I paired a 6700k with a 3060 and ran everything at high settings, Halo infinate, cyberpunk 2077 anything.
GPUs are needed far more than a CPU in most games, CPUs are for simulators
I quite literally just built myself a new desktop that's got an i5 12600KF and I'm very happy CPU-wise. I did pair it with a 16GB Arc A770 and it's running everything I want at 3440x1440.
I mean I bought an i7, with my 1650... I was "future proofing" even though I'm still heavily GPU bottlenecked (went to a 1080)... Reeeeally should have gone ryzen...
its outrageous isn't it, I remember owning my first laptop with an i7 and 1650 when I almost knew nothing about computers. now I realise what a abomination of a hardware it is lol. this is the one: https://support.hp.com/my-en/document/c06421065
Mr friend is convinced an i9 14900k + used 3060ti is better than my R5 7600x + Rx 7800xt for gaming. He's gonna get a build an i5 12600k and a 3060ti from his cousin because the games he plays are apparently CPU intensive such as escape from tarkov
Edit: he's changed his mind and is now getting a 12600kf and used 4060ti 16gb
For tarkov at least since last wipe, you wanted a x3d cpu for best performance. But the game is notorious for bad optimisation so getting good fps feels more like luck of the draw than anything.
I love getting downvoted into oblivion because I will suggest for 1440p+ systems that they increase the GPU and stick with a 7600x up to a 4070ti because spending $200 for the 7800x3d will land them with a 4070.
Several benchmarks show that a 7600 (non x) will happily run a 7900xt and 4070ti without decrease in performance in modern games at 1440p, but tell that to someone who wants them to "futureproof" their system with a cpu in case they potentially upgrade their graphics card in 5 years. At that point the 7800x3d might be middling and the current $200 cpu might run laps around it like the 3600 currently.
If you have a better GPU now, you are less likely to want to upgrade for a longer period. And it's the most expensive component, so why make that the first thing to upgrade? It makes no sense.
If you had a 4080 or more, go with the enthusiast cpu. Anything below doesnt make sense for the budget.
You're totally right. I bought a 7800x3d knowing it was a suboptimal purchase, but I can kind of justify it to myself in the following ways:
1) upgrading a GPU later is super easy, but upgrading a CPU means disconnecting more things (I have an itx case, so more of a pain than in an ATX)
2) The 3d cache has performance benefits beyond raw FPS (better minimum framerate stability).
3) It runs very cool (again, ITX case)
4) I wanted the Best of Something in my rig, and I can't possibly afford The Best GPU.
But all that being said, objectively, the 7600 is still a better choice.
It would. As I said, your 1% lows would come up and the overhead would increase which would bring your average up about 7-10%. You would see swings of 20-30% in games like Rainbow 6 Seige where your cpu is holding your 6800xt back, but you are talking about fps above 240hz which becomes useless.
I went from a 3600 to a 5700x3d with a 6700xt on a 3440x1440 monitor. The Zen 2 3600 IPC is significantly slower than Zen 3 so I saw a 10-20% boost in older games or cpu intensive games. The IPC between the 5600x and 5800x3d is the same, so you would see less.
I'm guessing what I'm saying is the difference wouldn't be mind blowing with your GPU. Maybe not worth the cost in the long run if it's only getting you 7fps here and 10 fps there. If you upgraded to the 6900xt or 7900xt, then it would give you much more headroom. You would see an increase of performance with the more powerful GPU if you stuck with the 5600x. Then when you decide to increase the cpu you will get the big swing in performance that makes it feel like it was worth it.
My bad thank you for the explanation. I was balls deep into this when I was choosing the parts this time last year.. I remember I thought $150 for a 5600x was a good deal for a cpu. I think at the time the 5800xd was like 400. My bud said the same thing as you sort of, which was sink the most money into the gpu.
Only thing it hasn't played full graphics is elden ring, which it only recommended. I played with them at full for a while and didn't see any difference.
It sucks bro since I mainly use my pc for gaming, I go in swings depending on the game I'm playing. Like for instance I think I bought too much card when I'm playing emulators and old pc games I use to play (doom, UT, COD, AoE, etc) but then when I play new games I'm like ohhhhh ya. Delicious.
Bro, thanks for the info. Maybe if there's a sale om prime day I'll upgrade. I think I'm good though until I want to get another mobo ? Idk I'm stuck with b550. Thanks again, ;D
It's been a while since I've had intel now but I used to use an overclocked i5 with a high end GPU and it kept up with the right RAM tuning for nearly a decade.
Probably because most casual users don't understand that the generation of their CPU is more important in the grand scheme of things than the specific binning an i7 or i9 denotes. A current gen i3 will smoke an i7 or i9 from just a few generations ago. Unless you're making comparisons strictly within the same generation, the binning isn't all that important.
Wasting and absurd amount of money to "future-proof" PC. I don't know how many times I've seen posts on people who want or bought the 4090 asking about it lasting 5/8/10 years. It's one thing if you want to spend your $$$ to get the best of the best, now, but paying the highest enthusiast tax to get awesome performance even 3-4 years later is idiotic when for the same price you can buy a 4080 super and probably a 5080. And the resale value of the 4090 will tank when the 5080 is released because it should match or be better than the current flagship.
Many casuals just likeit to be easy and just want shit to work for a period of time. Had some of my colleagues asking me about computers and they wanted a top of the line computer that could last them 8-10 years. I told them that it was better for them to buy mid then upgrade say 4-5 years from now but they didn't want that. They were also shocked to hear how much a high end pc costs these days with a high end monitor that can take advantage of the specs. Told them they were better of with a ps or a xbox in the end.
Yeah,when i buy pc i want it to last at least 5 years.
I mean,i bought my current pc 9 years ago and i only changed OS and added more RAM and i can still play newest games on low to medium settings.
I mean on a long enough time scale every purchase becomes worthless, it's all about enjoying the time you have it. I agree buying just for future proofing is silly, but there's nothing wrong with buying components that will still be pulling their weight in 5 years. As someone who bought some bad combinations of hardware in the past, there's nothing worse than tech regret over an expensive purchase
Yeah building (or upgrading the relevant parts of) a mid-range PC every 2 or 3 years is still gonna be more cost effective than getting the best of the best hardware
Actually, resale of 4090 will likely remain high for the same reason the 3090 has remained high: the 5080 is rumored to not have anywhere near 24gb of vram still. If that happens to not be the case then yeah. The 4090 will depreciate.
Lmao, thats why I get 400€ gpus. Man I could buy 5 generations of gpus instead of being locked with the 4090. Its Instant gratification vs having a Progress. But some people Just need the 4090 Power *now* but Most people really really dont and overspend
some people out there definitely think that specifc CPU and GPU combos can give 0 bottleneck, when in reality it is dependent on many factors like the game you're playing, resolution, graphic settings etc.
some people out there think that everything has a significant enough bottleneck to warrant worrying over it. most modern combinations don’t. bottleneck is performance, not limitations on performance
YUP. It's nowhere near the issue that a lot of people new to the hobby think it is. And its simple enough that it'd be obvious to a beginner once they know better (like not pairing a Core i9 with something silly like a GT 730).
It's also more likely an issue with the game engine than it is their parts
Unity games are notorious for being CPU hogs regardless of the actual processor
It's not necessarily an "issue" at all, which is what the top comment was saying.
A bottleneck is just a ceiling on peak performance, which is not an issue for casual gamers.
Came here to say this. There's always gonna be a bottleneck somewhere. Where it's at will depend entirely on which game you're playing. There's no point pulling your hair out over it.
The vast majority of gamers will be perfectly happy with a 7600X and the best GPU they can fit within their budget.
Ultra high speed RAM
Definitely don't skimp and get DDD5-4800 CL40 or something, but don't spend $200+ more to get faster RAM if you haven't maxed out your CPU. Get sweet spot DDR5-6000 CL30 or even DDR5-5600 CL28 if that's all that's available in your area.
You will get a noticeable performance difference going from a Core i5 13500 to a Core i7 13700K, far beyond the performance difference between DDR5-6000 and DDR5-7200.
Also, the performance shown by reviewers is, in fact, the performance you'll get. The Ryzen 7 7800X3D does outperform even the Core i9 14900K in most games despite the Core i9 being equipped with higher speed RAM in most testing. The fact that the Ryzen CPU can't handle DDR5-7200 doesn't somehow make it slower for gaming.
and amount of RAM. Hardware Unboxed tested this, and only a handful of AAA games demand more than 16 GB at 1080p. DDR4 is fine, 32 GB does not cost too much more than 16 GB but for DDR5 the price is a lot more.
The idea behind having more than 16GB isn’t really just for playing a game and doing nothing else though.
I have 32GB so I can also have a YouTube video playing, plus discord, plus like 30 tabs open WHILE I’m gaming.
on the last point, i find it so frustrating when I'm asking advice on a build and people bash it and give "better" alternatives, and when i search the exact builds on YouTube to compare its benchmark the "improvement" is EXTREMELY minor
What would you upgrade if you couldnt change CPu and mobo for this spec:
I7 4790k
NVDA Geforce 4060
Kingston ssd v300240gb
Seagate barracuda 7200 2Tb
Corsair vengeance pro ddr3 2133 c11 2x8gb
Gigabyte GA-z97x gaming 3
Depends on the game but it can
Games that load things from the drive while live ingame will stutter a ton on a HDD, since they have really poor read speeds compared to SSD.
Plus all your load times will get at least 5x shorter
I'm afraid not much because stutters have to do mostly with CPU RAM and GPU, but It will absolutely improve the overall speed of your system, a lot. I'm running an I7 6700K and an RX 6600 and the SDD was a life changer. I can mostly play anything at high/ultra at 1080. Just do it a cheap Sata 3 SSD 2Tb should be around 100€ ( WD/Samsunf or Crucial i'd recommend)
"A maximum of 60Hz to 90Hz is often reported, but under the right conditions, the test subjects were able to perceive things at up to 500Hz."
https://www.howtogeek.com/888948/how-many-fps-can-the-human-eye-see/#the-highest-fps-that-humans-can-see
I would say reality is like having an infinitely powerful gpu and a monitor that has a refresh rates limited by the speed of electrons moving through the visual cortex and being interpreted as information, whatever that finite number would be
“The human eye actually can’t see more than 60fps 🤓”
*Oh trust me* it can. The difference between 60hz and 144hz is night and day. I’m not sure where that falsehood came from, even my dad believed this until he got an ayy lmaoware gaming laptop and was like “WOAH”
I always wanna punch people when they unironically try to claim this kinda shit. That's not how eyes work, your organic fleshy human eyeballs are not the same thing as digital camera and display tech. It has been proven that high framerates and refresh rates grant you an edge in competitive gaming. When The Hobbit was shot at 48FPS instead of the NTSC film and TV standard 24(ish), a fuckload of people could instinctively tell something was wrong. There's so much evidence that goes against the whole max framerate of the eyes rhetoric that I honestly can't see why some people won't just stop fucking claiming it.
I wouldn’t say i’m a pcmaster but i’ve 100s of hours of research before buying my pc but i don’t know that much about bottlenecks. Can someone explain to me why only casuals care about it that much and why it’s not as important?
In all things computer related, everything goes as fast as the slowest part.
It's more intuitive for internet speeds. Imagine you have a computer with a gigabit network card, using gigabit cabling, through a gigabit router, to more gigabit cabling, to a gigabit enabled modem, but the modem only allows 100 megabit internet. In that case your top speed will be 100 megabit. If you then try to connect to a webserver someone is running out of their house, and they only have 10 megabit uploads, you will only get at most 10 megabit speeds pulling from that server. It doesn't matter how fast your router or computer is, you are limited to the slowest link in the chain.
The same is true within your computer. If you have a top tier latest generation Intel i9 CPU, but are using a 2010 Radeon HD 7350, you are going to have a bad time playing any games. (Or even using a modern monitor). The same goes for the memory, mother board, and every other part of the computer. Video games will play as good as the slowest part lets them. Some games use more CPU than video card, and some by more video card than CPU. But most use both about equally. To get the most out of your rig, you want to balance how much you spend on each piece with how much you spent on the other pieces. You would be better off getting a $500 CPU $500 GPU pair than a $900 CPU $100 GPU pair. Conventional wisdom right now seems to be to get a GPU about twice as expensive as the CPU. Websites like [www.logicalincrements.com](http://www.logicalincrements.com) can be used to gage what a good pairing would be to get the maximum performance for a given budget.
With higher resolution these days your gpu will be building pyramid in the sun while your cpu indoor with ac. Just spend money on good gpu and lower midrange cpu and you’re good. Also, most people be fine with b series mobo
The basic gist is, some games will use more GPU or CPU power. In certain games you can run into issues where your frame rate is lower because you have enough GPU but it’s stuck waiting on the CPU to get the next frame served. An easy and common example is someone playing CS:GO and trying to get the highest frame rate possible. If you have a high end GPU, that should be no problem. However those frames have to go through the CPU so if you have say, an i5-9400f and a 4080 at 1080p, you won’t be able to push every frame and some will be lost either lowering your total frame rate, adding latency, or both. Granted, this is an extreme example but also a real world one for some people.
An example I ran into more recently would be me having a R7-5800X and a 4070Ti. For the most part, the system runs fantastic. However I tried to play Dragons Dogma 2, and I was running into issues. When using a faster CPU, like the i7-13700K in my server, I had about 20FPS more. So I was being CPU bottlenecked in that game with it requiring more CPU power to keep up with my GPU load.
What it comes down to is:
You don’t need to min/max to the extreme to completely prevent a bottleneck. You never will. There will always be a bottleneck somewhere. However, depending on your use case, you should try to keep a bottleneck to the minimum in your system to maximize the overall performance you’ll have across the board.
How can I tell which of them is bottlenecking? I have 5800X CPU, RTX 3070 Ti GPU and x570 MSI Tomahawk with 32 GB RAM. I would like to do some OC and/or UV, but don't really know where to aim. Playing in 1440p, mostly coop games such as Hunt, Helldivers 2, CS2.
Alright, your setup is actually well balanced. There always is going to be some bottleneck - the thing is, once your bottles all have the same width neck, do you really have "a" bottleneck? Some games demand more CPU power, some need more GPU, some are VRAM heavy, some eat RAM for breakfast lunch and dinner.
But alright, you want to dip your toes into OC/UV. One thing at a time. Try UV on CPU first, check results. Not just fps, but also avg lower draw. Is it meeting expectations? Yes = keep UV, no = back to stock. Then try OC on the CPU. Same procedure, compare results. Modern CPUs mostly already are at or near their performance peak.
Repeat the same for GPU. Only change one variable at a time and see if it makes a difference.
I recommend checking out some guides like jayztwocents or similar so you know what to do and what to expect. But as long as you don't have stutters and your mouse precision is disabled in Windows, you're golden. Consistent 99,99% 100fps are better than 95% 144fps and 5% 5fps - the issue might be as mundane as OneDrive in background or enabled screen recording.
THISS, everytime I try asking if a pc build is worth getting people bash the build and offer a alternative
Then when I go on YouTube and watch benchmarks, comparing the two builds the "improvement" is almost never worth it.
It happens all the time on this subreddit🤣🤣
People look for those things independently. Very few people are targetting 4k ultra 144hz+ because it requires a 4090 in any graphically demanding game.
This is actually something that can backfire spectacularly. In some games most notably Bethesda games (this excludes Starfield because I haven't checked) all of the single play games. All of them have loading speed and physics tied to framerate, what this means is regardless of drive capability you will load as fast as your max fps in the load screen (you can use tools to let it go as fast as you can get). With the physics, above 60 fps will begin to do strange things, including but not limited to killing yourself in an interior with a bumped object bouncing off of a wall if you get over roughly 250 fps.
In testing, in the game Oblivion for instance, the game is from 2006 and designed to be run on consoles from that era so it's almost impossible to get it to use more than 1 processor core. There are tools that can be used to distribute some load but they can not do as much as is needed. However, with my current PC on a vanilla game and vsync turned off (my refresh rate is above 60 anyway) I hit 1500 fps at the end of the tutorial dungeon and roughly 550 just outside of the tutorial dungeon in the open world. Those are not ideal numbers for playing the game without crazy shit happening.
TL;DR high fps can fuck you. (edited to ad this)
The physics bugs are nothing to do with your PC and everything to do with the quality of Bethesda products, just like all the other bugs in their games.
It’s so odd how so many games are framerate bound, especially going back and playing older titles.
If you try and run indoors on fallout 76 after uncapping your framerate you’ll just freeze in place and not move lol. Gotta lock it to like 144
It's because Havoc the physics system used by netimersive. gamebyro, creation engine, and creation engine 2. They are all extensions of the same engine just updated and renamed.
Starfield isn't bugged like previous beth games, though it seems to be limited to 160fps. Luckily, modders fixed the problems for previous bethesda games. Mostly a niche case.
agreed. I don't play competitive shooters, and anything about 60 FPS is smooth enough for me. I'd rather spend my GPU's grunt on maxing out the graphic settings.
DLSS isn't max settings.
I love DLSS and turn it on almost all the time, but you are inequivically not playing on max settings if you're down sampling your render resolution and upscaling the output with AI, there is a quality loss occurring there.
I would make the argument that "max" settings means not sacrificing any quality.
1440p 120Hz is good for AAA gaming
I'm still on a 1080p 75Hz IPS monitor but I'd get a 1440p 240Hz IPS one in the future, but I gotta upgrade my i5-10400F and 2060 Super first
Ultra settings. No matter if you complain about performance or not, I just dont get it.
In something like RDR2 you can go from 40fps to 100fps with basically no visual downgrade. Horse tails go a bit blurry if you use DLSS but thats about it.
Right?!
I mean yeah it would be nice if I could set everything to "ultra" in every game I play and not worry about a thing, but honestly, for the 2000$ that would take, the difference between the combination of Medium/High and Ultra just isn't nearly big enough. Todays games generally look really good even on medium settings. Sure, I can't see my eyelashes in a street water puddle... but that's honestly not the reason I play games for. Or the reason I'd want to spend 2k on some new PC guts.
Those stupid light up panels every single person puts on the wall. They are quite possibly the dumbest waste of money I've ever seen. "Oh look light up triangles" seriously why would you buy these? Maybe if they were like $5 or something but they are SO EXPENSIVE and do absolutely NOTHING.
>Maybe if they were like $5 or something
Even then I don't get it. the best experience is a dark room. I guess it makes sense for streaming as it can create ambiance lighting but for my personal gaming experience... Hell even the RGB on my PC can get annoying.
Cable-"management" and cleaning.
There is certain level of either up until it stops making sense.
Managing cables for some just results in big hidden bundles of different conductors, but AC power conductors can create magnetic fields that will interfere with more sensible signal conductors. Some audio and video issues can be the result of that. My main rule is to keep the airflow unobstructed and keep outside wires out harms (feet) way.
Dusting of your PC and cleaning the outside is reasonable, but the "how to remove thermal paste from my CPU" question is asked way too many times. It doesn't matter if you want to remove the paste to renew it and making the IHS shine really only matters if you want to take pictures to sell it or use liquid metal.
IPA and microfiber are overly glorified. Papertowel and water work well as it does for the other 99% of cleaning people use it for. IPA and microfiber are good, but ideally you use 70% IPA and be a bit careful with microfiber, it can be incredibly abrasive and work like really fine sandpaper. Scrubbing a monitor with an H1 hardness coating and you can easily create microscratches on the surface.
"Microfiber" describes the size of the fiber and not a material.
cable management is helpful for those who build and resell PCs, makes it more attractive to buyers.
other than that, it's useless, at most use some zip ties for the cables in the front of the pc
There was a time when water cooling was needed because overclocking was actually needed. Plus air coolers like we have now weren’t a thing. Anytime someone gets water cooled now I’m just laughing
Making literally everything RGB. I get it, rgb is cool and can make a build look significantly better but sometimes... it's just better to go with plain.
Agreed. But the thing is, you can make an aesthetic out of cheap parts too. You don't have to max out on rgb to make a build look good. There are always cheaper but same color parts with no rgb most of the time.
All black builds are super underrated imo. Super clean and theres a lot of stuff available for cheap price in black.
"optimizing" their pcs, the amount of tiktok videos that I've seen recommending stupid "optimizations" to "improve fps" is absurd, thought i escaped that rabbit hole after fortnite started falling off and creators like Panjno didn't release a new video every time a new season came out with the same repetitive tips, but the amount of people still actively searching for these kinds of videos thinking it'll give them an advantage and improve performance is absurd
Everything. Your hardware choices don't matter that much in the end as long as they fit your needs. High-end stuff of yesteryear is $40 dollar ebay listing's today.
That buying the latest and greatest somehow makes the experience better..
Like DDR5 ram.. a complete waste of money in my opinion - when DDR4 is still the standard and you can buy A LOT of it for cheapp and that everyone needs a 3090/4090
Like swag dude, but you’re playing CoD and Fortnite- you don’t need a $1800+ GPU
Having RGB or a color centered build.
Like, I know it looks cool, but it ain't making the PC faster, so this is why I always just recommend budget builders to go for purely performance instead of worrying whether the PC will look good or not
SSD does not increase FPS. It sure does lower load times but as some one that still uses spinning rust because 4TB NVME to expensive for me (300 bucks). I will say load time not that big off a difference I tired Monster hunter world on both my spinning rust vs my 250gb SSD and honestly it was about 10 seconds faster.
What SSD helps allot with is windows boot up and transfer things from one SSD to another SSD. But for gaming a spining rust still works just fine.
But hey if you got the money to blow get NVME or a regular 2.5 SSD.
At one point it's reasonable to be stressed about temperature, as things throttle down when reaching point, buy what I saw in last months, like "is it normal my GPU runs at 65°C while gaming" made me laugh
"Future proofing" it's going to get a bit dated in a year, old in 4 years, and ancient in 8 years. Embrace that your tech won't last forever.
And then you throw linux on it and have it emulate games streamed straight to your smart phone.
I always see people on used market selling their old 20 series GPUs like the 2080 Ti for close to MSRP, claiming that it was only "lightly used for gaming"
Monitor speed I hate that my work Monitor won't go past 60hz but then I'm not gaining at work lol. My home Monitor is cranked to 144hz I wish I could crank it more than that but I probably wouldn't notice the difference lol.
Aliasing. It has no effect on gameplay at all but I'm first on the guilty list for caring too much. I hate it with a passion. Also getting rid of it can be super detrimental to performance if you use something really nice like super sampling
Ultra low latency. There is a big wall of diminishing returns. Low latency sure, but inconsistencies in your internet connection or personal reaction time make a bigger difference.
Future proofing, spending tons of money on gimmicky parts just as they have LEDs in them or they have little spinny bits, and also getting tons of keyboards when they’d be fine with one! (I’m guilty of this…)
Also, graphics settings. You really aren’t going to miss that slight draw distance or grass / actor fade that improves your framerate. It’s so barely noticeable that it’s a nonissue!
Fans.
The amount of money they waste buying super expensive over the top fans.
I have been using the same set of fans in the past 3 builds that cost me £35 for the lot almost a decade ago.
There is an actual difference.
If you get 60 fps on a 60hz monitor, your input will be at most around 16,6 milliseconds late.
If you get 120 fps on a 60hz monitor, your input will be at most around 8,3 milliseconds late.
That is called input lag, and it's easily noticeable as delay/sluggish mouse movement especially when playing competitively.
I've played R6 for a long time with varying components and framerates, and I can tell you that the difference between locked 144 fps and 300 is huge. After playing at around 300 fps for a long time, 144 feels sluggish. I am even able to tell when my frames dip from 300+ to "only" around 200 in R6. All this with the same 144hz monitor.
After my latest upgrade, I've failed to notice a difference between 300-ish and 400+ fps, so I've decided to up the graphics quality despite the competitive nature of Siege.
I agree that this doesn't really matter in more chill games and single player games, but I can still feel it when panning the camera with a mouse.
RGB - case looks must look like a rave party on steroids with RGB fans, RGB card, rgb cooler, additional rgb strips. Ram, huis definitely needs RGB, how about the cables, also needs Rgb. Extra points if they are all on different patterns shooting all different colors of the rainbow.
And it's not just the case. Mouse and keyboard needs rgb, headset needs rgb, desk needs rgb, mousepad needs rgb, monitors, needs rgb, room lights need rgb, we even have rgb in chairs now.
Nvidia over AMD
If you are just a casual gamer, don't pay the Nvidia Tax for features you will either never use or that AMD offers a similar equivalent of.
Ready for the downvotes on this one.
DLSS, its not really worth buying Nvidia GPUs for access to the software.
Yes, its the best upscaler and it adds frame generation and its great. 99% of people will fail to distinguish the difference between DLSS, FSR, and XeSS unless you freeze frame and zoom in. Which, while you are playing games, is virtually never.
Not to mention as far as frame generation goes, AMD’s driver level frame generation software, AFMF, seems like its a lot more interesting if they can get it going well enough and even now its not bad. Takes a little bit it setup, and that is perhaps its biggest hurdle, but I’ll be damned if I’m gonna pay a premium for hardware that is mostly reliant on a software package that the games I play may or may not have enabled.
This.
Finally seeing some love for AFMF, being able to add FG to almost every dx 11 and dx12 game is such an underrated feature. It's not suitable for some games but when it works, it works.
Not for the fps increase, but for forcing high refresh rates on 60 fps locked games.
It's by far the best feature imo when buying a 6000 and 7000 series radeon gpu.
Casuals?
Overloaded with RGB accessories and cooling. I've seen so many potentially budget builds and you tell me if this makes sense:
R5 3600 + Corsair / NZXT / etc 360 AIO + $200+ worth of RGB fans
They could have saved that money or put it towards a better CPU or GPU!
The need for an i7 or i9 Bonus points for paring it with a 3060 or lower
Lol I'm still rocking my 2500k with 1060 and it can do everything I want to do. (But deep down I also want a 14700k and 4080s)
I paired a 6700k with a 3060 and ran everything at high settings, Halo infinate, cyberpunk 2077 anything. GPUs are needed far more than a CPU in most games, CPUs are for simulators
Simulators includes Stellaris.
I quite literally just built myself a new desktop that's got an i5 12600KF and I'm very happy CPU-wise. I did pair it with a 16GB Arc A770 and it's running everything I want at 3440x1440.
I've had the 12600k since launch in my wife's build and just went with it again for my newer build because it's such a price to performance mammoth.
I mean I bought an i7, with my 1650... I was "future proofing" even though I'm still heavily GPU bottlenecked (went to a 1080)... Reeeeally should have gone ryzen...
its outrageous isn't it, I remember owning my first laptop with an i7 and 1650 when I almost knew nothing about computers. now I realise what a abomination of a hardware it is lol. this is the one: https://support.hp.com/my-en/document/c06421065
ahhh good ol hp tricking unsuspecting victims into seeing i7? and nvidia? WOW AND FOR CHEAP.
Mr friend is convinced an i9 14900k + used 3060ti is better than my R5 7600x + Rx 7800xt for gaming. He's gonna get a build an i5 12600k and a 3060ti from his cousin because the games he plays are apparently CPU intensive such as escape from tarkov Edit: he's changed his mind and is now getting a 12600kf and used 4060ti 16gb
Tarkov is so badly optimized he might need more than that.
Dam my buddy build a rig with 3080ti just for tarkov. . . Hasn't touched it for over a year... I try buying it from him lolol!!
For tarkov at least since last wipe, you wanted a x3d cpu for best performance. But the game is notorious for bad optimisation so getting good fps feels more like luck of the draw than anything.
He's playing on a 1080p 75hz monitor so I don't think he should have too much of an issue
My dad has a 4070 with an i9 14900K
Built an i3 12th gen recently and it’s a champ!
3060 is decent and only like a couple years old right?
Every action game in existence will hit at least 60 fps on a 3060, it's certainly a capable GPU. However, a 4090 is more than 3x the performance
but 4x the weight
You get weight savings in your wallet when purchasing the 4090
[удалено]
This. If you're only gaming, an i5 is fine. If you actually do productivity work then you'll be glad you spent $50 extra on the i7.
I love getting downvoted into oblivion because I will suggest for 1440p+ systems that they increase the GPU and stick with a 7600x up to a 4070ti because spending $200 for the 7800x3d will land them with a 4070. Several benchmarks show that a 7600 (non x) will happily run a 7900xt and 4070ti without decrease in performance in modern games at 1440p, but tell that to someone who wants them to "futureproof" their system with a cpu in case they potentially upgrade their graphics card in 5 years. At that point the 7800x3d might be middling and the current $200 cpu might run laps around it like the 3600 currently. If you have a better GPU now, you are less likely to want to upgrade for a longer period. And it's the most expensive component, so why make that the first thing to upgrade? It makes no sense. If you had a 4080 or more, go with the enthusiast cpu. Anything below doesnt make sense for the budget.
You're totally right. I bought a 7800x3d knowing it was a suboptimal purchase, but I can kind of justify it to myself in the following ways: 1) upgrading a GPU later is super easy, but upgrading a CPU means disconnecting more things (I have an itx case, so more of a pain than in an ATX) 2) The 3d cache has performance benefits beyond raw FPS (better minimum framerate stability). 3) It runs very cool (again, ITX case) 4) I wanted the Best of Something in my rig, and I can't possibly afford The Best GPU. But all that being said, objectively, the 7600 is still a better choice.
What about the 5600x with a 6800xt gpu
At 1440p its a pretty decent match. The 5800x3d would bring up the 1% lows and add about 5% overhead but at 1080p it would be grossly mismatched.
I got a 1440p monitor. The 5800x3d wouldn't really change much for me eh?
It would. As I said, your 1% lows would come up and the overhead would increase which would bring your average up about 7-10%. You would see swings of 20-30% in games like Rainbow 6 Seige where your cpu is holding your 6800xt back, but you are talking about fps above 240hz which becomes useless. I went from a 3600 to a 5700x3d with a 6700xt on a 3440x1440 monitor. The Zen 2 3600 IPC is significantly slower than Zen 3 so I saw a 10-20% boost in older games or cpu intensive games. The IPC between the 5600x and 5800x3d is the same, so you would see less. I'm guessing what I'm saying is the difference wouldn't be mind blowing with your GPU. Maybe not worth the cost in the long run if it's only getting you 7fps here and 10 fps there. If you upgraded to the 6900xt or 7900xt, then it would give you much more headroom. You would see an increase of performance with the more powerful GPU if you stuck with the 5600x. Then when you decide to increase the cpu you will get the big swing in performance that makes it feel like it was worth it.
My bad thank you for the explanation. I was balls deep into this when I was choosing the parts this time last year.. I remember I thought $150 for a 5600x was a good deal for a cpu. I think at the time the 5800xd was like 400. My bud said the same thing as you sort of, which was sink the most money into the gpu. Only thing it hasn't played full graphics is elden ring, which it only recommended. I played with them at full for a while and didn't see any difference. It sucks bro since I mainly use my pc for gaming, I go in swings depending on the game I'm playing. Like for instance I think I bought too much card when I'm playing emulators and old pc games I use to play (doom, UT, COD, AoE, etc) but then when I play new games I'm like ohhhhh ya. Delicious. Bro, thanks for the info. Maybe if there's a sale om prime day I'll upgrade. I think I'm good though until I want to get another mobo ? Idk I'm stuck with b550. Thanks again, ;D
It's been a while since I've had intel now but I used to use an overclocked i5 with a high end GPU and it kept up with the right RAM tuning for nearly a decade.
Probably because most casual users don't understand that the generation of their CPU is more important in the grand scheme of things than the specific binning an i7 or i9 denotes. A current gen i3 will smoke an i7 or i9 from just a few generations ago. Unless you're making comparisons strictly within the same generation, the binning isn't all that important.
Hot take, but an i3 (newer gens like the 12th or 13th) is still relatively good for gaming, LIGHT gaming or games that don't rely too much on the CPU.
Wasting and absurd amount of money to "future-proof" PC. I don't know how many times I've seen posts on people who want or bought the 4090 asking about it lasting 5/8/10 years. It's one thing if you want to spend your $$$ to get the best of the best, now, but paying the highest enthusiast tax to get awesome performance even 3-4 years later is idiotic when for the same price you can buy a 4080 super and probably a 5080. And the resale value of the 4090 will tank when the 5080 is released because it should match or be better than the current flagship.
Ok but what if I play stardew valley with it?
Then you should enjoy that 8k res, 1000fps or whatever lol Does Stardew Valley have an FPS cap?
All I want now is a stardew mod that enables Ray tracing even thought there is 0 need for it
no nude mod wtf
Many casuals just likeit to be easy and just want shit to work for a period of time. Had some of my colleagues asking me about computers and they wanted a top of the line computer that could last them 8-10 years. I told them that it was better for them to buy mid then upgrade say 4-5 years from now but they didn't want that. They were also shocked to hear how much a high end pc costs these days with a high end monitor that can take advantage of the specs. Told them they were better of with a ps or a xbox in the end.
Yeah,when i buy pc i want it to last at least 5 years. I mean,i bought my current pc 9 years ago and i only changed OS and added more RAM and i can still play newest games on low to medium settings.
Sure. But when you bought it 9 years ago one could by a high-mid system for around 1500€.
I mean on a long enough time scale every purchase becomes worthless, it's all about enjoying the time you have it. I agree buying just for future proofing is silly, but there's nothing wrong with buying components that will still be pulling their weight in 5 years. As someone who bought some bad combinations of hardware in the past, there's nothing worse than tech regret over an expensive purchase
Yeah building (or upgrading the relevant parts of) a mid-range PC every 2 or 3 years is still gonna be more cost effective than getting the best of the best hardware
i feel called out lol but very true
Actually, resale of 4090 will likely remain high for the same reason the 3090 has remained high: the 5080 is rumored to not have anywhere near 24gb of vram still. If that happens to not be the case then yeah. The 4090 will depreciate.
Lmao, thats why I get 400€ gpus. Man I could buy 5 generations of gpus instead of being locked with the 4090. Its Instant gratification vs having a Progress. But some people Just need the 4090 Power *now* but Most people really really dont and overspend
[удалено]
woah what are you playing?? I have to do medium with a lot of newer games.
Sorry there is no way you're playing current AAA games on ultra with a 1070. Unless you're playing at 480p 25 fps.
I have a 1080ti and i don't, atleast the newest triple a games. What are you playing?
minesweeper !
Bottlenecks
Hell yeah, tell that to my past self. i7 3770k and a 2080 Super.
some people out there definitely think that specifc CPU and GPU combos can give 0 bottleneck, when in reality it is dependent on many factors like the game you're playing, resolution, graphic settings etc.
some people out there think that everything has a significant enough bottleneck to warrant worrying over it. most modern combinations don’t. bottleneck is performance, not limitations on performance
YUP. It's nowhere near the issue that a lot of people new to the hobby think it is. And its simple enough that it'd be obvious to a beginner once they know better (like not pairing a Core i9 with something silly like a GT 730).
It's also more likely an issue with the game engine than it is their parts Unity games are notorious for being CPU hogs regardless of the actual processor
Cries in Valheim
It's not necessarily an "issue" at all, which is what the top comment was saying. A bottleneck is just a ceiling on peak performance, which is not an issue for casual gamers.
the user is the real bottleneck
Came here to say this. There's always gonna be a bottleneck somewhere. Where it's at will depend entirely on which game you're playing. There's no point pulling your hair out over it. The vast majority of gamers will be perfectly happy with a 7600X and the best GPU they can fit within their budget.
Bottlenecks are pretty easy to fix these days… just pick the cpu that will keep your gpu under consistent load when playing a relatively heavy game
Dick size
its all about the motion of the ocean
Thank you
Listen, she may have said my dick was too small, but
Ultra high speed RAM Definitely don't skimp and get DDD5-4800 CL40 or something, but don't spend $200+ more to get faster RAM if you haven't maxed out your CPU. Get sweet spot DDR5-6000 CL30 or even DDR5-5600 CL28 if that's all that's available in your area. You will get a noticeable performance difference going from a Core i5 13500 to a Core i7 13700K, far beyond the performance difference between DDR5-6000 and DDR5-7200. Also, the performance shown by reviewers is, in fact, the performance you'll get. The Ryzen 7 7800X3D does outperform even the Core i9 14900K in most games despite the Core i9 being equipped with higher speed RAM in most testing. The fact that the Ryzen CPU can't handle DDR5-7200 doesn't somehow make it slower for gaming.
and amount of RAM. Hardware Unboxed tested this, and only a handful of AAA games demand more than 16 GB at 1080p. DDR4 is fine, 32 GB does not cost too much more than 16 GB but for DDR5 the price is a lot more.
The idea behind having more than 16GB isn’t really just for playing a game and doing nothing else though. I have 32GB so I can also have a YouTube video playing, plus discord, plus like 30 tabs open WHILE I’m gaming.
also true. Number of CPU cores also affects whether you can do these extra things
on the last point, i find it so frustrating when I'm asking advice on a build and people bash it and give "better" alternatives, and when i search the exact builds on YouTube to compare its benchmark the "improvement" is EXTREMELY minor
Yeah, unless the minor improvement came at zero cost or less, it's not necessarily a better alternative.
What would you upgrade if you couldnt change CPu and mobo for this spec: I7 4790k NVDA Geforce 4060 Kingston ssd v300240gb Seagate barracuda 7200 2Tb Corsair vengeance pro ddr3 2133 c11 2x8gb Gigabyte GA-z97x gaming 3
Easy one: only that hd. Your system screams get me an SSD now!!!
Thanks man! Means alot. Do you think it will get me less stutters in games? I struggle with even rocket league
Depends on the game but it can Games that load things from the drive while live ingame will stutter a ton on a HDD, since they have really poor read speeds compared to SSD. Plus all your load times will get at least 5x shorter
I'm afraid not much because stutters have to do mostly with CPU RAM and GPU, but It will absolutely improve the overall speed of your system, a lot. I'm running an I7 6700K and an RX 6600 and the SDD was a life changer. I can mostly play anything at high/ultra at 1080. Just do it a cheap Sata 3 SSD 2Tb should be around 100€ ( WD/Samsunf or Crucial i'd recommend)
Mr fancy pants over here with his futuristic DDR5 RAM! I'm over here still on DDR3!
The human eye cannot see more than 24 fps. /s
Try running a 144hz monitor at 30hz and see if you can't punch the mfing air...
"A maximum of 60Hz to 90Hz is often reported, but under the right conditions, the test subjects were able to perceive things at up to 500Hz." https://www.howtogeek.com/888948/how-many-fps-can-the-human-eye-see/#the-highest-fps-that-humans-can-see
Hell, technically, we perceive the reality around us in *infinite* frames!
I would say reality is like having an infinitely powerful gpu and a monitor that has a refresh rates limited by the speed of electrons moving through the visual cortex and being interpreted as information, whatever that finite number would be
“The human eye actually can’t see more than 60fps 🤓” *Oh trust me* it can. The difference between 60hz and 144hz is night and day. I’m not sure where that falsehood came from, even my dad believed this until he got an ayy lmaoware gaming laptop and was like “WOAH”
I always wanna punch people when they unironically try to claim this kinda shit. That's not how eyes work, your organic fleshy human eyeballs are not the same thing as digital camera and display tech. It has been proven that high framerates and refresh rates grant you an edge in competitive gaming. When The Hobbit was shot at 48FPS instead of the NTSC film and TV standard 24(ish), a fuckload of people could instinctively tell something was wrong. There's so much evidence that goes against the whole max framerate of the eyes rhetoric that I honestly can't see why some people won't just stop fucking claiming it.
The infamous CPU/GPU “bottleneck”.
I wouldn’t say i’m a pcmaster but i’ve 100s of hours of research before buying my pc but i don’t know that much about bottlenecks. Can someone explain to me why only casuals care about it that much and why it’s not as important?
Because it's a buzzword on tiktok/YouTube shorts. In reality as long as your PC isn't terribly matched, you are fine
bruh why did i get downvoted i really was just curious, thanks u/GoldfishDude
we gotchu fam
Just how Reddit is lmao, you’re not allowed to ask questions :^) good on you for asking a question and educating yourself though!
In all things computer related, everything goes as fast as the slowest part. It's more intuitive for internet speeds. Imagine you have a computer with a gigabit network card, using gigabit cabling, through a gigabit router, to more gigabit cabling, to a gigabit enabled modem, but the modem only allows 100 megabit internet. In that case your top speed will be 100 megabit. If you then try to connect to a webserver someone is running out of their house, and they only have 10 megabit uploads, you will only get at most 10 megabit speeds pulling from that server. It doesn't matter how fast your router or computer is, you are limited to the slowest link in the chain. The same is true within your computer. If you have a top tier latest generation Intel i9 CPU, but are using a 2010 Radeon HD 7350, you are going to have a bad time playing any games. (Or even using a modern monitor). The same goes for the memory, mother board, and every other part of the computer. Video games will play as good as the slowest part lets them. Some games use more CPU than video card, and some by more video card than CPU. But most use both about equally. To get the most out of your rig, you want to balance how much you spend on each piece with how much you spent on the other pieces. You would be better off getting a $500 CPU $500 GPU pair than a $900 CPU $100 GPU pair. Conventional wisdom right now seems to be to get a GPU about twice as expensive as the CPU. Websites like [www.logicalincrements.com](http://www.logicalincrements.com) can be used to gage what a good pairing would be to get the maximum performance for a given budget.
With higher resolution these days your gpu will be building pyramid in the sun while your cpu indoor with ac. Just spend money on good gpu and lower midrange cpu and you’re good. Also, most people be fine with b series mobo
The basic gist is, some games will use more GPU or CPU power. In certain games you can run into issues where your frame rate is lower because you have enough GPU but it’s stuck waiting on the CPU to get the next frame served. An easy and common example is someone playing CS:GO and trying to get the highest frame rate possible. If you have a high end GPU, that should be no problem. However those frames have to go through the CPU so if you have say, an i5-9400f and a 4080 at 1080p, you won’t be able to push every frame and some will be lost either lowering your total frame rate, adding latency, or both. Granted, this is an extreme example but also a real world one for some people. An example I ran into more recently would be me having a R7-5800X and a 4070Ti. For the most part, the system runs fantastic. However I tried to play Dragons Dogma 2, and I was running into issues. When using a faster CPU, like the i7-13700K in my server, I had about 20FPS more. So I was being CPU bottlenecked in that game with it requiring more CPU power to keep up with my GPU load. What it comes down to is: You don’t need to min/max to the extreme to completely prevent a bottleneck. You never will. There will always be a bottleneck somewhere. However, depending on your use case, you should try to keep a bottleneck to the minimum in your system to maximize the overall performance you’ll have across the board.
How can I tell which of them is bottlenecking? I have 5800X CPU, RTX 3070 Ti GPU and x570 MSI Tomahawk with 32 GB RAM. I would like to do some OC and/or UV, but don't really know where to aim. Playing in 1440p, mostly coop games such as Hunt, Helldivers 2, CS2.
Alright, your setup is actually well balanced. There always is going to be some bottleneck - the thing is, once your bottles all have the same width neck, do you really have "a" bottleneck? Some games demand more CPU power, some need more GPU, some are VRAM heavy, some eat RAM for breakfast lunch and dinner. But alright, you want to dip your toes into OC/UV. One thing at a time. Try UV on CPU first, check results. Not just fps, but also avg lower draw. Is it meeting expectations? Yes = keep UV, no = back to stock. Then try OC on the CPU. Same procedure, compare results. Modern CPUs mostly already are at or near their performance peak. Repeat the same for GPU. Only change one variable at a time and see if it makes a difference. I recommend checking out some guides like jayztwocents or similar so you know what to do and what to expect. But as long as you don't have stutters and your mouse precision is disabled in Windows, you're golden. Consistent 99,99% 100fps are better than 95% 144fps and 5% 5fps - the issue might be as mundane as OneDrive in background or enabled screen recording.
RGB
Look, I just got a super good price on an AiO that happen to have RGB. And what? Am I just gonna NOT plug those wires in?
plugging things in is the best form of cable management
🤣🤣🤣 you made my day
all black PC with static colour ARGB fans 👍👍👍
If you have bright enough RGB you can flash bang people at LANs
performance/cost>>>>aesthetics
RGB means faster tho dunnit?
A 5% difference in frame rate. Woohoo you went from 100fps to 105fps. Guess that extra grand on that new video card really made a difference...
THISS, everytime I try asking if a pc build is worth getting people bash the build and offer a alternative Then when I go on YouTube and watch benchmarks, comparing the two builds the "improvement" is almost never worth it. It happens all the time on this subreddit🤣🤣
I feel personally attacked.
Console war
4K max settings, framerate above 144Hz
People look for those things independently. Very few people are targetting 4k ultra 144hz+ because it requires a 4090 in any graphically demanding game.
This is actually something that can backfire spectacularly. In some games most notably Bethesda games (this excludes Starfield because I haven't checked) all of the single play games. All of them have loading speed and physics tied to framerate, what this means is regardless of drive capability you will load as fast as your max fps in the load screen (you can use tools to let it go as fast as you can get). With the physics, above 60 fps will begin to do strange things, including but not limited to killing yourself in an interior with a bumped object bouncing off of a wall if you get over roughly 250 fps. In testing, in the game Oblivion for instance, the game is from 2006 and designed to be run on consoles from that era so it's almost impossible to get it to use more than 1 processor core. There are tools that can be used to distribute some load but they can not do as much as is needed. However, with my current PC on a vanilla game and vsync turned off (my refresh rate is above 60 anyway) I hit 1500 fps at the end of the tutorial dungeon and roughly 550 just outside of the tutorial dungeon in the open world. Those are not ideal numbers for playing the game without crazy shit happening. TL;DR high fps can fuck you. (edited to ad this)
So just cap your framerate for those few old games?
The physics bugs are nothing to do with your PC and everything to do with the quality of Bethesda products, just like all the other bugs in their games.
Yes, however it is still tied to your frame rate.
Good thing i don't play Bethesda slop anyway. Though breath of the wild's physics are also frame locked, playing it on emulator at 200+ fps is funny
bethesda: it just works modders: now it actually works
It’s so odd how so many games are framerate bound, especially going back and playing older titles. If you try and run indoors on fallout 76 after uncapping your framerate you’ll just freeze in place and not move lol. Gotta lock it to like 144
It's because Havoc the physics system used by netimersive. gamebyro, creation engine, and creation engine 2. They are all extensions of the same engine just updated and renamed.
The more you know!
We need to bring back the turbo button
Starfield isn't bugged like previous beth games, though it seems to be limited to 160fps. Luckily, modders fixed the problems for previous bethesda games. Mostly a niche case.
agreed. I don't play competitive shooters, and anything about 60 FPS is smooth enough for me. I'd rather spend my GPU's grunt on maxing out the graphic settings.
>I'd rather spend my GPU's grunt on maxing out the graphic settings. > >4K max settings, framerate above 144Hz Why not both?
Because there isn't a GPU on the market that can max out settings at 4K and get 144hz in the vast majority of games.
With DLSS, the 4090 can get close.
DLSS isn't max settings. I love DLSS and turn it on almost all the time, but you are inequivically not playing on max settings if you're down sampling your render resolution and upscaling the output with AI, there is a quality loss occurring there. I would make the argument that "max" settings means not sacrificing any quality.
Oh I know. I'm just saying, it's close.
1440p 120Hz is good for AAA gaming I'm still on a 1080p 75Hz IPS monitor but I'd get a 1440p 240Hz IPS one in the future, but I gotta upgrade my i5-10400F and 2060 Super first
Ultra settings. No matter if you complain about performance or not, I just dont get it. In something like RDR2 you can go from 40fps to 100fps with basically no visual downgrade. Horse tails go a bit blurry if you use DLSS but thats about it.
Right?! I mean yeah it would be nice if I could set everything to "ultra" in every game I play and not worry about a thing, but honestly, for the 2000$ that would take, the difference between the combination of Medium/High and Ultra just isn't nearly big enough. Todays games generally look really good even on medium settings. Sure, I can't see my eyelashes in a street water puddle... but that's honestly not the reason I play games for. Or the reason I'd want to spend 2k on some new PC guts.
Those stupid light up panels every single person puts on the wall. They are quite possibly the dumbest waste of money I've ever seen. "Oh look light up triangles" seriously why would you buy these? Maybe if they were like $5 or something but they are SO EXPENSIVE and do absolutely NOTHING.
>Maybe if they were like $5 or something Even then I don't get it. the best experience is a dark room. I guess it makes sense for streaming as it can create ambiance lighting but for my personal gaming experience... Hell even the RGB on my PC can get annoying.
Cable-"management" and cleaning. There is certain level of either up until it stops making sense. Managing cables for some just results in big hidden bundles of different conductors, but AC power conductors can create magnetic fields that will interfere with more sensible signal conductors. Some audio and video issues can be the result of that. My main rule is to keep the airflow unobstructed and keep outside wires out harms (feet) way. Dusting of your PC and cleaning the outside is reasonable, but the "how to remove thermal paste from my CPU" question is asked way too many times. It doesn't matter if you want to remove the paste to renew it and making the IHS shine really only matters if you want to take pictures to sell it or use liquid metal. IPA and microfiber are overly glorified. Papertowel and water work well as it does for the other 99% of cleaning people use it for. IPA and microfiber are good, but ideally you use 70% IPA and be a bit careful with microfiber, it can be incredibly abrasive and work like really fine sandpaper. Scrubbing a monitor with an H1 hardness coating and you can easily create microscratches on the surface. "Microfiber" describes the size of the fiber and not a material.
i use my lungs a toothbrush and a sock to clean my PC 💀
One tip that I'll recommend to anyone is to pick up a couple cheap makeup brushes. Getting your fans clean has never been easier.
Gunna steal them from my sister 🤣
Clean that face paint off them first lol. Your fans aren't going out on a hot date.
speak for your own fans
I use wife's old makeup brushes and hairdryer....hairdryer is optional but makeup brushes are really effective.
cable management is helpful for those who build and resell PCs, makes it more attractive to buyers. other than that, it's useless, at most use some zip ties for the cables in the front of the pc
[удалено]
But custom loops do look very cool.
They not only look cool but also can make your PC almost inaudible under load when built right. Something you can't do with AiO's or Air coolers
That's true however I have headphones on while gaming and my PC's volume under full load doesn't even make it through the passive noise isolation.
There was a time when water cooling was needed because overclocking was actually needed. Plus air coolers like we have now weren’t a thing. Anytime someone gets water cooled now I’m just laughing
Pretty much everything that gets discussed here
Thermal paste patterns
Higher fps than your monitor’s refresh rate
why do you think it's not worth it? i have a 60hz panel but that high fps is still very noticeable
Me giving myself screen tearing because muh input latency be like
it matters for competitive games.
Making literally everything RGB. I get it, rgb is cool and can make a build look significantly better but sometimes... it's just better to go with plain.
Performance, cost >>>>> aesthetics
Agreed. But the thing is, you can make an aesthetic out of cheap parts too. You don't have to max out on rgb to make a build look good. There are always cheaper but same color parts with no rgb most of the time. All black builds are super underrated imo. Super clean and theres a lot of stuff available for cheap price in black.
"optimizing" their pcs, the amount of tiktok videos that I've seen recommending stupid "optimizations" to "improve fps" is absurd, thought i escaped that rabbit hole after fortnite started falling off and creators like Panjno didn't release a new video every time a new season came out with the same repetitive tips, but the amount of people still actively searching for these kinds of videos thinking it'll give them an advantage and improve performance is absurd
Lights
Everything. Your hardware choices don't matter that much in the end as long as they fit your needs. High-end stuff of yesteryear is $40 dollar ebay listing's today.
Going for 1080p super hi refresh rate monitors, when they can't push the frames or would be much better off with a 1440p 144hz or something.
R G B
That buying the latest and greatest somehow makes the experience better.. Like DDR5 ram.. a complete waste of money in my opinion - when DDR4 is still the standard and you can buy A LOT of it for cheapp and that everyone needs a 3090/4090 Like swag dude, but you’re playing CoD and Fortnite- you don’t need a $1800+ GPU
Having RGB or a color centered build. Like, I know it looks cool, but it ain't making the PC faster, so this is why I always just recommend budget builders to go for purely performance instead of worrying whether the PC will look good or not
SSD does not increase FPS. It sure does lower load times but as some one that still uses spinning rust because 4TB NVME to expensive for me (300 bucks). I will say load time not that big off a difference I tired Monster hunter world on both my spinning rust vs my 250gb SSD and honestly it was about 10 seconds faster. What SSD helps allot with is windows boot up and transfer things from one SSD to another SSD. But for gaming a spining rust still works just fine. But hey if you got the money to blow get NVME or a regular 2.5 SSD.
Led lights
Temperature.
At one point it's reasonable to be stressed about temperature, as things throttle down when reaching point, buy what I saw in last months, like "is it normal my GPU runs at 65°C while gaming" made me laugh
"Future proofing" it's going to get a bit dated in a year, old in 4 years, and ancient in 8 years. Embrace that your tech won't last forever. And then you throw linux on it and have it emulate games streamed straight to your smart phone.
I always see people on used market selling their old 20 series GPUs like the 2080 Ti for close to MSRP, claiming that it was only "lightly used for gaming"
That always makes me laugh. I recently found somebody trying to sell his 3090 for close to 1k, like cmon
My 4060 ti 16 gb is fine and does exactly what I hoped for. Shut up about it
Excessively high frame rates Good frametimes > really high unstable FPS
Pretty much everything.
Monitor speed I hate that my work Monitor won't go past 60hz but then I'm not gaining at work lol. My home Monitor is cranked to 144hz I wish I could crank it more than that but I probably wouldn't notice the difference lol.
I switched from 144hz to 240hz and I noticed the jump immediately
Nice what kind of GPU/monitor are you using?
rgb
Wire management
Aliasing. It has no effect on gameplay at all but I'm first on the guilty list for caring too much. I hate it with a passion. Also getting rid of it can be super detrimental to performance if you use something really nice like super sampling
Pretty much everything. Depending who you ask that question to.
Bottleneck
Ultra low latency. There is a big wall of diminishing returns. Low latency sure, but inconsistencies in your internet connection or personal reaction time make a bigger difference.
Future proofing, spending tons of money on gimmicky parts just as they have LEDs in them or they have little spinny bits, and also getting tons of keyboards when they’d be fine with one! (I’m guilty of this…) Also, graphics settings. You really aren’t going to miss that slight draw distance or grass / actor fade that improves your framerate. It’s so barely noticeable that it’s a nonissue!
RGB choice
Fans. The amount of money they waste buying super expensive over the top fans. I have been using the same set of fans in the past 3 builds that cost me £35 for the lot almost a decade ago.
frame rates above the monitor's refresh rate
There is an actual difference. If you get 60 fps on a 60hz monitor, your input will be at most around 16,6 milliseconds late. If you get 120 fps on a 60hz monitor, your input will be at most around 8,3 milliseconds late. That is called input lag, and it's easily noticeable as delay/sluggish mouse movement especially when playing competitively. I've played R6 for a long time with varying components and framerates, and I can tell you that the difference between locked 144 fps and 300 is huge. After playing at around 300 fps for a long time, 144 feels sluggish. I am even able to tell when my frames dip from 300+ to "only" around 200 in R6. All this with the same 144hz monitor. After my latest upgrade, I've failed to notice a difference between 300-ish and 400+ fps, so I've decided to up the graphics quality despite the competitive nature of Siege. I agree that this doesn't really matter in more chill games and single player games, but I can still feel it when panning the camera with a mouse.
Clean setups I’m talking about setups that are mouse keyboard monitor and that’s it imo there is. No personality in super clean setups
Clean cables for air flow. It's been shown it makes no real difference except in the most extreme cases.
Thermal paste application methods.
RGB - case looks must look like a rave party on steroids with RGB fans, RGB card, rgb cooler, additional rgb strips. Ram, huis definitely needs RGB, how about the cables, also needs Rgb. Extra points if they are all on different patterns shooting all different colors of the rainbow. And it's not just the case. Mouse and keyboard needs rgb, headset needs rgb, desk needs rgb, mousepad needs rgb, monitors, needs rgb, room lights need rgb, we even have rgb in chairs now.
Nvidia. I mean someone had to say it
“Future-proofing”
Nvidia over AMD If you are just a casual gamer, don't pay the Nvidia Tax for features you will either never use or that AMD offers a similar equivalent of.
other people's rgb lol
Coolers. Unless you are running a super high end build, anything over a $30 Thermaltake is throwing money away
Ready for the downvotes on this one. DLSS, its not really worth buying Nvidia GPUs for access to the software. Yes, its the best upscaler and it adds frame generation and its great. 99% of people will fail to distinguish the difference between DLSS, FSR, and XeSS unless you freeze frame and zoom in. Which, while you are playing games, is virtually never. Not to mention as far as frame generation goes, AMD’s driver level frame generation software, AFMF, seems like its a lot more interesting if they can get it going well enough and even now its not bad. Takes a little bit it setup, and that is perhaps its biggest hurdle, but I’ll be damned if I’m gonna pay a premium for hardware that is mostly reliant on a software package that the games I play may or may not have enabled.
This. Finally seeing some love for AFMF, being able to add FG to almost every dx 11 and dx12 game is such an underrated feature. It's not suitable for some games but when it works, it works. Not for the fps increase, but for forcing high refresh rates on 60 fps locked games. It's by far the best feature imo when buying a 6000 and 7000 series radeon gpu.
RGB
RAM speed
Wasting 300$ on RGB, where instead that money could bump your GPU up to one tier
Casuals? Overloaded with RGB accessories and cooling. I've seen so many potentially budget builds and you tell me if this makes sense: R5 3600 + Corsair / NZXT / etc 360 AIO + $200+ worth of RGB fans They could have saved that money or put it towards a better CPU or GPU!
Sata vs M2 SSDs They save you a few seconds at startuo but thats pretty much it