Cooler master has several coolers compatible with AM4 out of the box. Maybe the 212 LED Turbo is the one you're looking for.
http://www.coolermaster.com/amd-am4-ryzen-compatability/en/
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
The PC Builders Thread ("I Need a New PC") v2
- Thread starter Soda
- Start date
- Status
http://www.coolermaster.com/amd-am4-ryzen-compatability/en/
Thanks, I was thinking about this one. But on Amazon it says I need to contact Coolermaster for the adapter. I was actually looking at a DEEPCOOL 400 GAMMAXX, they seem to have pretty good reviews.
and now for the final question: Power Supplies.
I was gonna get a Corsair CX600 as I already own one (in the current PC). But everywhere online keeps telling me they're garbage, I am currently looking for something around the same price: Corsair CX600
I don't think I actually need 600W but I don't want have a PSU which only just gets me the Watts I need.
that's about for how much 1060s sold before the mining craze.
So yeah, sounds good to me.
No, but you need a strong CPU to reach those 90+ fps on a regular basis.
Drops in VR are terrible and can cause headaches and nausea.
You want a strong CPU and GPU for VR. Not all games are graphically taxing, but those that are...
It's an ok PSU but RMx and TXm series aren't much more expensive and are rated 80+ GOLD. It's good to have some headroom for future upgrades so I'd get a 600-650W one.
Here's a good list to check which are good: https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/631048-psu-tier-list-updated/
Get Afterburner or another GPU tool and run a benchmark like Heaven and see what the card is doing in terms of power and temps. Might provide clues. You can also try underclocking/undervolting. What's your power supply? And have you been on the same Windows installation since you got it?
OP
OP
After about a month and a half of trying to build and three months of assembling parts, my Threadripper build is finally seemingly up and running! It went from being a used 1920X build to a new 2950X build in that time span, and I'm pretty psyched to play with it. Bad news is, I have a weekend trip so I'll be gone three days and won't have more than about 2 hours to really play with it before then.
Not the most well-planned build. Along the way, I had one dead power supply, one dead mobo, what I feared was a dead TR 1920X, and also what I feared was a dead pair of DIMMs. Long story short, a bad PSU killed my mobo and nothing else died, MB was RMA'd, PSU was returned, and all extra parts used for testing in-between weree/are being resold.
Not the most well-planned build. Along the way, I had one dead power supply, one dead mobo, what I feared was a dead TR 1920X, and also what I feared was a dead pair of DIMMs. Long story short, a bad PSU killed my mobo and nothing else died, MB was RMA'd, PSU was returned, and all extra parts used for testing in-between weree/are being resold.
Thanks for the list it's been incredibly helpful. Hopefully I can make a decision tonight on which PSU to buy.
After looking at the list I think I am going to chose one of the following (All Tier 3 on this list):
£40.97 - CoolerMaster MasterWatt
£58.95 - Fractal Design Integra
£62.51 - CoolerMaster MasterWatt
£67.99 - Corsair TXM
£67.99 - Cougar GXS Plus
Question. I am looking into buying a new monitor and I would really love a widescreen monitor as my next monitor.
So, I have been eyeing the Acer Predator X34P, do you guys think this is a nice monitor or should I wait for new ones? Or do you guys have other suggestions for monitors with similar specs as this one?
So, I have been eyeing the Acer Predator X34P, do you guys think this is a nice monitor or should I wait for new ones? Or do you guys have other suggestions for monitors with similar specs as this one?
Last edited:
You've come a long, "fun" way with this build. Happy using
If direct sunlight is shining on it for longer periods of time, then yes. Glass lets large parts of the electromagnetic waves pass, but most glass panels have a tempered coating on them which will change the reflection coefficient for the infrared, part of our sunlight. So the effect shouldn't be to dramatic. Still, the coating and the glass will absorb some parts of the impinging electromagnetic waves coming from the sun (that's why it looks dark in the first place) and transform them into heat.
If it is standing in a normal room and direct sunlight isn't trying to melt your case down. No, it's as bad/good as a solid aluminium, steel or plastic sidepanel.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Compared to a mesh panel, yes, a solid glass panel would cause more heat to stay in the case. Is it a critical amount? Depends on the case, components, and fan setup. It's absolutely viable to have a glass panel in the proper setup, however.
Thanks! I'm still setting stuff up. I didn't even mention that I bought an M.2 drive and it arrived literally bent. I had more dead on arrival parts with this build than all my other builds combined, ever.
That's more dead on arrival parts then I had in 20 years of building gaming PCs, total!
There is the Asus PG348Q, it's pretty much uses the same panel as the Predator and should be overclockable to 120Hz, if I'm not mistaken. It's also $100 cheaper.
There is also an Asus 3440x1440, GSYNC HDR Display in development (1000 nits peak, 10bit dithering). But it has been delayed for now.
Samsung has some very good offerings too, but with FreeSync 2.
Last edited:
Usually that amount of fail is relegated to a build that you're doing for a friend or relative.. something where you invest time for nothing but a pat on the back.
No, no. The real payment is them blaming you because the PC is slow. After they installed a bunch of bloat-, spy- and maleware.
By the way, building a PC for free means that you are obligated to service it for the next 3-5 years.
Yeah it's funny.. I had one build for a close friend that I serviced forever.. but he retired and I think he'd invent a problem so I'd come by. After that I stopped building for friends, so now it's just my kids' builds that go nuts after I walk away.
Above friend passed away though, so now I wish he was still around and had a broken PC. :-(
Most motherboard companies are offering updated bios downloads for the 9000 series cpus. However, you will probably need an 8000 series cpu to make the motherboard functional so you can download the 9000 series bios update. I'd just wait for the Z390 motherboards as those will work with the 9000 series cpus on day one.
Speaking of which, the rumored released date for 9000 cpus is now october 19:
https://twitter.com/VideoCardz/status/1042154130217807873
Speaking of which, the rumored released date for 9000 cpus is now october 19:
https://twitter.com/VideoCardz/status/1042154130217807873
Waiting for a Z390 board will get you the latest USB standard. There are some other minor things too, but that's the biggest one.
Got the same for a 2080TI.
Really disappointing. Been waiting to upgrade my 780 but what's an extra few days now.
I'm in the last bit of planning/buying a new build (just waiting on nVidia & Intel reviews). Are there any compelling reasons to go bigger than i5 (maybe Ryzen 2600x) if the most strenuous load on the computer will most likely be gaming + watching YouTube?
I need a new CPU for gaming after having an i5 for 8 years. whats the best cpu for gaming right now? people keep saying they are switching to amd cpus? why? also is there any downside to using a micro atx case and motheroard?
I hate delays, want the parts to be out there so can get my build done.
Thinking of going from a 480 4 GB to a 580 8 GB. Wanting to do 1080p/60. Don't really have any issues with the 480 tho I do sometimes run into some issues with AAA games at higher settings. The three games it comes with are tempting too.
Edit: In the future (perhaps within a year) I'll be hooking my PC up to a 4K tv so I'd be running at 4K then.
Edit: In the future (perhaps within a year) I'll be hooking my PC up to a 4K tv so I'd be running at 4K then.
What's the consensus on which of the two 1440@144 monitors is better? PG279Q or XB271HU? I've read several threads from a year or two ago but I was curious if opinion has shifted towards one or the other since then? RTings seems to favor the ASUS, but there's some reddit threads leaning towards the Acer.
From what I've seen the PG279Q is the best monitor out there if you want pure quality, a cost which you will pay for. There being a fan inside seems an issue for some but it's supposedly hardly audible at worse. At the same time it's said that next year you will see similar monitors out there that will be bigger and perhaps more the same size cheaper. But if money is no issue and you want the best for now there it is.
Oh yeah, I'm not looking at the 4K one anymore. I'm looking at the 1440 twins that have been out for a few years now.
FYI, I spoke to customer supporter and was told it was just a precaution for those that may be impacted by the hurricane.
I don't want to get my hopes up though. Thanks for checking up on that!
Because current AMD CPUs are good and more then powerful enough for 60 fps gaming. They also offer high core/thread counts at a fair price.
Intel CPUs offer a slightly better IPC and higher clockspeeds though and are they best choice if you aim to play at very high FPS. The new 9000 series CPUs should arrive in a month (according to leaks) and will offer up to 8c/16t at ~5GHz, for a premium price (560€+). The current "best" gaming CPU is the 8700k.
Airflow (-->heat) and connectivity are the biggest downsides for micro atx cases and motherboards. Performance is the same, if you get it cooled.
Thanks for the suggestions! Do you think HDR will be worth it though on PC? From what I have read the support for HDR on PC hasn't been great and there is not really a benefit because of how close most people sit in front of their monitor, not sure though.
EDIT: Also, do you think I will notice going from 144hz to 120 or even 100hz. I am coming from an old 1920x1080 144hz screen.
Last edited:
I think I'm going to take this build for 1300€ (a bit expensive mind you but I want to be hassle free so it comes built and components are expensive in Europe), 1080p60 gaming and everything else :
CPU : Intel Core i5 8500
Cooling : Cooler Master MasterAir MA410P RGB
GPU : Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1070Ti Gaming 8GB
RAM : 16Gb of Ram (BALLISTIX DDR4) (2x8)
Motherboard : ASUS TUF B360M-Plus Gaming (Intel B360 chpiset) 4 RAM slots
Case : Cooler Master MasterBox Q300L (1 fan included)
PSU : Cooler Master MasterWatt 550W 80+
What do you guys think ?
CPU : Intel Core i5 8500
Cooling : Cooler Master MasterAir MA410P RGB
GPU : Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1070Ti Gaming 8GB
RAM : 16Gb of Ram (BALLISTIX DDR4) (2x8)
Motherboard : ASUS TUF B360M-Plus Gaming (Intel B360 chpiset) 4 RAM slots
Case : Cooler Master MasterBox Q300L (1 fan included)
PSU : Cooler Master MasterWatt 550W 80+
What do you guys think ?
Thank you. I'm mainly getting a 2080ti for VR sim racing and then getting a higher end unit (pimax/odessey+) to replace my rift.
Currently I'd think my 2600k botteneck in keeping 90fps but there's not really good way to benchmark VR is games is what I've noticed. Just have to go with "feel." Hopefully someone will do extensive testing with 9900k in VR. Also, since my CPU is so old no one really adds it into their testing mix anymore, which I understand.
very simplified explanations:
The first important difference between SDR and HDR displays is the contrast ratio. Contrast is measured between the "brightest whites" and the "darkest blacks" a TV can display. Good SDR displays have around 350 nits, while good HDR displays can go up to 1000 nits (peak, short bursts). This increase in contrast makes whites more bright and shiny and blacks even darker in comparison. This allows for more detailed images, especially in dark or very bright scenes.
Then there is the colour depth. A TV is receiving three different sets of colour shades/intensities (red, green and blue) per pixel to display an image. The bit depth of this three transmissions determine how many combinations there are. This limits the number of colours that can be transmitted/displayed. First PC screens operated at 6bit, modern screens operate at 8bit. But even 8bit isn't enough to guarantee smooth transitions between colours and the end result is banding: a jump from one colour to another. To avoid this displays often use a dithering technique that interpolates between one colour and another.
Good SDR displays operate at ~350nits and 8bit colour depth, resulting in a very good image. But it's impossible to show the finest details and graphic designers are fitting their artwork into those specs to make them looks as good as possible.
Low to mid range, HDR Displays operate in between 400-600 nits and 8bit+ (aka dithering) and 10bit.
Good HDR Displays have 600nits on average and a peak brightness of 1000nits and operate with 10bit, 10bit+ or even 12bit. Those Displays will give you a much better, more vibrant and detailed image quality. When fed with the correct input!
There is, of course, a lot more to this. But a good HDR display will have a noticeable, better image then a SDR display. Independent of sitting distance. It should actually be even better the closer you are.
For the rest of your question: Yes, PC HDR is strange. You can sometimes activate it in games, you sometimes need to use the windows 10 HDR features. And in general HDR isn't HDR and the improvements can go from "unimpressive" to "this is good", but that's also the case for console HDR. Some displays only go up to 600 nits and 8bit+ so the picture on them will look different then on an 10bit+, 1000 nits display. You never know what the graphical designer had in mind for the scene or what they used themselves while designing it. It's a mess on all systems imo.
Is HDR worth it? It's very good, when fully implemented and on high end displays. But those high end PC displays are very expansive, early adopter tech. They have flaws, they don't work all of the time and there is a lot of fiddling involved. Early adopter tech is never worth it from a price/performance perspective, but they are great.
Thanks for your reply! Im currently unsure between the 8700k and AMD Ryzen 7 2700X 8x 3.70 - I def want to overclock to 4.2ghz. My budget is around 300-350 euros. I have an ultrawide 3440x1440 monitor but all those people switching to AMD makes me also want to switch, especially since I dont like Intel having a monopole.
Yeah, we recently got a HDR TV and the difference is pretty incredible. It's just like you said, on PC it is still a very early tech that requires a lot of work to get it to work correctly, it also needs more support. And yes, like you mentioned as well, they will not be cheap, that's also one of the reasons I am more interested in current monitors, I am not much of an early adopter when it comes to tech. I really see the potential in HDR but I don't know if it is wise for me to invest in it at this point, I think I will perfectly enjoy a SDR display for my PC. Anyways, thanks for the great explanation and advice! I will look into the Asus PG348Q that you mentioned and see if I want to buy into the UW goodness. :)
My 7700k is bottlenecking my 1080ti in some games at unlocked fps. The 2600k will for sure bottleneck a 2080ti. That's not even a question.
I'm also waiting for the 9000 series. Haven't decided between the 9700k and 9900k yet. Non hyperthreaded variants were able to reach high over clocks so far. Hyperthreading consumes more power after all and generates more heat. Both the 9700k and 9900k should be soldered and if the 9700k will be able to oc past 5ghz it may be the better choice for my needs. At least for 2 years or so.
What other people are buying is completely irrelevant. PC is all about getting what's best for you and your budget.
If your GPU is up for the task of 3440x1440 gaming and if it is "just" a 60Hz display then a Ryzen 7 is a wise and much cheaper choice.
If your GPU has enough headroom left to reach higher fps and your display is able to work at higher refresh rates (or even adaptive rates), the 8700k is the better, but more expensive choice.
If you need a hybrid productivity, streaming and gaming pc then the Ryzen is the better choice.
If budget is the most important factor then the r7 is also your best option.
Please make a decision based on information and not on "many people buy this because they think it's cool.".
You are right, that was the wrong way to approach it. I have a Vega 64 and a freesync 75hz display. Gaming and office work is my main purpose. So I guess Im gonna go with the i7 since I can apparently overclock it up to 5ghz and I really want those frames, Its only 10 euro more expensive (when its available) here in europe. I read a lot of test reports, some say the ryzen is better than the 8700k for gaming others say the 8700k is better and gets more frames out of gaming. but most of those tests play the games in 720p resolution so Im just unsure what to trust you know what I mean?
So the verdict is in, and it looks like the RTX 2080 Ti is a monster but with a hefty price tag. The question though is whether that level of performance is worth it over the 1080 Ti for 4K 30/60 FPS.
Yeah seems like 2080ti is the only option for no compromise 4k 60, usually.
Think I'll get a 1080ti for now, until the next gen.
Anyone ever bought a used gpu before? These prices are solid discount, but I'm not sure if 1080ti was a miner card? Not too familiar with the crypto scene
Think I'll get a 1080ti for now, until the next gen.
Anyone ever bought a used gpu before? These prices are solid discount, but I'm not sure if 1080ti was a miner card? Not too familiar with the crypto scene
I have never personally purchased a used GPU and, sure, a 1080Ti is as good a miner card as any but hopefully you find a seller who is honest about whether it was or wasn't.
As for the 2080Ti: there really is no such thing as no compromise 4K 60, assuming "no compromise" means max settings. Next week I'll have a 2080Ti on a waterblock, overclocked to shit and it still won't run SOTR with RTX at 4K 60. Now that is not a standard feature for all games, obviously, but it is a feature in SOTR, so whether it's replacing rasterization with ray tracing or something else, software always outpaces hardware very quickly and in some cases immediately. I think people tend to forget that and chase the elusive 4K 60 only to end up being disappointed.
OP
OP
I've been too busy today to read reviews but oh man I've got 20 minutes free and I'm about to power read the GamersNexus review.
EDIT: Looks like the 2080 is within 5% of the 1080 Ti in rasterized games, and the 2080 Ti is about 25-35% improved over the 1080 Ti in rasterized games. There aren't really any ray-tracing games right now, so that can't be really tested yet.
EDIT: Looks like the 2080 is within 5% of the 1080 Ti in rasterized games, and the 2080 Ti is about 25-35% improved over the 1080 Ti in rasterized games. There aren't really any ray-tracing games right now, so that can't be really tested yet.
Last edited:
- Status