Jump to content

JMak97008

Verified Tanker [NA]
  • Content Count

    107
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by JMak97008


  1. Got lucky and scored an EVGA XC3 Ultra 3080 to replace my EVGA 2070 Super XC.  OC'ing the 2070 and running at 2050Mhz, nearly all settings maxed, I was able to run at about 115fps with dips to low 100s on a 3440x1440 uw.  However, after installing the XC3, running stock, and no in-game changes, Im stuck at 115-118fps, although it's rock solid at that frame rate.

    Im also running a 10700K with 4x8GB Patriot 4400s.  Running these two at stock witht he 3080, I get stuck at 115-118fps.  Even running an oc'd 5.0Ghz and 4000Mhz 16-16-16-38, there's no buding off the 115-118fps.

    Any thoughts, ideas?


  2. 44 minutes ago, Fulcrous said:

    4x8 is cringe due to you basically being locked into dual-channel ram and resale purposes. Far easier to sell 2x16GB sticks than 4x8GB for the same reason 2x8GB is easier to sell than 4x4GB of DDR3.

    For air cooler, minimum should be NHD14 and NHU12A if you can afford it. Otherwise bequiet dark rock pro 4 is an alternative.

    The cheapest upgrade you can do right now is replace your current fans with noctua 120mm fans. Cooling performance will still be largely inadequate but will barely be good enough - hence the strong recommendation to add a Noctua fan in the earlier build.

    I see...although I don't see needing anymore than 32GB over the next 3-4 years and while I kind of get your point regarding resell, that's just not a factor for me.

    But, I did ditch the Crucial RGB nonsense and though I still stuck with 4x8GB, I ended up ordering 2 sets of 2x8GB of Teamgroup Dark Pro 3466 CL16 which are apparently b-die modules.

    Also, taking your advice, I ordered a Scythe Fuma 2 that is neck-and-neck with the Noctua offerings.


  3. 1 hour ago, Fulcrous said:

    4x8 cringe.

    In all seriousness. You're gonna want to upgrade the cooler or add better fans as your cooling solution is largely insufficient by itself.

    Cringey for the same reasons that Folter noted on page 1?

    What coolers you think I should take a look at? Something like a Scythe Mugan/Fuma or all the way up to a Noctua?


  4. 1 hour ago, Folterknecht said:

    Ok - just wanted to make sure, because your budget didn't seem to be unlimited. ;)

    Certainly not unlimited.  I was willing to spend in the $600 range on a 10600K.  I ordered that RAM, but, per usual, am having second thoughts about it.  I may not want the RGB given some of the hassles that come along with having to download multiple software packages to control RGB throughout the case.

    If I were to change the RAM, I'd likely go with 4x8GB of Teamgroup Dark Z for about $114.

    The NVME was a luxury item I threw in there since it's a very good unit at a really nice price.


  5. 25 minutes ago, Folterknecht said:

     Why this RAM? Are you really willing to pay 50$ for RGB?

    Ok, this is all in the context of 4x8GB which I know you're encouraging me to avoid doing.  Why the RAM I linked to - Because e-die (effective overclocking capability) and rgb whore.  Not more complicated than that.

    I was also looking really hard at the non-RGB version that is also on sale for $122.  But I thought, $25 difference, why not go RGB.

    The really dumb thing here is that going with the 4x8GB is a more expensive path ($12 difference) to 32GB RGB RAM in this set.

    On the other hand, I started off looking at the Teamgroup Dark Z and Vulcan Z 16GB kits and 4x8GB in those is about $110-$115, so about $30-$35 difference to the Crucial RGBs I linked to.

    Flame me...Probably need it to a) abandon the 4x8GB approach; and b) go non-RGB to save money both ways.

     

     


  6. So, I've ended up with the following:

    10700k + Z490 Aorus Elite AC - https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?Submit=StoreIM&Depa=1760 - $489

    Crucial Ballistix 4x8GB e-die RAM - https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Ballistix-Desktop-Gaming-BL2K16G32C16U4BL/dp/B083VMSY1B/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=BL2K16G32C16U4BL&qid=1600798276&sr=8-1&th=1 - $147

    ADATA SX8200 Pro 1TB M.2 NVME - https://pcpartpicker.com/product/zR3H99/adata-sx8200-1-tb-m2-2280-solid-state-drive-asx8200pnp-1tt-c - $110

    Feeling like I did ok. I know 10700K lags the 3700X in productivity and there's a small separation of performance in gaming, but my preference for Intel (rational or not) is satisfied.


  7. 14 minutes ago, Raj said:

    get AMD if the intel option doesnt have pcie 4.0 and if you can upgrade to what next gen amd is on that motherboard.

    AMD at the high end is better if you stream also, less dropped frames and whatnot.

    Thanks, Raj.  I pulled the trigged on a $490 10700K + Gigabyte Z490 AORUS ELITE AC mobo.  This mobo is pci-e 4.0 ready.  I get an 8-core i7 cpu for just a few dollars more than I would get a 10600K.


  8. 1 hour ago, MagicalFlyingFox said:

    3700X mem OC is super easy. 3600Mhz ram with low timings, keep your FCLK the same as the ram clock and you will get big gains in perf. You can also dump more voltage and try to go higher but the biggest and easiest gains are with just keeping your FCLK the same as the Memory clock. So its pretty much as easy as running XMP and upping your FCLK to 1800 for 3600Mhz ram.

    Headroom isn't that high but you can get CPU clocks up a few points.

    For mobos, an X570 or B550 is fine. You don't need to go to the top to be able to OC as you can OC with B550. Honestly though, high end B550 boards and Midrange X570 boards overlap in price so same shit either way.

    Most of what you do still seems to prefer higher clocks, so Intel would be better but whether its enough to justify the extra cost is another matter.

    Two things now:

    First, the B550 Tomahawk mobo is $159 and comes with a game, so additional savings there.

    Second, Newegg has a 10700K + Auros Elite AC Z490 mobo for under $500 which when paired with $120 RAM kit puts me at where I was going to end up price wise with the 10600K.


  9. Thanks, Magical.  

    Of course, as soon as I replied to Fulcrous, I started reading more about the 10600K/10700K vs the 3600/3700X...and am wavering, again.  Typical.

    It seems clear to me that, if value is the priority, then the AMDs are the go-to, especially the 3600X (25% cheaper).  The 3700X packs a huge value punch because it retails for about the same as the 10600K and it has 2 more cores and the 3700X is right there at 1440 gaming (which is what I do) and the 3700X is 25% better in productivity (which I don't do - at least, Im not using the applications that reviewers use to test productivity performance).  The only real downside here for me is having to learn about the AMD components, like the mobos and RAM.

    I primarily use my PC to browse the web, use MS Office applications, and play a handful of games (none of them competitively), so the AMD 3600X/3700X ought to be more than enough.  Buying the 3600X yields the best value saving nearly $80 relative to the 10600K and the B550 mobo price is $10 cheaper than the Z490 I'd get, and I'd be getting the same RAM (3200mhz and oc it to the preferred 3600mhz for Ryzen).

    So, a $90 savings for the 3600X, BUT, I'm still at 6 cores.  I think I'd only want to go AMD IF I can get 8 cores, for the reasons Folk above cited.  And the 3700X is the same price as the 10600K, mobo is $10 cheaper, and same RAM, so a $10 savings AND I get 8 cores.  Positive signs - Announcement of a release date for the Zen 3 puts downward pressure on the 3700X pricing and that $10 savings grows.

    That's my clear-eyed view of things. Though there's a huge BUT here...there's no use oc'ing the 3700X, though oc'ing the memory, IF you can get it to work properly can yield some additional results and close the gap further on the 10600K. That means buying more expensive, faster RAM which eats into the tiny savings by going with AMD and it means tinkering with memory timing, something I'm not inclined to do (though I will on Intel because I'm already familiar with it on that side).  Though, even still, I'll have 8 cores with the 3700X.

    Ugh...


  10. 2 hours ago, Fulcrous said:

    Literally zero point getting a 4790k at $270 because you are locked into the Z97 chipset with no upgrade path. You would have to be insane to do so when there are literally better options at the same price point that allows for generational upgrades in performance (if required). This is with a motherboard AND RAM included.

    Just to prove a point at $20 more.

    Just to prove a point at $50 more.

    As per AMD's new CPUs, unveil date is October 8th which would mean availability at November/December.

    Point well made and proven.

    I think I've petty much up my mind to stick with Intel.  I'll hem and haw for a bit waiting for either the 10600K to drop to $260 (msrp) or maybe stretch for the 10700K if it hits $350.  

    Unless the AMD announcement has an immediate effect on prices, I'll be leaning this way...

    Thanks for all the advice and info.


  11. 16 minutes ago, crapcannon said:

    One of the mods just replaced it. But to make a long story short your current system is quite capable of playing modern games in 1440k. I was suggesting, if you could get one for a reasonable price, a 4790k and as someone else suggested more RAM.

    4790K new is around $275...I get to keep my current hardware, though, I don't scratch that upgrade bling itch, lols.


  12. 13 hours ago, Fulcrous said:

    Few things to note.

    • You are currently CPU-bound for WoT despite being at 1440p/UW. The upgrades below should place you well in excess of 144+. Realistically what is pushing you back is the extremely low clock speed of the 4690k. At 4.0GHz, you can hardly call that an overclock. If you push it to 4.4/4.5GHz you will be fine for WoT/Fortnite/Apex.
    • If you are going to stop at 4.7-4.8GHz, you might as well go AMD (particularly zen 3).
    • Zen 3 is literally around the corner - October 8th. It will be worth waiting on reviews as well as checking out OC-ability. If - for whatever reason - you don't care and cannot wait 2 weeks...

    Ryzen build ~$618. You can add the Noctua fan from the Intel build to bring the price up to ~$640 for better cooling performance.

    Intel build ~$678. A little over budget due to adding a Noctua A12 fan for push/pull on the cryorig. If you aren't going 5.0+ on these effectively binned refresh chips, there's no point going with a K series.

    My strong recommendation - as you have 1440p monitors - is to just go AMD after zen 3 is released as it will open up the used market as well as options for Zen 3 if you want.

    I used to run the 4690K at 4.5ghz, but after installing the 2070Super and going triple monitors, temps went way up and the only I brought them down (without installing new cooling) was to downclock to 4.0.

    I was going into the 10600K with a mind toward oc'ing up to 5ghz (though Im using an air cooler, so...).

    Really appreciate the build suggestions.

    For now, I guess, I'll be waiting.  As noted above, I impulse ordered a 10600K upgrade, but then canceled after thinking about it.  I'm not going to pay $30 more the cpu to have right now (was $260 a few weeks ago).  And, with AMD's announcement (or is it actual release?) in October, maybe that will push some prices down.

    22 minutes ago, crapcannon said:

    Did you even see my original post JMak?

    No...only what is there now.


  13. On 9/19/2020 at 9:35 PM, Raj said:

    next gen ryzen's middle offering, it's coming in literally a month. You can just get a current gen ryzen and upgrade and keep the same motherboard if it's compatible. Intel has been stuck for a few years now and arent getting any more gains from 14nm and 10nm yields are still in question.

    If you need it right now get a ryzen 3600 and upgrade to a 4600x (they may call it 5600x). Also AMD doesn't really do limited quantities like that with CPU's, that's mostly nvidia trying to raise margins on their GPUs.

    Im being a bit of an Intel snob and not liking the idea of shifting to Ryzen.  When I built my current PC, AMDs cpu offerings were crap and I went with Intel.  I'm familiar now with Intel, but maybe that doesn't actually mean much at all.  Although, I do understand that going AMD will save some cash (EDIT - not if I go with a X570 mobo, thought, lol).

    In an impulse-fueled rush, I went ahead and ordered a 10600k ($292); the Z490 Tomahawk; and 4x8GB Team Dark X...only to cancel the order this morning after exercising a few brain cells.

    So, I am waiting, though I can't help combing the web for deals and ideas on this upgrade.  I don't need to upgrade right at this moment. Im currently running WoT at 110-130 fps with nearly all max settings and keeping temps in check, so...

    Maybe a jump to AMD is on the horizon. The $ savings might mean I get to feed my RGB need.

    On 9/20/2020 at 1:14 AM, Folterknecht said:

    Seeing that you still hang on to the 4690K, that tells me you probably won't upgrade again in the next 1-2 years. Therefore I 'll point into a slightly different direction.

     

    Forget 4x 8GB, instead go 2x 16GB. Nowdays it doesn't make a big difference in price and you avoid the problems that sometimes come from populating all RAM slots on a board.

     

    Get 8 cores and 16threads, if you can afford it! There is no question that the 10600K is the "value" gaming king with the 3600X in second place atm. The thing is that new modern consoles will have 8 relative fast and powerfull cores. That tells me the 8 cores might become the defacto standard within 3 years for console ports, and you might and up in a similar situation like now with the 4690K and 4770/4790K. While the 4c/4t CPU sucks balls gaming in modern games especially while looking at frame times, the 4c/8t CPUs from yesteryear are still somewhat relevant. Get a 10700 non-K with "fast" RAM 3200+ on Z490, up the powerlimit, optimize RAM and raise the BLCK to 102.9MHz or get one of the AMD 8cores.

     

    The last paragraph is somewhat speculative, my crystal ball is in the repair shop atm.

    You're absolutely right...I won't be upgrading for another 3 years minimum and likely, as with this current build, more like 5 years.

    On the RAM...what sorts of problems can arise by filling all 4 DIMMs? Ive been running 4x4GB DDR3 since I built this rig and have had no issues.  On the other hand, that's merely my user experience.  After all the memory research I've done, I do want to try tweaking the memory speed to stretch 3200mhz to 3600+.  But I keep getting that advice to go 2x rather than 4x on the RAM.  I'll look into that more.  My OCD compels me to fill all 4 slots.

    And right on about the 4690K/4790K...2 years after building this PC I was wishing I had gotten the 4790K.  Going 8 cores and 16 threads is 10700K/9900K or 3700X territory, right?  That 3700X...it's cheaper than the 10600K for goodness sakes!

    Whatever CPU I get, I want to be able to OC, so the non-K 10700 just isn't on the table.


  14. 8 hours ago, MagicalFlyingFox said:

    10600K can be OCed, 10600 cannot.

    10600K is better for gaming than every AMD part (for now). However the difference at higher resolutions is like 5% while stock.

     

    With a 4690k, you should be looking at a new CPU if you are going to be playing new games as they begin to take advantage of more cores. Otherwise you start experiencing stuttering making games uncomfortable to play.

     

    New ryzen CPUs are being announced this month so things can change.

    Thanks.  Meant to say 10600K throughout the post.  It's a bitch finding 10600Ks right now with any reasonable shipping time.

    I just got this itch this week and don't really want to wait for a mere announcement to be followed by a few more months of waiting for actual stock to appear and it seems the hardware companies are all doing the same thing these days - announce...wait...announce again...wait...release very limited quantities...out of stock...limited stock...wash, rinse, repeat.


  15. Got an upgrade itch that I want to scratch. I play only Wot, though I have dl'd and installed GTA V and the kids play Fortnite and Apex with CoD coming in soon.  CPU is running at 98% load when playing WoT on the UW display using almost all max settings.  No major application or other productivity needs.

    Current setup:

    • CPU - 4690k oc'd to 4.0ghz
    • Mobo - Asrock Z97 Pro3
    • Cooler - Cryorig H7 Quad Lumi
    • RAM - Ballitix Sportk DDR3 4x4GB
    • GPU - EVGA 2070 Super
    • PSU - EVGA G2 650w
    • Displays - 1x 34" 3440x1440 uw + 2x  27" 2560x1440

    I've been looking hard at upgrading to a 10600K, X490 mobo, and 32GB RAM (cuz why not fill all the slots) which has set my budget for me at around $650.  That's an amount I can handle, but would rather spend less.  Specifically, I've been looking at:

    • CPU - i5-10600K - $295 at Amazon - Like this cpu because I will, again, be messing with OC'ing, though I see myself stopping at 4.7/4.8Ghz
    • Mobo - MSI MAG Z490 Tomahawk - $189 at Amazon (RGB whore and like the nvme covers)
    • RAM - GSkillz TridentZ RGB 3200 C16 DDR4 - 4x8GB for $169 at Amazon; though I have looked at a non-RGB RAM - TeamGroup T-Force Dark 4x8GB 3200 C16 for $116.

    Having slowed my roll here, I've started looking at the 3600 and 3700X from AMD which I was initially not even looking at (Intel snobbery perhaps).  Seems that the 3700X is right there on gaming and significantly better on productivity relative to the 10600K while the 3600 lags only slightly on gaming while being better at productivity against the 10600K.

    I'm wondering what the real, practical impact on world of tanks is between something like 10600K and 3600/3700X.  Im pushing 110+ fps on nearly all maxed settings in wot with the 4690k and 2070Super.  Will the 3600/3700X/10600 substantially improve my gaming sexiness or am I nibbling around the edges?


  16. Several weeks ago I was playing WoT and ended up with a green screen, yellow screen, and a blue screen (non-bsod).  Couple of hard resets sorted the issue...until last week when I saw these weird characters spread across the screen looking like that old video game Centipede.  Restarted and saw two vertical blue bands at startup followed by a black screen.  Subsequent restarts did not fix the issue.  I did get to a point where I downloaded a new amd driver and was able to use the PC and even play wot for an evening.  The next night, the same issue had returned, this time, though, with multiple vertical green bands...although the pc let me boot into the bios, as soon as I exited the bios, got the blue bands and then the black screen.

    This card has been awesome for me and when paired with my oc'd 4690k (4.5k on air), ran WoT really well (90fps on mostly maxed settings).  So, I'm pretty bummed this card has gone kaput.  Although, a glimmer of hope...the card I have is a Double Dissipation version which appears to have a longer warranty and I may still be in that warranty period.  

    Meanwhile, I've been looking at replacements...omg.  It's a rough market out there.  I've looked at 1050s, 970s, even a GTX 690, but I'm far out of this game...  Anyone have any tips, suggestions about used cards to replace this 280X? I'd really appreciate some help.  In addition to the 4690k, I've got an EVGA G2 650 PSU (custom cables that are 8 + 6 pin) and lots of room in the case.  I only play Wot and would like something to run at least Medium on the new engine and hopefully on Ultra.  Price is around $200.

    For example - there's a guy nearby who is selling a EVGA GTX 970 FTW+ for $200 that I think I want to grab...but not so sure.

     

    Thanks in advance...

     


  17. 3 minutes ago, BlackAdder said:

    You don't read. I don't care about reasons, i'm telling you how to test if you are running 70 Hz / 75Hz, and use that link i posted for frame skipping (that's thing with some oced monitros).

    I just said if you use vSync and OCed monitor, FPS should be locked on referesh number example 60 Hz = 60 FPS lock, 70 Hz = 70 FPS lock etc.

     

    Easy now. I did read. I understand what you're saying, but was confused by the last post. I appreciate the time you're taking to help me with this. 


  18. 20 minutes ago, BlackAdder said:

    If you maxed out push over 85+ then there is no need lowering settings, just use vSync and 70Hz=70 FPS. 

    My monitor default is 60hz and I want to up that refresh to 70 or even 75. I can run wot at high fps and want to see more of that via a higher refresh rate, hence the attempt to oc the monitor. 

    5 minutes ago, Haswell said:

    Unless said game doesn't actually do vsync properly and just lock the framerate at "normal" numbers like 60.

    Why the fuck would you use WoT to bench?

    I surely wouldn't. 

     


  19. 14 minutes ago, BlackAdder said:

    Yes. If you have low details and vSync, FPS should be locked 70 (or whatever Hz is set). 

    Details as in gfx settings? Currently, I only play wot and the gfx are nearly maxed out on all options and without vSync, the game tells me that I'm running 85+ fps. So...once I make the refresh rate change in Radeon Settings, update the windows display adapter, and restart, then I should open wot and enable vSync and see if the fps is locked to the new refresh rate by looking at the in game fps? 

    Thanks for dealing with these questions... 


  20. 1 hour ago, BlackAdder said:

    Just use vsync and check FPS. You should get 75 locked (set low details). 

    Cuz I'm dumb and want to make sure I understand. I should go ahead and, using Radeon Settings, create a custom resolution and in there change the refresh rate, then go into windows display settings and select the new refresh rate, and then restart the pc? Start up a new game, enable vsync, and then check fps? If I set refresh at 70, then with sync enabled, I should see 70fps? If so, then the refresh change worked? 

    1 hour ago, Haswell said:

    I say just test with a proper game and forgo the browser test.

    OK, following adder's suggestion above? Thanks! 

×
×
  • Create New...