Account Details
SteamID64 76561198042353207
SteamID3 [U:1:82087479]
SteamID32 STEAM_0:1:41043739
Country Germany
Signed Up December 16, 2012
Last Posted July 5, 2020 at 4:49 AM
Posts 3099 (1.1 per day)
Game Settings
In-game Sensitivity
Windows Sensitivity
Raw Input  
Refresh Rate
Hardware Peripherals
1 2 3 4 ⋅⋅ 207
#3655 PC Build Thread in Hardware

That's a secondary source mixing speculation with what AMD said.
"AMD in an official briefing call with us confirmed that the company's "Zen 3" client processors are on-track for launch within 2020."

The way the tapeouts are scheduled means that they could release something in September. If everything goes as planned, which is never guaranteed.
The rumours were that that something would most likely be Milan (EPYC, server CPUs) and that Vermeer (Desktop CPUs) might even be delayed to 2021. AMD denied that, but only said they were on track for 2020. Because the source are the client-segment product managers it is assumed that that includes at least some client CPUs.
We still don't know when and which models exactly. Launches are always spread out over a couple of months so even if you're 100% certain that some Vermeer CPUs will be released in September that doesn't mean we'll see a 4600(X). That could very well take until December.
So stop acting like AMD confirmed a 4600 for September.

The rumours of delays were fueled by Matisse Refresh and yes, that is different from the 2700X Anniversary Edition. The AE was purely cosmetic.
Releasing actually different CPUs, no matter how minor that difference is, in the same segment within 3 months is almost unheard of. Though in this case I can definitely see it being a response to Comet Lake.

Your argument about overclocking makes no sense. What does the 3800XT have to do with this? Why does that mean a 3600XT will overclock worse than a 3600?
You also don't know how binning works. Silicon "quality" is not some one dimensional parameter. It's a combination of frequency, voltage and power consumption. There is some correlation, but a core using less power at the same frequency does not guarantee it can't reach a higher frequency.
And the trick to getting the same power consumption with more cores and near identical clock speeds is the "near".
Power consumption increases massively for Zen2 with every little bit of extra frequency when you're close to or above 4 GHz.
A core at 4.125 GHz needs 14-15W, while at 3.875 GHz it only needs 7-7.5W. A measly 250 MHz extra double the power consumption.

About prices: This is about branding. Navi got different numbers and AMD tried to raise the prices at the same time. It didn't work.
You want the same model numbers (with a different digit for the generation obviously) to stay around the same price. You change how many cores/threads and what frequency the customer gets at that price. That's why Intel "added" HTT to the i5s instead of making i7s cheaper. That's why they added i9s to cover 400-500$ instead of letting i7s cover 300-500$. That's why a 3950X exists, which got 33% more cores and is 50% more expensive than a 3900X instead of selling the 3800X as 3750X. Because x700(X) models in AMD's naming scheme shall cover the low 300s range. That's why the 2700X is called 2700X even though it's faster than the 1800X. Because it doesn't cost 400$.
That is why I can guarantee that there will be a 4900X at around 500$ and there will be a 12 core, but I can't guarantee that they will be the same. Same for 3700(X)/3800(X) and 8 cores.

About fps:
Better comparision because the 4790K is clocked higher.
So yeah, Haswell needs somewhere between 4.4 and 5.0 GHz for 240 fps, depending on the settings. The lower end of that is definitely doable.

Can you not see the problem? If his current pc could get him 240 avg and a 3600 gets him 270 fps average, but his problem is that he gets drops to 120 how do you expect the 3600 to solve that?

Fakeunlikely to get 240fps from an OC but will hopefully fix the dips he was having.

You said yourself that an OC not even high enough to get 240 fps would somehow fix the dips.
I still don't know how you imagine that would work.

posted 2 days ago
#3653 PC Build Thread in Hardware

Yeah, that's why I asked

SetsulAre the low fps a new problem or just in general and you only now get around to doing something about it?

Of course it's hard to notice when it slowly builds up over the course of 5 years.

I'm saying waiting for 7/7 is worth it because even if you don't get a 3600XT the prices for the 3600(X) could still drop a bit and worst case you've "wasted" a week. Waiting for Zen3 (and new GPUs) in Q4 would get you more bang for your buck but that's obviously a lot longer than just a few days.
Which model mostly depends on how much more performance you actually need. My main worry is that a 3600 should only be about 15% faster than a 4770K single threaded (though I think it might be a bit more in TF2), which isn't that much of an upgrade.

Yes, you can get a slight overclock even with the stock cooler. The main advantage of AMD for overclocking is that you don't need a more expensive CPU or mobo and you get a stock cooler for free anyway so you can always just try it and order an aftermarket cooler later if it's not cooler or quiet enough for your taste.

For now I'm not recommending anything. See what's wrong with your current PC, that might already fix your problem. Then you can consider better oc (maybe delidding and/or a better cooler) vs a new build.

posted 2 days ago
#3651 PC Build Thread in Hardware

Like I said, why not a 1600 AF then? If the performance is irrelevant anyway?
Or a 3300X? 4.3 GHz for 120$. By your logic the 3600 is not worth it at all for TF2.
Value is only worth considering after the initial performance goal has been met. Another 50$ for the GPU budget don't increase the fps in TF2. Will another 50$ spent on RAM increase the fps by 7%?
And the 3600XT can't be overclocked? Or do you think it'll somehow overclock worse? Have you already seen reviews that aren't out yet?
Why are you acting like this is a choice only between CPUs? This isn't about another 50$ for 5% performance on a (sub) 200$ CPU purchase, this is about 50$ for 5% performance on a 1000$ build, which is absolutely worth considering.

You're also forgetting that a 3600 is not that much faster than a 4770K single threaded. The "value" of an upgrade providing 25% more fps is drastically different from one that only gets you an extra 15% fps. Like I said the cheapest course of action would be to buy nothing but that also gets him no extra fps. Yes, it's also a GPU upgrade and MT is much better, but is it really worth saving 100$ (or even 200$) and losing half the benefit for TF2? That is not your decision. Neither is it mine. That's why I want to figure out how much of an upgrade he needs before declaring which CPU is or isn't worth the money. I've only said that a 2070 Super and a 3600XT would be something he can afford, not that that is what he needs.

Of course waiting 2 years is not the same as waiting 3 months, but that's still not the same as waiting for a week either. There will always be new CPUs. Waiting for a week should be possible for all but the most impatient. Anything on the scale of months "being worth it" is very subjective.

AMD has not confirmed anything other than 2020. I don't know where you're getting September from.

Yes, congratulations on predicting that AMD will in fact continue to release CPUs between 200 and 800$. I thought they'd stop that and only release >2000$ CPUs starting with Zen3.
Do you want a cookie for predicting that there will be a 4600? I can already tell you that your prediction won't work out because it'll be the 4600X at around 250$ and the 4600 and around 200$.

I'm not sure why you think a single digit percentage overclock would somehow remove the fps dips. Is 4.1 GHz = 120 fps minimum, 4.2 GHz = 160 fps and so on how you think it works?

posted 2 days ago
#3649 PC Build Thread in Hardware
Fake7/7 was when AMD announced new cpus last year. most likely all releases will be in september-ish aswell as for GPUs.Fakeyes most of the cpus were released on 7/7 last year. used announced/released interchangeably.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. AMD released CPUs on 7/7 last year and they'll release CPUs on 7/7 this year.
I didn't even mention GPUs and both Navi 2X and Zen3 are planned for Q4 according to the roadmaps, not September, unless you know something I don't.

If he wants to wait for Zen3 he can. He could also wait for Zen4 in 2022, which will be even better.

What is your point? Should he buy a 3600 now before the price drops when the 3600XT is released? Should he wait until September?
Why buy a 3600 at all? A 1600 AF for 85$, not even half the price still gets you 3.6 GHz. The higher the performance, the worse the price to performance ratio. Hell, he could just not buy anything and leave everything as is. That's absolutely free. Oh wait, he needs a faster CPU, not whatever you think would give him the most bang for buck.

Just recommending the 3600 because it's cheaper and hoping it'll magically double his minimum fps is a bad strategy.
It does not matter how cost effective a build is when it fails to meet the original performance goal of upgrading.
That's why I was trying to figure out how much faster than a 4770K his new CPU would have to be.

Anyway, my hopes for overclocking solving his problem are very low. Going from 4.1 to 4.2 isn't going to fix the problem. Instability usually arises from voltage, not temperature so I think he's just too inexperienced and timid. Most 4770Ks should do 4.4, maybe 4.5 or even 4.6+ if he's lucky, but a non-delidded 4770K cooled by a 212 will always be thermally limited way before that. Either way it's not something that'll double the minimum fps so I don't think it's worth spending time on that for now.

Cleaning and maybe reverting to stock settings should tell us if this was a temperature/throttling problem, but otherwise he might just have to lower his expectations for the new build.

posted 2 days ago
#3646 PC Build Thread in Hardware
Fake7/7 was when AMD announced new cpus last year. most likely all releases will be in september-ish aswell as for GPUs.

No? Most were released on 7/7? Only the 3950X and some OEM CPUs came later.

Do you want to tell me that press release from June 16 is not an announcement and that "Expected Availability: July 7, 2020" actually means "release in september"?

posted 3 days ago
#3644 PC Build Thread in Hardware

4.1 is barely an overclock considering the 4770K starts with 3.9. I'm surprised you couldn't even get 4.2 stable, the average OC is 4.5. No offense, but that doesn't exactly inspire confidence so unless you're willing to invest enough time to learn how to do it properly I wouldn't go for overclocking on the new build.
You're already using GPU encoding so CPU load from streaming obviously isn't the problem. GPU encoding doesn't cause any GPU load either though.

Fps in TF2 will always be inconsistent. A new pc will not fix that. There's also a slight problem: If you want those minimum 120 fps to become 240 you'd need a CPU that's twice as fast and there simply is none.

First lets clarify a few things: Did you mean AMD will be releasing CPUs? Because there will be no GPUs. Also I'm not sure how you got the idea that Intel would be releasing new CPUs from " the 3600XT will be released in 5 days". Intel 10th Gen/Comet Lake has already been released on April 30th. Intel made a big show out of releasing before AMD. Turns out they don't actually have enough CPUs so it's essentially a paper launch and availability is dogshit.
All of AMD's 6 cores had SMT since 2017 (and their implementation is a bit better than Intel's anyway, even if it doesn't have a fancy marketing name) so i5s getting that now so they don't get shit on in multithreaded workloads for the third year in a row only closes that gap. Still not enough to win unless they already got such a significant advantage in single threaded/clockrate that it's enough to overcome their disadvantage in SMT.

posted 3 days ago
#3642 PC Build Thread in Hardware

Like I said, release on 7/7 so they should be available around the same time.
I don't really have an accurate read on what you'd need these days to get 240 fps (and it also depends on the settings) but I highly doubt it'll be 5 GHz. So I'd just get something that's not crippled by a 2.x GHz baseclock and with 4.5-ish or more turbo and hope for the best. Not exactly the most professional approach but it should do. If you tell me what clockrate your 4770K is running at and how many fps you're getting right now (unless you only need more when streaming, then anything not slower than a 4770K with more cores will do) I can make a better estimate of what you actually need. My guess is you wouldn't need to overclock.
Turbo/Boost clocks and overclocking aren't mutually exclusive. No one overclocks by locking the clockrate anymore. Idle, normal and turbo states still work and are switched to when appropriate, regardless of what multipliers are set as maximum.
The performance gain is still roughly linear. The more important question is do you need it? If you can get let's say 250 fps at stock it doesn't matter if overclocking would get you an extra 10 or an extra 100 fps. You don't have to spend any money and time on it if you don't need it.

Yes, streaming affects the build significantly. Either you want a lot of cores or GPU encoding. The number of monitors don't matter unless you want more than 4 (nVidia) or 6 (AMD).
I haven't done any testing with DDR4 but I've seen >10% in my testing. Super expensive RAM still doesn't make any sense but going from the cheapest RAM to something fairly good is about the same as overclocking from 4.5 to 5.0 GHz so I definitely wouldn't cheap out on it. 3200 MHz CL16 minimum, 3600 MHz CL16 if the price is ok though CL17 or 18 is still better than 3200/16.

GPU encoding would be better, both performance wise and in terms of quality should you get an nVidia card, unless you bend over backwards to cram an unreasonable number of CPU cores into your budget. Since you want a new GPU anyway I would recommend going with that. In that case you could cheap out and go with a quad core but AMD doesn't really do those anymore and buying a 150$ mobo for a 150$ quad core Intel CPU just to be able to use RAM faster than 2666 MHz feels really weird. Also for when you do do some video editing and maybe VR stuff that taxes the CPU a bit more it's nice having 6 cores.
Realistically with your budget you can easily afford a 3600X(T) and a 2060 Super or even 2070 Super, maybe a new NVMe SSD if you want it. GPU wise that might actually be overkill.
That's just a rough sketch, but you get the idea.

3 steps now:
1. Tell me about the clockrate and fps so we can figure out how much single threaded performance you actually need.
2. Make a decision regarding GPU vs CPU encoding. (dislike of nVidia is a perfectly valid rerason for going with and AMD GPU which means a bit of a quality tradeoff when using GPU encoding or even using CPU encoding)
3. Wait for the new CPUs.

posted 3 days ago
#3640 PC Build Thread in Hardware

I know your old PC got RAM. DDR3 still isn't going to fit into DDR4 slots, regardless of the capacity.

1000$ still gets you a good PC.

You want an easy answer when there is no easy answer. For example an i5-10500 and R5 3600X cost about the same. The 10500 is going to be a bit faster in most single threaded workloads (though slightly slower in some, there are always exceptions) but slower in multi-threaded if all other things are equal. The problem is they won't be. It's not soldered and the stock cooler isn't anything to write home about so temperatures and therefore clockrates aren't going to be great unless you buy an aftermarket cooler. However if you do that (and even if you don't because the AMD stock cooler is at least ok) you could also overclock the 3600X. The Intel motherboards are also slightly more expensive, unless you want one that actually supports RAM faster than 2666 MHz (all AMD boards do), then it's going to be a lot more expensive. TF2 likes fast RAM. So which CPU ends up actually being faster depends on how much you spend on everything else.
There is no general rule that every Intel CPU will have better single threaded performance than any AMD CPU.
Comparing CPUs with the same price doesn't work because Intel lets you pay more for everything else.
Comparing setups with the same price doesn't work because then there's still overclocking which depends on the time you invest and luck of the draw. You also need to first choose what you can even afford. What cooler? What RAM speed? And so on. Then there's the little problem that the 3600XT will be released in 5 days. B550 mobos will also offer PCIe 4.0, that's another few fps in games that depend more on the GPU.

I can tell you that if you spend 530$ on an i9-10900K, 200$ on RAM, 200$ on a Z490, 70-100$ on a cooler and then overclock it it's going to be faster single threaded than anything AMD got to offer, but beyond that everything depends on your budget.
It's all nice and good that an overclocked i5-10600K(F) will definitely beat a 3600X, overclocked or not (at least single threaded), and they've nominally got almost the same MSRP (+13$ for the K, -12$ for the KF without iGPU), but ~60$ more for the CPU (because actual retail prices are 220$ vs 280$), ~50$ more for a mobo that actually allows overclocking and another 40-70$ for a cooler because the K(F) doesn't come with one and you actually want to get an OC, not just barely run it at stock without overheating, makes that all a moot point.

Picking a brand and then choosing what you can afford is stupid.
Figure out how much performance you want/need, whether or not you want to overclock and then pick a CPU that fits the bill, regardless of brand and name.
Or pick a budget, do the rest of the build and then if you also want a GPU see which combinations of CPU, RAM, mobo, cooler and GPU you can still afford.

posted 4 days ago
#3637 PC Build Thread in Hardware

You'd also need new RAM.
If you want a new case as well that means you can only keep the SSD/HDD, GPU and maybe the PSU. Though at that point you might as well leave that in so you friend doesn't have to rebuild it, just add his own GPU and SSD/HDD. So a new build makes sense, but I'd still keep at least the GPU, HDD unless you have a good reason not to. New SSD might make sense though.

Are the low fps a new problem or just in general and you only now get around to doing something about it?

For CPUs it's about the specific models. If across the whole lineup you'd always pick the same brand the market shares wouldn't be what they are.


posted 5 days ago
#3635 PC Build Thread in Hardware

Around 45-50£:
Cryorig H5 Universal/Ultimate
be quiet! Shadow Rock 3
Alpenföhn Brocken 3
Thermalright Macho Rev. C

Around 60£:
be quiet! Dark Rock 4
Noctua NH-U12S SE-AM4
Phanteks PH-TC14PE if you can get one. A bit louder due to being a dual tower but obviously a bit cooler as well.
Same if you can find an NH-D14. For both you'll have to get a free AM4 mounting kit from the manufacturer though.

posted 6 days ago
#3631 PC Build Thread in Hardware

Well by the time you buy Matisse Refresh (3600XT) will be a thing. Some general advice:
Either commit to spending a lot of money on overclocking or don't. You'll always be held back by the weakest link.
The 212 Evo is a budget cooler, but it isn't particularly cheap in Australia so it makes no sense to buy it, especially if you're spending 300$ on a mobo.
Though I wouldn't recommend spending that much money on an X570 without a good reason. B450 is good enough and with B550 you wouldn't even have to worry about updating the BIOS for a 3600XT so that'd be both easier and cheaper.
Don't cheap out on the RAM, you can afford better timings. Check the mobo QVL just in case. Nothing worse than RAM that won't work at the advertised frequency with your mobo.
GPU depends on the settings, you might not need a 2070 Super.

A 2060 Super is much close to a 2070 than to a 2060. The performance difference is a lot less than the almost 1/3 of the price you save compared to a 2070 Super (and like I said you might not even need a 2060 Super).
That said if you can find a cheaper 2070 Super (e.g. one is on sale for 750$ right now) it's worth considering because it is a significant step up from the 2060 Super/2070.

posted 1 week ago
#5 Looking to buy a used CPU in Hardware
CorunsonI know that most intel processors are compatible with this motherboard

If your definition of "most" excludes all CPUs from 2017 onward and all before 2015 as well, then yes, it's compatible with most.
LGA1151 and LGA1151-2 are not compatible so you're looking for 6th (6000) and 7th gen (7000) (if you updated the BIOS). No other CPUs will work.

posted 2 weeks ago
#3628 PC Build Thread in Hardware

Matisse Refresh (Zen2 CPUs) supposedly 7/7, nVidia GPUs starting in September (whole lineup will need a while). AMD GPUs and Zen3 most likely Q4. Definitely wait at least a month.

posted 4 weeks ago
#3626 PC Build Thread in Hardware

Apart from streaming you're just GPU limited. At least I'm fairly sure that risk of rain and valorant aren't CPU limited by a 6700 on lowest settings unless you want >300 fps.

So you absolutely need a new GPU, a new PSU and should probably get a new case as well.
The rest depends on how you want to handle streaming. If you want to stick with CPU encoding I wouldn't stop at 6 cores but you can already barely afford 6 with your budget. Although it is debatable whether you really need an RTX 2060 or could make do with something cheaper. Sure, you need something faster than a 360, but do you really need something 4.5 times as fast?
The other option would be to use GPU encoding, keep everything but the GPU, PSU (you'll need an adapter cable because Dell) and case and be done with it.
Switched to a PSU that's in stock, but honestly, something cheaper would be enough for that 350W build.

posted 4 weeks ago
#3624 PC Build Thread in Hardware

What #3623 said, but he forgot the most important question: Why are you upgrading? What are you trying to achieve?
That's not quite the same as what you're going to use it for, it's about what you want to improve compared to your current pc. That'll decide which parts you need to replace and how much faster the new ones need to be.

posted 4 weeks ago
1 2 3 4 ⋅⋅ 207