Building a gaming PC

[Restlessdingo32]

The biggest question is now: Is it better to wait for the next generation or am I fine to get the 2070s or 2080s? It's not urgent at the moment and I'm planning on upgrading to the release of cyberpunk if there isn't some very good sale till then....

Well, it's supposedly releasing April of next year. It's just now going on September of this year. It's a lengthy period of time. Planning a PC upgrade around a single game so far out from release is typically a poor idea. Drafting a rough idea of what you need to upgrade and the parts you'd anticipate buying to do so would be fine. If you need to upgrade for some other reason, by all means. Otherwise it makes far more logical sense to hold off. The lone exception I can think of is jumping on heavily discounted prices as they appear.

 

[Meister177]

Well it's not for cyberpunk directly it's just a good timing. The 970 is getting old and while it's okay for the most part I notice the decline of capacity for newer games. Regardless of cyberpunk I want to upgrade.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

That is because the disc format is better though. More capacity = more room for higher quality stuff on the disc. Let me ask you this.... If I presented you with the two options below and video quality for the files on both was identical which would you choose?

1. Blu ray disc
2. USB stick

Pretend it's 10-15 years ago and lets change the options.

1. Optical drive
2. Floppy drive

I think this one is pretty clear cut. There aren't too many people lugging around floppy drives anymore .

The DOA comment was presumably pointing out the fact by the time blu ray was widely used USB sticks were a thing. Blu ray only stuck around for the same reason physical, platter style hard drives are still around. The other reason is probably due to copy protection. Not that you couldn't slap that on a USB stick somehow (and get the same effect... which is to say it doesn't work).

Yes, that was my point about USB sticks. Though producing an otpical disc is still cheaper than producing a USB drive, so you can argue the price is the factor, but it really wasn't. I.e. if they were worried about the price of physical media, they could start selling files digitally. Surely, especially today nothing should have stopped them from doing it. You can buy music files, without ever touching an optical disc (audio CD). But video execs were too obssessed with DRM, to actually follow the progress. It's the same people who were against the VCR and every other new technology improvement in the past.

 

[PrincessCiri]

Anything ASUS, Dell, or MSI should be just fine and available pretty much everywhere. Although, I'd recommend spending at least $300 on it, as a guideline. When one starts getting into $100-$200 laptops, the corners they cut are probably going to equate an additional $100 worth of frustrations before too long.

Hmm fair enough. My current laptop is an ASUS and it works pretty ok. Idk if it's the case for all laptops but i noticed both dell and asus laptops end up with dead batteries after 3 years, which is quite annoying. Also it's not usually something mentioned in reviews so it's hard to know how long the battery will last.

Oh, and thank you for your help

 

[SigilFey]

Hmm fair enough. My current laptop is an ASUS and it works pretty ok. Idk if it's the case for all laptops but i noticed both dell and asus laptops end up with dead batteries after 3 years, which is quite annoying. Also it's not usually something mentioned in reviews so it's hard to know how long the battery will last.

Oh, and thank you for your help

May ASUS G71 from 2011 is still going strong today. Although, I hardly ever used it while not plugged in. There was no point!

 

[Flyddon]

So like many I am looking to upgrade my PC. I have a very good one now, and plan on waiting until we get some official spec. I do not like the "should be ok" or "I think that would work", and the infamous "it's just as good".
So what I am looking for is opinion on the RedEngine 4, does anyone know if it makes use of hyper threading?

I currently have a i7 4790K 4 GHz and am looking at the I9 9900K and the I9 9700K . Both have 8 core but only the 9900K has hyper threading.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Simultaneous multithreading is the general name (hyperthreading is Intel's trademark term):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneous_multithreading

It is something that's transparent to the program. For example, operating system exposes one physical core as two virtual ones. Benefits for multithreaded programs can vary. Some perform much better with SMT, some not really. Since we know now CDPR are probably using Vulkan, they can utilize all available cores effectively. So the game will benefit from more cores in the processor (12 or 16 would be better than 8 for example). They can't directly and specifically use SMT anyway, it's processor level feature, not application level. I doubt they'll tell you whether it helps the engine or not. You'd need to test it.

Anyway, Intel lately started avoiding SMT, due to security flaws in their CPUs related to their SMT implementation. If you want good working SMT, AMD is a better option.

 

[Triffid77]

So like many I am looking to upgrade my PC. I have a very good one now, and plan on waiting until we get some official spec. I do not like the "should be ok" or "I think that would work", and the infamous "it's just as good".
So what I am looking for is opinion on the RedEngine 4, does anyone know if it makes use of hyper threading?

I currently have a i7 4790K 4 GHz and am looking at the I9 9900K and the I9 9700K . Both have 8 core but only the 9900K has hyper threading.

The most impact will be the GPU. Regardless if you got a 2nd hand 8700k or new intel or AMD.
Do not skimp on your GPU. Also relating to that - your monitor.

As ive droned on before, for me bigger is better. 16:9 the most practical for all uses. Unfortunately theres no decent 32" 144hz 16:9 2560x1440p monitors available. The LG one thats out has very poor viewing angles compared to other VA monitors (VA still my choice).
60hz is fine for me. If you're also cool with that a good quality non-curved 60hz 32" 16:9 1440p monitor can be had for reasonable $.

e.g. $367 for this samsung.
https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-SD85...00L3KNOF4/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

Alternatively, if you prefer 21:9 theres a ton to choose from but youll pay more and its less viewing area, have to stuff around with a quite a few game HUDs, not as good for all the 16:9 content (youll only have a 27" viewing area then), etc, etc.

So what GPU? 2nd hand 1080ti or 2080 or new super variants of the 2070 or 2080

 

[SigilFey]

The most impact will be the GPU. Regardless if you got a 2nd hand 8700k or new intel or AMD.
Do not skimp on your GPU. Also relating to that - your monitor.

As ive droned on before, for me bigger is better. 16:9 the most practical for all uses. Unfortunately theres no decent 32" 144hz 16:9 2560x1440p monitors available. The LG one thats out has very poor viewing angles compared to other VA monitors (VA still my choice).
60hz is fine for me. If you're also cool with that a good quality non-curved 60hz 32" 16:9 1440p monitor can be had for reasonable $.

e.g. $367 for this samsung.
https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-SD85...00L3KNOF4/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

Alternatively, if you prefer 21:9 theres a ton to choose from but youll pay more and its less viewing area, have to stuff around with a quite a few game HUDs, not as good for all the 16:9 content (youll only have a 27" viewing area then), etc, etc.

So what GPU? 2nd hand 1080ti or 2080 or new super variants of the 2070 or 2080

I always ensure that I'm avoiding bottlenecking anything in a system. It's pretty important that the GPU and CPU sync up nicely. If the CPU cycles can't feed the GPU, in terms of processing non-graphical elements of a game as fast as the GPU can draw the screen, then the GPU will be forced to wait for the CPU to catch up with its part. Vice versa, a super-powerful CPU might get way ahead of a less powerful GPU and games will stutter and pop, since the GPU can't keep up with the calls. I've upgraded a few times in the past in ways that left my system "tire spinning". The manifestation of the issue is very inconsistent performance, sometimes even within the same game in the same areas.

Another big consideration that people overlook is the type of RAM you're using. If I needed to choose for gaming, I'd rather have less RAM (fewer GB) that runs at higher frequencies. 8 GB of something like Corsair or G.Skill gaming RAM will trump the performance of 16 GB of standard RAM. (Plus, to date, there are virtually no titles that require more than 8 GB of RAM. I'd say that 16 GB is plenty to future-proof for at least 5 years.)

Hard to answer the GPU question, though. My recommendation is go for something that ends in xx80 ti. The "ti" tag basically means it's made with the highest-quality parts for that line/model. My GTX 980 ti is still plenty powerful for any gaming I do today. I'll likely skip both the 1080 and 2080 lines, then grab an "RTX 3080 ti" (or whatever they wind up calling it) once the whole ray tracing thing has had some time to stew.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Next year Intel will also make gaming GPUs, so there will be more to choose from. Though personally, I like where AMD is heading with Navi. They'll probably iterate on it in a year or so, and by that time their small node will give them a more noticeable advantage over Nvidia who is stuck at 14 nm and huge node design.

 

[Flyddon]

Thanks for your responses. Currently I have a GTX 1080 Ti 11Gb video card, was thinking of upgrading but I want a faster more up-to-date CPU / MOBO and a new Monitor. Although prices are going to cause me to have to sell one of the kids to get all of this... (well Chris has been missing his house work so....)

 

[Restlessdingo32]

My GTX 980 ti is still plenty powerful for any gaming I do today.

Interesting.... Same card I'm still using. For the same reason too.

Next year Intel will also make gaming GPUs, so there will be more to choose from. Though personally, I like where AMD is heading with Navi. They'll probably iterate on it in a year or so, and by that time their small node will give them a more noticeable advantage over Nvidia who is stuck at 14 nm and huge node design.

Eh.... I'm not saying you're wrong but uh, I think people get caught up in the fab process "size" and either ignore or gloss over the finer details. It's not nearly as simple as less nanometers is more better.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Eh.... I'm not saying you're wrong but uh, I think people get caught up in the fab process "size" and either ignore or gloss over the finer details. It's not nearly as simple as less nanometers is more better.

It's not that "smaller is better", it's that smaller process allows them to pack more into the same area. If their microarchitecture is good, it means better performance than using a bigger node. AMD claimed Navi improved over Vega performance wise (see details here), so let's see how they'll iterate over it. 5700XT cards are good, but I'd like to see power consumption going further down as well.

 

[Triffid77]

It's not that "smaller is better", it's that smaller process allows them to pack more into the same area. If their microarchitecture is good, it means better performance than using a bigger node. AMD claimed Navi improved over Vega performance wise (see details here), so let's see how they'll iterate over it. 5700XT cards are good, but I'd like to see power consumption going further down as well.

If anything, it shows how far behind AMD is on the architecture.
5700xt is close to the 2070 super (slower by 6% @1440p, 9% @4k over 26 game avg) and same power consumption yet its on the much smaller node.

If the nvidia lineup was on the 7nm node AMD's GPUs would be thoroughly trounced. Nvidia's just not being pushed.
Unlike intel's wakeup call with AMD's success in productivity workloads with their new CPU lineup. (but again AMD is on the smaller node, well see how things translate when intel moves to 10nm, let alone 7)

i.e. AMD's architecture efficiency pales compared to intel and nvidia. They rely on the advantages the smaller nodes bring

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

If anything, it shows how far behind AMD is on the architecture.
5700xt is close to the 2070 super (slower by 6% @1440p, 9% @4k) and same power consumption yet its on the much smaller node.

If the nvidia lineup was on the 7nm node AMD's GPUs would be thoroughly trounced. Nvidia's just not being pushed.
Unlike intel's wakeup call with AMD's huge success in productivity workloads with their new CPU lineup. (but again AMD is on the smaller node, well see how things translate when intel moves to 10nm, let alone 7)

i.e. AMD's architecture efficiency pales compared to intel and nvidia. They need the advantages the smaller nodes bring

If anything, it shows that AMD know how to design it for 7 nm. Physics there are very different, and Nvidia so far has nothing to show for that node size. It's not the question of "pushing" - they can't just shove their current architecture into 7 nm - it won't work. They'll basically need to make a new one. Once they do, we'll compare.

And don't make the mistake - Nvidia is now behind in microarchitecture race, except AMD are at the beginning of iterating over RDNA, while Nvida are at the end of perfecting their current one. I.e. AMD will get ahead with RDNA, and to counteract Nvida no doubt needs to make a new microarchitecture. You can also get the hint that they are feeling the pressure, when Nvidia CEO comes out with statements like "no one should buy cards without dedicated ray tracing today" and so on. If they were so much ahead in node process and microarchitecture design, he wouldn't have a need for such PR proclamations. Same thing with Super - the only reason they rushed to release them was pressure from AMD.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

It's not that "smaller is better", it's that smaller process allows them to pack more into the same area. If their microarchitecture is good, it means better performance than using a bigger node.

That was kind of what I was getting at. It isn't nearly as simple as a smaller process letting you pack more into the same area. Even if you physically could pack more into a given area the more relevant consideration is whether the chip works as intended if you did pack more into the same area. Let me put it this way, company A could make a "7nm" chip while company B makes a "14nm" chip. It's very possible the 14nm chip could outperform the 7nm chip. It's also possible the 7nm chip could outperform the 14nm chip. You can't gauge which is which based on the number.

The more important part is considering the source of the information. All of these tech companies can say what they want. On a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the highest, my "trust factor" for what they claim falls somewhere between 0 and 1 (as a consumer I have no allegiance whatsoever). My approach for evaluating my options is to look at the hardware performance on the software I would run on it, from what I'd consider reliable sources (emphasis on the plural form of the word source, to keep them honest), and compare the results.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

The more important part is considering the source of the information. All of these tech companies can say what they want.

I look at those who implement drivers for it. And it's not just those who are making the chips (in case of AMD at least). RDNA is pretty well received from what I can tell.

as a consumer I have no allegiance whatsoever.

I prefer those who aren't using some anti-competitive tactics. Such as, as a Linux user I appreciate that AMD and Intel upstream their Linux drivers, which also allows third party implementations of Vulkan support for instance. While Nvidia refuse to upstream theirs, which locks their market and allows them to charge more from those who need to use their hardware for example in datacenters. That's just one major problem. They have lock-in all over, such as CUDA and etc.

 

[wisielec]

Hi folks...
Recently I was awarded with ASSUS GF GTX 1060 6GB card. I was wondering is it a good time to upgrade my PC from AMD Phenom II X4 970 CPU? I was planning to buy Ryzen but my knowledge is so out of date I would really appreciate some opinions/help.
I am targeting Ryzen cpu, Assus MB and maybe a new ips monitor? My system is running with 8GB RAM and I think its OK for now (or is it?).

TYVM in advance.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Sometimes even browsers can hit more than 10 GB usage, so I'd feel that 8GB is too tight. But that's me. For games I'd say having ≥ 16 GB is safer too.

Upgrading to Ryzen is fine. Depending on your budget there is a whole range of options.

 

[Skipper_1O1]

Hi folks...
Recently I was awarded with ASSUS GF GTX 1060 6GB card. I was wondering is it a good time to upgrade my PC from AMD Phenom II X4 970 CPU? I was planning to buy Ryzen but my knowledge is so out of date I would really appreciate some opinions/help.
I am targeting Ryzen cpu, Assus MB and maybe a new ips monitor? My system is running with 8GB RAM and I think its OK for now (or is it?).

TYVM in advance.

Before making suggestions, do you currently have any issues with running games? In other words, are you satisfied with the current performance of the PC after plugging the gtx 1060? The reason I am asking is that I find many people who are eager to upgrade their PC yet when looking at the actual performance of their PCs I find no issues at all. Although your cpu is old, it still holds weight. And I find the 8gb ram is sufficient to run modern games and daily tasks. Unless you do some extensive designing, photo/video editing, etc...