warmongerp

Created an account to reply to this thread.
 
I agree ppl should chill but there is a very good reason why he keeps getting memed on, he refuses to apologize for the build and even double down multiple times saying things like "Those elitist youtubers are haters, the pc works who cares", even to this day he is arrogant about the build and believes he did no wrong.
 
 

This is gold, pure gold.

This is gold, pure gold.

Core2 Duo E8400 @ 3.5GHz
 

This is gold, pure gold.

This is gold, pure gold.

Surprises me that there's no backlash on the VRAM amount in the 3000 series. Nvidia is crippling hard their own cards, and why is that? The 3070 should  have at the very least 11gb VRAM, otherwise there will be stutters when the VRAM gets capped. And that will be happening oh so very soon. These are not not targeting 1080p resolutions for crying out loud (unless on cases of 240hz monitors). To me, it makes zero sense to buy any of these new cards, unless you are doing professional rendering and need the 3090, which comes at a great price if considered the RTX Titan's cost. Once the cards with 16gb and 20gb VRAM come out (allegedly), then it's time to buy. Anyone out there with similar thoughts?

Ideally one would never shut off their PC unless they had to like going away, upgrading it or say a power outage happened...
 
I have known about it now for over 3 decades.. Used to be in the PC tech field...
 
Yes, it was based on the facts so it's not a myth.
 
It was the idea of if something is going to fail it would do it when it was turned on with the inrush of current and stress on the components starting up. 
 
TV's were the same way back when they actually had tubes in them, yes I am getting old..... I can remember going to the store and testing the TV Tubes in the tester.
 
I am not sure however with the improvements of electronics and the PSUs if that still holds as true as it once did. Less moving parts normally other than fans for the most part unless they are still using mechanical HDs... I still think the inrush of current would still have an effect on the electronics....
 
However Jonny Guru did say something about draining all the power out of the PSU then starting it back up wasn't exactly good to do very often.
 
Those worried about power consumption or whatever can let their PC go to sleep when they aren't using it so that argument never really held water. Especially once the newer CPUs came out that would lower their power draw, downclock etc.
 
Even less so today with the better efficiency of the PCs... 
 
Like worrying about leaving an LED light bulb on these days compared to the older Incandescent bulbs.
 
The typical life expectancy is normally around 100,000 hours for modern electronics so that's 8700 hours in a year divided into 100,000 hours is almost 12 years running 24/7/365 .... I would doubt many people would keep their PC's for 12 years before upgrading etc.. A lot of people would build 2 or 3 PCs in that 12 year span.
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

My source is decades working on hardware, pc hardware likes to be working, they are not designed to be powered off and on, they are designed to run 24/7.
 
A good video for linus (1 year experiment or even more if necessary), build the exact same pc, one one pc your turn it off and on everyday, the other you leave it running 24/7.
 
I can bet you my kidney and lung that the pc that is turned off and on will fail first, ppl who work around computer hardware know this.
 
Maybe this knowledge is not mainstream because of electric bills (?) or even maybe brands (if hardware fail you need to buy new one) but I'm shocked ppl dont know this juding by some replies.
 
 
GUYS IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT, TO KEEP YOUR PC HEALTHY NEVER TURN THE DAMN THING OFF. HELL BUY A UPS TO EVEN KEEP IT ON DURING BLACKOUTS!!!

Just to add to my point. most computer failures come from powering it on or powering it off. Just never turn if off and your PC will always be happy.
 
 

Cmon guys.
 
It's immersive, you also get them when you watch on the tv.

Wrong. You can use ray tracing on 16xx series cards, with a huge performance hit but the ability is there.

Wrong. You can use ray tracing on 16xx series cards, with a huge performance hit but the ability is there.

400 watts is not enough for a Ryzen7 2700X with a GTX 1660 super if you add 6 fans, hdds and rgb, on absolute full load the psu will be stressed to its core, you are one of those people that think that ram, cpu cooler and motherboard dont draw power too? Are you familiar with PSU rails?
 
A system with  Ryzen7 2700X with a GTX 1660 super can very well pull +400 watts under FULL load with very little effort without any bells and whistles.

What are your specs?
 
It sounds it the other way around, the cpu is bottlenecking the gpu.

Have you tried to flash the bios to the latest version? Just to be sure 

Dont go intel with that ram speed and chipset, you need a z390 board to support those ram speeds.
 
Also, the board you choose does not support the ram speed you picked.
 
 

Go for Zotac. They are pretty good.

What's your budget? That's kinda important.
 
At a glance you should get 16 ram and an SSD. You can use higher memory speeds on your board, the board will limit the speeds.
 
If you have more to spend you can always upgrade to a gtx 1660 super and get twice the gpu performance you have now.
 
Edit: And for the love of god upgrade from that 8.1.

This is a very good read, thanks.

The problem is you're comparing a TN panel, where a TN panel is basically rubbish for color, and you don't know what you're missing until you actually see it side-by-side. It's better to have cheaper UHD HDR monitors than higher-refresh rate HD monitors. 
 
All LCD panels operate at 60hz by default, and unlike a CRT (which has a noticeable flicker at 60hz), a LCD is a static image at any refresh rate, which is why VRR is even possible and doesn't look like a flickering seizure-inducing nightmare.
 
Most people don't notice, or don't care about >60hz because really the monitor doesn't improve over 60hz, that image retention from frame to frame still exists at any refresh rate, so a 60hz monitor and a 360hz monitor are still going to have the same effect otherwise they would appear to flicker by having to insert black frames between each cycle (thus really only having a 180hz refresh rate.) This why you can sometimes justify a 120 or 144hz refresh rate, because the monitor takes some effort to reduce the ghosting between frames this way. However as far as games go, 360hz just isn't viable, at any resolution.
 
At 60hz, your game has a 16.66ms input cycle, at 120hz it has a 8.33ms input cycle, at 240hz it has a 4.16ms input cycle, at 360hz it would be 2.77, So the difference between 240 being 4 and 360 being 3, is really not that different.
 
The actual peak framerate that anything really matters is 200 fps, because the timing loop is an even 5ms, and below that which network latency to a game host in your city might have. Or in other words, two players in the same city less than 100km apart might get 5ms to each other, so they might both be able to play at 200fps without one gaining an advantage.
 
However most MMO games don't even work that way, and the global clock is based on some arbitrary value. So if you think you need a 360hz monitor to play CS:GO or WoW, it doesn't benefit you to do so. It'll only ever be noticed in a game designed, knowing that players will play it at that refresh rate, which basically nothing but synthetic benchmarks ever run a game timing loop above 60hz on purpose, and even then I'd argue that no games do this on purpose because they would have to take into account variable frame rates. So instead the game loop is locked to some internal value (eg 16ms) and the rendering loop just fires off as many frames it can based on the last loop's cycle. So if you have a 1:4 (eg 240hz) frame rate, what it's really doing is redrawing the same image 4 times, and unless there's a physics thing happening tied to the GPU rendering, you likely won't even notice the game loop is at 60hz. In many cases the higher refresh rates result in physics effects like jiggle effects and explosions/debris/destructible-environments from being exaggerated very much.
 
Some research on various MMO games say:
CS:GO, global tick is 64hz (custom games are 12) (15.625ms/frame)
Valorant, global tick is 128hz (7.8125ms/frame)
Overwatch global tick is 63hz (15.873ms/frame)
 
So a game that runs near 60hz, regardless of your GPU and Monitor, has no benefit in-game to running at a higher refresh rate than the game server does.
 

Motherboard manufactures auto OC features are notoriously horrendous, (Hi MSI and Asus)
 
I will bet my left pinky that this program is leagues above them.