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 "Will the RTX 2060 SUPER Be Compatible with My PC?"

  • 5 days 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?"

  • 9 days 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"

  • 9 days 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 ? **"

  • 9 days 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 ? **"

  • 10 days 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?"

  • 10 days 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 ? **"

  • 10 days ago
  • 4 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"

  • 10 days 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"

  • 11 days 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"

  • 11 days 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"

  • 11 days 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."

  • 14 days 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"

  • 16 days 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"

  • 16 days 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"

  • 16 days 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"

  • 17 days 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.

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

  • 17 days ago
  • 1 point

The i7-9700K is well suited for gaming. However at this time of writing it is hard to say how the industry will adapt to widespread adoption of CPU's with hyperthreading. I would say the 9900K is a safer purchase considering all the unknowns. Right now though, based on what is out there, the 9700K is one of the best chips for gaming, possibly tied with i9-9900K.

I was wondering if getting the i9 9900k would be worth it or just overkill for a new PC I want to build.

Not overkill at all given gaming is the main application.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Bottleneck question"

  • 19 days ago
  • 1 point

Will the i59600k and the 2070 super cause a bottleneck?

In an absolute sense - Yes it will, there will be settings and resolutions that could enable you to hit the CPU bottleneck.

If you plan on gaming with 300Hz refresh rates I would probably rethink the CPU choice but that will largely depend on the title and researching benchmarks.

At 144Hz/165Hz or so you should be fine insofar as titles that are able to reach that limit (some cannot irrespective of what CPU or GPU you throw in there). Unless you are at the edge of current technology regarding high refresh rate panels I would not worry about it. Many newer games coming out are doing a good job of making a GPU like the RTX 2070 seem quite weak even at 1080p. Your performance for most titles will be limited by the graphics power of your card and the poor optimization of many PC ports.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Ryzen 1600 Owner, Time to Upgrade"

  • 19 days ago
  • 1 point

Currently using a Ryzen 1600 running at 4.1ghz on a B350 Tomahawk.

Stick with what you have and see what AMD roll out with next year.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "is RTX 2060 too much?"

  • 19 days ago
  • 1 point

We have a tight budget.

Going used will help with the budget. A used GTX 1070, while not quite as fast as a RTX 2060, will also get the job done on those games. You do not need the Ray Tracing offered by the RTX line, no need to pay for something you will not use.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Which CPU would you guys reccommend more?"

  • 20 days ago
  • 1 point

Ryzen 5 3600X or Ryzen 7 2700X Im trying to go as cheap as possibly but I want a really good CPU.

To be honest both are really good CPU's and the 2700X comes bundled with a nice cooler as well. Pick whatever is cheaper. Right now the 2700X.

Nitpicking the Ryzen 5 3600X will slightly outperform the 2700X in gaming. How much this will matter will vary user to user, we talking a few percent here.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Which is better?: PNY GTX 1650 XLR8 Gaming OC vs XFX Radeon RX 570 4 GB RS XXX"

  • 20 days ago
  • 1 point

PNY GTX 1650 XLR8 is a rare beast - is a single slot card and draws all it's power from the PCIe x 16. If you have a case that is single slot only and wish to have a low power card that draws what it needs from the motherboard, the PNY GTX 1650 XLR8 is a no brainer. You essentially do not have a choice outside of the GT 1030 or older gen cards.

If the PNY was just picked out at random and you are just considering the possibility of the GTX 1650 but otherwise are willing to power the GPU with your PSU and have dual or more slot on your PC case, the XFX Radeon RX 570 4 GB card is a no brainer choice here and considerably outperforms the GTX 1650.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Thoughts on 1070 Hybrid?"

  • 20 days ago
  • 2 points

It will perform like a GTX 1070 give a few percent after sticking a nice overclock. Will not perform as well as an RTX 2060 but you probably knew this before purchasing. There is no mistake on your part if you researched and decided a 1070 card was adequate for your needs at the price you paid. Others may argue the merits/demerits of the GTX 1660 or 1660 TI but bottom line you paid about going rate for a used card of this caliber.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Looking a new CPU"

  • 22 days ago
  • 2 points

If Star Citizen is going to be the main purpose behind this build, consider the Ryzen 7 2700X and a B450 motherboard. Reuse the Ram you already have. There is still a market for the old i5-7600K - it is one heck of an overclocker and actually performs rather well in games that use only a few threads. That said Star Citizen will run on the i5-7600K, do not assume that it will not. If you are going to game with other titles saving money now is not the worst thing. The i5-7600K and GTX 1060 with 16GB Ram is still a pretty reasonable 1080p 60fps machine.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "1080P gaming on high"

  • 22 days ago
  • 1 point

144Hz gaming requires the whole build be part of the solution rather than one individual component. In general the GTX 1660 TI will perform wonderfully on many older titles but many modern AAA games are requiring beefier cards at even 1080p / 60fps let alone 100fps plus. Carefully research titles, group the "must performs" on one side, research benchmarks and pick the GPU for the job. Look at average performance across a range of games, some will miss the mark, others will not and then decide whether to stick with the choice or move up one notch.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Bottle Neck"

  • 22 days ago
  • 2 points

You must research games you want to play and temper your expectations and builds. If you want a build that will play every single game at > 100fps or so I have some bad news for you - it is impossible. If you wish to build a PC that will play a wide variety of modern titles at 60fps or more at 1440p (and 1080p) the RTX 2070 Super and Ryzen 5 3600 will achieve that goal. Your expectation must be that not every game will hit that goal. If there is such a game, the solution is simple, rather than throw copious amounts of money to fix bad, just do not buy it.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Ryzen 9 or i9 build for Gaming and 4k upgradability..."

  • 24 days ago
  • 2 points

Heading into 2020, which is the best/smartest match for future 4k+ GPU's?

Right now the i9-9900K with advanced liquid cooling and overclock would be a preference set up for gaming right now. If you do not OC any slim advantage with the i9-9900K pretty much vanishes and it largely trades blows with the 3900X on gaming.

2020 is not now, it is in the future. With many in the industry forseeing high loading on six or eight core CPU's I would think having 12 cores for gaming will become the new desirable goal.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "i3 9100F vs Ryzen 5 2600 for gaming"

  • 24 days ago
  • 4 points

Get the Ryzen 5 2600. The difference in gaming is rather small for a lot of titles but looking at requirements for PC gaming escalating up the core counts I would say nowadays it makes little sense getting a 4 core CPU. It is probable that the i3-9100F yields higher frame rates for majority of titles but this changes once you start gaming on a title that will eat 6 cores for breakfast. It is looking likely we will require a 6-8 core CPU for reasonably low stutter gaming.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "5700 XT for 4K gaming: The card to beat for the price?"

  • 25 days ago
  • 1 point

There is no card that runs 4K satisfactory right now. At least not in test where a box is ticked yay or nay in terms of running 1% low 60fps at ultra/high settings and all possible modern AAA titles.

If you are happy to play with settings, some high some low depending on game, and do not demand a consistently smooth 60fps experience for every single game, the 2080TI, 2080Super, 2070Super and 5700XT will all do it with varying levels of success. If you are such a customer the 5700XT is a good purchase. If you also have a 1440p or 1080p monitor with higher refresh, excellent also. Best of all worlds.

Read Dead Redemption 2? Get it on Xbox One X or PS4 Pro instead. I say that without kidding either, no trolling attempted. It runs great on Xbox One X. Runs like $#%^ on a PC. End of discussion. Maybe they will fix it maybe they will not.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "3700x vs 3800x"

  • 25 days ago
  • 1 point

The 3700X quite honestly is a more thrifty purchase. The 3800X is slightly faster but this will not make much difference to your gaming. I often wonder why AMD bothered with the 3800X, the logical step up on the 3700X is the 3900X.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Gaming PC with Geforce 2070 super, what CPU? I5 9600K or Ryzen 5 3600"

  • 25 days ago
  • 1 point

Gilroar nailed it here. Buy the Intel CPU only if you wish to overclock and will pay big bucks for the cooling gear to do so. Result = potentially aesthetically very pleasing gaming PC. Caveat = large chunk of change.

I will add one thing - the Ryzen 3600X is worth a peek. Not for it's marginal performance gain over the stock 3600 but it comes with a somewhat very reasonable and appealing Wraith cooler. Is it worth the extra 40/45 bucks or so? I say.... YEAH!

Comment reply on Forum Topic "upgrading from a i5-7500K"

  • 26 days ago
  • 3 points

In all honesty, your i5-7500 should soundly beat an i3-7320 in a gaming scenario. The i3-7320 with GTX 1650 and 8GB of Ram runs CSGO higher than the refresh of my 165Hz monitor. Your hardware is superior to this PC.

Use a hardware monitor software and something like MSI Afterburner. Look at what is happening when you play. Pay attention to everything, Ram usage etc etc. You may find the fault.

It is not beyond reason that the game might be running off HD graphics of the CPU instead of GPU. I cannot see the CPU being a problem here.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "upgrading from a i5-7500K"

  • 26 days ago
  • 4 points

You mean i5-7600K?

CSGO:- is there another version of the game? If it is the game I think it is I have got a dual core i3 running this at over the refresh of 165Hz monitor. If you are having trouble with this game I think the fault lies elsewhere.

Comment reply on Robeywankenobi's Completed Build: Xbox Project Scorpio Themed PC

  • 27 days ago
  • 1 point

Excellent and possible feature material here.

I remember when this console launched I missed out on the Scorpio preorder - I was having doubts at the time since so many Xbox box titles are also on the PC and I had a PS4 at the time. Ended up getting one and it has given decent service. Runs Red Dead Redemption 2 better than a $5000 PC and is still the only gaming device out there that gives access to the original Red Dead Redemption (which I actually prefer to number 2).

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Which is better i9 9900k or i7 9700k"

  • 28 days ago
  • 1 point

For gaming they are ostensibly the same performance wise until you come across a title that has hyper-threading. Read Dead Redemption 2 has benchmarks that err tremendously towards the i9-9900K with the i7-9700K giving some rather alarmingly low 0.1 % numbers. For most titles though the 9900K and 9700K are about tied and if not fall within the margin of error.

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

  • 28 days ago
  • 1 point

Just checked the benchmarks for a i5-7600K CPU which is nearest to this i5-6500 I could find. Well, for Red Dead Redemption 2 the results are a disaster. While the CPU is capable of pushing over 60fps the real "CPU indicator" is not average frame rates but 1% lows. The 1% low for the 7600K is well under 30fps (under 20fps even) - basically the game will be near unplayable. With the 6500 it will certainly run worse than the 7600K. A Sandy Bridge 2011 i7-2600K outperforms the i5-7600K in this game. Hyperthreading advantages. If hyperthreading is going to be a feature with future gaming the i5-6500 is at a tremendous disadvantage.

If you have not bought that i5-6500 yet do not. While it is foolish to draw conclusions from one game, particularly if optimization may be an issue, this is one of those cross generation titles like GTA V was. This gives us a peek into the future. The i5-6500 does not seem to belong to that future. In context, I gave poor advise.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "1660ti for 1440p, is it wort it?"

  • 28 days ago
  • 2 points

So if I buy this card, will it be enough for 1440p 60fps

Certaintly for the vast majority of titles. Research key titles you wish to play and check benchmarks. Given you will likely play a wide range of games, some old, some new, some demanding, some not, you will be the best judge whether it is worth it moving to another tier for sake of one or two titles that may need medium settings to get 60fps. Most games though 60fps is well within range of this card at highest settings.

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

  • 28 days ago
  • 1 point

Yup and thats the graphics holding back because the game hits over 100fps at 1080p. With 1% lows, the i9-9900K with RTX 2080TI yields a stuttering wretched mess of a game. On Xbox One X plays great. Our PC equipment is going to get absolutely clobbered by the Playstation 5.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "MSI 1080ti"

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

At $2000 someone will be laughing on their way to the bank and it will not be you. Take advice given, build your own rig better components. If you do not feel comfortable building your own post in the sale/want list a PC with your requirements with Specs you want and price you pay. You will receive a PM from someone here before long.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "1440 at 144hz"

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

At 1440p 144Hz I would say RTX 2080 Super would be a good choice. Depends on games though, some will run at 144fps with far lesser hardware, some require far greater GPU or CPU or both to run 144fps. Example, Assassin's Creed Odyssey no way will you get 144fps at 1440p no matter what chips you use.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "2700x vs. 3000 series"

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

I look at it this way. You probably will build or rebuild your PC every 4-5 years so one can view it being, from an economic viewpoint, a sum total now spread over 5 years. If the cash is tight, put it aside, save some more, then strike. You do not have to swayed by deals now. Deals happen all the time. If you really want 8 cores, and 8 of the fastest cores money can buy, then save up for an extra month or two and buy the 3700X. Who knows, once you have saved the extra $100, it may have a mini sale and you purchase with $30 off MSRP.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "I7-9700k vs I9-9900k"

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

[edit] OR what is the best cpu for gaming? (Thinking about pairing it along with a RTX 2080 super)

Overall the 9900K > 9700K no question about it. However, in a purely gaming application it seems they are a virtual tie since both OC nicely and it really would take a game that scales with hyperthreading for the i9 to eek ahead. There are not really many titles that do.

Ostensibly they should be considered identical performance wise for gaming. If all you want to do is game, save your money and go with the i7-9700K and purchase a better cooler. You will want a high performing cooler as well research what goes with your PC case.

Interestingly have a look at the i7-8086K. My own specimen is pure ownage. Just pushed it to 5.6GHz and it beats my own i9-9900K in several games that I tested. I am really surprised to see a 6 core beat an 8 core in gaming but there you go. Results do not lie. That said my i9-9900K cannot OC as high, I can push 5.3GHz before stability issues set in.

Anyway, my own rambling/musing apart, go ahead and get the 9700K and use the money you could have paid for a 9900K for a better cooler.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Question about 860 QVO 2TB Geeksquad refurb. $153.99"

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Refurbs for most vendors is a fancy way of saying used and not even tested. In many cases I heard from a friend that customer buys, does not want, back on shelf. If customer return was initiated because of broken or faulty, they will not know that.

While the 860 QVO is a pretty low performing SSD, it is still better than an HDD and at that price is actually cheaper than Used specimens on eBay. If you purchase via Paypal you will be protected. Worst case you return and write a bad review. Best case is a working drive for quite cheap.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Is this 2tb NVMe for $200 a good deal?"

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

I read the Specs, not convinced on accuracy. Whatever the case, $200 for 2TB is not at all horrible and I would be surprised if it did not perform at least as well as the Intel 660p. Why not purchase it and let us know.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Best CPU for a $2k System budget?"

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

I think you misunderstood my comment, my bad, I did not communicate my point very well.

There is no CPU champion, performing best at everything. No such thing.

i9-9900K debatable for gaming? Averages, it is ahead. Case by case, depends. I have noticed some titles on a 240Hz monitor run faster with an i7-8086K vs my i9-9900K with both on their limits of overclocking. No question about it when i7-8086K hits 215fps and the 9900K hits 197fps. I know it is not a fluke. Of course silicon lottery and clock speeds, but pushing the 8086K it is quite some way ahead of my own 9900K. Online results show favorable correlation that i9-9900K edges the averages but that does not exclude the possibility of some titles being faster on another chip. The faster CPU can be considered subjective in context of titles one plays since some games can run faster with other CPU's. Averages are what they are, averages. Your average expenses do not mean you cannot go broke one month if you know what I mean.

It is self evident that a budget for 9900K is same for Ryzen 9 3900X give or take a few bucks. Case of win some lose some here. Certain heavily threaded tasks may run better with Ryzen. Pick your app or apps and choose CPU based on targets there. i9 impossible to factor in definitively without apps in mind.

Bang for buck. No brainer, if a gaming build get the i5-9400F or something like that. Will not win any benchmarking awards but sure as heck will game aptly for the measly price you buy it nowadays. 144Hz or less monitor, no better CPU for the price. Might run a little slower on CPU hogging titles like Battlefield but just about everything else will be blitzkrieg.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Starting to upgrade my current build, looking at new cpu's, need advice."

  • 1 month ago
  • 3 points

So i wanted to upgrade my cpu and the cpu im looking at right now is this https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i7-4th-gen-core-i7-4790k/p/N82E16819117369?Item=9SIA4RE7MW3844

eBay, used, maybe $150. Paying nearly $300 after tax and postage for this CPU is absolutely ridiculous nowadays. Go used.

That i7 will not offer a major upgrade on your i5. Small upgrade, yes. Big? Nope. If you want a major upgrade, time to retire the old for new.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Best CPU for a $2k System budget?"

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

I think the 9900k is the best at this budget?

For gaming, debatable, maybe....

For everything else, not necessarily either.....

Give us applications and what budget you plan on GPU, refresh rate of monitor etc... For gaming generally the GPU is what you want to spend the most on....

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Which CPU home office"

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

If you are not gaming try get an Intel CPU since they come with integrated GPU. The data you are processing is nothing that will make the CPU work hard - mostly single core processing. If you are using algorithms that require parallel computes then multicores can help - array processing, multivariate models and so on. If not, stick with a nice Intel CPU, something like the i3-9100 or even the i3-9400. Just be sure to get the non-F models since you want the integrated graphics to display on monitor. Depending on data sizes you may want more than 16GB Ram.

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

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Yup there is always that. A used 6700 or 7700 could always replace the old i5. With PC gaming it always pays to research benchmarks and performance. Most of the big AAA titles by the bigger publishers will be developed to run on both modest and advanced hardware. GTA V has been well within the realm of very modest PC gaming equipment since the turn of the decade. Red Dead Redemption will release with very reasonable and attainable performance goals.

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