Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

jones177

Member
  • Content Count

    1,378
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jones177

  1. I like all your parts except for the power supply, ram and the SSD. The power supply is too weak. 850w minimum for that setup. I now won't go below a 1000w. They are not expensive and the good ones last forever. A FTW3 Ultra can use up to 380w on its own. i9 9900k overclocked use about 150w and Prime95 with avx will put you over 200. Not much overhead left. For SSD you don't need more than a SATA SSD for vanilla gaming. For sims and heavily modded games a 970 EVO will do. If you are still stuck on a Intel DC P3608 4 TB, Newegg has them for half the price. Ram is ok for now but on my next CPU update I will be adding 16 more. For the high end it is time.
  2. My 1080 tis were Superclock 2s and my 1080 was a superclock. They really never got too noizy. I should have taken the hint EVGA gave when the introduced 3 slot cards.
  3. Not getting one in the first place was a mistake on my part. The XC has proved itself a good overclocker but without proper cooling it is a pain.
  4. It is an old 2011 vintage Haf 922 case and it was hot in the room overclocking the 2 PCs. Playing games it runs around 49c to 59c depending on the graphic insanity. I will get rid of the case when I update the CPU and that may be soon because of the underwhelming performance of my i7 8700k. The XC didn't down clock even at 85c. It runs Assassin's Creed Odyssey at 4k with Ultra settings well over 60fps at 80c with fans at 82%. If I put the power target to 100% instead of 130 and remove the overclock the game averages 54fps at 70c with the fans at 60%. It is quite and the game runs smooth but I don't like being below 60fps. Now that I have the FTW3 Ultra the XC will be used for 4k testing and to play games that don't like ultrawide. It won't be stressed much in the future and it will be the first to go when next gen comes out.
  5. My EVGA 2080 ti XC is too noisy. My EVGA FTW3 Ultra is not. To be honest the XC is too noisy because I have it clocked up to match the FTW3 Ultra. When the FTW3 is at 67c in a bench the XC is at 85c with 87% on the fans. I am over 2100 on both cards but the XC is screaming.
  6. I ran a 3440 X 1440 monitor for a while. For 60fps on almost everything you need a GTX 1080. For 80fps on almost everything you need a GTX 1080 ti. For 100fps on almost everything you need a RTX 2080 ti For 144fps maybe next gen. It is hard to realize but 4k 60hz is easier to run since it needs a lot less anti aliasing.
  7. I have mainly bought EVGA since my RMA experience with the GTX 8800. I also have bought cards form XFX, PYN and Gigabyte. After those experiences I only will buy from EVGA or Gigabyte. With my RTX cards there has been only one choice for me and that is EVGA. I considered with the purchases of them that there would be a good chance of a RMA so that has become the biggest desider of what brand I get. With what I am paying now for video cards I can't just go out and buy another one If one fails. I also keep my old cards as spars since if an RMA did fail it would be months before I could get a replacement.
  8. Not a bad thing but some people could get hooked and graphic enhancements in games can be a bit of a drug. In 2013 I decided to try ENB in Skyrim. My computer at the time could run the game at 120fps vanilla. When I added ENB with DoF my frame rate was around 20. At the time I had a i7 2600k and a GTX 680 4gb so not a weak system. The next year a got a GTX 970 that put me into the 40s and then a few months later a GTX 980 that put me at 60fps if I removed Dof. Then again a few months later I bought a 980 ti that gave me my goal of using ENB with Dof at 60fps. In 2015 I bought a 4k monitor. I saw it being demoed in a TigerDirect store and I had to have one. Now I was back to 20fps but at 4k. I have keeped that game with the same ENB all these years as a benchmark to see how good my hardware is. It took a RTX 2080 ti to get to 60fps at 4k. To me RT is the next ENB and Nvidia has decided to become a pusher. Some people will get hooked and like me they will have powerful rigs at the expense of other things in there life.
  9. Not for me since my i7 8086k is equal to a i9 9900k. There is a i9 9900k computer in my household that does not belong to me but I have run the tests. It would be a win for anybody that does not have a 5ghz chip and would force Intel to do a lot better so win, win. What AMD did with Radeon 7 scares me. They matched Nvidia's price performance. They did not beat it, so it will be interesting what they do against Intel.
  10. Going by my Newegg order history I bought a Athlon 64 4000+ in 2006 and a AMD Opteron 185 in 2007. In 2008 I bought two Core 2 Duo E8400 with motherboards to replace the AMD chips. In 2009 I replaced one of the E8400s with a Core 2 Quad Q9550 and in 2011 I replaced my the other E8400 with a i7 2600k. I ran the Q9550 until 2016 and the i7 2600k until 2018. I ran AMD chips from about 1999 to 2008. I used them because I did not like what Intel had to offer in the price range. Also I have not liked what AMD has to offer since 2007. Since 1998 my main computer entertainment has been playing games or simulations that have dedicated web sites with user created free content(mods). These games/sims are on an order of magnitude harder on hardware than vanilla games/sims. What all the games/sims also have in common is that they mainly run on 1 or 2 cores so the more powerful the individual cores are the more content I can add. There is no AMD consumer chip that can run my modded games/sims unless I remove content and I don't like to do that. It is not fun. If AMD can destroy the i9 9900k in single core performance this next gen I will replace one of my Intel rigs this year and the other next year. If they meet the performance of the i9 9900k I will not. They have to win. I did not mind being called an AMD fanboy when I used them and I don't mind being called an Intel fanboy now. All either company has to do to get my money is to win the IPC race.
  11. With the RTX 2080 ti you need a 5ghz chip to take full advantage of it in games. Tech Deals found that out and stated it at 10:12 of this video. I play games at 4k and 3840 X 1600. My 2080 ti is running full out at 4k on games like Assassin's Creed Odyssey and that is to maintain 60fps. My 2080 ti at 3840 X 1600 is cruising along with no stress at all but I want to upgrade to a 144hz version of the monitor and to run that my i7 8700k has to go. CPU usage is a bit different than GPU usage. If a 3D game is using 1 core to render on a 4 core CPU then 25% usage is 100% usage on that 1 core and you will lose frames going over 25% if the game needs more. If the game is using 2 or 3 cores the same math applies. GPUs have one job so you only lose frames if you are running at 100% and the game need more. I upgraded from a i7 6700k to a i7 8086k and 6 cores is smoother than 4 cores but I only felt it in games.
  12. I was using the Heaven benchmark to compare my EVGA RTX 2080 ti XC/i7 8086k setup with my EVGA RTX 2080 ti FTW3/i7 8700k. The i7 8700k is stock and the i7 8086k has 5ghz on all cores. Running the bench at 1080p the XC/i7 8086k setup had the 2080 ti running at the 130% power target. The FTW3 Ultra with the i7 8700k could only get up to 70% of the power target and lost. I then ran the bench at 1440p and the FTW3/i7 8700k started to catch up. At 1600p the FTW3/i7 8700k won with 115% power usage. Both of my GPUs are overclocked with the same settings so the FTW3 should have had a slight win in all tests if the CPUs were equal since it can use more power. To see if you are bottlenecking get Precision X1. If your power target only goes up to 100% do a bios update. Turn the power target all the way up and run your favorite GPU/CPU bench. If you can't run full out at the power target set by Precision X1 you are bottlenecking. A Ryren 7 2700x has the same IPC as your i7 6700. There is no current Ryzen upgrade for gaming, for you.
  13. For general use I have a 32" 4k monitor. It cost $355 back in 2017. For the internet it is perfect. I have used 28" 4k monitors but some of the programs I use don't scale so I ended up dropping the resolution to 1440p to use them. With a 32" 4k display there is never a need to drop the resolution. The really big downside to 4k monitors that it takes a RTX 2080 ti to play modern AAA games at high and ultra settings. I used a GTX 980 for my first 4k monitor and dropped the resolution to 1440p to play AAA games. I was disappointed with both of my 1440 monitors since the text looks fuzzy compared to my 4k monitors. I think 1600p is minimum for a monitor 27" to 32" to have sharp text.
  14. I bought the newer version of the LG 38UC99. The LG 38WK95C. Its resolution does not look low moving from my 4k 32" panel like my 34" 3440 X 1440 did. At 38" it is a perfect size at normal sitting distances. It never feels cramped like my 32" 4k and 34" 3440 X 1440 does. It can easily maintain 75fps in demanding games with a GTX 1080 ti. Colors are noticeably better than my LG and Samsung VA panels. They are at their lowest price ever now.
  15. Right now I need: A more powerful GPU. The RTX 2080 tis needs at least a 35% power boost. A more powerful CPU. My i7 8700k can't keep up with my 2080 ti. My i7 8086k can barely do it with 5ghz on all cores. I need a CPU that can achieve a Cinebench single core score of 240 but I don't need more than 8 cores. I need a faster/larger SSD. My SATA SSDs are too slow. Fortunately the 970 EVO exists but I need 2tbs. I need all his to run large high refresh rate monitors. Even though I bought a 38" 3840 X 1600 75hz monitor a few weeks ago, I want to get the 144hz version when it comes out. This is the only size that looks good beside a 4k monitor at over 27" I plan to abandon 4k for the time being since it is so hard to run at high refresh rates and wait until 4k 21:9 144hz comes out to go back. That may change if a cheap 100hz 32" 4k monitor comes out.
  16. Yes I know. My goal on a 60hz monitor is to maintain an average over 60fps. After rebooting I was back to 66fps average. When I get a 4k monitor over 60hz I will have to use a much more aggressive overclock. Heat is not the issue. The XC is very noisy even with my conservative overclock. That is why I bought the FTW3. I will up the memory clock until just before it gets too noisy.
  17. I did the test with ACO and adding plus 200 to memory in Precision X1. Tested at 4k. Test ran twice with plus 200 and twice with 0. Plus 200 = 58 fps average Plus 0 = 55 fps average That is huge at 4k. My overall score in the past was 66fps average with the overclock but I have a lot of things running now.
  18. Thanks. I probably don't have enough overclock to show up since I was only going for matching the FTW3 Ultra performance. Thanks. I will use the ACO bench.
  19. I will get Shadow of the Tomb Raider when it goes on sale to test this. I did put a memory overclock on the XC but it did not change the results of the games I tested. Do you know of a list of games that do benefit?
  20. I only like stability and traction control since it makes economical(cheap) cars safer. I drive a manual sports car with sticky tires that only last about 8,000 miles. It is designed for high speed maneuvers and silly short stops. I started driving cars like this after a Mercedes tried to occupy the same space as my 2001 Civic at 80mph. With just a flick of the wrist I was out of control and sideways. What saved me was that I was on the Florida turnpike and that the opposing lanes were hundreds of feet away and I didn't hit an obstacle. A modern Civic or any other modern economical car would not have gone out of control like my 2001 Civic did because of stability control. This is one of my favorite car videos.
  21. I will get these because I buy all the PC versions of my Xbox games. I also want it to be a success since I want all game companies to give up exclusives.
  22. What I did with my EVGA XC is bring the core up to the highest card in the line. For me that was the FTW Ultra. I also upped the power limit to 130% and that gave me 380W. Now I have a EVGA FTW3 Ultra I know that the XC is not performing as well even though the FTW has a 373W power limit.
  23. For a RTX 2080 ti the choices are these or less. 1440 16:9 144hz = Hard to do. In tests I could only average 120fps without giving up quality. 1440 21:9 144hz = Harder to do. In tests I could only average 100fps without giving up quality. 4k 16:9 60hz = Doable 4k 16:9 144hz = Imposible to do. In tests I could only average 75fps without giving up quality. 1600 21:9 75hz= Doable This is testing with hard to play games like Assassin's Creed Odyssey and Metro Exodus. On older and less demanding games these monitors are all doable with the exception of 4k 144hz. I use a 32" 4k 60 hz and a 38" 1600 21:9 75hz because I prefer resolution over refresh rate. When monitors that are the same size come out with higher refresh rates I will replace them. For 144hz plus monitors I would only buy one with Nvidia G-sync. I have tested Freesync with RTX and I don't use it. The 1440p 144hz monitor I bought was LG 32GK850G. I consider it to be a bit too big for 1440p but in the middle of a 3 monitor setup it is perfect.
  24. That is why IPC(instructions per cycle) is king. On some older games unparking your cores helps. On Bethesda games and others there are ini lines that can help. I use these lines in the SkyrimPrefs.ini for Skyrim LE. bUseThreadedParticleSystem=1 bUseThreadedBlood=1 bUseThreadedMorpher=1 bUseThreadedTempEffects=1 bUseThreadedTextures=1 bUseThreadedMeshes=1 bUseThreadedLOD=1 bUseThreadedAI=1 bUseThreadedMorpher=1 This sort of thing also helps with stutter. I solve this problem now with brute force, as you can see by my specs.
  25. It is a good choice for 1440p 60hz MMO but you may want to play something more challenging. For a better upgrade go with a 8gb vram card. Most games I play use over 6gbs but none of my unmodded games use more than 8gbs. For used go GTX 1080 For new go GTX 2070
×