GPU for new build RX 5700 xt or RTX 2070 super

[hollyh88]

On 10/28/2019 at 8:29 PM, Shadowjack said:

That is pretty much what I am thinking and is the best reason I have to go Ryzen. Question is will pcie4 be relevant with 5 due out next year and 6 in 2021? Obviously 5 and 6 will be faster, 4 is faster than 3. Right now 4 is meh. Ive looked at the Nvme 4 drives and so far the theory doesnt translate into a real world difference. Plus they run hotter. 

 

What I don't get is why pcie 4 (RX 5700 xt on the x570 platform) doesnt have any real impact on game performance? Is it just another example of games lagging behind the tech? If games do catch up will the RX 5700 xt performance increase significantly?  

 

I just skimmed through this comparison of pcie 2,3,4
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/pci-express-4-0-performance-scaling-radeon-rx-5700-xt/

pcie4 is still meh. better boards will be out by then. 
also, my rtx 2070 super is doing very good temps are around 62c and below when gaming. i did a simple oc of 100 on the core and 800 on the memory. and it runs it without issue. while gaming i even see continues clockspeeds of around 2060 ish. So this gigabyte model aint badddd

[Jon Jon]

On 10/28/2019 at 3:29 PM, Shadowjack said:

Ive looked at the Nvme 4 drives and so far the theory doesnt translate into a real world difference. Plus they run hotter. 

You say that, but it really is a major boost for those doing content creation and running a home server. More bandwidth and faster read/write speed will always be better for those types of use cases. For gaming? You can only load a game so fast. They are getting bigger though, so it is an only a matter of time until that is beneficial.

 

That's why, IMO, the faster storage is the biggest perk of PCI-E 4.0. I bet in 3-5 years, We will all be itching for those speeds. It's just how the technology goes.

[Shadowjack]

20 hours ago, hollyh88 said:

pcie4 is still meh. better boards will be out by then. 
also, my rtx 2070 super is doing very good temps are around 62c and below when gaming. i did a simple oc of 100 on the core and 800 on the memory. and it runs it without issue. while gaming i even see continues clockspeeds of around 2060 ish. So this gigabyte model aint badddd

Thanks for the report. Right now I have the GAMING OC 3X 8G at the top of my leader board. The MSI gaming x trio is right at about $1100 so its off the board. Unless something else impresses my pants off for under $700 im all in with the Gigabyte. 

 

Unless those better boards are out in the next 30 days ...... X570 wins

[hollyh88]

13 hours ago, Shadowjack said:

Thanks for the report. Right now I have the GAMING OC 3X 8G at the top of my leader board. The MSI gaming x trio is right at about $1100 so its off the board. Unless something else impresses my pants off for under $700 im all in with the Gigabyte. 

 

Unless those better boards are out in the next 30 days ...... X570 wins

i was originally going to get the gaming x trio. but it wouldnt be shipped any time soon due to a shortage so i went with this card. its been doing amazing so far  

[Shadowjack]

On 10/31/2019 at 2:27 AM, hollyh88 said:

i was originally going to get the gaming x trio. but it wouldnt be shipped any time soon due to a shortage so i went with this card. its been doing amazing so far  

 

After considering the Palit and the MSI Gaming x trio I picked up the Aorus RTX 2070 Super. Still a couple weeks away from build.  How is your  2070 super gaming oc 3 doing so far?

 

[hollyh88]

21 hours ago, Shadowjack said:

 

After considering the Palit and the MSI Gaming x trio I picked up the Aorus RTX 2070 Super. Still a couple weeks away from build.  How is your  2070 super gaming oc 3 doing so far?

 

pretty amazing. sadly held back by my 2600x though. cant wait to plop a ryzen 4000 series in my mobo when they release and bring good performance.

but its doing good barely hear it at 60% fan speed which keeps the gpu at around 65c. Raytracing also works flawlessly at 80 ish fps high settings 1440p.

[BTGbullseye]

11 minutes ago, hollyh88 said:

pretty amazing. sadly held back by my 2600x though. cant wait to plop a ryzen 4000 series in my mobo when they release and bring good performance.

but its doing good barely hear it at 60% fan speed which keeps the gpu at around 65c. Raytracing also works flawlessly at 80 ish fps high settings 1440p.

What games are you playing that a 2600x is slowing you down?

[Midnitewolf]

I was a pretty staunch supporter of the value of the 5700 XT over the 2070 Super. I mean it is only like 6% weaker overall and in quite a few games it even surpasses the 2070 Super all while being 20% cheaper.  However, after some research, I am really concerned about the quality of the the 5700 XT's drivers.  Lots of reports of the screen randomly going blank in the middle of playing a game and it is even listed as a known issue on their current driver version.  That being the case, it might be well worth the extra $100 if for no other reason that the 2070 Super has much more mature and reliable drivers.

[Mark Kaine]

On 10/28/2019 at 4:16 PM, Jon Jon said:

 

6 years is a major ask.

 

It is. But only because of new console gen next year. Otherwise, traditionally it's always easy to have a PC that's "good enough" for a whole gen. 

 

 

But building now is a very unwise and risky endeavor because it's possible that the system will be more or less obsolete in 1-2 years, because of new features and whatnot the new console gen is bringing to the table 

 

And yes let's face it, tech and feature wise consoles are the lead platform for most games,  PC is merely an afterthought. 

 

 

[Midnitewolf]

9 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

It is. But only because of new console gen next year. Otherwise, traditionally it's always easy to have a PC that's "good enough" for a whole gen. 

 

 

But building now is a very unwise and risky endeavor because it's possible that the system will be more or less obsolete in 1-2 years, because of new features and whatnot the new console gen is bringing to the table 

 

And yes let's face it, tech and feature wise consoles are the lead platform for most games,  PC is merely an afterthought. 

 

 

 I am not sure if I agree with that statement.  There are still many PC only or PC first titles coming out and consoles as good as they are getting to be, still can't match a top end PC in terms of graphics and performance.   There is also the benefit that most of the best console games always make it to PC despite the original platform of the game which means you don't have to own both a Xbox and a PS to be able to play the majority of titles.  The issue with the PC of course is the cost to get this greater performance but it is looking like your standard Xbox or PS might be selling for around $600 soon and taking into account you probably will want both platforms, that is a $1200 investment.  You can get a pretty darn good gaming PC for $1200.

[Mark Kaine]

6 minutes ago, Midnitewolf said:

 I am not sure if I agree with that statement.  There are still many PC only or PC first titles coming out and consoles as good as they are getting to be, still can't match a top end PC in terms of graphics and performance.   There is also the benefit that most of the best console games always make it to PC despite the original platform of the game which means you don't have to own both a Xbox and a PS to be able to play the majority of titles.  The issue with the PC of course is the cost to get this greater performance but it is looking like your standard Xbox or PS might be selling for around $600 soon and taking into account you probably will want both platforms, that is a $1200 investment.  You can get a pretty darn good gaming PC for $1200.

You're arguing something I didn't say though. 

 

For *most* games of a certain graphical fidelity (excluding indies as most of them don't ever come to consoles obviously) consoles are the lead platform,  which means if consoles implement feature XY, and when PCs don't have this feature or an outdated version (for example a theoretically improved Ray tracing technique from AMD - for example!) then you will need to upgrade your PC if you want to keep up - which in turn means your shiny new 2080S is suddenly a paperweight... 

 

 

*THAT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE,  OK*

 

 

I don't know what happens but there's definitely a high probability something like that could happen.  This is really not so much about power rather than features and new techniques.

 

 

[Plexter]

On 10/28/2019 at 5:38 PM, Princess Luna said:

Better here is subjective...

 

While it might not push a whole lot more fps even when over locked you do get lower temps and lower operation noise.

I don't understand "sound" statement. Am I only one using headphone here?

[Shadowjack]

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

You're arguing something I didn't say though. 

 

For *most* games of a certain graphical fidelity (excluding indies as most of them don't ever come to consoles obviously) consoles are the lead platform,  which means if consoles implement feature XY, and when PCs don't have this feature or an outdated version (for example a theoretically improved Ray tracing technique from AMD - for example!) then you will need to upgrade your PC if you want to keep up - which in turn means your shiny new 2080S is suddenly a paperweight... 

 

 

*THAT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE,  OK*

 

 

I don't know what happens but there's definitely a high probability something like that could happen.  This is really not so much about power rather than features and new techniques.

 

 

I appreciate what you and Midnitewolf are saying. The new tech of the day will always be dated in a year or 2. New games are made with previous couple generations in mind. They have to or they wont have a market. I have never been a console person, well not since my kids had the Gen1,2 Nintendo. Im to damn old to start now.  

 

  My system is 6 years old and it wasnt a high end build back then. It has served me well for all i have wanted up to and including Witcher 3. My newest title, Total War 3 Kingdoms, was the first time i really had some issues.  It will play, not as well as i would like. Im also chomping at the bit to play RDR2. There is no upgrade path on my 6 year old system. I have the cash to build a fairly high end system now. The time is right in my case. The new rig will be fine for the next 2 - 3 years and should be good enough for at least 5. Time will tell. Waiting for what may or may not come isnt a rabbit hole i want to go down.  

 

Here is my new build plan. 

https://pcpartpicker.com/user/SpyderJerusalem/saved/#view=8GQrVn

 

Will be adding a couple fans, and possibly a CPU cooler if the stock AMD cooler doesn't  give me what i need. May add a PCIe gen 4 SSD at some point. 
I have yet to buy the Mobo, processor and ram.  Tweaks are still possible. 

[Mark Kaine]

15 minutes ago, Shadowjack said:

Waiting for what may or may not come isnt a rabbit hole i want to go down.  

Yes, haha, I understand that.  I was just more generally speaking, a lot of people who don't totally need to upgrade right now want to rather wait until the next console gen is out...

 

Granted probably most of what could come is just exaggerated rumors and shit,  but you never know,  especially with GPUs I could see something big coming - these current cards while powerful are really more just stop gaps,  not that much of a jump from the 1080ti. 

 

You know?  But I get your position as well and yeah, probably your PC will be good for a couple of years at least  

[Midnitewolf]

17 hours ago, Shadowjack said:

I appreciate what you and Midnitewolf are saying. The new tech of the day will always be dated in a year or 2. New games are made with previous couple generations in mind. They have to or they wont have a market. I have never been a console person, well not since my kids had the Gen1,2 Nintendo. Im to damn old to start now.  

 

  My system is 6 years old and it wasnt a high end build back then. It has served me well for all i have wanted up to and including Witcher 3. My newest title, Total War 3 Kingdoms, was the first time i really had some issues.  It will play, not as well as i would like. Im also chomping at the bit to play RDR2. There is no upgrade path on my 6 year old system. I have the cash to build a fairly high end system now. The time is right in my case. The new rig will be fine for the next 2 - 3 years and should be good enough for at least 5. Time will tell. Waiting for what may or may not come isnt a rabbit hole i want to go down.  

 

Here is my new build plan. 

https://pcpartpicker.com/user/SpyderJerusalem/saved/#view=8GQrVn

 

Will be adding a couple fans, and possibly a CPU cooler if the stock AMD cooler doesn't  give me what i need. May add a PCIe gen 4 SSD at some point. 
I have yet to buy the Mobo, processor and ram.  Tweaks are still possible. 

 

Looks like a pretty good build and the 2070 Super should get you probably up to 3 years at 1080p anyway depending on how sensitive you are to wanting the best graphics.

 

 

[Midnitewolf]

19 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

You're arguing something I didn't say though. 

 

For *most* games of a certain graphical fidelity (excluding indies as most of them don't ever come to consoles obviously) consoles are the lead platform,  which means if consoles implement feature XY, and when PCs don't have this feature or an outdated version (for example a theoretically improved Ray tracing technique from AMD - for example!) then you will need to upgrade your PC if you want to keep up - which in turn means your shiny new 2080S is suddenly a paperweight... 

 

 

*THAT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE,  OK*

 

 

I don't know what happens but there's definitely a high probability something like that could happen.  This is really not so much about power rather than features and new techniques.

 

 

I still don't know if I agree. I guess it is a matter of perspective but I just don't see consoles as the force which drives the technology.

 

While it may be true that the focus on gaming has shifted to consoles due to their popularity compared to computers, consoles tend to be at least a generation or two behind PCs in terms of raw horsepower.  Also with most console games that come to PCs, they seem to already have built in features that take advantage of the extra horsepower available in PCs which tells me they have this in mind from the get go.  Honestly, how I see it is that they tend to design the game for the PC but then dumb it down to work on console even when they are playing to release it on the console first.

 

I think a good example of what I am talking about is that we know that the new consoles will be AMD based and that ray tracing is going to be a focus, but ray tracing came out first on the PC and is now trickling down to the console.  Sure the consoles will have next gen ray tracing (or so we hope) but so will the new video cards released around the same time and more than likely those CPU video card will have greater ray tracing features and functionality than what comes to console just due to the fact that the PC will have the horsepower to push those features and the console will not.  Then the process starts again, the new, powerful ray tracing features on the PC video cards, get pushed down to the consoles and it starts all over again.

 

As far as obsolescence is concerned, I think consoles suffer worse issues with this than PCs because consoles have very little in the way of upgrade paths and your only option is to completely replace the entire console when the next generation comes out.  With PC's, as I am sure your aware, you can often swap individual components without having to buy a completely new PC.  If the 2070 Super no longer gets the job done or you need a critical feature only available on the next gen video card, you just swap the card and move on.  

 

Anyway this is just my thoughts on the subject and I may be way off the mark but this is how I see it anyway.

 

 

[hollyh88]

23 hours ago, BTGbullseye said:

What games are you playing that a 2600x is slowing you down?

for example battlefield 5.  ruins the performance of the 2070 super with that cpu. 

[BTGbullseye]

2 hours ago, hollyh88 said:

for example battlefield 5.  ruins the performance of the 2070 super with that cpu. 

It shouldn't.

[hollyh88]

19 hours ago, BTGbullseye said:

It shouldn't.

it does tho  you know there is an issue when your gpu isnt around 95% but near the 70-75% mark at 1440p ultra settings. heck not even with raytracing.

[BTGbullseye]

3 hours ago, hollyh88 said:

it does tho  you know there is an issue when your gpu isnt around 95% but near the 70-75% mark at 1440p ultra settings. heck not even with raytracing.

That's an issue with your system, not with the model of the hardware. I tried maximum settings with BF5 at 1440p when I first got the same GPU, and a 2600 (non-x) was only sitting around 90% usage. (my current 3600 only uses around 80%)

 

Maybe you have something running in the background eating your CPU...

[hollyh88]

19 hours ago, BTGbullseye said:

That's an issue with your system, not with the model of the hardware. I tried maximum settings with BF5 at 1440p when I first got the same GPU, and a 2600 (non-x) was only sitting around 90% usage. (my current 3600 only uses around 80%)

 

Maybe you have something running in the background eating your CPU...

well no other game has that issue only battlefield 5. i know it shouldnt happen but it does. a gpu shouldnt be at 70% when playing a game like battlefield 5  

[BTGbullseye]

3 hours ago, hollyh88 said:

well no other game has that issue only battlefield 5. i know it shouldnt happen but it does. a gpu shouldnt be at 70% when playing a game like battlefield 5  

Indeed, it shouldn't be that low of usage. Either a setting that's wrong, in game or in the driver settings, or there's something running in the background that's eating the CPU only when BF5 is running, or maybe even a glitched game.

 

What GPU driver version are you using? Have you turned on the OpenGL Triple Buffering setting? Do you have an anti-virus program running in the background? (have you tried disabling it while running BF5?)

[hollyh88]

3 hours ago, BTGbullseye said:

Indeed, it shouldn't be that low of usage. Either a setting that's wrong, in game or in the driver settings, or there's something running in the background that's eating the CPU only when BF5 is running, or maybe even a glitched game.

 

What GPU driver version are you using? Have you turned on the OpenGL Triple Buffering setting? Do you have an anti-virus program running in the background? (have you tried disabling it while running BF5?)

i have tried many different things my friend, the ones you mentioned are the ones i tried right at the start  

nothing is eating any usage. nor does my virus program bring issues since turning it off isnt helping. and older gpu drivers dont work either. 
my only and sadly solution that i can tell is that this cpu even though it shouldnt be causing this much of an hold bag is holding back the gpu. at levels where it almost looks like bottleneck xd not terrible but clearly there. maybe its just due to poorly optimizing their game engine though i dont know. 

[BTGbullseye]

7 hours ago, hollyh88 said:

i have tried many different things my friend, the ones you mentioned are the ones i tried right at the start  

nothing is eating any usage. nor does my virus program bring issues since turning it off isnt helping. and older gpu drivers dont work either. 
my only and sadly solution that i can tell is that this cpu even though it shouldnt be causing this much of an hold bag is holding back the gpu. at levels where it almost looks like bottleneck xd not terrible but clearly there. maybe its just due to poorly optimizing their game engine though i dont know. 

It could also be the RAM, though it's not likely. BF5 is optimized more for AMD than Nvidia, so much so that the 5700XT meets or beats the 2080 for framerate at anything less than 4K, so it is possible that it's just the game at issue.

 

Do you have PBO enabled for your CPU, and have you tried overclocking your RAM a little? If it's Micron b-die (which it looks like it might be due to the timings) then You should be able to take it to 3266 with tighter timings, or 3333 with slightly looser timings.

[hollyh88]

17 hours ago, BTGbullseye said:

It could also be the RAM, though it's not likely. BF5 is optimized more for AMD than Nvidia, so much so that the 5700XT meets or beats the 2080 for framerate at anything less than 4K, so it is possible that it's just the game at issue.

 

Do you have PBO enabled for your CPU, and have you tried overclocking your RAM a little? If it's Micron b-die (which it looks like it might be due to the timings) then You should be able to take it to 3266 with tighter timings, or 3333 with slightly looser timings.

im not overly advanced with memory overclocking i simply use the xmp provided making it go on 3200 speed. 
Its not pbo its manually overclocked to 4.1 and its stable no crashes in anything. i doubtt making my ram go at 3266 would change the cpu bottle neck. Its not just battlefield some other games have the issue too which really makes me think that this cpu just isnt good enough for a 2070 super. Maybe a 2700x would be fine but that would be useless i will probably wait. since its not terrible fps it just creates some stuttering issues. i dont play battlefield 5 allot though so its not that terrible i just hope i wont have issues when cyberpunk and dying light 2 get released.