Katarn

I'll be getting a new system soon. The parts are custom, but it will be assembled by the retailer (who is actually wholesale, but nvm). It comes with an SSD (Samsung 970 250GB) and an HDD (Western Digital Blue 1TB). The computer I am currently using has two HDDs: Western Digital Blue 1TB (OS and programs), and Western Digital Red 2TB (Storage). Now... 1. I want to add my current storage unit (WD Red 2TB) to the new system once it arrives. Will that be ok? Will I be running a risk of losing files? Will the disk need to be formatted? 2. Since the 1TB HDDs are identical, and since the new computer will have the OS installed on an SSD, will it be possible to add my current 1TB disk to the new computer, as it is, and use it for games and extra storage? What will happen to the OS already installed? Will it need to be formatted? I am asking because I need to start making decisions concerning the migration and the safety of my files. Also it would be nice if I could keep using my current 1TB HDD without formatting it. It would save me a lot of hassle. Thanks.

I ordered an AMD build (R5 3600, RX 5700 XT Sapphire Pulse) from a company that works with wholesale tech (they supply retailers, but they can sell to individuals as well). They import their tech from German wholesale company Siewert & Kau. I am interested in the steps to claiming my prize from AMD (a game + Xbox Game Pass) once I get the PC. I have four questions: - How do I activate the prize? Is there a code in the box? Do I get it by email? Does AMD scan my hardware for the CPU/GPU and give me the coupons that way? - Will I be able to use Windows Game Pass on another computer (like my traveling laptop) which is not AMD? - Since the CPU gets me 3 months of Xbox Game Pass, and the GPU also gets me three months of Xbox Game Pass, does that total to 6 months? - If not, can I maximize the trial by claiming the Xbox Game Pass for the GPU first, and at the end of the three months, activating the one for the CPU? I haven't had previous experience with these kinds of things, so please stay calm if I am asking ultra-noob questions. In my defense, the person to whom I was making the order also had no idea about the prizes. So how do I go about this? What should I do to claim my reward? Thanks

I already made the decision before seeing this. Fortunately, I chose the Antec PSU, largely thanks to what you said about it in your first reply.

Fast: Cooler Master Reactor Gold 550 W vs the Antec Edge 550 W? @mariushm

So... you think it would be a good idea to have an SSD for my OS, one HDD for most of my programs and things that I am working on, and another HDD for storage? Isn't that a bit cluttered? I mean, that is more or less what thins thread is about. What else besides the OS would I install on a 250GB SSD? Programs? Games? Does speed impede on the stability? I see the specs are very much in favor of the NVMe. What makes you say I would not notice the difference? Should a difference in price of ~$25 affect my decision? But will it impede stability in workload and gaming? For example, is it likely to crash my games and/or mess with the output format of my renders?

But isn't an SSD just a (more or less) pointless commodity? A bit of extra speed and... well, nothing else? Also what makes the 970 the better choice? It costs around $25 more. I know it is not just about the storage, I was rather talking about the hardware pieces being overkill: SSD, HDD, and another HDD. PS: I edited my original post so my questions make a bit more sense. (it was initially very hectic because I had unintentionally posted it in an unfinished state so I was rushing to make it at least coherent).

Originally, I was not going to buy one, but the retailer thinks it would not be a good idea to leave my system (R5 3600 with a 5700 XT) without an SSD/NVMe. The models he offered are the following two: Samsung 860 EVO 250GB Samsung 970 NVMe 250 GB My first question is if they are good enough, i.e. worth it? My second question is should I get an SSD or an NVMe? My third, and most important question is if that might not be overkill: I already have a 7200RPM 1TB HDD and another 5400RPM 2TB storage HDD... so won't an SSD be too much storage? If I have my OS and most important programs installed on my SSD, and I use the 2TB HDD as storage, then the 1TB HDD is a more-or-less pointless. But if I don't use the 1TB storage, then I'll be stuck between an SSD and a slow (5400RPM) unit for saving my work -- not to mention, gaming is best not done on a 5400 RPM HDD. So what am I supposed to do now? In case it is relevant, I will be using the computer for work in Blender 3D, Unreal Engine 4, screen capture, video editing, and gaming. Thanks

... so I was going to get the Cooler Master MWE Gold 550W 80+ Gold, but apparently it is not available (either that or the store does not sell it in the first place). I was offered an Antec 550W, EDG550 Gold 12 cm Silent Fan, but I don't know if it is any good. Is it? The proprietor said that he will give me a list of the 550W PSUs he can order, but since the decision will need to be made either tomorrow afternoon or the day after, I would like to know of some viable alternatives beforehand. So I'm asking this community to help me choose a quality 550W PSU, similar to the Cooler Master MWE Gold 550W 80+ Gold, namely a PSU that is a good choice for the following system: AMD Ryzen 5 3600 Sapphire Radeon RX 5700 XT Pulse Kingston 3200 MHz CL16 (2 x 8 DDR4) 1TB 7200 RPM Western Digital Blue 2 TB 5400 RPM Western Digital Red (storage) possibly an SSD Thanks

So apparently The Outer Worlds is also on the list. We know next to nothing about it so far (because it has not been released yet), but it looks promising. so... Outer Worlds vs Borderlands 3. Opinions? That is a good advice, but Wildlands is not included in the bundle.

I have a similar budget, and I can recommend you what I went for. CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 3600 Motherboard: MSI B450 Tomahawk Max GPU: Sapphire Radeon RX 5700 XT 8 GB NITRO+ Memory: Kingston HyperX Fury (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3200 CL16 Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1 TB 7200 RPM 64MB PSU: Cooler Master MWE 550 W 80+ Gold CASE: Cooler Master MasterBox NR600 ATX Mid Tower Case I cannot list the prices or offer you links. That is something you will probably have to do on your own; you might even be able to find better deals. You may notice that most replies you get will mention (more or less) the same parts. My recommendations, for instance, are very similar to those of MeatFeastMan. You can expect the same of most other users. I doubt that anyone will recommend anything other than the R5 3600 and the B450 Tomahawk. The R5 3600 is simply the best deal out there: it is new, it comes at the price of an i5, and it performs like an i7. The B450 motherboard is the best one to pair it with. Regarding memory, storage, and a PSU, the standard best suited to your build is going to be: 16GB DDR4, 1TB 7200 RPM, and a 500-600W supply from a reputable manufacturer, preferably 80+ Gold standard. However, you will notice that our opinions differ in the GPU and the type of memory to purchase. I think it is in these two categories that you might come across differing opinions. - I think you would be better off getting the Sapphire Radeon RX 5700 XT 8GB NITRO+ for $439 or the Sapphire Radeon RX 5700 XT 8GB PULSE for $413. The reasons for this are, first, that you were initially looking into the 2060 Super: the 5700 is a great card, but it will be a downgrade in terms of performance. The 5700 XT, however, comes at the same price as the 2060 Super but offers a near 2070 Super performance. It is good enough to be the better deal between the 5700 and the 5700 XT. The other reason, stemming from this one, is that, in being more powerful, it should, in theory, last you longer as a relevant powerful card. If you are interested in using programs that prefer CUDA cores and/or are looking into streaming, however, it will be for the best to get a 2060 Super. - I think it is better to go for a 3200 MHz RAM (make sure it is at least CL16). AMD CPUs rely on the kind of RAM you put into the system, and I think that you should not go below 3200 MHz CL16. It is not the performance sweet spot, but it is the value sweet spot. This build, according to PC Part Picker, should cost you around $1079.48, which leaves you around $200 to spend on a monitor of your choice. I am not an expert on this, so do consider every reply before making your decision, and feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Good luck building your system, and peace out

Negative reviews tend to compare it to Wildlands and they make it sound inferior. Glitches, uninspired envrionments, bad graphics (character animations), sloppy sound design, run-of-the-mill gunplay (without so much as bullet trajectories)... ACG gave it the lowest score next to "never touch"

Intuitively, I would go for Ghost Recon Breakpoint because it sounds like another game I've been very fond of, namely, Metal Gear Solid V: the Phantom Pain. With that said, its reviews are not only bad... they're horrible, and people seem to be expecting the game to die within a month or two. It also bothers me that it is by Ubisoft, as the last Ubisoft game I liked (and played, as a matter of fact) was Far Cry 4. So I'm more inclined towards Borderlands 3, but I have some doubts because of its badly optimized, imbalanced state and (possibly) poor writing. The choice is essentially between a Ubisoft product, which is European EA, and a Randy Pitchford product, which is a humanoid EA. I'm not complaining though, I mean, nVidia hasit worse. I'd choose it also because my father plays a lot of Borderlands 1 and 2, so I'm sure he'll enjoy 3 as well. With that said, will we need a second copy if we want to play LAN? Also, has there been mention of future DLCs? I remember Borderlands 2 being doubled by the addition of DLC content: characters and extra missions alike. That does count as extra money for the full product. What is your experience with its optimization? What can you tell me about the story that is so good? I've been seeing conflicting opinions about it. Some call it cheesy, others call it not bad but unimpressive. You are the first person I've seen to have thoroughly enjoyed it. Personally, I liked the writing of Borderlands 2. I actually found Tiny Tina, Sir Hammerlock, and Claptrap rather charming. Is it predictable? Does it have politics? Is it catered for a very specific audience? Also, is there merit outside of the loot, i.e. gunplay, action, interesting environments to explore? What's the community like?

I noticed that a choice between two games + 3 month Xbox Game Pass comes in a bundle for purchasing an AMD card and/or CPU (I'm buying both the R5 3600 and the 5700 XT). So... which of the two should I get? On the one hand, I am not much of a Borderlands fan (I've only played the second one, I liked it, but the loot/grind system does not appeal to me). On the other hand, Ghost Recon Breakpoint is getting some rather bad reviews (and I have never played a Ghost Recon title). I have no inherent preferences either way... I'll just get whichever one is the better game. So - what would you recommend?

I'm surprised to hear that. I thought tinkering the power of the GPU was a void by default. I remember it being the case in 2014(ish). But can't they know you've done it by using software that triggers when the GPU operates at a clock higher than the intended, and/or just checking your system for specific OC software? Why would that be controversial among GPU manufacturers? But for someone who doesn't want to manually overclock, isn't a higher default overclock better? Also those are impressive numbers. Just be careful not to burn it up in a few years. There is a reason it used to void the warranty.

3 active desktops, 2 active laptops, and 5 inactive desktops. About to buy another desktop this month.

Nice try, Kyle.

Beer.

I don't have it installed anymore, but when I did, I think I averaged 60. It was fine in the city, but move outside and performance went down to 45 (desert) and even 30 (forests). Not to mention underwater which tanked (no pun intended) performance to 20 and below. If I remember correctly, I think I played at (mostly) Very High with some settings at Ultra and some on Medium. (demanding things like AA and reflections even lower or off) Can you screen-shot your settings and show them to me (or just tell me what they are if that is easier for you)? Concerning visuals, GTA V does look nice at times, but for all the praise it got, I can't say it is visually more impressive than, say, Metal Gear Solid V: the Phantom Pain, which is very underrated in comparison. Yes, they nailed the ambient and most models/textures, but the aesthetic is mostly bland: faces/animations are not convincing, cities are empty (in appearance and level of interaction), playing without AA makes everything look incredibly jaggy, playing with a lower detail scaling uglifies any scene which renders more than 10 meters ahead of the player, and some elements like gore, water effects, character customization etc are downgrades from San Andreas. If I recall correctly, the only 2015 AAA titles it beats in the visual department are Fallout 4 and Black Ops 3, which is not that impressive.

I will probably be getting either the Sapphire Pule or the Sapphire Nitro+ (depends on the price differences), but this has sparked my curiosity: Isn't that a good thing? Overclocking on the user's part voids the warranty. So a higher default overclock means better performance without having to risk your warranty.

True. I was merely providing OP with some more options to work with, and the points I presented are valid. The main idea behind the argument is that the RX580 has a good price because it is old. As a new card, it was not as good value as it is now; it may be contextually best price/performance, but that has more to do with circumstance, not original pricing. Moreover, at launch, it was supposed to compete with the 1060, which is becoming dated and which has been replaced by the 1660/Ti. So it makes sense to make note of these elements and offer a modern card, as opposed to a two-year-old card which primary value factor is its age. Not to mention that the 1660 has just the kind of edge in performance that can outlast the 580 - and it is important to try and factor in longevity when estimating value. There are also matters like thermals and power consumption, which the nVidia card does better. That adds to its value; maybe not in FPS, but it is value nonetheless. Finally, if a user intends to work with screen-capture and/or software that favors CUDA cores, the nVidia is a no-brainer. So for ~$30 more, the user gets better gaming performance, a newer model, very likely longevity, better thermals and power consumption, and superior workload performance. I think that seen this way, the 1660 is the better deal. The RX580 is a great card. In fact, I've recommended it to two budget-builders this month alone, one of whom I dissuaded from getting a 1650. But it is more of a budget card than the 1080 standard for 2019. So I wouldn't approach it as the best value, unless budget alone is the forwarded category (and so within a $30 margin). Peace

True, I've never had that kind of performance loss with my 1060, except for Shadow Warrior 2 (which weirdly tanked performance) and Rising Storm 2, which is around 5-10 loss in performance. However, the site mentioned "That’s about the same as we saw with Nvidia’s ShadowPlay, built into the company’s GeForce Experience software for GeForce graphics cards." in the performance section, which leads me to believe that the testing methods might have been a bit more intense than the recording experience would be for most users, which the review confirms " we used a test rig with constrained resources—the point being to see how the software performed in less than ideal conditions." one paragraph above. Considering that I record close to YouTube's recommended bitrate at 22 Mbps (YouTube recommends 15), I don't expect to have the same trouble as what most performance tests evaluate, namely the maximum of 100 Mbps. Also, even if ReLive is more stressing on the system than ShadowPlay is and hence leads to bigger performance loss, there remains the fact that, since the 5700 XT can put out 5-10 more frames than the 2060 Super in games, the alleged loss of performance when recording with the XT would make its performance equal to the 2060 Super when not recording. I don't know if I'm missing some important detail here, but it seems like the setbacks of AMD's recording software have been exaggerated in favor of NVidia. The only way to nullify this would be, I suppose, if it can be proven that ReLive is simply incompatible with some games and is therefore incapable of recording (crashes, visual/audio glitches, refusing to record...). Otherwise, I suppose that the next step in making the decision between the two cards would be performance in video editing software and, above all, Blender 3D and Unreal Engine 4.

I like how everybody has come to more or less the same conclusions. I doubt that anyone will disagree with any of these answers. There is nothing to add past this point, other than asking for specific models/brands. But let me try and diversify it a bit. I don't think that the RX 580 belongs on the list, as it is not a recent card. Its age is the main factor that dictates its low cost. When it first came out, it cost significantly more - so it would be somewhat unfair to forward its current price. What's more is that it is not likely to stay relevant for too long. For this reason I would say that the GTX 1660 is the better candidate for "best price/performance" as it costs only ~$30 more (where I live) and it is relatively new. Concerning mid-range, most likely the RX 5700. Tech Deals recommended the 2060 as the best price-to-performance mid-range in his video, but I think that was only because the video did not feature the 5700. NVidia doesn't have a "middle" mid-range player at this point. The Super lineup has made both the 2060 and the 2070 more or less obsolete at that price. The 5700 has virtually no competition. High mid-range would be the RX 5700 XT, the RTX 2070, or the RTX 2060 Super. These trade blows a bit better and they are all good for a high mid-range system. The best deal would be the cheapest of the three. However, $400 GPUs are not the first thing one thinks of when speaking of mid-range, so I'm not sure if they're relevant. High end is no doubt the RTX 2080 Ti. Not that I'd be able to comment too much on the high-end market though, I left my $1000 GPU budget in my other jacket. @BTGbullseye nice profile picture.

The Gigabyte Gaming OC 2070 is $50 more expensive than the Gigabyte Gaming OC 5700 XT. I do use Premiere Pro. But isn't that rendering mostly down to the CPU? By side-grade, do you mean little to no difference? In that case, a huge difference in gaming and a minimal difference in software in which I've had no trouble to begin with is not that bad. I think it is Blender and Unreal Engine where I strain the GPU the most; In Premiere, I mostly edit with minimal special effects. But, just in case: is there video-editing software on-par with Adobe that doesn't discriminate against AMD? Gaming-wise the only things I think I'll be missing are the NVidia-exclusive eye-candy things like the rain effects on the cape in Batman: Arkham Knight or the visual enhancers for GTA V.

Gaming is not all that I do. With that said, I don't think my work is of the type that demands a Radeon7 or Vega64-type performance. In fact, I don't remember running into any trouble with my current 1060 work-wise. Won't the RX 5700 XT come as a straight upgrade, irrespective of it being AMD? Also, since you mention the 2070... which the better deal between a 5700 XT and a 2070 with a price difference of ~$50? What specifically makes you prefer AMD drivers? Is it just because GeForce Experience is annoying? True. But there are reviewers who try to avoid bias and see things from the consumer's point of view. That is one of the reasons I like Tech Deals so much. He tries to walk the " consumer" route; I have never known him to appear to be skewing results in favor of a brand until now. He even practices what he preaches: for instance, when building a PC for his kid, he built it with a 1060 (unlike someone we know who gave his 3-year-old a 1080 Ti).

That is a big red flag, since I've been relying on Instant Replay a lot, but why are you saying something so contradictory to the reviews? https://www.pcworld.com/article/3319476/amd-relive-review.html By average gaming do you mean simply without over-clocking, or playing non-demanding games? Because I do like to play on Ultra, and I want to play some fairly demanding titles, such as Metro: Exodus, Mankind Divided, and the recent Ghost Recons. What do you mean by that? This is a very underappreciated truth.