Looks like July might be a really interesting time for new PC parts.

[Talonsbane]

Last night, I managed to catch the AMD keynote presentation at CompuTex 2019. If what was shown & hinted to be shared at E3 prove to be accurate, then July may be a very interesting time to look into new PC parts for either new builds or upgrades. Please leave your thoughts below.

 

[Sraika]

neat :p

 

[marcsand2]

i9-9900k, 64GB RAM.... tempting

 

[Printimus]

Nice!

 

[Bruttle]

Just FYI, the version that's on twitch isn't choppy. Here's the link (the Youtube video starts at 21:23):

Twitch

Twitch is the world's leading video platform and community for gamers.

www.twitch.tv

i9-9900k, 64GB RAM.... tempting

I really don't see the point right now honestly. I'm still running a 4790 (not even K and overclocked) and don't see any issues at all. I can still run most games on high or ultra without even going over 50%. Most of the time I have issues, it's due to shit optimization and the processor I have wouldn't do a damn thing to help. It seems like software just hasn't caught up to technology. My daughter's computer (which was my old gaming rig that I built 8 years ago) still runs every game on the market without too many compromises.

What I have found makes a huge issue, is RAM (16gigs minimum), a decent GPU (1080gtx for me and 970ti for my daughter), and a SSD drive. I also found decent gains by running a second crappy gpu (non-sli) for my side monitors and only the main center monitor as the only thing attached to my main card. Other than that, I am obsessive about keeping a clean PC. I don't allow bloatware. I don't allow automated things like problem reporting. I don't allow autoupdates (although I do consistently update). I don't allow tracking of any kind and have a DNS level ad blocker so my PC never needs to process ads.

This matters so much, that when I browsed a friend's computer that had a threadripper and SLI x2 2080ti's, I didn't notice anything major in performance. Sure, he got better frames on average. However, I would much rather spend the extra $3k on my house than on getting 20 extra fps. (disclaimer, I was able to get him up to holding a steady 140fps by killing 90% of the useless crap his PC was constantly running).

It has led me to my long standing opinion that your best bet is to build or buy a well balanced PC, do a clean install of the OS (removing any partitions and bloatware), and simply keep a clean house. It puts you in a much better price/performance balance that you just can't reach with a $1,000+ processor. Now this might be different if I was a streamer or doing anything intensive like graphic design or video editing. I don't though. I just game and watch videos.

(EDIT) I also don't mess with 4k or use a big monitor. I am only on a good quality 27in. If I did use a larger monitor, I would either need to get 4k or deal with a significant loss in detail. 27in seems like the best I can do without needing to cross that line.

 

[marcsand2]

(EDIT) I also don't mess with 4k or use a big monitor. I am only on a good quality 27in. If I did use a larger monitor, I would either need to get 4k or deal with a significant loss in detail. 27in seems like the best I can do without needing to cross that line.

Yeah, I have a 6700k with 32GB, but the triple monitor @6400x1440 is a huge bottleneck, soooo, maybe slowly, upgrade CPU?

 

[Montoya]

I see a pattern here.

My previous build was AMD, then this one is Intel, now back to an all AMD build?

 

[Sirus7264]

Wow.... i cant beleive im actually thinking about moving to AMD you cant beat that 499 usd Intel needs to step up their A game.

 

[Lorddarthvik]

Just FYI, the version that's on twitch isn't choppy. Here's the link (the Youtube video starts at 21:23):

Twitch

Twitch is the world's leading video platform and community for gamers.

www.twitch.tv

I really don't see the point right now honestly. I'm still running a 4790 (not even K and overclocked) and don't see any issues at all. I can still run most games on high or ultra without even going over 50%. Most of the time I have issues, it's due to shit optimization and the processor I have wouldn't do a damn thing to help. It seems like software just hasn't caught up to technology. My daughter's computer (which was my old gaming rig that I built 8 years ago) still runs every game on the market without too many compromises.

What I have found makes a huge issue, is RAM (16gigs minimum), a decent GPU (1080gtx for me and 970ti for my daughter), and a SSD drive. I also found decent gains by running a second crappy gpu (non-sli) for my side monitors and only the main center monitor as the only thing attached to my main card. Other than that, I am obsessive about keeping a clean PC. I don't allow bloatware. I don't allow automated things like problem reporting. I don't allow autoupdates (although I do consistently update). I don't allow tracking of any kind and have a DNS level ad blocker so my PC never needs to process ads.

This matters so much, that when I browsed a friend's computer that had a threadripper and SLI x2 2080ti's, I didn't notice anything major in performance. Sure, he got better frames on average. However, I would much rather spend the extra $3k on my house than on getting 20 extra fps. (disclaimer, I was able to get him up to holding a steady 140fps by killing 90% of the useless crap his PC was constantly running).

It has led me to my long standing opinion that your best bet is to build or buy a well balanced PC, do a clean install of the OS (removing any partitions and bloatware), and simply keep a clean house. It puts you in a much better price/performance balance that you just can't reach with a $1,000+ processor. Now this might be different if I was a streamer or doing anything intensive like graphic design or video editing. I don't though. I just game and watch videos.

(EDIT) I also don't mess with 4k or use a big monitor. I am only on a good quality 27in. If I did use a larger monitor, I would either need to get 4k or deal with a significant loss in detail. 27in seems like the best I can do without needing to cross that line.

This, a thousand times!
I've been on a stock 4670K (a 4770K is in the mail at the moment as I do need more cores for work purposes) and it's been perfectly enough. Not running all the junk, and having a PC put together with parts that are optimized for each other as much as possible (like, ya know, not buying a mobo that can only do 1333mhz for the ram and than slapping 1600mhz RAM in it), is the way to go!
Case in point, brand new intel something 6 core 12 thread PC at my work place does the same render job 20% slower!! than my old ass i5. Cos that PC is put together from the "best" parts available, meaning it barely fits together, while mine while a bit limited, it was put together to work properly. More importantly, I'm not running 23 different memory optiomizer, anti-whatnot, super-pro-speeder-upper apps on mine, while they do. It makes for such a huge difference.

 

[Bruttle]

Yeah, I have a 6700k with 32GB, but the triple monitor @6400x1440 is a huge bottleneck, soooo, maybe slowly, upgrade CPU?

If you have a 6700k now, I'd still think other stuff would matter more. You're running a 4ghz+ quad core, 8 thread cpu. I'd wager a guess that if you kept an eye on your resource monitor, your 8 virtual cpus will rarely go over 30% even under a heavy gaming load. The same is likely for your RAM. I doubt that even comes close to topping out... ever. Now your gpu, that can easily get maxed. The same could potentially be said for the power supply if you're overclocking anything.

When gaming PC's start struggling to keep up, it usually isn't the CPU holding up the show. The CPU is usually only really put to work when you're running multiple programs and tabs. When I first built a computer for my wife, she immediately complained about performance. I only had to explain it a few times before she realized that the 10 firefox tabs, 5 explorer tabs, Audible, Itunes, Word, 3 update popups, and a half dozen other things active in her tray were the source of the issue. When you're just gaming though, it usually relies on the GPU to process the graphics, the RAM to hold essential parts, and the SSD for loading in and out of the RAM.

Now if you really want to multitask like a boss (the only actual strong suit of a threadripper) you can do that much cheaper by building a machine around Xeon processor. You can get a X5690 for about $250 and it has 12 threads at 3.46ghz. Don't fall for the hype though. Running a shit-ton of cores isn't a new concept. It's been around in the commercial market for a very long time. It's just a shiny new thing to sell to gamers though, along with stupid expensive motherboards and coolers.

The threadripper hype though is mainly just that for most of us gamers. We will never use all those cores unless we are running every program simultaneously. Most games can't even use it because they are only programed to use a single core. So having 32 virtual cores isn't going to change the speed of most games past the speed of the single core it's using. Give it a try. Run a game on max settings, make sure you only have that program running (at least an empty tray), and open your resource monitor. It'll show you how much each of your cores are getting used. Most of the time, there will only be one core that is doing the majority of the work to run your game. The rest (and vast majority) of the processor work is being done by your graphics card.

[/$0.02]

 

[marcsand2]

If you have a 6700k now, I'd still think other stuff would matter more. You're running a 4ghz+ quad core, 8 thread cpu. I'd wager a guess that if you kept an eye on your resource monitor, your 8 virtual cpus will rarely go over 30% even under a heavy gaming load. The same is likely for your RAM. I doubt that even comes close to topping out... ever. Now your gpu, that can easily get maxed. The same could potentially be said for the power supply if you're overclocking anything.

I have a 6700k and a 1080ti. There has been a turnimg point.
In previous patches my 4 cores clipped to 100%. GPU @6400×1440 60-70%, @2560×1440 below 50%. After a clean system, CPU stayed below 100%, but not a lot.
Now GPU @6400×1440 over 90%, CPU 60%.

Plus the old mb, cpu and ram become a 2nd rig. I only need another PSU and ready to rumble.

 

[Bruttle]

I have a 6700k and a 1080ti. There has been a turnimg point.
In previous patches my 4 cores clipped to 100%. GPU @6400×1440 60-70%, @2560×1440 below 50%. After a clean system, CPU stayed below 100%, but not a lot.
Now GPU @6400×1440 over 90%, CPU 60%.

Plus the old mb, cpu and ram become a 2nd rig. I only need another PSU and ready to rumble.

That's actually the point where my whole view is thrown out. When you're building for a game that is still in development, the usual precepts of PC resource use are relatively useless. For SC, I'm actually hoping they keep the bar pretty high. I know that it might alienate a few players, but I would be very unhappy if they limit the game just so they can include old PC's.

Honestly, this particular stretch of technology has allowed me to use the same rig for a very long time. I built my first PC (with my dad's help) back in '89. Ever since, I have needed to upgrade every 2-3 years just to keep up with the software. That hasn't been the case for at least a half decade. Not much has been done to require a faster PC. PC graphics have, for the most part, stayed the same. My daughter played Black Desert for a while on her 8+ year old pc just fine. That's actually one of the best looking games on the market now.

So hopefully, the SC final product will have a decent ceiling when it comes to pc stats. We just have so much technology available but not ever really put to use. It's actually really good news to hear that SC is using all the cores and topping out GPUs, even if it's currently due to a lack of optimization or features yet to come. I just don't want to see yet another thing in this world dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.

 

[marcsand2]

OK, I did a little bit of research.
1. Graphics quality doesn't matter. Very High maybe cost you a few fps... go full!!!!

resolution	GPU	CPU	FPS
6400x1440	99%	43%	25
2560x1440	99%	89%	57
1920x1080	80%	63%	68
1600x900	58%	69%	82
1600x900 full screen	98%	75%	117

6400x1440 is too much for my 1080ti, the GPU slows down the system
2560x1440 is the most I can get out of my system, GPU still is maxing out, but CPU now also is much higher
1920x1080 gives the GPU some more slack, CPU also is relaxing a little bit

CPU is 3.5 years old, GPU is 1.5 years old, still a few generations to go up, CPU is the next upgrade, for immersion 6400, for combat 2560

 

[Aramsolari]

Alright so who bit the bullet and went AMD?

I'm still waiting for my 3700x + X 570 MSI Gaming Pro Carbon. Late on the preorder and looks like it's 2-3 weeks away sigh.

Anybody using the new Ryzen 2 CPUs with Star Citizen yet?