traha9

@Constantin@Sir0Tek Meaning if I do get 2 x 16 GB - I should just remove the 2 x 8 GB kit completely? So its sounds like if I match the CL and timings are roughly similar its good to go, right? Could CL be off at all like 16 v 18 or should I probably avoid that?

· What is the latest on upgrading RAM kits? It seems like with AMD specifically it matters less and less that you need to get identical kits in order for everything to work in harmony. o For example, if I have 2 x 16 GB 3600 MHz of G. Skill with timings of CL18-22-22-42: · Which of the specs below should I be most concerned with matching with when upgrading § Similar die / mem modules § Similar manufacturer (i.e. G. Skill) § Similar timings § Similar capacity - (could I buy a 2 X 16 GB kit and it would potentially work? - that’s what I would really like to do) § Same true latency? § Etc, etc. · Any advice or information would be great because I cannot find that much useful information online. It seems like the majority of advice I've read is "buy the exact same SKU of memory or your computer will blow up", which I am not sure is entirely true based off the very few articles I've seen from more reliable technical sources. o PS: I currently have 3900 X, x570 Taichi, and this kit from G. Skill - Trident Z Royal DDR4-3600MHz CL18-22-22-42 1.35V 16GB (2x8GB) F4-3600C18D-16GTRS

@BigRom Interesting. Both were listed as compatible on the G. Skill website. I am assuming you didn't see it on ASRocks listing? I guess I am asking more from a conceptual standpoint. Any opinion or insight on CL +/- 2 and +/- 400 MHz?

@BigRom Yes, the 570 Taichi. It's only like $40 dollars difference too, which makes me even more suspect of the 3600 kit.

I am curious what RAM experts would recommend between these two SKUs of G. Skill RAM for an AMD Zen 2 Chip like the 3700 X or 3900 X? The difference is probably negligible, but the timings on the 3600 MHz kit look pretty loose. Would the lower CL and tighter timings of the 3200 kit actually result in better performance? Specs: 3600 MHz Kit: G. Skill Trident Z Royal DDR4-3600MHz CL18-22-22-42 1.35V 16GB (2x8GB) F4-3600C18D-16GTRS From https://www.gskill.com/specification/165/299/1552461134/F4-3600C18D-16GTRS-Specification 3200 MHz Kit G. Skill Trident Z RGB DDR4-3200MHz CL16-18-18-38 1.35V 16GB (2x8GB) F4-3200C16D-16GTZR https://www.gskill.com/product/165/166/1536654268/F4-3200C16D-16GTZRTrident-Z-RGBDDR4-3200MHz-CL16-18-18-38-1.35V16GB-(2x8GB)

@Jurrunio Not sure who he is, but this is what we were talking about: https://techgage.com/article/nvidia-geforce-2060-2070-super-review/2/

@Zando Bob@Jurrunio@Jon Jon@xg32 Hmm, looking back over it maybe it was exaggerated in my mind. But, what set my antennas off, were that his results seemed to contradict what everyone else was telling me - including a direct msg from Tim, Hardware Unboxed, who I consider to be an expert. He provided pictures for the in-game graphic presets, but only for 1080p. And then I probably read this comment and immediately discredited the results. So you think the benchmarks are reliable?

@Jon Jon Do you think the 2080 Super could provide 100 FPS consistently at Ultrawide on "AAA shooters"? If so, do you noted any benchmarks for this use case?

So, I actually found this last week and I was pretty pumped bc it indicates that the 2070 S may actually be able to drive an Ultrawide the way I am looking for. But as I went back through the benchmarking a couple times, I found myself asking questions that typically would have been covered by the highly regarded benchmarkers ie Gamers Nexus, Tech Deals, Hardware Unboxed, etc. He also didn't disclose the monitor that he was achieving the results on. To see if my red flags were valid, I went to the comment section. Take a look. What are your thoughts?

@Zando Bob know any sources that have benchmarked the 2080 on ultrawide ?

Super or TI?

Yes, this makes a lot of sense to me and I think where my head is at; just wanted to confirm that I wasn't completely off and was really curious. Would you consider the 2070 S to be in the "mid range" relative to your post? @Jurrunio When is the high tier Navi rumored to launch? I see your point on the console, but respectfully disagree. Other than gaming, consoles are pretty much useless. For $400 you could make a PC that runs1080 and does pretty much anything under the sun. The closed platform nature of consoles is so limiting. Maybe future gen will change that. @Zando Bob@Jurrunio@xg32 In conclusion, should I buy the 2070 Super or the 2080 TI (waiting isn't an option)? A ultrawide monitor is a very, very attractive proposition for me due to what it can provide productivity-wise. But, I still want to play my shooters competitively and I want some "cushion" for the future and I am not sure if the 2070 Super can provide those things and the 2080 S seems Lost in Space.

@Zando Bob So maybe my line of thinking (see my reply above to badreg) isn't completely off? i.e. if you bought the 2080 TI (especially on release date), it could represent a good long term value bc games, graphics, and monitor tech aren't drastically changing the next 3-7 years plus your great point about market push for mid-range focus as PC gaming becomes a more viable option and more ppl transition away from console bc its price to performance to utility is not very good?

@Zando Bob I see so is another massive jump likely to happen in the foreseeable 5 range future?

The 2070 Super is actually a good example for what I am trying to hash out. Yes, the 2070S can perform at 1440p, but what about Ultrawide 1440p @ 144 hz. I am not sure the 2070 Super could really take advantage of a monitor like that. Bc the monitor market is slightly ahead of the consumer GPU market but also plateauing - would it not make sense to go ahead and pay the extreme price premium now to cover all the "monitor bases" rather than getting a 2070 Super now and then having to upgrade again 2 years, which only then would you be able to comfortably get 144 hz at 1440 something that the 2080 TI could have provided all along. Again newer to the PC gaming space, so all of this could be very, very wrong. I more so wanted to poll the community. I'd be curious to see how the slightly newer flagship models compare against the Super line while thinking about GPU uselife (maintained desired results), CPI adjustments, tech advancements in GPU and other components, etc?

If initial capital outlay isn't an issue, would the highest performance GPU (i.e. 2080 TI) represent the best value in the long run? I haven't been in the PC space long enough to know the GPU player's pricing tendency, but at first glance it seems that buying a high end card that will last 5-7 years (especially with monitors plateauing to some degree on what the visible eye can recognize) is a better value than buying a mid to "low-high tier" (i.e. 2070 Super) and then having to upgrade again in 3 - 5 years?

@xg32 Yeah I hear you - the costs are starting to pile up though. Do you think those "esport" titles could get 144/144 on a lower settings with the 2070 S or probably not? I can't find any benchmarking specific to this scenario.

@Slottr So for games like Apex Legends, Fortnite, Overwatch etc, you think the 2070 Super would be able to push 144FPS/144HZ on say the LG 34GK950F at ultra settings (or would that need to be lowered)? And the 2070 S could still get ~ 60+ frames for super demanding games like Gears 5 on ultra? And therefore, I don’t need to scale up to the 2080 Super.

Do you think the 2070 Super could handle high refresh rate at 3410 x 1440 resolution - for "esport" type games? Or would the 2080 Super's incremental performance outweigh the additional $200 in cost?

Hey All - After countless hours of research, I have finally settled on my PC build (see below) only to realize that paring it with the appropriate monitor is no easy feat either. In order to expedite that process, I wanted to poll the Linus Community on recommended monitors for this build. My goals are 1) "144-like" frames for FPS/Shooter type games (other games I don't care as much) at 1440p, 2) not spending an arm and leg if possible, and 3) positioning myself for the future as much as possible. Would my build support 144 frames on a large 34 inch ultra wide monitor? Should I only target 2560 vs 3410? Or should I even scale down to a 27 inch monitor to be safe? Could my build handle high frames, high refresh on more graphic intense games if I turned down the settings? Do you foresee 21:9 gaining even more support down the line? Is playing FPS games on an ultrawide larger sized monitor ever a disadvantage in your opinion? Is reducing the resolution to 1080p to add back frames really as awful as some forums make it out to be? These are the type of questions that are circulating in my head and honestly overwhelming me. Any help/insights/recommendations/advice would be greatly appreciated. Below are some of the monitors I am contemplating with the MSI or LG 32GK850F winning the race thus far: MSI Optix MAG321CQR - $379 LG 32GK650F or LG 32GK850F (I can't figure out the difference between these two models - I think Freesync 2, not sure?) - $350 LG 34GK950F - $849 Acer Predator X34 - $799 Or one of the ASUS/Acer 27 inch 1440 p in the ~$500 - $750 - range PC Build: CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 3.6 GHz 8-Core Processor ($327.89 @ B&H) CPU Cooler: NZXT Kraken X62 Rev 2 98.17 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($139.00 @ Amazon) Motherboard: ASRock X570 Taichi ATX AM4 Motherboard ($279.99 @ Amazon) Memory: G.Skill Trident Z RGB 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3600 Memory ($139.99 @ Newegg) Storage: Intel 660p Series 1.02 TB M.2-2280 NVME Solid State Drive ($94.99 @ Amazon) Video Card: MSI GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER 8 GB VENTUS OC Video Card ($509.89 @ OutletPC) Case: NZXT H710 ATX Mid Tower Case ($169.99 @ Amazon) Power Supply: EVGA SuperNOVA G3 750 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply ($127.80 @ Amazon) Operating System: Microsoft Windows 10 Home OEM 64-bit ($99.89 @ OutletPC) Total: $1889.43 Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-09-03 17:23 EDT-0400

@GamerDude coming in last minute with the hard fitting facts! @Jurrunio Solid advice all around! Thanks my dudes!!

@Jurrunio yeah I hear you. I really wish I had another option. With that said, theoretical gun to your head - you have to pick one of the two - which one?

@Jurrunio Unfortunately yes, these are the only two options I have or I’d probably go with the TUF. So, it seems like the Taichi has more value per dollar overall bc you are getting some of the high end trickle down — while still being reasonably priced, will give more cushion for future proofing with WiFi 6, etc, has decent expert coverage with generally favorable reviews; therefore, I should bite the bullet and spend the extra $90 dollars? The MSI board would certainly satisfy my needs (novice level computer user), but I’m afraid to buy something with minimal coverage and little to no benchmarking and so I can’t quite determine its value per $. Is this thought process “sound”?

Is it worth paying the $90 premium for the Tiachi? Or will the MSI do just fine? I can’t seem to find robust coverage on the MSI board. The Tiachi seems to generally have favorable reviews with marks against it for power consumption and fan noise? Again, can’t really find anything on the MSI. What say you ?

@Princess Luna thanks!!