Katarn

In CPU-intensive games, yes. I've played GTA V on an i5 7400 with a 1060 6GB and I was not able to maintain a solid 60 fps. Worst of all was the fact that the game did not even look that good. I'm not sure about Cyberpunk and the new Watch Dogs as they're not out yet, but both that GPU and the CPU will be very likely too dated for 1080 at Ultra. You should keep in mind, however, that GTA V is not only unfairly demanding of the CPU, but it is also badly optimized. On this same system I've played Batman: Arkham Knight at 1080p Ultra, and I could maintain a steady 60 fps, and the same goes for Metro: Last Light Redux, which also ran very well in stereoscopic 3D. [in case you don't know, these two are also CPU intensive games]. But for most other titles, the two are quite balanced. There is still gaming use and relevance in them, as they can run the latest titles (admittedly closer to Medium than to Ultra, but that is alright for older systems). I think that 4 core i5s and the Pascal mid-rangers have least another year or two before they drop down to the Low Preset and/or searching for performance mods. After that, you could move on to whatever technology offers the best bang for the buck.

I don't think that anymore. I have taken quite an agnostic stance on the matter (which sucks because I need to make that decision sooner rather than later). I am a bit more swayed on the Nvidia side at the moment, mainly for its hardware encoder and the fact that I've been exclusively using Nvidia until now. But I recognize that the latter reason is bias. That is why I find it imperative to learn which of the cards performs better for rendering (Blender, video-editing software, Unreal Engine), whether the AMD driver/heat/sound horror stories are true, and whether the difference in in-game performance is important. But that discussion is in my other thread. This is about the review, and I think we are on the same wavelength on it: he may a bit biased, but not paid; his conclusions are valid. I appreciate your input. How is it possible to have different results when testing the same games, with the same hardware and on the same settings? How do we know how many of those settings are tweaked in favor of one card, as was the case with tessellation ruining performance for AMD cards in the past? Also in that video, the table at the 1:00 minute mark shows the XT to have a base clock almost as high as the boost clock of the 2060 Super, and equal to the base clock of the 2070 Super. But on every other site I've visited, the 2060 Super does not show a base clock, it rather includes a "core clock", and (in Gigabyte's Gaming OC case) it is higher than the base clock of the XT. I don't understand what that means. That is very true, yes. I've been using Tech Deals because he is the "consumer-oriented 'this is the best deal' guy". That is why his unorthodox stance here surprised me. How would you compare Hardware Unboxed to Gamer's Nexus? But the problem is that that does not exclude manipulation, skewed results, and false inferences. Yes, but now I am more (way more) confused than I was when I first started building this system. I have been especially baffled about the clock speeds, which I mentioned in the underlined paragraph of this reply.

What makes you say that? From what I've seen, both their 2060 Super and RX 5700 XT models perform rather nicely. The XT model is somewhere between the Pulse and the Nitro+. I might go for the Pulse if the price difference between it and the XT is over $60. What can you tell me about its temps and sound? Hardware Unboxed said that it was way better than the reference one, but the benchmarks showed that it does go up to 82C under load, which is suboptimal. I thought it was better than the 2070, and closer to the 2070 Super. I don't understand. Do you mean that they will run much faster if a game demands it? That's a major concern, actually. I will be using a Ryzen 5 3600. Is that good enough? The way I use Shadowplay is that I have Instant Replay set to record a span of the last 2 minutes, and if something interesting happens, I save the clip. How big are these lossless files? And what about OBS (or similar software)?

I was happy to see Tech Deals covering the RX 5700 XT yesterday. But in the end I saw that his results/inferences were the opposite of what I had expected or seen until then. In a video comparing the Gigabyte Gaming OC RTX 2060 Super to the RX 5700 XT, he made the following points: - performance difference in 1080 and 1440 is only marginal (and unnoticeable) - Nvidia is better for 4k - Nvidia has a "much better hardware encoder" for screen-capture - Nvidia has better drivers Basically, the AMD is only 6% faster in gaming and inferior in everything else. The way he put it, it actually makes sense. I made a thread about the cards themselves in the GPUs forum. But there is something else that caught my attention, and that is that the video gives off a manipulative vibe: - he downplayed the difference between the RX 5700 XT and the 2070 Super - he used DLSS in the benchmarks - he made no mention of sharpening filters - he made a big deal about the effects of ray tracing, and showed only Minecraft (as opposed to other games that utilize the feature and make barely any difference in visuals) On the other hand: Tech Deals is not an unreliable channel. He has been impartial so far. He has recommended the RX 480 over the GTX 1060 in the past, and his recent video on CPUs concluded with AMD as the winner (dethroning the i7 8700K with a Ryzen 5)... so I don't think he would be making a video in favor of a brand. Which means that the inferences in favor of the 2060 Super are most likely true... But then how do we explain the fact that most other reviewers recommend AMD? I am curious to hear your opinions on this -- is Tech Deals' review of the RX 5700 XT (vs the 2060 Super) valid or not? Would it sway your decision to buy? Have you decided between the two before (if so, what are your experiences with the cards you've chosen)? [this thread is meant for discussion, and no negative connotation is meant for either the brand(s) or the reviewers(s)] Peace

At present, I am stuck in another conundrum: "thanks" to Tech Deals' new video, I've been introduced to the 2060 Super as a viable alternative that might be better for work. At this point the Gigabyte Gaming OC RTX 2060 Super is also a competitor. And as of this afternoon, there is also the MSI Radeon Gaming X. PS: I looked up the 590 Nitro+, and it is an ugly card indeed. I don't care much for hardware aesthetics, but DAYYYM! that's a bad-looking card How about the clock speeds? Will they affect in-game performance? It looks like the Nitro+ might be ~$60 more expensive. Is that too much of a price-difference, i.e. is it worth the extra coolness/silence?

So I was almost positive that I would be getting the 5700 XT (either Nitro or Pulse, depending on the price) until I saw Tech Deals' video yesterday, which made some strong arguments in favor of Nvidia's card: - better for screen capture - stable drivers - only marginal (2-3 frames) difference in performance When I checked comparisons between the two cards, I came to conflicting results: some claim that the 5700 XT is the superior card overall, while others claim that it is only slightly better in gaming, but when it comes to work, they recommend the 2060 Super. Since I do need the card for Blender, Unreal Engine, screen-capture, and video-editing, the 2060 Super is starting to look like the better deal, especially as the gaming performance of the two seems almost identical. What also has me confused are the clockspeeds of the Gigabyte 2060 Super. Apparently, its core clock is 1815 MHz. Does that make it better than the XT's 1,770 MHz? (the Nitro+ has a higher game clock, but I'm not sure if that is the same as core clock). Are these numbers misleading, or is the Gigabyte Gaming OC 2060 Super viable, and arguably better? How about screen-capture, video-editing, and Blender? At present, I make heavy use of Nvidia Shadowplay's Instant Replay feature with my 1060. I've been told on this forum that AMD has its own equivalent, but Tech Deals made it sound pretty bad. Is that really the case? The same goes for video-editing software preferring CUDA cores. And what are these horror stories about AMD drivers? I have never so far used an AMD card, and I've been seeing commenters who complain about "headache-inducing" driver issues with AMD. _____ Both cards are the same price (XT may be slightly more expensive). How about the Sapphire Pulse compared to Gigabyte's Gaming 2060 Super as a less expensive AMD card (or the Gigabyte Gaming 5700 XT)? _____ I will be ordering one of these days, and this dilemma seems like a huge wrench in my initial build plan. Thank you for reading and replying, Katarn

I see. That is good to know. I have a tendency to move my computer. I wouldn't want the risk of breaking its side panel. Is the third fan the only reason the GX500 is the better deal than the NR600? How much does the release date (2014) affect quality? I'd guess not much, seeing as their USB ports and supported mobos are the same. I see that the NR600 has lights and a glass panel: since they are integrated in the price, is it safe to assume that its quality will not be as high as a case of the same price but with less trinkets?

How much more expensive should the Nitro+ be (compared to the Pulse) in order to make the Pulse the better deal?

Only now do I see I've gotten two more replies in this thread. I was almost positive that I wanted the Antec GX500, but Cooler Master NR600 looks very good too. @TVwazhere Should I take the NR600 if available? I find it strange that, according to the prices at NewEgg, the Cooler Master is the less expensive case, but according to review sites, it is the Antec model that costs less. Is it just me, or are their performances more or less equal... Cooler Master NR600 ... Antec GX500 ? Yet for some reason, I feel like the Cooler Master has an advantage in the brand (although it actually has one fan less, and its temps seem higher - according to the reviews I linked - so I can't tell). Also, how sturdy is that glass frame on the side? If both are the same price, which one would you recommend? If the NR600 is the more expensive one, is it worth the difference in price (provided it is not over $25)? In that case, it's a good thing I've chosen a custom 5700XT, as opposed to a reference model. Bullet dodged.

I am looking into buying an RX 5700 XT. The three models I have in mind are the ones mentioned in the title: - Sapphire Pulse - Sapphire Nitro+ - Gigabyte Gaming OC Windforce 3x The retailer from whom I order has informed me that they are "around the same price." So I want to know: Which one is the best of the three? Provided they are all the same price, which one should I get? If prices are different, what kind of difference would justify buying one model over the other? From what I've seen, it seems as though the Sapphire cards are the go-to AMD picks, but even so, that still leaves the question of the Pulse vs the Nitro+. Thanks

If you want to go really cheap, I've heard that the Lite version is free; you can also get an Android emulator and play that one (which is also free). [note] I do not play PUBG

I have looked into the cases. The Meshify looks like a great case. But it appears to be at least double the price of the Antec GX500 and/or the Focus G. The Focus G seems to have the same cons as the GX500. (links) The Vivo seems like a clever pick, but I'm not sure if it is the right choice of the ones offered. I have two other questions: - Is 35 dBA at full speed loud? Is it average? What can I compare it to? - Are these stock temperatures good? (link)

I'm pretty sure I've done this in Batman: Arkham Knight. (but OP can't do it, it was a late game upgrade) But to get real: contacting the authorities is the best decision. At this point, the law is on your side. Trying to tamper with the drone is likely to change that.

I live in Eastern Europe. I am dealing with a retailer who imports from Germany (I think Denmark and/or the Netherlands too, not sure). It is him who recommended me the Antec GX500. What are these Fractal Define and Meshify you speak of? @Genwyn will look into; speaking from experience, what would you say are its main pros/cons?

I need a case for the following build: MSI B450 Tomahawk Max R5 3600 RX 5700 XT 2x8 3200 MHz 16CL DDR4 2x3.5" HDDs Cooler Master MWE 550W Gold The problem is that the cost of the system laves me with very little money to invest in a case. Fortunately, I don't care all that much about some of the more costly elements of the component. I don't care for RGB, and I don't care for robust aesthetics. In regards to appearance, I have a preference for minimalist designs, but that's beside the point - my main concern is that it is stable and that it has decent airflow, preferably silent (and whatever other specs one ought to look for in a case). I have a few models in mind. They are the following: Antec GX500 Black Steel Cooler Master Force 500 Fractal Design Core 2300 DeepCool Dukase V3 To me, it seems as though the Antec GX500 is the best deal. The problem with the others seems to be their inability to hold a long GPU (like the 5700 XT) and two 3.5 hard drives at the same time. They also seem to have inferior resistance to dust. So is the Antec GX500 the best in the list, and (more importantly) is it good for my build? I am open to suggestions. If you know of a case within the price range that you think would be better, please tell me, even if it is not on the list. This is a thread primarily about opinion and advice; if availability or small fluctuations turn out to be a problem, we can adapt, but only once the issue arises. Also, if I go slightly above the budget, I should be able to afford the more expensive versions of some of these models, namely: Antec GX700 Fractal Design Core 3000 Fractal Design Core 3300 Cooler Master CM590 I would rather not, but if the price difference makes for substantial improvements, I very likely will. Peace

I was just trying to compare the RX 5700 XT to Nvidia's products. I want to see how it fares against the 1080, 2070, and the "Super" series. I was looking at this btw https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-RTX-2070S-Super-vs-AMD-RX-5700-XT/4048vs4045 Seemed pretty straightforward; conveniently the first result as well.

Very well then. The Cooler Master is the safe bet. I just talked to the retailer. Since they export from other places, I should be able to get a bigger catalogue. I will post here once I get the prices for each model you recommended.

I've been looking at User Benchmark scores, more specifically comparing the RX 5700 XT to its Nvidia counterparts, and it looks like Nvidia's main advantage is the Multi-Rendering benchmark. AMD leads in other categories. In the sense of Texture Detail and Splatting, it even outperforms the 2080 Super. However, I know for a fact that the XT cannot be as good as the 2080S. Which leads me to pose the question you see in the title: What should one prioritize: Multi-Rendering or Texture Detail and Splatting when evaluating a GPU? If we prioritize multi-rendering, the 5700 XT is 50% slower than a 2060 Super. But if we factor in the other two, then the 5700 XT is on-par with the 2070 Super. ... I take it that Splatting is mostly for simulations and particle effects, and Texture Detail is side-by-side with Multi-Rendering, with the latter being slightly more geared towards gaming, but that is just a guess based on the descriptions on the site. I'd rather hear the opinion of somebody who understands these terms better. So which is the "primary" category?

As of now, I have access only to the Cooler Master MWE Gold 550W. @5x5 Should I go for it, or should I try to order some of the other ones you recommended?

btw do I miss out a lot on performance with 3200? From what I see in benchmarks, it seems as though it can make a significant difference, but it happens only when a game is running at ~300 fps (so it makes no difference to me if I get 280 or 300 on my 60fps monitor). Otherwise performance is not much different (such as 92 vs 95 fps). Is there a bigger benefit to 3600MHz in the sense of (dare I say) futureproofing?

How? The B450 Tomahawk lists only up to 3466MHz. Or does that not include overclocking?

That is good news, @samcool55 I was curious about 3D gaming as well, and I see that it might be a bit more convenient than Nvidia's "pay an additional $50 if you want a feature that came with your card when you bought it for a software that might not even work and we won't be updating anymore." [that was a long rant, but an important one] RTX at this point looks more like a scam than an actual feature. The best-case scenario for the technology is that it has the fate of the smartphone: it starts off overpriced and marginal, but becomes everyday and hence affordable to just about anyone in time. I can see it happening in the next 2-5 years with the right support. But in the meantime it is just an accessory at best. It can under no circumstance justify the price bloat of RTX products.

Is the B450 Tomahawk without Max in its title as good a choice? The one I'm seeing on the store's website does not have it, and I can't seem to find a "Max" version (or another Tomahawk) elsewhere. I might be able to order a Max, so (if possible), should I? What price margin should be the cutoff point between the two?

The system I'm building is: - Ryzen 5 3600 - RX 5700 XT - 16GB DDR4 (probably 3200MHz 15CL) - 2 Storage Units [1TB 7200RPM (probably) and a 2TB 5800 which is my old storage] - B450 Tomahawk (most likely) My question is (you guessed it!) the ideal PSU for the system. Now, I've read some things about PSUs, included the "How many Watts do I need" thread on this forum, but I still don't know exactly what to look for. It seems as though there is virtually no difference in the specifications between PSUs (about 90% of them have similar wattage and are rated 80 Plus Bronze), most models make no mention of the 12V rail, brand-names sometimes cost less than no-names, and sometimes higher wattage PSUs of the same brand and with the same features cost less than their lower wattage counterparts... So... What should I get to power this system reliably? The calculator from Outervision recommends the EVGA 650W BQ 80 Plus Bronze. Even though the recommended wattage is 457 watts, Outervision recommends a PSU of 650W. I understand that I need headroom, but would 600W not suffice? Also I am not 100% sure that I will be able to get my hands on the PSU mentioned above. From what I've seen on offer from local vendors, PSUs that come at a comparable price and meet the specs from Outervision are: - Cooler Master MWE 650W, 230V, 80Plus Bronze - Corsair Builder Series CX, 750 Watt, ATX, EPS12V - Deepcool DA600-M 600W 80Plus Bronze Black - Deepcool DA700N 700W 80Plus Bronze Black (this one costs less than the 600W one) - Cooler Master MasterWatt Lite 600W, 230V, 80Plus Are these good? I am open to suggestions. I am not looking to overclock or make significant upgrades in the near future. I just want a stable and reliable PSU for what will be my most powerful system to date. Peace

I see 3600 MHz being recommended as the sweet-spot everywhere: from Linus to Tech Tips to AMD engineers. But from my point of view, it seems like somewhat of an overkill for an R5 build: it would force me into buying an X570 instead of a B450 motherboard (which means paying double), and the 3600 sticks cost about 50% more. I don't think I would cheap out if 3600 speed is significantly better, or an overall better choice. But I wouldn't like to pay extra if there is no need to. So how much performance does one lose in choosing 3200 over 3600? I use my computer for work (Blender, Unreal Engine, video editing and rendering) and gaming. The specific models in question (I'm sure I could look into others as well) are: - 3600 MHz G.Skill Trident Z CL 16 - 3200MHz Kingston HyperX XMP Predator CL15 - 3200MHz Kingston HyperX Fury Black CL16 The system I'm building is a R5 3600 paired with an RX 5700 XT. I plan on 16GB RAM. I am not interested in overclocking. I am not interested in cosmetics.