- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: PC Discussion - Gaming, Performance and Enthusiasts
Posted on 1/4/24 at 3:49 pm to SaintEB
Posted on 1/4/24 at 3:49 pm to SaintEB
quote:
So AMD has a tendency to keep chipsets longer, allowing for CPU upgrades more easily?
Significantly longer, and AMD just moved to a new chipset (AM5) this generation. It's expected to be supported for at least three generations of CPUs, if not longer. For context, AM4 came out in 2016 and continues to be supported even after AM5 was released in 2022.
quote:
I don't understand the AMD CPU naming convention, say like I do intel (i5, i7, i9, 1400...etc). I will need to study up.
Intel's i-series naming convention only seems easy because it's useless. While it gives you some rough indication of performance within a generation, it's useless in distinguishing between generations. Anyway, back to AMD:
At least for now, all AMD CPUs are a four digit number. The first number is the generation (roughly, they sometimes skip a digit) with the second number showing rough performance within that generation. So for example, ignoring task specific questions, you can assume that a 3600 is more powerful than a 3100 and less powerful than a 3900. As you move up the stack, generally speaking, both clock speed and number of processor cores go up. Same rung in the product stack but different generation (e.g. 3600 vs 5600) will generally have the same number of cores, but the later generation chip will usually have faster clock speeds and much higher instruction per clock cycles. Don't worry about what that means. The punchline is that at the same rung, newer (higher first number) is better.
That's the easy part. The slightly more complicated part is whether, say, a 3900 or a 5800 is better, because the answer is that it depends on your usage case. The 3900 has more cores but the 5800 is faster per core. Just depends on what you need it for. But that's where people on this board can help you out. No need to give yourself a headache over that kind of thing.
To take us full circle, AMD's naming convention isn't markedly different from Intel's actual naming convention. Let's take this chip as an example: LINK
The fact that it's an i7 is all but irrelevant. What you care about is that it's a 13700. Intel has been doing this naming convention longer, so you use the first two digits (13) to denote the generation and the third number (7) to denote where it is in the stack. So where you might compare an AMD 3900 vs 5600 as cross gen cross stack, you could do the same with a 12700 vs a 13400.
Both companies sometimes use the last two digits, but that's more granular than we need to get into for today
0
Posted on 1/5/24 at 12:17 am to SaintEB
Man it is crazy how loose DDR5 timings are at default. My buddy finally convinced me to manually do my timings.
I went from AMD Expo default of 30-38-38-96 to 30-36-36-30. Followed a guide for my kit specifically hynix and did all of them. Instantly noticeable little bump on first boot too. 96 Tras to 30 (board minimum) is pretty hilarious.
I went from AMD Expo default of 30-38-38-96 to 30-36-36-30. Followed a guide for my kit specifically hynix and did all of them. Instantly noticeable little bump on first boot too. 96 Tras to 30 (board minimum) is pretty hilarious.
Posted on 1/5/24 at 8:15 am to UltimateHog
Tras has the highest chip to chip manufacturing variance of the primary timings, so you tend to see it set unnecessarily high, especially at the beginning of a RAM generation. Though make sure to run error testing as well as benchmarks. RAM is annoyingly impressive at covering for its mistakes. Not that 30 isn't running faster than 96, but it's theoretically possible that 30 is tripping minor errors and is actually a bit slower than, say, 45.
The normal "fast but safe-ish" zone for Tras on high end RAM is generally double CAS, which would be 60 for you. Not saying your RAM can't go lower, but I would want to test it pretty extensively if I wanted to drive a timing that comparatively low.
The normal "fast but safe-ish" zone for Tras on high end RAM is generally double CAS, which would be 60 for you. Not saying your RAM can't go lower, but I would want to test it pretty extensively if I wanted to drive a timing that comparatively low.
Posted on 1/6/24 at 3:20 am to Joshjrn
Maybe it is just different now I'm not sure never follow that side of RAM tuning. Hardware Unboxed had his Tras set at 28 his boards minimum but mine is 30.
So far it's been great.
So far it's been great.
Posted on 1/7/24 at 1:24 pm to bluebarracuda
Assuming this latest leak is accurate, Nvidia is doing the bare minimum to compete on price with AMD, which is annoying, but it's likely to cause either another round of price reductions for AMD or Nvidia is going to start moving more product: LINK
The two relevant data points:
Assuming that is all correct (so take with a grain of salt): The 4080S is likely to be roughly on par in pure raster with the 7900XTX at nearly the same price point. The 4070TIS is going to be roughly on par with the 7900XT in pure raster at roughly the same price point. The 4070S is going to be a touch behind the 7900XT for about $150 less. Obviously all of the Nvidia cards will perform better than their rival in RT with a bonus in DLSS.
It's honestly a bit frustrating, but with AMD telegraphing that they are abandoning the top of the stack in the short to mid term, this isn't exactly surprising.
The two relevant data points:
quote:
MSRP for RTX40Super:
4080S: 999
4070Ti-S:799
4070S:599
4070Ti-S is on par with 4080 in most of the games.
4070S is on par with 4070Ti in most of the games.
Nvidia’s strategy is that they will never price-cut their products officially. They will launch new products with the same performance at lower prices instead.
Assuming that is all correct (so take with a grain of salt): The 4080S is likely to be roughly on par in pure raster with the 7900XTX at nearly the same price point. The 4070TIS is going to be roughly on par with the 7900XT in pure raster at roughly the same price point. The 4070S is going to be a touch behind the 7900XT for about $150 less. Obviously all of the Nvidia cards will perform better than their rival in RT with a bonus in DLSS.
It's honestly a bit frustrating, but with AMD telegraphing that they are abandoning the top of the stack in the short to mid term, this isn't exactly surprising.
Posted on 1/7/24 at 4:35 pm to Joshjrn
The 4070ti Super with its 16gb of vram at $799 might as well be the true 4080
If this would have originally released as the 4080 and the current 4080/super was the 4080ti at $1,000… there would have been a LOT less bitching about Nvidia being greedy as frick.
If this would have originally released as the 4080 and the current 4080/super was the 4080ti at $1,000… there would have been a LOT less bitching about Nvidia being greedy as frick.
Posted on 1/7/24 at 8:18 pm to LSUGent
quote:
The 4070ti Super with its 16gb of vram at $799 might as well be the true 4080
If this would have originally released as the 4080 and the current 4080/super was the 4080ti at $1,000… there would have been a LOT less bitching about Nvidia being greedy as frick.
There would have still been bitching, but I agree it wouldn't have been as bad. The 3080 was just such a good value compared to the 3090 that this generation was hard to swallow with a downgrade to a 103 die and a price increase. Even if that price increase had been $300 instead of $500, it still wouldn't have made people terribly happy.
As far as I'm concerned, this is just less bad. I think I'm still sitting out until next generation. But if someone is dying for an upgrade, I wouldn't fault them for it.
Posted on 1/10/24 at 6:50 pm to Joshjrn
I'm thinking about that 4070ti Super. Just thoughts.
Posted on 1/10/24 at 7:00 pm to SaintEB
quote:
I'm thinking about that 4070ti Super. Just thoughts.
What do you have now, what do you play, and at what resolution?
Posted on 1/10/24 at 7:03 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
What do you have now, what do you play, and at what resolution?
None of that matters. Its shiny and new.
Just kidding. I don't need it. I have no current issues.
3080
COD, Cyberpunk (I'll finish it eventually), Just started God of War, retired from Destiny 2 (for now)
1440
Posted on 1/10/24 at 7:04 pm to SaintEB
quote:
None of that matters. Its shiny and new.
Just kidding. I don't need it. I have no current issues.
3080
COD, Cyberpunk (I'll finish it eventually), Just started God of War, retired from Destiny 2 (for now)
1440
Roughly where I am. I'd rather just wait another year or so to get to next gen.
Posted on 1/10/24 at 7:06 pm to Joshjrn
I mean, if its MSRP is gonna be 800 and I can probably sell the 3080 for 300-400, then its an upgrade. I probably won't, but I'm thinking.
Posted on 1/10/24 at 7:31 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
Roughly where I am. I'd rather just wait another year or so to get to next gen.
In the interest of full disclosure, the plan is to build at 15th gen intel. Get the whole DDR5, PCIE 5.0. I built at 11th gen and have no upgrades on LGA1200. Which is why I was looking at AM5 earlier as well.
This post was edited on 1/10/24 at 8:00 pm
Posted on 1/10/24 at 8:14 pm to SaintEB
If your primary use case is gaming, you can't really beat the AMD x3D chips.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 8:02 am to Joshjrn
quote:
If your primary use case is gaming, you can't really beat the AMD x3D chips.
I do 95.7% gaming with my PC. The other 4.3% consists of internet browsing, email, and an occasional word document.
So, yes, I will be strongly considering the x3D. If I want to upgrade now, I have a build with the 7800X3D which would be a pretty good jump from the 11900K that I currently have. With the AM5 platform, I would have upgrade possibilities in the future as well.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 9:04 am to SaintEB
If gaming, then ya, the x3d is the bee knees. They should run very cool. Although, keep in mind that your memory has to be trained every time to boot. Also, if you put your pc to sleep most of times(like me), your memory will be slightly slower.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 9:11 am to hoojy
quote:
If gaming, then ya, the x3d is the bee knees. They should run very cool. Although, keep in mind that your memory has to be trained every time to boot. Also, if you put your pc to sleep most of times(like me), your memory will be slightly slower.
I have to think that’s something they will iron out for the next boards now that DDR5 will be a bit further along. If not, that’s going to frustrate “mainline” users.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 9:13 am to Joshjrn
Yep, both brands have their caveats. The memory is AMD's. It beats the 424723047 watts on Intel tho.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 9:14 am to SaintEB
Your CPU isn't bottlenecking you and won't for some time.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 10:12 am to Devious
quote:
Your CPU isn't bottlenecking you and won't for some time.
I don't necessarily agree with this. While he's going to be GPU bound the overwhelming majority of the time for now, there are parts of certain games, like CP 2077 as an example, that he's going to be CPU bound, and it's going to cause stuttering. I know, because I'm running a 5800x which is roughly equivalent for gaming.
Now, that doesn't mean he needs to go upgrade his CPU. I'm currently content with mine. But I find the "bound" discussion tends to be a bit too broad brush in focusing on averages.
Page 1870 of 1912
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News