Jump to content

linus so this all part you use on this 4k build ? (sorry if wrong psu cause i don't know what type seasonic are that)
 

 
CPU: AMD FX-6350 3.9GHz 6-Core Processor  ($114.99 @ Newegg) 
Motherboard: MSI 970 GAMING ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($97.99 @ SuperBiiz) 
Video Card: Sapphire Radeon R9 285 2GB Dual-X Video Card  ($224.99 @ Newegg) 
Case: NZXT S340 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case  ($59.99 @ NZXT) 
Power Supply: SeaSonic 500W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply  ($56.99 @ SuperBiiz) 
Total: $847.56
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-12-26 11:27 EST-0500

Current Build + Setup

AMD Ryzen 7 5700X | GIGABYTE B550 Aorus Pro v2 | CORSAIR Dominator Platinum 16gb 3600Mhz | GIGABYTE RTX 3070 AORUS MASTER OC 8 GB | NZXT H510 Elite | 2TB Seagate Barracuda 7200RPM | ADATA XPG GAMMIX S7 512GB M.2-2280 NVME | Corsair RM850 80+ Gold Modular PSU | NZXT Kraken X63 | Harman Kardon Soundstick 4 | Koorui 27E1Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

awesome built, and a perfect 4k accessible machine

 

GREAT video Linus :wub:

 

 

 

i hope the blue and green boys don't get them too much envy after this

 

(and don't start call Linus fanboy blue guys, he did a great video)

 

 

 

the R9 285 is the perfect card for this build

 

(ask apple if you don't believe me)

 

 

 

and i like the FX 6350 choice also

(six cores is the new black this days to tell the true)

 

 

 

and my last point is...

 

we don't need a 144 fps gameplay...

 

if all 4k...

 

only run at 60 fps :lol:

 

 

 

80 fps is fine

 

60 fps is fine

 

40 fps is fine ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting approach to this take on 4K gaming.  I like that this makes something like 4K seem that much more attainable to a budding PC enthusiast who wants ALL of the pixels for pooning nubs on Summoner's Rift.  Too many people I feel get caught up in the hype of top tier AAA games and forget that there are tons of other great titles out there that are either free to play or are just really well optimized regardless of screen resolution and are just as fun to play as a bigger title that requires ALL of the GPUs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thank you. That should make all the clueless children STFU. (who am i kidding)

 

@ 4k, even at 1440p.... the CPU for gaming is 100% Irrelevant; WHEN paired with a SINGLE strong video card. (noone should go two cards anyway)

 

For future proofing OBVIOUSLY you should go for the AMD 6 core instead of a more expensive intel 4core.

If you buy intel out of principle you DESERVE to waste your money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. That should make all the clueless children STFU. (who am i kidding)

 

@ 4k, even at 1440p.... the CPU for gaming is 100% Irrelevant; WHEN paired with a SINGLE strong video card. (noone should go two cards anyway)

 

For future proofing OBVIOUSLY you should go for the AMD 6 core instead of a more expensive intel 4core.

If you buy intel out of principle you DESERVE to waste your money.

You do realize that's because those framerates are absolutely atrocious (8 minimum in places? REALLY?) and unplayable. It's not hard for a CPU to get 30 FPS even if it's crap. If you want to run 60fps minimum in games, an AMD CPU won't do it for all but a few, where even a locked Intel i5 will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember folks...the video was sponsored by AMD so their components had to be used.....if it was a non-AMD/Intel sponsor, confident that Linus would have used some other components.  Just did a quick "all AMD" build with 4K monitor....around 1500.  Monitor alone was a tad over 500 dollars US.  So if I had the monitor already...would cost me a grand using a 290...many people are hating on Linus for doing this (look at the YouTube comments) but again, sponsored by AMD....he has done Intel sponsored rigs in the past as most have.

 

Note: As I follow what AMD is/is not doing.....the 285 does not make sense right now....if they would have pushed it out during the release of the 290 with 3GB of VRAM, believe it would have sold more....

 

 

http://pcpartpicker.com/user/dajens72/saved/Jxw8TW

Case: Silverstone SG09B Motherboard: MSI Z10 Morter M-ATX CPU: I5-6600K  Ram: Corsair LP 2400 DD4 16GB GPU: MSI RX 480 Storage: Seagate HDD Baracuda 2TB x2, Crucial M200 500GB SSD X2 (Raid 0)PSU: Silverstone Strider Gold 1000W w/PP05E Kit

 

"When to say :blink: WTF :blink: ....$2K rig only used for Minesweeper and Internet Checkers marathons...."

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Nick :D 

Why is it all AMD? a locked i5 and cheap motherboard would probably be better for the future because whats the point of having to upgrade your fx CPU also when in the future you have some money for a new GPU but your CPU will be slowing it down

 

AMD fx cpus have lower min FPS at times over intel which is a huge deal breaking, an even bigger deal at 4k if you want to upgrade you're not limiting your future options because you went with an AMD cpu today. So yes it matters... quite a bit.

GPU but your CPU can't even support it

 

When you raise the settings and resolution it reduces bottlenecks if I remember correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

How much is the monitor and what's the model again?

 

EDIT: NM, just saw it a few posts above. :)

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize that's because those framerates are absolutely atrocious (8 minimum in places? REALLY?) and unplayable. It's not hard for a CPU to get 30 FPS even if it's crap. If you want to run 60fps minimum in games, an AMD CPU won't do it for all but a few, where even a locked Intel i5 will.

 

Should have looked at the benchmarks instead of just scrolling through them afap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, I've been thinking about going with an AMD graphics card for a while now and this video is really reassuring  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, I've been thinking about going with an AMD graphics card for a while now and this video is really reassuring  :D

 

As i see it - freesync/gsync is the deciding factor.

 

If freesync is AT LEAST as good as gsync then its a no brainer to go AMD. Cuz you also get Mantle. And Mantle is still miles better than latest version of DX12 or OpenGL for gaming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

What if you take this build (or something similar like replacing the CPU with Athlon 860k and R9 290 for GPU) and use a 1080p monitor to push 4k via VSR?

How would that go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

What if you take this build (or something similar like replacing the CPU with Athlon 860k and R9 290 for GPU) and use a 1080p monitor to push 4k via VSR?

How would that go?

It wouldn't look nearly as good as native 4k and there would be bottlenecks at 1080p (for when you don't play at 4k downsampled).

I don't recommend that combination overall unless you plan on actually getting a 4k monitor in the near future.

RIP in pepperonis m8s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Fate!

Ahhh So even with VSR (only), the effect of higher resolution gaming becoming less CPU-dependent still holds true? Cool!

 

 

on another note, dat avatar! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Fate!

Ahhh So even with VSR (only), the effect of higher resolution gaming becoming less CPU-dependent still holds true? Cool!

on another note, dat avatar! :)

This is a good estimation of how it works: a CPU is good enough for X avg fps on max settings in a game, and a GPU is good for Y. The fps you see is the lowest of the two. Why 4K seems to alleviate bottlenecks is because it drastically lowers Y to below X because it's so much more demanding. It doesnt actually increase X. This is why @ misinterpreted his graphs. An FX cpu CAN get 30 fps avg in somewhat demanding games, but if you want a min of 60 in demanding games, you want Intel's architecture.

Basically, if a CPU is insufficient for a game, it doesnt matter if you play at 4k or 720p. Likewise, if its sufficient, you can crank the GPU settings as high as your GPU will allow. In this case, these were very low demanding games so it was fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

(noone should go two cards anyway)

 

Wut? The whole point of this video is that the games are are really, really popular just aren't demanding. That's why you can run them at 4K with not a particularly good CPU and a upper-middle GPU.

 

If you want to play games like Far Cry 4 and Dragon Age Inquisition at 4K you're going to want two GPUs (either 970s or 290Xs) because otherwise it just won't be playable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting video.  Very relevant to me for three reasons.  Firstly i'm in the market for a bigger monitor having dropped my 24".  Secondly I'm a casual gamer playing only CS GO and a frew free to play titles.  Thirdly I did not appreciate that a good 400W PSU is sufficient for an R9 285

 

If you still have the set up it would be interesting to see how low you can go with the GPU and still maintain playable rates at 4k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting video.  Very relevant to me for three reasons.  Firstly i'm in the market for a bigger monitor having dropped my 24".  Secondly I'm a casual gamer playing only CS GO and a frew free to play titles.  Thirdly I did not appreciate that a good 400W PSU is sufficient for an R9 285

 

If you still have the set up it would be interesting to see how low you can go with the GPU and still maintain playable rates at 4k

I have a R9 270 and can play pretty much every easy-to-run game like CS:GO, LoL, WoW, pretty much all racing titles, War  Thunder, etc at 4k...

Most newer AAA titles are a big no no though.

 

That being said, I would recommend at least a R9 290 for 4k so you can play pretty much any game you want at 4k with decent settings (medium or higher).

RIP in pepperonis m8s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a R9 270 and can play pretty much every easy-to-run game like CS:GO, LoL, WoW, pretty much all racing titles, War  Thunder, etc at 4k...

Most newer AAA titles are a big no no though.

 

That being said, I would recommend at least a R9 290 for 4k so you can play pretty much any game you want at 4k with decent settings (medium or higher).

 

Out of interest how does the 4k monitor look when running programmes and games at 1080p?  Do you get nice crisp text in windows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of interest how does the 4k monitor look when running programmes and games at 1080p?  Do you get nice crisp text in windows?

Games look like 1080p, and when you're directly comparing that to 4k, they look flat out bad; so I opt for 1440p when I can.

Windows text is super sharp and there's a ton of screen real estate. 

RIP in pepperonis m8s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good estimation of how it works: a CPU is good enough for X avg fps on max settings in a game, and a GPU is good for Y. The fps you see is the lowest of the two. Why 4K seems to alleviate bottlenecks is because it drastically lowers Y to below X because it's so much more demanding. It doesnt actually increase X. This is why @ misinterpreted his graphs. An FX cpu CAN get 30 fps avg in somewhat demanding games, but if you want a min of 60 in demanding games, you want Intel's architecture.

Basically, if a CPU is insufficient for a game, it doesnt matter if you play at 4k or 720p. Likewise, if its sufficient, you can crank the GPU settings as high as your GPU will allow. In this case, these were very low demanding games so it was fine.

 

But what about the benchmarks at the end of that AMD build log video? I cant shake the feeling that you are incorrect after seeing that fx6350 delivering around or above 60fps for all them games at 4k... not to mention delivering around 120fps for CS GO even.

 

I will agree to you instantly, if im proven wrong. I dont care about being right... just care about the truth.

But it SEEMS to me that if you go 4k, the CPU really is largely irrelevant WHEN paired with a single strong video card ...and a 100$ cpu will be EXACTLY as fast as a 1000$ cpu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

(for me) this is the best Linus video of 2014  :lol: hurray !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×