Posts by velvetlynx3

Ronald Bishop58 said:Hey everyone!

Which GPU should I grab—an RTX 4070 or a Radeon RX 6800—if I want something that actually lasts? Honestly, maybe even an RX 6950 XT since the prices are all hovering in the same ballpark right now...

I'm running a 2K monitor.

Thanks!

Wide 1440p?

Go with the 6950XT. If you're just doing standard 1440p, the 6800XT is solid—that's what I'm running myself—but a buddy of mine uses a 6950XT for his Wide 1440p setup.

Thomas Howard18 said:What GPU would you recommend?

The rig is:

CPU - AMD Ryzen 7 5800x
MBO - MSI MAG TOMAHAWK B550
RAM - 32GB DDR4 3600Mhz G.Skill Trident Z
MONITOR - 32" 2K

I was leaning toward the RX 6650 XT, but maybe someone has a better take.

Not really sure about the budget... roughly $300-$500.

Given how decent this build is, I’d honestly look at an RX 6800/6800XT—maybe even a 6750XT. You really need that extra VRAM for a resolution like that.

I actually picked up a 6800XT myself (aiming for a new 1440p/240Hz setup), even though everything else is pretty old until I eventually upgrade to a Ryzen 7000.

The bigger issue is that prices here don't reflect what's happening in the US—which is where 90% of YouTube reviews come from—so forget about getting a 6800XT for $510.

p.s. My baseline is 60fps, even for those nasty 0.1% lows. I try to keep single-player games running at least 80-90fps—like, Cyberpunk on High without Raytracing rarely dips below 60 for me.

northernmarlin15 said:Hey everyone. Quick question—can my GPU or CPU actually die because of a game setting? Say I'm running some demo that uses a lower resolution than my actual monitor setup. Every time I launch it, the screen snaps to the game's native resolution, then jumps back once I quit. Could those sudden resolution shifts be causing hardware failure? It looks like the screen is having a bit of a seizure lol.

No, definitely not. That’s just standard behavior for how GPUs and monitors handle resolution handshakes.

16GB vs. 8GB VRAM: Radeon RX 6800 vs. GeForce RTX 3070—A 2023 Look Back

Alexander Moore67 said:If you think Cyberpunk 2077 is easy to run or some retro relic, fine—but whether 40-45 FPS on low settings at 1080p is actually "playable" is another story entirely.

Sure, if you like suffering. Until recently, I was running a 1080 FE paired with a 6700K—even then, hitting 60 FPS at 1080p with FSR set to high/medium was a struggle, mostly due to massive frame drops during driving sequences. If that setup barely hit the minimum for a decent experience, I don't even want to imagine how much of a disaster it looks on a slower GTX 1650.

Alexander Moore67 said:I honestly don't get how you can even put the GT 730 and the GTX 1650 in the same breath!
The 1650 is basically 855% stronger on PassMark.

Look, they both fall under the same "not meant for modern gaming" umbrella. Bringing up the 730 is just a reminder of how long companies churn out these cards—clearly just to provide a basic display signal. Nobody should be buying them or recommending them for gaming—unless you're playing some ancient retro titles from decades ago.

wiredotter14 said:Regarding the RX6500—that card runs on PCIe x4. So, if you don't have a motherboard and CPU combo that supports PCIe 4.0, you're stuck with PCIe 3.0 x4, which basically acts like PCIe 2.0 x8... it chokes the card so much that performance can actually end up lower than an RX580.

There's a high chance someone buying this card doesn't even have PCIe 4.0, making it a pretty terrible choice.

An RX6400 would be fine if it was around $400--$167 brand new, otherwise it's just junk.

I think Steve laid it out perfectly in that video—explained the whole PCIe 3/4 situation and backed it up with graphs, you just have to actually pay attention.

Not to mention his review of the GTX 1650...

And yeah, these are basically "just enough to get a picture on the screen" cards for $167. I run into this kind of thing constantly in the corporate world. Heh, I actually had to install a bunch of GT 730s recently because the chosen CPU didn't have an iGPU...

velvetlynx3 said:It’ll probably struggle under 1080p on low settings—maybe some really light indie stuff. Anything modern or AAA is just going to be a slideshow. Plus, you need a decent CPU too; those YouTube videos showing great 1080p performance are usually people testing with a 13900K...

He gives a pretty fair take on the actual hardware regardless of the price tag. Just keep in mind he used a Ryzen 9 5950 x, and since this 6400 is a low profile/low power card, expect lower FPS in the real world:

tiny RDNA2, The Best LP Single Slot GPU: AMD Radeon RX 6400 Review - Hardware Unboxed

Alexander Moore67 said:First off, they aren't garbage—they're actually great cards for lower resolutions today, and market demand sets the price.

Look, you’re talking about sub-1080p on low settings or maybe some really light indie titles. Anything AAA or even just modern—it's a total slideshow. And don't get me started on the CPU requirements—people watching YouTube claiming these are fine for 1080p are usually testing them with a top-tier i9-13900K...

wiredotter14 said:Why would anyone even look at a GTX 1650 when you can grab something much better for around $900? It just doesn't make sense—honestly, I don't get the logic behind it.$333 I’m looking at an RX 580 8GB—or even grabbing a 4GB model for even less. It’s a much better play than that GTX 1650. Honestly, that card was a terrible value when it first dropped for $150, and seeing people try to sell them used for the same price now is just a total disaster.

The GTX 1650 only works if you're running some random office PC with a power supply that doesn't even have a PCIe connector—not that anyone actually builds stuff like that anymore.

Oh, it’s just great—selling your old junk on Craigslist for what it cost when it was brand new. Truly inspired stuff.

Ronald Bishop58 said:Look, the guy laid out exactly what he needs—he’s got a set budget—but instead of actually answering him, you all just try to upsell him on overpriced junk... It's pathetic... 😵🙂

A - they're all garbage.

B - the 6500XT is slightly less garbage and costs basically nothing more.

C - go grab a drink.

Jeffrey Cook82 said:Which one would you guys actually pick?

Nvidia GeForce RTX series

Nvidia GeForce RTX series

Nvidia GeForce RTX series

Honestly, I'd just grab an RX 6500XT for a tiny bit more cash—it's a better call:

https://www.bestbuy.com/asus-rx6500xt-dua...m_medium=click

https://www.bestbuy.com/asrock-rx6500xt-p...m_medium=click

You guys went off the deep end so fast I didn't even have time to grab my popcorn...

Ronald Bishop58 said:Tried it, felt a bit too much for me..

That doesn't really hold up—if that were true, how do people running 60Hz monitors play at 100+ fps without issues? 🤷

Anyway, thanks for the tip. I’ve got a 165Hz Full HD monitor, so I’m actually going to cap my fps just to see what happens...
Thanks!

The only real perk to letting your FPS run higher than your monitor's refresh rate is potentially getting a better response time. Depending on the gap, the gain varies—it's way more noticeable in your 60Hz/100fps scenario than it is at 165Hz/200fps. But the real question is whether you want that vs. locking it to 60 or 165Hz for a consistent image. If you're rocking 165Hz and you aren't some hardcore eSports pro, it doesn't make much sense.

Other than that, since you have a 165Hz monitor, you can:

1. Turn on V-sync (caps it at 165fps if the game can handle it; zero tearing)

2. Set an in-game FPS limit to 165—it'll fluctuate up to that max, but you'll still get tearing.

3. If you have a G-Sync or FreeSync VRR monitor and GPU, just turn that on and cap the in-game FPS at 165 to match the monitor's max. No tearing, and honestly, it's the best way to go.

velvetlynx3 said:That's the secret 😁

Anyway—it’d be sacrilege to pair a 4070Ti at that price point with 1080p... you need at least 1440p or ultrawide.

Take this new Alienware aw2723df I picked up recently 😉

cyberpunk looks killer in HDR with RT (using FSR quality)—only issue is it sits at about 40fps on my 6800XT 😁

Without RT, I'm hitting roughly 80fps. My older CPU is dragging things down to about 60% performance though.

wanderingbison9 said:What even counts as a 2K monitor these days?🙄

That's a secret. 😁

Honestly, pairing a 4070Ti with a 1080p setup—especially at that price point—is practically sacrilege. You might as well aim for 1440p or maybe an ultrawide—anything else is just a waste.

wanderingbison9 said:Likely reason:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comment..._support_from/

Here’s my BIOS update history:

https://www.asus.com/motherboards-co...PRIME-X370-PRO

I'm guessing after BIOS version 5220 they stopped mentioning "c.Removes Gen 4 support when using Ryzen 3000 CPUs" because it's just common knowledge now—lucky me...

Honestly though, I'm glad I didn't grab something like a 6650XT—would've been stuck dealing with a PCIe 3.0 x8 GPU🤦.

Ran a BMD raw speed test and yeah, it's still x8 at 42 fps versus x16 at 66 fps—so there's definitely a connection...

Yeah, I remember—better to have solid 3.0 than unstable 4.0, but why the hell did they pull the option to force 1, 2, or 3...

wanderingbison9 said:The card ended up being wider than I thought—had to do a whole painful surgery on my case layout because the hard drive was getting in the way. What a headache.
Performance is pretty much what I expected, though a few specific tasks are only about 1.5x faster instead of the 2-2.5x I was hoping for. A bit of a letdown. It’s not all just raw math, but I don't really feel like everything has drastically sped up—maybe you'd actually feel the software flying once you hit an RTX 3080. My old GTX 1060 is still a total zombie; it refuses to die or become irrelevant since performance stays identical in certain areas.
What's really bugging me is that GPU-Z shows the card running at PCIe 3.0 instead of 4.0, even though CPU-Z, Device Manager, and everything else says the slot is in 4.0 mode. I'm using an MSI MAG X370, and apparently some BIOS versions had 4.0 support and then they pulled it—but if that's the case, why do so many programs still report the slots as 4.0? Is there anything I can do? I can't find any option in the BIOS to manually switch the PCIe generation.

It's weird how they changed their minds and didn't even leave an option in the BIOS—not even for Gen 1, 2, or 3... I haven't been keeping up, does anyone know why they messed around with the PCIe specs like that?

wanderingbison9 said:👍 My RTX 3060 finally showed up—just letting it sit for a bit before I tear into it. 🙂

🎉🎉🎉

wanderingbison9 said:With those 8-pin connectors, those two extra pins are just "sense" pins—they don't actually carry current. They just tell the card that the power supply can handle the extra load. It probably would have worked even if you just used a 6-pin, since some cards don't even check for those two pins, but given how old that PSU is, it likely has more rails, so I wouldn't risk it.

Yeah, I’d go pick it up myself if I actually knew where the 10950 Houston (kspres) distribution center was—is that near San Jose? Honestly, they did the exact same thing when I ordered something for a buddy; that's just their modus operandi. It's like they don't have any other way to log internal shipping delays in their system.

Don't sweat it—I already tried. Only the RGB logo lights up; the card doesn't even show up in Device Manager, and it isn't throwing any warning screens like some others have before...