Rocking a 5900x and a 6700XT right now with a gen 4 NVME 1TB drive and 32 gb of ram at 3200 speed, CL 16.
Likely going to 4,000 MHZ soon on the ram.
As for "is it more powerful than a PS5 & series X" and, of course, addressing the massive elephant in the room that most "steam" users still play at 1080p.
Overall: Yes, this is more powerful than a PS5 and Series X. Even though they both have more VRAM and will arguably output more TFlops, that doesn't tell the entire story as the bus bandwidth is better and, more importantly, my card can be overclocked to a 2998mhz, which is what it runs at now, giving faster overall speeds despite 4gb less "ram". Not only that, but the 16gb of vram is a misleading direct comparison as some of that VRAM is used for other tasks that PC's siphon off to DRAM and the CPU.
CPU wise, it's not close, 12 cores, 24 threads, with an all core OC of 5ghz, with half of my cores able to turbo to 5.2ghz. It's just not a fair comparison, plus a custom water loop cools the CPU. Liquid metal and a bad heat sink on PS5 combined with it being an APU ain't going to touch that. There is something to be said of course for those "new gen consoles" using better "ram" overall, but in the end the systems aren't really... close to what I have.
As for the 1080p remark - while in general I feel like most PC gamers probably have less specs and something more modest that leads to 1080p, it's also true that in the PC world, gaming at "4K" isn't exactly considered ideal no matter the build, unless you have a 3090 or a 6900XT. Even then, you should be focused on getting a 200+mhz panel that's going to support a much higher frame rate than most 4k monitors anyways and settle for 1440p. I know people with 3080's and rocking 11900k or a 5950x,that still use 1080p because they have 300+ mhz monitor options that provide a much better gaming experience than even a 4k 120hz panel.
4k is being incorrectly pushed by these "next-gen" home consoles when, to be completely honest, they are not 4k consoles. They will be using tricks this entire generation to get there and shouldn't do pretty much anything but indie titles at native 4k. Which is fine, btw. Especially as AMD's version of DLSS matures.
4K is just not a great experience for gaming unless you can get like... 144 fps+.
I say this of course, as I spend a lot of time playing 30FPS on a Nintendo Switch. But that doesn't change the fact all those games would be better at 60. And I know, most consider 60 to be great. That's cool! But also... once you play a lot of games at 120+, 200+... i mean, 60 doesn't look too great then.
In the end, all the gaming options out there are fine.
.
pcpartpicker.com
