Tech Gaming Hardware discussion (& Hardware Sales) thread

avenue94 said:
Out of curiosity, what do you need 64GB of ram for? I'm assuming it's non-gaming uses.
Click to expand...

idk, when i bought this pc 11 years ago ppl also told me that 16gb is overkill but most of the games now require 16gb these days

so idk
 
Neph said:
While this would be a godlike machine I have to question whether you are 'proofed' for 5 years. If you are spending massive dollars on a PC and not touching it for years you probably are also accepting that you are getting blistering speed now but pretty shitty speed later. It'd be much more efficient to have good speeds the whole time by buying a tier or two below and doing that again in 2.5 years. Overal your average performance is better IMO.
Click to expand...

I got this PC for the last 11 years with only upgrade of gpu about 5 years ago. I can still smoothly play all the games although no longer at ultra but from usual low, med, high, ultra i still seem to figure in high/ultra range in most games so given the time that passed maybe 5 years or more isnt that bad to estimate after all
 
Interesting that after 11 years my cpu idle temps are at 36 degrees celsius growing to 65-70 tops, did not repasted once

say what u like about overpriced Dell but they do put some quality to their rigs
 
Nameless King said:
@Madmick thoughts on 7950X3D ?

3-4% more efficient in gaming benchmarks than 13900k and not touching 100 tdp at the top limit?

https://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry-2023-amd-ryzen-9-7950x3d-review
Click to expand...
It’s a hold for now. 7800x3d is around the corner and is expected to do about the same performance for a lot cheaper. I’m guessing it will draw less power too but I haven’t looked at that.

Also I would ask what you’re planning to do with your rig. If 4K gaming is your goal, you don’t need a $700 cpu. Out of the top CPUs, they are all performing pretty evenly at 4k. At 1440 you’re seeing a little benefit from the higher end CPUs, but that’s still of questionable value imo.
 
Blayt7hh said:
It’s a hold for now. 7800x3d is around the corner and is expected to do about the same performance for a lot cheaper. I’m guessing it will draw less power too but I haven’t looked at that.

Also I would ask what you’re planning to do with your rig. If 4K gaming is your goal, you don’t need a $700 cpu. Out of the top CPUs, they are all performing pretty evenly at 4k. At 1440 you’re seeing a little benefit from the higher end CPUs, but that’s still of questionable value imo.
Click to expand...

but thats only 8 cores or it doesnt matter?
 
You laptop PLEBS bow to your master.


LOL
 
Nameless King said:
idk, when i bought this pc 11 years ago ppl also told me that 16gb is overkill but most of the games now require 16gb these days

so idk
Click to expand...

Yea Hogwarts Legacy was putting me at 95% mem usage with 16GB. I purchased another 16GB and it went to 70%. It was an optimization issue though and after some updates it went down but it was still over 50% of my memory.
 
avenue94 said:
Out of curiosity, what do you need 64GB of ram for? I'm assuming it's non-gaming uses.
Click to expand...

Nameless King said:
idk, when i bought this pc 11 years ago ppl also told me that 16gb is overkill but most of the games now require 16gb these days

so idk
Click to expand...
  • RAM's cheap.
  • Despite neophytes on Reddit, for example, constantly echoing each other that "more than 'x' RAM is overkill", the rise of RAM requirement ceilings have accelerated rapidly in recent years. Some were saying just last year and the year before that more than 16GB was stupid. Well, we're already seeing 32GB requirements, so they're the ones looking foolish.
  • The sensible strategy @Neph just articulated doesn't apply to RAM in the context of upgrades. The value sweet spot in several years may be much faster DDR5 RAM, and today's motherboards will support those future frequencies, but that doesn't mean a CPU from this gen will stably accommodate it, and even if it does, the performance increase of future RAM typically doesn't scale that impressively with past CPUs. Rather than buy a 32GB kit today, and a faster 64GB/128GB kit in several years for a modest improvement, it makes more sense given his desire to 'set-it-and-forget-it' with this purchase to just buy 64GB now with a focus on the best possible latency for the highest level of frequency before costs from increases in frequency become ridiculous.

Nameless King said:
but thats only 8 cores or it doesnt matter?
Click to expand...
As we've tried impressing on you in recent years, it's about value. The performance improvements of the 12+ core chips over the 8-core chips for gaming are slight, and yet come at a large expense. So most opt to buy for superior value, put the money they saved into a GPU upgrade in 2-4 years, then buy a new foundation (CPU/Motherboard/RAM) when that upgraded comp begins to fail to meet desired performance/minimums. That's the most rational ongoing PC builder strategy.

If you are determined to hold onto this PC for a million years, like you have your current one, though, it's likely that the additional cores will be leveraged more advantageously in future years just as they are today versus the past (when 2 cores, then 4 cores, then 6 cores were the value sweet spot).

One more downside is in the case of the 7950X3D (or 7900X3D), it's about more than just cores. You're wasting a lot of money on cache that isn't even advantageous to use for gaming. Kind of dumb to spend all that money on cache that-- for ideal performance-- you'll just disable to use.
 
Nameless King said:
idk, when i bought this pc 11 years ago ppl also told me that 16gb is overkill but most of the games now require 16gb these days

so idk
Click to expand...
Well you’re asking an impossible question for people to answer. No one knows what components will look like a decade from now and how well todays will hold up. I mean yeah maxing out everything with no consideration to cost is probably the best way to future proof.

I mean things like ram can always be upgraded later if it becomes needed. I built my PC 5 and 1/2 years ago now and built it with 16gbs. About a year or so ago I just bought another 16gbs of he same ram and plugged it in, as 16gbs was starting to show some limitations. It definitely was a luxury upgrade though I certainly did not need it.

The name of the games also a little different today. If you’re talking about chugging along at 30fps at 1080 then you’re probably pretty safe as far as future proofing goes. High res and high frame rates is a different conversation, which I can promise your 11 year old pc is not in that conversation
 
Madmick said:
Yeah, it's the new king of the castle.
Click to expand...

Results are inconsistent. How the increased L3 cache was implemented doesnt guarantee better game performance. Gets even muddier with how half the cores are disabled via chipset driver integration that requires XBox Game bar usage in Windows.

Its another really weird release by AMD.
 
KaNesDeath said:
Results are inconsistent. How the increased L3 cache was implemented doesnt guarantee better game performance. Gets even muddier with how half the cores are disabled via chipset driver integration that requires XBox Game bar usage in Windows.

Its another really weird release by AMD.
Click to expand...
Results are always inconsistent, that's why you look at the overall averages. If you have data showing Intel winning any suite, overall, please present it.

Everyone will disable the second CCD with 7950X3D, it performs better that way, anyway, presumably because it maintains the primary complex's higher frequency while integrating better with the RAM, and because the secondary complex lacks the 3D cache expansion. Yes, even before the official reviews there were already leaks a week ago showing the serious driver issues causing the chip to run off the wrong complex, and that has now been observed with retail samples. This doesn't mean that AMD firmware will hamstring the 7950X3D with poor implementation, or that Windows software will restrict it to a single complex in perpetuity. My expectation is they improve the drivers to become more intelligent over time, and unlock the full potential of all its cores. AMD has historically been good about that kind of long-term support for their hardware. For now, that isn't as important as using the right complex, and they aren't even getting that right all the time.

You'll get no argument from me that the 7800X3D is clearly the smartest buy for gamers, even without reviews, and I don't think anyone is baffled by why AMD held its launch back. I'm as curious as everyone else to see how exactly how well the 7800X3D stacks up. In the past, AMD's on-paper frequency quotes for their chips haven't differed as greatly in practice as specification would suggest, so I doubt even the frequency discrepancy will matter that much. Their binning isn't as well-tuned as Intel's.
 
My Spot said:
Speaking of overclocking, Silicon Lottery closed. I guess the juice wasn't worth the squeeze anymore.
Click to expand...

My CPU is 3 or 4 years old and I went from 4.2 to 5 ghz. But I agree that manufactures are squeezing the shit out of thing more now.
 
The Aorus Gigabyte RTX 4090 was on NewEgg at retail for a bit. I think we'll probably see it again this next week
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,706
Messages
58,312,578
Members
175,997
Latest member
Fitboy485

Share this page

Back
Top