256shadesofgrey

Hello. I'm looking for a display with best possible motion clarity and as high as possible refresh rate for competitive games for about 300 euro (+- rounding errors). It should be at least 24 inch (though bigger obviously better), 1080p is enough, though 1440p would be ideal, since upscaling can nowadays pick up the slack, and 1440p is better for general desktop use. 360Hz+ preferable, but if you can convince me that your 240Hz suggestion is superior, I'll consider it. It will be running with an AMD GPU, so take that into account if there is some incompatible nvidia tech in the monitor (like ULMB). My current top pick is Acer Nitro XV252QF (I found a shop selling it for 329 euro). Is there anything better (or better suited) in this price range that I missed?

If the issue is RAM capacity, you'll observe a certain behavior with FPS... You will have low FPS while you're panning the camera or moving around, and for a few seconds after you stop. But if you stay still for a while, your FPS will go up. Alternatively depending on the game it might express itself as stuttering rather than just low FPS. So your 1% lows will be very low while the average won't be too bad. The stuttering will also stop if you stop moving and panning the camera. If your FPS drops in a specific area or when looking in a certain direction even when standing still, it's more likely a single thread CPU issue or a GPU issue.

Total CPU utilization says nothing about whether you're hitting a CPU bottleneck. A CPU bottleneck is almost always a single thread bottleneck. A 6700k has 8 logical cores (4 physical cores, with each of them counting as 2 due to hyperthreading), so 60% CPU utilization could mean 100% on one core (the one that is bottlenecking the system), and 50% load on the 7 other cores. If you want to track it, the best way is to use something like Process Explorer (basically advanced task manager, is available for free from microsoft). With it you can view the CPU load of individual threads of a process in process properties. And if one thread of the game process is at 100/[logical core count]%, you're hitting a CPU bottleneck.

A little update in case someone comes across this thread while searching for the same thing: I initially installed the SSD without changing anything. And it was actually worse than I had imagined what would happen. Not only were there 2 entries, the win11 entry was written to the old SSD, and win11 couldn't boot from the new SSD if the old one wasn't installed, and at no point did the win11 installer ask where I want to put the bootloader. So I deleted all partitions on the old SSD except for the one holding my data (so only the old C: drive was left) and reinstalled win11 again. That then worked how I wanted (bootloader on the new drive and no other OSes detected). So yeah, the solution was indeed to delete the system partitions.

I'm not going to disable the CCDs. I explained what I'm going to do in the original post. I'm going to force the scheduler to always give the high cache cores to the games, and the high clock cores to the rest of the system, so that I can multitask with no performance penalty. I sometimes have to compile code that takes half an hour to an hour, so I want to game while I wait. And to reduce the CCD crosstalk and to give games the cores that game better, the CCD with the extra cache will do the playing, and the other cores will do the compiling.

Thank you. Time to do the real work now...

So that would be logical core 0-15 with the 3D cache and 16-31 without?

Hello, I want to know which of the cores on a 7950X3D have the extra cache. Because as far as I know it has 3x the cache on one CCX and higher clock speeds on the other. I want to try some magic with cpusets (a linux feature, think of it as fancy automated core affinity configuration) so that when steam or lutris are running, they and their child processes (i.e. games) get exclusive control of the high cache cores, and the rest of the system is run on the other cores. That way I'm hoping to get 7800X3D level performance in games while also multitasking at next to no performance penalty. But I don't know which cores to assign to what. So does anyone know which cores have what cache configuration, or do you know any utility that would allow me to check it?

So windows installer won't automatically add the old win10 to the bootloader on the win11 install?

Yeah, I'm not going to remove the GPU just to install the drive after the installation. If it was a SATA SSD that's what I would have done, because unplugging the cable is trivial, but it's an NVMe drive, so I'd rather have a software solution.

To be honest in your place I would upgrade the GPU before upgrading the RAM. Your RAM is slow, but it won't make that much of a difference (5-10% at best), and 16GB is enough for games unless you do some heavy multitasking, like running VMs while you're gaming. But the GPU is the most likely bottleneck for most games on your setup. Now this of course is irrelevant if you don't have enough space to install your games, so if you don't have enough storage or you want to play some games that require an SSD (like Starfield), definitely get that first. But performance wise I think you'll benefit most from a GPU upgrade. TL;DR: 1. Storage if you don't have enough 2. GPU 3. RAM

Hello, I'm upgrading my PC, and I want to install my old NVMe SSD with the win10 installation as an additonal drive. I want to do a fresh win11 install on a new SSD, but I want to keep the data on the old SSD in case I forgot to backup something, and I don't want to meddle with the bootloader after the installation which would probably add the win10 to the bootloader menu. So I wonder what the best way is to make the old SSD look like a normal drive with just data rather than a bootable windows drive when I install it on the new mobo. For example could I delete the EFI partition and the recovery partitions, or will it not be enough?

I ended up ordering a new PSU (Corsair HX1200) right after I made my previous post, it should be arriving tomorrow. But If I had waited a day longer and saw the post that I now marked as the solution, I wouldn't have. A bit of wasted money, but it works within my budget, so not a big deal. Thanks to everyone for their input.

Looks like I'm buying a new PSU. Thank you. The funny thing is, back when I bought it, I thought it was already overkill, but the way that the GPUs have been going lately, I guess there is no such thing.

It is according to this thread, that's why I picked it back then.