Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

DarkSmith2

Member
  • Content Count

    1,904
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards


This user doesn't have any awards

1 Follower

About DarkSmith2

  • Title
    Veteran

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Berlin, Germany

System

  • CPU
    Intel i7-8700k @5GHz
  • Motherboard
    Asus ROG Maximus X Formula
  • RAM
    F4-3600C15D-16GTZ
  • GPU
    RTX 2080Ti
  • Case
    1/2 PHANTEKS Enthoo Luxe (falling apart)
  • Storage
    Samsung 970 EVO 500GB, Crucial MX500 500GB
  • PSU
    EVGA Supernova G2 750W
  • Display(s)
    LG24GM77-B
  • Cooling
    Noctua NH-U12A
  • Keyboard
    Filco Majestouch2
  • Mouse
    Logitech G PRO Wireless
  • Sound
    Soundblaster ZXR
  • Operating System
    Windows10 PRO 64bit

Recent Profile Visitors

1,684 profile views
  1. i7 2600k not worth 70€ ...in my opinion. I would safe up for budget build instead. IF you compare CPU prices, you can get r5 1600 for 70€ from ebay. (or 100€ new)
  2. Well i didnt wanted to step on your toes with that. Im with you that a Ryzen CPU can be beneficial for people, especially if they do other stuff and play on higher resolutions. But for gaming alone a 4790k would cut it too for 1440p or higher. Apart from that i dont think that many poeple would have bought intel without overclocking in mind. So newer Intel models already come as close as it gets to max. overclocks out of the box like the 9900KS there is only maybe 200mhz left to gain (if you can cool it *cough*). So comparing stock to stock isnt really my thing, and wasnt back then when i bought my 8700k, overclocking became easy and like 80% of the 8700k's could do 5GHz or higher so i already planned with this when i bought it. My Cinebench r15 Multithread score overclocked to 5GHz is 1700 and i can get it higher since i can overclock even further... (lucky chip hehe). But i dont think that more than 6cores is beneficial for pure gaming right now, 6cores seems to be a sweetspot for newer games (not even including HT or SMT). We actually havnt ever seen a game that runs better in dx12 than in dx11 other than making it "prettier", which would absolutely be required to utilize more cores efficiently in the future. But with dx12 having no real exclusive fullscreen mode available its unlikely to happen in near future that more cores will be beneficial for the majority of games or that any gap will be narrowed. As for high refreshrate gaming like 1080 240hz+ Ryzen is completly unusable, even if you reach those fps on your Ryzen chip it wont feel that great because of Latency. Core to Core latency is really bad, they work on it but having it more than twice as high as on Intel CPUs makes highrefreshrate gaming not as nice smooth and responsive as it should be. But i personally think you made everything right, if you are playing on 1440p 144hz Ryzen has no substancial disadvantage over Intel CPU's in gaming. PS: nobody plays csgo with fps cap, we all want low input lag...
  3. Single threaded? You sure about that? Like im getting 230pts when playing singlethread Cinebench r15 on my 8700k, you get like 180 on your 2700x? Not that it would matter, but ingame performance on 1080p or lower resolutions is up to a 40% difference. And still up to 30% difference when compared to Ryzen 3000. (apart from 3950x) Its not even funny how bad Ryzen is for high refreshrate gaming, more frustrating. And i dont get why poeple buy this for less than 1440p gaming.
  4. i would only upgrade from this if i would be really sad with the silicon lottery or quality of board/RAM. You could have gottn more out of it with a decent RAMkit and OC Motherboard like the Apex XI, GENE XI or EVGA Dark. Ofc it would had been alot of work to do.. but would be more beneficial than upgrading from a 8700k to a 9900k on that crap board/ram. I also think to switch the 1080ti out for a 2080ti would yield a higher performance boost. This is AVX stable 24/7 OC. So if you have Money to burn wait until the CES in January is over and maybe consider upgrading to Intel's next gen CPUs which could infact be paperlaunched or atleast previewed at CES. All z390's are already OOP. In a couple of Month you'll probably be able get a little faster 8c/16t Intel Desktop CPU for cheaper than now.
  5. well i think itll be a while until something really faster will come out for gaming. Having more cores is mostly not beneficial for higher performance in games, for some it is, but for most there isnt any difference, 6cores is momentarily the sweetspot that newer games do utilize, and the sweetspot for dx12 performance (2more cores add very little), with having HT in addition you'll probably be set until Intels 7nm chips in 2021 or 2022. You may have better frametimes (less hickups) with more cores though. Intels current gen of S-CPU's also arent really faster in games in a sense of avg FPS, mostly because the 8700k makes up the difference in IPC with pure clockspeed and on average a better memory controller, to get the RAM clocks higher, if you have the Motherboard to do so... Overall i think people that bought the 8700k made the best choice. I mean ive bought mine for 300€ on sale including taxes and see one CPU release after the other fail to beat my CPUs gaming performance as if it is stuck for a really long time now.
  6. i dont care that much about it personally tbh. Most reviewer have shown absolutely fine black uniformity for a TN panel regardless of metholodogy. Rtings is the only review site out of the order. And if you "cant see it" under "normal circumstances" it doesnt matter at all and the testing metholodogy of rtings would be flawed /manipulated with photoshop, if its not a defective unit.
  7. Lookup multiple reviews, if you see the panel picture on RTINGS you can see its a Panel that suffers from a defect, that mostly applies due to bad shipping or to much pressure during assembly. When you look at the TFTcentral review the picture of the Monitor looks just fine. So Rtings basically reviewed a panel that everyone else would just RMA and therefore the test result of the black uniformity cant really be accounted. Not saying the Monitor is perfect with Black Uniformity, it isnt but its nowhere near as horrible as shown in the rtings review. They should have known it better and mentioned it. Acer is known for poor quality control, but if you get an average Quality Monitor you wont have any issues.
  8. well that differs from panel to panel, would take test results about this with a grain of salt. Overall its known that Quality Control isnt very good with the Acer but if you buy somewhere with easy return policies you wont have a problem, and it wont be any worse than most other 240hz Monitors tbh.
  9. In the case you dont play your games in a dark room (lights out) the Acer Nitro XF252Q is probably the best choice you have then, we know its faster than the HP Omen X25F, ASUS PG258Q, ASUS PG248Q, Gigabyte KD25F and definitely alot faster than the Benq XL2546/2540.
  10. Actually it seems like the Acer Nitro XF252Q is the fastest overall, and one of the cheaper panels. Only thing is that if you want to use some sort of variable refreshrate you cant really buy a "freesync/adaptive sync/g-sync compatible" version because the benefit from 240hz is getting negated without g-sync module, because with variable refreshrate the overdrive only works with real g-sync...
  11. upgrade to what? There isnt really a CPU out that is much faster than the 8700k at 5GHz for gaming, you're fine. AMD still behind in clocks, Intel still behind in IPC. Infact in 99,9% of games u wont even have more than a 1% difference in FPS to a 9900ks. Would be a complete waste of money.
  12. Your link doesnt show all 4. Here you go: https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tools/table/18308
  13. There are huge differences, the only manufacturer that produces native 240hz panels is AU Optronics. But there are different Panels out. Some advertised 240hz panels dont even have 240hz like the hayabusa its an overclocked panel with a native refreshrate of 144hz that doesnt even reach the advertisement. The so called newer panels have "less responsetime" so there is definitely a difference in speed, overdrive modes, input lag, features and image quality. Alot, if not the most, of the older 240hz Monitors are even slower than 144hz Monitors. with higher inputlag/responsetimes. Ey yo he is full of shit, the knowledge he has about 240hz Monitors and the market of them is very little. He is a 4k Nerd.
  14. The thing is, it doesnt matter. If you cant get a good board for the 9900k/ks or whatever ever again (and i mean it, like all boards except the overclocking boards are trash) when they are just sold out and arent manufactured anymore, there is no reason to buy the whole 9900k anymore no matter how long it takes to get something new and good available on the market again. Why would you sign up on a forum and ask for a "beast" motherboard for a 9900k if you dont even mean it. I mean why buying intel at all if you arent an enthusiast who just wants the good stuff, best of the best, fastest of the fastest. There is absolutely no reason to buy a 9900k to combine it with a trash board, 1440p or higher resolutions to play in a freaking GPU bottleneck. You buy Intel to overclock it, to overclock the ram, to tweak your system to gain the fastest, most fluid, least latency and least lag gaming experience you can buy. If you freaking destroy your gaming experience with the illusion of "immersion" you are lost and doomed. You could do all of this with a freaking 4790k, PS4 or Xbox without even bothering.
×