| Forum Index > Tech Support |
When using this resource, please read the opening post. The Tech Support forum regulars have helped create countless of desktop systems without any compensation. The least you can do is provide all of the information required for them to help you properly. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20323 Posts
Whichever is capable of the least FPS at the time would be the bottleneck. For many things that will be the 4960k with either GPU and for many others that would be the 1660ti even with a weaker CPU. Generally for pushing higher FPS + sustaining high min. FPS (especially in MMO/RTS) the CPU is more important. For higher resolutions and graphics settings, GPU is. | ||
|
icystorage
Jollibee19350 Posts
| ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
| ||
|
Dingodile
4139 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20323 Posts
| ||
|
TT1
Canada10012 Posts
![[image loading]](https://preview.redd.it/d7suf5lk89u21.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=e399927cc93692da2982acd41674ba62da03c312) | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7058 Posts
On April 25 2019 11:26 TT1 wrote: Half-Life 3 5 Rules xD | ||
|
icystorage
Jollibee19350 Posts
Gigabyte ga-a320m-s2h and Gigabyte ga-b450-aorus-m I researched a bit and what i got is that you cant OC A320. Given that I don't really OC my stuff, should I go for A320? Any reasons to choose B450? | ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
On April 26 2019 15:59 icystorage wrote: Alright, I'm planning to buy a ryzen 5 2600x (or 2600), there's a bundle with a mobo I can choose: Gigabyte ga-a320m-s2h and Gigabyte ga-b450-aorus-m I researched a bit and what i got is that you cant OC A320. Given that I don't really OC my stuff, should I go for A320? Any reasons to choose B450? prolly more modern software and updates id wager, if you dont plan on overclocking really a b450 is a solid way to go imo. | ||
|
Dingodile
4139 Posts
I want to upgrade my pc this summer but I will keep my gtx1050. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20323 Posts
On May 05 2019 19:06 Dingodile wrote: let's say you have i3-8100 & gtx1050. How much power consumption on idle and maximal? When i see in tests, they take ~35watt on idle, i find it hard to believe because my pc (1055t & gtx1050) takes 78watt idle (my ammeter shows that). I want to upgrade my pc this summer but I will keep my gtx1050. Power consumption on the 1050 idle in the right conditions is basically nothing, ~3 watts. Those whole-system-power-draws of 35 watts idle are legit. With an i3 under a gaming load that maxes the GPU while putting some load on the CPU i'd expect total system power usage to be somewhere around, possibly slightly above 100 watts. Most of it's coming from the GPU which can ramp up from almost nothing to near 70 watts as modern CPU's at low clocks (and especially not full load on all cores, as you don't generally see that in games) use such a tiny amount of power that it's barely worth thinking about for a system that's plugged into a wall. https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Phenom_II_X6_1055T/11.html ^Your CPU pulling 18 watts more idle than Intel's 1'st gen core quad cores which in turn (both the CPU's and the larger/dumber motherboards to power them) pull way more power than 8'th and 9'th gen core on minimalist motherboards. The 9 year old CPU/mobo is probably using a ton of power at idle compared to a more modern design, especially when you consider that you're comparing a high end (6 core) CPU+mobo from 2010 to an easy low power design (4 core) that's new. The i3's are using leftover dies that are designed and built largely for laptops, they've had power efficiency at idle as a high focus for a long time now. Are you only measuring the PC as well? Monitors that are turned on use a substantial fraction of the idle power depending on the backlight size/settings. In some funny circumstances they can use more power than the PC itself. https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/asus_rog_swift_pg258q/power.jpg | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20323 Posts
Great overview of a gsync lab here! | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20323 Posts
More performance losses with recent security mitigations, up to a 41% qd1 IO performance loss compared to unpatched. That puts AMD well in the lead for IO performance. | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6221 Posts
Probably well worth holding off on a new computer if you can. Ryzen 3000 series looks very promising, with higher performance/lower power/cost than anything on the market today, and ~1.5 months out. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20323 Posts
| ||
|
Lmui
Canada6221 Posts
Turbo clocks are only slightly (200mhz, ~4%) behind the top end chip, and literally no game on the market can make use of 6 cores, let alone 12 threads. The 3600X, 3700X and 3900X are all linearly scaling in terms of performance and pricing ($/core)which boggles my mind considering what Intel's done in the last 10 years. I don't see a spot for the 3800X in the lineup. It's competing on frequency/binning with nothing really compelling pushing for it over the 3700X IMO. There's likely going to be a 16c 32t threadripper down the line, topping out he range. It's definitely a monster of a chip/architecture going by the AMD released benchmarks. | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6221 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20323 Posts
literally no game on the market can make use of 6 cores That's not true. A wide range of games get substantial performance improvements going from even 4c8t to 6c12t and they're becoming more common and larger with every passing year. They should also continue to do so with more and more PC's getting 6c12t+ CPU's and consoles getting these 8c16t ryzen 3000 chips. See this almost-2-year-old review Beyond 6c12t is much flatter. ST perf is extremely important and i'm the first to point that out but it seems in many cases that Ryzen 3000 doesn't have a disadvantage over Skylake based Intel CPU's for that. | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6221 Posts
On May 27 2019 18:01 Cyro wrote: That's not true. A wide range of games get substantial performance improvements going from even 4c8t to 6c12t and they're becoming more common and larger with every passing year. They should also continue to do so with more and more PC's getting 6c12t+ CPU's and consoles getting these 8c16t ryzen 3000 chips. See this almost-2-year-old review https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZIVaGcax70 Beyond 6c12t is much flatter. ST perf is extremely important and i'm the first to point that out but it seems in many cases that Ryzen 3000 doesn't have a disadvantage over Skylake based Intel CPU's for that. I guess so, I actually completely forgot about next gen consoles since I don't own any. Probably a good plan to get a cpu at least as good as the ones in the consoles to start (given that the PS4 uses 8 cores, I wouldn't expect the next one to use any less) I'm still running a 4670k OC'd to 4.1ghz, so it's looking like it's pretty much time to upgrade for me. Higher IPC across the board, better clocks, better minimum framerates, and 2x physical cores, 4x threads with the 3700X. I'm running up against the limits of what a 4670k can do with a gtx 1080 with WQHD 144hz gaming + netflix/watching streams since the stutter gets pretty noticeable. | ||
KwarK
United States43550 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Big Brain Bouts
goblin vs Kelazhur
TriGGeR vs Krystianer
Replay Cast
RongYI Cup
herO vs Maru
Replay Cast
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Sparkling Tuna Cup
The PondCast
|
|
|
EPT
