Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Pooky

  1. Yes, I disagree. B550 boards are often much cheaper than a R5 3600X or 3700X, but they make an excellent pairing. I see no reason to spend over $300 on a motherboard for a 3700X unless you are a fringe competitive overclocker.
  2. Why would that be a good thing? I can't think of a single time I have ever spent more on my motherboard than CPU. A 3950X is $700+ on Amazon, and you're telling me that you should not pair it with a motherboard cheaper than that? I respectfully disagree.
  3. You're more likely to find better performance with a new CPU platform for the same net cost. X99 is great, but going back from Broadwell to Haswell to seek better performance is more indicative that you need a platform upgrade than slightly more overclocking potential.
  4. You keep saying that you found a 9700k for $292. You did not. You found a 9700, which is not unlocked.
  5. When you are looking at these cheaper listings, make sure you are looking at QS (quality sample) chips and not ES (engineering sample) chips. The former are very very close and often identical to the final tray stepping, whereas the latter are often less stable and do not clock as high. You can use resources like CPU-World to verify the steppings of the chips. For example, one of the first listings for ~$250 is a E5-2690 v4 QHV4, but CPU-World says that the closer-to-retail stepping is QKE3. https://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Xeon/Intel-Xeon E5-2695 v4.html In general, for v3 chip
  6. I would not recommened the E5-2695 v4 at its current eBay price of $400+. I would recommend instead either dual E5-2697 v3 QS (28c/56t) for $400 or dual E5-2697 v4 QS (36c/72t) for $500. The v3 Haswell-EP chips are generally much cheaper than the equivalent Broadwell-EP chips on eBay, at least at the moment, but it is possible to find some good deals. For example.... If you pair two of these together, they will absolutely spank the 3900X in raw multithreading performance. If your goal is absolute multithreading capability and you aren't as concerned with single-thread performance,
  7. Just snagged an E5-2697 v3 QS for $180 on eBay. This is will make a nice upgrade to my E5-1650 v3 and should allow for much greater virtualisation expansion. What a bargain! Not bad for 3.6GHz dual-core and 3.1GHz all-core. This should satiate me until Skylake-W or Threadripper Colfax come down in price. There are good deals to be had with the Skylake-W Apple QS chips on eBay but unfortunately the cost of entry into Basin Falls C422 is still too high at the moment. What are some good deals you have found?
  8. Great! Out of curiosity, could you share the turbo steppings per core? This information is not readily available online. All I currently know is that it does 4.2GHz on the first two cores and 3.9GHz with 7-8 cores. Information about turbo for 3-4 and 5-6 is unknown. The information should be easy to find with a tool like HWiNFO: Cheers
  9. I suppose I might have won the eBay silicon lottery, then! Not bad for $50. It was a good chip for sure, but I traded up for a E5-1650 v3 and haven't looked back since. Now that the E5-1650 is cheaper than a W3680 on eBay, and the E5-1650 v2 is only slightly more, it's hard to justify buying or upgrading to Westmere. But I do still use it in my home server! Cheers
  10. The Westmere (Gulftown) chips are the better choice, in my opinion (unless, of course, you meant Gulftown as well since the W3590 does not exist). I was able to attain an easy 4.0GHz with a W3680 in a Dell T3500, just from increasing the multiplier. I never messed with voltage, though.
  11. This was my first thought as well, but OP seemed to imply that this is a relatively new PC build. It's worth checking for malware, but if they are starting from a new OS install, malware does seem rather odd. @LeeCope3 If you open up Resource Monitor, does the PC exhibit the same behaviour or can you find the resource hog?
  12. Okay, I've just had a look at some benchmarks with hardware similar to yours, and I think that v-sync is limiting your FPS to your screen's refresh rate. Check the game's settings to see if v-sync is enabled in there and if so, try disabling it. If v-sync is disabled in the game's settings, try Nvidia Control Panel instead. Follow this guide but choose "Off" rather than "Forced on" and save your settings. Let me know if that uncaps your framerate. Cheers.
  13. unclewebb, the author of ThrottleStop, explains it like this: So basically, it is the normal limit the system puts on the CPU to prevent it from overheating. This does not appear to be anything out of the ordinary. Apologies if I am forgetting, but did you ever tell us what resolution and FPS you were getting on Valorant? If your settings are low enough and you are capped at your screen's refresh rate, it's possible that the low GPU usage is cause by v-sync is being forced on. Unfortunately I need to sleep now but hopefully some other, more helpful fellow can pick up t
  14. It wouldn't hurt to try reinstalling drivers, but since you claim that it did not work when you tried, it might be better to check for power limits first. All you need to do is run the software I linked and press the "Limits" button under "PKG Power". That window will show you anything that is limiting power to your system, both CPU and GPU.
  15. Check my edit. I have a few more ideas about power throttling but it would require downloading a software called ThrottleStop to check for limiters. Ex:
  16. I do not see any issues on the CPU side of things. From the way it looks, there might be an issue with your GPU drivers. I noticed in your post history that you had an issue with Valorant before following a GPU driver update. Have you tried uninstalling your current driver with DDU and then reinstalling the driver from GeForce Experience? I can't quite make out what model of GPU your laptop has but since your CPU is very capable, Valorant is well-optimised, and your GPU isn't pegged, I suspect that there may be a driver issue at play. It might not even be a GPU driver issue, but that would be
  17. If you are using a multicore CPU, then even if only one of the cores/threads is being pegged it will still only show overall usage as being lower than 100%. That's because on a 4c/4t CPU, for example, if one core is at 100% utilisation but the other three cores are at 0% utilisation, the overall CPU utilisation will be shown as just 25%. This is accurate, but not helpful when trying to find the bottleneck. One way to find out utilisation on a thread-by-thread basis in Windows 10 is by right-clicking on the CPU graph in Task Manager and selecting 'Change graph to --> Logical processors'
  18. It does not matter because Zen 3 is likely to be the last AM4 series of CPUs. If you buy Zen 2 you will only have one more generation to upgrade to (soon). AMDs history of supporting the same socket is not relevant to the original poster's situation. If you need HCC or XCC CPUs, I would not recommend a Ryzen 9 3950X over a traditional HEDT platform. Ryzen lacks a lot of features that workstation users would usually want to pair with their high core CPUs. If OP for some reason needed more than 10-12 cores, HEDT is usually the smarter option. The Ryzen 9 3950X is largely a halo pr
  19. Ah, see here the i9-10900k is closer to $800 vs $450 for the Ryzen 9 3900XT. If you want to get the 10900k, consider the cost to cool it. The 3900X/XT will draw about 150-160W at peak load whereas the 10900k and can draw between 250-330W at peak. Also consider that you would lose PCIe 4.0 support. Personally I would not think that it is worth it but if you are a high framerate gamer then it might make all the difference.
  20. I don't know, you're the one that wanted to buy the Ryzen 9 3900XT. It's far cheaper than the 10900k because of supply differences and X570 will also support at least one more generation of Ryzen CPUs. But if you would prefer the marginal gaming improvement then it would be something to consider.
  21. GamersNexus detailed this in their recap (timestamped at 4:06).
  22. Obligatory, "it depends on what you intend to do with the CPU." There are actually some nice deals to be found with Cascade Lake-X if you want HEDT features especially when compared to the newest generation of Threadripper. But if you don't want HEDT features or more than ten cores, then Comet Lake-S would generally be better. Cascade Lake-X: Quad-channel memory (up to 94GB/s) Up to 256GB DDR4-2933 AVX-512 48 PCIe lanes Intel Deep Learning Boost Comet Lake-S: Higher clock speeds Cheaper CPU options Ringbus, shared L3 cache m
  23. It looks very nice. You can find the 3900XT for $30 less on eBay. That level PSU is also totally unnecessary and you can save some money there. I hope you don't actually plan to buy a 2080ti unless it's from people liquidating on eBay for <$700. Cheers