Zeitec

I mean it's not free on Floatplane. It was just a bit distracting to have someone following them around playing on a switch wherever they went. I get that they need a sponsor, and it's hard to integrate their usual DBrand sponsorship into a competition where they can't really use computers, but maybe this wasn't the way to do it. 

Yeah, but in this case it's true. 1070ti to 2060 super makes no sense. It's like MAYBE 10% faster. 

Dude if you're having problems just RMA it. Also the card just came out, how is it possible that it runs out of the 17th?

If it were me I wouldn't go faster than a 2060. 

LMAO the 1050ti is MORE expensive?! 570 is like 30% faster than 1050ti. It's RX 570 all the way and it's not even remotely close. It's like if a Vega 56 cost more than a 2070. Ridiculous.

RX 580 ain't gonna cut it chief. At 1080p ultra RX 580 gets 45 FPS in Metro Exodus and 35 in AC Odyssey. It's already too slow for 1080p ultra 60fps in the latest games. That's just right now; it's only getting worse from here. If he wants a 1080p ultra settings 60fps card for now and a couple/few years *while dropping some games down to high* then I'd definitely go with a 2060 or Vega 56/64. 

Well literally any setup that demands ALL games at MAX settings is a waste of money. You'd need a 2080 and a 9700k at LEAST. No I'm not kidding. There are games (namely Ghost Recon Wildlands, Metro Exodus and Assassins Creed Odyssey) that won't maintain 60fps at max detail on a 2070. Yeah.
 
So you're better off going with a mix of ultra and high settings to get basically the same visual quality with 30% better performance in which case a Ryzen 5 2600x and RTX 2060 would be a perfectly acceptable setup. 

Well literally any setup that demands ALL games at MAX settings is a waste of money. You'd need a 2080 and a 9700k at LEAST. No I'm not kidding. There are games (namely Ghost Recon Wildlands, Metro Exodus and Assassins Creed Odyssey) that won't maintain 60fps at max detail on a 2070. Yeah.
 
So you're better off going with a mix of ultra and high settings to get basically the same visual quality with 30% better performance in which case a Ryzen 5 2600x and RTX 2060 would be a perfectly acceptable setup. 

You could do it as a favour for your friend, but if it were me and was only concerned with my gaming performance I'd just sell the 1070 run with 1 1070ti. Sure 1070 SLI CAN be faster when it works, but SLI has been going downhill for the last few years and I wouldn't bother messing with it these days. 

You could do it as a favour for your friend, but if it were me and was only concerned with my gaming performance I'd just sell the 1070 run with 1 1070ti. Sure 1070 SLI CAN be faster when it works, but SLI has been going downhill for the last few years and I wouldn't bother messing with it these days. 

What a hilariously ignorant statement. He is pretty insanely good at what he does.

What a hilariously ignorant statement. He is pretty insanely good at what he does.

Tom Petersen is a public relationship spokesman...he's at the marketing department so who cares? Anybody can do this job...will you let us know if the guy who mops the floor move to Intel as well please?

RX 570 will do 1080p medium/high just fine for 60fps. 144fps is a different story though. You'd have to rebuy a 2060 if you wanted that. 
 
edit: 1660 is around 35% faster. That's a lot better, but considering it costs 70% more it's not the "bang for the buck" buy. Assuming you sold your 2060 for around $280 (1660ti prices) it would be a shame to have sold your 2060 only to have gotten back $60 overall and end up with a much slower card. 

1660 by far. That RX 580 is a really really bad RX 580, where the XC Ultra is a very high end 1660. 1660 is also faster and consumes less power than RX 580.

I'm not sure what you mean... are you saying you set the in game resolution to 4k then also up the resolution scale slider to the right? If that's the case yeah you're rendering above 4k. Also if you're running ultra, stop. 1080 is barely a 4k capable card, and definitely not a 4k ultra capable card. 

Yeah your CPU should be fine for 100fps though not 144. That said unless you get a 2080ti you're not going to be getting 1440p 144hz anyways. 1660ti and RTX 2060 are both fine for 1440p 60hz, ignore the 2070 it's a dumb card that nobody should buy, and the 2080 would be suitable for 1440p 100fps. If you want 1440p 144hz you'll need a 9700k at 5ghz and 2080ti...so yeah I'd go 100fps lol. 

Yes your GPU would be the bottleneck, but that's what you want anyways. That said you can pair it with much faster graphics cards and be great. Overclock that 2600 to 4ghz and I'd be perfectly happy pairing it with anything up to an RTX 2060/GTX 1080 at 1080p. 

What? Not that I'm aware of. I mean maybe, but the 2200g is basically a Ryzen 3 1300x with integrated graphics. Technically most Intel CPUs are also APUs as they have integrated graphics too. I don't see a reason it would randomly have fewer PCIE lanes...

I mean if you want to play only those 2 games, screw both of those builds, especially if you're broke college students paying for this PC with student loan debts. Get a Ryzen 3 2200g and don't even bother getting a graphics card. Seriously. Assuming he's using a 60hz monitor, a 2200g will play both of those games at 1080p high without dropping below 60fps 99.9% of the time. No I am not joking. Look at this video
.1% lows are above 60fps. Worried about massive teamfights dropping below 60fps? No problem. Get a cheap B350 board, crank it up to 3.9ghz rather than the stock settings shown in the video, turn the settings down to high instead of the very high shown in the video and now you're cooking with gas. For these games from 2009 and 2012 respectively, there's no point in getting a graphics card when very capable APUs like the 2200g exist. 

Vega 56 all day every day. It's like 20% faster. It sits between 1660ti and 2060. It's a lot faster than 1660. And yeah 550 watts is enough if it's a high quality PSU

1060 6gb pricing is pretty shit rn. They cost like... $10 less than than the 15-20% faster 1660. That's like the cost of a pizza for a 20% faster card. You'd legitimately be insane to not go for that. RX 580 makes a bit more sense since 1660 is $30 more (15% more expensive), but RX 580 also comes with 2 free games which ups it's value if you care about the games. 1060 6gb however makes absolutely no sense. If you want to spend $210, skip lunch for a day and get 1660 for $220. If you want to spend less than that, go RX 580 for $190, get slightly better performance in newer games than 1060 6gb, and take the 2 free games whether you care about them or not. 

No that's an A320 board. It's kind of a piece of garbage. It won't OC your CPU and I doubt it'll have the VRMs to support an upgrade to 12 core Zen 2 CPUs in a few years if you find yourself wanting the extra clockspeed and cores. Seriously. Spend the extra $50 now so you can upgrade your CPU for cheap later instead of buying a whole new PC. 

Yeah it's extremely likely you're CPU bottlenecked. Notice you're getting hard dips in GPU clockspeed at the same times where your CPU hits above 90% usage. Those are likely the stutters you're seeing. You could try aiming for 4.5ghz and that would help a bit, but honestly that aging quad core is likely on it's last legs. I'd look at getting a Zen 2 CPU in the next few months when they come out. 

No idea what that i5 is, but assuming that means 2.7ghz then you're at the end of the line with that PC. No graphics upgrades will yield better performance because you're very likely already CPU limited.