winkawak

Thats a good question. I'm not sure if last-gen stuff will get discounted but no harm in waiting a week. GPU sales are at an all-time low in 20 years, so its not like the price will go up, lol 🤣

So user benchmark is flat-out wrong. Linus has pointed thatbout a few times.
 
Also AMD has Ray-Tracing and has since last gen RX 6000 series, but its not as good as Nvidia, meaning the performance hit when you turn it on is worse.
 
However, Ray-Tracing is still a gimmick and not important to most gamers at this point in time and will probably remain unimportant until RTX 6000 or RTX 7000 series-ish.
 
Rasterization is what you do right now on the GTX 970. No special features, just pure graphical horsepower and shit-loads of polygons.
 
"Polygons for Days? Polygons for Days!!! Don't forget about the Bayonets!!!"
 
AMD is simply a far superior value at every single tier right now and by anlong way, too. On top of that, RX 7000 series Ray-Tracing isn't too bad now, the RX 7900-XTX is only about 10-15% off the RTX 4080 in games with Ray Tracing enabled. So AMD is getting there.
 
But if you want to buy last gen, RX 6000 series Ray Tracing is far worse, so just stick to raster in that case (meaning leaving Ray-Tracing off).
 
The RX 6700-XT is by FAR the best value gaming GPU on the market right now. For the same price as Nvidia's new RTX 4060 NON-Ti, you get about 40% more performance and 50% more VRAM and its a VERY STRONG card capable of high refresh rate at 2560x1440p resolution with High/Ultra settings.
 
Nvidia Mid-Tier is garbage this gen but the 3060 12GB is a decent option from last gen, although the 6700-XT also kicks its ass for the same price.
 
So unless you truly REQUIRE Nvidia for some reason, 6700-XT, done deal.
 
Keep in mind these graphs are ULTRA settings which are extremely taxing and deliver hardly any more fidelity for a huge performance hit VS High Settings.
 

 

And thanks everyone for helping

Ah i see, that means 3060/3070 is also meets the bare minimum at 8gb. Im leaning more towards 6800xt now with 12gb

OK, never mind, prices have dropped a ton for the 3060 Ti, you can find them for under $300 at this point:
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/pny-nvidia-geforce-rtx-3060-ti-8gb-gddr6-pci-express-4-0-graphics-card-with-dual-fan-black/6519166.p?acampID=0&cmp=RMX&irclickid=XctWZ%3AxGJxyPUoUwiRzDy1aXUkF2SEXeNzYqUY0&irgwc=1&loc=PCPartPicker&mpid=79301&ref=198&refdomain=pcpartpicker.com&skuId=6519166
 
You can still get the 6700 XT for $310 though after a promo code on Newegg: 
https://www.newegg.com/asrock-radeon-rx-6700-xt-rx6700xt-cld-12go/p/N82E16814930059?Item=N82E16814930059&nm_mc=AFC-RAN-COM&cm_mmc=afc-ran-com-_-PCPartPicker&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_campaign=afc-ran-com-_-PCPartPicker&utm_source=afc-PCPartPicker&AFFID=2558510&AFFNAME=PCPartPicker&ACRID=1&ASID=https%3a%2f%2fpcpartpicker.com%2f&ranMID=44583&ranEAID=2558510&ranSiteID=8BacdVP0GFs-rP2ZErzyRJ0jTN6Krl4Fxw
 
Given the 3060 Ti is $45 less, it can make a little more sense if you're willing to drop texture quality to medium, in order to save VRAM, though I'd probably spend the extra on the 6700 XT (partially for the extra VRAM, partially because in my experience overclocking RX 6000 series cards is more fun). 

They are. The 6700 XT is ~$100 cheaper though, so keep that in mind. 
 
For high/max settings in 3 years, I'd say no because of the VRAM issues. The 6700 XT is more likely to remain usable because of its extra VRAM. I could be wrong, but keep that in mind. 

afaik AMD doesnt really have an answer to raytracing yet, but i honestly dont really give a darn. the only games where it matters are games where the devs blindly implemented RTX, and other than that didnt bother with a lighting engine at all. and besides - if you're not shopping for a top end card, games still chug with RTX on, so you get to choose between the same shitty lighting, or pisspoor FPS.

They have RT but are 1 gen behind, my 7900xtx performs like my previous 3080 in CP2077 RT
But that's an extreme case of heavy RT, in most light RT games they do ok, though worse than Nvidia cards
In rasterization AMD offers better performance for cheaper, so the way to go at entry or mid tier 

It was a problem back with those cards as well. GTA V for instance you really had to balance VRAM usage with the settings you were running to make sure you weren't going over that 3.5GB (max settings would use just about 4GB), and there were a fair amount of games that did need that extra VRAM. 
 
With modern AAA titles like The Last Of Us, Jedi: Survivors, and Hogwarts Legacy, the VRAM usage is insane. Those games aren't well optimized and it shows, they will use 9-10GB of VRAM if you turn texture quality up to high. It's expected to get even worse over time, so if you can invest in a card that has more than 8GB of VRAM, you probably should. You can still get by with just 8GB of VRAM, it's just difficult. 

AMD does have ray tracing, they're just not as good at it. Also UserBenchmark is a terrible site and should only be taken by a grain of salt (they have a tendency to be very anti-AMD for whatever reason).
 

 
I'd trust TechPowerUp's numbers much more than UserBenchmark's. 

I have a mini itx mobo asus strix z690i that can hold 2 m.2 in a stack tower on the mobo. My current crucial p5 m.2 bare drive temp with thermal pad is idling pretty high at 55C. I was wondering would be quiet m.2 heatsink mc1 pro would fit my mobo?
 

Dont have the link right now but it was in the comment section of a written article regarding 4070ti leak. Almost all of them were saying the performance betweeen 30 and 40 is about the same but 40 priced higher. IDK
Its all good, i recently built a new rig mini itx with 12700k and a pcie 4 rise cable in meshlicious. Im just wondering if its worth getting the previous gen since there price tag is around 600 unlike the new 40 series.
12GB vram is too little now? Man i was rocking my gtx 970 3.5gb vram for over 6 years lol

Been out of the gpu loop for awhile now as my last build gpu was a gtx 970 lol. From my short search on google, it seems these two have similar performance but 40series is priced much higher?

700 for a gpu is kinda cheap now,Look at the 4090 or either amd 7900 cards.As far as how long they last depends the settings your willing to cut in time.My brother still games on a 2080 super he bought when it was new.Hes had to cut a few game settings down a tiny bit to get 120fps plus.

Yeah gpu prices suck. Last two times mining got big the next generation got ridiculously expensive after the crypto bubble popped and Nvidia saw what gamers were willing to pay while the bubble was being blown up. Though the 970 was only as cheap as it was because Litecoin becoming unprofitable to mine on gpus absolutely tanked the market in 2014 and there was a massive used card selloff, way more than what happened in 2018 and 2022. You could buy R9 290 with four games new for $200 back when that was like a 4080 tier card. We'll never see gpu prices like that again. I remember wanting to buy a GTX 660 or R9 270 that spring but by fall the R9 290 was cheaper than the 660 and 270 were in the spring.

Not at all. 3070 Ti is a terrible value at $600 because it's so gimped by that 8GB of VRAM. 4070 Ti will probably end up 30-50% faster if leaks are accurate. 3070 already runs out of VRAM at 1440p in Doom Eternal for instance, and the 3060 actually outperforms the 3070 there by 30% because of that VRAM deficiency in the 3070. Would be the same story with the 3070 Ti, but I think this bench was done before the 3070 Ti was launched. And at 4k it's even worse with 3060 12GB at 45 fps and 3070 8GB at 17 fps.
 
https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/doom-eternal-test-rtx
 
I wouldn't touch a 3070 Ti for anything more than $400, and even then I'd still be worried about spending that much on an 8GB card. There are other examples of the 8GB holding the 3060 Ti / 3070 / 3070 Ti back if you want me to post them but Doom Eternal is the nastiest example since it happens even at 1440p while the others I have seen are at 4k.

It is also much wider, deeper and using a different final power connect to the card compared to prior series. You should check your PC case for width and what expansion slots that you might need and will now be covered. Take a good look at the cards photos online and you'll see what I mean.
 
The 4000 series is generations ahead of the 900 series with DX12, ray tracing and other little things. If your just putting it into a senior PC, its MoBo might not be able to use the new features like resizable bar, or that it is a PCI gen 4 card.
 
As a side note nearly every reviewer says the new 4000 Nvidia series right now is very overpriced for what you get. The prices might come down a bit? I tend to think not by much as overall sales might be way below last years target, and scalpers are having a field day with the reduced numbers of 4090 being released until the glut of 3090 chips are sold off, but Nvidia lost the Crypto mining market so have to make up the financial loss somewhere.

Im at work but after going through the steps again in my head, it dawn on me that i forgot to plug in the 8 pin cpu power cable facepalm. Ill plug that ij tonight once i get home and hopefully thats it.

The majority of those games (good old installation) will actually run just fine if you launch them from other folders.
 
To test, simply rename the folder of the game to something else and go inside the folder and launch the game executable and see if it works. If it doesn't, then you can rename the folder back and no harm done.
 
They usually don't memorize or store the actual path to the game folder anywhere, except in the Add/Remove programs, to uninstall the game.
 
Most games will create some folders in your user profile folder (C:\Users\[user name]), or in My Documents \ My Games but most of the time is  Users > [ your user name ] > Application Data > Company Name > Game name  >   or similar paths.
That's what you have to be concerned about, if you reinstall your Windows or stuff like that.
 
The reason why I don't recommend making 4 partitions, is because you'll have a hard time afterwards... you may end up with 10-20 GB free disk space on each partition and you want to install a 50-60 GB game and you'll waste half an hour moving files around to make 50-60 GB of free disk space on one partition.
 
Also - and this is less of an issue - if you install and uninstall games often, you'll cause higher disk fragmentation with small partitions and you'd have to defragment the hard drive more often.
A single partition will become less fragmented over time.
 
 
ps. If you do decide to make 4 partitions on the 4 TB drive, you can simply copy the folders over. There's no need to use Macrium Reflect or other disk cloning tools to close the partitions.
 
Just go in Disk Management and create the four partitions on your 4 TB drive, and give them each a drive letter.
Copy the files over.
Right click on the old drive letters and select Change drive letter and path and change the letters of the original drives to other letters.
If needed, reboot.
Go in Disk Management on your 4 TB drive, select each drive letter and now you can use the letters that were originally used on the 4 1 TB drives.
 

Q1.) If I get a 4TB HDD, can I combine the current drives into the new one?
A1.) Yes, you can move all the files and programs from the multiple 1TB drives to the 1 4TB drive.
Q2.) Will the programs and games still work?
A2.) The games and programs could still work, but depending on the game or program, might throw a fit.
Q3.) What about drive letters/paths?
A3.) Drive letters will be automatically assigned (or you can do it manually) when you install the 4TB drive. Paths will need to be reset, and is fairly simple in most programs.
 
There is some caveats, such as dependencies, and where some programs look for files on startup (some are specific, some are "dynamic"). Sometimes, you will have to uninstall and then re-install the program to resolve it. Or at least, that's the simplest way.
 
If you are using a storefront, like Steam or any of the dozens of others, you can easily just move the games over, tell the store where to find them, and you should be good. Sometimes, it will do the 'first time setup' again, but you should still have all your save data and all that jazz. Assuming, of course, your OS (Windows) is installed on its own drive already, and not one of the 1TB drives you are clearing out. Because at that point, it will be much easier to reinstall Windows altogether.

Use Media Creation Tool.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5N_RsrdXEY
 
 
Just do it, its not bad as everyone says, Windows 10 bring more than just security. 

A forced shutdown is a crap-shoot.
 
Under ideal conditions, pressing and holding the power button for 4 seconds is equal to yanking the power cord from the wall. With mechanical drives this always results in damage or data corruption due to unflushed buffers. In the older days (eg AT power supplies with mechanical switches), you used to have to park the hard drive heads (PC/XT/AT machines) in the 5.25" hard drives so they wouldn't "land" on the surface, or with IDE hard drives, give the hard drive enough time to flush the buffers. So if you pulled the power while it was writing, whatever it was writing would be gone, and if it was writing to the FAT (File Allocation Table) you could easily wipe out a chunk of the hard drive since there are two copies of the FAT, and the writing might "miss" it's target if the power is removed.
 
With that said. NVMe/SSD drives do not have this issue at all, they still have the "unflushed buffer" issue, however since there is no mechanical parts, at worst, you lose the active file being written. If you pull the power while writing to a SSD, it is however possible to erase the entire drive, which is why the "shutdown" process powers the drive off itself. 
 
I've only ever experienced one mechanical drive being damaged by removing the power,and that was due to a blackout which might have been how the blackout happened rather than anything having to do with the loss of power. 
 
Now, Windows is pretty good about repairing the drive with just chkdsk. Older versions of windows want you to run scandisk (Which scanned the entire physical surface of the drive) when a shutdown wasn't clean, and then again goes back to the potential for a "miss" write in the FAT. I've never seen a drive newer than 2000 have physically bad sectors unless it was a laptop, and even then, physically bad sectors typically require something bad to happen to the drive while it's spinning. Like having a pet knock it over. 
 
If you check the drive using crystaldisk info to read the SMART info you can check if the drive has ever reallocated sectors, and a drive that has used up it's spare sectors is a drive that should be replaced. That's about the extent of what you really should check for. You can use other programs to actually trigger the drive's internal surface scan via the SMART commands, and that will tell you if the drive has been damaged.
 
There are "bad" drives out there, so even though I haven't seen many bad drives, a lot of that is due to researching drives before purchase and avoiding ones with high failure rates (see backblaze's list https://www.backblaze.com/blog/backblaze-hard-drive-stats-q1-2019/ ) 

If you want to check the HDD for errors, use any program that supports SMART tests. I would recommend using the Diagnostics Utility from your HDD manufacturer (WD has LifeGuard and Seagate has SeaTools, for example) - there's usually a Windows installer available on their site.
 
I would also download CrystalDiskInfo and check for SMART errors - that doesn't require to run any tests. Run that, then run the "Long" test from the diagnostic utility for your HDD.
 
In terms of an alternate to CheckDisk checking for corrupted files? No, I don't believe so.

ive always wanted 47483648MHz ram to go with 2,147,483,648‬ cas latency. PSSSST 2,147,483,648‬ is 2^31 aka max value of signed int.

ah, SPD chip just gone insane
 
but 3200MHz CL15 is nice.