|
If it actually drops as a faster, more efficient 11400 at $200 and is readily available at msrp it pretty much instantly becomes the best value CPU for gaming. Lotta ifs in this day and age though.
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 04:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 11:49 |
|
|
VorpalFish posted:I don't understand where this incredulity is coming from - 125w has been Intel's tdp rating on every k series sku for the last like 5 years. There will be 65w rated non k skus almost certainly. Don't know where you got your info from but I've never seen my 5600x draw more than 75w at 100% load
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 04:44
|
|
|
VorpalFish posted:If it actually drops as a faster, more efficient 11400 at $200 and is readily available at msrp it pretty much instantly becomes the best value CPU for gaming. It is only now, about 7 months later, that the 11400 is actually in stock and available for purchase for $200. https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i5-11400-core-i5-11th-gen/p/N82E16819118241 This "sale" ends in 2 hours supposedly and then it's back to being $220, which is $30 above MSRP. The F SKU is still wholly unavailable lol.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 05:12
|
|
|
Figures that a new chip generation launch would happen about the time I feel like doing & actually have the $$$ for a system refresh  I'd be moving up from an 8700K and I'd want a new system to be able to use 2280 format SSDs & drive a 3090 card decently (ironically I already have the 3090 card but nothing else). So is there any point in going for 12xxx stuff ? I worked up a complete build list filled out based on an 11700K chip at the core so replacing stuff because of the socket change sounds annoying and based on stuff I read on Toms Hardware I am not inclined to go the DDR5 route. MREBoy fucked around with this message at 07:53 on Oct 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 07:39
|
|
|
we really couldn't know for sure until reviews come in and there's independent verification of how much better Alder Lake is going to be, but on the other hand Alder Lake is probably going to be fine and the real watch-out is early-adopter costs and issues unless you're at the bleeding edge of productivity or you really want/need every last bit of CPU power to drive high refresh 4k gaming you're probably going to be fine with an 11700K
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 07:46
|
|
|
My inclination would be to just wait another year. The 12th gen rollout seems like a clusterfuck of overpriced components, and the 11th gen may not be a large enough upgrade to justify the cost. 8th gen mobos have m.2 2280 slots too, don't they? And while they may not have PCIe Gen 4, the 3090 sees only a very minor uplift from using Gen 4. (like, 2 - 3% higher framerates.) IMO, wait and see if motherboard prices come down, and watch what happens with Zen 3 with 3D vcache and potentially Zen 4, and then step up into a bigger upgrade.gradenko_2000 posted:we really couldn't know for sure until reviews come in and there's independent verification of how much better Alder Lake is going to be, but on the other hand Alder Lake is probably going to be fine and the real watch-out is early-adopter costs and issues You have this partially backwards. If you're doing 4K gaming, that's less of a reason to upgrade your CPU. The higher the resolution you game at, the less work your CPU does. Ironically, if he's sticking with 1080p in order to push very high frame rates, that would see a much bigger benefit from upgrading his CPU. Also the 11700K offers very, very little benefit over the 11600K when it comes to gaming. Go with the 11600K if you do plan on upgrading to 11th gen. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Oct 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 08:00
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:If you're doing 4K gaming, that's less of a reason to upgrade your CPU. The higher the resolution you game at, the less work your CPU does. Ironically, if he's sticking with 1080p in order to push very high frame rates, that would see a much bigger benefit from upgrading his CPU. I knew that as you go up in resolutions, you become more GPU bound, but I was under the impression that if you're chasing after high-refresh rates (i.e. not just 4k@60hz) then CPU becomes important again. if I was mistaken in that regard, I stand corrected
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 08:12
|
|
|
"High-refresh" 4K gaming isn't really a thing except in old games and a select few competitive games after you've turned the settings down very low. And in that case, then sure, it may be worth it. I've been trying to find reviews that have benchmarks with both the 11th gen and 8th gen CPUs so we can get some direct comparisons. Guru3D has a few games with applicable benchmarks (up to 1440p; 4K charts would be even more flat): https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/intel_core_i7_11700kf_processor_review,24.html And TechPowerUp has benchmarks with the 9th gen through 11th, with some low power 9th parts that are worse than the 8700K (up to 4K): https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i7-11700kf/17.html These are resources you should be looking at to determine if an upgrade is worth it. Also it occurs to me that Intel didn't specify what resolution they benchmarked gaming performance at for their Alder Lake performance comparison charts, but I'd bet it's 1080p low settings, or something to that effect. Always assume they're showing the most exaggerated results possible when they don't specify how they achieved them. In normal high resolution gaming conditions, Alder Lake won't magically give you 15% more FPS (and neither will the upcoming Zen 3 3D vcache chips). For people who are building PCs that are primarily used for gaming, just wait out the chaos, or maybe jump on any Zen 3 or Rocket Lake discounts that happen if you're desperate (or if you just have money to burn and an itch to upgrade I guess).
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 08:35
|
|
|
The whole cpu does less work thing is just a byproduct of 4k typically running lower framerates because it is harder on the gpu, a cpu doing 100fps at 4k has to work just as hard as at 1440p
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 08:37
|
|
|
Zedsdeadbaby posted:Don't know where you got your info from but I've never seen my 5600x draw more than 75w at 100% load The post you quoted says "except the 5600X" ie the 5800X and up. I was under the impression the 5600X was 88w but I was wrong; Dr video games corrected me upthread. But if you check my screenshot, the 5800X stock is happy to pull 142w. Edit: just realized my wording was unclear; I said except the 5600X but then put the PPT for the other chips immediately after as though it was for the 5600X. My bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 12:05
|
|
|
Wait forget everything I've been saying about tdp - I completely missed this: https://www.tomshardware.com/features/intel-shares-alder-lake-pricing-specs-and-gaming-performance/3 Apparently Intel's official guideline for PL2 duration on k chips is now infinite - the 12900k is officially a 241w cpu if you cool it enough. I didn't believe it but they actually did it. Hahaha that's some loving poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 13:16
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:"High-refresh" 4K gaming isn't really a thing except in old games and a select few competitive games after you've turned the settings down very low. And in that case, then sure, it may be worth it. Where on earth did you get this idea? I got on the 4K 120Hz train basically as soon as the first <$1000 monitor launched a few years ago. I have an 8700k and a 2080ti and while I don't play many AAA titles, there are very few titles I'm aware of that I couldn't run at >100fps (RDR2, basically). I run at mostly high or very high settings although with mostly useless performance hogs like SSAO turned off. As for competitive games, Rainbow 6 Siege is probably the most GPU intensive one I know and even that will easily run at >150fps with a 2080ti/3080 on ultra settings. You can also turn on DLSS if you want, but I generally don't because it's not necessary and it does look worse. The only way I can see this statement even a slight bit of sense is if you meant like 200Hz and up, but 4K monitors with that kind of refresh rate simply isn't at thing that exists at all, so it doesn't really make sense then either. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 13:30 on Oct 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 13:23
|
|
|
VorpalFish posted:Wait forget everything I've been saying about tdp - I completely missed this: I mean, they basically just formalised the "multi core enhancement" that every motherboard manufacturer was enabling by default anyway
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 13:34
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:Where on earth did you get this idea? I got on the 4K 120Hz train basically as soon as the first <$1000 monitor launched a few years ago. I have an 8700k and a 2080ti and while I don't play many AAA titles, there are very few titles I'm aware of that I couldn't run at >100fps (RDR2, basically). I run at mostly high or very high settings although with mostly useless performance hogs like SSAO turned off. As for competitive games, Rainbow 6 Siege is probably the most GPU intensive one I know and even that will easily run at >150fps with a 2080ti/3080 on ultra settings. You can also turn on DLSS if you want, but I generally don't because it's not necessary and it does look worse. Apex will gobble up any amount of GPU grunt even at very modest settings but yeah, a tiny bit of tweaking lets you stretch your hardware pretty far.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 14:05
|
|
|
BurritoJustice posted:I mean, they basically just formalised the "multi core enhancement" that every motherboard manufacturer was enabling by default anyway A lot did, but not all. It's pretty loving stupid. I'm worried now that you're not going to be able to find reviews with PL1 enforced, which is gonna make it hard to assess how good these chips are under sane power constraints. Didn't GN for example enforce PL1 because "that's the spec"? Does that change now? Either way it's a completely bonkers choice, and the MCE situation has been lovely for awhile, you're right. But now the 125w number is basically totally meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 14:10
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:Where on earth did you get this idea? I got on the 4K 120Hz train basically as soon as the first <$1000 monitor launched a few years ago. I have an 8700k and a 2080ti and while I don't play many AAA titles, there are very few titles I'm aware of that I couldn't run at >100fps (RDR2, basically). I run at mostly high or very high settings although with mostly useless performance hogs like SSAO turned off. As for competitive games, Rainbow 6 Siege is probably the most GPU intensive one I know and even that will easily run at >150fps with a 2080ti/3080 on ultra settings. You can also turn on DLSS if you want, but I generally don't because it's not necessary and it does look worse. This is strange to me because the vast majority of games I personally play get a max of maybe 90 FPS even with a 3080 Ti. I did mention competitive games (like R6 Siege) as being capable of higher frame rates, but the difference here is our personal perspectives of how much of the market they constitute, I guess. We definitely play very different kinds of games. Either way, point taken.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 14:36
|
|
|
I play Destiny 2 on my 65" 4k with freesync capped at 117, and it is glorious There are plenty of modern games that can easily do 4k100 on high (not highest!! that's a trap) with a 3080 or 6800XT
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 14:51
|
|
|
I guess the point is more that when it comes to 4K, even at higher frame rates, for most games you're going to be much more GPU-bound than CPU-bound. There are obvious exceptions to this (again, R6 Siege and some other competitive games), but on the whole I would say that being on a state-of-the-art CPU is not hugely important to having good 4K gaming performance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 15:08
|
|
|
VorpalFish posted:Wait forget everything I've been saying about tdp - I completely missed this:
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 15:24
|
|
|
MREBoy posted:Figures that a new chip generation launch would happen about the time I feel like doing & actually have the $$$ for a system refresh If you have the money for a 3090, I absolutely would get a 12900k or 5950X and not an 11700k. Reviews and products come out in a week, but you can already see from the benchmarking sites alone that it’s going to be a significant step forward. No reason to buy Rocket Lake at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 16:28
|
|
|
I have kind of a dumb question that I'm having issues framing the right search to troubleshoot. When I was using my 8700k desktop, it would downclock regularly when not under load to varying degrees. Sometimes down to 800hz, etc. This new 11700k computer seems to just want to hang out at 4.3 to 4.9ghz. If I close literally everything except task manager it'll go down to 2-3ghz. I have it on balanced power settings, and even reverted that to default, any Intel XTU is on stock or uninstalled. This is with some chrome windows open, discord, outlook, etc. Basic stuff and the cpu usage doesn't go about 12-18%. It's: 11700k Gigabyte Z590 Aorus Pro AX Gigabyte 3080 32 gb 3600 ram various storage. I mean, it's not a problem and the cpu temp stays under 50c it just seems like something is causing it to ramp aggressively and I'm not sure what's driving it. Maybe it's just the motherboard? I booted into bios and everything looks to be at default/auto, and it sits at 4.6ghz in the bios of all things. Should I just not care? It seems odd.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 20:17
|
|
|
lol https://twitter.com/VideoCardz/status/1453817692889157637
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 21:18
|
|
|
That's pretty drat funny, can't believe they actually thought no one would tell. (Probably didn't, but what else ya gonna do)
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 21:30
|
|
|
Alarbus posted:I have kind of a dumb question that I'm having issues framing the right search to troubleshoot. When I was using my 8700k desktop, it would downclock regularly when not under load to varying degrees. Sometimes down to 800hz, etc. This new 11700k computer seems to just want to hang out at 4.3 to 4.9ghz. If I close literally everything except task manager it'll go down to 2-3ghz. If it's using crazy watts as well then I'd take a closer look at what bios version you're running & what auto might mean. I'm only replying because no one else did. I am not familiar enough with modern intel consumer stuff to take any useful guesses. I'm hoping when you check #1 that power usage is low despite clock speeds & when you apply actual load you will see power usage climb up. In that case, everything is fine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 23:08
|
|
|
Lmfao, a drat shame no motherboards have shipped yet so no one can actually break the embargo on their own
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 23:13
|
|
|
Is alder lake finally 10nm? Did intel finally fix their busted rear end process?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 23:15
|
|
|
Sphyre posted:Is alder lake finally 10nm? Did intel finally fix their busted rear end process? It's not 10nm, it's Intel 7®! (it's 10nm, but intel is moving away from talking about nanometers now because everyone measures them differently and process labels have lost all meaning) After Intel 7 comes Intel 5, then Intel 3, then Intel 20A, because once you hit 2nm, naming your process after transistor size becomes good again. Look, don't think about it, okay? Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Oct 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 23:48
|
|
|
Khorne posted:Check per-core or package power usage, voltage, and amps in something like hwinfo64. Thanks, that gives a direction. The ups shows about 150w at that point, and I think that includes one of the monitors, so it's probably low power but running at a higher clock speed than I'm used to. Edit: when I tried gigabyte's easy tune it definitely ran two cores to like 5.2 and the heat output was nuts. Good luck with silicon lottery but that was a bit warm!
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 00:18
|
|
|
Sphyre posted:Is alder lake finally 10nm? Did intel finally fix their busted rear end process? Yes and yes
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 03:10
|
|
|
do i understand correctly, that the new intel cpus should be price competitive with AMD's (i'm looking at the $200-300 tier), but motherboard costs are likely to more than make up for any savings?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 03:20
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:do i understand correctly, that the new intel cpus should be price competitive with AMD's (i'm looking at the $200-300 tier), but motherboard costs are likely to more than make up for any savings? I haven’t had time to look at the precise models, and frankly there isn’t much point until we have actual independent benchmarks to look at, but my impression from the commentariat is that the chips themselves are priced very attractively given their supposed performance, the motherboards are okay (Z690 is priced like X570 was on introduction), but the two gotchas are likely to be DDR5 costs/performance and that the launch is really only going to be for the high-end parts/motherboards at first. So like, the question at the high end is, are you willing to pay 4x the price of DDR4? bearing in mind minimum quantity is 16GB sticks right now, so if you want two sticks you’re in for 32GB of RAM at 4x the price of DDR4. And it’s gonna be the early, lovely grades of memory, on early, lovely DDR5 memory controllers… (people laughed at me when I said I was guessing 2-3x when we talked about this maybe 6 months ago) At the midrange and low end, the question is how much performance do they lose on DDR4? Is it just a big deal for iGPU, or does the CPU really suffer as well? People were pushing big on the “DDR4’s not gonna matter at first” but if that’s the case then there’s also very little downside to going DDR4 for now - and given how expensive DDR5 is right now, I think the DDR4 boards are going to be extremely popular in the DIY market regardless, unless the performance is just completely catastrophically bad. Also, as mentioned, this is really just a launch for higher-end parts - I think it’s K and KF skus only, so 12600K/KF, 12700K/KF, and 12900K/KF. The 12400, say, is coming later. So if that’s your goal then keep waiting. Lower-tier SKUs also probably don’t make sense right now with DDR5, only with DDR4, so you’re also waiting on confirmation of the DDR4 numbers there too, plus you also need to wait for B650 motherboards or whatever to show up as well - you probably wouldn’t pair a Ryzen 3600 with an X570 in a budget build either… And on the flip side AMD will probably respond pretty quickly too, either with price cuts to existing SKUs, or introducing new “Super” skus like 5600 non-X or 5700X that effectively supplant the previous SKUs but don’t force them to mark down existing inventory. If Intel is back on top in single-thread, AMD will make sure they are a little on top in multithreaded at each price point, plus the whole FUD machine around big.LITTLE (we’ll see how much it matters, Intel called out that Win10 vs 11 didn’t make much of a difference, but of course they would say that…) If each of the little cores is equal to a rocket lake thread, and you get four of them per big core… yeah that’s 2x the multithreaded if you do it like that, it does totally make sense to combine “big” cores for games and other performance-limited tasks and tons of “little” cores for scale-out… and at 4x the number of cores, I’d totally be down for a 256 core server processor or whatever, each with rocket lake performance? That would own. And of course v-cache is coming early next year too. Dunno where it will all shake out between DDR4 vs DDR5, big.little, ST vs MT, win10 vs win11, etc etc - there are so many factors in this launch it’s insane, normally it’s just “x% more performance per core, 4 more cores” but this one just is a huge anomaly with how many giant changes Intel is making. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Oct 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 04:03
|
|
|
thanks for the effort reply
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 04:16
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:do i understand correctly, that the new intel cpus should be price competitive with AMD's (i'm looking at the $200-300 tier), but motherboard costs are likely to more than make up for any savings? Issues of processor features and relative performance aside, and focusing just on the motherboard part of the question, Zen 3/Ryzen 5000 is the end of the line for socket AM4 motherboards. And there is only the rumored/presumptive stacked cache variant left in the Ryzen 5000 series. AM4 was supposed to reach EOL in 2020, but we all know how that went. When Zen4 (which I assume will be Ryzen 6000 but also maybe it won't depending on which rumor-mongers you believe, because tech journalism is now a double ourobouros of reddit and twitter making GBS threads into each other's mouths forever) arrives, it'll be on the AM5 socket and everybody has to buy new motherboards no matter who their CPU vendor of choice is for the upcoming generation. And I don't believe AMD has made any commitments as to the longevity of AM5. There is no known-safe, long-term play right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 04:33
|
|
|
A Ryzen 5 5600X is retailing for 309.00 USD right now from newegg A B550 motherboard is going for about 100.00 USD; there are cheaper ones, but I wouldn't be comfortable going that low. Alternatively, going for X570 would be about 155.00 USD I bought a kit of 2x 8 GB DDR4 3200 RAM back in June for 5,500.00 PHP (~108.00 USD). I think that was already overpriced at the time since I can see some kits right now that just a little over half that price - let's call it at 62.00 USD as far as I can tell the i5-12600K is going to be retailing for about 319.00 USD Z690 motherboards are starting at about 180.00 USD on newegg I can see the cheapest DDR5 they have listed is a kit of 2x 8 GB 4800 for 115.00 USD, with the next step up already being a kit of 2x 16 GB for 211.00 USD, though mind you none of these kits are available off-hand you could get Z690 that just supports DDR4, though that also means you're eating into the longevity of it since it's a dead-end this gives us an estimate of about 561.00 USD for the i5, the Z690 motherboard, and 16 GB of DDR4 RAM, versus a 5600X, a B550 motherboard, and the same RAM kit for 471.00 USD if you step up to an X570, then it comes out to 526.00 USD, still slightly cheaper than the Intel offering... but the Intel part is expected to provide more performance (which we can't be sure of until we get independent reviews in) assuming those DDR5 prices are at all accurate and will hold, then it's 614.00 USD for DDR5 set-up _ I think it would be prudent to just wait, at the very minimum until reviews are in by Q1 2022 we should also see the non-K models come out - as I said before the i5-12400 is only going to be six big cores, but that should still be faster/better than a 5600X... but also by then AMD should have a response ready as well, the release of the non-K parts should coincide with the release of B660 and H610 motherboards from Intel, which could drive down the cost of the whole set-up even further to match getting a non-overclockable part (or even when paired with a K SKU as long as the power delivery is good enough)
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 05:08
|
|
|
In a similar vein Microcenter has the 11600K for $230. I'm more looking to see what's the best I can get within my budget, than am that concerned about future power, unless there's reason to believe prices will drop quickly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 05:20
|
|
|
The cheapest B550 board I would want to buy is the MSI B550-A Pro for $120. The cheaper boards strike me as a little too cheap. You should also stay away from those cheap ASRock Z690 boards. They cheap out on the VRMs hard on those things, and the end result is you get very weak power delivery that won't be able to get anywhere near the full PL2 performance out of a higher end chip (and maybe not even the 12600K). Those things are some real pieces of poo poo, especially the Phantom Gaming 4 (edit: The ASRock Z690 Pro seems maybe not as terrible, its VRM is much beefier at least. wait for reviews). I think you're probably starting at $200 or $220 for a decent Z690 ATX board for now. And it's worth a having a healthy dose of skepticism towards the more affordable DDR5 kits that are showing up. It seems very much possible that those will perform worse than DDR4 kits that are 60% their price. If you want the kits that may actually be pretty performant, then the prices go up by an astronomical amount. I enjoy being on the bleeding edge, but this is looking a little too spicy. edit: The cheapest DDR5 board is the MSI PRO Z690-A DDR5 for $230, so you should make that the baseline when trying to compare the bottom end of each platform. At least the MSI Pro series tends to be trustworthy. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Oct 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 05:26
|
|
|
yeah I’ve always felt people lean a little too heavily on the idea of those super-duper ultra cheap boards. $150 buys you a nice board with no major flaws, but none of the fancy baubles on the premium boards (10gbe, thunderbolt, what-have-you). The quality (and even value) falls off heavily below that - $120 is starting to cut a few corners, ok the VRM is definitely worse and so on but it’s fine, $100 is a pretty bad board, below that things get rough. I used a $60 motherboard (MSI Z97 PC Mate) about 7 years ago cause it was a Z97 and it was the cheapest thing Microcenter carried, and the audio was just terrible, by far the worst I’ve ever ever used, just audibly hissing and crackling all the time. And yeah it booted and ran fine (I didn’t end up ever trying to overclock on that board) but it had absolutely no amenities, it was very clear it had been cost-reduced to the bone and beyond. Doubled 3-phase vrm, the works. It would be hilarious to have buildzoid review it, I’m sure it’s absolute garbage. I ended up dumping it with an i3 4130 and 16 gb of trash tier ram for like a 50 buck loss for the combo in total, and considered it a cheap lesson. I’m mostly agnostic about motherboards, sometimes when I’ve had the chance to do direct comparisons it’s like “yeah that feature is nice” or “yeah this one is a bit better than that one in this aspect”. And I’ve used plenty of cheaper boards especially during the AMD days. But I have never had a board I absolutely loathed other than that one, as you can tell I obviously still harbor resentment against it. I guess there is a reason microcenter was clearing them out like that. That’s the $100 tier of motherboards now, more or less. It is what it is, I guess, I know fifty bucks here and twenty bucks there adds up over the course of the build, but $150 buys you a no-complaints/no-frills (or maybe a few frills) and the extra fifty bucks is worth it in my book. (when it comes down to it, almost all of the “you don’t really need to buy a premium [component]” nuggets of wisdom are kinda wrong/bad if you’re in the market for an i7 or i9 tier pc. fast RAM matters far more than people think, decent PSU matters now and in the future as GPU power consumption climbs, and a bad PSU can damage other components, a bad motherboard will make you hate working with all the other components, buying a solid CPU is probably the easiest way to longevity… and in many cases the dropoff in value is very steep. Like, SSDs came to mind as being a place you could cut corners, most people probably wouldn’t notice the difference… but $100 buys you a nice 1TB TLC NVMe drive, $90 you drop to QLC and probably no DRAM, $80 and you’re down into SATA and below that “steam drive” tier some of the SATA SSDs are just tremendously bad, like HDD level. Is it worth $10 extra to go from HDD level to QLC NVMe level? I’d say obviously yes, but $30 here and $50 there and pretty soon you end up with $200 or $300 of slop in your build that could be trimmed to take you to the next tier of GPU, if you just drop down to the PC Mate tier motherboard and the crap CPU and the slow memory and the terrible SSD…. hence my advice for PC building very often being “save more money and build in another few months”. Yeah don’t go for the $300 premium tier but get something you’re not going to hate / cause problems / etc. If you have to buy a USB dac/amp because your mobo’s sound sucks, you’re coming out behind.) Like I guess… cut corners on your case maybe? But having used a range, the difference in build quality between a $100 case and a $200 case. I’ve had some $60 cases I’ve liked, nowadays that’s probably $100 tier, but the difference with a $200 fractal design case is real. But at least that component only really matters when you are building it or moving it around. You do get what you pay for in pc components, you just have to know what you’re looking at and whether it has what you want, and the dropoff in quality can be very steep at the lower end. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Oct 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 06:18
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/VideoCardz/status/1453107202365984782 So yeah, don't buy the Phantom Gaming 4 just because it's the cheapest one lol.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 08:01
|
|
|
105A at 12V 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 11:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 11:49 |
|
|
BlankSystemDaemon posted:105A at 12V They're 105A *per phase*, but that is at Vcore voltage not 12v. So 105A * 19 * 1.1-1.4v~, still more than you'll get from a small American breaker.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 14:25
|
|