/pcbg/ - PC Building General

>The 2600 is just a plain better choice now that it's out.
>for any reason except when it was significantly cheaper.

who gave you the authority over the OP? please tell us all which Jow Forums mod said you have ultimate control over this thread? the 8400 is still a valid purchase regardless of your shitty opinion on it. it provides the cheapest no hassle entry into the midrange market which is a contrast to its competitor where it performs slower on average but can gain a lot from tweaking and faster ram, which most people would consider a hassle if they don't care for overclocking and spending more on fast ram.

if you're talking about value for money then why the fuck is vega anywhere in the OP? vega has been shit with terrible performance compared to its rivals in popular titles, massively overpriced for most of its life, uses more power on average, requires a beefier PSU to run due to power connectors etc etc. if you're removing the 8400 because of value for money then you have to remove vega too. but you won't, because you're a biased retard that gives AMD a free pass for their failures but hates on the other companies when they fail. what's even more pathetic is that you do all this marketing for free.

1060 6GB isn't too far off from the 1070 (non Ti), the biggest difference is the extra 2GB of VRAM and higher power draw/heat, but the chances of you noticing that are small.

>tn panel
>shit colors
pick both.
iirc XG2402 is still the best tn monitor with the most decent colors, but it's still far from va or ips.

>Is the i3-8350k truly the best value CPU
it's absolutely not. it's a 4c/4t cpu and while it might perform better in games that dont use more than 4 threads and favor clock speeds, it will get wrecked by any new game that uses more than that. also you'd need a z370 mobo and an aftermarket cooler to use it fully, which makes its value shit.
i5 8400 is a much better buy. 6 threads, doesn't require z370 motherboard, has a stock cooler. check out performance per dollar charts on techpowerup. ryzen 5 2600 is even better value, but does a little worse in games.
in short: i3 8350k is an awful meme-tier cpu. don't pick it based on performance in one game.

if you care about price/performance then 2600 and gtx1060 is a good pick (or rx 580 8gb if you can get it at the same price). higher tier gpus tend to have lower value. also consider buying used, you can probably get gtx 1070 for the same price as new gtx 1060.

2600x isn't really worth it over 2600.

get a samsung c24fg73
best in class colors by a mile

to add to that: the 2600 is quite a bit cheaper but comes with a significantly worse cooler so if you want to overclock (which AMD allows for all chips) you pretty much have to get an aftermarket one (so 20-30 $ of that difference are now gone) and it's binned worse so you'll struggle to reach the same frequencies with a manual overclock.

I assumed you meant 1080p, if you want higher resolution then the 1060 is a bit slow, yes.

>if you care about price/performance then 2600 and gtx1060 is a good pick (or rx 580 8gb if you can get it at the same price). higher tier gpus tend to have lower value. also consider buying used, you can probably get gtx 1070 for the same price as new gtx 1060.
note that this is explicitly for gaming, I don't care about performance in other things. like I can literally wait the extra minute to compile my code, I don't care about that. But I care about stuttery shit in video games

I don't mind going slightly higher end even if it's slightly less value, I just want to spend as little as possible to hit the mark, if you know what i mean. Solid 60 FPS is very important to me

>ryzen 5 2600 is even better value
see

I started doubting my build and now I have two builds. Which would you go for for mostly gaming with some video recording/editing?

Attached: crossroads.png (1403x664, 115K)

while i absolutely agree with everything you said, it's obvious that mods don't care about generals and to control the OP you just need to be an autist and make threads yourself.
in the end it's just a race whichever shill gets to post the thread first, since mods delete duplicates.

>I assumed you meant 1080p, if you want higher resolution then the 1060 is a bit slow, yes.
I might want to do 1440p but basically I want 60 FPS 100% of the time. I don't want to be walking in a big open area and have to deal with 45 FPS stuttery bullshit.

Productivity will always win out on Ryzen, no contest.
Gaming will also be adequate.

Lot of variable prices in your builds though. Why switch cases and gpus?

i5 8400
b360 motherboard
8 or 16gb 2666mhz ram
that's a great value build for gaming-only. personally i'd still go for 2600 since extra threads might be useful in the future, but there's nothing wrong with 8400 as well.
if you're at 1080p then gtx 1060 will be just fine.

>if you're at 1080p then gtx 1060 will be just fine.
my friend has one of these and it's quite slow frequently going below 60 FPS in many games

I had a 7970 before how does the 1060 compare to that? is it much better? It's been a few years so I expect so. (like 5 years?)

wait for 8-core i9 9900k which will destroy both.

Best CPU if 60fps is too good for you, sure. May as well just buy a console and enjoy your 30-45fps experience at that point.
This is from your same source, too. Are you blind?

You are wrong. RX580 and 1060 play nearly every game maxed or at least on high settings at 1080p 60fps+.
They are better performance than the GTX 980, back from a time when new generations of graphics cards actually offered better price:performance.

For the cost of the 9900k, there's be sales on the 1950X.
Isn't the MSRP on the 2920X around $650, as well? Whereas the 8c/16t 9900k is looking to be $450 or so.

Attached: 4 threads.png (804x581, 96K)

I know I'm asking a crystal ball question but does r7 2700x + 2080ti sound 1440p 144hz capable? I would rather jump from 1080 to 4K for muh even pixels but those monitors aren't quite polished yet + driving that on a single card seems impossible. How does 1080 content look on a 1440 panel? I imagine like shit

>This is from your same source, too. Are you blind?
You cherry-picked one game, why are you being so hostile? All I care about is getting the most for my dollar, I am not a fanboy or interested in teenage pissing contests

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-08-19 at 4.26.01 PM.png (1370x1128, 384K)

if you're so worried about dipping to below 60fps then settle for gtx 1070. it might be a slight overkill for 1080p though.

>For the cost of the 9900k, there's be sales on the 1950X.
but he's mainly gaming, so extra cores/threads don't matter so much.

>if you're so worried about dipping to below 60fps then settle for gtx 1070. it might be a slight overkill for 1080p though.
Well I would like to err on the side of caution to guarantee the minimum frame rate, I suppose.

What if I want to play at 1440p? Also, is it noticeably different? I haven't 'gamed' in years.

Then he'd probably be better off with a 9700K

i dont like that namefag, but 8350k is a terrible buy, period.
notice how stock 8400 seems to perform the same as 8350k @ 4.8GHz. 8350k only is only at the top thanks to that killer overclock, which requires a more expensive mobo and a good aftermarket cooler, while 8400 will get the same performance out-of-the-box with the shittest mobo and a stock cooler.

980ti, which is on par with 1070, is still giving me 70-90 frames in recent titles and 100+ on older ones

What is the best AM3+ CPU for gaming?

in my opinion higher resolutions are a meme and you should go for 144hz instead. 144hz vs 60hz is like 60fps vs 30fps, everything is much smoother.
saying that, 1080p144hz is more taxing on the pc than 1440p60hz.

>AM3+
Nothing. It's time to move on from that platform.

Oh, you're right. Thanks.
So maybe a used 980 Ti on eBay? They seem to be about $250. That seems very reasonable

so my total build will be like
$180 - cpu
$250 - graphics card
? ram, mobo, case, whatever - $300ish?
so I'm looking at around $730 before taxes unless my estimation is off

FX-9590. it also can be used as a space heater while gaming. it's a terrible buy because any money you save by not buying a new platform will be wasted by monstrous power consumption.

Hmm, well honestly I can't tell a huge difference between resolutions when it comes to fast motion graphics but I can when it comes to text, so I'm willing to bet that you're right when it comes to FPS vs resolution. However, I know that in more demanding games the FPS would be bouncing around instead of a solid 100+ FPS, also screen tearing seems to happen unless vsync is on, can you explain how that works with >60 FPS games? I haven't played games since like 2015 and even then I was using a computer from like late 2011.

You can largely just add 25% to the FPS the 1080Ti gets and that's where the 2080Ti will land.

There are some retarded people on Jow Forums jerking off to their tumblr fan fictions of Turing being a 30%+ IPC and/or clockspeed increase, but it's not happening. It's the same manufacturing node V100 was made on, it's largely Volta so same Volta IPC, clock speeds aren't really higher because the TSMC "12nm" is really 16nm+.
They're worse than the retards who thought Vega 64 was going to out perform the 1080Ti in Dx11. At least there were more unknown variables with Vega that could lead someone to such a stupid prediction, but almost everything about GT102 and GT104 is known.

>but he's mainly gaming
The fuck? user said video editing.

Because you asked a silly question which ignored information from the own source you cited.
>All I care about is getting the most for my dollar
In some cases the 8350k will do nice. In other cases it'll stutter.
Do you want a CPU that's great sometimes and shit other times, or one that's consistently good?
Then get the 8400 or 2600. Those are the best for the money.

Because the 8350k gets some good results doesn't mean you can just ignore the bad ones. They don't average out. That bad running game is still going to run bad. It doesn't run better just because another game does. That CPU demanding game stays CPU demanding. And those are tests with NOTHING running in the background.
Also you have to keep in mind that most game benchmarks aren't meant to test the CPU. BF1's benchmark uses around 1/3rd as much CPU as 64 player multiplayer can use.

1080p is a pathetic amount of pixels. I haven't had less than 1200 vertical lines since the 90s.

1060 6Gb is around 40-65% above the 7970, IIRC.

980Ti is close to 1070 performance when overclocked. Though it uses a lot of power overclocked, too.
Though Nvidia has been gimping the drivers on them lately so it keeps falling further.

I can't. Prices are retarded here in huezil so my only option is getting a CPU for now.
I'm still using a x6 1100t

Only thing is I feel 6gb VRAM will increasingly be a limitation as time goes on. God help the people cucked with a 3.5 970

>Because you asked a silly question which ignored information from the own source you cited.
well no you cherry picked a single game when 9/10 of the images in that source demonstrate that the 8350k is indeed a better chip, so my quesiton was completely valid. You seem a bit like an edgy cunt which is forgivable but unnecessary

In either case the other user has solidified for me that the 8400 is the better deal overall given the price

>here in huezil
are you white ese?

screen tearing is like 4 times less noticeable on 144hz displays. it shouldn't be a problem at all.

The cases I just haven't decided between them, I like the spaciousness and airflow (live in a pretty hot area) of the Corsair but the Meshify would obviously fit better in a living space

I started having second thoughts about the 1070 Ti, I went with it at first because I have good experience with the Ti versions of cards, but I have the money to spare to go for a more premium card (I could go for a 1080 Ti if I really wanted to, but I'm not sure if it'll be worth it this close to the 2080)

>screen tearing is like 4 times less noticeable on 144hz displays
really? why?

also what about this amd free sync and nvidia gsync i hear about?

keep using that until you can afford a better upgrade.

>The fuck? user said video editing.
he said "mostly gaming with some video recording/editing". i assume he doesn't care about 2-3 minutes longer rendering times and would rather have higher fps.
>1080p is a pathetic amount of pixels. I haven't had less than 1200 vertical lines since the 90s.
no one gives a fuck about your experiences. for mid-range gaming 1080p144hz is the way to go, top-end is 1440p165hz.

yeah this namefag seems like a childish idiot

he'll say anything just to get more people buy amd.

Original question asker here, thanks for your tips.

Youtube this shit user for better explanation. Basically adaptive sync (free sync and gsync) kill screen tearing and make your frames appear smooth even with wildly fluctuating fps. Gsync is just NVIDIA being jewish about it but they have the better GPUs so freesync mostly means nothing. Tearing typically happens on 60hz panels when the game runs above 60, 144hz has more headroom thus less tearing, but it can happen

that user here, yeah i don't mind much about rendering times, i just want to be able to do other shit/play games while rendering.

I will, but I'm just looking for the rundown since I work a lot and don't have time anymore to compare all this stuff. I know it's easy to just look at a youtube vid but then I run into people like this namefag who just want to troll instead of giving sincere and good advice.

Sounds like I should just get a 1070 and an 8400 and play at 1080@144?

this . i really don't know how to explain it easily and i'm sure someone already did that already

>Sounds like I should just get a 1070 and an 8400 and play at 1080@144?
sounds good, really. that's close to what i'm planning to get myself.

Only Ryzen can really
>do other shit
while rendering.
Intel's HT is trash compared to AMD's SMT and it'll stutter and hitch at 100% utilization.

Screen tearing is less noticeable on high refresh rate displays since they tend to display the new frame much more quickly.

Nope. I only state facts.

Sounds right to me, if you're willing to slowly slide down to 60 and keep @ 1080p. 144hz is also fucking great for the desktop experience even if you can't run games at it

>Screen tearing is less noticeable on high refresh rate displays since they tend to display the new frame much more quickly.
so let's say I have an i5-8400 and a GTX 1070
do I worry about a gsync display or not?

well i have another main computer (iMac), so this one is basically just a game console.

Remember gsync adds 2-300 to the price on average factor that in too anons

>imac

What's a computer?

>What's a computer?
not familiar with this meme but it's quite a good computing experience user

It's hard to justify the cost of Gsync.
You can buy Vega 56 with a 1440p 144hz IPS monitor ($480+$300=$780) for less than the price of a 1060 with a 1440p 144hz Gsync IPS monitor ($270+$600=$870) when the Vega card is about 70% better performance.
That's how ridiculous the idiot-tax is for Gsync.

You should probably just stick with TN and non-sync if you're set on getting an Nvidia card. Adaptive sync doens't matter as much for TN as IPS, as TN has a quicker response time.

Or rather, get a Freesync TN since they don't cost more than non-sync monitors. Even though the Nvidia GPU doesn't use the Freesync, it's something that newer monitors just always have and you'll have it if you upgrade to an AMD GPU in the future.

posts, 11 posters
Jesus fucking christ. Only 4 of them are me this time. I figured there was a lot of samefaggotry going on in the last thread.

just fyi, freesync is adapted in most 1080 144hz monitors, so dont go looking for monitors without any adaptive sync. XG2402 is a decent 1080p144hz monitor with a TN panel. there is also samsung monitor with curved VA panel (cf24g73).
avoid garbage like vg248qe

Well, am I better off going with an AMD GPU then? Is there anything comparable to the 1070 in terms of price-performance? That way I can take advantage of adaptive sync.

any cpu will stutter in games while hitting 100% usage you idiot, its not the case of amd having better smt, more threads means less likely to hit 100% usage, therefore less stutter.
though i agree that 2700x is better for rendering and gaming at the same time

Good day, my dudes.

I am looking for some advice on whether to upgrade or not.

My specs are as follows:

i5-6600
2x 8GB G.Skill DDR4-2132
Radeon R9 390
ASRock H170M Pro4

Question: Is it possible/does it make sense to upgrade processor or graphics card? Or would an upgrade of any component already warrant building a whole new machine?

Vega 56

Vega 56 performs better, but it costs more.
RX580 performs worse and costs less.

You're wrong. You can use all threads 100% on an AMD CPU with SMT and a game will still run smooth, albeit at lower FPS. It doesn't stutter and hitch like an Intel CPU with HT does in the same situation.
Also, a game using 100% utilization itself doesn't necessarily cause stuttering, as well.

Please educate yourself at least the tiniest bit before you try to argue with someone who knows far more than you.

here
i think i'm gonna go with a 2700X and a 1080Ti, unless the 2080 is comparably priced. thanks for the help you guys

at least i'm actually giving advice instead of shitposting half the thread and playing the victim/shilling for amd.

the namefag will tell you to get vega56, DO NOT BOTHER.
vega56 cost the same as gtx1080 while performing way worse than it, i.e it hase bad value. this is something i've already mentioned before - going for vega solely for freesync is retarded, since you sacrifice performance compared to gtx 1080. freesync is only worth it if you're not doing that.
just go for gtx 1070

>You can use all threads 100% on an AMD CPU with SMT and a game will still run smooth, albeit at lower FPS
prove this

there's a 1070 ti going for the same price as 107's and $50 less than vega 56 despite being much faster. sale ends in 9 hours so i'd recommend you get on it

newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500431&ignorebbr=1&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-PCPartPicker, LLC-_-na-_-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10446076&PID=3938566&SID=

he's right but it's only because i told him that fucking months ago. i had long arguments with that moron where he said 100% cpu = definite stuttering. it seems he's finally come to his senses.

Wish there was a 1080ti sale

>way worse
By advice, you mean lies.

>$50 less
Plus $300 more for monitor. That's $250 more.

It was commonly mentioned by many tech youtubers who switched from an i9-6900k to the 1800X.
youtube.com/watch?v=3Lt2Hu-6vz4 It might have been this video. I haven't gone through. But I remember a video like this with Wendel and some others talking where they mentioned this in their experience.

Wrong. Different subject.
An Intel CPU is still going to get stutter in games when locking background processes needs CPU time. It's just yeah, when you disable lots of Windows services and have nothing running in the background in an unrealistic benchmark scenario, the game itself won't always stutter just because it's at 100% usage on all threads. SOME games will, but not all.

There have been 1080Tis for around $650 fairly often the past few weeks.

Attached: vega56 1440p oc.png (1820x665, 93K)

>Plus $300 more for monitor. That's $250 more.
it's an option since he doesn't need adaptive sync.

Attached: stop.png (1919x1083, 710K)

>put the geforce in my shopping cart
>suddenly newegg bills 250$ fee for my existing monitor
>to prevent any adaptive sync infetterence ;)
uh I don't think this is how it works

Attached: 1440621130407.png (283x352, 192K)

>literally who benchmark
sorry sweetie, i turst techspot/hardwareunboxed more over your nameless reviewers.

Attached: 1.png (1240x698, 211K)

>uh I don't think this is how it works

it does to him.

lmfao. You're calling one of the old school, most unbiased, most trusted reviewers for decades
>literally who
while all you have is some clickbait retard from Youtube as your source, who works for a site which never even details their testing set up nor methodology.
This is the level you're at. Next you'll cite Linus Tech Tips or Pcgamesn.

That person doesn't have a Gsync monitor already.
He was asking about monitors as well.
Now you're just as retarded as for backing him up when his comment is so clearly in the wrong.

I appreciate that you now add benchmarks to you claims but I'm a bit sceptical as to where they came from and what "overclocked" means.
AMD cards used to be better with DX12 but the latest Nvidia drivers seem to have stopped that which leads to and

>You're calling one of the old school, most unbiased, most trusted reviewers for decades
link me to actual article, retard.
also hardwareunboxed is responsible for that 2600 vs 8400 article which you amdrones like so much, where 2600 wins when you throw extra $150 at it in form of b-die, cooler and mobo.

>lmfao. You're calling one of the old school, most unbiased, most trusted reviewers for decades
says who? literally no one has even cared about them, ever. "old school" benchmarkers which are respected are anandtech, techpowerup, techspot, guru3d. no one ever posts overclockers benchmarks.

holy fuck the shillin. shut the fuck up about the i9 processors they are gonna be expensive overpriced garbage.

You understand that you don't need a Gsync monitor to run a Geforce card?

I've added benchmarks plenty.

I just don't bother lots of the time because most people are just shitposting and wasting time and aren't going to be convinced by them.
There's a few posters here that just jerk off to tricking people into buying 1070tis, then coming here going
>What the fuck I was looking for a monitor for my 1070ti I got a bit ago. Why is Gsync so much more expensive than Freesync?
Meanwhile people buy a Vega 56 with a 1440p IPS and they post how happy they are. They hate that.

It's overclockersclub. Their Vega 56 nitro review.
>also hardwareunboxed is responsible for that 2600 vs 8400 article which you amdrones like so much
I never cite hardwareunboxed/techspot, even when their results are what I'd like to see. They are a terrible benchmarker and reviewer. There's a huge difference between bias/favor and complete manipulative bullshitting.
I favor AMD, but I don't lie or manipulate like some others do on both sides - mainly the Nvidia and Intel side of
>ignore Goysync costing way fucking more! Ignore their anti-consumer price gouging now that they're finally on top after 6 generations of being behind!
>ignore security vulnerabilities and vastly inferior patent-dodging "SMT"!

The 9700k should be a good gaming chip if it winds up still being ~$350. But yeah the 9900k is surely going to be $450+ and getting into Threadripper territory. I'm not sure who that CPU is supposed to be for, other than idiots.

I said that myself, that if user goes the Nvidia route that he should get a no-sync or Freesync TN instead of a Freesync IPS. Pay attention. It's not that many posts higher than the one you're replying to.

You guys always seem to cherry pick what I say and ignore how unbiased my advice really is. You just think it's more biased than it is because you don't read and/or just don't know enough about PC tech.

expect he's getting a high-end pc with a 1440p 144hz monitor. he probably doesn't mind shilling another $80.
also i already recommended 2700x to him after he said he's gonna play and render at the same time.

>I favor AMD, but I don't lie or manipulate like some others do on both sides - mainly the Nvidia and Intel side of
you do though

may aswell go ryzen 16thread or threadripper 16 core at that point. the i9 is gonna get a maybe 9% boost in some games. otherwise its gonna be a nice heater for your flat.

2700x is ryzen 16 threads, no reason for threadripper for home usage and gaming at high fps, where mesh design actually hurts performance in games, 2700x performs better.

>State the budget & CURRENCY for your build
$2000 USD. I could go higher.

>List your uses; eg Gaming, Video Editing, VM Work
I would like to make a server to store photos and video for my upcoming YouTube Channel on /diy stuff. I have a desktop and and laptop that can handle video editing/photo editing.

I'm renting a house and cant wire cat 5, so I have to go wireless.

Anyone know of a build with a case that had a lot of drive bays? Raid 1 or Raid 5 would be ideal with potential for expansion.

Attached: cute puppy.webm (480x360, 954K)

this guy absolutely seethes through his teeth whenever he sees anyone with nvidia and non adaptive sync posting how good their experience is. it doesn't fit into his "adaptive sync is compulsory" narrative.

I can't imagine caring so much about something that absolutely doesn't matter whatsoever

99% of people here just want to play video games and compile some code and do homework
literally 99%

i know right? just let the guy buy his gpu instead of forcing all these shitty adaptive sync marketing on them. this namefag needs to understand that.

>overclockersclub.
epic, literally never heard of them. i'll go ahead and assume they results are garbage, since according to them all gpus get lower fps at 1080p then they do at 1440p.
overclockersclub.com/reviews/sapphire_nitro_limited_edition_radeon_rx_vega_56_8gb_hbm2/6.htm
truly "most trusted" reviewers. vega is a meme, get over it.

how does he have so much time, he's spent literally the whole day, most of it just arguing with no proof or straight up shitposting.
i like helping people with their builds but fuck me if i have to deal with retards like him the whole time.

if all you want is a media server to store shit on, you can do that for like $500. look for "plex server builds" on google or something