Posts by wiredotter14

So, what kind of price are you thinking for a used CPU?

Sean Taylor7 said:but is putting an Intel Core i7 8700 on an H310 board actually a good idea?

Probably won't be an issue, though your RAM will likely get capped at 2933MHz or something similar. Just tell us which specific motherboard model you're looking at.

The bigger issue is that used i7 chips aren't exactly cheap. I wouldn't dump that kind of cash into an old platform if the CPU isn't a major bottleneck for whatever you're actually doing on that rig.

It’s hard to give a solid recommendation when you don't have a specific goal in mind or know what your actual bottleneck is right now.

If you're just itching to upgrade something, grab a new SSD—assuming your motherboard supports NVMe.

If you're trying to "future-proof"—which is a pretty shaky concept anyway—you're better off grabbing the NVIDIA RTX 3060 with its 12GB of VRAM. Once you hit that VRAM ceiling, performance doesn't just dip; it falls off a cliff. Raw speed is one thing, but running out of memory is a whole different disaster. A card that's 20% slower will always just be slightly slower, but
missing VRAM ruins everything. Aside from the 3060, I wouldn't touch the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT for any serious work unless you're specifically looking for something optimized for AMD or you're planning on mining.

Don't overspend on an NVIDIA RTX 3060 either. What kind of work are you actually doing?

Having 12GB of VRAM and access to CUDA might actually be a better move for your workflow.

Probably just a stuck key.
In theory, you can disable the keyboard using an Fn combo—you'll have to check the manual for your specific model.

nimblegull74 said:I’ve dealt with similar dilemmas. Personally, I'm pretty happy with the Dell P2421D. 1440p on a 24" screen ($600). I don't touch CAD much, just a bit of SketchUp. Otherwise, I prefer a tighter display; the usual standard stuff looks grainy to me.

If you're doing CAD—especially on a 32" setup—you really should go with 4K.

SketchUp works fine enough 🙂

I don't use CAD myself, but the engineers I bought these monitors for are satisfied. It's definitely a massive step up from a laptop screen or those old 1050p monitors. In my view, the most important thing is having an appropriate diagonal size for the resolution (so, 1080p for smaller screens, 1440p for 27-32"). Extra resolution never hurts; if you're working with fine details, it's a huge plus.
That said, 4K is pricier. I think 1440p offers the best bang for your buck.

FHD looks grainy to me, even on a 27" screen.
1440p on a 32" feels just right, since the pixel density ends up being similar to 1080p on a ~23" panel.

You don't need mind-blowing color accuracy for AutoCAD, but resolution matters.
That Dell seems like a solid choice if you're sticking to 27".

By the way, having a dual monitor setup isn't a bad move—it makes my workflow so much easier. The second one can just be some cheap 22" unit or whatever random monitor you've got lying around the office.

Prices for monitors this size have shot up lately. For my own setup and the office (running AutoCAD and stuff), I’ve picked up a few 31.5" 1440p AOC monitors over the last year, and they’re perfect for the job.

Back then, they were actually $500.

This Dell 27" looks solid; the brightness is better than average at 350cd
.
https://www.nabava.net/monitori/dell...16-9-120725081

Or go bigger
.

Bottom line: stick to that resolution.

Are you buying or selling?

Roger Wood50 said:Hey,

Can someone give me an estimate on this build from the photo? View on imgur

Maybe $600-$700, but half that value is just tied up in the GPU. Plus, it depends if there's any warranty left and how much you actually value 32GB of relatively slow RAM.

If you switch to Linux, things might actually run much smoother. I’ve dealt with audio desync myself during gaming and movies, though luckily I mostly just listen to music where it doesn't matter as much.

The hardware shouldn't be the culprit here. If it were, everyone would be having this exact same issue regardless of their setup. It’s more likely that the Windows implementation of Bluetooth drivers—at least when it isn't built directly into a laptop—is just absolute garbage.
Especially when it comes to audio.

Anyway, give it a shot and see.
Alternatively, there are those Bluetooth adapters that plug into a 3.5mm jack and draw power from a USB cable. People usually use them in cars that lack Bluetooth to link a phone and stream music through the AUX.
It’s possible they work in reverse if the button-pairing actually functions (pure speculation on my part), meaning you could potentially take the 3.5mm output from your motherboard and have the Bluetooth adapter broadcast it to your speakers.

https://www.amazon.de/Bluetooth-Drah...c=1&th=1&psc=1

In theory, it should work, but connecting Bluetooth devices to Windows computers is honestly a nightmare, especially when you're using those tiny dongles. Drivers are usually a total mess and just aren't reliable. I spent a few months messing around with a similar adapter to link my Bluetooth headphones and an Amazon Echo in speaker mode because I didn't have actual speakers, and let me tell you—it was a struggle. When it works, fine. But when it doesn't...
I wasn't really gaming on it; I just used a cable for my headset during matches. I wouldn't trust the latency if you try to go over Bluetooth.

If you can, just stick to a 3.5mm cable.

Alexander Moore67 said:Watch the wording. Use "way better" instead of just saying "slightly better by 10-20%."
https://www.hardwaretimes.com/amd-ry...er-for-gaming/

Look, choosing the exact right adjective is subjective. We’re talking about diminishing returns at the top end, which is why I said "way better."
Yeah, the 5600X is 10-20% faster, putting it right up there with an i7-10700K, and creeping close to the i9-10900K, the 5800X, or the 5900X—even when you look at the 1% lows. It's a massive step up from the 3700X, but it won't touch those high-end beasts. For context, the 3700X sits somewhere in the ballpark of an i5-10400 in gaming performance.

granitegardener said:what do you mean "way better"? Time Spy CPU scores show the 5600X hitting 8400 while the 3700X sits at 9900.

Time Spy isn't a game. In actual gaming, the 5600X performs right up there with the Intel Core i7 10700 k. Meanwhile, the 3700X is lagging about 15% behind.

Alexander Moore67 said:ipon $700 and Newegg $633 are totally different beasts when it comes to price!

Apples and oranges. Newegg’s price is $633 before shipping and US taxes, and IPON is just whatever you want, but honestly? For that kind of money, I’d grab a 5600X over a 3700X any day. It's close enough in multithreaded tasks, but in gaming, it absolutely crushes it.

Last Black Friday was solid for certain parts, but then we hit those supply shortages right after. What this next one looks like depends on how things shake out—if the stock isn't there, there’s no point in talking about clearance sales. 😁

Look, it’s a mini ITX case. Standard motherboards won't fit. You need that specific ITX format—which costs way more—plus an SFX power supply
Like this:
https://www.cnn.com/asrock-b550m-itxa...m_medium=click
https://www.cnn.com/bequiet...m_medium=click
Total money pit.

Otherwise, if you actually want to game, just grab the 4650G for $500. I doubt the price will drop any lower. It's basically only available at Newegg anyway. For a GPU like the $667, you won't hit a bottleneck. It's slightly weaker than a Ryzen 3600. The 5600G is a bit slower than the 5600X

By the time Black Friday rolls around, everything's going to be so volatile you can't make any solid predictions.

Planning on upgrading the GPU later? I'm guessing so, especially since you're picking up a beefier PSU (which one, though?).
The components you listed probably won't have much voltage ripple. If I were you, I'd wait until closer to the sale and see if that 5600G drops below $667. It's a much stronger CPU for when you eventually swap out the graphics card.

Alexander Moore67 said:So running hotter is a "plus" now???

I wasn't listing those as pros and cons, just general specs. Before the Ryzen era, AMD was always the hotter, cheaper option.

Alexander Moore67 said:My take on the 3700x: 65w, 7nm, 8 cores/16 threads, supports PCIe 4.0—better futureproofing, slightly weaker for gaming, but runs cooler!!!

The 3700X is priced over $733, so the 10700K is the better move.

Based on price-to-performance, IMO:

i3 10100F $233
i5 10400F $400
i7 10700K $587
5600X $750
5900X $1400

Other options don't really make sense. The 10700K and 5600X just crush everything sitting between the 10400F and the 5900X.