MrJarhead

not at all, it will run fine.

id go with the noctua or a cryorig r1.

battlefield 1 run likes crap for most people, not as well made as battlefield 4.

15 hours ago, overturnedv1 said:

980 is better for fps. friend has had one for a couple years and he gets 1000+ fps in games, where as i have a 1060 and only get around 500 fps in games. 980 also has more gigs. get the 980

worst troll ever

even if this was true, it would be because of cpu bottleneck.

i would personally get a second hand 980ti, you can pick them up for just a bit more than a 1060 6gb and theyre much better.

13 minutes ago, Tiwaz said:

u might need a  new cable, luckily you can replace them on this headset

correction "headphones"

you clearly havent mounted it correctly then, because i had an r1 ultimate and it was almost as good as my kraken x61.

8 minutes ago, Swegly said:

I have this monitor and every where I look it says that the monitor may run at 75hz. My monitor is locked at 60hz in the control panel and I was wondering if this is due to me using an HDMI cable? Will using a DVI cable allow me to use 75hz?

it means the monitor can be overclocked by using nvidias control panel to create a custom resolution or amds equivalent.

my old acer 60hz could be overclocked to around 75hz also.

1 minute ago, Himommies said:

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/8QnmTH

60hz monitor though, ewwww just no.

7 minutes ago, Johnny 140 said:

Wanted opinions on this build and how solid it looked spent a long time deciding on what parts I wanted 

Leave thoughts below

https://pcpartpicker.com/user/Dreedknight/saved/PyFFTW

this is a very nice solid build with good components.

your psu was smoking? should have grounded him and sent him to bed.

whatever you do DO NOT get that gigabyte one, i had it and it has severe intel chipset issues which cause it to give you latency spikes.

read here: https://communities.intel.com/thread/53294

3 minutes ago, Volde said:

so everything is as it should be and i just didnt know the difrance betwen Mb and MB

there are 8 Bits in 1 Byte.

1 minute ago, Volde said:

so you mean like if i have a 12 megabit/s internet it is more like 1 megabyte?

8 Megabit is 1 Megabyte, so if you have 12 Megabits you should see a speed of around 1.5 MB/s

why did you buy a 6800k to not buy a good cooler? makes no sense mate.

2 minutes ago, Tonny said:

Ahm 1440p(2k) is a higher resolution than 1080 doe, even then I have not seen anyone or anywhere on benchmarks say or show their i5 6400 bottlenecking their 1080 so maybe it was just an isolated case.

i can assure you an i5 will bottleneck a 1080.

just get the 7700k its already been said, best cpu for gaming, fact.

Just now, Tiwaz said:

upgrade path better my ass. There are bunch of older flight sims for example that only use up to two threads. fact is that an i5 4690k oc'd to 4,7ghz for me gets me 50% more fps than any Ryzen chip oc'd to 4ghz. The fact that an i5 gives you a tiny amount more fps on games that support 8 threads than a ryzen 5 speaks for itself. Using thread count and not benchmarks for comparison is completely pointless.

you seriously dont know much about current gen cpus, you have a 4690k with a 1080ti, nice bottleneck i see, hows your fps on bf1? highly bottlenecked due to 100% cpu usage.

3770k is still a very good cpu, if you can get a fair price for it, do the upgrade.

2 minutes ago, Tiwaz said:

and that matters because? As long as there is no major stuttering its fine i mean 60fps always work with an i5. I didnt promise it would run guaranteed any game at consistent 144fps

how doesnt it matter? you have one upgrade route with a 7600k and thats the 7700k, if you get a ryzen 1600, you get much better multi threaded performance, cheaper cpu and a much better upgrade path.  i5s are pretty useless now and especially in newer titles.

Just now, Tiwaz said:

he is only getting a gtx 1060. I have an i5 4690k 4,7ghz and gtx 1080 ti and there is only one game where i cant have 90%+ gpu usage without using DSR and that is BF1 and even without DX12 i am awlays getting more than 60fps. Witcher 3, Titanfall 2, Battlefield 4, DCS World, rainbow six siege all would not run any better on an i7

thats not the point, a ryzen 1600 is cheaper than any i5 and is much better. i5s are now pegged at 100% usage in a lot of games.

not being offensive to anyone but if you recommend an i5 you need to reevaluate your life, its either a ryzen 1600 or a 7700k, 7700k being better for gaming. 

12 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Neither. Get a Ryzen 5 1600 with a B350 motherboard

considering he only games 7700k is a no brainer.

15 minutes ago, dfg666 said:

lol why are people even trying to stick ryzen in here? we all know ryzen has garbage ipc compared to kaby lake. 7700K at 4.8-5GHz completely annihilates the entire Ryzen 7 at 3.9-4.1GHz lineup at 144hz gaming. 

amen.

1 hour ago, CaptainSaint said:

The CPU isn't overclocked. I have tried overclocking, but then the temps are just too high. Voltage is about 1.2V.

Then you either have a bad chip or have mounted the cooler wrong, even with a 212 those temps are way off. Before i delidded my 4790k prime95 would give me around 70-75c on prime95 v26.6 with an r1 ultimate, granted it's a dual tower cooler your temps should be lower.

What you want to do is lower your voltage further, the majority of 4790ks should be able to run stock at around 1.1v.

also you do realise prime95 gives unrealistic temps anyway... you won't get Them temps gaming etc.

1 minute ago, ErrantNyles said:

It's a great build overall, will work out very well.

 

However, I personally don't suggest AT ALL to get a m.2 PCIe ssd.

You are NOT gonna notice differences in any normal or even superheavy gaming workloads or general use over a very good sata (like the samsung). So, I suggest to go for a 850 EVO/PRO 1TB or just save bucks and keep 500GB but still sata.

 

Another completely personal opinion, 4K IPS monitors are a much better experience than wide higher refresh ones. So I'd suggest to go full 4K, even at 60Hz.

60hz is awful.