I bet with some sensible choices you could get that down to $2500 without having to compromise on performance.
There are some shortcuts. Average motherbard, average psu, average cooling (only air noctua dh15 but it's bette than water so f it)
yeah. 13700k or 7700x and so on. But cutbacks are getting a bit strong.
How do you have it connected? If you're using a SATA enclosure or something you will get SATA speeds (which is exactly what you are getting). Likewise if your M.2 slot doesn't support at least PCIe 3.0, that's gonna bottleneck your speeds as well.
It's connected via a NVME slot in my motherboard, a Gigabyte B460-HD3. It supports PCIe 3.0 iirc. The SSD is an Adata XPG.
Not even. You could get a 7800X3D, which performs better in gaming for a little less, but even then I am struggling to hit $2500
$3500 is not a bad price for a nice non corner cutting pc
Doubt that would help. Make sure TRIM is enabled. Make sure you aren't having heat issues.
Bit of everything. Checked health via CrystalDiskMark, speed via command prompt commands, also used HWInfo64. I noticed stuttering and slow downloads while the network seemed fine, and big "whining" sounds coming from the SSD. Temperatures may be a factor, I'm changing the motherboard soon as I'm migrating to AM5 so maybe I'll be able to get it cooler then
1440p resolution on main monitor and 4k on TV.
Thanks, yea. I think I'm going to wait until the first few weeks of release at least to make a final decision.
I'd really recommend windows 11... especially if you're going with Intel 13th gen. It's better at scheduling those threads and it's also the future and there's really no reason to skip it at this point.
Gotcha, thanks. I picked windows 10 because I wasn't sure if 11 had some fuckery about it like windows 8 haha. But if it's normal that's what I'll pick.
There's not much difference between an i9 and an i7 this gen when it comes to gaming performance. You get more E-cores but those aren't very helpful in gaming, and some people disable them altogether if they mostly want to focus on games. You still get the same amount of P-cores.
Right, true. DLSS seems to be working pretty sweet wonders on Cyberpunk so far from what I've seen. So that could always help.
Windows 11 kind of blows. I upgraded when I built my new system, but I regret it a lot. It's just much buggier.
What kind of bugs are you experiencing? I’ve been on windows 11 since day 1 and it’s been great. It’s basically an enhanced version of windows 10.
DDR5 has gotten cheaper to where it's probably worth it. Historically memory speeds haven't had a huge impact on performance, but that's changing now as everything else gets faster and memory has to keep up. It's not going to make a HUGE difference but it can make a noticeable one.
Nah, it's been dog shit since day one. At one point it got so fucked it would just BSOD on boot and I had to clean install. If I connect multiple displays to it with different refresh rates it has massive stuttering even if one of the displays is off and disabled in Windows. I've had issues with disappearing cursors, with games starting in the background or not fullscreening correctly. Bluetooth controllers periodically become unresponsive and I have to manually forget them and reconnect them to get them working again...
Thanks for the suggestions guys. I think I'll probably end up sticking with DDR5 even though it's a little more money, simply to future proof the build, especially because I'm still a few months out from finalizing it. I'm definitely trying to get the most bang for my buck without going overboard. But if I can keep my price relatively close to $2,000 (over or under) I think I should be good.
Do you run your games at 60fps in 4K? Or at a higher framerate. What is your definition of struggling. I don't need anything more than a locked 60fps.
That was my budget. You could make a few tweaks. An i7-13700KF is only a little more expensive for about a 25% performance uplift.
Should also note that I'll be mostly doing 1440p gaming.
1) Definitely a good idea to avoid any 8Gb VRAM cards. So I wouldn't recommend the 3060ti/3070/4060ti 8gb etc. It is likely that any multiplatform games going forward will be built around 10gb or more VRAM (equalent to what the ps5/xsx effectively has), so in order to maintain texture quality and reduce stuttering a higher VRAM GPU is recommended, especially at 1440p.
Yeah, I'm looking at the 12Gb VRAM cards in the 300-350 range. At the same time, I'm wondering if going for something closer to 400 would be a safer bet.
6700xt might be the least expensive "decent" option right now, if one preferres texture quality, stable minimum framerates and value for money. I myself got my eye on the 6800 16gb and the upcoming 4060ti 16gb and even the 7700/7800 range from AMD which should at least pop up in 3Q. It is difficult to judge how much power/VRAM/other features that a pc gamer on a budget would need right now since it seems like we are just transitioning to the the heavy "current gen" phase of the cycle where demands increase so much that requires games to be locked to 30fps on consoles. A wait and see approach is best.
DDR5 is newer spec. Depending on the platform you choose, going DDR5 could have forward compatibility. For example, AMD and their AM5 socket have a few more upgrades to them whereas with Intel, I believe the 13th Gen is their last for socket 1700. DDR4 is still a great option especially if you're budget conscious. What do you plan to do with thew new PC?
That's awesome. I'll most likely have a similar setup just with a 1080p monitor if I plan on keeping it, but more than likely I'll upgrade it to 1440p.
Interesting. I'll look into these suggestions. I don't think I'll mind spending a little extra if it means I'll have more buffer room when trying to keep a solid framerate.
If you're getting a new system, get DDR5. At this point the chief advantage of DDR4 is upgrading an old system and keeping your RAM to save money. But the price difference on new systems is not enough to make DDR4 worth it.
I actually have a dual monitor set up and the tv as en extra in another room with a theater and consoles. When working and playing on the desktop I use both monitors, when I want to play on the TV I just turn off the monitors, turn on the TV and select the right input. It usually works seamlessly. The tv is in another room so I use unified remote to launch games and change Windows settings (for example the atmos sound).
Solid. No notes, really. This is very similar to the system I built and my only regret is Windows 11.
Ah, awesome. How does your system run when it comes to the latest games?
Nothing even makes it sweat.
Windows 10. I was much happier with 10, 11 has been very buggy for me.
Interesting stuff. Probably end up locking this build in then. Thanks very much for the help mate.
You can disable E-cores in the BIOS. My Mobo actually calls this "gaming mode." Lots of people do this.
Why even do that though? Intel 13900K is as strong or stronger then even 7800x3d (depending on the game) and it's fine with e cores.
If all you care about is gaming, and not multitasking or productivity stuff, they do perform a little better in games with E-cores disabled, so that's why people do it. We saw that 7950x3Ds were performing slightly worse in games than 7800x3Ds as well, sometimes performance is weird like that.
nkarafo
is probably misunderstanding the extent or nature of it if he would genuinely consider a slower chip as a "solution," BUT my point is that it's easy to disable them if you want to.
It's not really that they're a shitty design, it's that they're a new design. E-cores help a lot in tasks that can be split up and scaled across any number of threads, because those tasks are agnostic to those sorts of imbalances.
