Support NeoGAF

[KevinCow]

I have a quick question, as I've never built a PC before and might be doing so soon:

Are sound and wi-fi built into some of the parts? I assume sound must be, but I have no idea which part it would be built into. But wi-fi... I honestly have no idea if I'll have to buy something extra for it.

 

[nintendork666]

It's odd that you'd have to have both ports connected. I assume that it just has an internal HUB, but I'd get the Amazon one with three ports and forget about using the keyboard's pass through.

That's actually a much simpler idea... I'm not sure why that didn't come to mind.

Yeah, i'm not sure why it takes two ports either... kinda like that GCN adapter for Wii U.

 

[e90Mark]

I have a quick question, as I've never built a PC before and might be doing so soon:

Are sound and wi-fi built into some of the parts? I assume sound must be, but I have no idea which part it would be built into. But wi-fi... I honestly have no idea if I'll have to buy something extra for it.

Sound yes. It's built into the motherboard. Wifi is sometimes built in. It's usually highlighted as a main feature if so, otherwise they usually don't feature them.

Usually people will buy a wifi usb adapter.

 

[hooijdonk17]

Price cuts on nVidia 900 series incoming: http://videocardz.com/61116/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-ti-gtx-980-and-gtx-970-receive-a-price-cut

 

[nintendork666]

Are we still looking at $800 for good gaming PC ? 1080p at 60fps, can't go below 60fps

Depends on the games and settings, also where you spend your $$$.

 

[Goon]

Is 1440p gaming worth it? I feel like 4K is being pushed much harder in the mainstream with 4K tvs and the new 4k consoles that are coming out. Should I just wait for the next card that can play games in 4K?

 

[aygomyownroad]

This is probably the best place to ask this question but, I decided against a PC. I had so much on that money was very tight.

Me and my partner are looking at PCs for winter so yes a long way to go but would like to do research.

The 3 main questions are:

I had an AMD Phaenton 550 black edition in my really old build, I was impressed by AMD. I was wondering how are they now? Is octacore overkill and how cheaper are they compared of the equivalent Intel?

Some graphics cards say VR ready on some sites. I'm more interested in a graphics card that will last for a few years. I am not expecting the latest games at 4K and 60fps, but want the best I can afford which would be st the time at £150 max. Of course this would change by winter but currently what card is worth that and how does it compare to its competitor?

DDR3 RAM, how simple is it upgrade to DDR4 RAM? Would a new motherboard be needed or can you just swap the two ram modules out?

 

[hooijdonk17]

This is probably the best place to ask this question but, I decided against a PC. I had so much on that money was very tight.

Me and my partner are looking at PCs for winter so yes a long way to go but would like to do research.

The 3 main questions are:

I had an AMD Phaenton 550 black edition in my really old build, I was impressed by AMD. I was wondering how are they now? Is octacore overkill and how cheaper are they compared of the equivalent Intel?

Some graphics cards say VR ready on some sites. I'm more interested in a graphics card that will last for a few years. I am not expecting the latest games at 4K and 60fps, but want the best I can afford which would be st the time at £150 max. Of course this would change by winter but currently what card is worth that and how does it compare to its competitor?

DDR3 RAM, how simple is it upgrade to DDR4 RAM? Would a new motherboard be needed or can you just swap the two ram modules out?

Currently, the AMD FX 8350 is actually a very good value for the price given you can have it below $150 in many places. It will certainly not give you a modern i7 or even i5 level of performance, but you will be fine with it for a good time if you won't be gaming heavily. That said, unless you need to buy this PC right now, you are much better off waiting for AMD's Zen CPUs to come out.. which also ties in with your GPU question. AMD will be unleashing Polaris on 29 June, the RX480, and even the RX 470 may very well be right up your alley with regards to a graphics card that is great bang for the buck and will last many a year. With all that said, if I were to build a budget family PC for gaming now and then, I would most certainly wait for AMD's AM4 architecture and Zen APUs coming in late 2016, with probably cut down versions of the RX 460. The beauty of that decision is, since both the CPUs and APUs will be on the same AM4 platform, later down the line you can simply buy a Zen CPU and pair it with a standalone Polaris GPU and have a great gaming machine if you choose to do that.

As for your RAM question, depending on what you have you may need to upgrade mainboards, cpus, or both.

 

[AlanOC91]

I have my 980ti mixed with my new 6700k cpu and I don't even know what game to play with all this power :-/

Been playing lots of Witcher 3 at 4k but I've gotten a little burnt out on it lately so I just played loads of FFX HD yesterday which pretty much isn't even pushing my new hardware.

On the bright side, Cities Skylines FPS in 4k is after going up like 30-40fps since upgrading over my FX8350@4.8ghz. Wow!

Currently, the AMD FX 8350 is actually a very good value for the price given you can have it below $150 in many places. It will certainly not give you a modern i7 or even i5 level of performance, but you will be fine with it for a good time if you won't be gaming heavily. That said, unless you need to buy this PC right now, you are much better off waiting for AMD's Zen CPUs to come out.. which also ties in with your GPU question. AMD will be unleashing Polaris on 29 June, the RX480, and even the RX 470 may very well be right up your alley with regards to a graphics card that is great bang for the buck and will last many a year. With all that said, if I were to build a budget family PC for gaming now and then, I would most certainly wait for AMD's AM4 architecture and Zen APUs coming in late 2016, with probably cut down versions of the RX 460. The beauty of that decision is, since both the CPUs and APUs will be on the same AM4 platform, later down the line you can simply buy a Zen CPU and pair it with a standalone Polaris GPU and have a great gaming machine if you choose to do that.

As for your RAM question, depending on what you have you may need to upgrade mainboards, cpus, or both.

FX8350 is such a good CPU! I can't recommend it enough. Used it for 3 years and it's been absolutely fantastic!!! Destroys 1080p for me and can actually hold up in 4k which is way more GPU intensive.
For example, my 980ti+ FX8350 got 38-45FPS in Witcher 3 at 4k while my new 980ti+ 6700k gets 40-48 FPS in Witcher 3.

It's a cracking CPU and it saddens me that it's often laughed at because "lol amd".

 

[Apoleptica]

question for anyone that can answer/give advice...

on ebay the Acer XB240HABPR is $269.99 manufacturer refurbished from Acer

1080p/144Hz/G-Sync...Worth taking a risk on refurbished or no? Brand new monitors like that one are at least $100+ more expensive. I could get that monitor with a EVGA 980Ti Classified for about $635 combined or get a GTX 1070 when they are available and get the monitor separately.

Bad decision?...Good decision?...

I recently bought this exact monitor, recertified from ebay for that exact price. The monitor itself arrived in great condition and fully functional, only physical flaw was a scratched bezel. The thing that sucks about this monitor though is that the screen is very washed out and the anti-reflective matte coating on the screen is very severe, things just don't look that clear. The black levels are pretty bad, blacks that look gray. If you calibrate it well enough though it looks decent. I'm still having second thoughts about keeping it. The 144 fps and G-sync are very nice.

 

[Hazaro]

IMO it's a stretch to call the FX8xxx good by many means for gaming, the minimum FPS/frametimes are not even close.

I sincerely hope Zen gives us back a budget overclocking build. GPU-wise you want an AMD 480 at the end of the month/start of July.

 

[hooijdonk17]

IMO it's a stretch to call the FX8xxx good by many means for gaming, the minimum FPS/frametimes are not even close.

I sincerely hope Zen gives us back a budget overclocking build. GPU-wise you want an AMD 480 at the end of the month/start of July.

Yeah, it's OK. But there's really hardly anything on the market to offer the poster when what he wants is a cheap PC that won't be used for heavy gaming. I'd be hard pressed to recommend an i3, even the cheapest i3s would probably extend the budget unnecessarily here.. And yes, Zen can't come soon enough and deliver us. Praise AMD.

 

[roadrunn3r]

FX8350 is such a good CPU! I can't recommend it enough. Used it for 3 years and it's been absolutely fantastic!!! Destroys 1080p for me and can actually hold up in 4k which is way more GPU intensive.
For example, my 980ti+ FX8350 got 38-45FPS in Witcher 3 at 4k while my new 980ti+ 6700k gets 40-48 FPS in Witcher 3.

It's a cracking CPU and it saddens me that it's often laughed at because "lol amd".

Sorry but no, It's never been a good gaming CPU. What you refer to as "fantastic performance" is totally subjective and only in very optimized games or not CPU-heavy ones otherwise the FX8350 has been beaten regularly by similarly priced i3s with much better IPC. The very concept of many weak cores instead of a few strong ones is the opposite of what you'd want for gaming with all the frametime issues and dips that it causes.

I can say the same of my (8 years) old Q6600, it can even today play a surprising amount of games without many issues but that doesn't make it a good choice for gaming now, neither it was good 3 years ago when I got rid of it.

The reason FX CPUs are "laughed at" is hardly about fanboying but rather poor IPC, which is still important in gaming to this day, and the power/heat inefficiencies plus outdated platform. (with the latter being less important if IPC were good but it wasn't)

Lets hope Zen will be good, I'm tired of advising Intel CPUs and 8% generation's improvements.

 

[ElyrionX]

This video makes me think you will get respectable performance at 1080p in some demanding games from the past few years. The video uses a Titan X, but since the 1070 is roughly Titan X levels, you can more or less extrapolate similar performance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ_5p9wd2dk

Thanks. It's a tough choice. I am also quite bothered by the sound my current rig emits so I was thinking of a completely new build.

Still, it's a lot of money for someone who does not play that many new games these days.

 

[AlanOC91]

Sorry but no, It's never been a good gaming CPU. What you refer to as "fantastic performance" is totally subjective and only in very optimized games or not CPU-heavy ones otherwise the FX8350 has been beaten regularly by similarly priced i3s with much better IPC. The very concept of many weak cores instead of a few strong ones is the opposite of what you'd want for gaming with all the frametime issues and dips that it causes.

I can say the same of my (8 years) old Q6600, it can even today play a surprising amount of games without many issues but that doesn't make it a good choice for gaming now, neither it was good 3 years ago when I got rid of it.

The reason FX CPUs are "laughed at" is hardly about fanboying but rather poor IPC, which is still important in gaming to this day, and the power/heat inefficiencies plus outdated platform. (with the latter being less important if IPC were good but it wasn't)

Lets hope Zen will be good, I'm tired of advising Intel CPUs and 8% generation's improvements.

I disagree and I'll continue to disagree when people say the FX8350 is bad or not a "good gaming cpu".

I've used it over it's life with 4 graphics cards and 1 SLI setup and it's ran everything for me perfectly.

I honestly don't understand this. If a €150 CPU can play games at 1080p/60fps then how can it ever be considered a bad CPU? I've played Cities Skylines and Pillars of Eternity at 1080/60fps and both are considered CPU games I've played Pillars at 4k 50-60fps even. I've played GTAV/MGSV/Shadow of Modor at 4k/60fps mixed with R9 290sli and then 980ti and AA off.

I have never struggled with 1080p performance when using the FX8350 and I have almost 400 games in my steam library ranging from shitty ports to PC exclusives.

I understand that there is better. But if someone has a tight budget then every day of the week I'll recommend a good GPU with an FX8350. An 8350 can save someone €200+ on their PC budget which might even make or break their choice of getting a PC in the first place.

And it's not like your stuck with it forever. Use it for a year, save some money for that year and you'll have enough for a top end CPU mixed with the good GPU you already purchased. And it's not like that year of gaming will be poor. You'll have perfectly fine performance.

The only issue I ever ever had with my 8350 was Day Z. And I think that's self explanatory.

But eh, I've had this argument 100 times over and I've learned opinions rarely change on the matter.

 

[∇NKNOWN SHΔPE]

Do I need a new Mobo, if I want to get the 1070 or the new amd Cards?
Right now I have an Asrock H97 Pro4, running with a 970.
Just curious, because it is my first PC, when do I have to change my Mainboard at all?

 

[TheSpecialOne]

I disagree and I'll continue to disagree when people say the FX8350 is bad or not a "good gaming cpu".

I've used it over it's life with 4 graphics cards and 1 SLI setup and it's ran everything for me perfectly.

I honestly don't understand this. If a €150 CPU can play games at 1080p/60fps then how can it ever be considered a bad CPU? I've played Cities Skylines and Pillars of Eternity at 1080/60fps and both are considered CPU games I've played Pillars at 4k 50-60fps even. I've played GTAV/MGSV/Shadow of Modor at 4k/60fps mixed with R9 290sli and then 980ti and AA off.

I have never struggled with 1080p performance when using the FX8350 and I have almost 400 games in my steam library ranging from shitty ports to PC exclusives.

I understand that there is better. But if someone has a tight budget then every day of the week I'll recommend a good GPU with an FX8350. An 8350 can save someone €200+ on their PC budget which might even make or break their choice of getting a PC in the first place.

And it's not like your stuck with it forever. Use it for a year, save some money for that year and you'll have enough for a top end CPU mixed with the good GPU you already purchased. And it's not like that year of gaming will be poor. You'll have perfectly fine performance.

The only issue I ever ever had with my 8350 was Day Z. And I think that's self explanatory.

But eh, I've had this argument 100 times over and I've learned opinions rarely change on the matter.

I agree with you. It is a decent to good CPU depending on the price you pay especially when you're on a budget. If you pair it with a good GPU and are only playing at 1080p, it's more than sufficient. I feel like on here, some people need to remove their head out of their ass and get some perspective. I was on Reddit earlier today and there are people posting who are still rocking 8400gs, GTX 260s, hd 7850s and 560tis. It's still sufficient for their needs and newer upgrades would be nice but not affordable. Seriously, that guy needs to get off his high horse.

 

[Hazaro]

I disagree and I'll continue to disagree when people say the FX8350 is bad or not a "good gaming cpu".

I've used it over it's life with 4 graphics cards and 1 SLI setup and it's ran everything for me perfectly.

I honestly don't understand this. If a €150 CPU can play games at 1080p/60fps then how can it ever be considered a bad CPU? I've played Cities Skylines and Pillars of Eternity at 1080/60fps and both are considered CPU games I've played Pillars at 4k 50-60fps even. I've played GTAV/MGSV/Shadow of Modor at 4k/60fps mixed with R9 290sli and then 980ti and AA off.

I have never struggled with 1080p performance when using the FX8350 and I have almost 400 games in my steam library ranging from shitty ports to PC exclusives.

I understand that there is better. But if someone has a tight budget then every day of the week I'll recommend a good GPU with an FX8350. An 8350 can save someone €200+ on their PC budget which might even make or break their choice of getting a PC in the first place.

And it's not like your stuck with it forever. Use it for a year, save some money for that year and you'll have enough for a top end CPU mixed with the good GPU you already purchased. And it's not like that year of gaming will be poor. You'll have perfectly fine performance.

The only issue I ever ever had with my 8350 was Day Z. And I think that's self explanatory.

But eh, I've had this argument 100 times over and I've learned opinions rarely change on the matter.

Anecdotal experiences unfortunately don't outweigh the miserable IPC and cases where minimum-low FPS (not even talking about frametimes here) which do actually matter, not even getting into framerates above 60Hz.
The core of it was for almost everyone buying an Intel part comparatively to the cost of a whole build is always a better investment from a gaming standpoint.
Part of the criteria was an upgrade path for the builds. For a while I had some AMD builds in there, but time went by and it didn't make sense to me anymore if you consider some sunk costs and people's reluctance to sell parts, why not get a non-K i5 at the price point?

If you think there is a divide of people, think again at who is more upset Intel is selling us 5-10% gains per year, locking down overclocking, and charging more, please know that it's me.
I know the post reads as harsh, but I'm tired of the argument as well and it's very late here.

I agree with you. It is a decent to good CPU depending on the price you pay especially when you're on a budget. If you pair it with a good GPU and are only playing at 1080p, it's more than sufficient. I feel like on here, some people need to remove their head out of their ass and get some perspective. I was on Reddit earlier today and there are people posting who are still rocking 8400gs, GTX 260s, hd 7850s and 560tis. It's still sufficient for their needs and newer upgrades would be nice but not affordable. Seriously, that guy needs to get off his high horse.

It just comes across as making sure people are getting their monies worth to me.

I didn't even post CIV5 benchmarks of the 8350, I'm so nice.

 

[WadeitOut]

I went from just wanting to upgrade my GPU...to buying new RAM, a new Case, new braided cables. And now I'm considering upgrading my mobo and CPU. Help me stop...

 

[roadrunn3r]

I disagree and I'll continue to disagree when people say the FX8350 is bad or not a "good gaming cpu".

I've used it over it's life with 4 graphics cards and 1 SLI setup and it's ran everything for me perfectly.

I honestly don't understand this. If a €150 CPU can play games at 1080p/60fps then how can it ever be considered a bad CPU? I've played Cities Skylines and Pillars of Eternity at 1080/60fps and both are considered CPU games I've played Pillars at 4k 50-60fps even. I've played GTAV/MGSV/Shadow of Modor at 4k/60fps mixed with R9 290sli and then 980ti and AA off.

I have never struggled with 1080p performance when using the FX8350 and I have almost 400 games in my steam library ranging from shitty ports to PC exclusives.

I understand that there is better. But if someone has a tight budget then every day of the week I'll recommend a good GPU with an FX8350. An 8350 can save someone €200+ on their PC budget which might even make or break their choice of getting a PC in the first place.

And it's not like your stuck with it forever. Use it for a year, save some money for that year and you'll have enough for a top end CPU mixed with the good GPU you already purchased. And it's not like that year of gaming will be poor. You'll have perfectly fine performance.

The only issue I ever ever had with my 8350 was Day Z. And I think that's self explanatory.

But eh, I've had this argument 100 times over and I've learned opinions rarely change on the matter.

I've checked the games you play and I can clearly see you do a lot a light-performance gaming (nothing bad in that) where even a very old CPU like the Q6600 is usually enough. Even then quite some games there are having bad performance/dips on FX cpus, games like GTAV or even Skyrim and whether you are sensitive or not to dips and frame pacing issues is another argument entirely. If you played online games like Planetside 2 you'd have bad performance (although it's a bit better with the latest updates). Same with heavy AAA games where only recently they have started to utilize 4 cores or more. Same with emulators where IPC is king.

All I'm saying is that if you don't need a good CPU for the games you play or if you are not sensible to dips, that doesn't make a weak CPU a good choice, hence the subjectivity. It just means you could be ok with a 2009 rig for what you need and that's fine.

As for the €200+ saving, I'm not entirely sure that's true also. You don't have to get an i7, even basic non K i5s will do just fine at €180 which is just slightly more expensive than an FX.

I agree with you. It is a decent to good CPU depending on the price you pay especially when you're on a budget. If you pair it with a good GPU and are only playing at 1080p, it's more than sufficient. I feel like on here, some people need to remove their head out of their ass and get some perspective. I was on Reddit earlier today and there are people posting who are still rocking 8400gs, GTX 260s, hd 7850s and 560tis. It's still sufficient for their needs and newer upgrades would be nice but not affordable. Seriously, that guy needs to get off his high horse.

You are welcome to write down your arguments if you have any (other than the "good for 1080p CPU...") but you can GTFO with that attitude. We have a nice and civil thread here and can do without this BS.

 

[AlanOC91]

Anecdotal experiences unfortunately don't outweigh the miserable IPC and cases where minimum-low FPS (not even talking about frametimes here) which do actually matter, not even getting into framerates above 60Hz.
The core of it was for almost everyone buying an Intel part comparatively to the cost of a whole build is always a better investment from a gaming standpoint.

If you think there is a divide of people, think again at who is more upset Intel is selling us 5-10% gains per year, locking down overclocking, and charging more, please know that it's me.

It just comes across as making sure people are getting their monies worth to me.

I didn't even post CIV5 benchmarks of the 8350, I'm so nice.

You see, we're charging at eachother from two completely different sides. I'm getting the impression your in the "over 60fps" boat which the FX8350 is NOT targeted towards.

Over the last 3 years, I've built roughly 6 rigs for my friends. I've put an FX8350 in all of them. Do you think they care about over 60fps? Not one bit.

One wanted to play WoW. It was perfectly fine. The rest wanted to play some general steam games (TF2, GTAV, Overwatch, CS:GO, Rocket League, Pillars, Dark Souls, etc.)

I could have turned around to them and said, look guys, these games will get 60fps at 1080p full HD but hey, you can spend an extra €200+ if you want a better cpu for 1080p+ or 60hz+

All of them will say no. Because all of them were on budgets to get into the PC market. Which is not a cheap area to get into in the first place.

The 8350 is a perfectly good gaming CPU and has been for the last 3 years. It's completely fine for 1080p when mixed with a semi decent GPU. I'll never tell people, especially my friends, to go aboard over budget when they don't need to at all for 1080p/60fps.

I've checked the games you play and I can clearly see you do a lot a light-performance gaming (nothing bad in that) where even a very old CPU like the Q6600 is usually enough. Even then quite some games there are having bad performance/dips on FX cpus, games like GTAV or even Skyrim and whether you are sensitive or not to dips and frame pacing issues is another argument entirely. If you played online games like Planetside 2 you'd have bad performance (although it's a bit better with the latest updates). Same with heavy AAA games where only recently they have started to utilize 4 cores or more. Same with emulators where IPC is king.

All I'm saying is that if you don't need a good CPU for the games you play or if you are not sensible to dips, that doesn't make a weak CPU a good choice, hence the subjectivity. It just means you could be ok with a 2009 rig for what you need and that's fine.

As for the €200+ saving, I'm not entirely sure that's true also. You don't have to get an i7, even basic non K i5s will do just fine at €180 which is just slightly more expensive than an FX.

But then what games are non-light performance games? If that's the case, it sounds like a good 80-90% of the steam library is perfectly fine with an FX8350 and then you'd spend higher money to play some niche heavy hitting games like Planetside 2. But then you would have specific people who want to play that game where you could have a good chunk that don't. If they don't, would you still not recommend the 8350?

I think a lot of it comes down to the needs of the user and what games they want to play.

I just don't think it's fair to call it a non gaming GPU when it can play the majority of PC games perfectly fine. Maybe not as good as some intel ones but it can play a good chunk of them perfectly, so it is fair to say it's not a good CPU then?

 

[Vuze]

Do I need a new Mobo, if I want to get the 1070 or the new amd Cards?
Right now I have an Asrock H97 Pro4, running with a 970.
Just curious, because it is my first PC, when do I have to change my Mainboard at all?

Nope, not at all. You remove the 970 (just as a reminder: make sure to slide back the tiny PCIe "sled" before you pull; look up how to uninstall a card on YT if you are not sure how to do it in case it was pre-built) and install the 1070 or AMD card.
You'll only need a new motherboard if you want more features from another chipset for the same CPU or you get a new generation CPU (i.e. upgrading to Skylake would require a new MB).

PSU cables might be a thing to consider if you go for a higher end custom 1070.

 

[fanboi]

Looking into the following build:

GPU:
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1080 8GB Gaming G1

SSD:
Corsair Force LE 960GB x 2

Case:
Fractal Design Define R4 Svart

Monitor:
ASUS 24" MG24UQ 4K

RAM:
Corsair 32GB (4x8GB) DDR4 3600MHz CL16 Vengeance LPX Red

PSU:
EVGA Supernova G2 750W

Heatsink:
Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO

CPU:
Intel Core i7 6700K 4.0 GHz 8MB

Motherboard:
ASUS Z170 PRO


What I am uncertain about:

• The GPU, is there another 1080 card I should look into?
• Case, not sure, maybe another?
• RAM, this one is out of stock, any good replacement?
• The monitor, a friend recommended me a 1440p monitor instead?

 

[TheSpecialOne]

It just comes across as making sure people are getting their monies worth to me.

I didn't even post CIV5 benchmarks of the 8350, I'm so nice.

I don't disagree that people should get the most value for their money. I personally don't have any AMD components in my computer but if he the 8350 can be purchased for 100 or less, it's a good buy imo. I don't know how parts are priced where the poster lives so that will decision is up to said poster.

 

[AlanOC91]

I don't disagree that people should get the most value for their money. I personally don't have any AMD components in my computer but if he the 8350 can be purchased for 100 or less, it's a good buy imo. I don't know how parts are priced where the poster lives so that will decision is up to said poster.

When it comes to value for money, I honestly don't see how anyone can argue against an FX8350. It's commonly known as one of the best value for money CPUs.

 

[hooijdonk17]

Anecdotal experiences unfortunately don't outweigh the miserable IPC and cases where minimum-low FPS (not even talking about frametimes here) which do actually matter, not even getting into framerates above 60Hz.
The core of it was for almost everyone buying an Intel part comparatively to the cost of a whole build is always a better investment from a gaming standpoint.
Part of the criteria was an upgrade path for the builds. For a while I had some AMD builds in there, but time went by and it didn't make sense to me anymore if you consider some sunk costs and people's reluctance to sell parts, why not get a non-K i5 at the price point?

If you think there is a divide of people, think again at who is more upset Intel is selling us 5-10% gains per year, locking down overclocking, and charging more, please know that it's me.
I know the post reads as harsh, but I'm tired of the argument as well and it's very late here.

It just comes across as making sure people are getting their monies worth to me.

I didn't even post CIV5 benchmarks of the 8350, I'm so nice.

I won't make an argument for the 8350 here, it speaks for itself I think. It's not a great CPU but a very good CPU for its price. IPC is not the be-all end-all that this forum thinks it is and not everyone needs a rock solid 60fps for an enjoyable experience. People's budgets should dictate expectations and for its price point the 8350 really can't be beat. Regardless, when cranked up to 4GHz+ (and it easily does reach 4.4Ghz) the 8350 should give you no IPC troubles in most games.

That said, the bolded part makes absolutely no sense. Advising intel because of upgrade paths, what? Intel has how many different platforms out now? It's a huge mess to migrate from one CPU family to another for absolutely no reason. I mean, if you tell me that there is nothing to upgrade from a 8350 to, that would be fine, but considering upgrading an Intel CPU almost always also requires a mainboard upgrade, who the fuck cares? What will you buy instead, a Skylake or Haswell i3? What will you upgrade from that to? Maybe I'm missing something here, but it makes no sense to me..

 

[Airbar]

Hey guys, with the influx of the new GPUs and being kinda fed up with the whole console shenanigans I've decided to get back into PC gaming.
Currently I run a PC with

• 
  GA-Z77-D3H

• 
  i5 - 3570k @ 4.00Ghz

• 
  7870HD with 2GB

• 
  8GB DDR3

I plan on getting a GTX 1070 sometime in late July/early August and maybe a new display as well. My question now is wether I should go with a 4k display or a 1440p 144hz display for gaming. 4k sounds tempting but I guess the 1070 isn't enough to get stable FPS? And I hear all kinds of talk about how 144hz is so great and easy on the eyes.
Kinda clueless what would be better with my kind of setup and hope some of you can chime in with some advice.

 

[knitoe]

Looking into the following build:

GPU:
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1080 8GB Gaming G1

SSD:
Corsair Force LE 960GB x 2

Case:
Fractal Design Define R4 Svart

Monitor:
ASUS 24" MG24UQ 4K

RAM:
Corsair 32GB (4x8GB) DDR4 3600MHz CL16 Vengeance LPX Red

PSU:
EVGA Supernova G2 750W

Heatsink:
Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO

CPU:
Intel Core i7 6700K 4.0 GHz 8MB

Motherboard:
ASUS Z170 PRO


What I am uncertain about:

• The GPU, is there another 1080 card I should look into?
• Case, not sure, maybe another?
• RAM, this one is out of stock, any good replacement?
• The monitor, a friend recommended me a 1440p monitor instead?

Do you need 32GB of RAM? Yes, if you are video editing, rendering and etc., but then, you should be looking at the X99 platform and 6-10 core CPUs.

24" is too small for 4K. Plus, a single 1080 won't be able to push 4K@60fps. Rather, I would look at a monitor 1440p with Gysnc.

Hey guys, with the influx of the new GPUs and being kinda fed up with the whole console shenanigans I've decided to get back into PC gaming.
Currently I run a PC with

• 
  GA-Z77-D3H

• 
  i5 - 3570k @ 4.00Ghz

• 
  7870HD with 2GB

• 
  8GB DDR3

I plan on getting a GTX 1070 sometime in late July/early August and maybe a new display as well. My question now is wether I should go with a 4k display or a 1440p 144hz display for gaming. 4k sounds tempting but I guess the 1070 isn't enough to get stable FPS? And I hear all kinds of talk about how 144hz is so great and easy on the eyes.
Kinda clueless what would be better with my kind of setup and hope some of you can chime in with some advice.

Go for 1440p. 4K@60fps is still the realm for SLI / CF.

 

[mulac]

Weird problem tonight. My media pc hooked up to my main television in the lounge (use it for steam sofa games, plex etc) did not boot up when I pushed power button.

Was working perfectly fine last night; turned it off and all good.

Tonight; power is working as the graphics card (Asus 980 Mini) light is on but the mobo is dead I think...pushing power button one of the case fans turns for a split second but no beep, no lights on the motherboard...nothing.

Before I go buy a new motherboard thought i'd check here - any ideas?

Specs are:

• 4x G.Skill Ares F3-1600C9D-8GAO 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3
• ASRock Z87 Extreme4 Motherboard
• Intel Core i5 4670
• Corsair CX-500 Modular 80+ Bronze Power Supply

The build has been working perfectly the last 6 months or so; the only change since originally building has been over the last weekend I installed 2x spare 4GB RAM sticks (same as the original 2x) to bring up to 16GB RAM and also installed a 500GB Samsung Pro SSD.

But everything been working fine since Saturday - this is literally just today for seemingly no reason.

 

[thenameDS]

So what's the general consensus on vsync do you guys use it? On rocket league I limit the frames to 62 and don't notice micro stutters or tearing. But last night I started playing witcher 3 and I get lots of micro stutters with unlimited frame rate and when it's capped at 60 there's god awful tearing. So I turned vsync on and it solved my issues.

I hear it introduces input lag but I haven't noticed anything yet. I play on a Tv with a controller.

 

[hooijdonk17]

So what's the general consensus on vsync do you guys use it? On rocket league I limit the frames to 62 and don't notice micro stutters or tearing. But last night I started playing witcher 3 and I get lots of micro stutters with unlimited frame rate and when it's capped at 60 there's god awful tearing. So I turned vsync on and it solved my issues.

I hear it introduces input lag but I haven't noticed anything yet. I play on a Tv with a controller.

It.. depends. If you can't maintain 60+ fps, and unless you are playing a twitch shooter, I see no reason to not try and turn it on. Especially in OpenGL games where you can force Triple Buffering (why the fuck is this not a standard in DX by now?). However, in some games turning VSync on can really make the game weirdly unresponsive or absurd frametime performances. So it's kind of hit and miss. If possibly, just buy a FreeSync monitor. It was stretching my budget a bit too much so I did not.. and I kind of regret it.

 

[∇NKNOWN SHΔPE]

Would it be wise to change my 970 with a amd 480 8gb?
I would sell the 970 for 150 Euro to my brother, so I would only pay around 100€ effectively for the amd card.
What do you think?

 

[hooijdonk17]

Would it be wise to change my 970 with a amd 480 8gb?
I would sell the 970 for 150 Euro to my brother, so I would only pay around 100€ effectively for the amd card.
What do you think?

You would be paying 100 EUR for 4.5GB extra VRAM and marginally better performance, and that's a tough call. Unless you are feeling particularly VRAM bottlenecked in games you frequently play, I wouldn't bother.. But only you can be the judge of that.

 

[Aztechnology]

Would it be wise to change my 970 with a amd 480 8gb?
I would sell the 970 for 150 Euro to my brother, so I would only pay around 100€ effectively for the amd card.
What do you think?

There's no way to know yet, but it wouldn't be a massive performance gain. I'd say unless you want to leverage it for Free-sync (The reason why I'm changing out) I would wait.

 

[∇NKNOWN SHΔPE]

You would be paying 100 EUR for 4.5GB extra VRAM and marginally better performance, and that's a tough call. Unless you are feeling particularly VRAM bottlenecked in games you frequently play, I wouldn't bother.. But only you can be the judge of that.

Thank you for your reply. I was under the impression, that the 480 would perform better than just "marginally". Are there any benchmarks yet?
Edit: Alright, I think I will wait a bit longer.

 

[Aztechnology]

Thank you for your reply. I was under the impression, that the 480 would perform better than just "marginally". Are there any benchmarks yet?

Only Synthetic 3dMark etc. and they aren't really confirmed sources.

 

[Ozorov]

So I just ordered a Rival 300. What mousepad should fit with it?

 

[mulac]

Reset CMOS by removing the battery = nothing
Replaced the CMOS battery = nothing
Removed every component: RAM + SSDs + GPU = nothing
Tried with the 4 RAM sticks, one at a time with nothing else = nothing
Tried with no RAM sticks and just GPU = GPU light is on but nothing else works
Checked every single plug, all securely connected

So my conclusion is its either the mobo or the psu - dont have time to try individual replacements so going to buy the MSI Z97 Gaming 5 Motherboard and Corsair 750M Power Supply...its one or the other.

I think maybe my 500W PSU i've been using isnt powerful enough for the system now? But not sure why it would suddenly just fail on me...

 

[hooijdonk17]

Reset CMOS by removing the battery = nothing
Replaced the CMOS battery = nothing
Removed every component: RAM + SSDs + GPU = nothing
Tried with the 4 RAM sticks, one at a time with nothing else = nothing
Tried with no RAM sticks and just GPU = GPU light is on but nothing else works
Checked every single plug, all securely connected

So my conclusion is its either the mobo or the psu - dont have time to try individual replacements so going to buy the MSI Z97 Gaming 5 Motherboard and Corsair 750M Power Supply...its one or the other.

I think maybe my 500W PSU i've been using isnt powerful enough for the system now? But not sure why it would suddenly just fail on me...

Have you tried replacing the power cord?

 

[mulac]

Have you tried replacing the power cord?

Yes - and the fact that power is getting through to the GPU tells me its working fine.

 

[fanboi]

Do you need 32GB of RAM? Yes, if you are video editing, rendering and etc., but then, you should be looking at the X99 platform and 6-10 core CPUs.

24" is too small for 4K. Plus, a single 1080 won't be able to push 4K@60fps. Rather, I would look at a monitor 1440p with Gysnc.



Go for 1440p. 4K@60fps is still the realm for SLI / CF.

No I don't need 32 GB then 16 GB enough?

How about a monitor, any good suggestion there?

 

[Vuze]

Would it be wise to change my 970 with a amd 480 8gb?
I would sell the 970 for 150 Euro to my brother, so I would only pay around 100€ effectively for the amd card.
What do you think?

150€ for a 970 is one heck of a family discount
The performance difference will most likely be negligible and not worth the 100€ extra. But you should wait for actual game benchmarks before you decide. 480 NDA lifts on the 28th I think.

No I don't need 32 GB then 16 GB enough?

How about a monitor, any good suggestion there?

Acer XB271HU or Asus PG279Q if you want 16:9 144hz 1440p Gsync + IPS.

I wasn't even aware there are 24" 4K displays. I imagine windows must be absolutely unusable at that size / res combo.

 

[LilJoka]

So what's the general consensus on vsync do you guys use it? On rocket league I limit the frames to 62 and don't notice micro stutters or tearing. But last night I started playing witcher 3 and I get lots of micro stutters with unlimited frame rate and when it's capped at 60 there's god awful tearing. So I turned vsync on and it solved my issues.

I hear it introduces input lag but I haven't noticed anything yet. I play on a Tv with a controller.

I play with nvidia adaptive sync always enabled except for counterstrike where I run unlimited frame rate.
Adaptive sync basically vsyncs only of fps are greater than or equal to the refresh rate.

I also play on the tv with a controller. Probably our TV has more lag than vsync induces.

 

[LilJoka]

Yes - and the fact that power is getting through to the GPU tells me its working fine.

Remove the wire for the power switch.
Short the 2 pins on the board for power switch with a screw driver to try turn the PC on.

 

[fanboi]

150€ for a 970 is one heck of a family discount
The performance difference will most likely be negligible and not worth the 100€ extra. But you should wait for actual game benchmarks before you decide. 480 NDA lifts on the 28th I think.


Acer XB271HU or Asus PG279Q if you want 16:9 144hz 1440p Gsync + IPS.

I wasn't even aware there are 24" 4K displays. I imagine windows must be absolutely unusable at that size / res combo.

Thank you.

Regardomg RAM, is Corsair 16GB (2x8GB) DDR4 3000Mhz CL15 Vengeance LPX Black a good choice?

 

[mulac]

Remove the wire for the power switch.
Short the 2 pins on the board for power switch with a screw driver to try turn the PC on.

Nothing...I think this is a lost cause

 

[appaws]

Thank you.

Regardomg RAM, is Corsair 16GB (2x8GB) DDR4 3000Mhz CL15 Vengeance LPX Black a good choice?

Yes.

 

[hooijdonk17]

Yes - and the fact that power is getting through to the GPU tells me its working fine.

Strange problem. It could be that the 3.3V or 5V rails on your PSU are dead for some reason, and the GPU is getting power through 12V only. Do you have a multimeter to check the mainboard and CPU power sockets from the PSU? (Please don't electrocute yourself)

 

[mulac]

Strange problem. It could be that the 3.3V or 5V rails on your PSU are dead for some reason, and the GPU is getting power through 12V only. Do you have a multimeter to check the mainboard and CPU power sockets from the PSU? (Please don't electrocute yourself)

No nothing else to test. I've literally just now stripped everything out of the box so its just the mobo and cpu and psu - not a sizzle when i put power through it; tried it with 3 different cables (which i know work) and nadda.

Screw it - time for a new motherboard and psu!

 

[hooijdonk17]

No nothing else to test. I've literally just now stripped everything out of the box so its just the mobo and cpu and psu - not a sizzle when i put power through it; tried it with 3 different cables (which i know work) and nadda.

Screw it - time for a new motherboard and psu!

Out of idle curiosity and scientific achievement, please test the old psu with the new mainboard and the new mainboard with the old psu, to make sure which one failed.

(you can just mail me the working old spare if you wish )