The motherboard supports up to 64 GB of DDR4 and features four slots for DDR4. Adam Moore3 made a small mistake by listing a single 4GB DDR4 stick from $68 when he actually meant 2x 4GB for a total of 8GB, which is perfectly fine for now.
Newegg is clearing out some old stock of the Sapphire Nitro R9 390 8GB GDDR5 for $295. Since it performs similarly to an RX 570 for 1080p gaming and still comes with a warranty, I think it’s worth grabbing even if it is a bit of a power hog...
That card originally hit the market back in 2016, so there's really almost zero chance someone bought it in 2018 and still has any kind of warranty left on it.
swiftfalcon89 said:I said IF you're looking toward a future with a 144Hz setup, then the 3600 is definitely the way to go. You just repeated the same thing over and over like a broken record.
The RX 580 isn't permanent in your PCIe slot; you can always upgrade later. I actually picked up a 144Hz monitor back when I was still rocking an i5-6400 and a GTX 1060 3GB. Eventually, I upgraded both, and now I'm pulling over 100 FPS on most titles.
You clearly don't get it. For Battlefield games, the CPU is the most critical component. Just look at how poorly BF runs on quad-core processors paired with mid-range cards like a GTX 1060 or RX 580—it's a total mess. Please, just take the advice.😵
Comparing me to trash was a real class act. Thanks a lot!
wiredotter14 said:If they're grabbing a 144Hz monitor for an RX 580 build, they'll likely be playing stuff like CS:GO, League of Legends, or Fortnite on settings that don't totally murder the graphics, so the CPU could definitely play a role here.
He mentioned he'll be playing Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, Battlefield V, and Red Dead Redemption 2, where he thinks the CPU won't matter at all.
He’s rocking an RX 580, so he just needs a CPU that won't bottleneck him for decent 1080p gaming. I even included a link explaining why anything more powerful than a Ryzen 5 1600 is overkill for his setup, yet you keep arguing anyway.😵
swiftfalcon89 said:lol, nobody is going to buy a 144Hz monitor just to sit there playing at 48-60 FPS on those graphics settings with an RX 580, yet you guys keep arguing... that's why I said if you're aiming for some 60Hz gaming, then the 1600 is plenty, but for 144Hz, you really need the 3600 without even thinking about it for the reasons I mentioned above.
It looks like you've done your research and reached your own conclusion anyway, so I don't think there's much point in me continuing this argument...
The 1600AF is a much better value at $267, whereas the 3600 is sitting around $500. You're looking at about a 20% speed boost with the latter, so it's really up to you...
wiredotter14 said:In theory, sure, if you want a 100% stable overclock, but honestly, it isn't that big of a deal. For years, I ran an unstable overclock on my i7 920 because my old cooler just couldn't keep things steady under Prime95 for long periods, but I never had any crashes while gaming (temps stayed around 70°C during games, though they'd spike over 90°C under stress). Now that I've got the Noctua NH-D14, I can push it with whatever I want, though I don't notice much difference in daily use besides it running cooler.
I picked up an x5650 Xeon to replace my i7 920; not only is it a 6/12 CPU, but since it's 32nm, the temperatures are way lower. It cost me about $10.50. Highly recommend this upgrade.
You're going to have to pop off the integrated heat spreader on the CPU and swap out the thermal interface material. The Haswell architecture comes with pretty terrible thermal paste pre-applied under the cap.