Personally I'd go Intel/Nvidia but he wanted to save a few dollars somewhere without a sacrificing much performance while getting the best Nvidia gpu he could. So that's why I went 2700x and 1070ti.
So my GTX 1080 just sold and now I'm looking at the used market. Granted they were mined on, but dudes be letting 1080 TI's go for $500. There is a R9 Fury for $185. The reviews I looked at for RTX were not very compelling to spend more.
Yeah RTX right now is minimal upgrade on current games. When developers support the new tech it may change, but right now it's just like any other GPU upgrade.
At least that's what I've read and heard discussed from a few sources.
Yeah, RTX opens up some new, compelling feature-sets... but until or if they start being used well in games you are only paying for potential.
M2/NVMe is a different hard drive slot connector. M2 is the same as SATA but it comes in a smaller form factor and allows you to install right onto the board and get rid of the hard drive cage. NVMe is an upgrade which is faster than SATA. Practically speaking SATA3 is absolutely fine to run your drives on, but NVMe is considered an order of magnitude faster. However you're well past the point of noticeable returns imo.
Steel plating the PCI slot just makes it sturdier with heavier cards, esp. cards with backplates. Minimizes chances something bad happens if you were moving your tower or maybe like in an earthquake or something knocking the tower over.
You willing to camp EVGA B-stock for him? Last Wed had a 980Ti for $150.
I was so sad I thought I was getting a 970 for $80. You gotta hit that at like, 3AM on Wednesdays.
Not bad for the price? 2600 + Rog Strix B450 - $265.
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Combo...=Combo.3845695
Ram question, is there any noticeable difference between 3200 c16 and 3000 c14? Is 3200 c15 the sweet spot? This is all so overwhelming
You would be hard pressed to really see any perceptible difference in RAM performance.
Hi fam. I'm considering doing a full rebuild soon. I haven't kept up with GPU performance much since crypto mining sent prices to the moon. Is a 1070 still more than sufficient for 1440p @60Hz and/or 1080p @144Hz at reasonable settings? If so, is AMD competitive with it in terms of price/performance? I've been pretty happy with my R9 290X but it's showing its age.
1070 can handle 1440/60 or 1080/144. 1440/144 possible with less demanding games (esports). The 580 is behind the 1070, but the savings on FreeSync + the 580 itself can be worth it. It will struggle progressively more. Getting a really good deal on a B-stock 980Ti / 1070 / 1070Ti probably is worth the trouble.
nvm dumb post.
To my above dumb post, I thought about it and I want to ask. So I know the majority says multi GPU is dumb. However, I've ran it in the past and didn't have issues. I sold my 1080 on the high side so am now in the market for a new GPU. Main thing is I have a Freesync 2560x1440 60hz monitor. I'm debating on waiting on a deal for a Vega 64 (again). However, right now albeit second hand (back from RMA & seller says they look new) there is the option of going with Sapphire Nitro R9 Fury for $350. Thoughts?
MultiGPU was never a problem until Nvidia said it was. If the cost to performance is better than single then why not in my opinion.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
The biggest drawback imo is that you must run in true full screen. That's fine for some games but it annoys the hell out of me because I use my second screen to keep track of enemy stats during drafts and such.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
I've never ran SLI but I ran X-fire 390X and at 4K 60hz the only game that saw a problem was Witcher 3. Ironically, when [H]ardOCP ran benches for Strix Fury X-fire vs 980 TI SLI at 4K the Fury won every bench except Witcher 3.
For me that's a non issue since I run all games in true full screen. The plot thickens on what to do!