Posts by wiredotter14

The 6800XT straight from the store is sitting at $2333 now. Honestly, that beats out a 3080 with no receipt or warranty, plus you’re getting an extra 33% more VRAM on top of everything else.

urbanheron4 said:After all that overthinking and weighing the options, here’s my final verdict:

Go with the first PC if you plan on dropping money on a dedicated GPU—just anything that isn't integrated graphics. That Core i7 is still a solid performer. Honestly, the speed difference between DDR3 and DDR4 isn't massive enough to ruin your day in real-world use. Plus, there's plenty of it lying around, so you can just grab what you need when you need it.

If you aren't planning to buy a graphics card, then go for the second one since the integrated graphics are better. Still, it wouldn't be a bad idea to eventually throw some more RAM and a larger SSD at it, depending on what kind of software you're actually running.

Though, I'd suggest double-checking the motherboards just to make sure you aren't buying a lemon with a major defect.

👍

wanderingbison9 said:I've got my old Asus Prime x370 Pro (running the latest AGESA BIOS) and an R7 3700 x, and I'm looking at CPU-Z right now—it's reporting PCIe 4.0 (16 GT/s). Every spec sheet says the Ryzen 3000 series supports 4.0, including the R5 3600... what a mess.

Wait, I actually have that ASRock board in my other rig. If an older 3-series board can be upgraded to 4.0 via a BIOS update, why couldn't this 4-series one? I'll go check.

Regardless, if I upgrade to a GPU with PCIe 4.0 x16 support while keeping the R7 3700 x, it should run at full 4.0 bandwidth, right? (Not saying there's actually a massive performance jump, though).

You're right. My bad. Intel was the one lagging on PCIe 4.0, not AMD.
The thing is, X370, B350, and B450 boards aren't technically designed for PCIe 4.0.
If you manage to force 4.0 through a BIOS update, great—but for an x16 card, it’s hardly necessary. Maybe for some PCIe 4.0 x8 card (like a 6500XT, but honestly, don't bother buying those).

Not sure if the same applies to B450 boards that have 4.0 support in their BIOS.
But generally speaking, for any GPU that isn't something pathetic like a 6500XT, it's not really a major issue.

wanderingbison9 said:But honestly, how much fun can you really have with ancient HD 4000 graphics paired with an old Core i7? Most games that are even remotely playable on hardware like that don't really demand much RAM anyway—once you subtract what the video memory takes, you're mostly looking at things like Tetris 😛. I think the only truly useful detail would be knowing if there's room to upgrade the RAM or if there are two extra slots available, though since it's a pre-built machine, I wouldn't hold my breath.

That i5 graphics isn't exactly lightning fast compared to Haswell either; it’s more about the DX12 features and stuff.

As far as rendering goes, both processors can software decode pretty much any reasonable video content, so that shouldn't be an issue.

If it's not a Small Form Factor, there's a good chance it has 4 slots. If I recall correctly, old HP desktops almost always came with 4 slots.
Also, could easily just be one 8GB stick inside.

Lawrence Garcia89 said:It’s not worth putting a 6600 XT on this motherboard because it's only x8 anyway, and from what I can see, this board doesn't support PCIe 4.0. As for the 6700 XT, it would perform better, but still, you're stuck with PCIe 3.0, which makes this a bad board.

wanderingbison9 said:Aren't we exaggerating a little here? Sure, you might get a few more frames on PCIe 4.0 x8, depending on the game.

PCIe 3.0 x16 isn't an issue for practically any GPU that supports x16—the board isn't "bad," some AMD cards are just weirdly designed regarding their slot usage. Besides, the Ryzen 3600 doesn't support PCIe 4.0 anyway, so it doesn't matter which one you pick.

The 6600 XT might see a slight bottleneck on x8, but it's nowhere near the disaster of the 6500 XT, which only has x4.

Honestly, the 6600 XT isn't much of a leap over the 5600 XT. I'd wait until the end of the year and then upgrade to something at least in the 6700 XT range, which should be significantly cheaper by then.

Alexander Moore67 said:Personally, I’d go with the Core i7 since it's a 4/8 setup, whereas that i5 is just 4/4.

Same here.
The i5 might have slightly better single-thread performance, but the Core i7 wins on multi-threading.

I'd go with the 3770. You get more RAM and an SSD included, which is actually pretty important nowadays, even if you're just using it for media consumption.

And what's actually going into his budget?

I think an IPS 27" 4K flat panel is pretty much the sweet spot for what you're trying to do.

The Iiyama model I linked looks solid enough.

https://www.itpro.co.uk/hardware/mon...back-to-basics

It’s got a VESA mount, USB ports, and some built-in speakers—not a bad deal if you don't already have a setup going.

I'm looking to swap out my Rx580 later this year. Goal is 3440x1440p at 144Hz.
Hopefully, by the second half of the year, we’ll see something significantly better than an RX 6700 XT hitting the shelves for around $650.

Edward Peterson70 said:I know on older Macs with integrated graphics, a ton of stuff either won't run or runs incredibly slow because it has to offload everything to the CPU, so a decent GPU is definitely necessary. That goes for both Photoshop and Premiere.

A 4K monitor, at least 27". DCI-P3 coverage matters, but honestly, you don't need some high-end professional graphic monitor.

Something like this would be great. Pretty sure I read somewhere that this one hits 90% DCI-P3.
https://www.amazon.com/lcd-monitors/sam...32-curved

VA panel, 32" curved, 250cd? Seems pretty useless for video editing. Not a good deal.

I’ve got a 32" IPS and a 34" ultrawide VA sitting side-by-side. VA has better contrast (blacks), but otherwise, IPS is just better for viewing—angles, colors, all that.

Better options would probably look like this:
https://www.bestbuy.com/monitor/iiya...16-9-125156321

https://www.walmart.com/monitor/hp-u...16-9-120842981

https://www.target.com/monitor/view...-16-9-58521791

The first two are stronger; the last one is 32".
No clue how the color accuracy holds up...

Looks like both are running on the HDMI 1.4 spec—so we're talking budget tier here. But hey, if you're just trying to push a 1080p signal, it might actually get the job done.

The second one isn't necessarily an upgrade over the first. If I were you, I'd grab the first option; if it turns out to be junk, you can always just return it.

What does it say on the power bank regarding the voltage and amperage output?

What processor are we talking about?

granitecrane2 said:I'm just lost on one thing in these build discussions: why an Intel Core i3? Do people actually think the CPU doesn't matter and the GPU is going to carry everything?

Performance-wise, it’s either negligible or slightly better than old i7 chips.
I forgot what the specific purpose for this build was supposed to be according to everyone here, so I can't say if it actually fits.

wanderingbison9 said:Access to i.imgur.com was denied. You don't have authorization to view this page.
HTTP ERROR 403

Imgur likes to mess with you sometimes. If you strip this part out first, it actually works.

imgur.com/mXnQFA6.jpeg

Looks like there really isn't one...

But then again, the diagram shows a Thunderbolt header, which is weird because why include that but skip the USB Type-C header?

Can you plug a USB Type-C into a Thunderbolt header? Theoretically, USB Type-C should just be a subset of Thunderbolt functions.

bluesurfer66 said:This is actually the first time I’ve suggested grabbing a USB Type-C adapter to plug into the motherboard's existing USB Type-A port. If you’re referring to my previous comment as the "first post," then I’m afraid we are talking past one another entirely. Why on earth would anyone phase out USB Type-A when it’s perfectly obvious that a kid just wants both—Type-A and Type-C—available on the front panel of their case?

Let’s try to apply a little logic here. My point was simply that this specific motherboard lacks a front-panel USB Type-C header. That’s all it was. Either they missed the mark during the marketing phase, or perhaps they didn't, though one can always chalk it up to a simple human error. Yet, instead of addressing that, you’re hitting back at me with this whole diversion about USB Type-A. 🤦

1) According to the manufacturer's specs, the board has both.

2) The user claims there isn't a single one available, neither USB 3 Type-A nor Type-C.

3) I find option 2 impossible, since basically every motherboard has at least a USB 3 Type-A header.

4) The guy says the board has one 2.0 Header, but it's already being used.

5) Honestly, I'm not even sure how many headers a typical board carries or what the standard baseline should be.

6) My advice was based on having a spare USB 3.0 header, but given point 5, I'm out of ideas.

7) Looking at it now, this case is supposed to have 2x USB 3 Type-A and 1x Type-C on the front. So USB 2 isn't the issue; the USB 3 is likely occupied, leaving nothing else free.

bluesurfer66 said:It’s pretty obvious, really; when we’re discussing USB Type-C, anyone looking for a modern setup clearly needs that specific standard, so I can see why it’s such an irritation to him that they still included a USB Type-A port.

Just read my first post.

bluesurfer66 said:Despite what you might see listed on some random retail site, this motherboard doesn't actually feature a front-panel USB Type-C header.

It’s got USB Type-A, though. It's been ages since any decent board shipped with nothing but a USB 2.0 header.

You didn't give me much to work with here, but try running it without undervolting

It’s pinned at 100% in almost every single application. That CPU could definitely handle a much beefier GPU.