add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

Comments

Comments

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Parametric Price E-mail Alert triggered by incorrect entries"

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Awesome! Thank you! I look forward to it. It will definitely make things easier when a lot of price alerts get triggered during a sale... or a glitch. Or maybe I just have too many price alerts set up.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Parametric Price E-mail Alert triggered by incorrect entries"

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

I noticed this, as well... when I received nearly 400 emails for parametric price alerts. A "Reset All Alerts" button at the top of the preferences page would certainly be appreciated. Thanks for running and maintaining a great site for us PC hardware enthusiasts!

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Need to know if good for the price ($850)"

  • 7 months ago
  • 2 points

Like ImperiousBattlestar has shown, you can build a brand new PC for less money which easily outperforms the one in question. Someone is trying to fool some unsuspecting person into buying what is mostly circa 2009 PC hardware, other than the GTX 970 from 2014.

I wouldn't even pay half of what they're asking ($425), assuming we're talking about U.S. dollars. The LGA1156 platform is pretty much obsolete nowadays. By the way, there is no such thing as an Intel Xeon 3438; it's probably one of these. If it was X58/LGA1366, that might be another story, but still not for that price.

Comment reply on Vycyous's Completed Build: Flagship "Full-Fat" AMD Machine

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

Thanks for the compliment.

I kind of like Noctua's beige and brown fans and nickel-plated coolers. I know it sort of detracts from the color scheme, but I don't mind.

Sapphire's Nitro Vega 64 performs very well, as I said in my review. For comparison, it performs mostly around the level of a GTX 1080/RTX 2070 and occasionally stretches its legs to come quite close to the performance of the average 1080 Ti/2080. And you can really count on that performance, because this card has such a fantastic cooling solution that it will never thermal throttle, provided your case has halfway decent airflow.

At the current price of $419 (USD), plus 3 free AAA games, it's a comparatively great value. To top it off, the Sapphire cards, especially their Nitro series, are built to exceptionally high standards.

Comment reply on bluerosescorpion's Completed Build: My Ryzen/ROG build

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

No need for regrets. Benchmark results are often overly dramatic and emphatic, but in real-world use, it may not make much of a difference.

The general consensus seems to be that the 1660 Ti performs around 10-15% better than the RX 590. So, if your RX 590 is capable of 60 FPS, on average, across a range of titles, then the 1660 Ti might run at 66-70 FPS. That's about like the difference between dusk and dawn (i.e., very difficult to tell the difference).

Stop paying attention to the numbers and enjoy your games with your smooth FreeSync monitor(s). As GRANDSPORTER said, the RX 590 is a solid card for 60 FPS gaming [at 1080p max/ultra settings].

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Want to confirm graphics card compatibility"

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

Or you can save $100 or so and still get a HUGE upgrade over your GT 740 by getting a RX 570. Plus, you get two free, critically acclaimed AAA games. The RX 570 comes very close to the performance of a GTX 1060 (particularly the 3GB/1152 CUDA core model). At current prices, plus the bundled games, it's an unbeatable value. You won't be disappointed with the performance over your GT 740 and it will play all the games you mentioned at 1080p on max settings without any trouble.

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/video-card/#H=1,3&c=392&sort=price

Comment reply on Vycyous's Completed Build: Flagship "Full-Fat" AMD Machine

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

I'm glad you asked. I've actually done quite a lot of research and I made a spreadsheet to keep track of everything. It's really quite frustrating to figure all this stuff out, but if you don't want to end up with a terrible memory kit, you have to do some research.

The "cheap" go-to "guaranteed" Samsung B-die memory kit is 3200 MT/s CL14, just like I have here. However, there are many more that are likely to be single-rank Samsung B-die. First of all, they will all be either 2 x 8GB, 4 x 8GB, or 8 x 8GB kits (in other words, only 8GB DIMMs since the 16GB DIMMs are dual-rank). I'll just go ahead and list everything (roughly in order of the theoretical fastest to slowest).

Should almost certainly be single-rank Samsung B-die (safe bet):

  • 4800 MT/s CL18
  • 4600 MT/s CL18
  • 4700 MT/s CL19
  • 4400 MT/s CL18
  • 4133 MT/s CL17
  • 4600 MT/s CL19
  • 3600 MT/s CL15
  • 2400 MT/s CL10
  • 4500 MT/s CL19
  • 4000 MT/s CL17
  • 4400 MT/s CL19
  • 3200 MT/s CL14

Very likely to be single-rank Samsung B-die:

  • 4333 MT/s CL19
  • 3600 MT/s CL16
  • 4266 MT/s CL19
  • 4000 MT/s CL18
  • 3733 MT/s CL17
  • 4133 MT/s CL19

Might be single-rank Samsung B-die (some kits are and some are not):

  • 3466 MT/s CL16
  • 3866 MT/s CL18
  • 3000 MT/s CL14
  • 3200 MT/s CL15

Hope that helps!

Comment reply on NovaSlayz's Completed Build: Uhhh My PC is Blue, So That's Cool... Well The Lights Are

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

1UP for your all AMD machine!

I wouldn't worry too much about your RAM; just overclock it. Use Thaiphoon Burner to see what ICs (chips) that memory uses. It's most likely Hynix (of some sort), but it may be Samsung. If it's either of those two, or possibly even if it's Micron, you maybe be able to get it up to 3200 MT/s CL16 or so. If you're not familiar with memory overclocking, use the built-in "Memory Try It!" feature in the MSI motherboard UEFI BIOS (hit F7 for advanced settings, then click on "Overclocking" or "OC" on the left side and scroll down until you see the memory/DRAM options.

Comment reply on Vycyous's Completed Build: Flagship "Full-Fat" AMD Machine

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

I'm currently running it at 3333 MT/s 14-14-14-28 1T, but I've been messing around with overclocking and/or tightening the timings a bit more. I know it will run faster, even on Ryzen/AM4. I have two of these kits and they're both excellent for overclocking. I also have an Intel i7-7700K system and I'm currently running this same kit at 3600 MT/s 15-15-15-35 1T with no issues (and have had it up to 3866 MT/s), plus a 5.0 GHz overclock on the CPU. I'm sure it'll go well past 4000 MT/s. I just tried 4133 MT/s 17-17-17-37 1T the other day and couldn't get it to boot, but I gave up quickly without trying 2T or maybe a bit of extra voltage. I still get a lot more throughput memory bandwidth on AM4/Ryzen compared to Intel, but the latency is a bit higher. Messing around with overclocking memory is very time consuming.

Anyway, it's a really great kit with super high quality heatsinks. Don't hesitate to buy it. It's hard to beat Samsung B-die. Also, at some point, they may switch to the new 10 nm ICs, but I haven't heard of anyone getting those just yet.

Comment reply on DeadGenesis518's Completed Build: My $400 Budget 4K Build

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

Edit: The results I copied and pasted below didn't format correctly, but I'm not going to take the time to fix it.

So, I have mixed results to report. I didn't find the time (or motivation) to put the Xeon E5-1650 (X79) system on the test bench, so I used what I already had out. With a 7700K and 390X (underclocked to match the 1040 MHz core and 1250 MHz memory of his/her 290X) at 3840x2160 resolution, I ran 3 passes with the built-in benchmark and it came pretty close to an overall average of 60 FPS, but not quite. I'll post the benchmark log below.

I also loaded up the game and ran around for a while with the FPS counter on-screen and it ran pretty smoothly, dropping into 50s fairly often, but just as frequently maintaining 60-ish FPS. Out of curiosity, before I really started, the first thing I did was run the 390X at stock settings (with its factory OC of 1070 MHz core 1500 MHz memory - not an overclock, that's stock speed for a 390X) and it maintained an average over 60 FPS. Since we're only talking about a 30 MHz difference on the core, I'm guessing it was the increased memory bandwidth that made the most difference. I'll also post that benchmark log below (last).

So, I don't think it's completely crazy to say a 290X can run GTA5 on high settings at 4K 60-70 FPS. However, without an overclock (especially to the memory for that increased bandwidth... and we don't know whether or not s/he's overclocked anything), it's probably more accurate to say it will run it at an average of 50-60 FPS at 4K high settings. Also, keep in mind that GTA5 doesn't run as well as it should on AMD hardware, for whatever reason. As far as GPUs go, it's almost like you can expect one tier lower performance.

One more thing, I used to have a 1080 (two, actually, which I sold during the mining craze) and it had no real trouble running GTA5 at 4K as long as the really taxing settings weren't cranked up (particularly MSAA, especially 8x, and setting grass to ultra - those two definitely caused dips well below 60 FPS in my experience). That said, I usually ran it at 1440p because my I liked the higher refresh rate.

Anyway, here are the results.


Frames Per Second (Higher is better) Min, Max, Avg Pass 0, 16.282295, 174.434830, 62.672703 Pass 1, 9.081134, 244.899963, 63.320496 Pass 2, 30.434082, 192.366882, 53.273022 Pass 3, 30.238337, 204.955826, 57.463634 Pass 4, 25.884272, 236.759232, 59.822868

Time in milliseconds(ms). (Lower is better). Min, Max, Avg Pass 0, 5.732800, 61.416401, 15.955910 Pass 1, 4.083300, 110.118408, 15.792675 Pass 2, 5.198400, 32.857899, 18.771227 Pass 3, 4.879100, 33.070602, 17.402309 Pass 4, 4.223700, 38.633499, 16.716015

Frames under 16ms (for 60fps): Pass 0: 97/533 frames (18.20%) Pass 1: 53/501 frames (10.58%) Pass 2: 8/491 frames (1.63%) Pass 3: 44/524 frames (8.40%) Pass 4: 1774/6686 frames (26.53%)

Frames under 33ms (for 30fps): Pass 0: 530/533 frames (99.44%) Pass 1: 488/501 frames (97.41%) Pass 2: 491/491 frames (100.00%) Pass 3: 522/524 frames (99.62%) Pass 4: 6660/6686 frames (99.61%)

Percentiles in ms for pass 0 50%, 17.00 75%, 18.00 80%, 19.00 85%, 19.00 90%, 21.00 91%, 22.00 92%, 25.00 93%, 26.00 94%, 27.00 95%, 28.00 96%, 29.00 97%, 30.00 98%, 31.00 99%, 32.00

Percentiles in ms for pass 1 50%, 18.00 75%, 19.00 80%, 20.00 85%, 20.00 90%, 21.00 91%, 29.00 92%, 30.00 93%, 30.00 94%, 30.00 95%, 31.00 96%, 32.00 97%, 32.00 98%, 33.00 99%, 33.00

Percentiles in ms for pass 2 50%, 19.00 75%, 20.00 80%, 20.00 85%, 20.00 90%, 20.00 91%, 20.00 92%, 20.00 93%, 20.00 94%, 21.00 95%, 21.00 96%, 21.00 97%, 21.00 98%, 22.00 99%, 22.00

Percentiles in ms for pass 3 50%, 17.00 75%, 19.00 80%, 19.00 85%, 20.00 90%, 20.00 91%, 20.00 92%, 20.00 93%, 21.00 94%, 21.00 95%, 22.00 96%, 22.00 97%, 22.00 98%, 23.00 99%, 31.00

Percentiles in ms for pass 4 50%, 17.00 75%, 18.00 80%, 18.00 85%, 19.00 90%, 20.00 91%, 20.00 92%, 20.00 93%, 21.00 94%, 21.00 95%, 22.00 96%, 22.00 97%, 22.00 98%, 23.00 99%, 27.00

=== SYSTEM === Windows 10 Pro 64-bit (6.2, Build 9200) DX Feature Level: 11.0 Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-7700K CPU @ 4.20GHz (8 CPUs), ~4.2GHz 16384MB RAM AMD Radeon (TM) R9 390 Series (AMD Radeon R9 290X || AMD Radeon R9 290), 8565MB, Driver Version 25.20.15027.9004 Graphics Card Vendor Id 0x1002 with Device ID 0x67b0

=== SETTINGS === Display: 3840x2160 (FullScreen) @ 59Hz VSync OFF Tessellation: 2 LodScale: 1.000000 PedLodBias: 0.200000 VehicleLodBias: 0.000000 ShadowQuality: 2 ReflectionQuality: 1 ReflectionMSAA: 0 SSAO: 2 AnisotropicFiltering: 16 MSAA: 0 MSAAFragments: 0 MSAAQuality: 0 SamplingMode: 0 TextureQuality: 1 ParticleQuality: 1 WaterQuality: 1 GrassQuality: 1 ShaderQuality: 1 Shadow_SoftShadows: 2 UltraShadows_Enabled: false Shadow_ParticleShadows: true Shadow_Distance: 1.000000 Shadow_LongShadows: false Shadow_SplitZStart: 0.930000 Shadow_SplitZEnd: 0.890000 Shadow_aircraftExpWeight: 0.990000 Shadow_DisableScreenSizeCheck: false Reflection_MipBlur: true FXAA_Enabled: true TXAA_Enabled: false Lighting_FogVolumes: true Shader_SSA: true DX_Version: 2 CityDensity: 1.000000 PedVarietyMultiplier: 1.000000 VehicleVarietyMultiplier: 1.000000 PostFX: 1 DoF: false HdStreamingInFlight: false MaxLodScale: 0.000000 MotionBlurStrength: 0.000000


Frames Per Second (Higher is better) Min, Max, Avg Pass 0, 16.245529, 161.985291, 61.095005 Pass 1, 27.204443, 262.246948, 60.553963 Pass 2, 30.051327, 224.562653, 53.280823 Pass 3, 29.653791, 209.191895, 58.649734 Pass 4, 25.777580, 217.926651, 59.935871

Time in milliseconds(ms). (Lower is better). Min, Max, Avg Pass 0, 6.173400, 61.555397, 16.367950 Pass 1, 3.813200, 36.758701, 16.514196 Pass 2, 4.453100, 33.276402, 18.768478 Pass 3, 4.780300, 33.722500, 17.050375 Pass 4, 4.588700, 38.793400, 16.684500

Frames under 16ms (for 60fps): Pass 0: 81/532 frames (15.23%) Pass 1: 41/507 frames (8.09%) Pass 2: 6/491 frames (1.22%) Pass 3: 54/526 frames (10.27%) Pass 4: 1765/6680 frames (26.42%)

Frames under 33ms (for 30fps): Pass 0: 527/532 frames (99.06%) Pass 1: 495/507 frames (97.63%) Pass 2: 490/491 frames (99.80%) Pass 3: 524/526 frames (99.62%) Pass 4: 6664/6680 frames (99.76%)

Percentiles in ms for pass 0 50%, 17.00 75%, 18.00 80%, 19.00 85%, 19.00 90%, 20.00 91%, 21.00 92%, 21.00 93%, 21.00 94%, 25.00 95%, 26.00 96%, 28.00 97%, 30.00 98%, 31.00 99%, 32.00

Percentiles in ms for pass 1 50%, 18.00 75%, 19.00 80%, 19.00 85%, 20.00 90%, 21.00 91%, 21.00 92%, 21.00 93%, 23.00 94%, 29.00 95%, 29.00 96%, 30.00 97%, 32.00 98%, 33.00 99%, 33.00

Percentiles in ms for pass 2 50%, 19.00 75%, 20.00 80%, 20.00 85%, 20.00 90%, 20.00 91%, 20.00 92%, 20.00 93%, 20.00 94%, 21.00 95%, 21.00 96%, 21.00 97%, 21.00 98%, 22.00 99%, 23.00

Percentiles in ms for pass 3 50%, 17.00 75%, 19.00 80%, 19.00 85%, 19.00 90%, 20.00 91%, 20.00 92%, 20.00 93%, 21.00 94%, 21.00 95%, 22.00 96%, 22.00 97%, 22.00 98%, 23.00 99%, 31.00

Percentiles in ms for pass 4 50%, 17.00 75%, 18.00 80%, 18.00 85%, 19.00 90%, 20.00 91%, 20.00 92%, 21.00 93%, 21.00 94%, 21.00 95%, 22.00 96%, 22.00 97%, 22.00 98%, 24.00 99%, 27.00

=== SYSTEM === Windows 10 Pro 64-bit (6.2, Build 9200) DX Feature Level: 11.0 Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-7700K CPU @ 4.20GHz (8 CPUs), ~4.2GHz 16384MB RAM AMD Radeon (TM) R9 390 Series (AMD Radeon R9 290X || AMD Radeon R9 290), 8565MB, Driver Version 25.20.15027.9004 Graphics Card Vendor Id 0x1002 with Device ID 0x67b0

=== SETTINGS === Display: 3840x2160 (FullScreen) @ 59Hz VSync OFF Tessellation: 2 LodScale: 1.000000 PedLodBias: 0.200000 VehicleLodBias: 0.000000 ShadowQuality: 2 ReflectionQuality: 1 ReflectionMSAA: 0 SSAO: 2 AnisotropicFiltering: 16 MSAA: 0 MSAAFragments: 0 MSAAQuality: 0 SamplingMode: 0 TextureQuality: 1 ParticleQuality: 1 WaterQuality: 1 GrassQuality: 1 ShaderQuality: 1 Shadow_SoftShadows: 2 UltraShadows_Enabled: false Shadow_ParticleShadows: true Shadow_Distance: 1.000000 Shadow_LongShadows: false Shadow_SplitZStart: 0.930000 Shadow_SplitZEnd: 0.890000 Shadow_aircraftExpWeight: 0.990000 Shadow_DisableScreenSizeCheck: false Reflection_MipBlur: true FXAA_Enabled: true TXAA_Enabled: false Lighting_FogVolumes: true Shader_SSA: true DX_Version: 2 CityDensity: 1.000000 PedVarietyMultiplier: 1.000000 VehicleVarietyMultiplier: 1.000000 PostFX: 1 DoF: false HdStreamingInFlight: false MaxLodScale: 0.000000 MotionBlurStrength: 0.000000


Frames Per Second (Higher is better) Min, Max, Avg Pass 0, 16.016684, 156.286636, 61.876804 Pass 1, 29.245152, 183.146820, 61.587402 Pass 2, 30.836407, 199.584869, 53.437107 Pass 3, 26.071880, 254.984970, 58.219395 Pass 4, 26.510151, 227.650406, 59.878357

Time in milliseconds(ms). (Lower is better). Min, Max, Avg Pass 0, 6.398499, 62.434898, 16.161144 Pass 1, 5.460100, 34.193703, 16.237087 Pass 2, 5.010400, 32.429199, 18.713589 Pass 3, 3.921800, 38.355499, 17.176407 Pass 4, 4.392700, 37.721401, 16.700525

Frames under 16ms (for 60fps): Pass 0: 81/527 frames (15.37%) Pass 1: 46/507 frames (9.07%) Pass 2: 9/492 frames (1.83%) Pass 3: 44/523 frames (8.41%) Pass 4: 1878/6720 frames (27.95%)

Frames under 33ms (for 30fps): Pass 0: 522/527 frames (99.05%) Pass 1: 501/507 frames (98.82%) Pass 2: 492/492 frames (100.00%) Pass 3: 521/523 frames (99.62%) Pass 4: 6687/6720 frames (99.51%)

Percentiles in ms for pass 0 50%, 17.00 75%, 18.00 80%, 19.00 85%, 20.00 90%, 21.00 91%, 22.00 92%, 25.00 93%, 27.00 94%, 28.00 95%, 29.00 96%, 30.00 97%, 30.00 98%, 32.00 99%, 32.00

Percentiles in ms for pass 1 50%, 18.00 75%, 19.00 80%, 20.00 85%, 20.00 90%, 21.00 91%, 21.00 92%, 29.00 93%, 29.00 94%, 30.00 95%, 30.00 96%, 31.00 97%, 32.00 98%, 32.00 99%, 32.00

Percentiles in ms for pass 2 50%, 19.00 75%, 20.00 80%, 20.00 85%, 20.00 90%, 20.00 91%, 20.00 92%, 20.00 93%, 20.00 94%, 21.00 95%, 21.00 96%, 21.00 97%, 22.00 98%, 22.00 99%, 31.00

Percentiles in ms for pass 3 50%, 17.00 75%, 19.00 80%, 19.00 85%, 19.00 90%, 20.00 91%, 20.00 92%, 20.00 93%, 21.00 94%, 21.00 95%, 21.00 96%, 22.00 97%, 22.00 98%, 23.00 99%, 28.00

Percentiles in ms for pass 4 50%, 16.00 75%, 18.00 80%, 18.00 85%, 19.00 90%, 20.00 91%, 20.00 92%, 20.00 93%, 21.00 94%, 21.00 95%, 21.00 96%, 22.00 97%, 22.00 98%, 23.00 99%, 28.00

=== SYSTEM === Windows 10 Pro 64-bit (6.2, Build 9200) DX Feature Level: 11.0 Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-7700K CPU @ 4.20GHz (8 CPUs), ~4.2GHz 16384MB RAM AMD Radeon (TM) R9 390 Series (AMD Radeon R9 290X || AMD Radeon R9 290), 8565MB, Driver Version 25.20.15027.9004 Graphics Card Vendor Id 0x1002 with Device ID 0x67b0

=== SETTINGS === Display: 3840x2160 (FullScreen) @ 59Hz VSync OFF Tessellation: 2 LodScale: 1.000000 PedLodBias: 0.200000 VehicleLodBias: 0.000000 ShadowQuality: 2 ReflectionQuality: 1 ReflectionMSAA: 0 SSAO: 2 AnisotropicFiltering: 16 MSAA: 0 MSAAFragments: 0 MSAAQuality: 0 SamplingMode: 0 TextureQuality: 1 ParticleQuality: 1 WaterQuality: 1 GrassQuality: 1 ShaderQuality: 1 Shadow_SoftShadows: 2 UltraShadows_Enabled: false Shadow_ParticleShadows: true Shadow_Distance: 1.000000 Shadow_LongShadows: false Shadow_SplitZStart: 0.930000 Shadow_SplitZEnd: 0.890000 Shadow_aircraftExpWeight: 0.990000 Shadow_DisableScreenSizeCheck: false Reflection_MipBlur: true FXAA_Enabled: true TXAA_Enabled: false Lighting_FogVolumes: true Shader_SSA: true DX_Version: 2 CityDensity: 1.000000 PedVarietyMultiplier: 1.000000 VehicleVarietyMultiplier: 1.000000 PostFX: 1 DoF: false HdStreamingInFlight: false MaxLodScale: 0.000000 MotionBlurStrength: 0.000000


This last result is when I ran the 390X at stock settings (it's an Asus Strix model with a factory OC)

Frames Per Second (Higher is better) Min, Max, Avg Pass 0, 14.668176, 151.655319, 65.328758 Pass 1, 30.268543, 223.458694, 65.942383 Pass 2, 29.772360, 211.810547, 61.851265 Pass 3, 34.911568, 192.389084, 65.064705 Pass 4, 28.700994, 249.196350, 65.889259

Time in milliseconds(ms). (Lower is better). Min, Max, Avg Pass 0, 6.593900, 68.174805, 15.307195 Pass 1, 4.475100, 33.037598, 15.164754 Pass 2, 4.721200, 33.588200, 16.167818 Pass 3, 5.197800, 28.643801, 15.369316 Pass 4, 4.012900, 34.841999, 15.176980

Frames under 16ms (for 60fps): Pass 0: 320/582 frames (54.98%) Pass 1: 114/552 frames (20.65%) Pass 2: 105/544 frames (19.30%) Pass 3: 370/590 frames (62.71%) Pass 4: 4824/7623 frames (63.28%)

Frames under 33ms (for 30fps): Pass 0: 581/582 frames (99.83%) Pass 1: 551/552 frames (99.82%) Pass 2: 543/544 frames (99.82%) Pass 3: 590/590 frames (100.00%) Pass 4: 7607/7623 frames (99.79%)

Percentiles in ms for pass 0 50%, 15.00 75%, 17.00 80%, 17.00 85%, 18.00 90%, 18.00 91%, 18.00 92%, 19.00 93%, 19.00 94%, 20.00 95%, 24.00 96%, 25.00 97%, 26.00 98%, 27.00 99%, 29.00

Percentiles in ms for pass 1 50%, 16.00 75%, 18.00 80%, 18.00 85%, 18.00 90%, 19.00 91%, 19.00 92%, 26.00 93%, 26.00 94%, 27.00 95%, 27.00 96%, 28.00 97%, 29.00 98%, 29.00 99%, 29.00

Percentiles in ms for pass 2 50%, 17.00 75%, 18.00 80%, 18.00 85%, 18.00 90%, 19.00 91%, 19.00 92%, 19.00 93%, 19.00 94%, 20.00 95%, 21.00 96%, 27.00 97%, 28.00 98%, 29.00 99%, 29.00

Percentiles in ms for pass 3 50%, 15.00 75%, 16.00 80%, 17.00 85%, 17.00 90%, 18.00 91%, 18.00 92%, 18.00 93%, 18.00 94%, 19.00 95%, 19.00 96%, 19.00 97%, 20.00 98%, 22.00 99%, 27.00

Percentiles in ms for pass 4 50%, 15.00 75%, 16.00 80%, 17.00 85%, 17.00 90%, 18.00 91%, 18.00 92%, 19.00 93%, 19.00 94%, 19.00 95%, 20.00 96%, 20.00 97%, 21.00 98%, 21.00 99%, 25.00

=== SYSTEM === Windows 10 Pro 64-bit (6.2, Build 9200) DX Feature Level: 11.0 Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-7700K CPU @ 4.20GHz (8 CPUs), ~4.2GHz 16384MB RAM AMD Radeon (TM) R9 390 Series (AMD Radeon R9 290X || AMD Radeon R9 290), 8565MB, Driver Version 25.20.15027.9004 Graphics Card Vendor Id 0x1002 with Device ID 0x67b0

=== SETTINGS === Display: 3840x2160 (FullScreen) @ 59Hz VSync OFF Tessellation: 2 LodScale: 1.000000 PedLodBias: 0.200000 VehicleLodBias: 0.000000 ShadowQuality: 2 ReflectionQuality: 1 ReflectionMSAA: 0 SSAO: 2 AnisotropicFiltering: 16 MSAA: 0 MSAAFragments: 0 MSAAQuality: 0 SamplingMode: 0 TextureQuality: 1 ParticleQuality: 1 WaterQuality: 1 GrassQuality: 1 ShaderQuality: 1 Shadow_SoftShadows: 2 UltraShadows_Enabled: false Shadow_ParticleShadows: true Shadow_Distance: 1.000000 Shadow_LongShadows: false Shadow_SplitZStart: 0.930000 Shadow_SplitZEnd: 0.890000 Shadow_aircraftExpWeight: 0.990000 Shadow_DisableScreenSizeCheck: false Reflection_MipBlur: true FXAA_Enabled: true TXAA_Enabled: false Lighting_FogVolumes: true Shader_SSA: true DX_Version: 2 CityDensity: 1.000000 PedVarietyMultiplier: 1.000000 VehicleVarietyMultiplier: 1.000000 PostFX: 1 DoF: false HdStreamingInFlight: false MaxLodScale: 0.000000 MotionBlurStrength: 0.000000

Comment reply on DeadGenesis518's Completed Build: My $400 Budget 4K Build

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

+1 for your Xeon X58 and 290X machine. It looks nice. I know everyone is giving you crap about the GTA5 performance claim, but I'm sure it still runs nice. I'm going to try to test GTA5 at 4K this weekend using a Xeon E5-1650 and 390X. Regardless, the 290X is still a great GPU, even nowadays, and those old X58 Xeons can still get the job done, especially when overclocked. If you haven't already, you should check out the Tech Yes City YouTube channel. He does a lot of stuff with X58/LGA1366.

Comment reply on DeadGenesis518's Completed Build: My $400 Budget 4K Build

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

If you stare at the sky, I bet it'll run at 60-70 FPS!

In all seriousness, though, if I can find the time this weekend, I think I'm going to try and test his/her claim. I'll try to match the hardware specs as closely as possible using what I have. With all the advanced graphics settings turned off, no MSAA, and everything set at "High" (or equivalent or below, no "Very High" or "Ultra"), it might be possible to get that kind of performance.

I happen to have an old Xeon E5-1650 lying around which is a little faster than the X5660, but it'll be fine (they're both 6-core/12-thread processors only one generation apart). Maybe I'll underclock it to 2.8 GHz (or less since Sandy Bridge E/EP has better IPC) to match the X5660's stock speed. Even though s/he's running 9GB of triple-channel memory (albeit, in somewhat of a less-than-ideal configuration), I'll use 8GB of memory in dual-channel (instead of quad-channel; it's X79). I also happen to have both an R9 290 and 390X, but I think it makes more sense to use the 390X (same die, plus I'm in the middle of refurbishing the 290 and need to order some thicker thermal pads for the VRM). Of course, the 390X has 8GB of VRAM, but I don't think it will matter that much. It'll be close enough. I'll even slightly underclock the 390X to match the 290X s/he has. Obviously, this isn't a controlled, exact specs, scientific test. I just want to see if I can get anywhere near that kind of performance. I also have a 4K monitor, so I won't even have to use VSR.

If/when I get the testing done, I'll come back here and share the results.

Comment reply on sKRIs's Completed Build: Games, media and engineering simulations

  • 8 months ago
  • 2 points

It's a really good card. I've had a great experience with mine. Did you get yours from Newegg when they were selling them for $420 (assuming you're in the USA)? I was really tempted to buy another one at that price.

I'm guessing the card is too thick/tall for the H200, judging by the photos of the case. It's really a triple-slot card. The case used in this build (this thread), the Fractal Design Define Mini C TG, is a nice case (I happen to have one). It might be a little funny to use it with a mini ITX motherboard, though (assuming you already have one). It may be a bit tricky to find a mini ITX case with the necessary clearance for this card. You'll probably have better luck visiting the manufacturer's website(s) to find the information you need if you still want to stick with mini ITX. Otherwise, I would think nearly any micro ATX case should work.

Good luck with your search and enjoy one of the best Vega 64's to have ever been made!

Comment reply on Vycyous's Completed Build: Flagship "Full-Fat" AMD Machine

  • 9 months ago
  • 2 points

Sorry for the delayed reply. Yes, I purchased mine from Newegg. I've been very tempted to buy another one at the $420 they've been selling them for.

The card does have RGB lighting on the back plate and side. You'll need to use Sapphire's Trixx software to make changes to it.

Hope that helps!

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Over a decade since I've tried to build a pc...."

  • 9 months ago
  • 2 points

In that case, if you're getting the CPU cooler for free, you could save a bit more money and buy the Ryzen 5 2600 (non-X). That Hyper 212 Evo should allow you to get a reasonably high overclock (4.1-4.2 GHz), nearly matching the 2600X.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Over a decade since I've tried to build a pc...."

  • 9 months ago
  • 2 points

Save yourself the money and use the stock cooler included with the i5-8400. You don't need that outdated, loud, but admittedly effective Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo. Better yet, buy the better AMD Ryzen 5 2600X which is currently selling for the same price as the i5-8400.

Edit: Oh, and the graphics card you've chosen is basically a cryptocurrency mining card with only a single DVI output.

Here's a parts list that might serve you well. The video card and memory are parametric filters, so it will always show whatever is least expensive, but you can click the parts list link to see the entire selection. Since the RX 570 and 580 are currently the best value, I've only selected those cards.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Type Item Price
CPU AMD - Ryzen 5 2600X 3.6 GHz 6-Core Processor $184.99 @ Amazon
Motherboard MSI - B450 GAMING PRO CARBON AC ATX AM4 Motherboard $139.99 @ B&H
Memory *GeIL - EVO SPEAR 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3000 Memory $84.99 @ Newegg
Storage Seagate - Barracuda 2 TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive $59.89 @ OutletPC
Video Card *PowerColor - Radeon RX 570 4 GB RED DRAGON Video Card $129.99 @ Newegg
Case Phanteks - Eclipse P350X (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case $53.98 @ Newegg
Power Supply SeaSonic - FOCUS Plus Gold 550 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply $49.99 @ Newegg
Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts
Total (before mail-in rebates) $738.82
Mail-in rebates -$35.00
Total $703.82
*Lowest price parts chosen from parametric criteria
Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-03-03 21:27 EST-0500

Comment reply on Forum Topic "How is this if I am holding out till Navi and ryzen 3k"

  • 9 months ago
  • 2 points

I just realized that you won't be able to use the integrated GPU on the 200GE (or any other iGPU) because the motherboard you've chosen doesn't have any video outputs. That's often the case with many of the high-end motherboards, particularly AM4 since most of the Ryzen processors require discrete graphics. They don't expect people to use an expensive, high-end motherboard with a "low-end" APU. So, you may have to look at other options.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Liquid cooler suggestions"

  • 9 months ago
  • 4 points

If you're wanting an AIO liquid cooler for the subjective aesthetic appeal (clean look or whatever), then there's nothing wrong with that; to each their own. However, if you think you need it for your 2600, you may as well have bought a 2600X or even a 2700 instead of spending $80-100+ on a potentially unreliable, noisy, leaky AIO liquid cooler.

Using an AIO liquid cooler with Ryzen is almost pointless. By the time temperatures start getting anywhere near the thermal throttling ("danger") zone, you're already going to be pushing more voltage than you really should be (at least for a long-term overclock). Even if you're wanting one simply to keep temperatures as low as possible (below 60°C) for XFR and PB (possibly in combination with PBO, depending on your motherboard) to do their "automatic overclocking," the gains will be fairly negligible, especially for gaming, and really don't justify the cost.

AIO liquid coolers are a fad and a waste of money most of the time. Buy a better CPU (or GPU or memory) instead of wasting the money on an expensive cooler that is bound to fail long before virtually any air cooler (or probably any other part in your PC).

Edit: I wanted to add that, since you've already purchased the parts and built your machine, you can likely get a decent overclock using just the stock cooler. Yes, I know the 2600 comes with the anemic stealth cooler, but an all-core 4.00 GHz stable overclock should be attainable, especially if you're mostly just gaming on the machine (most likely a fairly low current draw since games don't max all cores, all the time). Temperatures will likely get into the 80s, depending on how much voltage your particular CPU will require, but that's perfectly okay. It won't cause any damage.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "How is this if I am holding out till Navi and ryzen 3k"

  • 9 months ago
  • 2 points

Pay no attention to the clock speeds. It's better all-around (both CPU and GPU). Its IPC is much better than that of the A6-9500. Trust me or don't and look up the benchmark results. Not to mention, you should/may be able to overclock the 200GE on your motherboard with the AGESA 1.0.0.6 BIOS update.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "ATX Motherboard in ATX-Mid Tower"

  • 9 months ago
  • 3 points

What the?! Are you sure that's the case you have? I used to have that exact same case and it had no trouble accommodating standard ATX motherboards.

Here's the last build I did with it before I sold it. It really looks like the case you have might be a micro ATX.

Are you sure you don't have an 88R?

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/shtWGX/corsair-case-cc9011086ww

https://www.corsair.com/us/en/Categories/Products/Cases/Carbide-Series%E2%84%A2-88R-MicroATX-Mid-Tower-Case/p/CC-9011086-WW

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Cpu cooler help needed"

  • 9 months ago
  • 3 points

Short answer: No, you really don't need it and the included cooler will be fine (with some exceptions).

Long answer: There seems to be a lot of arbitrary, unfounded information being posted all over the internet that usually says something like anything over 70°C is way too hot and will cause damage to your hardware (it won't). There is some basis for these claims, but I'll get to that in a minute. AIO liquid coolers are a fad that needs to die. More often than not, they're a waste of money, both in the sort-term and long-term. I see people spending $100+ (USD) on an AIO for a locked CPU (instead of using some or all of that money to buy a better CPU that might actually need better cooling). A much more reliable (and likely quieter) air cooler will often be able to provide more than sufficient cooling.

Most computer hardware (components) can withstand quite high temperatures. Capacitors, MOSFETs, silicon in CPUs, GPUs, all your semiconductors... resistors, integrated circuits (ICs), etc. can easily withstand 100-105°C for fairly long periods of time. Obviously, we want things to run cooler, but those temperatures will not cause damage or degradation (not in the short-term, anyway).

Sure, there are certain CPUs and GPUs that may not boost clock speeds as high once temperatures rise above a certain threshold, sometimes as low as 60°C. In fact, that's probably the case with most every recent, modern CPU and GPU that I'm aware of. This is different from thermal throttling to prevent damage, however, which usually only occurs at something like 95-105°C, depending on the component (even higher for things like the motherboard's VRM MOSFETs).

Getting back to your 2700X, Ryzen processors utilize an algorithm via "SenseMI" on the SoC to determine how high they can boost clock speeds and how many or which cores to boost. AMD refers to this as Extended Frequency Range (XFR) and Precision Boost (PB). Keeping the CPU at or below about 60°C (check the footnotes) will enable it to boost all cores well beyond what it might otherwise if temperatures are climbing well above that.

So, if most of what you're doing is gaming, I really think it will be a huge waste of money to spend around $100+ on an AIO liquid cooler because the one included with the 2700X should be fine as long as your case has decent airflow. If you can still return it and get your money back, that would be my recommendation. Plus, if you are gaming, leaving the 2700X at stock settings will generally result in the best overall performance because individual cores will boost higher than any overclock you're likely to achieve.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "RX 580 Connection"

  • 9 months ago
  • 2 points

The 6-pin is technically optional, but you have a power supply with connections for both, so just hook both of them up. The 6-pin can provide an additional 75W of power if needed, generally for overclocking, but it's not otherwise necessary.

Edit: Also, excellent choice. Sapphire makes high-quality graphics cards.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Front USB not working"

  • 9 months ago
  • 2 points

Have you connected the cables to the motherboard? There will be one cable for USB 2.0 and one for USB 3.0 (much larger connection w/more pins and a thicker cable).

Comment reply on crusaderonlineX's Completed Build: Lost in Space

  • 9 months ago
  • 3 points

+1 for your all AMD machine, especially the Sapphire Nitro+ RX 580.

You should be able to get 3.9 GHz out of your Ryzen 3 1200 while keeping voltage below 1.4V. That should help just a bit more in games that are CPU heavy. To be honest, your CPU is probably somewhat of a bottleneck for your RX 580, but I don't think you should worry about it too much. There's always some sort of bottleneck in every system, even if you build a PC with the "best" of everything.

I bet you might be able to get your RAM up to something like 3200 MT/s, 16-18-18-36 timings, @ 1.35V. Those Corsair DIMMs likely use Hynix chips, and I've had pretty decent success overclocking most memory using Hynix chips (you can use Thaiphoon Burner to see what ICs/chips your RAM has). If you're not very familiar with overclocking RAM, your MSI motherboard has a "Memory Try It!" feature in the BIOS (press F7 for advanced settings, then go into the overclocking settings menu).

Anyway, you've got a nice machine here. Great job!

Comment reply on Zuzman23's Completed Build: Ryzen 2400G With Wraith Prism Cooler

  • 9 months ago
  • 3 points

+1 on your AMD build. The 2400G w/Vega 11 Graphics is really quite capable. I'm working on a build using one.

If you haven't already done so, you should try to overclock your memory, which will give the GPU a substantial boost in memory bandwidth and overall performance, along with a little boost for the CPU. Those Corsair DIMMs likely use Hynix chips and you might be lucky enough to get them up to 3200 CL16 or so. If you're not familiar with overclocking RAM, MSI motherboards have a "Memory Try It!" feature in the BIOS/UEFI that can make it a bit easier.

Comment reply on Vycyous's Completed Build: Flagship "Full-Fat" AMD Machine

  • 9 months ago
  • 2 points

Yeah, it fits perfectly. Just put the end opposite of the bracket in first. Also, if you have a Sapphire or Asus (and possibly PowerColor) custom (non-reference) card, check for some 4-pin fan headers on the card that you can plug in to the fan controller hub on the R6 if you want the graphics card to control the case fan speed.

Comment reply on Vycyous's Completed Build: Flagship "Full-Fat" AMD Machine

  • 9 months ago
  • 2 points

Thank you! Sapphire really makes excellent cards. They always seem to get the best out of every GPU AMD releases.

Comment reply on Jscott326's Completed Build: First Build: Ryzen 5 2600 Rx580

  • 10 months ago
  • 2 points

+1 for your all AMD machine.

Comment reply on GladiatorTerror's Completed Build: First build ever

  • 10 months ago
  • 2 points

+1 for your all AMD machine. Definitely check out the Hardware Unboxed and Gamers Nexus YouTube channels, as well. They're my preferred tech channels and they have less... polarizing personalities, I'll say, and maybe a bit more integrity. Just my two cents.

Comment reply on PC_Mate's Completed Build: TITANWOLF

  • 10 months ago
  • 2 points

+1 for the Sapphire Nitro+ Radeon RX Vega 64! I happen to have one of those myself. Very nice!

Comment reply on FryinNinja's Completed Build: Red Team Budget Box

  • 10 months ago
  • 2 points

Very nice! +1 for your all AMD build (nice pick going with Sapphire). This is an excellent machine, especially for the cost. How/where did you get a brand new Ryzen 5 1600 for $99?! And I thought I found good deals... it looks like I spent way too much on my machines. Nice job!

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Navi leaked specs ?"

  • 10 months ago
  • 2 points

WCCFTech is full of it. They're pretty much just a click bait rumor site. Also, Radeon VII has 16GB of HBM2, not 11.

Comment reply on Rival1's Completed Build: Cyberpunk Blackout

  • 10 months ago
  • 2 points

Thank you. Yes, Sapphire includes that support beam. The funny thing is, it's not really needed. That card is so structurally solid that it really doesn't sag, despite being quite possibly the largest/heaviest graphics card ever built. I don't think it would be necessary for the RX 580 since there really isn't any noticeable sag. Although, looking at yours, it seems like it might be sagging just a bit, but it may also be the angle at which the photo was taken.

Comment reply on Rival1's Completed Build: Cyberpunk Blackout

  • 10 months ago
  • 3 points

+1 for your all AMD machine and that beautiful Sapphire Nitro+ card. Also, Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049 are such fantastic movies. Nice theme! I have a somewhat similar machine... well, sort of.

Comment reply on Vycyous's Completed Build: AMD Ryzen and Radeon Micro ATX Build

  • 10 months ago
  • 2 points

Thank you. I've had the CPU for around a year and the GPU since last fall, but I finally decided to pair them up in a build. I have other machines in various states of completeness. Check out my other builds and saved parts lists; I have more that I'm working on.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "MSI Gaming X (1060) or Sapphire Nitro SE (580)?"

  • 10 months ago
  • 3 points

Since you're looking for opinions, my opinion is that you buy the Sapphire. I have one of those cards, and it performs exceptionally well, runs cool, and looks nice (although I'm not a huge fan of the LEDs, which are RGB on the side). I'm actually using it in the PC I'm using to type this (I'll be posting the build soon, although you can see it in my parts list). I prefer my AMD cards over my Nvidia cards for a number of reasons, but a lot of it comes down to drivers/software. AMD's Radeon Software is, in my opinion, far and away superior to Nvidia's control panel or GeForce Experience because of the amount of control AMD gives users. Built-in features like...

  • WattMan: Built-in software for overclocking (or making a variety of other adjustments) that I find to work very well and allows for a great deal of control. I don't install third-party software for my AMD cards. Nvidia doesn't offer anything like it that I'm aware of, although they sort of used to.
  • Radeon Overlay: In-game control for just about every setting you care about, including WattMan, FRTC, Chill, Enhanced Sync, Performance monitoring, color settings, etc.
  • Performance Monitoring: On-screen stats for just about everything you want to monitor. Not as in-depth or customizable as some third-party software, but it works and looks nice, too. I think Nvidia offers an on-screen FPS indicator and that's it.
  • Frame Rate Target Control (FRTC): Set FPS caps, especially useful for some older games, but can also help reduce screen tearing and conserve power, etc. Nvidia doesn't have this built-in and will require third-party software.
  • Chill (more advanced FRTC): Allows you to set FPS minimums and maximums, but also detects in-game movement mostly to conserve power. Again, Nvidia doesn't have this.
  • Virtual Super Resolution (VSR): One click of the button allows you to use resolutions that are not native to your monitor. For example, if you have a 1080p monitor, you can set the resolution at 4K or run a game at 4K because the GPU scales it back down to your monitor's native resolution. It's more useful than it might sound. Nvidia has DSR, but it's harder to work with in my opinion.
  • Enhanced Sync: Advanced adaptive vsync that actually works, unlike Nvidia's crappy adaptive sync that seems to do nothing... except make things worse. In fact, even without any sort of vsync at all, I swear my AMD cards just run games smoother, with less screen tearing, stuttering, etc. Also, the screen tearing I'm mostly referring to is happening at frame rates below my monitor's refresh rate, so it's not like I'm getting it more on Nvidia cards because they're pumping out such high FPS numbers (they're not).
  • AMD Link: View stats, adjust settings, and stream games to your phone, which actually works, although it can sometimes be a bit clunky controlling the game. Nvidia has nothing like this and it's a really neat feature.

There's even more than what I've listed, but that covers some of the highlights. Not only that, but if you buy the Sapphire card, you get to choose from three AAA games, one of which (Resident Evil 2 remake) has already gotten rave reviews. Oh, and you'll also be supporting a company (AMD) that is much more pro-consumer than Nvidia. Plus, Sapphire makes very high-quality products, especially their Nitro series (I should know, I have four of them). I put them at least on the same level as Asus and EVGA because they really don't seem to make a crappy card, even their low-end stuff.

Anyway, sorry for the long-winded replay, but I hope that helps.

Comment reply on HasNeyn's Completed Build: Never judge a book by its cover

  • 10 months ago
  • 3 points

Welcome to the club. Ha-ha! You're right, they don't make bad products (generally speaking), but they do often have bad prices and/or engage in anti-consumer, anti-competitive, and even illegal business practices. That's why I won't buy their products new (from stores/retailers) anymore. We need AMD to get a better foothold in the market to keep the big tech companies like Intel and Nvidia from exploiting their position and consumers.

Comment reply on veorug's Completed Build: SHEN, a Shift ITX build

  • 10 months ago
  • 2 points

+1 for your all AMD machine and the Sapphire Nitro+ Radeon RX 480 (which happens to be the very best RX 480). You said it's running pretty hot, but how hot? I'm curious because I'm considering using the same Phanteks case, possibly with a Sapphire Nitro+ RX 580. By the way, really nice part selection.

Comment reply on Javsky's Completed Build: ITX AMD Gaming Ryzen 7 / Vega 64

  • 10 months ago
  • 2 points

+1 for your "full-fat" all AMD machine. I have one, too. I'd be worried about that 500 watt power supply, though. The minimum recommendation for Vega 64 is 750 watts and I've seen my total system power draw exceed 600 watts just by setting the power limit to +50%. If it's working for you, though, then carry on. Great job!

Comment reply on alwaysapproved's Completed Build: Another person posting their first build

  • 10 months ago
  • 2 points

It seems that I share a similar perspective. I hate to admit that I only used Intel ("Intel Inside") and Nvidia ("The way it's meant to be played") for many years, even when AMD offered very compelling, competitive, or even objectively better products, all because I bought into their marketing hype and shady business practices. With Nvidia's anti-consumer, anti-competitive "GPP" shenanigans last year, and Intel's similar history, I decided I had finally had enough and would vote with my wallet by not purchasing new products from either company for the foreseeable future. They both make good products, but I will only consider purchasing them on the used market, if at all.

I'm going to try and take some photos and get my build(s) posted soon. As far as the "full-fat" AMD machine goes, I've had the 2700X since launch and the Vega 64 since last summer, but I'm always changing the configurations, so a "complete" machine doesn't stay that way for long because I'm always wanting to try a different setup. It almost seems I spend more time changing configurations, tweaking/overclocking, and just otherwise tinkering with PC hardware than I spend actually using it.

Comment reply on irishfitz88's Completed Build: Just getting started

  • 10 months ago
  • 2 points

+1 Nice machine. As someone else said, the cable management looks great. Very clean. I don't mean this in a bad way or as an insult or anything, but it's too bad you couldn't have come up with an extra $30 for a Ryzen 3 2200G, which is almost exponentially (virtually an order of magnitude) higher performing than the A8-9600.

I've read through your description and other comments and I still think getting a 2200G might be a good idea for what you're trying to accomplish. If you have the money, the next best value would be a Ryzen 5 2600, which would really help with the render times your wife complains about. However, you'll need a dedicated/discrete graphics solution for any Ryzen CPU other than the 2200G or 2400G. If you can get that R9 280X working (be sure you've plugged your monitor's video cable into the graphics card, not the motherboard, and/or check for a BIOS switch to see if it will boot with the other BIOS), it's still a decent card (although, unfortunately, it lacks FreeSync support). Or buy a good RX 570 or 580 (I'd recommend Sapphire, although they're usually a bit pricier) and you'll have a fantastic gaming PC.

Anyway, I wish you the best with whatever future additions you make to your PC. Just don't buy a (new) Nvidia card. ;) Oh, since you mentioned Linus, I'd highly recommend you also check out Hardware Unboxed.

Comment reply on oiluig's Completed Build: Icy hot (looks cool, runs warm)

  • 10 months ago
  • 2 points

Despite the increased speeds on Intel systems, I run into memory bandwidth limitations, so it actually performs better with Ryzen (by quite a bit, actually). I've settled on 3333 MT/s @ 14-14-14-28 timings with my 2700X and I'm getting considerably better performance than running the same B-die kit at 3600 MT/s 15-15-15-35 with my 7700K (and running it faster doesn't do much because of those bandwidth limitations... 8th and 9th gen Intel CPUs have similar issues). So, I really don't worry about it too much.

Comment reply on oiluig's Completed Build: Icy hot (looks cool, runs warm)

  • 10 months ago
  • 2 points

+1 for the Sapphire Nitro+ Radeon RX Vega 64 (and Noctua NH-U12S). That is arguably, if not objectively, the best Vega 64 on the market and I'm proud to own one. Unlike most of the questionable Vega 64 benchmark results posted by various tech/media outlets (except maybe Hardware Unboxed), Sapphire's Nitro+ Vega 64 seems to perform far better, typically in-between the GTX 1080/RTX 2070 and GTX 1080 Ti/RTX 2080. And it's gotten better with AMD's continuous flow of driver updates. That's been my experience, anyway.

Also, nice choice for your memory. From what I can surmise, that is probably the best RAM on the market. It doesn't get much better than DDR4-3600 CL15 (including all those stupidly overpriced DDR4-4000+ kits with loose timings). The stuff you have is likely near the top of the best binned Samsung B-die available. I'm curious if you're able to run it (without errors) at the rated speed and timings. I have a couple of DDR4-3200 CL14 B-die kits and, no matter the timings, I can't seem to get anything stable above roughly 3466 MT/s, with any of my Ryzen processors (both 1st and 2nd gen up to a 2700X) using Asus and MSI motherboards. Conversely, I have no trouble running the same B-die kits at seemingly any speed and timings when paired with a 7700K on a MSI Z170 motherboard.

Anyway, I've rambled long enough. You have a very nice machine.

Comment reply on sKRIs's Completed Build: Games, media and engineering simulations

  • 10 months ago
  • 2 points

+1 for the Sapphire Nitro+ Radeon RX Vega 64 (and Noctua NH-U12S and Fractal Design Define Mini C TG)! I have the same card (and cooler and case) and I'm convinced it is the Limited Edition version in all but name, one missing 8-pin power connector (unnecessary, anyway), and no RGB lighting around the fans (it might just be disconnected, but I haven't disassembled my card to find out). I'm sure the LE versions are binned a bit better and have a slightly different BIOS, but TechPowerUp's GPU-Z seems to think the one I have is the LE version. Sapphire also doesn't advertise vapor chamber cooling for the non-LE card, but (without disassembling mine) it appears to have a vapor chamber sitting on top of the die... and it runs very cool (cooler than any card I've had in the past or present, both AMD and Nvidia from the likes of Asus, EVGA, MSI, Nvidia [FE], Sapphire, and XFX). It also seems to perform far better than Vega 64 typically gets credit for.

I don't know what other people (including reviewers at various tech/media outlets, with exception to Hardware Unboxed) are doing, but in the benchmarks I've run (3DMark's Time Spy & Fire Strike, Unigine's Superposition, Geekbench, Passmark, various game benchmarks, etc.) Sapphire's Nitro+ Vega 64 seems to perform somewhere in-between most of the GTX 1080/RTX 2070 and GTX 1080 Ti/RTX 2080 results, often closer to or outperforming the latter. I don't know what Vega 64 card(s) all these media outlets are using that show the RTX 2060 outperforming it, but they must be using reference cards stuffed into a hotbox case with no airflow or something.

Anyway, sorry about the rambling. You have a very nice machine.

Comment reply on SHDMaximus86's Completed Build: I5 8600k

  • 10 months ago
  • 2 points

+1 for the Sapphire Nitro+ Radeon RX 570 8GB. Nice looking machine.

Comment reply on Jasonst's Completed Build: Sub £1000 i7 9th gen build

  • 10 months ago
  • 2 points

+1 for the Sapphire Tri-X Radeon R9 290X... X.

Comment reply on Titchy2005's Completed Build: My PC Specifications

  • 10 months ago
  • 2 points

That looks more like a Sapphire Nitro Radeon R9 380 or 380X (the part list shows an MSI card). Still a decent machine with quality parts.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "R9 280x royal queen edition vs gtx 1050ti oc?"

  • 13 months ago
  • 2 points

Theoretically, on paper, the R9 280X will marginally outperform a GTX 1050 Ti, but it will also require significantly more power (electricity) in the process because it uses a much older, less efficient architecture and overall design (2011 vs. 2016 technology). In practice, the GTX 1050 Ti will likely perform on a very similar level and even outperform the 280X in many scenarios. Disregarding their inefficiencies (compared to more recent GPUs), the 280X (and 7970) have aged quite well, but the 1050 Ti is arguably (if not objectively) the better choice between those two, as much as I hate to admit it.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Good Samsung B-Die Kits"

  • 14 months ago
  • 2 points

As far as I know, unless a manufacturer explicitly states that a memory module/kit uses Samsung B-die ICs, then you typically don't know for sure what you might be getting. The only manufacturer I've seen do that is Team Group for their Team Dark Pro DDR4-3200 CAS Latency 14 kit which I personally own and highly recommend.

However, there are several ways to narrow it down and increase the chances of getting Samsung B-die. The most certain way I know of is to look for DDR4-3200 CAS Latency 14, which is almost guaranteed to be Samsung B-die. They will also be limited to 8GB or 16GB DIMMs, so if you see 4GB DIMMs, they're not Samsung B-die. One more speed and CAS latency spec that is all-but-guaranteed to be Samsung B-die is DDR4-3600 CAS Latency 15.

I've heard it said that all memory rated at 3200 MHz (MT/s) or higher is Samsung B-die, but I know that isn't true because there are 4GB DIMMs that fall into that category and Samsung's spec sheet states only 8GB and 16GB DIMMs for B-die (8Gb ICs with either 8 or 16 ICs per DIMM, totaling 8GB or 16GB).

Anyway, I hope that helps.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Which vega 56"

  • 14 months ago
  • 2 points

Hopefully, that is the card you bought, because of the three that were (and two of which still are) selling for that price, only the Sapphire Pulse Vega 56 did not require a mail-in rebate to get it down to that advertised price. Plus, it's arguably, if not objectively, the better card. If I didn't already have a Vega 64 (and too many other graphics cards), I probably would've bought one myself since $380 for a Vega 56 is an amazing deal and the best I believe we've seen since the Vega cards were launched. At that price, it is easily one of the best value graphics cars (in terms of cost-to-performance) among cards currently available and/or still being manufactured (AMD RX 500, Vega series and Nvidia 10- and 20-series).

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube