PC gaming?

PC gamer here too.

Don't get a boatload of time to play but at the moment I'm playing Pro Evo 2017 and Dirt Rally. I have a wheel and pedals set up for my racing/rally games and I'm hoping to get one of those racing seat frame things which everything bolts on to.

Any other Pro Evo or racing sim gamers out there?

AMD's new Ryzen CPU line launches March 2. Basically ties Intel's HEDP offerings at half the price. This is huge.

I read an article a few weeks ago (sorry, no link), that said on today's PCs, especially laptops, there is no benefit to paying extra for an i7 processor, even for gaming, and that most people should be good with an i5 unless you do graphic design, AutoCAD or other rendering. Would you guys agree with that?

When I was last working, and selling PCs, there did seem to be a tick of difference for the i7, but that was 2013. Obviously, things likely have evolved since then. My own PC is an i5 from that year, and its on its last legs.

Yes, that is generally true—due to the console-first design of most games, they don't take advantage of multiple cores or threads as well as they could. Thus, the primary distinguishing factor between the Core i5 and the Core i7, Hyperthreading, generally does not make a difference in gaming.

THAT SAID, you must evaluate each game on a case by case basis. ArmA 3 is still singlethreaded because it runs on an ancient engine; Watch Dogs 2 is multithreaded and will not only take advantage of additional cores, but additional threads (Hyperthreading). It all depends on the game. Additionally, gaming-related tasks that occur out of game, like streaming or encoding game footage, absolutely takes advantage of the Core i7's Hyperthreading.

So, look at the games that you want to play, see what they benefit from, then go from there.

Big stuff happening:

February 27: GDC 2017
February 28: AMD RX 500 announcement, Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti announcement
March 2: AMD Ryzen release
March 3: Nintendo Switch release

Good time to be a gamer.

"Desides wrote:

Yes, that is generally true—due to the console-first design of most games, they don't take advantage of multiple cores or threads as well as they could. Thus, the primary distinguishing factor between the Core i5 and the Core i7, Hyperthreading, generally does not make a difference in gaming.

THAT SAID, you must evaluate each game on a case by case basis. ArmA 3 is still singlethreaded because it runs on an ancient engine; Watch Dogs 2 is multithreaded and will not only take advantage of additional cores, but additional threads (Hyperthreading). It all depends on the game. Additionally, gaming-related tasks that occur out of game, like streaming or encoding game footage, absolutely takes advantage of the Core i7's Hyperthreading.

So, look at the games that you want to play, see what they benefit from, then go from there.

Thank you. ANY pc gaming im likely to do will be nothing more advanced than a strategy game like Civ. Im currently running civ6 at the absolute lowest settings, and it still takes forever to load, lol. Anything more advanced, ill stick with the PS4.

Speaking of hardware. This time last year I was looking to upgrade my home desktop. I'm not a huge gamer (mostly due to having a lot of kids and a wife and a job..lol), but I still like to play and when I get the chance I want it to run well.

Anyhow, I purchased a Xidax computer. It cost me around $1500 and that included monitor etc. and it has some really nice components. If anyone is looking to get a new computer I HIGHLY recommend them. My old computer was built by me, and I always assumed that building one yourself was cheaper, but it's not really THAT much cheaper. Add to this that Xidax has a lifetime warranty on parts and service and I was sold. If my motherboard burns up in 5 years they will replace it. If my hard drive goes bad in 10 years they will replace it.

"danmarino wrote:

Speaking of hardware. This time last year I was looking to upgrade my home desktop. I'm not a huge gamer (mostly due to having a lot of kids and a wife and a job..lol), but I still like to play and when I get the chance I want it to run well.

Anyhow, I purchased a Xidax computer. It cost me around $1500 and that included monitor etc. and it has some really nice components. If anyone is looking to get a new computer I HIGHLY recommend them. My old computer was built by me, and I always assumed that building one yourself was cheaper, but it's not really THAT much cheaper. Add to this that Xidax has a lifetime warranty on parts and service and I was sold. If my motherboard burns up in 5 years they will replace it. If my hard drive goes bad in 10 years they will replace it.

I hadn't heard of the brand before, but I checked it out on your recommendation and.....thats a lot more than I'm looking to spend on a laptop, lol. My needs aren't high end.

Also, Chrome and Norton both warned me that their website isn't secure, for whatever reason.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

I hadn't heard of the brand before, but I checked it out on your recommendation and.....thats a lot more than I'm looking to spend on a laptop, lol. My needs aren't high end.

Also, Chrome and Norton both warned me that their website isn't secure, for whatever reason.

Yeah, they can get up there. However, you can get a really nice gaming laptop for around $1100. Altjough, their laptops don't have the lifetime warranty.

That's weird that you got that warning. I use Chrome and get no warnings from the site.

Norton is as bad as anything you can get from an unsafe site.... :thumbdown:

:tongue2:

"danmarino wrote:

Yeah, they can get up there. However, you can get a really nice gaming laptop for around $1100. Altjough, their laptops don't have the lifetime warranty.

That's weird that you got that warning. I use Chrome and get no warnings from the site.

I'm more in the $600 or so price range for my next laptop, lol.

GTX 1080 Ti announced. Standard GTX 1080s get a price cut and new revisions with faster memory.

"Desides wrote:

GTX 1080 Ti announced. Standard GTX 1080s get a price cut and new revisions with faster memory.

I currently have the ZOTAC GTX 1080 with an i7-7700K. I'm playing everything on ultra and getting over 60fps. I wonder what the specs for the new 1080 Ti will be. I hate that things upgrade so fast! lol

"danmarino wrote:

I currently have the ZOTAC GTX 1080 with an i7-7700K. I'm playing everything on ultra and getting over 60fps. I wonder what the specs for the new 1080 Ti will be. I hate that things upgrade so fast! lol

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/03/09/nvidia_geforce_gtx_1080_ti_video_card_review
http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2830-nvidia-gtx-1080-ti-fe-review-and-game-benchmarks

tl;dr If you have a 1080 and aren't GPU limited you don't need the Ti. If you play at high refresh rates or resolutions, then it helps, but probably not enough to upgrade from a 1080.

I have a 144Hz 1440p display, so I'm considering using the EVGA step up program to go from my 1080 FTW to the 1080 FTW ICX to the 1080 Ti ICX. Assuming they will let that upgrade path happen.

Looks like the $330 Ryzen 7 1700 is the sweet spot in the line. It can OC to about 3.9 GHz fairly reliably, and, at that speed, performs on par with the 1800X in most applications.

The quad core Ryzen 5 will be interesting.

I upgrade to an MSI 1060 GTX because of my 1080P monitor and CPU, which is still a 2600K overclocked to 4.5GHZ.. I really have no reason to upgrade the processor and motherboard as the PC is still a beast, 5+ years after I built it.. In terms of gaming, I noticed a few of you mentioned high resolutions.. Does it really look better @1440P? If so, I'll probably return the 1060 while I still can - It plays Doom 2016 (nightmare mode) and Quake Champions (Ultra) maxed out at typically over 100FPS. Unreal Tournament alpha is frame locked at 120FPS and rarely dips below..

Is it worth upgrading to a super high def monitor and a 1080GTX? I think my CPU still has a few years left especially at 4.5 MHZ but I'm not sure if I'll be CPU limited and if it's worth upgrading to.

Yes, going from 1080p to 1440p (and 4K especially) is a clear visual upgrade. Is it worth the price of a new GPU and new monitor? That depends on you. But I'm very happy with my GTX 1080 and my Dell S2417DG.

If you're happy with 1080p and don't want to spend the money on the upgrade, then don't. It's not like 1080p is going away any time soon. 4K won't replace it for a few more years.

"Desides wrote:

Yes, going from 1080p to 1440p (and 4K especially) is a clear visual upgrade. Is it worth the price of a new GPU and new monitor? That depends on you. But I'm very happy with my GTX 1080 and my Dell S2417DG.

If you're happy with 1080p and don't want to spend the money on the upgrade, then don't. It's not like 1080p is going away any time soon. 4K won't replace it for a few more years.

Do you think the 2600k will hold me back?! I haven't been able to find any evidence that upgrading it is worth it.. Unless my resolution scales up or is that more GPU dependant?

"Bumrush wrote:

Do you think the 2600k will hold me back?! I haven't been able to find any evidence that upgrading it is worth it.. Unless my resolution scales up or is that more GPU dependant?

It Depends™.

CPU differences will show up more at 1080p than at 4K. At 4K, all CPUs are bottlenecked by the GPU, so your performance will improve primarily by adding a faster GPU. At 1080p, you are not bottlenecked, so you'll see improvements both by adding a faster GPU and a faster CPU.

That said, the gains from a 2600k to a 7700k are not overwhelming. You will primarily see an improvement in minimum FPS. If your lowest FPS is 40 at 2600k, it'll probably be 60 on a 7700k. But your high end FPS won't necessarily improve too much with the CPU upgrade. Will it help adding a 7700k or a Ryzen 5 when going to 1440p or 4K? Sure. Will it be the primary driving factor in performance? Nope, that's the GPU.

My recommendation is to get a good CPU cooler if you don't already have one, and overclock if you haven't already. If you're already overclocked, then you're fine for at least another CPU generation. Upgrading your resolution should have you focusing more on a high end GPU to match the resolution you're going for. If you're targeting 1440p, at minimum you should get the GTX 1070. 4K, nothing less than a 1080 Ti, unless you can find a standard 1080 for a really really great deal.

"Desides wrote:

It Depends™.

CPU differences will show up more at 1080p than at 4K. At 4K, all CPUs are bottlenecked by the GPU, so your performance will improve primarily by adding a faster GPU. At 1080p, you are not bottlenecked, so you'll see improvements both by adding a faster GPU and a faster CPU.

That said, the gains from a 2600k to a 7700k are not overwhelming. You will primarily see an improvement in minimum FPS. If your lowest FPS is 40 at 2600k, it'll probably be 60 on a 7700k. But your high end FPS won't necessarily improve too much with the CPU upgrade. Will it help adding a 7700k or a Ryzen 5 when going to 1440p or 4K? Sure. Will it be the primary driving factor in performance? Nope, that's the GPU.

My recommendation is to get a good CPU cooler if you don't already have one, and overclock if you haven't already. If you're already overclocked, then you're fine for at least another CPU generation. Upgrading your resolution should have you focusing more on a high end GPU to match the resolution you're going for. If you're targeting 1440p, at minimum you should get the GTX 1070. 4K, nothing less than a 1080 Ti, unless you can find a standard 1080 for a really really great deal.

I'm at 4.5 ghz stable..

"Bumrush wrote:

I'm at 4.5 ghz stable..

That's really good. I've got my 7700K OC to only 4.8 ghz (air cooled) so that's not a huge difference.

"Bumrush wrote:

I'm at 4.5 ghz stable..

You're fine for another year or more, depending on how AMD and Intel escalate now that Ryzen is available and doesn't suck.

Never noticed the PC Gaming Thread, But I'm a PC Gamer also #PCMR. Recently been into mostly just Overwatch, and just purchased PlayerUnkowns BattleGrounds. Only have 2 games played so far but I really like it.