Walter H.W.

I've to admit I didn't know there was such a huge difference between m.2 (PCIe, expensive ones) and SATA. But I was comparing the SSD to an HDD, which even on SATA destroys it.

Yes, I know rendering times would be much better, but as I wrote earlier that's not my main problem, scrubbing through the videos and editing them is.. Agreed, but as you mentioned that means still getting a new SSD and that adds up to CPU, Mobo and RAM.. If I only get a 500GB SSD then I could store videos there momentarily and scrubbing and editing should be faster, or am I wrong?

It's just I know getting a big (512GB) SSD would do much more than just changing CPU.. I almost got a good one for "cheap" but then price went up and I'm not getting it on principle.. So maybe I'll try to get the SSD first and then upgrade the CPU if I feel like I need it. Yesterday I was using Sony Vegas and checking CPU load and it was nowhere near 100% load.. PS: I'm quite certain my GPU is also sucking a ton with two 1080P screens.. But I'm not going to get a new GPU with the CPU I own.. Maybe after some months AMD Vega comes out I'll just build an entirely new PC.

I must say I'm not really convinced now..

So, are you saying the R7 1700 won't be better except for rendering times?

Just to be clear, I'm talking about how fast the program runs, the editing itself, video previews etc.. Not rendering/exporting times, those will obviously be better.

Hey guys, I want to upgrade my PC with the latest Ryzen 7 CPU, more specifically the 1700. My current rig packs an AMD FX6300, which is alright but I think it might be bottlenecking some programs. So my question is: will upgrading to a Ryzen 7 1700 drastically improve how programs like Sony Vegas, Adobe Premiere, Adobe Photoshop (and Lightroom) run? Because as I know these programs take advantage of the GPU, which will still be the very mediocre AMD R7 265.

Yeah well, it's 4.3Ghz right now from 3.5Ghz stock so it's not few. Anyway, thanks everybody for the help. I guess I'll give it a try!

Thanks for reassuring me The thing is I also have two HDD, 1 SSD and 6x120mm fans connected, plus USB stuff. I thought I was close to the limit already and the Nitro+ could even be up to 60W more needy. In case I get it, I do a full load test and there isn't enough power, what happens then? Do I only loose my PSU (which sucks but bearable) or do I risk breaking the GPU as well?

Hmm have you checked how much wattage that GPU uses? By the way, I think my PSU has 6+2-pins, is that equal to 1 8-pin connector (dumb question, I know, just making sure)? I also found this, RX480 Nitro+ on the left, R7 265 on the right: And this from the PSU website: So theoretically I can run it on that +12V 34A line or am I totally off?

Hello guys, I thought about getting myself a Sapphire RX 480 Nitro+ for Christmas but I'm not really sure my PSU can handle it. My PSU is a Cooler Master G450M, which is fine for my R7 265 & FX6300 clocked at 4.2Ghz+ CPU. In theory RX 480's TDP is 150W just like the R7 265, but in reality the RX 480 version I'd like to get is overclocked and probably needs more power. I even need an 8-pin power connector which I believe I don't currently have on my PSU and I know using adapters isn't the best thing. So my question is: is there any chance the Sapphire RX 480 Nitro+ can run without problems with my setup or should I forget this idea? I don't really want to change my PSU, I "like" it and I don't want to waste money and time finding a new one and selling this. Thanks to whoever can help!

I guess so, but you know how companies just remove stuff both physically and via software so that you can't use it? Like they could have removed PCB lines or whatever they're called or just made a BIOS which makes them useless. But now that I think about it, the user from the other forum had it working even if at lower speeds. Maybe I should just give it a try.

Looks sweet! I guess I can do the same, either way since I'll buy from Amazon I can always send it back.. Although I still have my doubts as the BIOS could not support it even if it's there. Said that, do you think installing windows on it won't be a nightmare?

Yep, I saw that guy but I think he doesn't know himself what he's running. He says mSATA but it might as well be mPCIe or what else, even his benchmarks are weird, am I completely off? By the way, checking in the BIOS, there's nothing about mSATA. In the "SATA Configuration" there's only the CD/DVD player and the main HDD.

Thanks for the feedback. I guess I mistook, I meant mPCIe. They look alike but I believe they aren't compatible, or am I wrong?. By the way, how can you be certain it's mSATA? Yes, I know M.2 is totally different. My doubt is between mSATA and mPCIe.