DocSwag

7 hours ago, Ashy2874 said:

SanDisk Ultra 3D and WD Blue  3D

Those two are actually the exact same SSD so just buy whichever one is cheaper 

Bandwidth to what? The cpu connects to a ton of things so I don't know what you're specifically referring to

On 1/8/2020 at 5:43 PM, Ashy2874 said:

 

Ok for the 2 nvme, I'll go with adata sx8200 pro. For the 1 2.5 ssd, WD BLUE or SanDisk Ultra? 

Which SanDisk ultra? Is that the wd blue 3d?

Sleep mode means your pc state is saved in ram so your ram HAS to be on in sleep mode to store the state. You can't turn it off. Either turn off the rgb entirely or maybe you can try using hibernate 

1 minute ago, Streetguru said:

It has the same panel as the models in the link:
https://drop.com/buy/massdrop-vast-curved-gaming-monitor/talk/1815741

Otherwise, if you're going with 2 displays already, 240hz can be really nice.

Hm I think I'll do some more research and read a couple more reviews and then decide. It's probably between the Monoprice and LG; if I'm convinced that I'll be fine with the Monoprice quality+warranty I'll probably go for it.

240 hz isn't of interest to me because I don't think the difference from 144 to 240 will be as noticeable as 1080p to 1440p, so I'm mostly interested in 1440p 120-144 hz displays.

Thanks for the suggestions

3 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

The Zero G is pretty solid, especially for $300

Would go for a Sapphire Pulse non XT card, maybe for the XT card just go all the way to the Nitro+

Navi is probably preferred for the Image Sharpening, in case you need to cheat out more fps in the future.

I'm just not entirely sold on it because the quality of the panel doesn't seem as great as the others. Like from what I've seen a lot of people have issues getting it to go to 120 hz; some even have issues doing 100 hz with freesync on and instead have to go to 75 hz with freesync. It also seems to have flickering when you go below 55 hz with freesync (though admittedly, I probably wouldn't go that low). It seems like more of a gamble quality control-wise and also productivity is the main benefit of an ultrawide but I'll have a 29" ultrawide as a second monitor so I'm not sure it would benefit me too much.

EDIT: @dizmo

21 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

Ultra wide all day everyday.

 

Or a 1080p 240hz display depending on how many esports games you play + 4k 60hz TV/Display on the side.

are you suggesting the zero g or some other ultrawide?

19 minutes ago, dizmo said:

You're trying to run these with a GTX 970?
That'd eliminate the ultra wide off the list right away.

No, I plan on also grabbing a GPU upgrade this week; probably one of the 5700, 5700 XT, 2060 super, and 2070 super.

I'm looking to buy a 1440p 144 hz adaptive sync monitor this black friday and I've found some potential options already but I'm not really sure what to choose or if there are other options available that I'm not aware of. The first option that I found that I am also leaning towards the most is the LG 32GK650-F. It's currently available for $250 and it's 1440p 144 hz (and overclockable to 165hz) freesync 32" and VA. Techspot gave it a pretty decent review as well so at $250 I think it's a really solid choice but I'm not entirely sure. I've found some other options like the Acer XF270HU ($50 more though and smaller but IPS is enticing), monoprice zerog (3440x1440 and 100 hz OCable to 120 hz for $50 more; the 21:9 is nice but I'm not sure if it's worth $50 more especially since the LG seems to be better quality in general), and lastly the LG 27GL850, which is a lot more expensive at $450 but it's got a really nice panel that supports DCI-P3, is IPS, and has better color accuracy.

$500 is probably the max I'd be willing to spend but cheaper is always better. The LG looks to be my #1 choice but the Acer also looks enticing because of the IPS and I'm not entirely sure which one to go for. If anyone has any suggestions/opinions that would be great

Especially with a laptop I'm not sure if there's much you can do to tell, maybe the bios is corrupted but it's also possible something else is the issue (e.g. dead GPU, dead CPU, dead display connector, etc.).

Maybe you can turn up the sound to check for beep codes? dunno

Which specific monitors are you looking at?

I also don't know if a 120 hz monitor really is worth it. There seem to be very few games that support 120 hz on the xbox one x. And I don't know if support will increase in the future since very few people use a 120 hz monitor with an xbox; most of the time it's a 60 hz TV.

Maybe a 1440p 60 hz IPS monitor with freesync would be your best bet? Freesync is probably the thing you would want for gaming

The PCIe connector on the PSU side might be different so you should probably try to find one that's for your PSU.

1 hour ago, kaliico said:

will it be ok to run the 1660 on just power from the pci slot until I get a cable tomorrow

1660 has a TDP of 120W so I doubt that it would even boot.

If it's stable on Prime95 for like 20+ minutes then it's gonna be stable for anything you'd be doing

No it's a DRAM-less SSD

I know rocket league was planning on moving to the epic game store and removing the option to buy the game from steam, but people who already bought the game from steam can continue to play it there and get new updates. Does this affect it? 

It really depends on what device you're using them with. If the manufacturer did a decent job with their customization of Android, you'd probably be fine with even a 6xx level of SoC (look at the Pixel 3a, google did a solid job on the software side and it performs fine). Modern 6xx SoC's perform like a Snapdragon 835 from 2 years ago, which still holds up pretty well compared to the snapdragon 855 in real world performance. As a quote from Anandtech's Pixel 3a review:

Quote

Overall I was very satisfied with the performance of the Pixel 3a XL. It was extremely snappy in everyday usage, and if all you do on a smartphone is social media-like activity, then you’d be hard to press to find any differences between the 3a and other flagship devices.

 

Where the Pixel 3a more notably fell behind in was web browsing and loading of heavier pages. Here it was evident that there is indeed quite a generational performance gap and the mid-range SoC isn’t quite able to give the same experience.

 

One thing to note and again we can’t accurately measure with existing tools is the storage performance of the eMMC module of the phone. I did notice quite significantly slower installation speeds compared to newer phones. It’s not a total deal-breaker as some eMMC implementations of years past, but again it’s a compromise Google had to make to reduce the costs of the phone.

and

Quote

In terms of performance, everyday usage and CPU bound tasks perform very well thanks to the Snapdragon 670. The chipset performs at around the level of a Snapdragon 835, which while isn’t the best experience by now, it’s still extremely respectable.

 

Google’s choice of going with eMMC isn’t quite a dramatic as one would think, thanks to the filesystem optimisations and relatively good quality NAND, there’s only limited scenarios where the downgrade is noticeable. Still, yes it’s a tad slower on application installations, however I do find it as a reasonable compromise.

I'd also argue that there's a lot of other factors you should look at, e.g. amount of RAM and storage type (usually UFS storage is going to be a fair bit better then eMMC and result in quicker application load and install times).

So you'd mostly be fine with a 6xx or 7xx device as long as the software isn't too bloated. As an owner of a snapdragon 835 Pixel 2 XL, who's SoC has similar CPU performance to modern 6xx and 7xx SoCs, it mostly is still very snappy, and only occasionally do I encounter small bits of slowness. Something with an 8xx will be a little better, but the difference will be small

It's based on the same stuff used in the optane NVMe PCIe drives, which are arguably the fastest SSDs, so yeah I would say so

Depends on what you're doing, if you're mainly gaming go with the 3600, if you're doing stuff that needs more multi-core performance get the 2700

Took a look at your specs in your bio... Is an rx 580 really a good choice? According to your bio you have an rx 480 right now, and an rx 580 would hardly be an upgrade.

If you want a CPU upgrade, I definitely would go for something new (probably ryzen 2000 or 3000 series), unless you get something like a 6700k for under $200

22 minutes ago, Shooter is Bad said:

Eventually I want to go Crossfire/SLI

I wouldn't recommend it, multi-GPU isn't a great experience and you're usually better off selling your old GPU and getting a better one. Some games barely gain any performance from having more than 1 GPU

Try resetting the CMOS, maybe some setting doesn't like the 3000 series

EDIT: And as someone else said, try waiting a bit longer, sometimes when you put in new AMD CPUs it can take a couple of minutes to POST

Anyone know the adaptive sync range on this monitor? 

You might be able to save a bit of money by grabbing an R5 3600 instead of the 3600x and overclocking it, but other than that this looks pretty solid

3 minutes ago, Faisal A said:

Why not use an M.2 NVME SSD instead of a SATA one ?

It's marked as purchased so it's probably part of the pc OP is upgrading

16 minutes ago, Fakmykak said:

 Just because OP did not buy the newest thing does not mean his build is not good. LOL

 

 The Ryzen2000 chips right now are stupid cheap. Unless if you really really need the performance from Ryzen3000. Ryzen2000 will give you better performance for the money.

I know, and that's why I suggested the 2700x if they need multi core, but benchmarks do show that the 3000 series has better single core performance and as a result the 6 core Zen2 CPUs do a bit better at gaming than the 8 core Zen+ ones

2 minutes ago, _Syn_ said:

what? no it's 5V input

I got confused because of the input stuff  now I see what's going on

1 minute ago, SteveKaboom said:

I still have a budget. Brand new tech like that is crazy expensive. I don't do enough gaming to justify spending $700-900 on just a CPU and motherboard. That's absurd and frankly unnecessary. Not to mention the only real upgrade to the x570 chipset is PCIe 4.0, which isn't even fully utilized right now. Unless there is some major design flaw in the components I've picked out, I'm content with it. I don't need the newest tech. But I did get a good deal on the CPU which is why I already bough it.

I did just check and it appears the 2700x is on a discount right now, which would result in 3700x+X570 probably being about $100 more than your config.

I think the R5 3600 could also be worth considering though. If you're mostly gaming the 3600 could be a little bit better than the 2700x, but if you need the multi core performance the 2700x will definitely win out

1 minute ago, SteveKaboom said:

When you get a minute I'd like to hear your response to this. AMD specifically states on their website that the Ryzen 7 2700X is a 2nd gen processor. What is Gen+? What isn't optimal? I picked these components specifically because they are compatible.

Zen+ is the architecture of the Ryzen 2000 series. AMD just came out with the new 3000 series CPUs based on Zen2, which are a solid upgrade over the 2000 series. Unless you're getting a really good deal on the 2700x, I would definitely suggest you get a 3700x and X570 motherboard