BlackXbonE

sorry, accidentally clicked on the submit button ^^ post still to be edited
 

Okay.. back at it again with some ryzen news... yet again i was looking into ryzen overclocking videos.. when i came across this from amd's own site!
 
https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2017/03/14/tips-for-building-a-better-amd-ryzen-system
 
Basicly it's about how to optimize your build.. but also states some of the issues that will be fixed with patches down the road.. However the interesting part of this was the game optimization!
 
The game tested was "F1" racing game and how correct optimization is important.. So the game creates a file explaining what hardware the computer has, cpu/threads and so on.. this gets sync via steam cloud and re-synced to another computer if you reinstall the game.. Now the issue is if you have installed this on a 4core/4t CPU in the first place.. the game on a ryzen build will not notice its a 8c/16t cpu!... but rather the old 4C/4T due to the resync gamefiles... If fixing the resync game files (etc deleting them) the game then thinks its a 16 phycical core cpu... However this can also be fixed.. as this is a 8C/16T cpu.. not a 16 core cpu  Now manually editing the game file to correctly look at a 8C/16T CPU the game gains even more performance..
 
a wooping 35.53% more performance in 1080P gaming!  From 98.5 fps to 133.5 FPS - Now this just shows how important game optimization is... F1 is not the only game saving files about hardware setup, alot of games do! So getting game optimization is VERY important! And just shows that the "1080p gaming" issues might not even be relevant when game developers fix their games!
 

 

hey, i do always respond! was just busy doing other stuff. it's no livechat after all, is it

I noticed I posted this in the wrong thread I meant it for another thread.
Jk

I can see I'm not the only one that is annoyed by this.

Terms like "2K" and "4K" don’t refer to specific resolutions. They are resolution categories. They are used to classify resolutions based on horizontal pixel count. "2K" refers to resolutions that have around 2,000 (2K) pixels horizontally. Examples include:
1920 × 1080 (16:9) 1920 × 1200 (16:10) 2048 × 1080 (≈19:10) 2048 × 1152 (16:9) 2048 × 1536 (4:3) All of these are examples of 2K resolutions. 1920×1080 is a 2K resolution. 2048×1080 is another 2K resolution. 2560×1440 is not a 2K resolution, it is a 2.5K resolution.
 
"2.5K" refers to resolutions around 2,500 (2.5K) pixels horizontally. For example:
2304 × 1440 (16:10) 2400 × 1350 (16:9) 2560 × 1080 (64:27 / ≈21:9) 2560 × 1440 (16:9) 2560 × 1600 (16:10) All of these are examples of 2.5K resolutions.
 
So why do people call 2560×1440 "2K"?
 
Because when "4K" was new to the consumer market, people would ask: "What's 4K?", and usually the response was "it’s four times as many pixels as 1080p". Unfortunately most people misinterpreted this and assumed that the "4" in "4K" actually stood for "how many times 1080p" the resolution was, and since 2560×1440 is popularly known as being "twice as many pixels as 1080p" (it's 1.77 times, but close enough), some people decided to start calling it "2K", and other people heard that and repeated it.
 
While it’s true that 4K UHD (3840×2160) is four times as many pixels as 1920×1080, that isn’t why it’s called "4K". It’s called 4K because it's approximately 4,000 pixels horizontally. The fact that it’s also 4 × 1080p is just a coincidence, and that pattern doesn’t continue with other resolutions.
 
For example, the 5K resolution featured in the Retina 5K iMac, 5120×2880, is equivalent to four 2560×1440 screens. If 1440p is "2K" because it’s twice as many pixels as 1080p, then wouldn’t four of them together be called "8K"? (Well, technically 7K since like I said 1440p is 1.77 times not 2 times 1080p, but that’s beside the point). We don’t call it 7K or 8K. We call it 5K, because it's around 5,000 pixels horizontally. It has nothing to do with "how many times 1080p" the resolution is.
 
In addition, an actual 8K resolution such as 8K UHD (7680×4320) is equivalent to four 4K UHD screens. A single 4K UHD screen is four times as many pixels as 1080p, so four of those together is sixteen times as many pixels as 1080p. But 7680×4320 isn't called "16K", it’s called "8K", because it’s approximately 8,000 pixels horizontally. Again it doesn't have anything to do with "how many times 1080p" the resolution is.
 
So although 2560×1440 is around twice as many pixels as 1080p, it is not called "2K", because that isn’t where these names come from. Since 2560×1440 is approximately 2,500 pixels horizontally, it falls into the 2.5K classification.
 
Examples of How the Cinematography Industry Uses These Terms
 
"True 4K"
 
"K" and "Ultrawide"
 
"But what about..."
 

if you want to run games on the 4k monitor only, you'll have to play games in borderless windowed mode, keeping the other two monitors active in the background. 
 
if you want to play on all three, the game will have to support arbitrary resolutions and triple monitor setups. http://www.wsgf.org/ is your friend

If Eyefinity support hasn't changed much since the AMD 6900 series, something like this could definitely work in games that do support multi-monitor setups. However, I do specifically mean AMD's Eyefinity. Nvidia Surround requires more or less identical monitors to work and is far more picky.

Please don't. I'm sorry they don't understand what you're thinking but here are the facts.
 
The 7700k is only about 5% better than the 6700k, at most. And if you update your bios now, you'll be totally fine using a 7700k on your motherboard.
 
Don't get a new motherboard. You'd essentially be paying $150-$200 extra for basically nothing.
 
So it's really up to you; a 6700k would mean no worries about issues at all. A 7700k would be slightly more performance for a slightly higher price and you might initially have some issues but later on you won't. However, even if you do want to just get an i7, I'd recommend you wait a week or two. Ryzens release could cause an avalanche affect on Intel's CPU prices and may end up allowing you to get a 6700k or 7700k for as much as $100-$150 cheaper.
 
They mean well. They just don't understand your direction ATM.
 
If you plan on mainly gaming, I recommend you just go the above route. Ryzen won't give you much benefits if so.
 
However, if you video edit or currently do some productivity stuff and/or believe in the future you will do a lot of productivity stuff then you might want to consider something like a 1700. Instead of getting a z270 board+7700k, for about the same price you could be getting a 1700+an x370 board. In many games it might currently hurt you, but in the long run for gaming and in productivity it would help you.
 
However, NO MATTER WHAT, don't get a z270 board. It's a literal waste of money.

For the sake of brevity, lets say that the Volta cards will be named similar to the Pascal cards. That is to say on release there will be a 1160, 1170, 1180 and shortly after that a Titan X(V?).
 
You can buy a 1080 TI now, or wait 6 to 8 months for the 1180.
But wait...
When the 1180 ships, it will only be about 6 to 8 months before the 1180 TI ships.
But wait...
When the 1180 TI ships, it will only be about 6 to 8 months before the 1280 ships.
But wait...
When the 1280 ships, it will only be about 6 to 8 months before the 1280 TI ships.
 
Some time between the 1080 TI and the 2080 TI, you are going to have to stop with the but waits and actually purchase a card. It might as well be now.
 

Going off of this. What you want the upgrade for is exactly what Ryzen chips are built for, productivity.
Also, don't get pissy just because we aren't feeding you the response you want OP.

I7s are a waste when you have an I5. If you insist on going with an I7 go with a 6700k. If you want to see an actual improvement in productivity go with Ryzen. 

My personal rule of thumb:
4GB minimum for low end machines that inevitably become basic facebook or office drone machines.
8GB minimum for low end gaming rigs.
16GB minimum for low to medium end workstations and medium to high end gaming rigs, preferably using 2 DIMMs so that one can expand later and still have the benefits of dual channel.
Going with 32GB for just gaming might be jumping the gun ATM. Games will eventually gobble that much up, but we might move on to our next system RAM standard (DDR5) before then.
 
So, I'd say get 16GB in a kit of 2 8GB sticks.

If you can wait until vega is released, just do it, then you can make a more thoughtful choice based on reviews/performance, also, if you don't rush it, you won't have that feeling that you fucked up for being too impatient, and that's also cool, lol.
 
But if you can't, I still think 2 1080's in SLI are overkill for just overwatch and bf1 (even if it's in 4K, unless you want to run the games at the highest settings and still hit 100+ fps, then I think it would be okay) also, if you got the money and want to invest on a system that will last you for a few years, just go for it.

the thing is, if you can wait, waiting is always good, because either prices will go down, or better options will become available.

why do people preorder still in 2017? 

There are some in here:
 

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480_Crossfire/ - TechPowerUp has done one. Not too sure about others.

Hardware Unboxed did a review. At 1440p maxed out on CF optimized titles the CF 480 were 14% faster on average than the 1070, and 9% slower than the 1080.
 
Now, I would just buy a single GTX 1070 (it'll cost the same or even less). 14% of extra perf at best is not worthy if you take into consideration power consumption, poor CF scaling in other titles, heat and space on your PC.
 
 

More than enough. I've seen a guy run two R9 290Xs on a 650W PSU. You should still have plenty of headroom under full load and with a heavy overclock.

this is from the wall
that means the actual power drawn from the PSU is about 90% of this
so less than 700W

is literally JUST bought an used 4460 for 110€
not saying that you should sell it that cheap aswell, but only 150$ is a bit overboard i think - considering that in my area you can get a new one for 165€ and euro-prizes are usually a bit higher than US-dollar ones.

ill do $130 USD. and see what i get. thanks

It's (the 480 is) said to be around 390X/Fury performance with a single 6 pin... Hmmmmmm.. Crossfire on a 550W PSU is possible.

Pretty much this, using a overplay programm like MSI Afterburner or HWMonitor while playing & enabling the CPU & GPU usage % aswell as FPS counter will show you if and when that takes effect, if you keep an eye on it of course.
 
 
 
 
also watch this video, keep an eye on the FPS on top and choose for yourself if it would be worth the money for your needs to upgrade. (keep in mind that those CPU's are overclocked though.. but should give you a general idea)
 
 
 
and in case you dont know, the 2xxx and 3xxx series uses the same socket, so you could, f/e replace your 2500 with an 3770 w/o needing a new motherboard.