/pcbg/ - PC Building General

2700X would be slightly better, but 2600X especially with a bit of PB offset is going to be fine with a gtx 1080.

>i5-7400
beyond help

Overpriced GPU and way too much wattage and overpriced on the PSU but looks fine otherwise.
Also second just getting an 8700 non-k and B360 board.
If you get an 8700k, don't forget the delid and that it voids your warranty.

8600k is shit.
Either save some money with an 8400 or get a 2600X.

Not true. Look at the mobile chips. AMD's have higher all-core boost for a given TDP on top of having better iGPU and out performs Intel in both CPU and GPU workloads watt-for-watt.

The 2600X is only going to bottleneck a 1080Ti at 1080p and even then only slightly. Overclocked only very slightly.
You have to be pretty retarded to use a 1080Ti for 1080p, though. Even if you have a 240hz monitors, very few game engines are capable of running at 240fps even with an 8700k on LN2.

Leave it to an Intel buyer to think a 960 Evo is worth buying for their babby purposes.
Nothing you listed will make use of that SSD. Nothing you listed makes an 8700/k a better choice than a 2700X.

Attached: BCLK 102.png (500x613, 81K)

Is this a good Monitor for gaming?

Attached: F4A65ADC-07C5-4719-8C12-0FBB925266F1.jpg (1024x726, 76K)

>65746740
4c/4t will bottleneck anything better than a 1050Ti.
As in, it's not going to consistently stay 60fps minimum whereas a 1060 or 570 will reliably drive 60+ fps at high/maxed 1080p.

2400G , 4790k, 7700 non-k, or 1600 are the minimum you should get if you're looking for a reliable 60fps minimum across all titles.
2200G is amazing for its price, but it's not perfect. And the 2400G is $30 occasionally. Suggesting to pair the 2200G with a 1060 is just plain bad advice especially when you can get a 1600 for like $160.

user is technically right that a 2200G+1060 is going to give at least better *average* performance than a 1600+1050Ti, but you can get that RX570 8GB for $200 deal today which is the same price as a 1050Ti and pair that with a 1600 for something better.
And lets say that sale doesn't exist, which it doesn't after it ends today, even still I'd say you're better off even getting a 1600+RX560 (which you can also get for $95 today), and upgrading the CPU later. The 1600 overclock will keep pace with a much higher end GPU. But with a 1060+2200G you're going to feel like replacing both your CPU and GPU around the same time at greater expensive instead of just swapping out graphics cards.

>4k 60hz
>good for gaming
m8.
I mean it's a decent deal if you want 4k but I don't consider anything less than 75hz to be good for gaming. But that's my opinion. Maybe you're fine with 60hz.

>Honestly depending on what you are using now you could use the 2200G onboard GPU until the price of GPUs come down to earth
That's sort of the crux of the conundrum. The build I'm working on now started out as a 2400G PC Part Picker recommended build that is viable without a dGPU. Then I saw a bunch of benchmarks that said you need fast RAM to get the most from the integrated graphics and I fell down the QVL rabbit hole. Because I hadn't settled on a mobo, the hole went deep. PCPP set up the recommended build so that it doesn't include a 1050ti unless the price is reasonable and it currently does include one, so I don't know if I could expect it to come down any further in price.

>But with a 1060+2200G you're going to feel like replacing both your CPU and GPU around the same time at greater expensive instead of just swapping out graphics cards.
Exactly what I was thinking when I decided that it would probably be simpler to get a 1600 and a 1050ti and save a bit on memory. MSI mobos seem to have better memory compatibility with 1x00 chips than 2x00G chips too.

I don't think you understand how to pair a CPU with a graphics card and monitor

1080p 60Hz = 2600/X or i5 8400 (or lower CPUs)
1080p 144Hz with a midrange graphics card = 2600/X or i5 8400
1080p 144Hz with a high end graphics card = i5 8400 or i7 if you want overkill

The NVMe SSD might help

>4c/4t will bottleneck anything better than a 1050Ti.
Holy shit. Stop. Fucking. Posting. This.
It's incredibly imbecilic

>I'd say you're better off even getting a 1600+RX560
Well, you're retarded so that's no surprise. That's called a waste of money

>But with a 1060+2200G you're going to feel like replacing both your CPU and GPU around the same time at greater expensive instead of just swapping out graphics cards.
That combo is going to last way, way longer than a 560 and provide better quality of life while user uses it. So what if he has to sell both components at a much later date? He can probably get a Zen 2 / Ryzen 3 by then. Always better to buy what you need now. A 1600 + an RX 560 is moronic. That 1600 is money wasted, sitting idle.

Attached: 1507334266591.png (4000x2309, 3.03M)

so is it okay with a 1080 or 1080ti
(monitor post)

Wow, nice benchmarks. You had to go all the way to France to get them!

Here's some real information. It's an average of many games. That's how you know the info isn't some cherrypicked outlier in the previous poster's "benchmark." I'll post a better BF1 benchmark in a moment

Attached: Ryzen 2 gaming average OC.png (1920x1080, 1.19M)

Here's a real BF1 bench. You can see that the i7 is spitting out an average of 220FPS. The benchmark I'm posting agrees with the majority of BF1 benches. This retard just finds some outlier to cherrypick

Attached: bf1.png (1920x1080, 1.11M)

>Exactly what I was thinking when I decided that it would probably be simpler to get a 1600 and a 1050ti and save a bit on memory. MSI mobos seem to have better memory compatibility with 1x00 chips than 2x00G chips too.
If buying a PC now, for today only in the US there is an RX560 on sale from bestbuy for $95 after rebate. Or the RX570 8GB for $200.
That plus a 1600 is the best budget buy you can do right now, by far.
Then you can upgrade to Turing or Navi or what the fuck ever at hopefully sane prices.

2600X is good for about 90fps minimums from what I've seen without an overclock. Can handle 144 if the game is made for it. It's a good bet for upper midrange longevity like the 2600k was 7 years ago.

>barely over 60fps in BF1, a very well optimized game
>in the SP benchmark
>when MP is far more taxing an 4c/4t can't consistently stay over 60 there
Yeah, you're retarded.

Good deal or no?

Attached: 62723C63-EB18-4623-8298-2414B75BE52B.jpg (739x1002, 122K)

I got a 1440p 144hz monitor, and I'm surprised at how well the 1060 handles the higher resolution. In older games, it's going over 144 fps occasionally.
Is there any benefit to producing frames over the refresh rate of the monitor? I capped to 144 at the moment to save on power consumption.

Personally I'd wait for better 4K monitors to come out this summer, but if you're just looking for any cheap 4K monitor, why not
A 1080Ti is a good card for 4K, but keep in mind the 1180 is rumored for launch in July, and it will be both cheaper and more powerful than the 1080Ti

>your greentext
>nonsensical as always

You said a "4c/4t will bottleneck anything better than a 1050Ti" . I proved just how stupid you are with a suite of benchmarks here . OBVIOUSLY your statement is false. You are the only person I've ever seen with this moronic opinion, and honestly it's like I'm having to teach you how to add 1 + 1

Stop. fucking. posting.

No, that's a pretty old panel if I'm not mistaken. I'd look into the XG2402 or the AOC G2460PF in that price range.

No adaptive sync, m8.
But if you have an Nvidia card, I guess it's worth going with to not pay the gsync tax.
But you could get a Freesync monitor for if you change to an AMD card, which would perform the same as syncless like this with Nvidia.

AOC may be a newer panel and around the same price, like the other user mentioned. I'd just avoid ASUS because shitty warranty service.

>Is there any benefit to producing frames over the refresh rate of the monitor? I capped to 144 at the moment to save on power consumption.
If you use the ingame v-sync, yes there is a downside. It is usually programmed shitty and adds frame and input delays.
If you use the limiting in your driver, then no there is no downside.

If you're looking for a monitor, get a 144Hz VA panel like one of the MSI Optix variants

>Is there any benefit to producing frames over the refresh rate of the monitor?
No

Both of those are TN panels, crap compared to the new VA panels with better colors, better viewing angles, and some with pseudo HDR10

What about 1440p 144Hz

Or 1440p 60Hz

What CPU do I need

CPU requirements basically do not change with resolution
Graphics card requirements change
Having said that if you're getting a 1080Ti tier card, I wouldn't get anything less than an i5 8400 or R5 2600 to make sure it's properly fed. No reason to skimp on a CPU if you're spending $1000 on a graphics card

Why do you faggots even care about frames above 120? I tried a 165Hz monitor for a few days and didn't perceive any difference from my home's 144Hz panel.
If anything you fags should be focusing on 1440p rather than dumb 1080p.

So something like this?

Also thanks for the help this is the first time building/buying a pc I normal just buy everything thing together and build

Attached: CDEF7D33-A89D-465E-A7D6-1961452E5B33.jpg (733x396, 173K)

That's a good monitor. There are other brands that have similar monitors, but they all use Samsung panels. This monitor is slightly enhanced with Quantum DotsTM
amazon.com/Samsung-24-Inch-Monitor-C24FG70-LC24FG70FQNXZA/dp/B01M1DEEYP
You can read about the benefits elsewhere

>Why do you faggots even care about frames above 120?
It's about getting the most out of your graphics card

>$1000 on a graphic card

I got a 1080 GTX before the crypto boom.

So I just need an equally matching CPU/Mobo combo that wont leave me wondering if I should have gotten something else instead.

w10 is waay waay worse, and in w7 you only get that kind of crap if you enable it to download OS updates

If you have a 1080 and you're getting a 1440p monitor, you can get either an R5 2600/X or an i5 8400. The 2700/X isn't much better than the 2600/X at gaming, and the Coffee i7 is just overkill for gaming right now

You need to update Windows if you're connected to the internet, otherwise you're vulnerable to many types of attacks that don't require you to do something stupid like install a random executable. You can disable a lot of the "spyware" updates but don't complete disable updates

What about 8600k, it's the same price as an 2600X

Leaving yourself open to 0day exploits is no fucking joke. Don't not update win7.
If you mean manually downloading updates, that's okay. But then you'll get the same spy shit in Win7 since that was added with Win7 updates.

Also a 7400 is still going to have IME shit.

If you really must use win7, then get the usb driver injector for the install and get a 1600.

8600k is too expensive when all you get is a niche 6c/6t and a dead chipset. Waste of money.
2600 and 2600X are the better buys. An 8400 is okay if some mental illness prevents you from getting AMD.

But 2600x is considered midrange no? Why would that go with a 1080 gtx

Or is a 1080 mid range now at this point

I never ever download OS updates.

All of this crap could be avoided if I could run the Adobe Suit programs in a linux distro -__-

I desperately need solid recommendations on two things:
A Linux Friendly PCIe Wireless Card (Preferably around $50, I don't want to drop $110 on some heatsink GAYMER FUEL UBER 10GBPS thing, my internet isn't that good I just need it to not lock itself at 5mbps)
A router with per-device bandwidth (or actually-functional QoS) support that won't cost me $600

I don't need uber mega super bandwidth TO THE EXTREME, again, my internet is pretty shit in the first place and there's no real chance of me getting that improved in the next couple of years (thanks centurylink), so I don't want to drop fucking $200 on a router and $110 on a wireless card.
I tried looking at some netgear routers but their pages literally lie to you, saying they support advanced QoS in one bullet point and then explicitly stating the model you're looking at doesn't in a chart the next.
I picked up some rosewill $50 wifi card awhile ago but it uses a RealTek modem chip, which evidently this specific type Linux fucking hates so I get about 7mbps right next to the modem on a 40mbps line. I keep seeing lots of TP-Link everywhere but I keep getting mixed reviews on them?

Please for the love of fucking god somebody help me out of here, this shit is impossible to google because the only people who review these producs are PCMAG2018CNETDEFINITELYNOTAPAIDREVIEW.COM

I wouldn't call 1080 high end, but it's not "midrange" either.
I actually hate those terms now days.
The GPU power needed has really stagnated the past few years. Games are largely being better programmed rather than requiring more power. Games wouldn't make much money if only the newest overprice hardware could play them.
1080 is a higher end 1440p card. 1060 and 570 are mainstream 1080p cards.

But yes, a 2600X is good to pair with a 1080 in even 1080p. Only with a 1080Ti should someone maybe consider an 8700k and the expensive of delid and such. But even then, at 1440p, a 2600X keeps up with a 1080ti. It's only at 1080p with a 1080ti where a 2600X will sometimes bottleneck, but you shouldn't be using a 1080Ti with 1080p.

Dude just run linux with a windows VM, don't be one of those diehard retards who refuse to cotaninerize an OS because "OH WELL YOU'RE NOT REALLY USING LINUX THEN ARE YOU"

I'm gunna put this post into perspective for a moment:
I use a GTX680, a card so comically old that the only way for me to get a sense of what modern performance is like, I have to go back 2 years to find benchmarks that compare it to a 980 Ti, and then compare *THAT* to modern cards, and try to determine the difference.
It only just recently started to actually turn to sluggish shit. Just recently. I play games at 1920x1080 and turn AA down and don't run with maxed out textures, and then it runs it perfectly fine. No, I'm not turning everything to minimum and saying "see it runs!"
It's more like 4xAA or 8xAA instead of 16xAA, and medium particle effects and high texture instead of Ultra/Ultra

A 5 year old card is probably mid-to-low range at this point, you could buy just about any modern GPU and have no idea what performance "range" its in unless you're pushing 2k/4k resolutions in games

I stuck my 1080 gtx into my computer built in 2013 and it literally can't run mass effect andromeda on medium

Bad value considering you have to buy a cooler and get a Z mobo
Check the OP builds in the pcpartpicker

You're stupid

For one thing, it that's not a GPU issue. A 1080 absolutely can run that buttery smooth at 1080.
kotaku.com/mass-effect-andromeda-pc-benchmarked-on-24-different-v-1793435595

For another, yeah, so what? you could pop a 480 into a computer from 2010 and try to play Crysis and it would still run like dogshit.
Poorly optimized games aren't worth mentioning for any reason unless they look absolutely fucking gorgeous, which shit effect retardface does not.

your anger makes you sound less credible

Just (mostly) finished my first build lads, how'd I do? The disc drive is coming out after I rip my music btw.

Attached: Screenshot_2018-04-30-23-24-00.png (1920x1080, 2.54M)

Well your CPU was trash. Probably didn't have a 3770k or something actually good for modern games from that time.

Can your memory go any faster?

No bully plz

case is shit. i have it too

It was a 3570k.

I'm thinking about OCing it since I never bothered with that.

Its Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4, can I overclock it?
It'll look better when I take the disc drive out
What don't you like about it?

case looks fucking awful both functionally and aesthetically.
And you got a ton of PCI slots only to use one of them like a cuck.

Nice DAC tho.

To answer your other post, not him but what I don't like about it is how ugly the window cut out is instead of being a full flush window, doesn't seem to have dust filters.

So yeah, shit in 2017/2018. 4 threads is not enough in many games from the past 2-3 years.

>It was a 3570k.
>never OCd
Remember, that this is the big majority of unlocked CPUs buyers.

Never really needed to until this year, unless you bought all the annual caw of doody or ass creed releases.

Already have the case, mobo, and CPU. Just waiting for the rest to arrive. Thoughts?

Paired with a 1440p monitor

pcpartpicker.com/list/BWhJfH

Why do people think that Z370 boards will support 8 core processors or Coffeelake when Z390 is all-but-confirmed to be coming in the next few months?

Part of the reason for that is that the stock clocks, desu. But even an overclocked 3570k is going to fail in some modern games because 4 threads just isn't enough. ME:A is one of them. A fucking 7600k, which is way better than a 3570k but still 6 thread trash, dips under 60 a lot in that game.

>8600k
>2400mhz RAM when the 2666 with the top dies is like the same price
>probably doesn't even know how to manually OC RAM
>$600 for a 1080
>$95 for an only gold rated PSU
>$1500 total for only 6 threads
Biggest fuckup I've seen in the past few days of /pcbg/

>dead chipset
Stop the memes

Likely, what is its rated speed?
Enable XMP in BIOS

Probably didn't update drivers
i5 3570K + GTX 1080 should be able to run it at an average of 100FPS on Ultra
Google gamegpu+andromeda for the source

Attached: mea.png (914x851, 80K)

>But even an overclocked 3570k is going to fail in some modern games because 4 threads just isn't enough. ME:A is one of them
Wow, your bullshit just got owned

My CIT263 class had an assignment where we had to build the most budget PC that met the requirements.
I ended up finding stuff like a $16 HDD, and a $7 GPU that can run GTAIV.
We didn't win because I didn't read the fine print, and I wrote down a place where I could download a tool to activate a pirated copy of Windows 10 instead of an actual OS license.

The winner gets to choose the type of pizza we eat at the last day.

What part of that indicated I was angry about anything?

>Why do people think that Z370 boards will support 8 core processors or Coffeelake when Z390 is all-but-confirmed to be coming in the next few months?
Z170 could be updated to Z270
B150 could be updated to B250
etc
But it's only a remote possibility in my opinion.

I'm not a fan, but it'll run and serve you well, so be happy with it

I like how the PSU looks and how the cables look

Show me a cheaper 1080

Not him, but for the record I'm pretty pissed off that ME:A agressively wasted 30hrs of my time with bland combat and areas, terrible dialog, 0 plot or worthwhile choices, boring activities, and trash squadmates. Not to mention that the game missed so many opportunities to do things will both in plot, subject, atmosphere, and planet exploration and colonization

nice fake benchmarks, samefag shill faggot.
Real gameplay with AI and so on doesn't look like that.

Like the guy said, he had a gtx 1080 and it couldn't run the game because of his 3570k. He's right. On a 7600k with a gtx 1080, it still dips under 60 in the actual game, not the fucking benchmark. I know you're too stupid to understand the difference, but that's the fact of the matter. A 3570k is a hell of a lot weaker than a 7600k, so it's going to do even worse.

Stop trying to convince people to getting shitty stutterfest 4thread cpus. You've been BTFO repeatedly.
youtube.com/watch?v=6DO60ajSpAo
This was already linked to you last thread but you were too stupid to understand it. Almost all games benchmarks are purely a graphics benchmark and are less CPU intensive than the real game.

>200fps in menus
>drops under 60fps in actual gameplay
>that's almost 130fps average 4 threads is the best everyone buy it!!!!!
And this wasn't even a fucking intensive part of the game. It gets way worse.
The worst part? I know you dumb shills probably play games and know how shit the experience is of having only 4 threads in actual gameplay on an actual PC is, and how far removed it is from rigged benchmarks that aren't representative of actual gameplay. You're just lying shills who don't care about facts.

Ya it's a shit game. But that doesn't change that it's a decent example of how far 4 threads has fallen off. The average FPS can be okay, but minimums are shit.

Many dumb shills insisted that Coffeelake would work on Z270 boards too. Look how wrong they turned out to be.
Yeah they technically work, being the same socket and many Z270 boards having beefy enough VRMs, but greedy Intel locked that shit down.

But maybe z390 will work given that it's the same generation. I would buy that more than I bought that Coffeelake would work on Z270. It could just have more PCI lanes or something.

Attached: firefox_2018-05-01_01-28-58.png (704x972, 1011K)

>nice fake benchmarks
Holy shit, this level of ass-blasted delusion. gamegpu is one of the most thorough benchmarkers out there. You, on the other hand, are so desperate for something, ANYTHING to back of your predetermined opinion that you'll stoop to taking a screenshot of a youtube video and pretend it's evidence.

Look at the image you posted, retard. The graphics card is maxxed out at 99%, not the CPU. The game is running at 60FPS because of the graphics card, not the CPU.

>Like the guy said, he had a gtx 1080 and it couldn't run the game because of his 3570k.
Probably failed to update his drivers. The game runs excellently on 4 cores. You're just in a state of extreme denial

Do you play with your own feces?

Also, before you try and say
>that's nearly 60fps blah blah shill bullshit
That's a 20.4ms frametime, which is 49fps. I'm sure you wouldn't notice and need that pointed out, given how ignorant you constantly have shown yourself to be over multiple threads of this bullshit that you won't stop shilling. The FPS graph is misleading with how it averages out and makes it seem like your frametimes aren't so bad. Also the whole video encoding and the frametimes not updating every second to catch the worst offenders.

Shit is shit. And that's a 4.5GHz OC.
Fuck off with your fake benchmarks that aren't representative of actual gameplay.

oops too late

>oops too late
Yeah, you fucked up. You didn't notice that it's the graphics card that's maxxed out, not the CPU. What an idiot! Jesus Christ, you're so stupid.

>That's a 20.4ms frametime, which is 49fps
By the way, you don't even know the difference between frametime and FPS. 20.4ms is NOT 49FPS because FPS is average measurement over a whole second. A single frame at 20ms is unnoticeable if the average is at 60FPS

Autism at it's finest. Actually you're not even autistic, because those people often understand the meanings behind numbers

Lmfao i can't believe just how ignorant you are at every turn. You literally know nothing, but you keep posting.
Those monitoring tools can't report GPU utilization correctly. 99% is not 99% without a powerful enough CPU.
The same thing happens with CPU utilization reporting, but not nearly as inaccurately.

All of these are 98% utilization and different FPS. Like holy fuck man, how can you be wrong over, and over, and over, and repeatedly proven wrong, yet you don't know how to stop fucking posting?
Almost EVERYONE who knows enough to give an opinion on this stuff knows this already. Except you. You're some fucking retard who THINKS he knows what he's talking about, but is actually fucking clueless, so of course you had no idea about this. Of fucking course. Every fucking time you show yourself to be unbelievably ignorant yet so opinionated.

You know what I was getting at. 20.4ms frametimes over a second is 49fps. It's why benchmarkers often do a "time over 16.6ms". It's indicative of stutter. Don't argue semantics because you can't argue performance. It just makes you look especially weak and BTFO.

Attached: firefox_2018-05-01_01-56-52.jpg (1469x827, 233K)

You're delusional
Read the bench and weep

I love how you ignore the bit about how benchmarks are almost never representative of actual gameplay performance. They are completely fake. The video made by the most respected of benchmarkers and tech analysts.

But it's not reddit unboxed or some russian shit for you to cherry pick, and requires actual thinking which you're not capable of, so you don't care.
Lmao.
It's been like 5 threads of this shit and multiple people calling you out, proving you wrong, while you pretend to be multiple people and repeatedly post the same shit that's been definitively debunked.

Stop posting.

Attached: 1522982128039.jpg (481x554, 44K)

>Stop posting.
Wow, repeating my insults because you can't come up with any of your own

Fuck off faggot. You're incapable of thinking unless it's dreaming up a fantasy land. Pretty boring fantasy land considering it's populated with graphics cards though

Attached: ASQ135426.png (319x334, 130K)

Can both of you nerds just shut the fuck up ?

Why are you still posting when you don't even understand that GPU utilization is not representative of its actual utilization? Especially when it comes to frametimes which indicate a stutter.
Especially given that graphics cards are much more consistent than CPUs, as explained to you before but you were too stupid to understand or remember.
A game suddenly going from 10ms frametimes to 24ms in a scene is never the GPUs fault unless it has run out of VRAM. That's the CPU. Anyone with basic CS knowledge understand this. Only a retard who keeps posting about that which he doesn't understand doesn't know that.

How do you not see this pattern of so many things needing to be explained to you that you don't understand, and not realize that you understand so little seeing as how so many basics needs to be explained to you?
A more intelligent person would realize they don't know what they're talking about, and have a lot to learn. But that's not you. You're someone who's too stupid to understand just how stupid you are.

>GPU utilization is not representative of its actual utilization

Attached: 5764576457.jpg (500x326, 24K)

Is it possible to get 8700k work on windows 7? I am assuming you need to inject drivers into the installer. But aside from that, everything works fine?

>>State the budget & CURRENCY for your build
$1500 CAD
>>List your uses, e.g. Gaming, Video Editing, VM Work
graphic design and light gaming
>>For monitors, include purpose (e.g., photoediting, gaming) and graphics card pairing (if applicable)
anything color accurate will do

pls help

Reminder that Windows 7 will stop getting support in less than 2 years.
Upgrade to Linux already you goys.

I saw those 2560x1600 Dell monitors on sale a few days ago. Not sure if they are still. But their response time is kind of trash and they do ghost...
I have an HP ZR24w and the ghosting is definitely a problem for gaming. But I work 10x more than I game. And when I game sometimes it's slow paced stuff and doesn't matter.
But now days, most VA panels have pretty good picture. You'll probably be devoting 1/3rd or so of your budget to monitor.

For CPU, most illustration and photo editing programs need strong single core and just decent multi. So a 2600X or 8700k are ideal. 2700X is overkill when not doing video editing and rendering. But you could really just get away with a 2400G; it's perfectly sufficient for photoshop and illustrator work.
For GPU, RX560 or GTX 1050. RX560 is better if it's not too much more expensive. Anything more sounds overkill for you. Those GPUs will play anything at 1080p, but usually not maxed or even high settings except for older games. But newer games still tend to look alright on low or medium now days.

I tried to have Linux as my main desktop last year. The poor DPI scaling and font rendering, and the occasional DM crash (but so does fucking Win10 "DM") was my only major problem, but those are big problems. :(

should be fine afaik. google I guess.

Care to recommend me a cooler for
Intel i5 8600K
Mother MSI B360M PRO-VH

Attached: 1413170450608.jpg (247x249, 9K)

>2600X
>2400G
would the 1600 be as good?

I haven't built a PC in over a decade, and now I'm building one and all I see is disgusting ricer shit with LEDs everywhere. On the motherboard, on the RAM, etc. This is really poor taste

>housefire cpus
>non X amd cpus
>dual cores
>outdated cautionary warnings
shit OP, go back to plebbit where you belong

Pick ram without leds and turn off leds in the bios.

How are you so asshurt that amd is just better now? buyers remorse?

Buying a cpu that wont burst into flames without a d15

Like which

>dead chipset
>Stop the memes
How is it a meme? Intel is releasing no more bios updates, there are no new cpus being released on the chipset, it has zero upgrade paths (and no nothing 8000 series is a upgrade path). When you want to upgrade you are going to have to buy a z470 mobo like the good goyim you are.

This OP is shit, he's a massive faggot that constantly defends his shit OPs and his threads rarely ever reach over 50 unique users because its just him shilling and us calling him out. I'd just recommend filtering the images he uses especially the one in the OP.

2600x, and then you wouldn't have to buy aftermarket cooling

2600x > 1600 >>>> 2400g

I want to buy intel

why

I have always used intel and never had a problem with it. Also, I have heard poor opinions on AMD. Speaking about temps, I heard Ryzen heats up really really a lot

all you have are opinions and no facts

poetry