Gaming Hardware discussion (& Hardware Sales) thread

My local microcenter has the 2700x for 279.00(249.00)
R5 1600 129.00(99.00)
R71800x for 199.00(169.00)

The bracketed prices are for an extra -30.00 off with mobo purchase.
The r5 2400g @ 149.00(119.00) and r3 2200g @ 79.00 are serious steals right now as well.

http://www.microcenter.com/category/4294966995,4294819840/amd-processors
Such is the Microcenter advantage. You're fortunate to live near one. For most of us a round trip to one would cost more in gas than the difference below the best internet price (if one is even that close).
 
My local microcenter has the 2700x for 279.00(249.00)
R5 1600 129.00(99.00)
R71800x for 199.00(169.00)
I've had friends who work there. They basically lower there profit margins to entice people to come in. It works since alot of the people who come in buy the rest of their parts as well so in the long run it's pretty smart.

You must be retarded or trolling, to the ignore list.
Calls someone a troll, gets banned in less than two months.......... <Lmaoo>
 
Last edited:
I've had friends who work there. They basically lower there profit margins to entice people to come in. It works since alot of the people who come in buy the rest of their parts as well so in the long run it's pretty smart.

Calls someone a troll, gets banned in less than two months.......... <Lmaoo>
Well that and it’s a no frills store compared to say a fry’s or something.

It’s extremely bare bones but the level of stuff they have and the volume is amazing.
 
So the 2070 launched today at a $500 msrp. You can pick up a non blower GTX1080 for around $500. 1070ti's, which can be overclocked to 1080 speeds, are going for $400.
Chart is from Hardware Unboxed's video
 
Last edited:
I like the headline for one of the reviews read "Nvidia’s RTX 2070 Features 2016 Performance, Currently Useless Features, and a Massive Price Increase"

If this card was $450-500 then it would be so-so but I have a feeling non of the models will be at/under msrp ($550-600 is probably gonna be the norm for the first few months).

AMD hasn't really done shit the last two years so this is what we get until 7nm Navi lauches around Spring time
 
Last edited:
I like the headline for one of the reviews read "Nvidia’s RTX 2070 Features 2016 Performance, Currently Useless Features, and a Massive Price Increase"

If this card was $450-500 then it would be so-so but I have a feeling non of the models will be at/under msrp ($550-600 is probably gonna be the norm for the first few months).

AMD hasn't really done shit the last two years so this is what we get until 7nm Navi lauches around Spring time

Nvidia just threw a 60mph fastball over the plate. Will AMD have the power to knock it out of the park?
 
Bring back 3Dfx, dammit!
 
Sometimes you just have to sit back and laugh at the community. Everyone’s freaking out because this gen of Nvidia cards were a refresh.
When AMD did it, no one said a word.
 
Sometimes you just have to sit back and laugh at the community. Everyone’s freaking out because this gen of Nvidia cards were a refresh.
When AMD did it, no one said a word.
To be fair when AMD did it they 1. Were the ones playing catch up and 2. Didn't refresh AND raise the price thus defeating the purpose of being a refresh.......
 
Sometimes you just have to sit back and laugh at the community. Everyone’s freaking out because this gen of Nvidia cards were a refresh.
When AMD did it, no one said a word.
<{katwhu}>

Uncharacteristically terrible post by you, Jeff. Hell yes the community has raked AMD. I still remember how badly AMD was (rightly) blasted for their CPU refresh with the FX-9xxx series. The tech reviewers/blogsphere also called out the GPU refresh with their RX 500 series, but @560ti nailed two of the three reasons for why they weren't crucified for it. The RX 580, in particular, offered a leap in price to performance when it was released, especially in terms of the well-aging FLOP power, and the card absolutely kills it at 1080p.

The third reason was expediency. The RX 400 series debuted in June, 2016. The RX 500 series was released in April, 2017: 10 months later. That's a perfectly acceptable window for a refresh. Meanwhile, the GTX 10 series launched in May 2016, and this NVIDIA RTX launch didn't drop until September 2018: 28 months later. Everyone is well justified in expecting more. It's not even clear if Ray-Tracing will ever evolve beyond being a proprietary gimmick.

You're acting like they weren't abused for Vega's underwhelming performance and overpriced MSRPs. They were, and the only reason more wasn't shoveled was because we were in the middle of the cryptosurge, so gamers were preoccupied with a larger problem that more acutely affected Vega because cryptominers found it more desirable, so ire was directed at them, instead.
 
To be fair when AMD did it they 1. Were the ones playing catch up and 2. Didn't refresh AND raise the price thus defeating the purpose of being a refresh.......
Playing catch up doesn’t give them an excuse. If we’re going to over react and blow everything out of proportion, it either needs to be done equally or this shit can just stop.
 
<{katwhu}>

Uncharacteristically terrible post by you, Jeff. Hell yes the community has raked AMD. I still remember how badly AMD was (rightly) blasted for their CPU refresh with the FX-9xxx series. The tech reviewers/blogsphere also called out the GPU refresh with their RX 500 series, but @560ti nailed two of the three reasons for why they weren't crucified for it. The RX 580, in particular, offered a leap in price to performance when it was released, especially in terms of the well-aging FLOP power, and the card absolutely kills it at 1080p.

The third reason was expediency. The RX 400 series debuted in June, 2016. The RX 500 series was released in April, 2017: 10 months later. That's a perfectly acceptable window for a refresh. Meanwhile, the GTX 10 series launched in May 2016, and this NVIDIA RTX launch didn't drop until September 2018: 28 months later. Everyone is well justified in expecting more. It's not even clear if Ray-Tracing will ever evolve beyond being a proprietary gimmick.

You're acting like they weren't abused for Vega's underwhelming performance and overpriced MSRPs. They were, and the only reason more wasn't shoveled was because we were in the middle of the cryptosurge, so gamers were preoccupied with a larger problem that more acutely affected Vega because cryptominers found it more desirable, so ire was directed at them, instead.
It was a poor post on my part.
I’m just fed up with reviewers lately. Over the past couple of years, everything has went tabloidish and there’s always an outrage over something. If there’s nothing to be outraged about, then they find the stupidest little thing and run with it.
Maybe it’s just a change in society in general, but I’m sick of it.
 
780 Ti - $700
980 Ti - $650
1080 Ti - $700
2080 Ti - $1200

<26>
 
Playing catch up doesn’t give them an excuse
It was their fault for being in the red from 2013-2016 but UNLIKE Nvida they actually made the best of their situation. They offered refreshes that where incredible bang for your buck and it even forced Nvidia to drop the prices on some of there more overpriced models.

Nvidia with over 5x the R&D budget and being in a good timeline situation (over two years since last architecture) just literally offered re-fresh like performance while raising the prices.

I can't realistically see why they won't get flamed for this. I understand that there's alot of forced drama in the media but this is FAR from forced, it's 100% justified

The RX 580, in particular, offered a leap in price to performance when it was released, especially in terms of the well-aging FLOP power, and the card absolutely kills it at 1080p.

The third reason was expediency. The RX 400 series debuted in June, 2016. The RX 500 series was released in April, 2017: 10 months later. That's a perfectly acceptable window for a refresh. Meanwhile, the GTX 10 series launched in May 2016, and this NVIDIA RTX launch didn't drop until September 2018: 28 months later. Everyone is well justified in expecting more. It's not even clear if Ray-Tracing will ever evolve beyond being a proprietary gimmick.

You're acting like they weren't abused for Vega's underwhelming performance and overpriced MSRPs. They were, and the only reason more wasn't shoveled was because we were in the middle of the cryptosurge, so gamers were preoccupied with a larger problem that more acutely affected Vega because cryptominers found it more desirable, so ire was directed at them, instead.
Pretty much. AMD was in a bad situation but they actually made the best of it which is why there GPU segment wasn't really bashed too much. At the end of the day they offered good performance for the price in the price segment that appeals to over 80% of the market.
 
Last edited:
AMD has released an RX580 that has fewer stream processors, 2304 vs 2048, and lower clocks.
RX-580-Comparison.png

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/sapphire-rx-580-2048sp,37937.html
 
Anandtech: i9-9900K Review
The 9900K is outperforming the 2700X by considerably more than may have been expected. In games it was running 10%-35% superior to the R7-2700X at stock. UserBenchmark doesn't have a lot of samples, but it is winning by 20% so far:
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-9900K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X/4028vs3958

Ironically, in Ashes of Singularity, after all the fuss about the manufactured benchmark, Anandtech has the 9900K beating the 2700X by a nearly identical margin to the heavily criticized Principal Technologies. For the "iGP" (720p low graphics settings) benchmark which saw the greatest disparity in CPU scores the 9900K scores 58% better than the 2700X.

Steve at Gamer's Nexus above said they were "easily" able to achieve their 5.2GHz @1.4V:

GN Review:


GN Live Overclock:
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwrevie...paste-delid-gaming-benchmarks-vs-2700x/page-4



But when you consider how well the R7-2700 scores at 4.2GHz in the context of its price it is still difficult to argue the 9900K's appeal. This is a CPU fully committed to the ePeen angle. Even for streamers, the viewer-side figures for the 2700X are superior in terms of the percentage of frames delivered above the 60fps cutoff at both Low and Medium transcoding settings.

*Edit*
Linus dropped their video an hour ago. The 9900K's streaming woes versus the 2700X are particularly troublesome considering its insignificant ~3.5% performance advantage over the i7-9700K (which doesn't hyperthread). Purist gamers will want the 9700K. Hybrid gamers/streamers will be more attracted to the 2700X (along with everyone else who prioritizes value over absolute gaming performance).
 
Last edited:
i record games with a geforce 200 series in 60 fps and 1080p, i can do 4k but the videos are like 10 gb each. Technology has outpaced itself
 
i record games with a geforce 200 series in 60 fps and 1080p, i can do 4k but the videos are like 10 gb each. Technology has outpaced itself
Which 200 series model?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top