KarathKasun
-
Posts
5,555 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Status Updates
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Store Home
Posts posted by KarathKasun
-
-
B550 has the same benefits and you can get a much less expensive board.
-
9 hours ago, GroundbreakingCrew9 said:
B550. You can get a B550 board for $15 extra and it should have a longer useful life than the B450.
-
Just now, youngboy said:
OP's first post said he has 16gb 3200 mhz, and later he said he has DDR3
Please read. OP said they were looking to buy 16gb of 3200 with the new system.
-
2 minutes ago, youngboy said:
This guy has 16 gb 3200 mhz RAM
Err, no. DDR 3 on the 2400 tops out at 1333.
With how its described, the current build has 4 or 8gb of RAM.
-
36 minutes ago, GroundbreakingCrew9 said:
That's why I'm really upgrading all of this. So will a AMD Ryzen 3 3200G 3.6 GHz Quad-Core Processor float my YouTube watching boat?
I bought this "gaming" Dell Optiplex 990 mt off ebay for $299.99
it's ddr3. They got me. But I'm looking to upgrade to Ryzen now. I think the AMD Ryzen 3 3200G 3.6 GHz Quad-Core Processor will wow me 
No, 3200G is not really any faster than what you have.
3300X will be coming in a few weeks.
i5-2400 is not going to significantly limit gaming performance by itself. How much RAM do you currently have?
I had a 2400 system with a 470 and gaming performance was not limited by the CPU in most cases. I did have 16gb of ram however.
-
3 minutes ago, GroundbreakingCrew9 said:
Whats the next step after a i5-2400 cpu? ryzen 3? ryzen 5 seems like quite a leap right now!
3300X. It is literally fast enough for a 2080 Ti and only costs ~$130. Just be patient and wait for it to launch to retail.
I would pair it with a ~$120 B550 motherboard. Something like this...
https://www.newegg.com/asrock-b550-pro4/p/N82E16813157941?Item=N82E16813157941&quicklink=true
-
2 minutes ago, GroundbreakingCrew9 said:
if need be. but really wasn't wanting to.
The benchmarks I linked a few posts up are with a 2080 Ti. There is at most a 5% or so difference from 3300X to 3900X. 3300X will serve you well, even if you decide to dump nearly a grand on a GPU.
3400G is MUCH slower, do not get it. You end up paying more for integrated graphics you will not use.
-
Just now, RGoodall said:
No joy, tried a multitude of things at this point, just going to buy another set and assume one of these is kaput. Thanks for all the suggestions anyways guys
Well crap. It happens sometimes.
-
Relative CPU performance in applications and games, take special note of the games only benchmarks...
This is with a 2080 Ti.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-3-3300x/21.html
-
Just now, youngboy said:
are you planning to upgrade the gpu in the future?
Doesnt matter. R3 3300X performs like a 3900X in most games. Its faster than the R5 3600. The only reason to get a higher end CPU is if you plan on doing content creation.
-
1 minute ago, GroundbreakingCrew9 said:
I'm not ninja at fortnite thrilled to play video games. Just looking for a better pair for my RX 570 I guess
R3 3300X.
RX 570 is a medium settings/1080p card at this point.
-
Just now, youngboy said:
You said the GPU would bottleneck the CPU in your first post. In this one, you are saying the CPU will bottleneck the CPU
1 minute ago, youngboy said:If you are such a phonatic about great gaming, I'd look at an rx 580 then. And a ryzen 5 3600. Does that fit in your budget?
Nope
GPU does, better GPU needs better CPU.
Where did what I said change? Oh, it didnt.
-
2 minutes ago, TofuHaroto said:
No? Lol.
R5 3600 can support up to a 2080 and a 570 will give lower FPS than the CPU is capable of producing. Which means the 570 WILL bottleneck an R5 3600. The GPU is the limiting factor.
-
Just now, GroundbreakingCrew9 said:
Mostly YouTube. But I want to be able to game when I please. and have a nice clear picture. Not boxy grainy looking
CPU does nothing for image quality.
-
570 will def bottleneck a 3600. The GPU is slower than the CPU in 99% of games.
3300X is what you want, it should be available in a few weeks.
You will not see a large performance increase though, maybe less stuttering, but average FPS will be similar.
-
Hmmm, you could try booting with the one stick at 3200, recording the timings it sets with Ryzen Master, then manually setting all of the timings if they are different than what you tried before, plop the other module in and cross your fingers.
-
Try swaping the modules around in the slots. The SPD may be invalid on one of the sticks, and AFAIK the board only uses one modules SPD data.
-
4 hours ago, RGoodall said:
Yeah you can see for yourself in original screenshots on dram calc and Thaiphoon everything is inputted as it should be. Still not found an answer to this, really bloody annoying, hesitant replacing anything as I don't want to replace the RAM for it to be an issue with the motherboard and visa versa. It just makes no sense. ><
I can almost assure you that its a timings related problem. That CPU NB/SOC voltage is also low still. 0.975 is WAY low.
-
3 hours ago, Plip said:
I get that from friends on their first builds that go perfectly, I'm the only one that seems to get doa/faulty parts everytime. Yet I'm the one with the anti-static bracelet, clean wall power, and a wooden table to build on.
That's an impressive oc claim though!
Heh, I build PCs in the dumbest conditions possible... on the carpet, on a bed, etc. Never killed anything with ESD.
I have, at one point, had a PSU explode. Put I was running a HD 2900 XT/Athlon 64 X2 on a dirt cheap 450w Logisys unit that I knew was terrible quality.
-
A320+2700 = fail.
Single channel ram = fail
Do you have VSync on? VSync without adpative sync monitor can only give you 15, 30, or 60 FPS on a 60hz monitor. If it cant hold 60 FPS, it drops to 30 even if you can maintain say 50 FPS. VSync + the other system build problems would make for a lot of bad performance.
-
On my first builds, none. I did OC a Matrox G400 to the point of memory failure. I have also crushed a few of the old school CPUs that didnt have heatspreaders from the factory in the Socket 462 days.
Didnt keep me from overclocking and then holding the Rage 128 3D Mark record for a few months.
-
Are you sure you have the proper memory chip type selected in the DRAM calculator?
Are you on the latest BIOS?
-
4 minutes ago, RGoodall said:
So shall I just leave XMP disabled and set my timings volts ect manually? Again I've tried this it boots fine, but still doesn't shift from 2400, it adjusts the timings ect, but doesntly actually adjust my speed.
It's only if I select DRAM frequency, set that to 3200 instead of auto, and subsequently set the FCLK to half (1600), this is when I can't boot.
If its still at 2400 with XMP on, XMP is broken for your modules. And if the speed set by the board is wrong, the timings are also likely wrong.
You will need to set every single timing by hand. The Ryzen DRAM calc should get you 95% the way there, just fix its overly optimistic TRFC timings by using the values reported by Ryaen Master when the system is working properly at 2400.
-
10 minutes ago, RGoodall said:
See attached, I set the voltages, set the XMP to 3200mhz, left everything else alone, boots fine without any errors, but nothing has actually changed when checking cpuz for instance. (I'm def saving and exiting, been tripple checking myself trying to work this out)
The XMP profile likely just does not work on the board you are using, probably due to some calculation/table used to derive clock cycle timings from wall-clock (ns) timings throwing an error. Generally this kind of thing doesnt get reported back to the user, the board just uses the fastest JDEC standard timings present in the SPD flash instead.
Build Guidance Needed
in New Builds and Planning
Posted
The CPU has a direct connection to the PCIe x16 slot and the first M.2 SSD slot. The chipset connection does not change this, only 2nd/3rd M.2 SSD slots are PCIe 3.0. PCIe 4.0 while great for benchmarks, makes no difference in a majority of real world uses. Pretty much all PCIe 4.0 SSDs can not sustain PCIe 4.0 speeds after their buffer area fills up, the flash memory is not fast enough.