Advice for buying a gaming PC!

Larry Ortiz5 said:I turned on DSR and set it to 4.00x 😬 I fired up Tomb Raider at 3360x2100 resolution, kept everything else on Ultra, and I'm getting about 40 to 43 FPS. Honestly, I’m pretty impressed; I didn't realize this card had this much muscle. VRAM usage sat around 2.2 to 3 GB, which is quite 👍

So, you're running a 16:10 monitor? Do you have Dying Light? I was checking my memory usage just now and noticed my GPU usage often hovers around 50%.😲

Christian Miller48 said:If I recall correctly, the card is about 10% more expensive?
Well, after hearing all this, I’ve definitely decided to go with the R9 290. I might even consider picking up a cash version if I can—$600-$233 is no small amount

My apologies for missing that; yeah, it'll be roughly 8-10% higher. In my opinion, you don't need to "break the bank" because a system running an R9 280 is already quite a powerhouse.

David Sanders4 said:I'm just curious—I haven't been able to find any info on whether there's a noticeable difference between DSRx4k and native 4K. 🤷
Because I noticed, for instance, in Metro LL, using fHD x4 Supersampling AA versus DSRx4k results in the exact same FPS. So, which one actually looks better? It feels to me like DSR wins out, but maybe I'm just overthinking it...

Of course there's a difference, since DSR doesn't give you the true pixel density of a native 4K display, but it still looks significantly better than standard resolution.

click

Larry Ortiz5 said:I turned on DSR at 4.00x 😬 fired up Tomb Raider at 3360x2100 resolution with everything set to Ultra, and I'm getting about 40 to 43 FPS. I have to say, I'm pretty impressed; I didn't realize this GPU was such a beast. VRAM usage sat around 2.2-3 GB, which is quite 👍

Naturally, not every game hogs VRAM like crazy (only a handful of recent titles). Most games until recently barely touched 1GB at 1080p, so you can easily play most things like that, or even push to 4K or 1440p. Especially if you aren't running heavy AA filters, because IMO they aren't even necessary at standard resolutions, let alone when you're downsampling.

David Sanders4 said:Is yours a 16:10 monitor too? And do you happen to have Dying Light? I was just looking over my memory usage earlier—and noticed that my GPU usage tends to hover right around 50% quite often.😲

I just wrapped up Dying Light and ended up uninstalling it once I hit the credits—nothing against it, just moving on to the next thing. By the way, I’ve been hearing from a few people that the gameplay feels incredibly smooth and polished now that they've installed the latest 1.4.0 patch. If you haven't grabbed that update yet, you really should give it a shot and see if you notice the difference.

EDIT: My monitor resolution is 1680x1050—so, honestly, I think I’ll just go ahead and redownload the game and run that update again to see what happens. I was actually just watching some YouTube videos featuring the latest patch, and apparently, the game isn't even hitting 3300MB? It looks like the update really did its job quite well.

Timothy Kim60 said:Of course there’s a noticeable difference; you aren't getting the same pixel density you'd find with native 4K, but even so, it’s still a significant step up from the standard settings.

click

I think I misspoke there. What I actually meant to ask was whether there's a noticeable difference in frame rates if I decide to play at 4K or use DSRx4k. 🤔
I couldn't find that specific data point anywhere. As I understand it, native 4K uses a 1:1 ratio of samples to pixels, whereas using DSRx4k on a 1080p setup essentially runs at a 4:1 ratio.

Larry Ortiz5 said:I just finished playing Dying Light and ended up uninstalling it once the credits rolled. By the way, I’ve been hearing from people that the gameplay experience has become significantly more polished since they rolled out the 1.4.0 patch. If you haven't updated yet, I'd definitely recommend grabbing that latest version before you dive back in to see if it's actually improved.

Quick correction: my monitor resolution is actually 1680x1050. Regardless, I’m going to go ahead and redownload the game and run that update just to see what happens. I was just checking some YouTube clips featuring the latest patch, and it looks like the file size hasn't even hit 3300MB. It seems like the update really did its job and optimized things quite well.

I’m seeing numbers hovering around the 3100–3300 range since that update went live. Interestingly, my GPU usage is all over the map right now, bouncing between 50% and 90%. I was just looking at a user running an i7-5820K on a quad-core setup who’s dealing with the exact same thing, so I don't think we can pin this on the CPU.

P.S. I hope the mods aren't too annoyed that we've veered so far off-topic. 🤣

Offtopic? Please. It’s just important that our thread starter, Roger Mitchell4, actually pays attention to all this info and learns something 🤣

David Sanders4 said:I misspoke; what I actually meant to ask was whether there's a noticeable difference in frame rates if I play at native 4K versus using DSRx4k. 🤔
From what I understand, native 4K uses a 1:1 pixel-to-sample ratio, whereas 1080p via DSRx4k acts more like a 4:1 ratio...

I haven't come across any specific tests either, likely because most people aren't rocking 4K monitors—not even the major tech sites, since they usually focus their DSR testing on VRAM consumption rather than raw FPS.

In any case, if there is a significant difference, it probably isn't massive. Here is a thread discussing that very topic: click

David Sanders4 said:With that update, I'm seeing it hover around 3100-3300, though my GPU usage fluctuates between 50% and 90%. I'm looking at a guy running an i7 5820k, and someone else has the exact same issue, so we can rule out a CPU bottleneck here.

That’s why we need to start using the term "game bottleneck." Modern games are often so poorly optimized that the software itself becomes the limiting factor. Developers really need to pull their weight; it isn't always a hardware issue.

I heard one guy mention he's playing Arma 3 and getting absolute garbage FPS, yet his CPU is sitting at 30% and his GPU is at 30% too. *facepalm*

Regarding the topic at hand—we are talking about gaming PCs here. 😁

I mean, it makes sense that this thread has stretched to 25 pages. The OP started this back in September, but didn't actually buy the PC until June...

Timothy Kim60 said:I mean—it’s probably for good reason that this thread hit 25 pages. The OP started the topic back in September, yet didn't actually pull the trigger on the PC until June...

🤦

Timothy Kim60 said:I haven't come across many tests either, likely because most people aren't rocking 4K monitors—not even the major tech sites, since they usually just test VRAM usage via DSR.

In any case, if there is a noticeable difference, I doubt it's anything drastic. Here is a thread discussing it: click

There isn't any video evidence yet, but based on what I'm hearing, the difference is negligible. Besides, you can easily verify this on a 1440p monitor or an FHD screen using DSR to hit 1440p... if there's a discrepancy there, the gap at 4K would likely only widen.

Timothy Kim60 said:That's why we need to start using the term "game bottleneck." Modern games are often so poorly optimized that the issue lies within the software itself. Developers have to pull their weight; it's not always a hardware limitation.

I heard about someone playing Arma 3—getting absolute banana FPS while both the CPU and GPU sit idling at 30%. *facepalm*

That is genuinely pathetic... especially in single-player mode. From my experience, multiplayer tends to absolutely hammer the CPU.🤷

As for the topic at hand—we are talking about gaming rigs here.😁

Timothy Kim60 said:I suspect there's a reason this thread spans 25 pages; the OP started this back in September but didn't actually buy the PC until June...

Honestly, if I were in his shoes, I’d be looking at those prices with a heavy heart and slumped shoulders. Not only did the price fail to drop during those six months, it actually went up.👎

The dollar jumped from $2.00 three months ago to 7.20, which means anything tied to the greenback is going to spike by about 20%.

Larry Ortiz5 said:I actually finished Dying Light and uninstalled it right after. By the way, I've heard people saying the game plays way smoother now that they've slapped on that latest 1.4.0 patch. If you haven't grabbed the update yet, you definitely should just to see for yourself.

EDIT: My monitor's resolution is 1680x1050. Whatever, I'm just gonna redownload the game and install the update now to see what's what. Looking at some YouTube clips of the updated version, the game isn't even hitting 3300MB. Looks like that update actually did its job.

Even at 3300MB, that GPU usage is still pretty high.
They really need to nerf that a bit more—get it down below 3.

Yeah, you're right about that, but honestly, the game feels way more fluid now 😁 if they could just dial back the GPU usage, though—that would be a total dream.

Yeah, honestly. You’re probably going to be stuck with a GTX970 that'll start hitting a massive bottleneck by next year if developers keep pushing things this hard.

I assume you're referring to VRAM usage; GPU usage is typically measured in percentages...

yeah, I'm talking about the VRAM 😁

fadedorca66 said:It’s hardly off-topic! It’s vital that our thread starter, Roger Mitchell4, stays sharp, keeps all this info in mind, and actually learns something. 🤣

Exactly. And don't try to act smart with me. 👍

Here I am again! I'm planning to pick up a new PC in about ten days, and my budget is sitting at $5,000. I put together a quick list over at Best Buy, so would you mind taking a look? I'm building this specifically for gaming.

http://www.bestbuy.com/cart

I can't see anything through your shopping cart; you'll need to upload an actual screenshot since that cart view is private to you.

1 x AMD FX X6 6300 3.5Ghz (4.1GHz) box
1 x Gigabyte 970A DS3P, AM3+
1 x CPU Cooler LC-CC-120, Intel/AMD, 120mm, PWM
1 x Kingston DDR3 HyperX Fury,1866MHz, 8GB(2x4GB)Black
1 x Seagate HDD, 1TB, 7200rpm, SATA 6, 64M
1 x Zalman Z3, USB3.0 black, 3x120mm
1 x Fortron Hyper 500W, 80+
1 x XFX Radeon R9 270A 2GB 256Bit DDR5
1 x LG GH24NSC0 sat Bulk Black 24x

Total: $1649 it futura

Check back in 9 days for a final quote; right now, we're missing some key components at our downtown location.

Timothy Kim60 said:We can't see what's in your cart! You have to upload a screenshot since only you can see your own shopping basket.

1 x AMD FX X6 6300 3.5Ghz (4.1GHz) box
1 x Gigabyte 970A DS3P, AM3+
1 x CPU Cooler LC-CC-120, Intel/AMD, 120mm, PWM
1 x Kingston DDR3 HyperX Fury,1866MHz, 8GB(2x4GB)Black
1 x Seagate HDD, 1TB, 7200rpm, SATA 6, 64M
1 x Zalman Z3, USB3.0 black, 3x120mm
1 x Fortron Hyper 500W, 80+
1 x XFX Radeon R9 270A 2GB 256Bit DDR5
1 x LG GH24NSC0 sat Bulk Black 24x

Total: $1649 it futura

Check back in 9 days for the final quote; some key items are currently out of stock downtown.

My apologies, I didn't realize!
Here is the build:
I5 4460
R9 280
1x8 hyperx 1600mhz
Zalman z1
Fortron 500w hexa
H81m-vg4
Seagate barracuda 1tb

Just so you know, I'll be using financing!$1.75 That's my plan!
This setup is the cheapest option they have at the local Best Buy.

Which R9 280 are we talking about? Take a look at the top right corner to see if all those options are actually available.
If I were you, I’d aim for a higher-quality motherboard, like this one here.

That installment plan price doesn't include the 8% discount—so, in my opinion, the whole setup is priced quite a bit above $1800 what it should be.

Timothy Kim60 said:Which R9 280? Check the top right corner to see what's actually in stock.
I'd definitely go for a higher-quality motherboard, like this one
.
That installment price doesn't include the 8% discount—so honestly, I think it's all a bit overpriced.$1800

It's an XFX R9 280. Everything is available except for the GPU (I'll check on when that'll be back in stock).
I recall someone mentioning the cheapest H81M board would work for a non-K i5...
The whole bundle comes to $1.75 without the 8% discount applied for monthly payments.