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.
On June 26 2021 09:48 SC-Shield wrote: Cyro since you also seem to have RTX 3080 (mine will be received soon), do you use a 4k monitor or did you go for 1440p? Also, assuming you recommend 4k, which one do you recommend for 4k gaming and decent refresh rate (is 120 Hz standard there?)? Just asking for games in general. And what about SC2? Is 4k there a big no-no? I know it's more CPU intensive but is this something Ryzen 5900x can handle or is fps really low?
Edit: And if the answer for sc2 is no, are you able to mix & match games using a 4k monitor? So running a game in 1080p or 1440p when it's bad for 4k or are you stuck with 4k once you have such a monitor due to something not visualising right?
I use 1080p
For 4k you can scale 1080p into 4k perfectly (it will look exactly the same as a 1080p monitor, or a little bit better if using a filter like FSR which has performance cost) but any resolution above that cannot be scaled without some inconsistency and artifacts.
The resolution pretty much only changes the graphical load, so you can run sc2 at 4k or even 8k without changing the framerate since the cpu is often 10x+ slower than the graphics card.
I would not consider any monitor below 120hz for any reason if you are spending thousands on a pc
On June 26 2021 09:48 SC-Shield wrote: Cyro since you also seem to have RTX 3080 (mine will be received soon), do you use a 4k monitor or did you go for 1440p? Also, assuming you recommend 4k, which one do you recommend for 4k gaming and decent refresh rate (is 120 Hz standard there?)? Just asking for games in general. And what about SC2? Is 4k there a big no-no? I know it's more CPU intensive but is this something Ryzen 5900x can handle or is fps really low?
Edit: And if the answer for sc2 is no, are you able to mix & match games using a 4k monitor? So running a game in 1080p or 1440p when it's bad for 4k or are you stuck with 4k once you have such a monitor due to something not visualising right?
I use 1080p
For 4k you can scale 1080p into 4k perfectly (it will look exactly the same as a 1080p monitor, or a little bit better if using a filter like FSR which has performance cost) but any resolution above that cannot be scaled without some inconsistency and artifacts.
The resolution pretty much only changes the graphical load, so you can run sc2 at 4k or even 8k without changing the framerate since the cpu is often 10x+ slower than the graphics card.
I would not consider any monitor below 120hz for any reason if you are spending thousands on a pc
Yeah, I still remember your advice about BenQ monitor which you recommended me 6 years ago and I'm still using it. It's 144 Hz and still running fine (even after transporting it from UK to Bulgaria). So you say sc2 will run roughly the same as 1080p? Ryzen 5900x handles it fine for me not even once did I have lag due to hardware. So what's your advice? Should I go for 1440p 144 Hz or 4k 144 Hz monitor? Or 1440p 240 Hz or more? My only fear about 4k is if RTX 3080 will become "obsolete" in 1-2 years... If this guy here is right:
I don't want to upgrade in 2 years. I intend to use my GPU for at least 3 years, so at least as long as warranty or longer. By the way, this new monitor I'm considering isn't for sc2 specifically but I'm asking about it because it's the main game I play right now, yet I want to experience AAA games from time to time with this GPU. So it's general purpose more or less.
Yeah that is one of the main reasons that i don't use even 1440p.
Rendering 78-300% more pixels is not free. It's non-trivial to render a lot of games with high settings even at 1080p, but especially with high framerates.
If you want to upscale cleanly to a 1440p physical display, the highest render resolution to do that is 1280x720 which is obviously just not going to work for a 27" display. MAYBE with dlss2 you can make something work, but you're not going to have a good time; intermediate resolutions don't scale perfectly.
High FPS, high quality and high resolution all at the same time just isn't viable for many titles. You very often have to pick two of the three - or sometimes you struggle to get even 1 in extremes *cough*CYBERPUNK*cough*.
That means that if you want max FPS, you may have to compromise on resolution and/or quality.
If you want high resolution, you will often have to compromise quality and/or framerate.
If you want max quality, you will often have to compromise resolution and/or framerate.
These tradeoffs become slowly more frequent and stronger with every passing month generally leading to more intensive games being released.
Having said that, i am talking about much higher standards than used to be considered sane - like being able to lock 333fps on a game, or running 4k with raytracing. A handful of years ago this was unheard of, so it's not that the new hardware is not capable; it just can't do everything at once.
A lot of people are happy striking a balance of all three, personally i just like to approach it as achieving one of the three things (usually performance) and then seeing how much of the rest i can add (quality, resolution) without giving up my target.
---
Additionally, the best panel technologies generally come out @ 1080p years before they come to higher resolutions - the 1080p 240hz advanced tn's predated the 1440p monitors by years and i'm not sure a 4k version exists yet, even if you could drive it.
There are amazing 1080p 360hz fast-IPS monitors with nothing like them even announced for the 1440p+ space.
---
One more thing to add as well - 1440p monitors are generally bigger than 1080p monitors, so the pixel density doesn't improve anywhere near as much as people seem to expect and claim online.
1920x1080 @ 24" diagonal has 92 pixels per inch.
2560x1440 @ 27" diagonal has 109 pixels per inch (+18.5%). Although the monitor has 78% more pixels, it's physically 50% larger and so the image mostly gets bigger, not higher quality.
3840x2160 @ 28" diagonal has 157 pixels per inch (+70.7%).
If you want a good pixel density improvement (which is what actually makes the resolution look better, rather than just providing a larger space to work on) then you either need 4k or you need something like 1440p 24" for a 33.4% improvement which is very rare.
For a good upgrade in pixel density, i guess 33-35% is somewhere to start. I'd really like to see +50% for a generational upgrade, but +30% will be very noticable. +18.5% is a relatively small, incremental improvement.
Personally i consider 90ppi to be a tolerable density - i'd rather get more frames and more graphical effects, usually. It would be really nice to have a higher PPI for the desktop and for tasks which are easy to run (so you have max FPS and graphics anyway) but you can't have everything and it's a fairly big barrier that gets in the way of the other important things.
In those cases instead of having a higher PPI i just use a higher render resolution and downsample - it gets a lot of the quality benefit, but obviously only a fraction.
Looking forward to the 25" 4k 1000hz giga-IPS monitors, we've made some great strides recently.
-----
While i'm here, guess i will update on FSR testing.
The image on the left is native-rendered at 1920x1080, while the image on the right is rendered at 1280x720 and then upscaled to 1920x1080 with FSR - the "Quality" mode.
The performance benefit from this drop of render resolution is surprisingly low - less than +38% - i guess that the FSR algorithm is taking quite a lot of GPU time.
The native image is using FidelityFX CAS (contrast-adaptive sharpening) from the game menu while the FSR image overrides that and uses sharpening within FSR instead.
I'm impressed with the edges, but the texture sharpness got thrown out of the window - it looks basically as if the image was 720p.
There is no FSR upscale that is anywhere near worth using on my system with a 1920x1080 output from my testing - the performance benefit is just not nearly big enough to sacrifice this much sharpness and texture detail.
From what i've seen, if you were overwhelmed with graphical load and you want to drop the render resolution anyway then doing it with FSR enabled will provide a higher quality result. That's rarely appropriate with a 1920x1080 output resolution though - it's maybe something that somebody with a 4k screen would do, rendering at 1080p instead and then upscaling via FSR.
That's not the end of the story though, because enabling FSR hurts framerates a lot compared to simply rendering at that lower resolution.
If you compare 720p-FSR to 800-900p bicubic, the performance is actually similar. The FSR has better object edges while the bicubic has sharper textures. It's not clear-cut that there is any real advantage to FSR at all, since it's helping certain areas and hurting others.
Thanks Cyro. I'll consider your points, it's such a difficult decision though because there are many options. 1) 1080p 360 Hz, it was so smooth when I checked out a benchmark on youtube today. But I guess it's mainly for CS users 2) 1440 240 Hz, middle ground, but kind of meh as you said not many more pixels 3) 4k 144 Hz, expensive and hitting 144 fps consistently is probably not going to last very long if at all...
Then you have to think about 4k + medium quality vs 1440p high quality when that GPU starts to get outdated. That's why I see it as tough, I don't know, maybe 1440p high quality wins over 4k + medium or is it not even close? On the other hand, buying a 4k monitor lets you upgrade at some point, you can reuse that monitor...
Also, this holder fits perfectly in my Cooler Master H500P: https://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B08NXR2N7R/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o02_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 So I'll utilise both ASUS Webcam C3 and ASUS Strix Riser cable since I'm stuck with this bundle. I didn't have a webcam which I was wondering to buy recently. It's turning out ok. It's not the greatest deal but something in this GPU situation.
You don't need fps=hz to benefit from higher refresh rate, especially with adaptive sync. Refresh rate independently improves input latency, variation in input latency(!!) and smoothness of anything that has variable frametimes (basically all games) or a constant framerate that doesn't divide perfectly into the monitor's refresh rate.
I'm starting to realise how expensive a good 4k monitor is, e.g. LG 27GN950-B (also out of stock). Nearly €900 though + having to upgrade to RTX 4080 or RTX 5080 soon. :D That said, Gigabyte G27Q is just €362.58 which is recommended as a 1440p monitor. Or, as a final option, saying "f*ck you" to current gaming market and keeping my 6 years old 1080p monitor (BenQ XL2411Z) together with RTX 3080. It could be an overkill initially, but as you said, it's gonna last some time. But if 1440p gaming isn't well supported as I read from forums, then I probably shouldn't even consider it.
On June 21 2021 14:31 Chrisboy wrote: What is your budget? I have ~$2000 Australian from work for a PC build minus graphics card. I'll personally buy and add in a graphics card once prices calm down. This is much more than I would normally spend on a PC (my last PC was $1000 all up about 5 years ago) so I'm hoping to make a build that will last as long as possible.
What is your monitor's native resolution? 1440p 144hz Freesync.
What games do you intend to play on this computer? What settings? AAA games for as long as I can make this PC last. I want to maximise gaming capability on this build. Obviously the graphics card is the most important choice for this. As I'll be buying that personally later I'll probably end up with a lopsided build that is GPU bound (assume RTX 3060Ti / RTX 3070 / RX 6800). If the rest of the build would stand up to a GPU upgrade in 4 years or so that would be nice.
What do you intend to use the computer for besides gaming? Structural engineer work programs (CAD, 3D models, finite element programs etc).
Do you intend to overclock? I'll probably stick with PBO for the CPU cores - maybe play a bit with a FCLK overclock. Memory timings is also something I'm interested in. This is something I haven't done before and where I'm most unsure of the build I've picked. Advice here would be great.
Do you intend to do SLI / Crossfire? No
Do you need an operating system? No - have Windows 10.
Do you need a monitor or any other peripherals and is this part of your budget? No.
If you have any requirements or brand preferences, please specify. Aiming for performance and reliability - no particular brand preferences or aesthetic requirements.
What country will you be buying your parts in? Australia. I'm using PC Case Gear (www.pccasegear.com) at the moment. Happy to buy components from other places if better options exist - would have to offset extra postage costs to be worth it.
That looks pretty good, the main thing that sticks out to me is the memory. It's probably Hynix CJR which is not terrible but not very good either, it's 4x8GB but 2x16 runs more easily. That shop doesn't have good options though - anything better is generally a few hundred $ more expensive, unlike UK/USA markets. Got any other Aus shops?
As for the 4x8GB - I was working off the assumption that 4 ranks are better than 2. That's about my current limit of RAM knowledge and determining which 16GB kits come with dual rank modules is beyond me at the moment. Would be more than happy for a "just buy this one" suggestion. Thanks
Yeah that is a good point, it's difficult to guarantee dual rank on 16GB sticks at the low price points but 4x8 can guarantee it rather than playing the lottery between getting dual rank 8gbit or single rank 16gbit.
The main way that we guarantee it sometimes is by looking at the performance - one of the advertised timings cannot be achieved by any 16gbit memory chip, so the only way for 16GB capacity with that timing is to have two ranks of one of the fastest 8gbit chips. That method is not usable when looking at slightly weaker memory where the performance can be achieved with both 8gbit and 16gbit IC's.
They are only sold in one flavor (single-ranked 8gbit micron rev.e) so it's a good type of memory with no lottery and with 4x8 you have the two ranks per channel. Should be a bit both faster and cheaper than what you had.
Manually setting a lot of the timings should have more performance impact than single vs dual rank, but if you can do both then it's ideal. The performance benefits for tuning memory on zen 3 CPU's is generally much smaller than older generations because they cache things so well but it's still notable in a range of workloads (like getting +200-300mhz on the core for many games, for example) and huge for a few niche workloads.
So my $2000 from work for a PC has become $800. Ouch. I'll be doing the work side of things by remote logging into the office. So my build is having to change pretty drastically and the focus is now purely bang for buck gaming. I'll still be buying the GPU when prices settle and want to keep as much of my personal budget free for that as possible. I think I'll go for a 5600x based build with 16gb of the crucial ram you suggested. I'm thinking 512gb of gen4 SSD over 1TB of Gen3 (I usually only play 1 or 2 games at a time).
One question I have is motherboard. With a 5600x can I basically go cheap on a B550 like www.pccasegear.com or would stepping up a little to something like www.pccasegear.com make any difference? It's basically 8 phase vs 7 on VRM and features I don't really care about. As AM4 is a dead end at this stage I want to cheap out as much as I can here without gimping the 5600x. Being able to enable PBO for a bit of extra FPS would be nice but not a deal breaker at this budget.
On June 21 2021 14:31 Chrisboy wrote: What is your budget? I have ~$2000 Australian from work for a PC build minus graphics card. I'll personally buy and add in a graphics card once prices calm down. This is much more than I would normally spend on a PC (my last PC was $1000 all up about 5 years ago) so I'm hoping to make a build that will last as long as possible.
What is your monitor's native resolution? 1440p 144hz Freesync.
What games do you intend to play on this computer? What settings? AAA games for as long as I can make this PC last. I want to maximise gaming capability on this build. Obviously the graphics card is the most important choice for this. As I'll be buying that personally later I'll probably end up with a lopsided build that is GPU bound (assume RTX 3060Ti / RTX 3070 / RX 6800). If the rest of the build would stand up to a GPU upgrade in 4 years or so that would be nice.
What do you intend to use the computer for besides gaming? Structural engineer work programs (CAD, 3D models, finite element programs etc).
Do you intend to overclock? I'll probably stick with PBO for the CPU cores - maybe play a bit with a FCLK overclock. Memory timings is also something I'm interested in. This is something I haven't done before and where I'm most unsure of the build I've picked. Advice here would be great.
Do you intend to do SLI / Crossfire? No
Do you need an operating system? No - have Windows 10.
Do you need a monitor or any other peripherals and is this part of your budget? No.
If you have any requirements or brand preferences, please specify. Aiming for performance and reliability - no particular brand preferences or aesthetic requirements.
What country will you be buying your parts in? Australia. I'm using PC Case Gear (www.pccasegear.com) at the moment. Happy to buy components from other places if better options exist - would have to offset extra postage costs to be worth it.
That looks pretty good, the main thing that sticks out to me is the memory. It's probably Hynix CJR which is not terrible but not very good either, it's 4x8GB but 2x16 runs more easily. That shop doesn't have good options though - anything better is generally a few hundred $ more expensive, unlike UK/USA markets. Got any other Aus shops?
As for the 4x8GB - I was working off the assumption that 4 ranks are better than 2. That's about my current limit of RAM knowledge and determining which 16GB kits come with dual rank modules is beyond me at the moment. Would be more than happy for a "just buy this one" suggestion. Thanks
Yeah that is a good point, it's difficult to guarantee dual rank on 16GB sticks at the low price points but 4x8 can guarantee it rather than playing the lottery between getting dual rank 8gbit or single rank 16gbit.
The main way that we guarantee it sometimes is by looking at the performance - one of the advertised timings cannot be achieved by any 16gbit memory chip, so the only way for 16GB capacity with that timing is to have two ranks of one of the fastest 8gbit chips. That method is not usable when looking at slightly weaker memory where the performance can be achieved with both 8gbit and 16gbit IC's.
They are only sold in one flavor (single-ranked 8gbit micron rev.e) so it's a good type of memory with no lottery and with 4x8 you have the two ranks per channel. Should be a bit both faster and cheaper than what you had.
Manually setting a lot of the timings should have more performance impact than single vs dual rank, but if you can do both then it's ideal. The performance benefits for tuning memory on zen 3 CPU's is generally much smaller than older generations because they cache things so well but it's still notable in a range of workloads (like getting +200-300mhz on the core for many games, for example) and huge for a few niche workloads.
So my $2000 from work for a PC has become $800. Ouch. I'll be doing the work side of things by remote logging into the office. So my build is having to change pretty drastically and the focus is now purely bang for buck gaming. I'll still be buying the GPU when prices settle and want to keep as much of my personal budget free for that as possible. I think I'll go for a 5600x based build with 16gb of the crucial ram you suggested. I'm thinking 512gb of gen4 SSD over 1TB of Gen3 (I usually only play 1 or 2 games at a time).
One question I have is motherboard. With a 5600x can I basically go cheap on a B550 like www.pccasegear.com or would stepping up a little to something like www.pccasegear.com make any difference? It's basically 8 phase vs 7 on VRM and features I don't really care about. As AM4 is a dead end at this stage I want to cheap out as much as I can here without gimping the 5600x. Being able to enable PBO for a bit of extra FPS would be nice but not a deal breaker at this budget.
Sounds fine, the mobo should be ok but a lot of features like onboard audio are likely bare minimum specification on a $79 board
A: Using 2 ranks of memory, that means populating the back side of the card and having to cool the most power-dense memory in the history of graphics cards from that position somehow. FE cards failed at this, running unsafe temps and throttling in some workloads at stock.
B: Using 16gbit gddr6x memory chips which don't exist right now
I just hope NV and AMD cards won't be as power hungry next time around. then I'll gladly move on from Turing.
I like running them at lower power, that way you're much more efficient than turing and still faster; the power scaling from 225w to 450w is disgustingly bad. Added bonus of having overspecced cooler - my 3080 cooler can handle 50%+ more power than the 1080ti cooler with the same delta-t and noise.
well sure, but that is NV's problem to solve. not mine. I as the consumer feel a bit bamboozled with those tiny VRAM increases to be honest. 8GB of VRAM has been the standard (mid-highend cards) setup for at least 4-5 years now - GTX 1080/1070 came out in like Q1/Q2 2016...
and looking at 1080ti-3080ti. it is hard not to feel like NV got away with murder while laughing all the way to the bank.
and sure undervolting might work... but that is something I would expect to do on an AMD card a good couple of years back. lower prices made up for the hassle, and tinkering a bit can be a lot of fun. however as I get older reliability and less hassle is key as time is already too limited.
NV is supposed to be the works "perfectly out of the box" brand, that is why they charge a premium. perfect as in a great mix between efficiency and performance - maybe they will get there again with the refresh cards and their continued collaboration with Samsung.
but it is funny "overclockers" go this "green" route now. as those cards are already running maxed out with their boosts out of the box(well non LN2 maxed out ), and overclocking got useless for the majority of users we go full circle and are now in search of more efficiency ^^
I have just bought a new rig that I’m quite happy with.
I’ve yet to really take her into operation yet. My old rig is a decade old and is a complete mess. I’ll have program files on the C drive and app data on the E drive etc.
I’m just unsure how best to migrate things across basically!
And if you plan to sell this old disk or old PC, I recommend erasing disk securely (not regular format). I've only used Samsung SSDs which they have a program to erase securely, so I can't speak about others. Once you work in IT, you know that delete isn't really delete.
On July 01 2021 06:21 SPL1T wrote: For just Starcraft 2 csgo and a lil overwatch. 11400f be good?
It's a good choice if it's much cheaper than a 5600x.
Make sure to get RAM with at least a decent frequency and which can run in dual channel mode and make sure that the motherboard that you're using can handle the amount of power that you want the CPU to use (see hardware unboxed intel low end motherboard videos)
On July 01 2021 06:21 SPL1T wrote: For just Starcraft 2 csgo and a lil overwatch. 11400f be good?
It's a good choice if it's much cheaper than a 5600x.
Make sure to get RAM with at least a decent frequency and which can run in dual channel mode and make sure that the motherboard that you're using can handle the amount of power that you want the CPU to use (see hardware unboxed intel low end motherboard videos)
Ya I want to build itx and can’t find any in stock that are msrp Think I will go 5600x
Is it me or have GPU prices gone insane? a 6800 xt going over the counter for about €900-1000 over here. Looking to upgrade my 5500xt (8gb) which I bought knowing I wasn't gonna be using it for long (been over a year now), but man.. prices are ridiculous atm. Using a 27" 1440p 144hz monitor, for most games the 5500xt is okay-ish with some adjustments in game settings but still, I notice it struggling too often to ignore it any longer :')
On July 03 2021 07:30 Purressure wrote: Is it me or have GPU prices gone insane? a 6800 xt going over the counter for about €900-1000 over here. Looking to upgrade my 5500xt (8gb) which I bought knowing I wasn't gonna be using it for long (been over a year now), but man.. prices are ridiculous atm. Using a 27" 1440p 144hz monitor, for most games the 5500xt is okay-ish with some adjustments in game settings but still, I notice it struggling too often to ignore it any longer :')
On July 03 2021 07:30 Purressure wrote: Is it me or have GPU prices gone insane? a 6800 xt going over the counter for about €900-1000 over here. Looking to upgrade my 5500xt (8gb) which I bought knowing I wasn't gonna be using it for long (been over a year now), but man.. prices are ridiculous atm. Using a 27" 1440p 144hz monitor, for most games the 5500xt is okay-ish with some adjustments in game settings but still, I notice it struggling too often to ignore it any longer :')
They're much lower than they were 3 months ago
My bad, meant the 6700 xt not the 6800 xt. Paying 900-1000 for a gpu is just ridiculous. I remember once upon a time paying about 500 and you had one of the best cards on the market, now prices have doubled and you still don't get anywhere near the best on the market. No wonder people turn to consoles, which I absolutely refuse to do, but forking out a grand for a single unit, ridiculous.
EPT
), and overclocking got useless for the majority of users we go full circle and are now in search of more efficiency ^^ 
