By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - Building a new PC in a month. Looking for advice. Buying parts Oct 11th.

MSI armor coolers are not good, get a gpu with a better cooler.



Wii/Mario Kart Wii Code:2793-0686-5434
Around the Network
Kristof81 said:

Get WD Red instead. The number of issues I've had with Seagate drives is just astounding. It's $20 more, but it's worth it. 

In terms of GPU, I'd wait and see as RTX 20x series will have an impact on GPU prices. I wouldn't be surprised if soon you could get GTX 1080 in $300-$400 price range. Also the rumor has it that AMD might refresh its Polaris series in Q4 2018.

 

I would personally go with a black for games though.
Red is fine for storage.

WolfpackN64 said:
Random_Matt said:

580 and 1060 are around the same, don't buy a 570.

The RX 570 isn't that far off. And since he'll mostly be doing 1080p gaming, a 4GB framebuffer isn't going to overflow that fast. Depending on how pricing is in your area, if the RX 580 is closly priced, he better spring for that indeed.

Probably better off with the Geforce 1060 3GB over the RX 570 IMHO.


Cerebralbore101 said:

Does anybody know if overclocking the 2700X will have a decent effect? Or is the Turbo mode in the Chip already enough? 

I wouldn't waste my time overclocking the 2700X personally, the voltages needed to hit just 4.3Ghz can be pretty uncomfortable for most people.
The default clocks are perfectly okay.

Cerebralbore101 said:

Yeah, I'm sure in two or three years 8 GB of RAM will be a joke. I was already planning on getting 1 stick of 8GB, and then adding another 8GB stick later on. I had no clue that there were faster ram sticks out there. Changed the RAM stick to the only DDR4 at 3000 MHz speed. 

Many boards support 3466MHz and 3600MHz DDR4. Worth it in my opinion.

Officially the chips support DDR4-2933, but 3200Mhz was the sweet spot with the first gen Ryzens, the newer chips (I.E. 2700X) tends to clock up better.
Don't underestimate good memory speeds and low latencies.

16GB should be the minimum as we enter 2019 in my opinion.

Cerebralbore101 said:

4K Monitors are too expensive, and it's really hard for me to tell the difference between 1080 and 4K unless I'm using a huge TV. But once the prices of monitors drop in a few years, I'll throw a better graphics card in here, and call it a day. 

I would personally (And have) gone for 1440P anyway, which is a better fit for a Radeon RX 580 anyway.
I think what is ultimately more important is to try and get a display that isn't 60hz and/or TN/Twisted Nematic.




--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
WolfpackN64 said:

The RX 570 isn't that far off. And since he'll mostly be doing 1080p gaming, a 4GB framebuffer isn't going to overflow that fast. Depending on how pricing is in your area, if the RX 580 is closly priced, he better spring for that indeed.

Probably better off with the Geforce 1060 3GB over the RX 570 IMHO

The GTX 1060 hardly outperforms the RX 570 and the extra gig of framebuffer over the GTX 1060 3GB can make a difference.



Did some research on PSU units, and decided to go for a well known brand with more wattage. Apparently PSU units perform best when they only have to output 60% to 80% of their total wattage. Changed the 580 GPU to one that was recommended by logicalincrements.com. 

Edit: I went back to the 3200 RAM, and am using a different board. Boards that support 3600 RAM speeds are expensive. Now using a 1TB SSD. 

Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 28 August 2018

WolfpackN64 said:
Pemalite said:

Probably better off with the Geforce 1060 3GB over the RX 570 IMHO

The GTX 1060 hardly outperforms the RX 570 and the extra gig of framebuffer over the GTX 1060 3GB can make a difference.

Like you alluded prior, the frame-buffer size is less important at 1080P. - At 1440P is when I would opt for the RX 570.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1411-radeon-rx-570-vs-geforce-gtx-1060-3gb/

The Geforce 1060 3GB should also use less power. SO there is that caveat as well. - AMD's entire GPU lineup is pretty terrible across the entire spectrum when you start accounting for that.

nVidia is simply superior outside of Asynchronous Compute, that's a fact.

Cerebralbore101 said:

Did some research on PSU units, and decided to go for a well known brand with more wattage. Apparently PSU units perform best when they only have to output 60% to 80% of their total wattage. Changed the 580 GPU to one that was recommended by logicalincrements.com. 

Edit: I went back to the 3200 RAM, and am using a different board. Boards that support 3600 RAM speeds are expensive. Now using a 1TB SSD. 

Correct.
Power Supply Units have an "efficiency curve". - That will of course change depending on the load (I.E. Gaming vs Desktop), temperature (I.E. Fans spin up using more energy, PSU efficiency goes down the hotter it gets.)

For a single Radeon RX 580 and a Ryzen 2700X however, you shouldn't need anymore than a quality 600w-700w unit. And please get a quality unit, it should outlive your PC that way.

I would invest in a quality motherboard anyway. - The DDR4 speed will impact CPU performance, which will impact turn times... So don't underestimate it, I would go with a smaller SSD (500GB~) if it meant faster Ram, but that's just me personally.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
Pemalite said:
WolfpackN64 said:

The GTX 1060 hardly outperforms the RX 570 and the extra gig of framebuffer over the GTX 1060 3GB can make a difference.

Like you alluded prior, the frame-buffer size is less important at 1080P. - At 1440P is when I would opt for the RX 570.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1411-radeon-rx-570-vs-geforce-gtx-1060-3gb/

The Geforce 1060 3GB should also use less power. SO there is that caveat as well. - AMD's entire GPU lineup is pretty terrible across the entire spectrum when you start accounting for that.

nVidia is simply superior outside of Asynchronous Compute, that's a fact.

Outside of most compute tasks in general. There's one thing Vega is good for :) (Vega is also quite good for gaming, but they certainly lost some efficiency compared to Polaris). Interesting will be to see when Navi comes out, seeing how Nvidia threw efficiency out of the window with Turing, AMD might have a shot at perf/W.



Random_Matt said:
All good for 1080P, although I would never choose Nvidia out of principle, anti consumer company and as shady as fuck.

I'm completely the opposite..... I'd rather have Intel and Nvidia any day over AMD.

 

The reason.

Simple. 3 different AMD computers recommended by 3 different PC companies. ALL 3 dead in a year and a half or less.

 

You could NEVER convince me to get AMD EVER again.



Attiq said:
Random_Matt said:
All good for 1080P, although I would never choose Nvidia out of principle, anti consumer company and as shady as fuck.

I'm completely the opposite..... I'd rather have Intel and Nvidia any day over AMD.

The reason.

Simple. 3 different AMD computers recommended by 3 different PC companies. ALL 3 dead in a year and a half or less.

You could NEVER convince me to get AMD EVER again.

Then you have a serious case of bad luck. Don't think it's a quality issue though. And yeah, NVIDIA is atm on all levels a more terrible company then AMD.



OP get a seasonic or corsair PSU



Attiq said:

The reason.

Simple. 3 different AMD computers recommended by 3 different PC companies. ALL 3 dead in a year and a half or less.

That's just bad luck.
I have an AMD rig that is 20~ years old in the shed that still boots fine. (Mostly use it for DOS/Win 98 stuff.)

WolfpackN64 said:

Outside of most compute tasks in general. There's one thing Vega is good for :) (Vega is also quite good for gaming, but they certainly lost some efficiency compared to Polaris). Interesting will be to see when Navi comes out, seeing how Nvidia threw efficiency out of the window with Turing, AMD might have a shot at perf/W.

Vega is a compute monster.

As for Vega being less efficient than Polaris... That's actually not true, if you reduce Vega's clockrates and voltages, she will beat Polaris in terms of performance per watt every day of the week... AMD just figured it wasn't ever going to be able to beat nVidia on performance anyway, so decided to throw efficiency out the Window and get as near as possible.

AMD actually did a similar thing with Polaris refresh. Aka. Radeon RX 580, where it had dialed up clocks and voltages and was actually less efficient than the RX 480.

The other issue with Vega is that the Primitive Shaders got relegated to needing API support to function... And I am pretty sure that their Draw Stream Rasterizer is not functional yet either... And probably will never be until Navi or Next Gen. - Those are efficiency gains that Vega simply misses out on that would have given it a possible edge.

It is what it is though.

WolfpackN64 said:

Then you have a serious case of bad luck. Don't think it's a quality issue though. And yeah, NVIDIA is atm on all levels a more terrible company then AMD.

This.
Often is just bad engineering by 3rd party's at the GPU/Motherboard level rather than AMD's CPU, GPU or Chipsets themselves.

AMD's older boards tended to be significantly cheaper than Intels, so you really do get what you pay for I guess.

With that in mind... I have primarily used AMD's GPU's in my rigs since the Radeon 9000 days, with a few stints of nVidia with dual Geforce 7 GX2 GPU's and 8800GT's, Geforce 1030 etc'.
And really from a reliability standpoint on the GPU side of the equation... Both nVidia and AMD have been perfectly fine.
To me though... At the end of the day a dollar is better in my pocket, so will tend to weight up price/performance rather heavily, which often falls in AMD's favor.

On the CPU side, I tend to want more performance as I will upgrade those components far less often, so usually opted for Intels workstation level CPU's. - But now that AMD has thread-ripper, I am back to weighing up price/performance again.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--