Support NeoGAF

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

LG, because the higher PPI is generally more pleasing. 21:9 is also much more usable than 32:9. 240hz is not something you have to worry about ever due to GPU limits & software bottlenecks (excluding esports titles, but in that case you'd want something else entirely). And finally the HDR for both of them isn't all that good so you'd not miss out on something going for LG over Sammy. True, I would be sad about the contrast tho.

Granted, for the money I'd say fuck both of them. Buy a TV and use a custom resolution. These prices are a complete joke.

Thanks for the input, it's highly appreciated! Regarding the prices: Would you say there are 34'' ultrawides available right now that are recommendable (like the LG 34GN850)? What kind of TV would you recommend instead of a monitor like that?

 

[GHG]

Thanks for the input, it's highly appreciated! Regarding the prices: Would you say there are 34'' ultrawides available right now that are recommendable (like the LG 34GN850)? What kind of TV would you recommend instead of a monitor like that?

I second the TV suggestion Rikkori mentioned. I was looking at large ultra wides list year and went that route instead and have zero regrets.

If you are looking at the 49 inch Samsung ultra wide then that is basically a 55" TV in terms of size but it's chopped in half vertically.

So with that in mind a 55 inch TV should suit you well., you will also get much better HDR than either of the two monitors you mentioned. Ideally you want to look for a TV that has HDMI 2.1 capability and has native 120hz resolution at both 1440p and 4k along with freesync support. Check rtings:

Reviews and Ratings

Find the best products for your needs, based on our reviews, ratings and recommendations.

www.rtings.com

I got a Samsung Q70r last year before HDMI 2.1 was a thing so I miss out on 4k 120hz (but still get everything else) and I'm very happy with it.

 

[Rikkori]

Thanks for the input, it's highly appreciated! Regarding the prices: Would you say there are 34'' ultrawides available right now that are recommendable (like the LG 34GN850)? What kind of TV would you recommend instead of a monitor like that?

For the money I'd personally look more into something like Nixeus NX-EDG34S. On the TV side I'm more knowledgeable so I can help out better there. It's gonna come down to budget & use cases. The obvious choice is of OLED vs LCD, and of LG C9/CX vs Sony XH90. The upside of the OLEDs are superior image quality, while for the Sony you don't have to worry about burn-in and you won't encounter ABL (for the OLEDs the screen will dim on full field bright areas, eg having a word document open). Both have HDMI 2.1 so you'll get nice HDR 10bit RGB at 4K 120hz out of them. There's also a whole bunch of options TVs have which can help manipulate the image from your remote control directly and which is honestly worth its weight in gold. It's like on-demand reshade that works for everything. The Sony is also much cheaper than the OLED, so that's something to keep in mind. Best thing about the TVs vs the monitors, besides the great price/performance, is that the HDR is eons ahead of what you can find on monitors.

It would look like this (that's 43" tho):

 

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

I second the TV suggestion Rikkori mentioned. I was looking at large ultra wides list year and went that route instead and have zero regrets.

If you are looking at the 49 inch Samsung ultra wide then that is basically a 55" TV in terms of size but it's chopped in half vertically.

So with that in mind a 55 inch TV should suit you well., you will also get much better HDR than either of the two monitors you mentioned. Ideally you want to look for a TV that has HDMI 2.1 capability and has native 120hz resolution at both 1440p and 4k along with freesync support. Check rtings:

Reviews and Ratings

Find the best products for your needs, based on our reviews, ratings and recommendations.

www.rtings.com

I got a Samsung Q70r last year before HDMI 2.1 was a thing so I miss out on 4k 120hz (but still get everything else) and I'm very happy with it.

Thanks! I'd like to have the flexibility to switch between AMD and Nvidia for Adaptive Sync. Are there TVs that support both? What about response times/input lag? I never thought about TVs as an option until you mentioned it, I'll definitely have a long hard look at the options. Is right now generally a good time to buy a TV for gaming, or is a generational shift expected in the next 6 months or so?

 

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

For the money I'd personally look more into something like Nixeus NX-EDG34S. On the TV side I'm more knowledgeable so I can help out better there. It's gonna come down to budget & use cases. The obvious choice is of OLED vs LCD, and of LG C9/CX vs Sony XH90. The upside of the OLEDs are superior image quality, while for the Sony you don't have to worry about burn-in and you won't encounter ABL (for the OLEDs the screen will dim on full field bright areas, eg having a word document open). Both have HDMI 2.1 so you'll get nice HDR 10bit RGB at 4K 120hz out of them. There's also a whole bunch of options TVs have which can help manipulate the image from your remote control directly and which is honestly worth its weight in gold. It's like on-demand reshade that works for everything. The Sony is also much cheaper than the OLED, so that's something to keep in mind. Best thing about the TVs vs the monitors, besides the great price/performance, is that the HDR is eons ahead of what you can find on monitors.

It would look like this (that's 43" tho):

Great suggestions, thanks a ton! I'll be looking at reviews for the TVs you mentioned. Did I understand you right that you can just set a UHD TV to display a "ultrawide" resolution like shown in the picture you posted? Is this to avoid the larger pixel density in comparison to full 4K or are there other benefits to this as well? I never really thought about TVs as monitor replacements for my PC.

 

[GHG]

Thanks! I'd like to have the flexibility to switch between AMD and Nvidia for Adaptive Sync. Are there TVs that support both? What about response times/input lag? I never thought about TVs as an option until you mentioned it, I'll definitely have a long hard look at the options. Is right now generally a good time to buy a TV for gaming, or is a generational shift expected in the next 6 months or so?

Most modern Freesync compatible displays are also Gsync compatible since Nvidia opened things up.

As long as you get a TV that has HDMI 2.1 support and can do true 120hz at 1440p and 4k then you're good to go.

There's nothing new on the horizon that you need to look out for, I actually bought at a bad time (just before HDMI 2.1) but I'm glad I didn't wait to be honest because I've enjoyed every moment of having the setup in the last 9 months or so. Also I wouldn't have wanted to be without it during covid lockdowns so... YOLO as they say.

 

[Rikkori]

Great suggestions, thanks a ton! I'll be looking at reviews for the TVs you mentioned. Did I understand you right that you can just set a UHD TV to display a "ultrawide" resolution like shown in the picture you posted? Is this to avoid the larger pixel density in comparison to full 4K or are there other benefits to this as well? I never really thought about TVs as monitor replacements for my PC.

Yup, you can even do 32:9 resolutions if you feel like it, though it looks comically narrow. In reality it's still bigger than the actual monitors. The reason you'd do this is if you wanted the wider FOV ultrawides can provide. I used this a lot for when playing Doom '16 the first time, the experience was magical - the bigger size + ultrawide really helps add a lot to the experience. Recently it worked really well for Horizon Zero Dawn. I switched to TVs from monitors years ago because I kept looking around and all I saw were shit monitors priced exorbitatantly meanwhile TV tech just advances & improves. For me picture quality is paramount and the difference of PQ you have between the best monitor and a middle of the road TV is still in favour of the TV. It's a preposterous situation, but it is what it is, most people are okay with even TN panels, it's madness.

55" 16:9 vs 49" 32:9 / 38" 21:9

 

[Anki]

Is ryzen 2600 for 120 euros good deal?
ryzen 3600 is 190 euros and playing in 1440p i didnt see any huge difference.

 

[longdi]

Is ryzen 2600 for 120 euros good deal?
ryzen 3600 is 190 euros and playing in 1440p i didnt see any huge difference.

nope, 3600 is better even at 70 more. imo.
you could wait if no urgent need to upgrade.

 

[Leonidas]

Is ryzen 2600 for 120 euros good deal?
ryzen 3600 is 190 euros and playing in 1440p i didnt see any huge difference.

If you're gaming at 60 Hz then you're probably better off saving the money and going with the 2600.

 

[dave_d]

Most modern Freesync compatible displays are also Gsync compatible since Nvidia opened things up.

As long as you get a TV that has HDMI 2.1 support and can do true 120hz at 1440p and 4k then you're good to go.

There's nothing new on the horizon that you need to look out for, I actually bought at a bad time (just before HDMI 2.1) but I'm glad I didn't wait to be honest because I've enjoyed every moment of having the setup in the last 9 months or so. Also I wouldn't have wanted to be without it during covid lockdowns so... YOLO as they say.

I thought the complaint about TVs instead of a monitor is greater lag and limited support for above 60hz. Is that not true anymore?(I think I read some TVs support PC mode to get rid of most of the lag by doing far less picture processing.) Curious because at some point I'm going to replace my monitor as well and monitors 32" and bigger get expensive very fast. (I'd probably want 32" or 40" for a PC display.)

 

[GHG]

I thought the complaint about TVs instead of a monitor is greater lag and limited support for above 60hz. Is that not true anymore?(I think I read some TVs support PC mode to get rid of most of the lag by doing far less picture processing.) Curious because at some point I'm going to replace my monitor as well and monitors 32" and bigger get expensive very fast. (I'd probably want 32" or 40" for a PC display.)

No it's not true anymore.

The high end Samsung/Sony LCD and the LG OLED panels are all great for PC and desktop use (OLED's less so for the latter for obvious reasons). You just need to do your research on the TV you're looking to buy.

 

[dave_d]

No it's not true anymore.

The high end Samsung/Sony LCD and the LG OLED panels are all great for PC and desktop use (OLED's less so for the latter for obvious reasons). You just need to do your research on the TV you're looking to buy.

Good to know. Just looking quickly it seems like options open up very fast at 48/49" and very few at 40" or less. Is that a fair assessment?

 

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

Good to know. Just looking quickly it seems like options open up very fast at 48/49" and very few at 40" or less. Is that a fair assessment?

I haven't found an option below 48" myself, yet. You really have to consider your viewing distance with these TVs. Unfortunately, my "gaming" room doesn't give me much space when it comes to distance from the screen. Which is why I probably have to refrain from using a TV as monitor. But GHG is right, these panels seem to have made great progress with regards to their usability as PC monitors. I personally would probably not use an OLED despite its superior image quality because of the burn-in risk (I'm hearing conflicting reports on how serious it is). Other than that, the C9/CX seems to have it all, it ticks all the boxes.

 

[GHG]

Good to know. Just looking quickly it seems like options open up very fast at 48/49" and very few at 40" or less. Is that a fair assessment?

Yeh there are no viable options below 48/49" and even at that size the options are sparse AFAIK (I can't think of any other than the LG CX). You need to jump to 55" to start having a few options from multiple manufacturers.

If you can justify the size and have the space it's 100% worth it IMO.

 

[KTT]

It's time for a GPU upgrade, and I'm currently looking at the Radeon RX 580. The reviews on Amazon are almost all 5 star but had some 1 stars saying the card died within a couple weeks/months. What do you all think? Is it a safe buy?

 

[GHG]

It's time for a GPU upgrade, and I'm currently looking at the Radeon RX 580. The reviews on Amazon are almost all 5 star but had some 1 stars saying the card died within a couple weeks/months. What do you all think? Is it a safe buy?

First of all wait a week or so in case there are any surprises from Nvidia for the low/mid end of the market.

What's the exact model you are looking at and reason for the failures? Amazon are usually pretty good returns though (as long as it's actually sold by them) so I'd say it's a safe buy regardless.

 

[dave_d]

I haven't found an option below 48" myself, yet. You really have to consider your viewing distance with these TVs. Unfortunately, my "gaming" room doesn't give me much space when it comes to distance from the screen. Which is why I probably have to refrain from using a TV as monitor. But GHG is right, these panels seem to have made great progress with regards to their usability as PC monitors. I personally would probably not use an OLED despite its superior image quality because of the burn-in risk (I'm hearing conflicting reports on how serious it is). Other than that, the C9/CX seems to have it all, it ticks all the boxes.

You sound like me. I'd generally be using it at standard monitor distances which is about 2-3 feet. While I have room on my desk for a larger monitor it seems like monitors of that size would be a little large.

 

[dave_d]

Yeh there are no viable options below 48/49" and even at that size the options are sparse AFAIK (I can't think of any other than the LG CX). You need to jump to 55" to start having a few options from multiple manufacturers.

If you can justify the size and have the space it's 100% worth it IMO.

Thanks for the info. I actually tried to get a feel for what it would be like since I actually have an older 40" TV and a newer 55" oled by simply putting my face at about the distance I would normally be from it. (Getting a feel what that would be like.) Admittedly it'd be nice for gaming if I leaned back in my chair. However for a lot of the stuff I tend to do (browsing, software development.) 55 is a bit big. 40" probably would be a decent trade off. (Not too big when up close but not too small either like my current 22" monitor.) You're right though, when I tried looking the only one I could find in the 32-40" range was a samsung 50r. (That's apparently at least a year old and I don't think it supports HDMI 2.1 either.)

 

[GHG]

Thanks for the info. I actually tried to get a feel for what it would be like since I actually have an older 40" TV and a newer 55" oled by simply putting my face at about the distance I would normally be from it. (Getting a feel what that would be like.) Admittedly it'd be nice for gaming if I leaned back in my chair. However for a lot of the stuff I tend to do (browsing, software development.) 55 is a bit big. 40" probably would be a decent trade off. (Not too big when up close but not too small either like my current 22" monitor.) You're right though, when I tried looking the only one I could find in the 32-40" range was a samsung 50r. (That's apparently at least a year old and I don't think it supports HDMI 2.1 either.)

Not sure what your niche is but FWIW I'm a web designer (Jamstack these days - primarily use gatsby JS and react native for the front end), also do some design work on the side and I struggle to go back to working on smaller screen sizes now

I have a windock profile set up to have 4 equally sized windows set up side by side across the middle of the screen (but half height) so it's basically simulating a 49" ultra wide which is what I was considering before going for this.

Also have two profiles on the display set up, one for work with the brightness turned down and another for gaming with the brightness turned up and HDR enabled.

 

[longdi]

imo for 50" screen, you need to be able to vesa mount it, so that you can lower the screen until you can see the top bezel without lifting your head.

Big screen on PC is tiring when you need to lift and turn your head.

 

[Marlenus]

imo for 50" screen, you need to be able to vesa mount it, so that you can lower the screen until you can see the top bezel without lifting your head.

Big screen on PC is tiring when you need to lift and turn your head.

Agreed with this. Have a 40" for work and the bottom bezel is at desk height because the top is too high otherwise.

 

[GHG]

imo for 50" screen, you need to be able to vesa mount it, so that you can lower the screen until you can see the top bezel without lifting your head.

Big screen on PC is tiring when you need to lift and turn your head.

Depends on the size of your desk and how far back you can push it.

Agreed though. I simply don't use all of the vertical space when doing anything outside of gaming. I have it set up so that everything is in the center of my eyeline.

 

[Dries]

Hi guys, I'm building a brand new gaming PC from scratch and I'm currently twisting myself which CPU to pick. First off, my new system will be like:

the new CPU
RTX 3080Ti
32 GB RAM
SSD
res: 3840 x 2160
(mobo to be determined after CPU pick obviously)

I'm currently debating two CPU options: the Ryzen 7 3700X or the i7 10700K. In the most articles I've read everyone is advising the Ryzen 7 3700X because of it's lower price and similair performance. While this is all true, the i7 10700K performs better when it solely comes down to gaming performance (according to the benchmarks...)

Because the i7 10700K falls within my budget, I don't really see a reason to go for the AMD option. Note that I don't do photoshop, mining, or editting work. This will purely be a gaming PC, nothing else.

I guess it all boils down to the question: is there a very good reason I should still choose the Ryzen 7 3700X even if it performs somewhat less than the i7 10700K? The difference in price is negligible in this case. Thanks everyone who is willing to respond

PS. I know Zen 3 is incoming, but who knows when. Ideally, I'd like to have my new system around mid-september.

 

[dave_d]

Because the i7 10700K falls within my budget, I don't really see a reason to go for the AMD option. Note that I don't do photoshop, mining, or editting work. This will purely be a gaming PC, nothing else.

I don't know about the rest of what you've written but I can say one thing. Checked to see if you've got a microcenter near by. They're selling the 10700k for $350. (I am so tempted to stop waiting for Zen 3 I just put together a 10700k system.)

 

[PhoenixTank]

Hi guys, I'm building a brand new gaming PC from scratch and I'm currently twisting myself which CPU to pick. First off, my new system will be like:

the new CPU
RTX 3080Ti
32 GB RAM
SSD
res: 3840 x 2160
(mobo to be determined after CPU pick obviously)

I'm currently debating two CPU options: the Ryzen 7 3700X or the i7 10700K. In the most articles I've read everyone is advising the Ryzen 7 3700X because of it's lower price and similair performance. While this is all true, the i7 10700K performs better when it solely comes down to gaming performance (according to the benchmarks...)

Because the i7 10700K falls within my budget, I don't really see a reason to go for the AMD option. Note that I don't do photoshop, mining, or editting work. This will purely be a gaming PC, nothing else.

I guess it all boils down to the question: is there a very good reason I should still choose the Ryzen 7 3700X even if it performs somewhat less than the i7 10700K? The difference in price is negligible in this case. Thanks everyone who is willing to respond

PS. I know Zen 3 is incoming, but who knows when. Ideally, I'd like to have my new system around mid-september.

Unless the 3080Ti is an unstoppable 4K,120fps beast you're not going to notice a difference between the 3700X & 10700K.
Really depends on how that works out for your setup.

 

[GHG]

Hi guys, I'm building a brand new gaming PC from scratch and I'm currently twisting myself which CPU to pick. First off, my new system will be like:

the new CPU
RTX 3080Ti
32 GB RAM
SSD
res: 3840 x 2160
(mobo to be determined after CPU pick obviously)

I'm currently debating two CPU options: the Ryzen 7 3700X or the i7 10700K. In the most articles I've read everyone is advising the Ryzen 7 3700X because of it's lower price and similair performance. While this is all true, the i7 10700K performs better when it solely comes down to gaming performance (according to the benchmarks...)

Because the i7 10700K falls within my budget, I don't really see a reason to go for the AMD option. Note that I don't do photoshop, mining, or editting work. This will purely be a gaming PC, nothing else.

I guess it all boils down to the question: is there a very good reason I should still choose the Ryzen 7 3700X even if it performs somewhat less than the i7 10700K? The difference in price is negligible in this case. Thanks everyone who is willing to respond

PS. I know Zen 3 is incoming, but who knows when. Ideally, I'd like to have my new system around mid-september.

Wait until you see reviews of the new GPU's.

There is unlikely to be a 3080ti at launch but there is likely to be a 3090 according to rumours. The card will also be PCIe 4.0 so it will be interesting to see how that effects things, especially seeing as Intel currently has no support for it.

 

[Dries]

Unless the 3080Ti is an unstoppable 4K,120fps beast you're not going to notice a difference between the 3700X & 10700K.
Really depends on how that works out for your setup.

Thanks, I think I'll go for the 3700X

Wait until you see reviews of the new GPU's.

There is unlikely to be a 3080ti at launch but there is likely to be a 3090 according to rumours. The card will also be PCIe 4.0 so it will be interesting to see how that effects things, especially seeing as Intel currently has no support for it.

yeah, the PCIe 4.0 part is the reason I'll be going for the AMD CPU this time.

Anyway, guys, I think I'm almost done selecting my parts. Here they are:

• CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X

• MOBO: Asus ROG Strix X570-E Gaming

• GPU: So this will be a RTX 3080Ti/3090, but until then: my existing GTX 1080Ti

• CPU fan: be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 4

• Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws V F4-3200C16D-32GVK (32 GB)

• PSU: Corsair RM850 (2019)

• SSD: Kingston A2000 1TB

• Case: Fractal Design Define 7 Tempered Glass Dark

• Res: 3840 x 2160

What do you guys think? Anything sticking out like a sore thumb? I'm still pretty unsure concerning the PSU. I was advised to go for 850W when thinking of the future RTX 3080Ti/3090 cards, but others have said it's completly overkill.

 

[hamster3 3]

Looking to upgrade my CPU since my current 4690k struggles with Flight Sim. Is a 3700X the way to go for that price range? looking at under £500 for the CPU, MOBO and RAM. (The cheaper, the better). This will be paired with a 1060 which I'll look at upgrading to a 3060.

 

[Hostile_18]

Thanks, I think I'll go for the 3700X



yeah, the PCIe 4.0 part is the reason I'll be going for the AMD CPU this time.

Anyway, guys, I think I'm almost done selecting my parts. Here they are:

• CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
• MOBO: Asus ROG Strix X570-E Gaming
• GPU: So this will be a RTX 3080Ti/3090, but until then: my existing GTX 1080Ti
• CPU fan: be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 4
• Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws V F4-3200C16D-32GVK (32 GB)
• PSU: Corsair RM850 (2019)
• SSD: Kingston A2000 1TB
• Case: Fractal Design Define 7 Tempered Glass Dark
• Res: 3840 x 2160

What do you guys think? Anything sticking out like a sore thumb? I'm still pretty unsure concerning the PSU. I was advised to go for 850W when thinking of the future RTX 3080Ti/3090 cards, but others have said it's completly overkill.

Not sure if it's the case in your country but in mine the 3800x is about 10 pounds more. Also if you buy from a selected retailer it comes with Assassin's Creed Valhalla.

PSU does seem high but unless your on a budget it can't hurt.

 

[Dries]

Not sure if it's the case in your country but in mine the 3800x is about 10 pounds more. Also if you buy from a selected retailer it comes with Assassin's Creed Valhalla.

PSU does seem high but unless your on a budget it can't hurt.

10 pounds is nothing indeed. The difference here between the 3700x and 3800x is €41, so about 37 pounds.

Not much indeed, but will I really notice the difference while gaming? Fuck it, what am I talking about. €41 on a >€2000 build haha. I'll probably go for the 3800...

Edit: Hmm I do see that the 3800 almost needs twice as much power and heats up way faster. Also more comparisons point to the fact that the difference in game performance is none to negligible. Think I'll be sticking with my 3700X!

 

[Fuz]

A question on my hardware.

I was thinking about buying a whole new PC for Cyberpunk 2077 (my current PC was built for Witcher 3 btw), but I had some unexpected expenses and also... I really don't want to restart from scratch.
So I was thinking, maybe I can just upgrade something.

My current setup:
z97x-gaming 3 MoBo
i7490K
GeForce GTX1060 3Gb (<- yeah, this is shit. It's a replacement over a burned better card)

Pretty much everything runs without any problem, I might struggle to get 60FPS everywhere but that's not a big deal. What do you guys think? Will this be able to run CP77 decently or shall I give up and buy a new rig?

 

[Dries]

A question on my hardware.

I was thinking about buying a whole new PC for Cyberpunk 2077 (my current PC was built for Witcher 3 btw), but I had some unexpected expenses and also... I really don't want to restart from scratch.
So I was thinking, maybe I can just upgrade something.

My current setup:
z97x-gaming 3 MoBo
i7490K
GeForce GTX1060 3Gb (<- yeah, this is shit. It's a replacement over a burned better card)

Pretty much everything runs without any problem, I might struggle to get 60FPS everywhere but that's not a big deal. What do you guys think? Will this be able to run CP77 decently or shall I give up and buy a new rig?

Do you really want the RTX features? Cause if you do, a GPU upgrade will be necessary. Upgrading to a RTX card also lets you use DLSS 2.0 in CP2077 which will bring massive performance improvements.

If your CPU will be fast enough to let that RTX card go crazy... that I'm not sure of. But think about those RTX and DLSS features first, I would say.

 

[Fuz]

Do you really want the RTX features?

Seeing the prices of those cards, I'm not sure I do.

 

[GHG]

Thanks, I think I'll go for the 3700X



yeah, the PCIe 4.0 part is the reason I'll be going for the AMD CPU this time.

Anyway, guys, I think I'm almost done selecting my parts. Here they are:

• CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
• MOBO: Asus ROG Strix X570-E Gaming
• GPU: So this will be a RTX 3080Ti/3090, but until then: my existing GTX 1080Ti
• CPU fan: be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 4
• Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws V F4-3200C16D-32GVK (32 GB)
• PSU: Corsair RM850 (2019)
• SSD: Kingston A2000 1TB
• Case: Fractal Design Define 7 Tempered Glass Dark
• Res: 3840 x 2160

What do you guys think? Anything sticking out like a sore thumb? I'm still pretty unsure concerning the PSU. I was advised to go for 850W when thinking of the future RTX 3080Ti/3090 cards, but others have said it's completly overkill.

For the PSU wait until the reviews of the 3090 are out to see what real world power supply requirements are. Apart from that it looks good.

Looking to upgrade my CPU since my current 4690k struggles with Flight Sim. Is a 3700X the way to go for that price range? looking at under £500 for the CPU, MOBO and RAM. (The cheaper, the better). This will be paired with a 1060 which I'll look at upgrading to a 3060.

I recommended the following build to Hostile_18 recently, should suit your needs perfectly as well:

System Builder

uk.pcpartpicker.com

PCPartPicker Part List: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/NxfmYH

CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 3.6 GHz 8-Core Processor (£282.60 @ Senetic)
Motherboard: Gigabyte B550 AORUS ELITE ATX AM4 Motherboard (£142.96 @ More Computers)
Memory: Team T-FORCE VULCAN Z 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR4-3200 CL16 Memory (£104.29 @ Amazon UK)

If you really need it to be under £500 (or there abouts) then go with the following motherboard:

https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/product...pro-micro-atx-am4-motherboard-b550m-aorus-pro

But be aware you'll have less PCIe expansion options because it's an matx motherboard. But if you will only ever be installing a single GPU then it shouldn't be an issue.

 

[GHG]

A question on my hardware.

I was thinking about buying a whole new PC for Cyberpunk 2077 (my current PC was built for Witcher 3 btw), but I had some unexpected expenses and also... I really don't want to restart from scratch.
So I was thinking, maybe I can just upgrade something.

My current setup:
z97x-gaming 3 MoBo
i7490K
GeForce GTX1060 3Gb (<- yeah, this is shit. It's a replacement over a burned better card)

Pretty much everything runs without any problem, I might struggle to get 60FPS everywhere but that's not a big deal. What do you guys think? Will this be able to run CP77 decently or shall I give up and buy a new rig?

What resolution do you play at and what is your intended framerate target?

If you are 1440p and above then you might actually be able to get away with just installing a more powerful graphics card (the upcoming RTX 3060 should be a nice upgrade for you). If you game below 1440p then you will be severely CPU bottlenecked with any newer GPU and you would be better off going with a new motherboard/cpu/ram in addition to a new GPU.

 

[Fuz]

What resolution do you play at and what is your intended framerate target?

1920x1080. I like my 60FPS but I don't cry too much if I can't keep them stable.

 

[GHG]

1920x1080. I like my 60FPS but I don't cry too much if I can't keep them stable.

Yeh I'd actually suggest an overhaul at that resolution because your frametimes will end up being all over the place in newer games with a more powerful GPU paired with the CPU you have.

Another option you have to somewhat stabilise things if you got a 3060 for example would be to downsample from a higher resolution down to 1080p. That way it should put most of the load on the GPU.

 

[hamster3 3]

For the PSU wait until the reviews of the 3090 are out to see what real world power supply requirements are. Apart from that it looks good.



I recommended the following build to Hostile_18 recently, should suit your needs perfectly as well:

System Builder

uk.pcpartpicker.com

PCPartPicker Part List: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/NxfmYH



If you really need it to be under £500 (or there abouts) then go with the following motherboard:

https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/product...pro-micro-atx-am4-motherboard-b550m-aorus-pro

But be aware you'll have less PCIe expansion options because it's an matx motherboard. But if you will only ever be installing a single GPU then it shouldn't be an issue.

Thanks, would it be worth getting a x570 mobo for the same price such as https://m.cclonline.com/product/309...ket-AM4-X570-Chipset-ATX-Motherboard/MBD2739/

 

[GHG]

Thanks, would it be worth getting a x570 mobo for the same price such as https://m.cclonline.com/product/309...ket-AM4-X570-Chipset-ATX-Motherboard/MBD2739/

No, steer well clear of the cheaper x570 motherboards. None of them are any good, terrible thermals, terrible VRM's and terrible chipset cooling solutions.

 

[Fuz]

Thanks for the tips guys. I think building a whole new rig would be the best option. I'll ask in the future for help with the specs.

Thanks again.

 

[Dries]

Thanks for the tips guys. I think building a whole new rig would be the best option. I'll ask in the future for help with the specs.

Thanks again.

Building a new rig is always the best option. Too bad it's also always the most expensive option :-(

 

[Hostile_18]

10 pounds is nothing indeed. The difference here between the 3700x and 3800x is €41, so about 37 pounds.

Not much indeed, but will I really notice the difference while gaming? Fuck it, what am I talking about. €41 on a >€2000 build haha. I'll probably go for the 3800...

Edit: Hmm I do see that the 3800 almost needs twice as much power and heats up way faster. Also more comparisons point to the fact that the difference in game performance is none to negligible. Think I'll be sticking with my 3700X!

Ah I'll have to look at that myself see which CPU would be better for me the 3700x or the 3800x.

 

[dave_d]

Not sure what your niche is but FWIW I'm a web designer (Jamstack these days - primarily use gatsby JS and react native for the front end), also do some design work on the side and I struggle to go back to working on smaller screen sizes now

I have a windock profile set up to have 4 equally sized windows set up side by side across the middle of the screen (but half height) so it's basically simulating a 49" ultra wide which is what I was considering before going for this.

Also have two profiles on the display set up, one for work with the brightness turned down and another for gaming with the brightness turned up and HDR enabled.

Mostly a C++ developer. I didn't know about windock. Sounds like it could make a 55" quite useful for regular development. (Since at that size pretty much it's just as longdi said. If you don't mount it properly the top is a little high. I'd guess windock helps with that by keeping everything in the middle.) So I'd guess windock has an option to turn off for when you want to go full screen. (For me that would be gaming or watching videos.)

 

[PhoenixTank]

D dave_d
I revisited some old info. It was the CoolerMaster NR600 that you can grab with an internal optical drive bay as an option. You've probably moved on by now.
Brief bit of coverage at 3:17 seconds in:

 

[GHG]

D dave_d
I revisited some old info. It was the CoolerMaster NR600 that you can grab with an internal optical drive bay as an option. You've probably moved on by now.
Brief bit of coverage at 3:17 seconds in:

Hostile_18 the above is probably a good option for you as well.

Mostly a C++ developer. I didn't know about windock. Sounds like it could make a 55" quite useful for regular development. (Since at that size pretty much it's just as longdi said. If you don't mount it properly the top is a little high. I'd guess windock helps with that by keeping everything in the middle.) So I'd guess windock has an option to turn off for when you want to go full screen. (For me that would be gaming or watching videos.)

I actually have 2 logins on my system, one for work and one for play. On the work one I have the windock profile load up automatically upon login and on the other one it doesn't.

To show you how I set it up see the image below:

Spoiler

I'll usually have cmder on the left, vs code middle left, chrome with a live view of what I'm working on middle right, and then a chrome window with documentation on the right.

 

[MadYarpen]

I need your advice, guys.

I want to invest in my PC for Cyberpunk, but also for the next gen.

Currently I have lets say 1080p setup. I will be changing GPU and the monitor in the first place, later I will swap Ryzen 5 2600 if necessary, and add another 16GB of RAM.

But as regards the monitor and GPU.

What GPU should I aim for QHD (standard 1440p), and what for UWQHD (3440x1440, for example with the AOC CU34G2X)?

I have 650W PCU (good quality).

I am not in the group of PC enthusiasts who are ready to buy some 3090, or even 3080 RTX GPU. I want to keep it reasonable price wise. But I would like to know my options if I wanted to go for the higher resolution.

What would you buy from the current GPUs? RTX 2070 SUPER, RX 5700XT (Ray tracing aside)? Not saying I will buy those, but I am asking about the needed performance. And then comes the question about the next gen GPU - 3070 / Big Navi, potentially. But they are unknown so I wanted to start with the current models and go from there.

Edit: I should add I want to buy 144hz monitor.

 

[GHG]

I need your advice, guys.

I want to invest in my PC for Cyberpunk, but also for the next gen.

Currently I have lets say 1080p setup. I will be changing GPU and the monitor in the first place, later I will swap Ryzen 5 2600 if necessary, and add another 16GB of RAM.

But as regards the monitor and GPU.

What GPU should I aim for QHD (standard 1440p), and what for UWQHD (3440x1440, for example with the AOC CU34G2X)?

I have 650W PCU (good quality).

I am not in the group of PC enthusiasts who are ready to buy some 3090, or even 3080 RTX GPU. I want to keep it reasonable price wise. But I would like to know my options if I wanted to go for the higher resolution.

What would you buy from the current GPUs? RTX 2070 SUPER, RX 5700XT (Ray tracing aside)? Not saying I will buy those, but I am asking about the needed performance. And then comes the question about the next gen GPU - 3070 / Big Navi, potentially. But they are unknown so I wanted to start with the current models and go from there.

Edit: I should add I want to buy 144hz monitor.

If it's specifically for cyberpunk you will want an Nvidia card because they have a marketing partnership (which also means a driver optimisation partnership in most cases) and it will have DLSS support.

With that in mind wait for the 3070 which should release towards the end of this month or early next month. Do not buy now.

But if you really want to drive the resolutions you mentioned at higher refresh rates you will want to up your budget unless you are ok with running games at around medium settings.

 

[MadYarpen]

Well I would like to be able to achieve >60 fps for sure. Although later in gen I could deal with medium settings, if this is the price for the lower price now. I don't have enough time for gaming to justify the high end gpus tbh...

 

[GHG]

Well I would like to be able to achieve >60 fps for sure. Although later in gen I could deal with medium settings, if this is the price for the lower price now. I don't have enough time for gaming to justify the high end gpus tbh...

In that case then the 3070 should be a solid buy providing it performs as expected (around 2080ti levels).