PC PC Community Thread

[Remarkableriots]

12 minutes ago, Bacon said:

 

[stepee]

3 hours ago, cusideabelincoln said:

 

Did you try leaving the RAM at stock 4800 MHz, no EXPO settings?

 

yep! Also tried all sorts of combinations with the ram, boots in all ways, unless I plug the gpu in

[stepee]

4 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

Bad news for @Bacon

 

3 hours ago, Bacon said:

 

I mean it’s obviously going to be replaced :P

[Spork3245]

@stepee

I know what actually happened. You decided to get undressed next to your PC, your 4090 thought it was the biggest thing around but then it saw your shlong and committed seppuku in it’s shame.

[Bacon]

2 hours ago, stepee said:

I mean it’s obviously going to be replaced :P

 

[stepee]

6 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

@stepee

I know what actually happened. You decided to get undressed next to your PC, your 4090 thought it was the biggest thing around but then it saw your shlong and committed seppuku in it’s shame.

 

That’s the thing I wasn’t even home….SO WHO WAS IT 

[Spork3245]

28 minutes ago, stepee said:

 

That’s the thing I wasn’t even home….SO WHO WAS IT 

[atom631]

cross-posting in here too, but I discovered Battlebit Remastered. Holy shit what a game!  Its what all OG Battlefield players have been wanted since BF3. its so damn good and only $15 bux. 

 

if anyone is playing, lets squad up! 

[Remarkableriots]

 

[Spork3245]

The 4060 Ti 16gb is out, looks like no review outlet was given a card to review (at least, not early). Also, the MSRP is $500…

[Best]

For those with these amazing rigs, do you also own a Series X? If so, why?

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

1 hour ago, best3444 said:

For those with these amazing rigs, do you also own a Series X? If so, why?

I don’t know if I’d classify my rig as “amazing” just because I don’t have a decent 40 series card, but I’ve owned this PC only since Christmas and had a Series X since it launched. 
 

oh I did just upgrade the storage in my rig though. Update the main drive to a 990 Pro. Sooo much faster than what I had in there and it’s a 2TB instead of the 1 TB I had. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

1 hour ago, best3444 said:

For those with these amazing rigs, do you also own a Series X? If so, why?

I stopped buying consoles and decided to be PC only -- my kids (and their friends) are now PC only as well.

[Remarkableriots]

 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

So am I learning the wrong things from YouTube (probably a yes regardless)? I feel like what I should be learning is that if the only taxing purpose the PC will be used for is 1440p or 4K gaming, if you have a top tier graphics card you don’t also need a top tier CPU. The CPU needs to just be good enough to not be a bottleneck. 
 

Because I’m at a certain point in benchmarks the performance differences nearly disappear for CPUs at 1440 and 4K. Especially with a good enough graphics card. So it appears if you go all in on a graphics card the cpu will start deliver diminishing returns above a certain spec (and price point), right?  
 

or is there something in this equation I’m missing? Like other than to be ultra enthusiast to always have the best of best inside the case is there a reason for only gaming you would need a $2000 graphics card pairs with a $700-$800 CPU? 

[PaladinSolo]

20 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

So am I learning the wrong things from YouTube (probably a yes regardless)? I feel like what I should be learning is that if the only taxing purpose the PC will be used for is 1440p or 4K gaming, if you have a top tier graphics card you don’t also need a top tier CPU. The CPU needs to just be good enough to not be a bottleneck. 
 

Because I’m at a certain point in benchmarks the performance differences nearly disappear for CPUs at 1440 and 4K. Especially with a good enough graphics card. So it appears if you go all in on a graphics card the cpu will start deliver diminishing returns above a certain spec (and price point), right?  
 

or is there something in this equation I’m missing? Like other than to be ultra enthusiast to always have the best of best inside the case is there a reason for only gaming you would need a $2000 graphics card pairs with a $700-$800 CPU? 

I mean if the time between upgrades is 4+ years for you, you're pretty future proofed till you're ready to do it again, or even longer.  I typically go higher end on CPUs, then upgrade GPUs a few times over like 6 years or so, then again i haven't bought the absolute top of the line GPU ever.

[Spork3245]

1 hour ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

So am I learning the wrong things from YouTube (probably a yes regardless)? I feel like what I should be learning is that if the only taxing purpose the PC will be used for is 1440p or 4K gaming, if you have a top tier graphics card you don’t also need a top tier CPU. The CPU needs to just be good enough to not be a bottleneck. 
 

Because I’m at a certain point in benchmarks the performance differences nearly disappear for CPUs at 1440 and 4K. Especially with a good enough graphics card. So it appears if you go all in on a graphics card the cpu will start deliver diminishing returns above a certain spec (and price point), right?  
 

or is there something in this equation I’m missing? Like other than to be ultra enthusiast to always have the best of best inside the case is there a reason for only gaming you would need a $2000 graphics card pairs with a $700-$800 CPU? 

There are CPUs where, for gaming, it doesn’t make sense to get the top one, as the main benefit for said flagship is in rendering/editing/non-gaming related things. For example, a 7700x at 1440p in gaming is going to basically match a 7950x, but in non-gaming tasks, the 7950x will win; with a 7800x3D, it will outperform the more expensive 7950x3D in gaming. In gaming (again, 1440p), a 13700k is barely 3% off from a 13900k, but in synthetics there’s a 15% difference. As you go up to 4k, the difference lessens more as it’s more GPU intensive, however, when you factor in upscale tech like DLSS/FSR, at “quality” mode the difference looks more like 1440p as that’s the resolution being rendered before the upscale.

 

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-7800x3d/20.html

 

[AbsolutSurgen]

1 hour ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

So am I learning the wrong things from YouTube (probably a yes regardless)? I feel like what I should be learning is that if the only taxing purpose the PC will be used for is 1440p or 4K gaming, if you have a top tier graphics card you don’t also need a top tier CPU. The CPU needs to just be good enough to not be a bottleneck. 
 

Because I’m at a certain point in benchmarks the performance differences nearly disappear for CPUs at 1440 and 4K. Especially with a good enough graphics card. So it appears if you go all in on a graphics card the cpu will start deliver diminishing returns above a certain spec (and price point), right?  
 

or is there something in this equation I’m missing? Like other than to be ultra enthusiast to always have the best of best inside the case is there a reason for only gaming you would need a $2000 graphics card pairs with a $700-$800 CPU? 

The sweet spot on GPUs (in terms of longevity vs. cost) for gaming, IMHO, is somewhere in the $400 range.  If you care about playing multiplayer e-sports shooters at 200 fps, getting a more powerful CPU helps with that.

Most of the CPU benchmarks focus on situations that most "real-world" gamers won't care about.  Unless of course, you can tell the difference between 210 fps and 225 fps.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

52 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

I mean if the time between upgrades is 4+ years for you, you're pretty future proofed till you're ready to do it again, or even longer.  I typically go higher end on CPUs, then upgrade GPUs a few times over like 6 years or so, then again i haven't bought the absolute top of the line GPU ever.

Yeah, I guess it’s a bit relative. I mean if a person was upgrading from rig that had a GTX 1060 to go up to one with a RTX 4080, they wouldn’t need an AMD 7950x3D or even a 7800x3D. They could do with a 7600X. 
 

I was getting the impression for strictly gaming purposes when a person might want to spend a couple hundred more on a higher end CPU would be if they’re not going to spend several hundred to a grand more on a GPU. Like if they were targeting a 4060 ti 12GB. They’d need the extra horsepower of the CPU for 1080p gaming. 
 

At least that’s what it seems like. 

[Spork3245]

7 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

I was getting the impression for strictly gaming purposes when a person might want to spend a couple hundred more on a higher end CPU would be if they’re not going to spend several hundred to a grand more on a GPU. Like if they were targeting a 4060 ti 12GB. They’d need the extra horsepower of the CPU for 1080p gaming. 

 

Yes and no - with a lower end GPU, you'd be GPU bottlenecked before being CPU bottlenecked, so in that case you wouldn't want to bother going for a top end CPU since you won't be pushing those kinda frames anyway.

[PaladinSolo]

24 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Yeah, I guess it’s a bit relative. I mean if a person was upgrading from rig that had a GTX 1060 to go up to one with a RTX 4080, they wouldn’t need an AMD 7950x3D or even a 7800x3D. They could do with a 7600X. 
 

I was getting the impression for strictly gaming purposes when a person might want to spend a couple hundred more on a higher end CPU would be if they’re not going to spend several hundred to a grand more on a GPU. Like if they were targeting a 4060 ti 12GB. They’d need the extra horsepower of the CPU for 1080p gaming. 
 

At least that’s what it seems like. 

Like sure you want a faster CPU to push more frames if you're playing a competitive game with settings lowered or something where you're trying to push into the hundreds for FPS, but if you're maxing your settings in a game like Cyberpunk, regardless of resolution the GPU is more important.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

41 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

Yes and no - with a lower end GPU, you'd be GPU bottlenecked before being CPU bottlenecked, so in that case you wouldn't want to bother going for a top end CPU since you won't be pushing those kinda frames anyway.

Ok. Yeah I was thinking along the lines that it might make more sense to pair a $300 CPU with a $400 GPU than it does to pair a $700 CPU with a $1200-$1600 GPU. Because while you could get away with a $200 CPU when you also get a $400 GPU, you’re diminishing returns is far greater on your CPU if you went all in on it and also got a top end GPU. 
 

I dunno, I guess I just wasn’t expecting that. The idea you could buy a 4090 and you could use a $200 CPU and in a game like Cyberpunk you wouldn’t even notice a problem with performance at 1440 or 2180. Spending the extra money, on the CPU in that situation nets you very little right now. again, at least that’s how it seems, and I just found that a bit surprising. 
 

 

[Spork3245]

9 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Ok. Yeah I was thinking along the lines that it might make more sense to pair a $300 CPU with a $400 GPU than it does to pair a $700 CPU with a $1200-$1600 GPU. Because while you could get away with a $200 CPU when you also get a $400 GPU, you’re diminishing returns is far greater on your CPU if you went all in on it and also got a top end GPU. 
 

I dunno, I guess I just wasn’t expecting that. The idea you could buy a 4090 and you could use a $200 CPU and in a game like Cyberpunk you wouldn’t even notice a problem with performance at 1440 or 2180. Spending the extra money, on the CPU in that situation nets you very little right now. again, at least that’s how it seems, and I just found that a bit surprising. 
 

 

 

Check the CPU scaling link I posted, they have 1080p on the prior page and 4k on the next page. That's all with a 4090 which shows the maximum possible difference currently possible in gaming.  

A 7700x or a 13600k-13700k are more than fine for 99% of people who are only gaming. (I wouldn't do a 7600x due to the less-than 8 cores, but that's me  )

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

1 minute ago, Spork3245 said:

 

Check the CPU scaling link I posted, they have 1080p on the prior page and 4k on the next page. That's all with a 4090 which shows the maximum possible difference currently possible in gaming.  

A 7700x or a 13600k-13700k are more than fine for 99% of people who are only gaming. (I wouldn't do a 7600x due to the less-than 8 cores, but that's me  )

Thanks. Do you suppose this is because there’s not as much you need the CPU for because of everything the GPU needs to do once you go into 1440 and 4K? Or is this developers just not utilizing the CPU enough? 
 

is that because there’s more architectural differences in CPUs than GPUs? Meaning so many more types of caching, core counts, core types, thread counts, frequencies, etc, and by comparison there’s only a handful of ways GPUs vary from each other. 
 

Or is this a result of console centric engines and game development targeting APUs instead of separate GPU and CPU chips? 

[Spork3245]

1 minute ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Thanks. Do you suppose this is because there’s not as much you need the CPU for because of everything the GPU needs to do once you go into 1440 and 4K? Or is this developers just not utilizing the CPU enough? 
 

is that because there’s more architectural differences in CPUs than GPUs? Meaning so many more types of caching, core counts, core types, thread counts, frequencies, etc, and by comparison there’s only a handful of ways GPUs vary from each other. 
 

Or is this a result of console centric engines and game development targeting APUs instead of separate GPU and CPU chips? 

 

It kinda comes down to hitting the limits of what the GPU is capable of and/or to where the boost in fps from the "next" CPU is not worth the additional cost. In terms of what's doing what, well, they're running/rendering different aspects of a game and working together, so one will eventually limit the other, always. nVidia has been slowly trying to make games more and more GPU dependent and removing the CPU from the equation, things like GPU calculated physics, direct storage and GPU decompression via RTX I/O are helping with this.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

1 hour ago, Spork3245 said:

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-7800x3d/20.html

so really that’s kind of what I’m talking about. The difference between a 7700X and a 7600X at 1440 and 2160 is negligible to none existent in most of those games. But the 7700X is ~75% more expensive. 

you could spend the additional $150 on the 7700X to future proof yourself a bit more, but the immediate gains are nothing at those resolutions and settings. Even with Ray tracing. 

[Spork3245]

6 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

so really that’s kind of what I’m talking about. The difference between a 7700X and a 7600X at 1440 and 2160 is negligible to none existent in most of those games. But the 7700X is ~75% more expensive. 

you could spend the additional $150 on the 7700X to future proof yourself a bit more, but the immediate gains are nothing at those resolutions and settings. Even with Ray tracing. 

 

The 7600x is a 6-core CPU, that's one of the reasons why there's such a large price discrepancy.

[AbsolutSurgen]

38 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

so really that’s kind of what I’m talking about. The difference between a 7700X and a 7600X at 1440 and 2160 is negligible to none existent in most of those games. But the 7700X is ~75% more expensive. 

you could spend the additional $150 on the 7700X to future proof yourself a bit more, but the immediate gains are nothing at those resolutions and settings. Even with Ray tracing. 

1)  Keep in mind that most games are designed 1st for console, so their CPU demands will be scaled around the CPUs in SeX/PS5  for the foreseeable future

2)  % improvement is close to irrelevant in the real world in many cases.  Once you hit a certain frame rate, the frame rate improvement is largely irrelevant

3)  If you are looking to future proof, look at the recently released games only with your target framerate and resolution.  Decide what kind of buffer you are looking for.  Many of the "benefits" that are in the averages are in older titles that are realized in framerates that most monitors aren't capable of displaying (and if they could, you probably wouldn't be able to notice anyways)

4)  I wouldn't buy a CPU with less than 8 cores.  Game engines are likely to better support more cores going forward.

If you watch the youtuber benchmarking videos they are really disconnected from real-world benefits to users.  However, the Youtuber "build" videos always recommend very modest CPUs.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

1 hour ago, Spork3245 said:

 

The 7600x is a 6-core CPU, that's one of the reasons why there's such a large price discrepancy.

yeah I figured that was a case. Seeing that made me think the 7600X is “fine” for now, but it’s unknown for how long that will be true. While the 7700X will likely be “fine” even longer because of the 8 cores. 
 

I could almost see where it might be fine to just save the $150 now and by the time you need to upgrade the cpu the 7800X3D or 7950X3D should be significantly cheaper. Assuming they’re still relevant CPUs. And you won’t necessarily need to upgrade the Motherboard. 

[Spork3245]

5 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

yeah I figured that was a case. Seeing that made me think the 7600X is “fine” for now, but it’s unknown for how long that will be true. While the 7700X will likely be “fine” even longer because of the 8 cores. 
 

I could almost see where it might be fine to just save the $150 now and by the time you need to upgrade the cpu the 7800X3D or 7950X3D should be significantly cheaper. Assuming they’re still relevant CPUs. And you won’t necessarily need to upgrade the Motherboard. 

 

You could split the difference and get a 13600kf  

I don't think going from a 7600x to a 7800x3D would be the best idea, by that point the Ryzen 9000 chips should be out.

[Spork3245]

lolololol there's been some reports that the 16gb 4060 Ti is .5-1% slower than the 8gb model 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

1 hour ago, Spork3245 said:

 

You could split the difference and get a 13600kf  

I don't think going from a 7600x to a 7800x3D would be the best idea, by that point the Ryzen 9000 chips should be out.

Maybe. 
 

I only really started paying attention and looking into it as my friend kept musing about building a new PC after I got mine. He hadn’t built one in a looooooong long time, so I thought maybe I could get a jump on some suggest components and price points. 

[stepee]

I think right now cpus are a lot about timing as they still try to figure out how to force gains with heavy single threaded development still and clocks that you can only get a drop of blood extra out of.

 

I found it being pretty rough on an older cpu even though it seemed like it should be fine on paper. It was game after game of cpu bottleneck on a 4090 when I had a i9 11850k. 
 

If you are going for full on high end it’s ray tracing performance you want to look at in regards to the cpu. How is it going to handle RE4, Hogwarts, Forspoken, Cyberpunk PT, Spiderman, Jedi Survivor, Calisto Protocol? That is what you want to look at, because there will be more cpu demand along those lines and everything under them of course will run like a dream.

 

That said even a mid range 13th gen will perform so much better with these games than my old i9 so you probably are fine with that and don’t need to go all the way to 7800x3D.

 

The most important thing though for the cpu is to make sure you get a 4000 series gpu for dlss3. Being able to double the cpu performance automatically of heavily single threaded situations you normally just can’t brute force out of is absolutely key.

[Spork3245]

 

JFC

[stepee]

21 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

JFC

 

tbf probably works about as good as mine does right now!