/pcbg/ - PC Building General

Oh it's an extra 6% off Ebates now, not 9%. So about ~15% off total from Newegg.
But you do get that $10 bonus from the first time using Ebates.

dual core CPUs are dead man
quad cores will be dead by the end of 2019
If you are build a PC today there is zero reason why you should build anything with less than 6 cores
Unless you are on a max budget and looking for a temp CPU then the only choice for that is the 2200G and use the onboard GPU until you can afford a nice GPU then upgrade the CPU to a 2700 or w/e is current at that time

The only CPUs anyone should be buying are

2200G budget no gpu see above
i5 8400 budget gaming
R5 2600 budget workload and gaming
i5 8700k max fps gaming
R7 2700x mix gaming + streaming + workload
TR 1950x heavy workload stuff

Anything else is a complete dumbfuckinstan purchase

Attached: evejobs.jpg (962x1256, 263K)

Well you could have gotten it for $250 yesterday, at least. That's not too bad.
They had RX570 8GB for $200 and RX560 for $95, too.

4c/4t is pretty dead as well. 2200G is just an exception given how cheap it is for an unlocked CPU and being on the AM4 platform.
I stopped recommeding 4c/4t after 2015, seeing games start to use 4 threads and utilizing hyperthreading. If the games themselves use 4 threads, that leaves nothing for running what's in the background smoothly unless you have hyperthreading, just duh.
It's not hard to understand and the framegraphs now days show I was right to not recommend $200 4 thread CPUs all that time.

Also, 2600X is absolutely worth buying over the 2600 for gaming due to PB2 overclocking.
I'd recommend the 2600 for just light gaming where someone doesn't need the extra fps, and doesn't need the better overclocking. More a general desktop and moderate workstation CPU.
And 2400G is worth buying when on sale, like above. ~$130 and you get those extra graphics cores, SMT, and the better binned CPU. It's just at MSRP that it's hard to justify.

Basically if you have a 4c4t chip dont buy anouther 4c chip its a waste of money
If someone does not have a PC or has a toaster ancient shitbox the 2200g on a b350 platform is a great stepping stone
Its basically a i5 7500 + GT 1030/RX 550 gpu for $95
Anyone that purchased a 4c chip newer than a 2600k got scammed

Attached: 1525127970971.jpg (4771x859, 771K)

Thank you based Norge Elgiganten for the sweet prices

Attached: poozen.png (761x338, 16K)

If you don't recommend 4c/4t then why bother recing 6c/6t, they will be dated sooner than a 4c/8t especially if they can't of like the 8400 for example

This depends
I think the 2700x is worth it over the 2700 but if you plan on OCing at all the 2600 is probably worth it over the 2600x
Price gap can get a decent cooler and run it at 4.1ghz
Sure the PB2 can boost over 4.1ghz but the benefit and price gap I dont think is worth 3-4% performance.
If you are going for gaming only on a budget a 8400 is the better choice over the 2600 anyway but if you need the threads or plan on using the system longer than 2 years or so the ryzen is the better option

Naw 6 physical cores is better than 4 with 4 more "threads"
You can see this in i3 8300 benchmarks vs g5400 stuff
hyperthreading is nice but its not equal to real cpu cores
and yes the i5 out of the list above will be the first to be a bottleneck because of the locked low core count
but its socket has some decent upgrade cpus later on so the $170 now is not wasted really

CPU is just about right, but remove the delid shit. Most don't even bother to OC jesus fuck. It's scummy that they don't solder, but it's an overstatement.

Well that being said, should I ditch my old i5-2500k then? She is old but I have not seen her fail me yet

>but its socket has some decent upgrade cpus later on so the $170 now is not wasted really
By that logic so will Ryzen since AM4 is supported until 2020. But if you're getting the 8400 you won't buy a Z370 board which really limits your options down the road anyway.

How much does Ryzen value latency? This 3400CL16 kit runs at 3466 according to the mobo's qvl, would it be better to get 3200CL14?

Attached: 3a632b049ee9b12dd9259138e3f4409b.1600.jpg (1600x1200, 236K)

Only if you plan on buying a 6c+ chip
2500k users have not needed to upgrade yet unless then have something like a 1070 or better for their GPU
I know someone who went
>2500k
>3570k
>5820k
>7600k
He is building a 8700k system now... he never OCed any of them and they all had AIOs besides the 2500k on a nice air cooler
some people are retarded and you cant help them

Attached: 1385420441583.jpg (852x939, 251K)

yes but the 2200G on a B350 has way better options than a H series board
But a i7 8700 non k is still a great cpu to upgrade to

3200 on CL14 is basically the same as 3466 on CL16 but 3100 probally has a higher chance of working compared to the 3466
Not all ryzen will run 3466 or even 3200
2nd gen is much better in this regard but its not 100%

It's from the 2700X review

>Stop spamming the same shit every thread after having multiple people debunking you every thread.
No one ever "debunks" me because I'm not some retard like you who refuses to come to data driven conclusions, shithead. It's just you flailing around miserably as you try to patch up your ego

>Even a 4c/4t CPU can bottleneck a 1050Ti in some CPU intensive games
'no'
See >dual core CPUs are dead man
>quad cores will be dead by the end of 2019
Just because new CPUs come out doesn't mean the old ones suddenly stop working, retard. Gaming in particular doesn't require powerful CPUs, and it won't for the lifespan of the PS4 Pro because it still has a relatively weak CPU (or at least the CPU portion of the APU). A G5400 is entry level that someone can use just fine, in fact very well, until he wants to upgrade to something better.

>there is zero reason why you should build anything with less than 6 cores
It's called a budget

>2200g on a b350 platform is a great stepping stone
>Its basically a i5 7500
Not even close, but you're correct in that the iGP is about like a 1030/550 and will limit the CPU in games.

>But if you're getting the 8400 you won't buy a Z370 board which really limits your options down the road anyway.
i7 8700 is still better than the 2700X when OC'd, so if you're just gaming you're actually limiting yourself by going AM4. Anyway the new 8 core Coffee refresh CPU might - just might - work on LGA1151v2 mobos that get a BIOS update
Bamboozled again

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

Meh I say it's "niche". If cheap enough, it's not too bad, and shuts up most of the shills.
If someone can't realize the 2600X recommendation is better and buys an 8400 due to their own autism and ignoring the warning of it being niche, that's their problem when they run into stuttering in newer games.

7700k was still quite good, ignoring the TIM issues. It still outperformed Ryzen 1000 series in gaming on average. Though probably worse in "real world" performance where people have more than just the game running.
Hell if someone could get a 7700+h270 cheap enough, it's still alright. It was the price that's the problem.
I except 4c/8t to remain quite good for a while. A lot (most?) of frametime graphs still show them as smoother than 6c/6t, even...

Not really.
Like you're thinking 2c/4t vs 4c/4t where you're DOUBLING the number of cores to match the number of threads. Yes, the HT is not equal to a real core 1:1 in that scenario and it's simply worse, yes, you are right *there*.
However, with 4c/8t vs 6c/6t it's a lot more even and back and forth. Sometimes the former is better, sometimes the later. But more specifically, the later at the same clocks and IPC is generally going to give higher average FPS, but having more threads is going to be consistent/smooth.

I mean yeah? I had a 2500k and it was pretty unbearable since 2016 or so. 4c/4t is just not good enough now days with how inefficient and some programs are. Whenever I'd get a Discord notification, it'd stutter games hard. More of a mini-freeze. I couldn't watch twitch on my second monitor when gaming. Shit sucked.
But to you it seems fine, dunno. Guess we have different uses.

Not true. Even a 4790k is a big upgrade over a 2500k. And 2600k and 3770k are still somewhat hanging in there now days.

Go with which has the lower TRUE latency for both Ryzen and Intel. Formula is 2000/speed*latency iirc so the CL14 3200 is faster. Maybe if you're lucky you can get it manually OCd to 3466 CL15.

>I know someone who went
>2500k
>3570k
>5820k
>7600k
That's pretty autistic, to still not believe in SMT/HT in 2017 when it was becoming clear by 2015 that it made a huge difference.
And to have downgraded to a 5820k to a 7600k.

>that's their problem when they run into stuttering in newer games.
>m-m-muh stutterfires!111!

>Even a 4790k is a big upgrade over a 2500k
You definitely wouldn't buy a 4790K if you're coming from a 2500K, but a 3770K would be a great upgrade

Attached: ACO 4770K vs 1400 vs 1600X.png (912x851, 114K)

Can you stop derailing /pcbg/ with cherry picking spam and your not knowing the difference between average FPS and frametime graphs?
Off topic posts aren't allowed. Especially when they're obvious trolling.

Thanks.

I do have a 1070. Thankful before the bitcoin apocalypse. It might be time for a true over haul. What do you all think I could do for $800 and a 1070?

Did you watch the review of the 2200g vs the G5400?
The 1070 is limited in all games by the pentium but the AMD chip is maxing the card out. Sometimes its nearly double the framerate

And yes the 2200G @ 3.9ghz with 3200mhz ram will peform as well as a locked 4C i5
Here is a ryzen 1200 vs 7500
1200 ryzen is the same thing as a 2200G without the G part
youtube.com/watch?v=opJdJijEQ4M

Shut up, faggot. You're so stupid you probably didn't even wipe your ass after the last shit you took.

Thanks.

Attached: PUBG CPU 1080p Ultra Medium Very Low-min.png (1928x3260, 702K)

He only watches what confirms his bias, m8.
And if it only partially confirms his bias, but predominantly contradicts it, he'll cherry pick out what's in his favor and ignore the rest.
Watch him start cherry picking out the results where the G5400 is close and ignoring the ones where it's half the FPS. Anything to justify trolling people into buying obsolete hardware.

I'm kind of torn between i5 8600k and Ryzen 5 2600x

I hear that Intel chips runs a lot hotter these days, right?

Also what's a good TN panel, 144hz monitor that's around.

This is second gen, I should have specified. But if they're about the same wouldn't the higher clocked one end up better due to the infinity fabric?

>i5 8600k
kek
Just get a 8400 instead.
If not, get the 2600x. If more shekels then a 2700x or 8700k.

Ryzen 5 2600x is better, and save up for a 144 ips, tn is disgusting shit

>Did you watch the review of the 2200g vs the G5400?
Yes, I found the video to be a poor effort on Steve's part, honestly. He didn't post any detailed graphics relating to average CPU performance, CPU and platform cost to performance, or any tests with low end graphics cards. He also didn't test enough games

>The 1070 is limited in all games by the pentium but the AMD chip is maxing the card out.
The 2200G does not max out the 1070 at 1080p in all, or even most, cases. The HWUB video does not show that, either. You're misinterpreting the results. Sometimes the 2200G certainly does max out the 1070, because as I've noted before, gaming is not a CPU intensive exercise. I would definitely never suggest a 2200G + 1070 pairing for 1080p.

I've seen that comparison video you posted before, which basically has a bunch of GPU limited situations. It's a very flawed methodology. It definitely proves that powerful CPUs aren't required for gaming, but it doesn't show which CPU is actually better for gaming. Hint: it's the 4c/4t i5 or 4c/4t i3, especially considering that Ryzen doesn't get good support in all games.

>He only watches what confirms his bias, m8
I watch all the HWUB benchmark videos, dear assblasted user.

>cherry picking out the results where the G5400 is close
It's about price/performance, not absolute performance, my little retard. To quote myself "Clearly the 2200G is a better [more powerful] CPU: it also costs a lot more, and its extra performance is wasted on a low end graphics card"

CPU choice depends on your monitor and graphics card
TN panels are outdated. You want VA

The problem with 6c/6t is that it can provide really inconsistent frametimes. And the 8600k is like $100 more expensive for motherboard and CPU than the 8400.

Even in a clean benchmarking environment, which has nothing running in the background to upset results, a 6c/6t like the 8400 can provide really janky inconsistent frametimes that are worth than the older and cheaper 1500X @3.9ghz.
Though these results are typical now days, you'll run into them more in more demanding games, in real gameplay with more AI and gameplay going on, and if you have more running in the background. SMT is VERY good at handling tasks in the background without interrupting the resources a game wants to use to keep performance consistent.
And again, while the results in this picture aren't common, they still happen, and they happen worse on a real user's PC, and not a benchmark, where you have stuff running in the background. The 2600X has no such strange outlier results like this that happens. It's much more consistent and reliable, even if the average FPS might be lower.

Also you can use the new precision boost 2 overclocking on the 2600X to overclock without it being crazy hotter. It's the best new feature in CPUs, really.

Simply put, the 2600X is just plain cheaper and better than the 8600k and every way except single thread performance, but that slightly better single threaded perf of the 8600k does not make up for its very many shortcomings.

And what said, you really want VA at minimum. TN is garbage.

Attached: 8400 st-st-stutter worse than a 1500X.jpg (711x457, 41K)

I have an RX480 at the moment. Is that good for the games today? I don't game very new stuff yet. Mostly older stuff like Civilization 5 and older console ports. When is AMD making a new series of cards already?

>worse than
I meant, not
>worth than

and
>Though these results are not typical now days
oops.

the 2200G at 3.9ghz is stonger equal to a i5 7500
If you are saying the i5 7500 limits the 1070 you are wrong.
They both were sold current at the same time.
The FPS shown is what the 1070 gets not what the 2200G gets
If he used a 1080 ti the results would be even worse the for 5400 pentium as its limited with a 1070 vs the 2200g not limiting the 1070 like I said.
and yes a powerful cpu is needed for todays games
3-4 years ago a i3 2c4t was decent for the GPUs at that time and the games at that time
Games are more threaded now like way more threaded.
You cant even load BF1 with less than 4t it wont run on 2c2t setup
Also someone said something about console GPUs
they are the reason while multithreading is getting more important. They have very weak CPUs in terms of single thread but they run 8 core chips so multithreading will keep getting better and better overtime in game engines
4c4t chips by the end of 2019 will be where 2c chips are today in terms of how they limit graphic performance and over gaming expierances

>I have an RX480 at the moment
It's great for 1080p

Price to performance is a great tool but if the performance is so low its below the minimum required to run its not an option.
I can buy a sandy bridge i3 system complete for 40$ and it will perform ok with say a 1050 ti but its not worth it because its so limit in its spec it has no room to grow with increasing demands.
The pentium is not an option for gaming these days. The cost of memory GPUs and motherboards dont allow the 30$ price gap to be justified. If you are that hard on a budget you need to go used parts not new
I would never buy a 8600k either.
Its overpriced and worse than the 2600x is everything besides a few gaming benchmarks of some games of today.
Also the platform cost is much higher and you have to buy a cooler for it.

>8400
>niche
You mean the best budget gaming cpu?

Why do you want to upgrade so badly when your GPU already plays like everything at 60-150fps?
Find another hobby m8.

The 7500 and 2200G will both bottleneck a 1070 @ 1080p on SOME games. Not a lot of them, not half of them, but still on a significant number of them. A 2400, 7700, or 1600 are the minimum you want for the CPU to more reliably keep above 60fps.
@ 1440p you should be fine almost all the time with them, but still.

Only if you're only going by average fps for the CPU cost only without factoring in the board and negatives that come with it. If you go by frametimes, the limits of B260, etc, it's niche and loses its value.
Have to be pretty dumb to only consider average FPS, and not consider 0.1% minimums, frametimes, inconsistencies in results, upgradability, lack of StoreMi included, etc. Only a dumb shill would only look at two measurements and make a blanket conclusion off that.
2600X is the better choice. Better minimums, better consistency, better platform, etc. 8400 is only better when you ignore its outliers that bring it down. You can include 2600X outliers and it's still fine, those outliers aren't nearly as bad. Like where the 8400 is worse than a 1500X. That result doesn't just magically go away because you chose to ignore it. It's a flaw in the lack of HT/SMT.

>the 2200G at 3.9ghz is stonger equal to a i5 7500
Only in Cinebench

>If you are saying the i5 7500 limits the 1070 you are wrong.
At 1080p it easily can, at 1440p, no.

>Games are more threaded now like way more threaded.
>You cant even load BF1 with less than 4t it wont run on 2c2t setup
Correct, no one is disputing this. BF1 is not the only game that won't launch or is completely unplayable on a 2c/2t CPU. TW3 comes to mind

>Also someone said something about console GPUs
>they are the reason while multithreading is getting more important. They have very weak CPUs in terms of single thread but they run 8 core chips so multithreading will keep getting better and better overtime in game engines
Also correct, but on PC, the market mostly doesn't consist of 8c/8t CPUs, so engines are designed to accommodate fewer threads.

>4c4t chips by the end of 2019 will be where 2c chips are today in terms of how they limit graphic performance and over gaming expierances
A year and a half on a budget CPU that provides mostly over 60FPS while I save up for an upgrade on the same socket? Sounds great to me! Anyway 4c/4t CPUs will most definitely, for sure, without a doubt, launch and provide playable performance in all games released in 2019 and significantly beyond. 2c/4t chips will as well, but playable will probably be a 30FPS lock. Reasoning? Consoles won't have evolved by 2019 so you can expect CPU requirements to continue to be stagnant

>if the performance is so low its below the minimum required to run its not an option.
Correct, and the G5400 only fails in one game that I know of, PUBG, and everyone knows that's a competely trash game from a coding standpoint. Basically unplayable on console. In all other games the G5400 is most definitely not below the minimum requirement to run >The pentium is not an option for gaming these days
It most clearly is, especially as an entry point to a platform. You can sell the G5400 for almost as much as you bought it for when you need to and get something better on the same socket. People have different standards and plenty of people have a backlog

I found someones old 2008 gaming rig on the curb and am i'm in the process of getting everything sorted out for as cheap as possible

-AMD - Phenom II X6 1055T
-Cooler Master - Hyper 212 LED
-Some horrific Gigabyte - GA-MA790X-UD4P ATX AM3 motherboard
-8 gigs of some Kingston ram I ripped out of some old workstations at work
-A WD Blue 320GB and Seagate BarraCuda 1TB drives
-Gigabyte 1050 ti
-Raidmax 630W power brick
-2 cd/dvd rw drives and a floppy drive
-Unknown shitty case everything came in

Added the cooler, gpu, and hard drives -only payed for the hard drives and the cooler. I still have no idea what i'm doing.

>5400 only fails in one game that I know of, PUBG
And by fails I mean that I'd never play PUBG with a Pentium, not that some poorfag out there can't

Why are monitors so fucking expensive? $700 for IPS screens? That's insane.

Don't some people use HDTVs as monitors instead? You could get a 50 inch SHDTV with that kind of money

Pressed the power button yet?

>Why do you want to upgrade so badly when your GPU already plays like everything at 60-150fps?

I'm not upgrading. I'm building my PC for the first time in like 20 years. I was a laptop owner for a long time now.

>Also correct, but on PC, the market mostly doesn't consist of 8c/8t CPUs, so engines are designed to accommodate fewer threads.
Console ports are typically well optimized for 4c/8t. This is why 6c/6t is often worse for a lot of them when it comes to frame time consistency, but at least better than 4c/4t.

I consider the minimum for gaming to be that the CPU should keep above 60fps at a MINIMUM not an AVERAGE.
The i5-7500 and 2200G both fail at this by a bit, but the 2200G is still god value so I give it a bit of a pass.
The G5400 fails MISERABLY at this and often can't even manage to stay much above 30fps in lots of games, not just PUBG. It can't stay above 60fps minimum on half the big releases (Kingdom Come, BF1, Vermintide 2, Ass Creed, etc), and you won't be running newer emulators on it for shit.
Hardware Unboxed's comaprison of 2200G and the G5400 show this. It shows the G5400 struggles to keep near a 60fps minimum IN A STERILE BENCHMARKING ENVIRONMENT, so real world results are even worse. And he left out a TON of the results that are awful for it.

The G5400 is so bad compared to the 2200G that I'd have trouble recommending it when it comes to building grandma a computer, let alone recommending it for gaming. And for like a NAS, there are much cheaper options like last gen Celerons, so it's not good for that either. It's not good for ANYTHING.
You are an obvious manipulative shill if you are suggesting the G5400 to people.

Don't use TV as monitor.
Are you looking at 1440p screens? Yeah 1440p ips prices are retarded. Maybe look at VA panels?

You said you have an RX480. That's a 2 year old GPU, not 20 years old.

How should I go about if I want to set up two drives in RAID 1? Are there good software solutions or do i need to get a hardware solution like a RAID controller?

>bought an R5 2600X and CPU combo online
>emailed store multiple times requesting they confirm if the BIOS is 2000 series updated or if they would be willing to update it before shipping
>no response
>shipping notification
>20 minutes later. "as your order has shipped we unfortunately can't update the BIOS for you. please check your motherboard manufacturer's website to download the newest BIOS"

So I got the CPU today and as far as I can tell the BIOS doesn't support my 2600X. Everything lights up and the fans spin but I get no video out from the GPU.
Are my only options to either wait 10 days for AMD to send me an APU to update with or buying a second CPU for probably $100 and hoping I can re-sell it for half that? Anyone had any luck convincing AMD to ship a bootkit faster than literal molasses ground shipping?

>I consider the minimum for gaming to be that the CPU should keep above 60fps at a MINIMUM not an AVERAGE.
Not everyone has this restriction. Personally I think that's a great target, and that's what I would be looking for in a new PC, but you have to understand that many people are fine with a 30FPS lock or simply want a PC (to pirate, or play some old game). Those people can upgrade when they feel the need. /pcbg/ is for the whole spectrum of PC builders, including non-gamers

>The i5-7500 and 2200G both fail at this
Let's use the i3 8100 as a comparison, which costs barely more than the R3 and fails significantly less

>It shows the G5400 struggles to keep near a 60fps minimum
Again, not everyone has this restriction for various reasons

>I'd have trouble recommending it when it comes to building grandma a computer
It's fucking great for a HTPC etc if you're not doing any lite gaming. That's an emotional decision, not a logical one.

>You are an obvious manipulative shill if you are suggesting the G5400 to people.
Alright, we were having a nice conversion. Don't make me harshly point out how narrow and small minded you are, projecting your own standards etc on other people

If you really did contact them way before the board shipped out (like 24hs+), get in contact with customer service and demand store credit or some similar compensation

>If you really did contact them way before the board shipped out (like 24hs+), get in contact with customer service and demand store credit or some similar compensation
Ordered last Thursday, emailed within an hour of receiving my order confirmation, followed up Friday morning and again Monday morning. Receiving the shipping notification at 7pm on Monday and a response within 20 of the notification.
I've emailed them twice since to ask if they could ship a new updated board and I'll return this one since that seems easier than waiting the two weeks AMD takes to a ship a bootkit but they aren't responding and calling in just sends me to a customer service voicemail box.
I forwarded a copy of their response to AMD to ask if they could use express shipping or something but haven't heard back yet.

>frame times in one game made by ubisoft
Was this supposed to prove something? Anyone got frametime averages for multiple games?

I snatched an RX480 before crypto fucked up the prices. I didn't elaborate it well

You are a lying cuck i looked it up and 8400 doesnt have worse frame times then ryzen

Attached: Screenshot_20180501-212513_Chrome.jpg (1406x932, 222K)

Attached: Screenshot_20180501-212644_Gallery.jpg (1434x944, 194K)

Liar

Attached: Screenshot_20180501-212808_Chrome.jpg (1440x912, 228K)

>muh stutter
>buy amd

Attached: Screenshot_20180501-213007_Chrome.jpg (1432x948, 206K)

I got a used i7 7700 non-k for relatively cheap. I'm upgrading from a Pentium, but I have a budget B250 board, will my thermals and VRMs be fucked? I hear that the stock cooler isn't enough even on locked i7s.

If you have case fans and a decent cooler it will be fine

AMD is sending out bootkits for 2000 series chips. So yes you may have to wait for that.
>buying a second CPU for probably $100 and hoping I can re-sell it for half that
No wtf why do that?
If you're desperate to do it fine, a local PC store may update it for cheap, or even free if you just purchase something in their store.

2200G is better for an htpc and worth the slight extra cost. You're talking like a $350 vs $400 build. For an only 1.15x higher price you get 2x the CPU and 30 times the GPU.

I don't have image editing software on my PC and don't want to spam images. But here's another. Witcher 3.

Na you should be fine. Go for it.

Attached: st-st-stutterlake wither3.jpg (711x457, 31K)

Been running for 3 months now, i'm just working out peripherals and cheap case with a floppy drive bay.

Attached: MVC-007X.jpg (1024x768, 192K)

It's niche because its only use case is gaming, the 2600/X destroys it in pretty everything else.

This doesnt even compare the 8400 with the new ryzen cpus you dumb shill, it compares it to shitty cpus no one wants to buy

Those Project Cars 2 frametimes aren't consistent with any other reviewer. I wonder if Tom's Hardware is using a bad Nvidia driver there. Tbh could explain as well.
Project Cars 2 is usually incredibly smooth on any modern hardware.
youtu.be/bIc2OP68Mvo?t=1m40s

I'm experiencing a situation where running a game on medium settings is laggy but putting it on high gives smoother gameplay. I have yet to try Ultra.

What is the logic behind this?

those 6 core phenoms are actually not that bad
should run ok with that gpu but anything stronger and I would look into a sandy bridge i7 setup or something like that.
That should run most games medium settings tho at like 50fps

Every bench is different and depends on methodology

Attached: Screenshot_20180501-214510_Chrome.jpg (1429x950, 228K)

That one shows the 2600X is better than the 8400 tho.

It's likely that your CPU is getting thermally throttled with the game's graphics are on medium which makes it stutter.

Yeah. By 1 ms.

The 2600x at 4.2ghz looks much better than "by 1 ms"
i5 8400 is a great budget gaming cpu but the 2600 is a great cpu overall

Read the chart moron. Its 1.5 - 2ms for the oc 2600x.

FUCK AMD

it's gotten me this far.

Yes, and the 2600X can be overclocked to around 4.4-4.6GHz 2 core boost which widens that further, while the 8400 is locked.

Like the 8400 isn't terrible. It's Intel's best value CPU in a LONG time. The 2600X is just so much better of a buy even for pure gaming purposes.

That's 4.2GHZ all core which is actually an UNDERCLOCK in many cases. The proper way to overclock the X CPUs is with a PB offset and voltage offset to let XFR2 which can give you 4-4.3 base and 4.35-4.55 boost.

If people are going to OC 8700ks to 5.2GHz, it's only fair that they properly OC Ryzen as well. And compare power draws, because PB2 is far more efficient and doesn't require delidding.

Stop lying you retatded drone they dont oc to 4.4.ghz-4.6ghz stable

Just to add to this discussion, I use a G4560 and it just werks, I do a little photo editing and HTML coding, as well as casual gaming. When I game or do work I usually at most only have a browser tab open and play music and I never run into any real problems. I plan on upgrading the CPU though, not really because it's inadequate now but because I might get a 1440p monitor for work and my PC will need more firepower for that.

Yes they do.
You can increase BCLK up to 104.95 which gets you around 4.6GHz if your memory is stable enough.

Don't comment on things you know nothing about.

Attached: BLCK 103.4 (conservative).png (572x767, 267K)

so what can 2600x oc to with stock cooling (spire wraith is what it comes with i think?)

FUCK INTEL

Just to make sure you're plugging your monitor into your graphics card and not the motherboard right?

Yep. Tried DVI, HDMI and DisplayPort. No signal from any of them. Tried with two different cards.
I've been trying to find out what the result of not having a compatible BIOS is but I can't find anything but reddit posts about people spamming the link to AMDs support page for ordering a bootkit so I'm assuming that's what this is.

Kek blck overclock is trash what kind of retard would actually do this and its not even supported on all boards

>so what can 2600x oc to with stock cooling
Nothing, really.
Get a better cooler if you want to OC. You can maybe increase PB offset and keep stock voltage the same if you are lucky with the silicon, but don't expect anything. And higher frequency on the same given voltage does increase temps a bit.

Confirmed retard

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

Is there a company that produces botnet-proof hardware? I mean there has got to be a demand for this from all sorts of critical infrastructure: stock brokers, military etc.

so the wraith spire fan is completely useless then and cant let the cpu oc at all?

why even give it a name then

Why dont you try a big bclk oc so we can laugh at you when you burn out for sata ports and destroy your ssd

FUCK NVIDIA

FUCK EVERYONE WHO IS NOT VIA

You can get a cheap cooler that'll be nice and quiet. I would

>For an only 1.15x higher price you get 2x the CPU and 30 times the GPU.
Yeah, but if you _never need those things_ you're paying for nothing

Higher graphics options put the load on the graphics card and give the CPU breathing room. The one setting you might want to keep on Medium is shadows/shadow draw distance. You have observed well. Do not forget your observation

Thanks for posting. People here are enthusiasts so they forget the low end can 'just werk'

FUCK QUALCOMM