NewbieOne

The memory is already something I want to improve on. It used to be fine, it still is fine for gaming, but in the OS I find myself short and short all the time, and who know if that's just capacity or maybe faster operation would solve my problems. Part of the reason I'm a bit reluctant to get an interim upgrade extending the life of my DDR4 3000 MHz memory is, well, the DDR4 16 GB memory. If I end up deciding to get more and faster, I'd obviously rather not be buying DDR4 4133 or whatever but DDR5 already, also given that DDR4 >3600 is not cheap at all, so it's paying for old tech. Didn't know the details of B650. I probably had a mistaken mental association with Intel Bs, which don't support overclocking. It doesn't look like I need many lanes — the GPU, one SSD, one soundcard, and that's it. I don't predict myself buying expensive new SSDs or flagship GPUs, although of course at some point I mind PCIE5 for GPU and for SSD, if the mobo lives long enough. So should this be future-proof enough for the mobo to serve for the entire life of AM5 and fully realize the longevity benefit of going with AMD? Edit: I've just done light research, and it seems I might need a BIOS update before B650 supports X3D. That's not the end of the world, I guess, though I have some bad experience trying to flash via USB without a CPU (or with a CPU but without a GPU) on boards that support it. The other problem is I tend to favour outlet/b-stock deals to shave the cream off the price, and that reduces the probability of a recent BIOS version, getting info about the BIOS version from store staff isn't always possible, if I buy as a company (my job is technically a 1-man company), then I don't qualify for consumer returns, etc., where, by comparison, Z790 supports 13600K/13700K (unlike 14th gen, of course) without the hassle. So the relative beauty of Z790 + 13th gen here is that I get to skip BIOS updates and also get to rule old BIOS out if the PC fails to boot, saving me time and stress. Missing out on 2–3 days of work could cost me more than the price difference from 14600K to 13700K. Hmm… Yes, well, having just said that, it does look like I'm going to be ruling out 14600K, and the 14700K is sold out (7800X3D is still on the table). The same vendor has just posted the nation's cheapest 12600K outlet deal, but there are currently no interesting Z690 deals compared to Z790 (nice Z790 is cheaper than nice Z690, whether new or used), which puts a bit of a dent in that. I also thought about taking the 12600K deal but going the DDR5 route. With a decent Z690 DDR5 budget mobo (even in that category, though, Z790 usually looks better), I guess the 12600K could be replaced with a 14700K at some point in the future, whereas going from anything higher than 12600K to a 14700K (or even 14900K) would be too much of a sidegrade, likely not worth the probable cost compared to whatever's the current i5 plus matching mobo when the time comes to upgrade (becaus of how i7's retain their value).

Sorry, mobo is Z390 of course. Full build. My use is both work and gaming, where the work is usually light office stuff for many hours a day (so power consumption under light loads becomes relevant), but when it comes to occasionally editing huge office files and parsing them with Trados (XML-based translation-memory software) or even editing them in MS Word when it's like 500 pages, 3000 footnotes, 300 comments and 2000 tracked changes (or some sort of EU-style humongous translation memory or terminology base), then the input lag and everything else lag-related gets far worse than in gaming. Those are rare (*sorry) situations but annoying as heck when they happen. It's funny how these tasks were already done on a Core 2 Duo (and all the way down to 486) somehow but will still make any modern config choke and lag all the same. Anyway, if spending a hundred or two hundred bucks more on the CPU would help protect me from those nasty surprises, it would be a bargain. Typing lag is unbearable if you type for a living and your income depends on your speed (the lag also decreases your accuracy and, of course, is majorly irritating). No rendering, video editing, code compiling, etc. Re: OC, I rarely do it these days, plus the electricity cost is not worth it (probably cheaper to just pay more up front for a step higher CPU and GPU), but I already have the 420mm AIO for what it's worth. So I default to unlocked CPUs and overclocking mobos. The location isn't in the US. I already have the best deals nailed (they all happen to be from the same huge national retailer; anything from abroad would be not worth it due to shipment, customs and/or VAT), just trying to choose among them. The 7800X3D (125% cost-wise) was my default choice until I saw some benchmarks showing that its performance in 1440p ultra (my default) or 4K doesn't overpace Intel the way it does in 1080p, plus X670 mobos are significantly more expensive in my country than Z790, and then there's the matter of lagging behind non-3D/Intel in productivity, although the cache could perhaps actually help some of my workloads.

Say: 13600K = 100% 14600K = 108% 13700K = 133% 14700K = 141% (12600K = 75%, where cheapest Z690 D4 mobos are also a bit cheaper) (cost, not performance) Rather than specific advice on a specific case, what's your process for deciding how far on the scale of diminishing returns you're willing to? Hearing about your own processes/methods (for inspiration) is probably going to help me more than direct advice on my specific case. But re: my specific case, what I have now is 9600KF | Z390 Aorus Pro (sorry!) | 16GB DDR4/3000/14 | RTX 3070 (and some 3rd Gen PCIE/NVME SSD). The cheapest solution to buy some time before a major upgrade would be to get the cheapest Z690 DDR4 mobo and grab a 12600K. On the other extreme is 14700K plus 32GB DDR5/7000 (obviously delaying the next GPU upgrade). It's just psychologically difficult to choose which extreme to go with or especially what to choose in between. Having said that, the 13600K is both a good option for spending money on the RAM upgrade rather than the questionable i7-over-i5 premium, and a good option for replacing the 12600K in the budget-est scenario.

I lucked out with my AOC Q3279VWFD8. It was the cheapest non-TN 1440p monitor several years ago in my country. The reason I got 32'' and not 27'' was simply because the cheapest 27'' was much more expensive. What I got in the package was (still is) good colour gamut, acceptable delta, 1:1100-ish or even 1:1200-ish contrast depending on the settings, 75Hz (rather than the usual budget 60) OC'able to 80, and good uniformity, as well as really nice blacks for daytime, and nice minimum brightness (important for working at night). Even motion handling is more than acceptable for the class. The monitor is easily on par with much more expensive units in terms of parameters, and perhaps I drew a golden sample in the lottery. Also, no bad pixels or any other panel defacts until now. I really can't complain. I found that what looks particularly nice with this monitor in most (not all) games is DLDSR 4K or 5K, probably looking better because of the larger screen size. This is surprisingly good for making old games look much more detailed and generally nice, once I got an RTX 3070 (paired with i5-9600KF). There are some downsides of 1440p at 32'' rather than the preferred 27'' for this resolution, and DLDSR to 4/5K deals away with them very nicely. However, I'm feeling the upgrade itch because of how affordable fast 1440p monitors and budget 4K monitors. It would almost feel wasteful not to buy one of those (for about half the rent I pay every month) and sell mine on or even keep it as backup. However, if you double the price (at least here, M32Q or Odyssey G7 costs almost double the price of a really nice budget unit), anxiety kicks in, especially in the event I get a poor draw in the lottery and fail to notice that within the 14-day window for returns. I could afford an M32Q, but can't afford another one if the first one develops bad pixels after half a year of use as so many of them do; same goes for the G7's various quirks. I'd rather buy something safe, or if I'm going to play lottery, then in a lower price bracket. I've become attached to the 32'' size (from a yard's distance), coming back to it from an Eizo EV2736 at some point; the problem is that 32'' is not only more expensive, it's also much more limiting. Whereas decent 32'' options are scarce, great 27'' options abound and cost far less money on top of that. I'm not really looking forward to 60Hz (75 does seem to make a difference), though I guess lower GTG response times can mitigate the problem. My default strategy has so far been to stick with highest-contrast IPS panels (my laptops appear almost VA-like in this regard), but I'm intrigued by modern, higher-quality VA panels with more vibrant colour reproduction than there used to be but with even better cinematic contrast. (Outside of OLED, mini-LED, Quantum Dot, etc., it's really hard to beat my mother's age-old Sony Bravia VA with perfectly natural image without any saturation deficiency, which is like the best SDR has to offer.) What's making things really complicated for me is that even the largest brick-and-mortar stores in my country have very poor monitor exhibitions — everything has shifted to online sales, and I'm not going to order 5 monitors to return 4 of them, Rtings covers only some of the most popular models, so I'm largely in the dark with some of the options available, even in terms of theoretical data, forget any opportunity for first-hand experience. I don't care for USB or LED, brightness sensors and fancy software; I'd rather skip that to focus on the best panel for the money. So… I'm torn between (1) 4K60 vs fast 1440p; (2) VA vs IPS; (3) sticking with 32'' vs making the sacrifice of going down to 27–28'' for the sake of better bang for the buck. 27'' 1440p hi-refresh options inclue M27Q Rev. 2.0; MSI G272CQP; the new Dell G2724D; Philips Momentum. The LG 27'' Nano-IPS line (GN/GP 800/850) was very cheap for a moment but is expensive now. For 32'', this will include Dell S3222DGM and ASROCK Phantom Gaming PG32QF2B. HP Omens seem to somewhat abundant and not very expensive. Also plenty of all sorts of TUF. 32'' 4K options include EW3270U (can find a really good discount on that), older Samsung U32 VA with Quantum Dot, plenty of newer Samsungs (M7, S7, etc.). I can also get an unknown model from a local manufacturer (Electrons F3201) touting 32'' 4K IPS 120% SRGB 1MS and a pivot stand, but gamut is given at 16.7M, which implies an 8bit panel (hopefully not 6+2) rather than 10 or 8+2. For one-third less money, there's HP U28 and Lenovo L28 u-30. 27'' 4K Dells and 27–28'' 4K Philips E-Lines can also be found, or 27'' Philips Moda, in the same bracket. TUFs are also abundant and affordable, Philips E-Lines a bit less so nowadays. I'm probably going to skip Gigabyte because of the massive frequency of pixel problems, but I've even considered M28U, which is a bit less expensive than the M32Q here, and as long as I could accept going down from 32'' to 28'' and could avoid bad pixels, that 4K 144 unit would obviously last longer than my current and next platform and probably the next platform after that. I'm not dismissive of ultrawide, but for some reason they all seem to have worse motion handling than 16:9. 21:9 would be better for work (no more horizontally squeezed windows), actually, and, apparently, additional width is easier for GPUs to render than additional height, making 21:9 1440p much(?) faster than 16:9 2160p, plus, they have 100Hz options, which is more realistic given my preference for high/ultra settings over max fps, due to playing exclusively single-player games. Speaking of which, the games I play tend to be: (1) Witcher/Inquisition/RDR/Mass Effect-style cinematic RPGs; (2) Dirt/Forza-style cinematic rallies; (3) isometric RPG and map-based strategies. My work is text-based. I'm a translator, so I read and write, do research and use reference materials; this is similar to those coders who don't use white-on-black. Accordingly, I appreciate text clarity and low minimum brightness, and most of all the less eye fatigue from long use, the better (F.lux helps but panel differences matter). The last option (4) is to stick with my existing monitor and upgrade the CPU instead (9600KF => 14600K/7800X3D) and play games with DLDSR at 75 fps/Hz. I can't really afford both a platform and a monitor upgrade. I'd rather not splurge on a new CPU + mobo + RAM at the present time but just get a nice budget monitor (or midrange if really good bang for the buck). Thank you. Oh, and if the whole topic is too big for you but you can comment on specific monitors I mentioned, especially to report deal-breaking issues or recommend an exceptionally good panel within its price bracket, then by all means, do offer a partial answer. I'll be grateful for any help I can get. Anything is better than having to crack this out without having the option of hands-on trying before buying.

I work as a translator, so I read and write simultaneously all day long, and I'm a non-competitive gamer (RPG, RTS, grand strategy, some car rallies). I was tempted by Rtings.com assigning a score of 9.5 out of 10 to the DellS2721AS (alongside it's updated version, the S2722QC) in the category of 'text clarity'. Of course, this is probably largely due to the high PPI, with this being a 4K 27'' monitor, but not all such monitor end up with equally high scores, so there must be something particular about Dell's baby. What I currently have is AOC Q3279VWFD8, a 32'' 1440p 75Hz 10bit IPS monitor with above-average contrast ratio (up to 1200), so quite good parameters, but it's too big and probably has a BOE panel, which is not the best on the eyes. F.lux helps a lot, but I never get the settings right. Gaming-wise, I have an RTX 3070, which I realize is hardly a 4K card by the standards of recent AAA titles, but the thing is, I have a huge backlog of old games in which 4K ultra at 60 fps is not going to be a problem. When done with those, I could simply upgrade the GPU before moving on to newer/more demanding titles. Alternatively, I could buy a newer budget 27'' 1440p monitor such as the LG 27GP850, and enjoy 1440p ultra at probably >100-ish framerates and better motion handling in general, an experience I've never had before, either. Could still use DLDSR to give those games a somewhat 4K-like look. This would eliminate the need for me to upgrade the GPU before playing modern AAA titles. However, 27'' 1440p monitors and perhaps 1440p monitors in general tend to score poorly on text-clarity tests at Rtings.com, at best 7.5 and often 7.0 or less. Notably, laptop-sized 1080p monitors score better, generally 8.5 or sometimes 8.0. And here's my last idea, since I was considering a 20'' 1080p second monitor anyway, just for work, hence with no regard to its gaming-related parameters: perhaps it would make sense to buy one of those 14–15'' 1080p units? Thirty years ago 15'' was a 'large' monitor. I could use such a baby as my main workhorse and the 32'' monitor for stuff like dictionaries, reference materials, research, etc. And gaming. The added bonus is that I would be able to carry it around and use it with whatever computer I ended up using, just like my light TKL keyboard, so no disruption to my work routine from platform change. What I've noticed is that Rtings covers just 266 out of all monitors in the market and some are simply not there and that text clarity at 7.5 vs 9.5 isn't necessarily a night-or-day difference. And I know the Dell has a somewhat disappointing colour accuracy before calibration. I'm not familiar with modern small 1080p monitors or with 19–24'' 1080p office units from several years ago, so I don't know what's good apart from the ones listed by Rtings. So I thought I would ask for some advice on how to proceed with this: Grab the Dell S2721QS while the sale lasts (€270 => $290)? Get a 27'' 4K monitor but something else? What? Get the LG, enjoy higher framerates rather than higher resolutions in older games (with DLDSR for fake 4K, which feels like halfway through)? Get some other 27'' 1440p monitor? Which one? Leave my AOC be and just buy a high-PPI second monitor for work, such as 15'' 1080p or 20'' 1440p or some sort of cheap 20'' 1080p unit with good reviews? Thank you.

Well, guys: the 1070ti is confirmed dead. I'll keep it in case 1070ti processors become available as spare parts at some point down the line. Right now, I need to buy a card and can't see a way out of the impasse: 1. Play older games, buy the cheapest 1080 with decent cooler for them for until 4000/7000 arrives or my backlog of old games runs dry. 2. The same but outlet 3060/6600XT just to avoid the risk of buying a card that's old enough to go to kindergaten and may well have been exposed to constant high loads all the time. 3. One, two or three steps up, as in 6650XT, 3060ti, 3070, 3070ti, maybe 6750XT. With AMD, the problem is of course RT and, secondarily, DLSS. While FSR2.0 may be better than DLSS, RT probably won't catch up merely by software. Right now, considering the prices where I live (Central Europe) and where I can reasonably import from (EU+UK; the rest of the world is unprofitable due to customs and taxes), AMD is better for rasterization performance at the same price. NVidia is better at RT and, for the time being, upscaling tech. My immediate gaming queue includes: Grid 1, Grid 2, Dirt 4, Dirt 5, Divinity: Original Sin 1+2, Two Worlds, Legends of Eisenwald + expansions, Pathfinder: Kingmaker, Ember, Jedi: Fallen Order, Outer Worlds as well as NWN EE with custom modules. This is probably quite a lot hours. Even later, I could still find some more slightly dated games such as Fallout 4, New Vegas, Might & Magic 10, WRC racers, etc. Of course, I could play Horizon, RDR, JFO2, Cyberpunk etc. if I had the hardware for it, but there's really no pressure. There will be pressure when the next Dragon Age or Mass Effect comes out, or Witcher 4, or Kingdom Come Deliverance 2, or BG3 goes out of early access, but even then I'll be happy to wait until the game gets patched and maybe the DLCs come out. And again, meanwhile there will be a lot of things to play. So is it reasonable for me to put some eggs in the RT basket or should I go for the best bang for the buck in terms of rasterization performance, without paying a hefty premium for extra performance? Another thing I worry about is the possibility of new shortages and/or price hikes, for which reason it would seem to make sense to buy something powerful enough for the next couple of years, not just one year. That would probably be 3070, or perhaps 6750XT for pure rasterization. Well, two things: (1) pumps and (2) spending priority (I'd love a custom loop but gotta buy some other big things first).

So here's a shortlist: €300: GTX 1080, used, something good like Strix or GameRock. €365: cheapest blower 1080ti to use with my Accelero €390: GTX 1080ti, used, something decent that doesn't need a risky cooler swap €460: 6600XT (Fighter, maybe Mech) €490: semi-decent 3060 (like KFA) €650: semi-decent 3060ti (like MSI Gaming X (not Z, not Trio, etc.)) €730: cheapest 3070 €815: cheapest 3070ti (it does have 3 fans at least) What's best to buy if you're likely going to play mostly slightly older but still graphically demanding games without RT and without DLSS for the closest year or two but aren't exactly thrilled at the prospect of paying hundreds of euros for a 2017 card?

I do pretty well with a Phanteks Enthoo Pro with Arctic P14 fans, moved some two yards away from the desk, and this is crucial. I've also considered a farther move. Several feet away you can still hear the computer if you try really hard, but there are fewer decibels and any quiet but coarse sounds (like fan bearings on 600/700-ish RPM) are far less audible. However GPU fans generally being 80 to 100 mm and having to spin quite fast is a bit of a different story. Even Accelero Xtreme was not to my liking because I was able to hear the bearings and their somewhat irregular movement (perhaps due to irregularities in assembly on my part, as I had to bend the heatsink a little). In the past I've used cards such as GTX 460 Windforce from Gigabyte, 280X DualX from Sapphire (or whatever that was called) and one or two more without being overly disturbed by them, so it's not like I can't use standard coolers. Many of the cheaper ones, however, I'm sure I'd rather avoid. I'd be happy to buy something with a factory cooler in which the fans sit on top of the heatsink (like aftermarket coolers) rather than being recessed into it (like blowers and single-fan cards). With 2xP12 or 2xFluctus 12 cm, I'm sure I could manage more than fine. Or even two of those 40 mm fans from Phanteks. My dilemma (or trilemma, or whatever), is more about what ultimately to buy, because I struggle to justify the expense of a 3060 ti, while I could justify a used 1080 just fine. However, on top of a used 1080 it would probably make much more sense to pay 33% extra for a similarly performing but newer and leaner card, with RT and DLSS support to boot, being the non-ti 3060. Which is the only reason I'm looking at it. After all, some used 1080s have been mining for like 5 or 6 years now, so a NIB card on warranty for 33% extra would be a bargain even without any performance gain. Bottom line, don't know what to buy in the 3060/6600XT segment or below.

Hypersensitivity to sound. Not as much the loudness (though that too) as the quality of it. I sometimes game with sound off or very quiet on loudspeakers or open headphones. Anything like rattle, electrical hum or coil whine from the bearing, or any coarse bearing or whoosh sound and I'm suddenly a very unhappy person. For example I don't like Accelero or most three-fan solutions. But higher-end two-fan solutions are usually fine by me. Obviously, as long as the heatsink doesn't make it especially difficult to replace the fans, I can just unplug the stock fans and mount custom 12 cm fans on the factory heatsink, but that's a cost and a hassle and sometimes a warranty problem, so if I were to do that, I might as well just pay a bit more up front. If the prices weren't inflated, I'd normally be shooting for 3070ti or at least 3060ti, but since my 1070ti has died and I need a replacement anyway, I thought buying the cheapest 3060 with a reasonable cooler, new and with full warranty, would be better than paying just one third less for an old 1080. I don't want to buy 3050 or 2060, however, not even new, because it would be too much of a side-grade from my dead card, and I'd still like to make at least a small upgrade, not just a replacement. I might eventually fork out for something like 3060ti from KFA, which is not spectacular but seems to be the quietest of budget models. Still costs almost my entire monthly salary after taxes, insurance and rent.

Hi, guys. As per title — my 1070ti has died (leaving me with a spare Accelero in case it fits), and so I need to buy a GPU. While in 1440p a 3060ti or higher would of course be a far better performer, I have a lot of older games to play and not really a lot of time to play games to begin with, so the expense would be questionable. I thought perhaps I could buy something older, but then it really makes little sense to buy a 1080ti for essentially the price of a 3060. And 3050 would be too weak. And 6600XT doesn't have DLSS. So 3060 it is. So I thought about buying one of the cheapest ones and replacing the fan(s) on it with P12 or Fluctus. Alternatively, I could come to terms with paying a premium price and just get something that's reasonably quiet out of the box. Or something that will accept Accelero Xtreme III without losing warranty. But other the added quietness, I'd rather avoid the expense of paying 25% extra (or more) for a nicer brand because at this time I'm buying on the budget, essentially replacing a 1070ti and preferring to avoid buying used 4/5 y.o. cards. Any recommendations? KFA2 maybe? I've heard that's a quiet one. Or Phoenix or something else single-fan and just replace the fan?

Unplugged AC. Removed battery for 10 minutes. Touched pins with screwdriver for half a minute. Left a jumper on them for 10 minutes. According to some forums I found via google clearing CMOS rarely helps with this. Could be something with the system, I guess. Like wrong disk partition format or whatever. But I also tried without hard disks. Edit: My situation is like the last guy's in [url=https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/no-display-after-enabling-secure-boot-and-fast-boot.3711720/]this thread[/url], except using an old graphics card (8800GT) didn't help. Edit2: Left the mobo unplugged, with battery removed and cmos_reset pins shorted for an hour. No improvement. Also made a GPT system USB / bios flash disk, but apparently that's not helping either. So it looks like I'm out of options other than having the bios dies flashed with professional equipment, but I've already filed the RMA, so I expect a courier to show up on Monday or Tuesday and be back a month later. So back to considering my upgrade options.

I have (or had) an i5-9600KF @ Aorus Z390 Pro and a discrete 1070ti. Turned PTT on and CSM off, so far it worked. Turned Secure Boot on, and it didn't work. No video signal. I've done my research and tried the solutions, but nothing works (such as trying different GPUs, removing hard drives and plugging a bootable USD stick directly into mobo, etc.). The only thing I haven't tried is using a CPU with an integrated GPU in the hope that it will get me to BIOS. Or I could RMA the mobo and wait a month, or maybe try and get the bios chips replaced (this Aorus doesn't have the physical primary/secondary switches from the highest-end models) and forfeit warranty. And neither of these two solutions is guaranteed to work. Or I could indeed buy the cheapest 8th/9th gen CPU with an iGPU just to try to enter BIOS with it, though that could be a waste of time and money. Or I could accelerate my platform upgrade. I was going to upgrade anyway but holding off till later this year because of all the upcoming releases from Intel and AMD, which would either be worth buying (the 5800X3D in particular more likely than not) or at least make current tech significantly cheaper by end year than now. My existing rig was sufficient for work and quite good for gaming, especially considering that I was going to play older, less demanding games for a long while (Divinity: Original Sin saga, Pathfinder: Kingmaker, NWN:EE modules, etc.) and nothing from my wishlist is releasing any time soon (Dragon Age and Mass Effect continuations, Fallen Order 2 and KCD2, essentially). So, here are my options: Be a patient little boy. RMA the mobo, wait patiently and hope they don't ignore my explicit request to hard-flash the BIOS. One month from now l'll probably be fine and 5800X3D will probably be out anyway, so I'll be selling my existing CPU and mobo some time after it comes back. Be an impatient but resourceful little boy and get the BIOS chips replaced somewhere downtown. Much hassle, probably not that much cash to pay, and likely forfeited warranty. Grab a cheap-ass used z490 mobo and 11700K or 11900K. Overpay for a z690 mobo (the prices are scandalous!) and get 12700K because it seems often to be at least 10% faster in side-to-side gaming benchmarks on YouTube than 11700K and 12600K. Where 11700K and 12600K alternate places, 12700K is uniformly better by a somewhat small but noticeable margin. Like 10%. Which is incidentally the difference between 55 fps and 60 fps, so it obviously can matter. Get a z690 mobo but look for a 12600K (a little bit of a shortage/price spike right now where I live), later to sell it and buy a 13900K when that comes out, hoping that it will still support DDR4 when running off of a z590 board. Slot out and forget for a while. Wait for 5800X3D. Should be less power-hungry than Intel, and with my Corsair RM750 CPU an overclocked 12th gen Intel plus an overlocked 3000 or 4000 series GPU could be tight-squeezed for juice. Wait for the first thing AMD releases on a new slot, buy DDR5 and look forward to the platform's slow process of aging compared to Intel. Be a thrifty little boy, buy a 11600K and a cheap used flashed z490 mobo, sell the 9600kf, then sell the Aorus after it comes back from RMA, for a minimum monetary loss but not a very noticeable upgrade either? Put the money in the GPU jar, OC the heck out of 11600K with ALF II 420 if needed and continue to hold out waiting for new releases? The problem with long-term scenarios is that you never know what's gonna happen in global economy with the war in Ukraine, let alone if something brews between Red China and Taiwan. Or another pandemic, or some sort of 11th wave of Covid on steroids. It might be prudent to buy a mobo and CPU while they're still there, before the same thing happens to them as to GPUs. Speaking of GPUs, an 12th generation rig would cost me 50+ extra on top of a 11th generation rig, with a 10% gain. So maybe it would be better to go for the more modest platform upgrade and put the rest of the money in the GPU jar? There are a bit too many variables here to sort the riddle out without much first-hand experience with anything newer than 9th gen. WWYD?

You aren't the first person recommending those to me as a personal recommendation. I wonder if the He400's have something about them that makes them people's personal first choice. Re: AKG, I was largely asking because they used to be much more expensive than the AudioTechnicas and they seem to have their own little flock of followers in the gaming crowd.

What about AKG K601, K612, K701, etc.? I can get 701 for the same price as the units in the title (even a bit less actually), and K712 pro for double that (same price as the Orbits at that point). I've noticed the AKGs getting massively better scores on sound quality than AD500X on one review site but don't know how reliable they are.

Large head, somewhat large ears, glasses getting in the way (this is an issue with tight small cups and long sessions). I would be using them with a Soundblaster x-Fi Titanium PCIE ('non-HD') either directly or through a 20 y.o. stereo (JVC MX J500). I play RPGs, strategies and rallies and racers. This generally means a lot of epic soundtracks (usually but not always similar to symphonic classical tracks and movie tracks), nature sounds, city sounds, battle sounds (from mediaeval weaponry to laser guns), fantasy sounds and a plethora of all sorts of effects, often stacking in multiple layers on top of soundtracks and beneath dialogue. It would be best for all of them to sound natural and be separated. Dialogue tends to be tricky because it is extremely important and sometimes combines all sorts of problems such as strange accents, dialect, shouting, emotions, exhaustion, wounds, other characters shouting different things, battle sounds, ambient and obviously the music and perhaps a thing or two I didn't include on the list, quite possibly all together. So anything that struggles with human voice is off the list. As for space, distance, positioning, etc., I need it more for immersion than practical needs, but it goes a long way. The ones in the title I chose because they cost pretty much all the where I'd be buying them. I could get Orbits (Mobius), but I'd have to double the budget. On the opposite end are Alphas with some competition from Logitech. The problem with the Orbits is that while I could stretch my budget to afford them once, but I can't afford headphones in that price range to just break on me after a year or two of not scrupulously gentle handling, as the Orbits reportedly tend to do. I know I'd be happy with the Alphas, but if I could be happier with the AD500X or Arctis Pro for 50% extra money, I would like that even better. Don't need them cordless, but a long cable would be a bonus. EDIT: I've read some good things about Astro A50s, which I could get much cheaper than those on the title list.

Any thoughts on Arctis Pro (with DAC) vs ATH AD500X vs DT 990 pro vs DT 1350 vs (Fidelio) X2HR vs Astro A40 TR + MixAmp when they all cost essentially the same money, give or take ten bucks? For non-RPG players: 1. Speech is of top importance. Making out the words reliably, realizing that someone is speaking, shouting, chanting, etc. even over battle sounds, distance (stealth), etc. 2. There is a wide range of effects. Think FPS plus medieval combat plus fantasy stuff plus sci-fi stuff. Guns, swords, armour, horseshoes, cannon, lasers, spells, animals, beasts and what have you. 3. Depending on the game stealth and ambushing sometimes plays a role, so clarity in barely audible sounds is good to have. 4. In real-time (not turn-based) RPGs spatial/directional/movement information can sometimes be almost as important as in FPS. 5. And soundtracks are tied for top priority. Atmosphere-building and all. Sometimes speech is combined with spatial positioning, e.g. when you need to hear who's casting what spells and from which directions all the while being shot and swung at and probably having some music and ambient in the background. So perhaps to sum up: perfect speech clarity, great orchestral/symphonic/otherwise epic music tracks, realism and quality in all manner of sound effects, and good space/direction/movement/positioning ('stage', I guess). And comfort because who are we kidding, this is gonna be taking hours at a time, not 30-minute breaks. Naturally, all this toned down to the budget. Just trying to find the best of the available options in this price range.

How exactly good are those compared to the other headphones discussed in this thread? I've just found a bunch of them in <$80 range.

What about DT 1350? I'm asking because I have almost the same needs and same budget as the OP (RPG, meaning musical scores first, ambient and speech tied second, quality of effects third, spatial precision and comfort of use tied fourth). I've just found an offer for DT 1350 that's priced actually a bit lower 990 pro. Another alternative in roughly the same price (coupla bucks lower still) is Arctis Pro + Game DAC (of which I don't make much, but it's still there anyway). AFAIK the 1350 should escape some of the (few and fanciful) problems people may have had with the 990 pro.

Thanks. I was considering AMD, but at the prices I can get it seems Intel is the better option, and with Intel nothing really makes more sense going from 9600K than 11700K, I guess. Though it sucks how expensive those Z590 mobos are. The only advantage is that CPUs and mobos are stupidly inflated from shortages and crypto right now, so I would be gaining some fps without paying double the MSRP… and replace the GPU later, when the prices get better. Or would it be a better choice to leave the CPU alone and focus on the GPU? Selling the 9600KF and buying a 9900K is always an option, but I'm not convinced of the benefit other than in CPU-hungry games. WWYD?

As per title. Work: Cores don't matter much but single-core is key. Gaming (with 1070ti): 1440p, aiming for all ultra stable 60 fps lock but the monitor can also do 75. I could try OC'ing the heck out of the 9600kf, but I already have a TC14PE with P14 fans, which is like a slightly superior D15, so upgrading to an AIO wouldn't justify the cost with the gain.

I've already seen the 1070ti priced at $700 in retail on out-of-stock offers. Give it a couple of weeks and those will be in stock. Europe will still be more expensive than Asia and North America, but we may see 1070ti's selling for <€700 before year end. Used GPUs offloaded by the miners by the trackload will also affect the prices of used cards, and that will put some pressure on NIB GPUs as well. And if you don't mind spending $1100, then chances are you might be able to get a stronger card for the same money quite soon. Me, I have a 1070ti that I wouldn't mind replacing because it by far doesn't net me the stable 75 fps @ 1440p which is the limit for my monitor, but then there's no pressure, considering my huge backlog of games several years old. I could play the older titles first and wait until 4080 comes out.

The CPU sits under a Phanteks TC14PE fitted out with 2xP14, at 4.7 GHz, not exceeding 80C even on low fan speeds. I could get better temps easily, since I play in headphones these days anyway. However, I seem to get issues when aiming for a higher overclock. I suppose I could get a stable 5 GHz after some manual tweaking and testing, but I just don't have the time to do this properly. The GPU is an Asian import — Colorful iGame with a physical turbo button and custom 8+8pin power delivery for better OC. And there's an Accelero Extreme III on top of it. 1860/4007 clocks @ 100% utilization still stays under 70C (could be better, but the build is silence-optimized at the moment). I'm not going to pay double for another 1070ti what I paid for the first several years ago. I thought maybe I could swap it in for a 1080ti with additional payment, though that's probably not gonna be a huge upgrade, plus having sunk some money in the Accelero, plus the usual risk of a relatively old used card (same as for the other guy). A regular 3060 would probably be a sidegrade. A 3070 would be out of the question — I'd much rather take a holiday trip to the tropics for that price instead, or a degree (Europe here, so the price comparison may not be valid in the US, India or Australia). I suppose I could wait for a new release of something new, whatever really, and try to buy it for as close to the MSRP as possible. Or perhaps upgrade the CPU instead, but somehow I don't think there's going to be a massive fps gain going from 9600K to 11700K or 9900K, unless maybe I go for as many cores as possible and a loud fan profile. Obviously, an i9 plus a massive AIO (or heck, a custom loop) would still cost less than a 3070 and surely net more gain. Having to wait a year or two wouldn't be the end of the world, as I still have a lot of 2015-ish titles in my Steam library that I haven't played yet. On the other hand, I was hoping to play Kingdom Come: Deliverance and with max settings at 1440p I'm getting 37-ish fps, which does feel subjectively less smooth than e.g. the 50-ish I get with the same settings @ 1080p. It would be a bit clumsy but playable. My next titles would be the next Dragon Age and the next Mass Effect when they come out, which is probably far off, and maybe Dirt 4, Dirt 5, Fallen Order, and a couple of relatively low-spec titles, so it would be hard to justify buying a GPU at these prices. One alternative would be to spend some time tinkering with the CPU overclock, but I dread the loss of time going by small increments and testing them thoroughly, and with the GPU overclock, but for obvious reasons I'd rather not take too many risks with the GPU (I've already seen the beginnings of artifacts when pushing it just a little bit too hard, so I feel warned). I know laptops are becoming an attractive alternative, but, being desktop-bound, I'm not really interested unless they begin to pack better performance for the same money. Ordering a prebuilt rig no longer works in my neck of the woods, as the prices have been updated to reflect the retail price of the GPU component. WWYD?

Right side is normally preferred (you practically won't find any other stock placement, unlike single-fan coolers that often had the fan on either side in the past), though how much difference this makes is up to debate and depends on individual circumstances. For D15 the middle fan does most of the job anyway and the placement or even the presence of the other fan matters little. If you like to experiment, you could grab a third A15 and see if you can get the same temps for less noise / better temps at same noise. Noctua themselves claim their testing shows no improvement from adding a third fan, but some testers have reported (and properly measured) improvement.

I have a bunch of Arctic P14 PWM PST's I could mount on my TC14PE, for which I also currently have a pair of TY-141s, which have kinda disappointed me. I would be willing to give TY-147 a chance, but they aren't available. I could almost get my hands on TY-143s, but due to the manufacturer's ratings I'm not sure I'm fully confident in the accuracy or universality (as in, manufacturer variance in different batches/revisions?) of some users' claim that they aren't louder than TY-147 for the same rpm (where 147 has a shorter range). I need them for CPU, so I'm prepared to splurge out. So far, P14 PWM PST has the advantage that you can daisy-chain three of them on the CPU itself with rear exhaust as the fourth, for a single rpm setting. But there are some sounds in P14's range that I don't really like (though it's probably preferable to TY-143). I don't think the obvious NF-A15 could indeed be the best way? I was thinking about Noiseblocker's NB-PS line, but if I got non-oversized 12's, that would be giving up some VRM cooling, which in my case tends to be critical (a mix of mobo limitations, airflow limitations and my limited skill with OC-ing makes having a VRM surplus preferable in my situation). Alternatively, I could get whatever sort of Scythe Kaze/Stream they put on Fuma — not the Ninja's fans but the Fuma's, which have a better curve in the early and mid game. Alternatively, Corsair's ML line, which allegedly don't make any bearing sounds but only the air brush. Always the question is, is there a point in changing. So perhaps some of y'all folks have tested P14 alongside something else and found the else to be better? Priority: Silence over performance but performance (while silent) over cost. Apart from the ability to pack some serious performance while staying inaudible (and thus probably expensive), it would also be good to have some added headroom within the 'audible but not annoying' range, where the quality of the sound is more important than the decibels. (I didn't really like the quality of the sound on the P14. For low decibels it's excellent, but the quality is sometimes a bit more of an issue with electric sounds. And the TY-141s can sound like quite nice hair dryers but still hair dryers on the same rpms and temps on which the P14 emits an uglier sound but much quieter.)

Well, I didn't burn the card. I was actually surprised when it started without issues the first time (shows what kind of pessimist I am ;)). The mount clearly isn't ideal, mostly because I put heatsinks on capacitors, which collides with the main heatsink, but it works, even though you can see the metal bracket on the CPU is quite heavily bent. But it survived Furmark without exceeding 58 Celsius. Probably would have got a better result with a more proper mount and without putting the heatsink on and off several times with the preapplied paste. But if Furmark can't make it break 60 degrees Celsius, with the fans never exceeding 26%, I guess I won't see 90-ish temperatures in games after OC-ing. The goal was silence, in any case, and I love the way Furmark didn't make me hear the card. What's left for me to do is the overkill CPU cooler (TC14PE + 2x TY-141 for a puny 9600KF) and five P14s on the case, and I think I'll have a completelysilent gaming rig.