Want help? >State the budget & CURRENCY >List your uses e.g. Gaming, Video Editing, VM Work >For monitors include purpose & graphics pairing >NO Speccy or "bottleneck checkers"
CPUs based on gaming performance >1600/1700 - for non-gaming; worse in gaming due to hideous single core speed and latency >9400F/2600 - Light 30-60fps gaming(dGPU optional). 2400G if you want a CPU that can handle more of a GPU upgrade >9600K - Good 60fps+ gaming >2700X - Great for budget gaming/multi-threaded workloads. >i9 9900K/9700K/8700K - Flat out best single core speed money can buy, Usually 15-30% advantage over 2700X
RAM >NEVER use only a single stick >8GB - very light use, and/or if you don't mind closing programs regularly >16GB - standard amount. If you have to ask if you need more, you don't >CPUs benefit from fast RAM; 2800MHz+ is ideal. Check "more" for true latency formula
Graphics cards based on current pricing: >Used cards can be had for a steal; inquire about warranty 1080p >RX 570/580 - value. >1660 - Slightly better perf for more demanding games on high/maxed 60fps+; > 1660Ti / 1070 / Vega56 / 2060 - higher framerates 1440p (WQHD) >1070Ti / Vega / 2070 - 60-120fps+ in most games on high/maxed >RTX 2080 / 2080Ti - higher framerates >RTX 2080 / Radeon VII - upscale or lower settings >RTX 2080 Ti, but poor value. >RTX Titan, 4K 60+ frames per sec, Extremely poor value, But if you want the best, This is it.
>Consider a larger SSD (better GB/$) instead of small SSD & HDD >M.2 is a form factor, NOT a performance standard >Consider 75hz display minimum; 60hz are old models >PLAN BUILD AROUND YOUR MONITOR IF GAMING >AIOs don't change the laws of thermodynamics
Is it still ok to get 1080p monitor? I have 8-10 (don't remember) year old 1680x1050 currently I don't play competitive games and hardly any 3D ones, mostly 2D indies so don't see need for 144hz, would go for 60hz I have 750ti but my next gpu will likely be amd since I switched to lignux last year so freesync would be nice, supports both on linux no idea what panel, all seem bad after looking around Jow Forums archives I'm europoor, so I guess 1080p would be better than 1440p at the same price? Any suggestions?
Carter Clark
1080p 144hz is pretty nice for a good AMD card, 1440p is over rated IMO
Jack Perez
once you go to a 144hz panel you'll wonder why you used anything else for so long.
Cooper Hughes
yeah prices will be way better for a 1080p monitor, so get a 144hz
Carson Price
Damn wtf is up with AMD?
Cooper Peterson
Will the MSI B450I Gaming Plus AC be good for overclocking?
>with shitty ram RAM affects performance in Ryzen enough to be noticeable? I'm planning to buy a 2600x, what kind of RAM should I get then?
Andrew Long
CSGO is extremely single core performance reliant while AMD doesn't have as good single core but fucks Intel over with multi core
Hudson Lopez
3200 samsung B-die ram with 14cas latency is the best case scenario. Any faster ram will crash the memory controller.
Wyatt Taylor
144hz is more than anybody will ever need hence ryzen>intel due to cost savings
Ian Clark
If you're comparing a 2700X with an 8700K then yes, ryzen will beat it in multi core. But you're comparing an 8 core with a 6 core, And ryzen only just beats it.
Nolan Rogers
It's a different architecture that has more latency and infinity fabric. Faster ram with tighter timings bring the performance in dx11 to around 5% advantage for Intel. To 100% price. Granted, Intel users don't have to spend as much on ram. But who cares about 80 USD extra on ram.
Daniel Jones
It's more of a performance metric for future reference. When games become more demanding in the future would you want 144fps or 90fps.
Ryder Wood
Yes. Ram speed above 3200 (higher is better but imc caps out at 3466-3700) with tight, tweaked subtimimings closes the gap.
Not sure. 2600, 2600X and 2700 are all in my budget.
Owen Williams
It's weird how at 4.25 ghz I score 2k in cb15 with muh 2700x.
Maybe you should ignore results based on stock with stock ram, which at best have Intel arch optimized xmp timings.
Jayden Green
9900k scales better with frequency for some reason.
Cameron Miller
amd needs optimized ram to compete. And even then it loses to Intel. But not by as much. Read about and with fast ram and optimized timings. Or oc yourself and compare. Then you will realize you shouldn't trust stock reviews.
30% lol. 0.5 cents has been deposited in your account.
Tyler Miller
What's the point of buying AMD when you need $200+ memory?
Christopher Watson
Why are you in so much denial? There's plenty of evidence that proves this. And i'm not talking about retarded youtubers that try and bottleneck their tests with 4k setting to even out the CPUs.
That's best case scenario for only a few instances. You can't deny it not being at least 15-30% better in everything. I'm at 5ghz allcore though to.
Mason Evans
Stop comparing stock vs stock when they are different architectures that require different settings. Intel XMP profiles are tuned for Intel systems. Or the other way around. It's still not what ryzen prefers.
Chase Roberts
Why is the 4790K running better than a 2700 at 4.2? Doesn't make any sense.
Dylan Gray
Ignore all results based on stock vs stock with stock Intel XMP profiles enabled for both systems. Ryzen is a different arch which requires different settings.
Aaron Williams
16-18-18-18-36. Mouthbreather poos that just rehash what other people tell them needs to stop shilling on Jow Forums and go r/pcmasterrace
>separate I/O die I'm just hoping that there's no memory latency regression with this move. They did say they optimized a I/O die just for desktop use, but it is meaningless without proper benchmarks to show for.
Gabriel Johnson
It's for gaming so naturally it would be pro intel.
Jeremiah Sanchez
You would think it would be a terrible idea but if there are options for faster ram like 4000+ it might be pretty awesome.
Christopher Nelson
I have a cpu and gpu
Owen Clark
This is really how things should be done. Having two separate /pcbg/ threads.
Joseph Sanchez
People fail to notice how efficient intel's 14+++ refresh is. The 9900k only requires 1.15 to 1.2v for all-core 4.7ghz turbo. It uses as much power at 4.7ghz as the ryzen does at 4.2ghz
Logan Ward
Only true for old games/engines these days, and even then in the edgiest of edge cases like CS:GO in your screenshot, 200+ FPS is more than enough for gaming so who gives a shit?
Henry Ramirez
It makes sense. AMD offers good price points but Intel is just simply better for games.
Any way of using something like double vsync on AMD GPUs?
I had nothing but problems or stuttering with that enhanced sync option and unfortunately there's a few games here and there where I don't reach 60FPS (or even 50).
Parker Garcia
I'm honestly surprised there is hardly any difference between the stock 9900k and the OC'd one.
William Flores
Nothing you can really do about that, If you turn vsync on and not getting a steady 60fps, It will go down to 45 or even 30 fps. That would make it extremely obnoxious to play through. I use msi afterburners frame limiter to hardware cap games to 60fps, so if it dips below it won't be as jolting as to go from 60 to 30.
Jayden Green
Well stock 9900K can turbo up to 5ghz for a two cores for all eternity. Most games only use 4-8 threads anyways so the difference isn't really going to be noticeable.
Adam Wood
The only solution is to get new hardware, or lower settings enough to hit 60fps. Hardware-wise you can either get an adaptive sync monitor or a faster gpu/cpu for higher fps.
Asher Anderson
It's kinda shitty. I'm alright with 30fps as long as it looks smooth, but there are games where it just doesn't. DQXI has some settings where you can make 30FPS tolerable but some other games at a higher framerate look stuttery and shit.
I might try afterburner, hoping it doesn't fuck with the undervolting I did because I keep reading that afterburner and wattman are not too friendly with each other. I just don't get the point of enhanced sync.
Jacob Bailey
I guess I'll turn down the settings. It's an RX570 8GB, bought it a while ago but I guess it's budget shit
Sebastian Carter
It's probably just gpu bottlenecked. It is 1440p afterall
Wyatt Stewart
How easy is it to get 5ghz on the 9900k? I've seen some anons only reach 4.7ghz.
Dominic Long
Pretty easy actually, I'm at 5ghz all core right now only using 1.32volts. Only way it get's hot is if you're using prime small ftp and i got up to 90c, but other than that I've not seen it go over 55c in any game. The single core speed is outstanding.
>As of 3/16/19, the top 38% of tested 9900Ks were able to hit 5.0GHz or greater. But it's probably higher if you're willing to go over 1.3v.
Samuel White
4.7 all core is stock. 5ghz requires anywhere from 1.25-1.4v depending on silicon quality and operating conditions at no avx offset. Most chips should do 5ghz no problem with the only problem being temps.
Josiah Jenkins
They're probably using stock voltage and thermal throttling, Under volting it is key to over clocking it.
Chase Cooper
Enhanced sync is a thing on amd.
Joshua Young
Anything sync is just awful
Carson Thompson
How does it work anyways?
On lower framerates I enabled that shit and I got tearing up the ass even with ingame vsync enabled. On higher framerates or equal than 60FPS I got some consistent microstutter, almost as if it's skipping a specific number of frames per second. I tried it months ago, I tried it now and I don't get the point of this feature. Is it supposed to work well with framerates over 200 or what?
