Tech Gaming Hardware discussion (& Hardware Sales) thread
- Thread starter Madmick
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2015
- Messages
- 14,580
- Reaction score
- 15,851
I was about to hit the buy button when I heard about the thermal gel leaks in some of the Gigabyte Aorus Masters. You're right, brand loyalty is ultimately folly.Indeed, generally speaking, I don't think one should be too much of a brand hound. Just proceed through the cheapest options, and make sure one didn't catch a glaringly bad review due to some design flaw, or has a poor reputation online with owners for something like coil whine or some weird known firmware issue. Because at their heart they're all really just the same product.
I'm pretty sure I already posted it, but published earlier this year, or maybe last year, as reported by a Swiss retailer. MSI is solid on both sides, here, too:
After that, eyeball the Boost Clock. Once you see a jump you're probably seeing an indication of the higher-binned cards that that board partner received from NVIDIA. So those are the choicest cuts. Unfortunately, usually they're not worth it because the higher clockspeed isn't proportional to the increased asking price. You tend to get very little (like +5% performance) for a lot.
Putting it altogether, with a glance at PCPP, I'd opine the introductory tier MSI Shadow 2X or MSI Ventus 2X RTX 5070 is the best value among the NVIDIA RTX 50 series atm on the American market ($600-$620).
Since Municipal is already spending so much on the 5090, though, and the most powerful cards tend to be louder, I think paying a bit higher premium is reasonable, so the Suprim might be a justifiable choice. However, @Municipal Waste, I just checked the UK PCPP, and it appears the Ventus 3X is only £1889.99 from Overclockers UK:
Direct link:
I definitely don't think a 1K quid premium for the Suprim is justified over that.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2022
- Messages
- 182
- Reaction score
- 344
First off, thank you for the quick and helpful responses.Indeed, generally speaking, I don't think one should be too much of a brand hound. Just proceed through the cheapest options, and make sure one didn't catch a glaringly bad review due to some design flaw, or has a poor reputation online with owners for something like coil whine or some weird known firmware issue. Because at their heart they're all really just the same product.
I'm pretty sure I already posted it, but published earlier this year, or maybe last year, as reported by a Swiss retailer. MSI is solid on both sides, here, too:
After that, eyeball the Boost Clock. Once you see a jump you're probably seeing an indication of the higher-binned cards that that board partner received from NVIDIA. So those are the choicest cuts. Unfortunately, usually they're not worth it because the higher clockspeed isn't proportional to the increased asking price. You tend to get very little (like +5% performance) for a lot.
Putting it altogether, with a glance at PCPP, I'd opine the introductory tier MSI Shadow 2X or MSI Ventus 2X RTX 5070 is the best value among the NVIDIA RTX 50 series atm on the American market ($600-$620).
Since Municipal is already spending so much on the 5090, though, and the most powerful cards tend to be louder, I think paying a bit higher premium is reasonable, so the Suprim might be a justifiable choice. However, @Municipal Waste, I just checked the UK PCPP, and it appears the Ventus 3X is only £1889.99 from Overclockers UK:
Direct link:
I definitely don't think a 1K quid premium for the Suprim is justified over that.
Currently my build looks like this:
| AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D 4700 AM5 WOF |
| GiBy X870E AORUS PRO |
| be quiet! Pure Power 12 M 1000W ATX30 |
| D5 64GB 6000-36 |
| SSD 1TB 7.2/6.3G 990 EVO Plus M.2 SAM |
| SSD 2TB 7.4/6.9G 990 PRO M.2 SAM NVMe |
| be quiet! PURE BASE 500 bk ATX |
| be quiet! Silent Wings 4 PWM 140x140x25 |
| be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 5 |
In hindsight I should have bought better RAM and could have spent more on the tower, but its hidden behind a backpanel in my office anyways, so I never gave a damn about optics.
I will be keeping an eye on the MSI GeForce RTX 5090 32G Ventus 3X OC.
Since I use a LG C3 as a monitor 4k is important to me. Do you believe there would be a noticeable difference between a "lower end" 5090 and "higher end"?
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 13,127
- Reaction score
- 6,348
Since you are playing in 4K the games are more cinematic in nature. Difference in frames per second would be low single digit percentile. VRam amount should be more important to you.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 66,471
- Reaction score
- 38,213
No.
The main difference between more expensive and less expensive variants is the quality of the cooling performance. A concern with this can be that the GPU running cooler can contribute to its longevity if you live in a hot enough environment, but the differences are usually slight enough I doubt they often get hot enough that becomes a material difference. The more practical issue is usually that once the GPU gets warm, the fans ramp up, and it creates more noise.
Otherwise, as far as differences in the power of the GPU, its game performance, that all comes down to the boost clock (assuming one doesn't manually overclock).
- The Suprim OC and Suprim SOC are boosted to 2565 MHz, or can be auto'd to the "Extreme Boost" of 2580 in Gaming Mode. However, that mode is probably intolerably loud, because Techpowerup tested it at the Silent Mode boost of 2517 MHz.
- The Ventus 3X is boosted to 2407 MHz, or can be auto'd to the "Extreme Boost" of 2422 MHz.
- The Founder's Edition (unaltered NVIDIA 5090) is boosted to 2407 MHz same as the Ventus 3X.
As you can see in Techpowerup's review of the Suprim SOC, in their benchmark roundup, here was the difference between that 2517 MHz vs. 2407 MHz at 4K (+3.5% average framerate):
So the question is simple. Is +3.5% worth £900 to you?
*Edit* Here's an in-depth review from a Redditor. The one thing to note is that undervolting is a form of manual underclocking. The out-of-the-box advantage of the more expensive AIBs in terms of cooling performance is larger with the 5090 than lesser cards, but no matter what you buy, it appears you may find yourself balancing the cooling versus the noise levels with your own calibrations of fan ramping speeds in the software.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2022
- Messages
- 182
- Reaction score
- 344
No.
The main difference between more expensive and less expensive variants is the quality of the cooling performance. A concern with this can be that the GPU running cooler can contribute to its longevity if you live in a hot enough environment, but the differences are usually slight enough I doubt they often get hot enough that becomes a material difference. The more practical issue is usually that once the GPU gets warm, the fans ramp up, and it creates more noise.
Otherwise, as far as differences in the power of the GPU, its game performance, that all comes down to the boost clock (assuming one doesn't manually overclock).
- The Suprim OC and Suprim SOC are boosted to 2565 MHz, or can be auto'd to the "Extreme Boost" of 2580 in Gaming Mode. However, that mode is probably intolerably loud, because Techpowerup tested it at the Silent Mode boost of 2517 MHz.
- The Ventus 3X is boosted to 2407 MHz, or can be auto'd to the "Extreme Boost" of 2422 MHz.
- The Founder's Edition (unaltered NVIDIA 5090) is boosted to 2407 MHz same as the Ventus 3X.
As you can see in Techpowerup's review of the Suprim SOC, in their benchmark roundup, here was the difference between that 2517 MHz vs. 2407 MHz at 4K (+3.5% average framerate):
So the question is simple. Is +3.5% worth £900 to you?
*Edit* Here's an in-depth review from a Redditor. The one thing to note is that undervolting is a form of manual underclocking. The out-of-the-box advantage of the more expensive AIBs in terms of cooling performance is larger with the 5090 than lesser cards, but no matter what you buy, it appears you may find yourself balancing the cooling versus the noise levels with your own calibrations of fan ramping speeds in the software.
Again, thanks for your advice. Just picked up a Aorus Master for 2480 EUR, so only 200 EUR more than the Ventus. Decadence wins....
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 66,471
- Reaction score
- 38,213
Nice. I think that's a smart purchase. At the amount you're spending €200 is a trivial premium for the advantages you're getting.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2022
- Messages
- 182
- Reaction score
- 344
Had to use another case and swap everything out into the new one. Originally got everything done beforehand so I just technically would have to put the GPU in....... wouldnt fit although the cases dimensions should be enough (at least according to the manufacturers data sheets). Should have installed the GPU first then the CPU cooler, so it wouldnt get in the way. Didnt feel right to cram it all into a smaller mid tower.
No coil whine, max. temp around 72°C so far, fans also quiet. All around I'm very happy.
Now I just have to get colorcontrol to work so I can calibrate my TV via my PC. Struggling with getting the settings to stick at the moment, but will get it to work sooner or later.
Thanks again for the great advice regarding the GPU!
No coil whine, max. temp around 72°C so far, fans also quiet. All around I'm very happy.
Now I just have to get colorcontrol to work so I can calibrate my TV via my PC. Struggling with getting the settings to stick at the moment, but will get it to work sooner or later.
Thanks again for the great advice regarding the GPU!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 66,471
- Reaction score
- 38,213
Nah, I think installing the CPU cooler first is better. I wouldn't like any solution/method that required me to install the GPU before the CPU cooler because then any time you wanted to remove the GPU you might have to first remove the CPU cooler. I think that's a good reason most building guides involve assembling the motherboard with CPU, RAM, and CPU cooler before installing it into the case, then everything else comes after that.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 66,471
- Reaction score
- 38,213
I had not, but I'm not surprised. Based on the pipelines one would assume AMD had more to squeeze out of driver improvements than NVIDIA.
I wonder what our resident NVIDIA fanboy will have to say seeing as how his precious Counterstrike swung from being an 11% win for the 5070 Ti to a 10% win for the 9070 XT.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 13,127
- Reaction score
- 6,348
Ive been a Pc gamer for 26 years. When AMD comes out proclaiming to be the savior in the GPU market then follows Nvidias retail pricing structure. Both companies can go fuck themselves with their price gouging.
Dont understand how much more i must emphasize this before you get it. As a consumer in the space, i care more about the long term health in the Pc gaming market. Nvidia and AMD are actively working against that.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 66,471
- Reaction score
- 38,213
LOL so transparent. Still trying to run this bothsidesism shit as if everyone is blind to the fact the real-world price reflects the MSRP ratio, anyway, with the 5070 Ti selling for $130 more than the 9070 XT atm (+$80 MSRP vs. +$100 MSRP).
But while we're on the topic, @Slobodan. I'm a bit disappointed Intel hasn't turned out a better improvement. It looks like the gains have been greater than the NVIDIA's if you averaged it out, but only slightly, though there has been a major improvement in 1% lows which is more important, practically.
But while we're on the topic, @Slobodan. I'm a bit disappointed Intel hasn't turned out a better improvement. It looks like the gains have been greater than the NVIDIA's if you averaged it out, but only slightly, though there has been a major improvement in 1% lows which is more important, practically.
You need bodies to get improvements, and Intel doesn't have them anymore. Truly awful timing for that division.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 13,127
- Reaction score
- 6,348
Average retail price here in the USA was 23% over MSRP.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2009
- Messages
- 69,497
- Reaction score
- 42,500
The cheapest 5070 Ti on PCPP right now is $830 ($80 above MSRP) while the cheapest 9070 XT on PCPP right now is $720 ($120 above MSRP).
Also if anyone is looking to buy a 5070 at MSRP then check Walmart of all places. I was at one this weekend and to my surprise they had GPUs in stock. Actual, real GPUs, not just BS like a 1030.
Also if anyone is looking to buy a 5070 at MSRP then check Walmart of all places. I was at one this weekend and to my surprise they had GPUs in stock. Actual, real GPUs, not just BS like a 1030.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 66,471
- Reaction score
- 38,213
What about this isn't sinking in?
Gamers cheered the 9070 XT based on its value citing its MSRP, and its greater availability at launch. You were the only poster who tried to neg it pointing out AMD also suffered supply issues. Obviously those existed, but they didn't appear to be quite as bad as NVIDIA's paper launch, but that was moot, because the real proof would be in the pudding with the test of time. Because supply and demand will determine the real-world price. Here we are several months later, and...
...this was what I was referencing. It was $830 (+$80 vs. $750 MSRP) and $700 (+$100 vs. $600 MSRP) when I made my post above. The 9070 XT is now outperforming the 5070 XT in raw rasterization in game suites, and it's doing so at $110-$130 less.
So the real-world prices are roughly reflecting the MSRP ratios, anyway.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 66,471
- Reaction score
- 38,213
I'm aware, and I think it's justified, but the "NVIDIA tax" is a pricier luxury than it's ever been.
(1) It's been running +$100-$150 since launch, when you could even get it, and now it's the inferior card in terms of raw performance.
(2) Techspot/Hardware Unboxed didn't test ray-tracing, but based on the gains the 9070 XT has made with driver improvements, we'd expect its advantage with ray-tracing turned on to have been reduced to around a mere 3%-7% (depending on the benchmark suite). That's a humble advantage, not much more than what Techspot just showed for general performance to the 9070 XT's advantage, and those benchmarks crank all RT settings all the way up. Who does that in the real world? Whenever I play a game for the first time the first thing I do is search a YouTube video for the optimal settings, it's great, because the uploader will give you an idea of the performance penalties for any given setting, and what the graphic improvement is for that cost, following that with their personal suggestion for the best balance. Nobody ever recommends Ultra for every RT setting. It's never worth it. Bottom line: raw performance matters more.
(3) NVIDIA does consume a bit less power, but at the national electricity cost rate, comparing reference consumption levels of the respective cards, if you gamed 20 hours a week, that would work out to around +$7/yr.
(4) Thanks to its efficiency, the 5070 Ti does run cooler under load, but that only might matter to those who live in the hottest environment, and find their fans kicking up more than they did for any of the reviewers, because in those reviewer environments, with the temps of their offices, the increased temps didn't matter, as the 9070 XT cards all average similar noise levels under load, anyway.
(5) So the NVIDIA tax is boiling down almost entirely to DLSS, or perhaps also whatever perceptions you might have about driver & tech issue superiority. Sony continuing to throw its money & clout behind FSR advancement in collaboration with AMD for the PS5 Pro is further eroding NVIDIA's advantage in this space.
I really thought AMD was just going to be overwhelmed by the behemoth NVIDIA has become, despite their complacent arrogance, but you gotta give it to AMD. They're the little engine that could. They're keeping NVIDIA honest, or at least they're trying to.
