Want help? >State the budget & CURRENCY >Post at least some attempt at a parts list >List your uses, e.g. Gaming, Video Editing, VM Work >For monitors, include purpose (e.g., photoediting, gaming) and graphics card pairing (if applicable)
CPUs based on current pricing: >Athlon 200GE - HTPC, web browsing, bare minimum gaming (can be OC'd on most mobos with the right BIOS) >R3 2200G - Recommended minimum gaming >R5 2600/X - Great gaming or multithreaded use CPUs >i7 8700/K or i7 9700K - Extreme setup for absolute max FPS >R7 2700/X - VM Work / Streaming / Video editing
RAM: >Always choose at least a two stick kit; 2x 8GB is recommended >CPUs benefit from high speed RAM; 3000CL15 or 3200CL16 is ideal >AMD B and X chipsets and Intel Z chipsets support XMP
Graphics cards based on current pricing: >Used cards can be had for a steal; inquire about warranty 1080p >RX 570 8GB - good performance with great value >GTX 1660 - standard >RTX 2060 - very high framerates (requires complementary CPU and monitor) 1440p >RTX 2060 - standard >RTX 2080 - very high framerates (requires complementary CPU and monitor) 2160p (4K) >RTX 2080 - standard >RTX 2080Ti - better fit for 4K but expensive
General: >PLAN YOUR BUILD AROUND YOUR MONITOR IF GAMING >A 256GB or larger SSD is almost mandatory; consider m.2 form factor >Bottleneck checkers are worthless
I'm going to get 1080p144 monitor along with the PC. I should be able to run current games 120+ fps with this setup, right? Also I was trying to pick parts that will be good enough for the next 3-4 years to run new games at decently high frame rates. Things I wasn't really sure about were whether to get 1070ti or 2060, 2600x or 9600k (reading the previous thread 9600k is apparently better for 1080p high fps) and overall if there's better parts in the same price range. Currently the price is around 1200€ and I can't really go much higher than that.
2060 should be on par or better than 1070Ti, and the 2060 is newer, so should be supported by drivers for longer.
2600x vs 9600k is difficult to answer, both are fine, but the 9600k WILL have more consistent FPS in high FPS gaming. But it does cost a bit more, so that may or may not be worth it to you.
Chase Mitchell
FUCKING HELL I THOUGHT SEASONIC PSU ARE RELIABLE???
MINE DIED TWICE NOW
Hudson Martinez
What's wrong with those benchmarks, my 2600 at stock at 1440p max gets 100-130 frames. 150 at 1080p
Daniel Baker
in which game? That is showing 3 different games.
Ayden Cook
???????????
Mason Richardson
Beware Intel shills shilling you on >the only CPU which can do 144hz gaming when it reality it doesn't even do 100fps+ minimums in many games, even in their own retarded benchmarks they spam themselves.
No CPU and GPU will give you 144fps in everything. They are blatantly lying shills selling a false dream to get you to waste your money to troll you.
First the resistor got burned couple a months ago and was able to replace it and starts working again..
today when I turned it on, a big capacitor exploded
Owen James
>MINE DIED TWICE NOW what? did the same unit die twice or did the replacement also die? Sounds like your house has shitty wiring. My old Seasonic PSU from 2007 survived a lightning strike.
Luis Kelly
user, those are the lowest dips... that said, anyone using purely FPS is fucking retarded. what matters is frametimes.
Isaac Green
Did you ever think maybe your power company is garbage and you're getting dirty power from your lines?
Cooper Price
>all those intcel shills zen 2 and navi really must rustle their jimmies. AMD already takes 90% of all server cpus and navi will utterly destroy novideo and zen 14nm++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++. stop shilling for intel, you wont get rupees
Carson Young
Mate, the fuck are you doing to your PSU? My fucking seasonic is steady and there is tons of other people who have no problems with it. Not to say it's impossible for the fault be in PSU, but please really consider what the fuck are you doing.
Sebastian Foster
>Things I wasn't really sure about were whether to get 1070ti or 2060, 2600x or 9600k (reading the previous thread 9600k is apparently better for 1080p high fps) NO ONE recommends Intel unless they have a bridge to sell you. just get a 2600X. As to 1070ti or 2060, get the 1070ti. The extra vram will be useful. The problem with the current i5s is that, yea, they are capable of higher framerates due to their high clockspeeds, they aren't as smooth as the Ryzen chips, and can get maxed out in modern games that don't bother the Ryzen chips. This mainly is because the i5's lack hyper threading, so they have cores and 6 threads. The Ryzen chips, meanwhile, have SMT (Simultaneous Multi-Threading. AMD's equivalent to hyper-threading) so they have 6 cores and 12 threads. Very few games can use all 2 threads, but just about all modern games can use at least 8. Now you can see where the i5 falls flat.
Joshua Peterson
>so they have cores and 6 threads. 6 cores and 6 threads. typo
Camden Wilson
I like how dumb idiots like you only look at the node size and think smaller = better. That's like shilling diesel cars and saying they are better because they are newer than gasoline cars.
Jack Brown
lmao, it's so easy to spot an AMD shill, NO ONE recommends intel? Come the fuck on, EVERYONE recommends intel for 144hz.
Brody White
i like how dumb idiots like you reply to blatant bait
Cooper Reyes
same unit and you might be right it must be some shitty power here.
gonna try to replace the broken capacitor next week and see if it still works, if not I'll buy same unit again and give seasonic another chance...
Dylan Howard
Literally do the opposite of what this user is saying
Justin Torres
>All this AMD shit What happened to this place? Where'd all the fanboys come from?
Easton Rivera
nigga it cant die more than once, use the right phrasing so you dont cause misinformation that lead to bad advice and in return fuck up more of your shit.
>gonna try to replace the broken capacitor next week and see if it still works, if not I'll buy same unit again and give seasonic another chance... no warranty?
can say the same about the intel shills. what the fuck do you expect? at least AMD doesnt send out gift cards to best buy employees to shill their shit which should give you an idea of who the biggest shills are
Joshua Campbell
buy a UPS with automatic voltage regulation. It will actively monitor the incoming voltage and if it detects a voltage spike, or droop, it will switch over to battery power to protect your electronics from subpar "dirty" power.
Liam Morris
Only shills and ignorant people recommend Intel for sub $2500 builds. Ryzen is just better for 99% of people's budget and build goals.
And a lot of that 1% are people who want 144fps minimum yet aren't going to get it because even halfway optimized games like BF1, BFV, etc, are still going to dip under 100fps on "le best CPU" those faggots shill and lie about claiming it does 144 minimum in everything. is completely right.
Also right that a number of games like Witcher 3, Mafia III and some other Ubisoft games around that time, and Metro LL were well optimized for 8 threads on release and 6 threads stutters badly and gets 100% CPU usage on them without even that high end of a GPU. 6 threads is awful. Even if AVERAGE fps is sometimes higher, benchmarks are done in an unrealistic scenario that doesn't represent an actual gamer's usage and applications running in the background on an actual PC will affect you more with only 6 threads. That's a clear, objective fact and anyone who argues otherwise is just a lying shill.
Carter Gomez
>which should give you an idea of who the biggest shills are yeah, totally not the AMD shills who blatantly ignore benchmarks and claim 2600x/2700x are perfectly fine for 144hz gaming despite the heaps of evidence to the contrary.
Sorry, but AMD shills are FAR worse on Jow Forums than intel shills.
Hell, most of the intel "shills" are just people being honest that AMD isn't the saving grace the AMD shills are selling you on.
Andrew Nelson
>Only shills and ignorant people recommend Intel for sub $2500 builds. Nope, only shills like yourself actually believe this though.
If your options are 2700x and RTX 2080 or 9700k and RTX 2080, and you're playing at 144hz, you'd have to be a moron to get the 2700x.
The only exception is if you're able to afford a better GPU for the same money. So for example, a 2700x and RTX 2080 or a 9700k and an RTX 2070.
Get the 2700x and 2080.
But if you're not getting a GPU upgrade for the saved $$, it's pointless recommending AMD unless you're a pure price for performance queen and simply can't handle the idea that price for performance ISN'T the only factor in making a purchase.
See how the Intel shills can only lie and make false claims? This user claims it's >the AMD shills who say 2600X/2700X can play every game at at 144fps. At the same time, this lying shill is claiming that Intel CPUs CAN run all the games at 144fps minimum, when they can't.
No >AMD shill makes those false claims that Intel shills do. Intel shills are the ones who blatantly lie like that, selling an unobtainable dream that is physically unobtainable. Right there, in >calling out he's making the same lie yet again that he's already been called out for Le >AMD shills have no problem admitting that the best AMD CPU won't get 144fps minimum in everything. Yet Intel shills non-stop lie and claim that a 9700k will get you that 144hz gaming goal when it won't.
Mason Taylor
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X 2X Radeon RX 580 Crossfire ASRock X370 Taichi EVGA SuperNOVA Scythe Mugen 5 and Wraith Prism Samsung 860 EVO 500GB Raven RV03 How's this list? Believe it or not I managed to get all this for under $700 or so by checking OfferUp and eBay and random yard sales. My aim is pure overkill with amazing performance and overcocking (he he) potential at insanely low temperatures with 'big air' cooling (might add in another noctua if I wanna really go overboard).
Aiden Edwards
N-n-no, it's the incel fanboys who keep shilling, they're obviously paid.
what are your PC components, the PSU rating and where you live has 50 or 60hz voltage?
Ethan Clark
>who say 2600X/2700X can play every game at at 144fps. At the same time, this lying shill is claiming that Intel CPUs CAN run all the games at 144fps minimum, when they can't. nigger, no one is saying it can run EVERY GAME AT 144hz, however you're lying to yourself if you don't think it plays MORE games at 144hz than a 2600x/2700x
You're literally the only one who thinks when someone says >intel is better for 144hz it somehow means >intel can play EVERY game in existence at 144hz and AMD can't at all
yeah, that's not at all what's being said except in your warped AMD-addled brain.
Sebastian Wood
don't question it goy the blatant amd shilling everywhere is totally a grassroots movement
>dips from 150 fps to 94 fps Yikes, don't fall for the jewish tricks
Christian Hill
Cryorig, Scythe, be Quiet and Phanteks all have similar big coolers.
why does that matter?
Xavier Wilson
as if that makes it any better? Lmao, as the guy last thread said. >don't understand all the dumb fucking goys need to be shilled AMD for their own good, if you are not with us then you are with them!
They're shilling AMD for your own good, how gracious of them. White knight faggot cucks shilling a billion dollar company because they honestly believe intel is evil.
Kayden Collins
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHALMAO I just KNEW that if I made a false-flagging Anti-AMD post then some butthurt Intel fanboy would take up the gauntlet. Guaranteed shitstorm. Full disclosure, I'm the same user who posted the RX 580/7 1800X build here in the thread also... GOTEM
It's so-so. Crossfire sucks and you should have gotten Vega 56 or a 1070Ti. For $700 you could have gotten a 2600X, 1Tb SSD, single RX580, all new instead, afaik.
Intel shills won't listen to objective facts from people more intelligent to them. They've been pushing these lies for YEARS now and aren't going to give it up.
Yes they are. And you yourself are implying it.
When someone just wants 144fps in CSGO, Overwatch, R6 Seige, etc, an R5 is the ideal CPU for them and shilling anything else is completely disingenuous.
There's *almost* NO games that the 9700k gets 144 minimum on that Ryzen doesn't also get 144. So unless someone just wants to play that one game and they are sure that they need that overpriced CPU for it, they should not be wasting money on it. The vast majority of games are either well optimized and have no problem getting 200fps minimum, or are mediocre or poorly optimized and struggle to do over 100fps minimum on the best CPU. There is no in between.
It's also slimy as shit the way you say 1% minimums don't matter. At 144fps, that's MORE THAN ONE FRAME PER SECOND, that fucking matters. That's 1 out of 100 frames. At near 144fps, that's more than once a second. This is simple math, you imbecile. But that's to be expected that you can't do simple math with how you are so deluded that you'll sell a false dream to people. These aren't single frame outliers like the way people measured minimums 15 years ago. 1% minimums absolutely matter.
Mason Scott
>im just pretending to be retarded, you guys who replied to me are the real retards for thinking I was actually that retarded
wew, you sure got us good, retard.
Juan Cruz
>It's also slimy as shit the way you say 1% minimums don't matter i'd love for you to quote me on that one.
Anthony Bennett
hz difference can cause wear on electric devices depending on what the difference you are coming from. PSU wattage that is too close to the parts wattage will possibly click its own safety. wouldnt explain absolute failure but if the PSU did had any 80+ rating, its likely something else is wrong. the PSU might be shitting itself down as well because of a grounded wire or sudden spike in consumption asides pwoer in, coming to think of it
Hudson King
why are you asking me this, im not the one with a dying PSU
Adrian Stewart
Meanwhile I've been using the infamous Corsair VS450 on a 3rd world power line for 5 years already.
Robert Gutierrez
Thanks for proving my point From 150 to 94 is a fucking disastrous stuttering housefire. Intel will always be a stutterfest.
>It's also slimy as shit the way you say 1% minimums don't matter. At 144fps, that's MORE THAN ONE FRAME PER SECOND, that fucking matters. That's 1 out of 100 frames. At near 144fps, that's more than once a second. This is simple math, you imbecile. But that's to be expected that you can't do simple math with how you are so deluded that you'll sell a false dream to people. >These aren't single frame outliers like the way people measured minimums 15 years ago. 1% minimums absolutely matter. how can you possibly dip to 80 frames per second once per second yet average 144 frames per second that makes no fucking sense whatsoever you mean once every 100 seconds????
>It's also slimy as shit the way you say 1% minimums don't matter. At 144fps, that's MORE THAN ONE FRAME PER SECOND holy shit you god damn retard that's not what 1% minimums mean.
Kayden Johnson
Yes
Justin Morris
have you tried looking for a review?
Camden Bennett
So what?
Assuming you've got G-sync or Freesync, going from 144+ fps average to a few dips into the 90's is nothing.
I'd much rather average over 144fps than average under 130 with dips into the 80s.
Would you rather have an average greater than than your refresh rate, or an average lower than your refresh rate? Assuming adaptive sync ranges on both setups are 48-144hz, i'd rather have the setup that's going to get me closer to the 144fps average, meaning intel.
Ryan Mitchell
>RTX 2060 - very high framerates (requires complementary CPU and monitor)
wait so, could someone explain to me why this requires a complementary cpu and monitor? I have a i5-3570 @ 3.40 GHz and a syncmaster 2253 LW monitor are these good enough? or will i have to upgrade?
debating whether it would be better to get the 1660 or 2060, some people have told me that rtx may have a place in the future so i was debating whether to just place my bet on that
Wyatt Gomez
A placebo difference. You're selling people useless sugar pills.
Doesn't change that you're claiming the 9700k "is the only choice for 144hz gaming" when it doesn't even come CLOSE to maintaining 144hz in a fuckton of games. NOT. EVEN. CLOSE.
If you just said the 9700k gets higher FPS on average, which is true, it'd be fine. But you're blatantly lying and manipulating people into a false dream which they won't obtain. That's salesmanship and not advice.
Not him but 128->82 is a 25.9% dip. 149->93 is a 28.6% dip. So the Intel CPU is *objectively* less consistent.
The 2600X result is oddly poor in that game. That is one cherrypicked game by an Intel shill, as well, and yet the Intel CPU is still less consistent despite your baseless claim otherwise because, yet again, you can't do math.
>amd delivers stutter free 1 fps per second, absolutely no stutters! >how can intel even compete!
Tyler Taylor
By the phrase >very high framerates
It means 120-144fps paired with a 120-144hz display. This generally requires a better CPU as well (but it depends on the games you play).
For your monitor, it's capped at 60hz, so really it doesn't matter for you unless you were buying a new monitor.
Jackson Fisher
>lower fps means less stutters essentially how amd logic goes
Austin Edwards
stutters would matter if they were real
Levi Murphy
>applies security patches Thanks Intel for your patrician 0 fps premium gaming experience.
Jack Ortiz
What the fuck is the point of adaptive sync? Retard faggot.
>So the Intel CPU is *objectively* less consistent Literally what...?
you're weighing 1% average as the same as the overall average FPS, that's retarded.
Intel is OBJECTIVELY MORE consistent because it averages higher FPS overall.
Even if the 1% minimums are lower, the AVERAGE FPS is going to be what you're getting on average, not the 1% minimums.
And as already pointed out, with adaptive sync, who gives a fuck what it dips to as long as it's staying above your adaptive sync range??
A panel with 48-144hz range doesn't give two fucks about a 1% minimum dip to 90fps.
I'd still rather have the CPU that's giving me 144+ fps on average instead of the CPU struggling to give 130fps, even if it has less of a dip between the average and 1% minimum.
>I'd still rather have the CPU that's giving me 144+ fps on average instead of the CPU struggling to give 130fps, even if it has less of a dip between the average and 1% minimum. jesus, I thought I was taking crazy pills, the number of people here who don't understand this is insane.
Oliver Wright
>intel gets more fps on average and minimums >IT'S WORSE BECAUSE IT'S LESS CONSISTENT wtf are you saying
Jaxon Rivera
cpubenchmark.net/compare/AMD-Ryzen-5-2600X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X/3235vs2966 Isn't the 1800X better though? Yeah I hear this, but I just kinda always wanted to try Crossfire... and then maybe have a backup Video card in case one went bad, or if I wanted to help a friend out and get him one. I got the two of them for 200$ so I thought it was a great deal. desu I'm probably doing more graphics design and stuff and not much typical AAA gaming although I might get into Rocket League due to a friend.
Jacob Gutierrez
Oh yeah I forgot that's a cherrypicked Intel game, and Intel is still less consistent, that's hilarious.
dual gpu for gaming is dead, barely any games even support it any more
Hudson Baker
>even though it's average, 1%, 0.1% and minimum fps is lower >ryzen is smoother because the difference in minimum and average are lower GOD we are literally back in ryzen 1 era and all the AMD cope. Even if you tell the fuckers that you can cap the fps to your 0.1% time and get a perfectly flatline fps that is higher than on ryzen, amd shills will still spout buzzwords like "smoother because more cores and less cpu utilization"
Dominic Young
good case ? Not many choices in my country. I was thinking a basic NZXT H500 or Corsair Carbide 06
Ethan Scott
crossfire and SLI are both dead memes for gaming.
Mutli-GPU is in the realm of the professionals, gaming simply has no use for it.
Oliver Powell
why do people still recommend the r5 2600 when the i5 9400f costs the same and is much better?
Nathaniel Thompson
my bronze seasonic is 9 years old and works
Camden Watson
2600 makes some real sense outside of gaming.
Encoding or rendering for example. But if you're legit doing that sort of work, you should probably be buying a 2700 or threadripper anyway.
Cameron Thomas
what are people supposed to be rendering anyways that you would care? even if you are an aspiring """content creator""" you'd be shaving a few seconds off rendering that one video per week or w.e and that is only if you aren't using shit like that premiere that actually leverages AVX >inb4 muh streaming are you those guys with 3 viewers at the bottom of twitch? if you're building a new pc you should be getting a 1660/ti or rtx card anyways and use the improved nvenc for that
>more reddit spacing Convinced this is a false flag. Or maybe it's just a common representative of how stupid Intel shills are.
I don't even want to read the post, but this stands out >higher averages means more consistency even if minimums are comparatively worse He doesn't even know what "consistent" means. Lmao.
Your CPU will bottleneck it hard. Your CPU isn't even good enough for 60fps minimum in tons of games, let alone 100+. And no your monitor is 75hz. So it LITERALLY CAN NOT display higher than 75fps. Get a lesser GPU like 590, 1660, 1660Ti, and upgrade CPU/board/RAM.
Cheaper boards and better boards for the money with AMD. $80 MSI AMD boards are as good as most of the $160+ Intel boards. Intel charges a lot for their board chipsets which makes boards more expensive, and Intel customers are less intelligent and easier to rip off with boards than AMD customers are.
Matthew Thomas
Because both CPUs get limited by midrange graphics cards (i.e., provide the same framerate when paired with a 1660), but the R5 will probably be better than the i5 in the future, since new consoles will be Zen and the R5 has a lot more multithreaded umph
Jack Edwards
they all reach 60fps anyways so who cares. i seriously hope you don't enjoy louder fans from playing at 100+fps because of increased gpu usage.
Ethan Johnson
>tfw 1080p60 I want 4K But 4K doesn't want me
John White
>he doesn't have a 60hz 4k panel AND a 1440p 144hz panel
I've always wondered what it must be like to be poor.
Aaron Campbell
why would you buy an expensive board for the locked 9400f? or spend more than 100$ on a board for a cpu in this price class in the first place? even with the cheapest board the 9400f will be better than the 2600 with an expensive board
Michael King
>and Intel customers are less intelligent and easier to rip off lets play spot the obvious AMD shill
Christian Ross
yes if you are GPU bottlenecked of course they are the same, when you aren't the 9400f can be up to like 25% faster. the part about the future is just complete fantasy, single threaded performance is generally the limiting factor for games and 2600 is already way behind if anything it will only be worse in the future, SMT/hyperthreading isn't going to have more of an impact than that when both CPUs already have 6 physical cores
James Allen
dont need an expensive board with AMD cus even a $80 B-chipset board will be more than enough for average user, and still let him OC if he wants. plus he can upgrade to zen2 or zen2+ down the line without buying a new mobo, unlike intel.
Sebastian Johnson
we get it, you hate intel.
James Davis
Imagine being this eternally BTFO by high refresh rate gaming. Honestly you are a ranting lunatic.
Xavier Morgan
if you are going to upgrade CPU in 1 year why not just get a 9900k now instead of spending money twice on entry-mid range garbage
Ryan Sullivan
the $80 intel boards will do just fine as well? what's wrong with it exactly please explain and show specs or benchmarks or something?
Gabriel Thompson
yeah, they're a fucking shit company that rips off people by locking them down with locked motherboards and locked CPUs and low number PCI-E lanes again via chipset and they reiterated on the same fucking architecture for a decade without improving anything except higher clock speeds ... and they bribed literally everyone to not use AMD, so yeah, you could say i hate intel, but that doesnt make what i just said any less true.
Eli Wright
Because a locked board doesn't tend to have a decent VRM, and tends to be lacking other features like number of SATA, various configuration options, PCIe bifurcation, etc. Oh lmfao I forgot you also can't even overclock the 9400f and it doesn't support faster than 2666 RAM.
It's clear you aren't genuinely asking, but are concern trolling, and getting BTFO.
Luis Allen
>cant OC >locked into dead socket >less features with chipset
Zachary Hernandez
no, but your obvious bias makes your arguments less persuasive.
Be objective, stop blindly hating intel on EVERYTHING, and you might actually change some opinions here instead of just getting laughed at as an obvious AMD shill.
Gavin Morgan
Should I grab a FE 2080 TI from Nvidia themselves or go for a partner card?
Noah Ramirez
The CPU is locked CPU, who cares...?
Sebastian Murphy
>be objective but i am, why dont YOU stop blindly hating on AMD and take things objectively yourself?
