/pcbg/ - PC Building General

I'm seriously considering skipping waiting for vega and directly switching to a 1050ti due to this, seriously they need to get their shit together

> Bought Taichi instead of the Hero / Code
> Bought Noctua instead of Aios
> Didn't fall for the Ryzen meme and stuck with intel

Have I avoided all the noob traps?

Attached: sgvs.jpg (850x1280, 158K)

i had a 390 which i got just before gta 5 pc game out and i remember having a fuckload of issues in gta 5 for ages. the driver was i think catalyst drivers but then i remember they brought out these new drivers called crimson which had even more issues than the previous drivers so i waited for about 8 months and then picked up a gtx 1070 and it's been smooth sailing ever since. amd seem to keep changing the name like catalyst to crimson to the adrenaline ones you just mentioned but the bugs seem to be getting worse every time so i don't really understand what they're doing with these new driver types.

Welcome to Meltdown and Spectre.

Look at the top of the image silly
Intel is the end-all "noob trap" since unexperienced builders hear Intel = gaming and stick with it
Tea is cute though

Attached: illust_67736364_20180520_025002.png (2894x2039, 1.91M)

Pretty much, yeah.
Don't listen to buyer's remorsing amdrones, at least you don't have to run cinebench 5 times a day to make yourself feel good about your purchase.

Attached: 15148343710742.jpg (661x661, 47K)

Ryzen including a "good" stock cooler that I would end up replacing anyway triggered my autism too hard man.

1920x1080 60hz monitor for gaming. Thoughts?

pcpartpicker.com/list/f9k4sZ

Hi friends I need a new monitor mainly for gaming and films. I want it to be 27" and 1440p. Any recommendation better than the C27H711 for the same or lower price? ty ty ty

Attached: KtxznAY.jpg (1080x2560, 313K)

>intel
>not a noob trap

Attached: 1453861264825.gif (396x216, 1.04M)

So I want to build a PC that allows me to edit videos that are similar to those "infographics" you see all the time on Facebook.
But I am kind of lost about the whole process and I am about to just go for a MacBook Pro with these specifications:
Dual Core Intel i5
Intel Iris Plus 640
2.3 GHZ turbo 3.1
8GB RAM

My budget is 1.5k USD. Help me from making a dumb decision.

>but not much compared to FX -> Ryzen
Probably won't every happen again.

TSMC 7nm won't be as good as GloFos.
TSMCs is likely to be around performance 25-30% over 1st gen Ryzen. Ryzen 2000 was already like 5-12% performance increase.

Though I guess it depends on whether GloFo 7nm is coming to consumer next year or not. AMD is using TSMC's process for Epyc first because they cost more, it appears. They may not recycle any dies to consumer due to the cost. Or if they do, they'll just be Black Editions.

Maybe this is the right place to ask:

Which more notable games would I have a lot of trouble with if I subjected myself to use 2 year old AMD drivers on a 280X?

There's a set of drivers called CRT_Emudrivers that are stuck at 16.2.1 that unlock certain features I really would benefit from since I do a lot of emulation and I have a CRT TV right here that I already tested with some EDID emulation successfully. So they're really old, but they're appropriate for this.

You mean in emulation and opengl?
I don't have the answer, but just to be clear.

r8 my build

pcpartpicker.com/list/4fwNcY

Attached: 1520667085094.png (467x497, 530K)

Should I get a Zotac 1080 Ti for 750 Euros or should I wait for Turing? I plan to buy a 1440p 165Hz monitor by the end of this month and I need something way more powerful than my GTX 970 to drive it.

Attached: 1519410586354.png (770x711, 592K)

vega released august 2017
rx580 released april 2017
1080 released may 2016
1080ti released march 2017

so high end from AMD looks almost impossible, but if I were to wait till august, back to school season, what are odds to see new graphics cards?
pros for waiting, reasonable msrps hopefully, new stuff.
cons - it's waiting, I'm running on a igp fumes.

No reason to not wait at this point

mid tier from AMD and nvidia should at least have some palpable rumors by now. But I didn't hear anything yet. I think there's that1180 slide from currytech, and nothing besides vega 7nm from amd camp. Not a single hint on rx 500 series replacements.

Another question, higher resolution will mean that the CPU will be less of a bottleneck right? So upgrading the GPU will be enough for me and I don't have to upgrade my Haslel CPU to enjoy the full benefits of 165Hz 1440p monitor.

the 1080 is exactly one week away from its second birthday.

Attached: 36892efd3e.png (959x616, 237K)

Intel build: pcpartpicker.com/list/PgRLsZ
AMD build: pcpartpicker.com/list/P4KyKB

Prices/stores are from EU, so not really looking to min-max on different brands of the same product. Just wanna know if my first build in general looks good for 1080p 60fps gaming.

I picked 2666 MHz for the intel motherboard because that's the maximum from what I've looked up. I'm leaning towards the AMD build since it's not that more expensive and it's 3000 MHz. Worth it?

Also I just picked the cheapest 1060 6GB, but is it recommendable to pick up this "compact" one? Or should I go for a normal sized one.

These drivers include preinstalled video modes that are compatible with CRT TVs and monitors. Some emulators like GroovyMAME and now RetroArch support these video modes and they switch between different resolutions/refresh rates on the fly which is pretty convenient if you play shit like PS1 games on a CRT (there are many playstation titles that switch between interlaced and progressive modes, so if you can't change resolutions on the fly you're stuck with a shitty looking picture sometimes).

RetroArch is finnicky as shit and doesn't do any of this resolution switching sorcery unless you install these drivers, but they're old as shit. So I've been wondering if there are any really popular games that can really suffer from using these instead of the latest AMD drivers, really. I don't play that many but for instance, Deus Ex Mankind Divided came out way after these drivers.

All I know right now is that Windows 10 installs automatically older drivers than these (the exact version is 15.30.1025.1001-151129b-297237e, go figure) and apparently some people just do fine with em, not sure if it's because they keep updating those or because developers want to work around the fact Microsoft keeps putting these on Windows Update. Also, that 16.2.1 are the currently available drivers for "legacy" hardware from AMD (non-GCN GPUs).

tl;dr I'm just wondering if old means shit

>Storage
>Optane is good with StoreMi on Ryzen; not good on Intel
>240GB minimum for a storage drive
>2TB HDD are barely more $ than 1TB
>m.2 is a form factor, NOT a performance standard
>Consider getting a larger SSD, instead of small SSD & large HDD; add HDD later when needed

Someone at some point edited the storage advice to be the loads of horseshit it is right now, can whoever posts the next one of these go back and find the old advice from the archive.

StoreMi is rubbish, Optane is expensive with no real world benefit, Intel are fine for SSDs up to NVMe max spec, only go threadripper if you want to get some serious RAID arrays going on with more than 2 high end NVMe disks.

And the argument about 4k read/write speeds is completely irrelevent unless you're running some fucking strange server with endless GBs of 4k files, most desktops with a bunch of day to day apps/games installed lean heavily on contiguous space in the GBs

If in doubt do analysis of your PC, pic related for 4k and 500Mb files respectively. Can we stop with the Optane shilling and server spec storage layers. Instead just put all your performance based (app/games) onto the fastest SSDs possible (960's, or RAID 0 NVMe drives) and then all your other media that doesn't benefit from fast drive speeds, like media (TV/movies, images, music) on cheaper HDDs where performance is irrelevant.

Yeah but you still need a beefy cpu if you want to push all those fpu at that res
What are you using rn?

>look ma I can do nothing but transfer single large files so fast my NVMe is the best!!!

Attached: optane random read-write.png (650x398, 38K)

an i5 4670k at 4.2Ghz . I quickly overclocked it without touching the voltages, I am sure I can push more out of it. I just checked some videos and I saw it is being a heavy bottleneck, I am now torn between two decisions, getting a used high end i7 which fits my LGA 1150 or building a PC from scratch and getting a Ryzen 2700, the latter option will cost me no less than 500-600 Euros if I am willing to buy fast 16GB ram and a good motherboard for overclocking. What do you think?

Yes, 4c/4t will be bottlneck in a lot of newer games. Average FPS may be okay, but the dips wont be.

But all games simply won't consistently do 144+ fps. Many games are simply engine limited to around 90+ no matter how powerful your CPU is and how many cares you have. Many game engines even bug out if you do force them past 120fps.

>Many games are simply engine limited to around 90+ no matter how powerful your CPU is and how many cares you have. Many game engines even bug out if you do force them past 120fps.
I never knew about that. In this case I might also consider the ultra wide screens, they run only up to 100Hz but have a resolution of 3440*1440 so in 16:9 mode they are basically 27" 1440p screens.

Forgot to attach my system analysis.

So I have 2x 512Gb 960's in RAID 0 with a Win10 build and basically what I'd argue is a fairly average primary drive, I have a modern OS fully patched, I have steam and a bunch of games, and I have a bunch of applications which span both home and work productivity.

Of my nearly full 1Tb array I have 190k files which are 4k or less, so that's 139Mb total, which on a 960 @ 50-60MB takes less than 3 seconds.

Where as I have 504Gb of files which are 500MB or larger. So it's no contest.

I recommended doing this for yourself using a free tool like I did mythicsoft.com/filelocatorpro/download/ and see what percentage of your space is actually taken up by 4k (or less) files.

Real users will check where as shills will just keep spouting the same old rubbish.

Attached: Untitled.png (2886x1180, 263K)

1. Is buying a 1080 RIGHT NOW a bad idea? I don't want to "Just Wait™" for the 1180 if it isn't just around the corner.
2. How big of a powersupply do I need if I'm doing a 2700x with a 1080 (or similar)?

If I'm converting an old machine to a router with pfsense or the like on it, is it better to get a single plug network card and use it with the onboard LAN?
Or should I get a card that will take both cables on its own? Or does it not really matter?

Attached: maximus-v-gene.jpg (1500x1426, 1.05M)

>1. Is buying a 1080 RIGHT NOW a bad idea?

See this:
>2. How big of a powersupply do I need if I'm doing a 2700x with a 1080 (or similar)?
600 watts would be more than enough.

I'd recommend 4k or something over ultrawide.
Run at 75% resolution scaling, performance is around the same as for an ultrawide but you get more vertical pixels.

You can get Vega for $630 still, at least last I checked last night, assuming you're in the US. That makes more sense than a $550 GTX 1080.

If you're buying an Nvidia GPU currently, the only ones that make sense are the 1070Ti if

What cpu to pair with Rx 560? Gaming on 1080p

Wait for 2500X, look for 2400G on sale, or an i5-8100 could be okay I guess.

You actually may as well get a 2600. Seen them as low as $190 which isn't bad. It's a lot of CPU for that GPU, but you won't have to worry about upgrading CPU the next time you upgrade your GPU. Granted, you wouldn't have to with a 2400G or 1500X/2500X either...

I'd go with 750w
sweet spot, you can find both good quality budget offerings and premium alike. Try to get a gold certified at least. Lastly, reminder that Seasonic is a meme for a damn good reason.

>pozzed cpu

>I'd recommend 4k or something over ultrawide.
Problem with 4k is that it is stuck on 60Hz and the only monitor that supports higher than 60Hz will cost around 2500 Euros which is way higher than my budget. I thought of Ultrawide because of immersion, not sure though.

Go for it

>Dual Core Intel i5
>Intel Iris Plus 640
>2.3 GHZ turbo 3.1
>8GB RAM

>>>>>>.5k USD
Jesus fucking Christ

Mostly fine but watercooling is a meme
>buying wangblows

Serious question, is this the first time ever you buy a piece of technology?

>1080p 60fps gaming
Both builds are fine

>AIO
get a Noctua cooler which will cost roughly half the price and perform better. Plus zero maintenance is needed.

No, 650w is the new sweet spot.
550, or hell even 400watt, is perfectly fine for a 2700X+1080.
650 is enough for an upgrade to an unforeseen higher power usage arch in the future.

100hz+ 4k monitors should be coming out toward the end of this year. A few were announced. Both for Gsync and Freesync.

>You can get Vega for $630 still, at least last I checked last night, assuming you're in the US. That makes more sense than a $550 GTX 1080.

this is one of the dumbest posts i've seen here in a long time.

youtu.be/ObLkzhoeLn8

It's not so much they're engine limited, there are most definitely engines that sync frame rate and engine tick rate and high engine tick rates cause problems (see physics in Skyrim at 60fps+ or the ID Tech5 engine for Doom and Rage locked at 60fps) but actually these are exceptions that disprove the rule.

The bigger problem is that frame rate is not a linear measurement of performance and the jump from 0-60fps is not the same as the jump from 60fps to 120fps from a performance point of view.

To all the nay sayers (there's often many) mvps.org/directx/articles/fps_versus_frame_time.htm

There's a diminishing returns effect as you try and push higher frame rates and so you need quite substantially more power to get towards that 120-144hz rate. You can do it with really old games easily but modern games it's a lot harder, the engines are tailored towards modern hardware and there's really no CPUs that can keep up with engine tickrates that high. It's rarely some inherent flaw in the engine or baked in limitation, although sometimes it is and can be removed through advanced config.

Ultra wide is a bit of a gimmick, games render on the inherent assumption that you're rendering onto a plane and that leaves high aspect ratios deformed especially at the periphery. Support for 16:9 is way more common. I generally recommend to people to stick with 16:9 it's the most compatible and has good array of options depending on your GPU budget, 4k @ 32"+ for the high end 2560x1440 for medium range 27" and 1080p for your bog standard 24"

>100hz+ 4k monitors should be coming out toward the end of this year. A few were announced. Both for Gsync and Freesync.
only gsync as far as i've seen

>buying already delidded intels
Reminder.

Attached: wjHdhIbR5mfSNQfA.jpg (991x539, 133K)

>t. retard cherry picking Nvidia favored games, including fucking Uniengine which isn't even a game, who thinks some random neckbeard youtuber jew is better the quality German tech journalisms
This is one of the dumbest post I've seen here in a long time.

Even your own video shows its close, you retard, and Freesync monitors are cheaper than Gsync, you retard. More than $80 cheaper, you retard. And you don't have to deal with shit Nvidia software, you retard. Retard.

Attached: relative performance.png (785x504, 50K)

Whats the consensus on these? Worth the extra money?

Attached: 78u9hg.png (666x368, 109K)

>100hz+ 4k monitors should be coming out toward the end of this year. A few were announced. Both for Gsync and Freesync.
Exciting news post links if you have em. Should I wait then? You think Volta/Navi can push such high frames at 4k?

I am aware that support for ultrawide is mainly pushed by community mods and that is ok for me. Basically a 165Hz 1440p screen costs almost as much as an ultrawide 1440p100Hz screen around here that is why making a decision is difficult for me. So what you're saying is that if I am buying a G-sync monitor (which will look very smooth) then the +100 FPS will not be worth the extra horsepower and shekels to push it?

Has the idiot who keeps posting computerbase benchmarks and says they're the only relevant benchmarks even if there are 10 other sources saying otherwise gone from Jow Forums yet?

Jesus fucking Christ he turns up 43 seconds before my post. Neck yourself retard.

lol these fucking jews have no fucking mercy

pixio px277

in short? no.

Care to explain to a noob? Seems like a steal to get 15 - 20 c off your cpu.

lmao his own fucking video shows they're evenly matched (and the Strix is lower clocked than the Power Color).

His own fucking video backs up the computerbase results, one of the most reputable consumer tech analysts, but you still say otherwise. How retarded can you both be?

>"""close"""
>over 10% ahead on average
>cooler
>less power consumption
>quieter

how deluded are you? you're literally begging someone to spend $100 more on an inferior graphics card as of the latest games in that youtubers benchmark because of a fucking monitor? are you ok the head? you do realize that people buy graphics cards based on target performance, price, form factor and potentially software features, 99% of the time right? freesync/gsync has less than 5% of all steam userbase because it's irrelevant as most people play at 60 hz. even if someone wanted to use a 144hz monitor, just because he doesn't have gsync/freesync doesn't mean high fps gaming is irrelevant to him. the most used 144hz monitors in the world don't have any adaptive sync at all and i'm pretty sure i've mentioned this before here.

i'm not sure who you're quoting but i think it's this guy

As much as the "muh elite PC mustard race" faggots would try to convince you. Heat is not really a problem when it comes to CPU. As long as you're running below 90C which does most of the time on a stock cooler. Delidding is never worth it unless you are competitive overclocker who wants to set a world record or something. If you want to overclock then installing an aftermarket cooler like the Noctua or the Evo 212 should be more than enough.

I really don't think they are, unless you don't care about hard OCing it. When buying a random retail chip, you're playing the dice and can both win and lose in silicon lottery, but here purchasing first two variants (which make the most sense for price/perf) you're guaranteed to get the worst binned CPUs. That is, because literally every 8700k is capable of hitting 5GHz, it's just the matter of voltage it needs to do it, and most of the chips go to 5.1-5.2 category, because they probably measure it at atrocious voltages (1.4V+).

Attached: 1472105688456.jpg (200x250, 31K)

The 5GHz one isn't much more money, considering it's already delided. Though you lose out of the lottery of paying $370 for a 5.1 or 5.2 that you delid yourself for $40 or whatever.

10% based on what? Nigga he averaged in the uniengine result. Otherwise they'd both be the same FPS average. Lmfao.
77.5 vs 81 isn't 10%. How are you that fucking bad at math? Oh right, you're RETARDED.
If you just average the games, they're virtually identical in his test. Retarded retard.

I'm not arguing with you anymore. You're beyond help. Like holy fuck, you actually think 77.5*1.1=81 AND that Uniengine is a game.

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

>one of the most reputable consumer tech analysts
literally no one has ever said this and i've actually spoken to europeans and even they tell me digital foundry is way more popular followed by american sites like anandtech. the only person i've EVER seen say they're reliable is adoredtv but even his own amd fans write him off as a complete retard.

yes lets just conveniently leave out the rest of the facts in that post. at least you admitted you're a shill. i used to defend amd a lot back when i had my 390 but you must have some serious buyers remorse.

>$550+$100=$630
Um?
>Gync costs the same as Freesync
No it doesn't. Huh?

What's going on with this poster? He shills and lies yet claims the other is the one lying despite posting easily verifiable wrong and misleading math in his posts and random youtuber videos.

Gtx 1070 or 1080?
Both have big price drops where I live around 380 to 450 GBP (cheapest being 1070 and higher priced being 1080).

Christ do you not know how to read?

pcpartpicker.com/products/video-card/#c=367,405&sort=price

>No it doesn't. Huh?
show me anywhere i said this. i'll wait.

>Anandtech and Digital Foundry
You mean those two who constantly laud Freesync and speak against the extra cost of Gsync when Nvidia GPUs can support Freesync with a driver update?

Why do you have to omit Freesync and Gsync to try to prove a point? Is it because you're a manipulative liar?

1080 is what I said in the original post. 1080 are still $550. Not worth getting a 1080 for only 12% less than a high end Vega64 model.
PC model comes with high factory clocks. The Strix model can overclock more, and more than a 1080.

When it comes to lower range, the 1070Ti has had much better sales than the Vega56 so it's pretty irrelevant. If you're looking for a Vega56/1070Ti range card, it makes more sense to buy a $450 1070Ti than a $580 Vega56.

I have my price in GBP not USD. I've had bad experiences before with AMD graphics so they're a no-no for me. Vega 64 is £800 here. That's 1080 ti price but I don't want to spend over 500.

pcpartpicker.com/list/ZtPwcY
all suggestions welcome

>waaaaaah PLEASE buy this graphics card I BEG YOU

fuck off moron. everyone can see your blatant shilling. not a single (yes literally nobody) has recommended the vega 64 over a gtx 1080. every single publication out there has been disappointing with vega as it came a whole year after the 1080 and provided worse performance, worse power and worse thermals compared to its competitor. it didn't even have actual aftermarket cards till months after it came out whilst being insanely overpriced.

>rossman
>pc building
made me smirk, nice job

>Ryzen including a "good" stock cooler that I would end up replacing anyway triggered my autism too hard man.
What's wrong with having a decent cooler in case your current one breaks?

pcpartpicker.com/list/q92gbX

saved like $300

>Christ do you not know how to read?
What am I missing?
The guy said that Vega64 is $100 more than 1080. But I see $550 for the 1080 and $630 for the Vega64. That's $80, not $100.

-He also implied that Freesync costs the same as Gsync since he's ignoring that factoring into the cost.
-He also claimed that freesync/gsync has less than 5% install base on Steam, but Steam hardware survey doesn't even track that so he's clearly just making it up.
Yeah, I read it and it just seems to be bad math and lies.

That's a mini TI. It's hot and loud, single fan, and you aren't going to get 2000MHz on it. The regular ones are $548+.
That card is not recommended for people who can fit a regular sized 1080 in their case.
Why would you compare a high end AIB model to lowest end model of another card when comparing price, anyway? That's not how the 1080 Strix performs in that earlier video.

Genuinely not sure if you guys are this ignorant or actually trying to be deceive, at this point, as all these facts come together.

So a 1070ti at around $479-499 is not a good deal? What about a 1080 at around $579-599?

A high end 1070Ti model (not reference model) at $450 is ok. I've seen it on sale around that a few times the past week.
1080 isn't worth it at the current prices, no. 1070Ti has 95% the same core count. 1080 is only worth 5% more given all else being equal.

Dunno why some people are trying to shill overpriced 1080s so hard, but those are the facts there.

My 2700x is idling at 50C is this bad? Was around 40 when I first started but I used a little and now it's at 50

you've already seen how cheap 1080's can get yet still continue shilling you $100 gpu which is not only slower but hotter, louder and requires a HUGE upgrade in PSU especially for higher end OC ones. a gtx 1080 can easily slot into a 500w system and run fine even when OC. even a fucking 1080 ti can.

and how is a gsync/freesync monitor factored into cost? are you seriously telling everyone here you cant use your gpu on a monitor without adaptive sync or a regular 1440p/4k 60 hz monitor? holy shit the lengths you're going to just to defend your terrible purchase is astounding.

>Freesync costs the same as Gsync since he's ignoring that factoring into the cost.
This has got to be bait

Attached: 23167630_1185174538280943_7241028005026387040_n.jpg (419x610, 39K)

$100 more*

>unironically recommending vega 64

please refrain from posting here ever again.

Attached: lel.png (1919x1079, 2.38M)

I'm in the US and I haven't been finding any 1070ti's for $450 or less, only around $479 or more before rebates. Any help finding a cheaper 1070ti would be appreciated.

Support for ultra wide is much better with mods, check out wsgf.com for loads of fixes, but despite that isn't ideal because the stretching and distortion you get at the extremes. Again this is a problem inherent to rendering assumptions about monitors being flat planes and spanning into your periphery.

If you wanted really wide setups you'd be better off with 3 individual monitors that you can tilt at an angle and then use Nvidias perspective corrected rendering for the 2 flanking monitors. If you're really into ultra wide that's the way to go IMO.

Higher frame rates are definitely better for sure but yes, it's a diminishing returns problem both in terms of the value of the additional frames above the 90-100fps range and the power needed to push them.

One other fundamental problem is that often game engines are CPU limited up at that frame rate and so it's the CPU you have to flood money into to get more performance. With the GPU/graphics you can lower some settings to free up the horsepower for additional FPS, but there's rarely setting in game that free up the demand on the CPU, typically that scales with demand for more FPS. Typically to get a lot of modern games close to 144fps min you need seriously overclocked high end CPUs.

>Wondering why I was getting 90+degrees and intense throttling in everything.

Attached: not cool 3.jpg (2016x1512, 961K)

>What even goes through your head that brings you to consider an Nvidia GPU that old for that much money when it's well known how poorly they age?
I already have a AMD card. I want an nVidia one because I need another one to do GPU passthrough, and to learn (if ever...) about CUDA.
though you are right, new gens are much more powerful, but... it's $130, and I can't find good alternatives here in my country (I live in s. america. shit is expensive here..).

Attached: 1495364441993.jpg (720x727, 28K)