Looking for a PC for 1080p max settings 60fps on AAA games

[trevb0t]

6 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Type	Item	Price
CPU	Intel - Core i5-9600K 3.7 GHz 6-Core Processor	$264.89 @ OutletPC

At that pricing, it's hard to argue. In thread count, it's closer to the 2600 with clock speeds equal to the 2700X, but in single core performance it will outperform Ryzen in gaming applicaitons. It is unlocked, so you can OC it if you choose.

[jerubedo]

3 hours ago, celerystruct said:

A lot of people on here have been recommending AMD chips. I'd say that's a better indicator of whether something is reputable than what your friends run.

The problem is they are recommending it across the board because "ZOMG RYZEN GUYS." That's the mentality I'm seeing. Ryzen is indeed a great chip, and I'd recommend it for:

 

- Gaming and Streaming at once

- Dedicated streaming

- 3D Rendering workloads

- Video Rendering (outside of anything Adobe and CAD)

 

For GAMING I can argue that Intel is better at every price point:

 

The i3 8100 beats every Ryzen chip up to the Ryzen 5 2600 at which point it trades blows (but still wins overall when looking at a suite of 15 games) and that chip is only $115 (here is the USA). To be clear we are talking $115 vs $164 (or $127 if you want to look at the 1600 instead of 2600).

 

 

Then you have the 9400F for $175, which HANDILY beats the 2600/2600x/2700 (even when they are OCed). The 2700X OCed trades blows and they are about even. To be clear we are talking about $175 vs $224 for the 2700 (or $165 vs the 2600, $190 for the 2600x)

 

 

 

But then you have the 9600K at $265 which then beats the 2700X OCed. To be clear we are talking $265 vs $290

 

 

Then you have the 9700K and the 9900K which have no competition.

 

 

Of course this might all change with Ryzen 3000. We shall see. I do hope so because the competition has been great and its affected the entire market such that we all benefit.

[jerubedo]

49 minutes ago, trevb0t said:

Also as to the GPU, if you're doing 1080p gaming, really an RX 580, GTX 1060, or 1660ti is going to be PLENTY of GPU for you. You certainly don't need a 2070. That's for a larger res and higher refresh.

Actually that's kind of out the window in the wake of a few recent games, but I'll focus on Metro Exodus for this example since it's the worst. On the 1660 Ti at 1080p Extreme, it can't maintain anywhere near 60 FPS. It stays in the 40s a lot of the time:

 

 

Even the 1080 Ti can struggle on the desert map and dip into the 50s at 1080p (without Ray Tracing).

 

EDIT: Actually, that's on Ultra, not even Extreme. So it spends a lot of the time in the 40s at ULTRA. Extreme is even worse.

EDIT 2: At the end of the video he switches to High preset and even then it still dips below 60.

[trevb0t]

5 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

-snip

Fair, but the Metro series is famously difficultly optimized. If a 1080Ti struggles, then it's just a game almost everything will struggle with. 

 

Generally speaking, those are the 1080p cards, with really the 1660ti on the higher end.

[jerubedo]

27 minutes ago, trevb0t said:

Fair, but the Metro series is famously difficultly optimized. If a 1080Ti struggles, then it's just a game almost everything will struggle with.

 

Generally speaking, those are the 1080p cards, with really the 1660ti on the higher end.

I mostly agree. But then there's also Assassin's Creed Odyssey which exhibits the same behavior (albeit on a smaller scale). Those are 2 recent AAA titles, so it could be a incoming trend. There's no way to know though.

 

A lot of time spent in the 50s on a 1660 Ti 1080p. And in the bigger cities it dips into the mid 40s.

 

Edit: Just as a point of clarification, the GTX 1080 Ti only dips into the 50s sometimes in Metro, it doesn't spend a lot of time there like the 1660 Ti does.

[trevb0t]

34 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

I mostly agree. But then there's also Assassin's Creed Odyssey which exhibits the same behavior (albeit on a smaller scale). Those are 2 recent AAA titles, so it could be a incoming trend. There's no way to know though.

 

A lot of time spent in the 50s on a 1660 Ti 1080p. And in the bigger cities it dips into the mid 40s.

To be fair both examples given are on ULTRA settings on what I'd venture a guess at a 144mhz monitor. I live under the assumption when people ask for advice on a 1080p system, HIGH settings are what they are wanting. (may or may not be the higher refresh, which is why the 1660ti is listed at the top end.)

 

It will always be that there are titles you may have to kick a setting down due to poor optimization. I can't speak to the future releases, but this has always been the case.

 

 

[eman1000]

I'm confused now, I thought the takeaway was I should go with a 2070 paired with a 2600x. Should I be going with Intel for strictly gaming? According to the pcbenchmark tool, the 2600x is slightly better than the i5 9400f. I dont plan on overclocking since I wanna avoid messing things up.

 

Edit: I'd like to be able to do 1080p on ultra, unless 1440p on high (or whatever a 2070 can handle) looks better which I wouldn't know

Edited April 12, 2019 by eman1000

[jerubedo]

2 minutes ago, trevb0t said:

To be fair both examples given are on ULTRA settings on what I'd venture a guess at a 144mhz monitor. I live under the assumption when people ask for advice on a 1080p system, HIGH settings are what they are wanting. (may or may not be the higher refresh, which is why the 1660ti is listed at the top end.)

 

 

The 144Hz monitor doesn't matter. Sub-60 FPS is still sub-60 on 144Hz or 60Hz

 

But yeah I guess we fundamentally disagree on settings then! I ALWAYS aim for ultra (or beyond) and I know a lot of people in the same boat. I sit inches from my monitor so I tend to actually notice subtle differences between High vs Ultra or even Ultra vs Max

[jerubedo]

29 minutes ago, eman1000 said:

I'm confused now, I thought the takeaway was I should go with a 2070 paired with a 2600x. Should I be going with Intel for strictly gaming? According to the pcbenchmark tool, the 2600x is slightly better than the i5 9400f. I dont plan on overclocking since I wanna avoid messing things up.

 

Edit: I'd like to be able to do 1080p on ultra, unless 1440p on high (or whatever a 2070 can handle) looks better which I wouldn't know

See the videos I posted above. The 9400F or the 9600K will do better in gaming. The data speaks for itself. Do either with a 2070. PcBenchmark gives an overall system benchmark, not just gaming so those results are largely irrelevant for a strictly gaming system. Benchmarks are also not indicative of real world performance, they just represent the best possible results assuming that code is 100% optimized (which in the real world, no code really is). As long as you aren't doing any rendering or other similar productivity workloads then the 9400F wins by a wide margin over the 2600x and the 9600K beats everything AMD has to offer. I'd go with this build personally. OC the 9600K to 5.0GHz if you want to and you are golden :

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Type	Item	Price
CPU	Intel - Core i5-9600K 3.7 GHz 6-Core Processor	$264.89 @ OutletPC
CPU Cooler	Noctua - NH-D14 64.95 CFM CPU Cooler	$74.95 @ Amazon
Motherboard	Gigabyte - Z390 UD ATX LGA1151 Motherboard	$109.99 @ Amazon
Memory	Crucial - Ballistix Sport LT 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3200 Memory	$89.29 @ Newegg
Storage	Intel - 660p Series 1 TB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive	$102.99 @ Newegg
Video Card	Gigabyte - GeForce RTX 2070 8 GB WINDFORCE Video Card	$479.99 @ Newegg
Case	Corsair - SPEC-DELTA RGB ATX Mid Tower Case	$79.99 @ Corsair
Power Supply	Corsair - RMx (2018) 550 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply	$63.98 @ Newegg
	Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts
	Total (before mail-in rebates)	$1286.07
	Mail-in rebates	-$20.00
	Total	$1266.07
	Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-04-12 17:09 EDT-0400

 

Here's the performance you can expect out of a 9600K paired with an RTX 2070 at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. I know this is a comparison video, just ignore the 1080 and look at the 2070 (it's paired with the 9600K). This should be close to your actual performance (at stock, not even OCed):

 

 

For Metro Exodus and Assassin's Creed Odyssey it will also mostly maintain above 60 FPS.

[jerubedo]

46 minutes ago, trevb0t said:

It will always be that there are titles you may have to kick a setting down due to poor optimization

There's a difference, though, between demanding and poorly optimized. Both Metro and AC:Odyssey in their current states aren't poorly optimized. They are demanding. The visual fidelity they provide can be justified by horsepower they are eating up (this statement will be subjective I understand).

 

Poorly optimized games would be the likes of Batman Arkham City and Assassin's Creed Origins both of which suffered from terrible CPU utilization and bottlenecked the crap out of the GPU for no real reason.

 

Just Cause 4 would be a more recent poorly optimized game as well. For the amount of GPU and CPU it uses, the graphics just don't justify it.

[eman1000]

1 hour ago, jerubedo said:

See the videos I posted above. The 9400F or the 9600K will do better in gaming. The data speaks for itself. Do either with a 2070. PcBenchmark gives an overall system benchmark, not just gaming so those results are largely irrelevant for a strictly gaming system. Benchmarks are also not indicative of real world performance, they just represent the best possible results assuming that code is 100% optimized (which in the real world, no code really is). As long as you aren't doing any rendering or other similar productivity workloads then the 9400F wins by a wide margin over the 2600x and the 9600K beats everything AMD has to offer. I'd go with this build personally. OC the 9600K to 5.0GHz if you want to and you are golden :

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Type	Item	Price
CPU	Intel - Core i5-9600K 3.7 GHz 6-Core Processor	$264.89 @ OutletPC
CPU Cooler	Noctua - NH-D14 64.95 CFM CPU Cooler	$74.95 @ Amazon
Motherboard	Gigabyte - Z390 UD ATX LGA1151 Motherboard	$109.99 @ Amazon
Memory	Crucial - Ballistix Sport LT 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3200 Memory	$89.29 @ Newegg
Storage	Intel - 660p Series 1 TB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive	$102.99 @ Newegg
Video Card	Gigabyte - GeForce RTX 2070 8 GB WINDFORCE Video Card	$479.99 @ Newegg
Case	Corsair - SPEC-DELTA RGB ATX Mid Tower Case	$79.99 @ Corsair
Power Supply	Corsair - RMx (2018) 550 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply	$63.98 @ Newegg
	Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts
	Total (before mail-in rebates)	$1286.07
	Mail-in rebates	-$20.00
	Total	$1266.07
	Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-04-12 17:09 EDT-0400

 

Here's the performance you can expect out of a 9600K paired with an RTX 2070 at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. I know this is a comparison video, just ignore the 1080 and look at the 2070 (it's paired with the 9600K). This should be close to your actual performance (at stock, not even OCed):

 

 

For Metro Exodus and Assassin's Creed Odyssey it will also mostly maintain above 60 FPS.

This looks great. So basically for strictly gaming (and without oc since I'm a noob), the 9600k will give me the best value over an i7 and the 2600x? The only thing is it's about $140 more to have a 9600k over a 2600x, but if it's better than it's worth it.

 

Edit: Also, does it matter if I get this case instead: NZXT - H500 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case

I just like how it looks more and I don't care for RGB. Also, shouldn't there also be an OS in the list?

[jerubedo]

10 minutes ago, eman1000 said:

This looks great. So basically for strictly gaming (and without oc since I'm a noob), the 9600k will give me the best value over an i7 and the 2600x? The only thing is it's about $140 more to have a 9600k over a 2600x, but if it's better than it's worth it.

 

Edit: Also, does it matter if I get this case instead: NZXT - H500 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case

I just like how it looks more and I don't care for RGB

That case is just fine. For the CPU, if you won't OC then I'd shift over to the 9400F for a lot cheaper. Much better value. It still beats the 2600x, but instead of being $140 more, it's $10 more (which is definitely worth the extra performance). Here's a revised build based on your feedback and with the tower you chose:

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Type	Item	Price
CPU	Intel - Core i5-9400F 2.9 GHz 6-Core Processor	$174.89 @ OutletPC
CPU Cooler	Cooler Master - Hyper 212 Black Edition 42 CFM CPU Cooler	$31.99 @ Amazon
Motherboard	Gigabyte - Z390 UD ATX LGA1151 Motherboard	$109.99 @ Amazon
Memory	Crucial - Ballistix Sport LT 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3200 Memory	$89.29 @ Newegg
Storage	Intel - 660p Series 1 TB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive	$102.99 @ Newegg
Video Card	Gigabyte - GeForce RTX 2070 8 GB WINDFORCE Video Card	$479.99 @ Newegg
Case	NZXT - H500 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case	$69.99 @ Amazon
Power Supply	Corsair - RMx (2018) 550 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply	$63.98 @ Newegg
	Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts
	Total (before mail-in rebates)	$1143.11
	Mail-in rebates	-$20.00
	Total	$1123.11
	Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-04-12 19:05 EDT-0400

 

[eman1000]

2 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

That case is just fine. For the CPU, if you won't OC then I'd shift over to the 9400F for a lot cheaper. Much better value. It still beats the 2600x, but instead of being $140 more, it's $30 more (which is definitely worth the extra performance). Here's a revised build based o your feedback and with the tower you chose:

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Type	Item	Price
CPU	Intel - Core i5-9400F 2.9 GHz 6-Core Processor	$174.89 @ OutletPC
CPU Cooler	Noctua - NH-D14 64.95 CFM CPU Cooler	$74.95 @ Amazon
CPU Cooler	Cooler Master - Hyper 212 Black Edition 42 CFM CPU Cooler	$31.99 @ Amazon
Motherboard	Gigabyte - Z390 UD ATX LGA1151 Motherboard	$109.99 @ Amazon
Memory	Crucial - Ballistix Sport LT 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3200 Memory	$89.29 @ Newegg
Storage	Intel - 660p Series 1 TB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive	$102.99 @ Newegg
Video Card	Gigabyte - GeForce RTX 2070 8 GB WINDFORCE Video Card	$479.99 @ Newegg
Case	NZXT - H500 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case	$69.99 @ Amazon
Power Supply	Corsair - RMx (2018) 550 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply	$63.98 @ Newegg
	Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts
	Total (before mail-in rebates)	$1218.06
	Mail-in rebates	-$20.00
	Total	$1198.06
	Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-04-12 19:04 EDT-0400

 

Thanks. But even without considering oc, isn't the 9700k just better than the 9400f? In the video the 9700k was getting just above 60 at 1440p, wouldn't the downgrade make this less?

[jerubedo]

11 minutes ago, eman1000 said:

Thanks. But even without considering oc, isn't the 9700k just better than the 9400f? In the video the 9700k was getting just above 60 at 1440p, wouldn't the downgrade make this less?

Yes, the 9700K is pretty much top dog, period (the 9900K is really the best but only marginally better). But bear in mind that's a $410 part and it's really only going to push FPS further on even higher end cards like the 2080 Ti. The 9400F/9600K are far better pairings for the 2070 and you'd be hard pressed to find a situation in which they are the bottleneck for the 2070. So it's really up to you on which processor you choose. Is the 9700K worth the extra small gains you might get for over $250 more? Probably not. Is the 9600K at stock worth the extra $130 for the extra few FPS you'll get. Maybe? But probably still not.

[jerubedo]

13 minutes ago, eman1000 said:

In the video the 9700k was getting just above 60 at 1440p

The limiting factor there was still the GPU, not the CPU. If you want to really push framerates beyond 60 at 1440p then you'd probably want a n RTX 2080.

[eman1000]

2 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

The limiting factor there was still the GPU, not the CPU.

Yeah sorry, I misspoke. I meant 9600k. I see now, so basically, the 9400f will not bottleneck the 2070? If it won't, what you're saying is there's no added performance and no reason to get a 9600k?

[jerubedo]

9 minutes ago, eman1000 said:

Yeah sorry, I misspoke. I meant 9600k. I see now, so basically, the 9400f will not bottleneck the 2070? If it won't, what you're saying is there's no added performance and no reason to get a 9600k?

This video shows the difference (using a 2080 Ti though). At stock the differences are certainly nominal, and on the 2070 they'd be even more nominal.

 

One thing to consider, though, is that the 9600K still is the better option IF you ever want to upgrade the GPU AND IF you are willing to OC it. So your choice really rests on those two questions.

 

EDIT: I posted the wrong video, too many tabs open!

[eman1000]

3 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

This video shows the difference (using a 2080 Ti though). At stock the differences are certainly nominal, and on the 2070 they'd be even more nominal.

 

 

One thing to consider, though, is that the 9600K still is the better option IF you ever want to upgrade the GPU AND IF you are willing to OC it. So your choice really rests on those two questions.

 

4 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

This video shows the difference (using a 2080 Ti though). At stock the differences are certainly nominal, and on the 2070 they'd be even more nominal.

 

 

One thing to consider, though, is that the 9600K still is the better option IF you ever want to upgrade the GPU AND IF you are willing to OC it. So your choice really rests on those two questions.

But the video's comparing a 2070 and a 1080.. I'm just trying to understand, so bear with me. Obviously the 9600k will not bottleneck the 1080 or 2070 as shown by the video, but my question by the same token is: will the 9400f bottleneck the 2070? And if it doesn't, then is there any added performance in a 9600k/2070 than a 9400f/2070?

[jerubedo]

2 minutes ago, eman1000 said:

 

But the video's comparing a 2070 and a 1080.. I'm just trying to understand, so bear with me. Obviously the 9600k will not bottleneck the 1080 or 2070 as shown by the video, but my question by the same token is: will the 9400f bottleneck the 2070? And if it doesn't, then is there any added performance in a 9600k/2070 than a 9400f/2070?

Yeah I edited my post. I posted the wrong video, sorry for the confusion. I had too many tabs open and copied the wrong URL. This one:

 

 

It will not bottleneck the 2070, but it will still provide some extra performance, but only like 1-2 FPS in most cases.

[eman1000]

1 minute ago, jerubedo said:

Yeah I edited my post. I posted the wrong video, sorry for the confusion. I had too many tabs open and copied the wrong URL. This one:

 

 

Interesting. So basically, processors work by capacity, rather than simply a better processor delivering better performance with the same GC? Like assuming a 9400f can fully handle a 2070's demands (at least I think that's what you said), will the 9400f/2070 perform the same as a 9600k/2070?

[jerubedo]

5 minutes ago, eman1000 said:

Interesting. So basically, processors work by capacity, rather than simply a better processor delivering better performance with the same GC? Like assuming a 9400f can fully handle a 2070's demands (at least I think that's what you said), will the 9400f/2070 perform the same as a 9600k/2070?

Roughly speaking, yes, that's correct. Better CPUs still deliver slightly higher average FPS on the whole despite the fact that they aren't a bottleneck per se, but it's usually pretty marginal just like in that video. That particular video was using a 1080 Ti which is a little more powerful than the 2070, so you can still expect some gains, but very little!

[eman1000]

2 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

Roughly speaking, yes, that's correct. Better CPUs still deliver slightly higher average FPS on the whole despite the fact that they aren't a bottleneck, but it's usually pretty marginal just like in that video.

Perfect, so I'll just go with a 9400f/2070

 

Also, why are there two CPU coolers in the most recent list you made? 

[jerubedo]

2 minutes ago, eman1000 said:

Perfect, so I'll just go with a 9400f/2070

 

Also, why are there two CPU coolers in the most recent list you made? 

That was a mistake I edited out like 30 seconds after I posted it. You really respond to things quickly lol! Scroll back up to see the correction. Just the 212 Black cooler will do. Total should be $1123.11

[eman1000]

Yeah sorry lol, just excited

 

Thanks so much for helping me out

[eman1000]

3 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

That was a mistake I edited out like 30 seconds after I posted it. You really respond to things quickly lol! Scroll back up to see the correction. Just the 212 Black cooler will do. Total should be $1123.11

Yeah sorry lol, just excited

 

Thanks so much for helping me out (forgot to use the reply button)