390 chipset now that it is in it's dotage.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Worth upgrading from GTX 980 to Vega 56 for 220€?"

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Recommended Specs for RDR2 are

Intel Core i7-4770K / AMD Ryzen 5 1500X

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 6GB

This probably for medium settings 1080p. To get 1440p high settings at 60fps will likely require a card with more muscle that the Vega 56.

Anyway upgrade from GTX 980 to Vega 56 will certainly help but I would be looking more towards the RX 5700XT at that resolution if sticking with AMD. Do not forget to factor in your budget that you could make $100 or so selling the 980.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "QVO worth saving a few quid off EVO?"

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Yeah the QVO is about as slow as an HDD. I bought one and file transfers of 120'ish Mbps were insanely low for a purported SSD. Possibly the worst purchase I ever made and it cost me around $250 for a 2TB drive.

For mass storage you can get an Intel NVMe drive for under $200 that will have 2TB of storage. True the 660p series is extremely slow for an NVMe drive but it is still a good deal faster compared to the Samsung QVO. The 4TB Samsung QVO may have potential for a small form factor build that only accepts 2.5" drives. A 2.5" 7200rpm drive of 4TB storage is non existent and even a slow SSD like the QVO would fill this gap.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Rx 590 replace 1060 3gb"

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

Yeah there will be a bump up in performance but I personally would consider the RTX 2060 to be the next logical upgrade.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "1650 4 GB vs 1060 8 GB GPUs"

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

There really is only one reason to go with the GTX 1650 and that is it can draw all it's power from the PCIe slot alone. This makes the card somewhat ideal for refurbing commercial PC's that have a PCIe slot but no GPU.

For new/from scratch builds, the GTX 1650 makes zero sense unless you have a reason for not wanting a GPU that requires an 8-pin connector, i.e. the case only uses a TFX PSU and so on. There are only one or two PC cases built with this feature in mind.

GTX 1060 is tremendously more powerful than the GTX 1650. The difference in gaming will be obvious. If game X runs at 40fps medium settings with the GTX 1650 it will run at 60fps high settings with the GTX 1060. Night and day and they are about the same price.

If you have a very specific reason for a single slot low profile GPU that can draw all the power it needs from the PCIe slot, then you might find a model or two of the GTX 1650 that can tick that box. In this niche it is actually quite a powerful card, certaintly far more capable than the 1050 that preceeded it.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "How much to sell a 6700k and z170 board for"

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

I have sold a fair bit of stuff lately. Several components ended up being bought by PC resellers. I usually do not have time or inclination to research people but I did one fellow and he pretty much is in the refurb business. People that know what they are buying would know the guy is selling a turd dressed as a PC. To Joe ordinary, he thinks he is getting a good deal on that $800 Alienware PC . Little does he know that it was likely pulled during a dumpster diving session or thrifted due to broken CPU or motherboard. Of course the 6700K CPU is a mid range CPU, as are most i7's to be frank. Mr Joe Ordinary has been informed though that i7 = premium. I do not mind that the whole thing is effectively a con, the exchange of overpriced goods for currency has been in effect for years. For every piece of crap there is someone willing to buy it. If peddling trash puts food on someone's table, I have no issue with it.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "How much to sell a 6700k and z170 board for"

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

List, $275 square. Price just low enough to tempt someone away from watching while he/she thinks about it. Price just high enough you pocket a nip under going rate if you sold each component individually. Split the combo, board and CPU separately if this does not move within a month. Drop to around $250 after a couple of weeks if folks pockets are being stingy. You will for sure sell it.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Will a i5 6600k oc'd to 4.5 ghz bottleneck a RTX2060 super GPU?"

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

RTX 2060 Super Vs GTX 970. You can expect anywhere from 30 - 80% improvement in performance depending on game. This at 1080p. I would say worth it.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Will a i5 6600k oc'd to 4.5 ghz bottleneck a RTX2060 super GPU?"

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

There are always bottlenecks.

Nothing performs in an unbounded manner.

You will find the bottleneck even in the highest performing chips and monitors you can buy today.

Without knowing your monitor it makes bottlenecking pure guesswork.

Generally speaking the 2060 Super will hold you back for the forseeable future for the majority of titles, although there will be one or two pushing the i5 into sub 60fps with the game engine demanding 8 threads or more.

PC gaming does not obey the equality of action and outcome paradigm. If you plan to run every game possible at 1080p with guaranteed frame rate over 60fps I would suggest build a new PC and equip it minimally with a CPU like i9-9900K or R9 3900X and an RTX 2070 Super, perhaps even 2080 TI. I have a couple of games on Steam where a RTX Titan and R9 3900X at 1080p hit around 70fps at high settings with some almost game breaking stuttering going on as well. You cannot prepare for every possible outcome.

If you add a RTX 2060 Super to your rig it will perform significantly better on the majority of titles than the GTX 970 you currently have. Just keep your expectations grounded. Not every game is going to play nice. Most will.

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