$700 Gaming PC

[jerubedo]

2 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Oh, since when is 69,99 $10 more than 79,99???

$69.99 is $10 LESS than $79.99. I said the Ryzen board is $10 cheaper.

[Stefan Payne]

4 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

You can't do that anymore. You need to have the hardware in your computer and detected by their program now in order to claim the games.

there are enough people with an Ryzen 2000 CPU that like to have the games that now come with the CPU...

SO yeah, you can absolutely do that!

[Daniel Z.]

2 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

This benchmark aggregate is from January 2019, so it's already aged.

Wow, a massive 6 months! That’s amazing!

Seriously though, saying a 6 month time proves that the 2060 ages better is ridiculous both are their respective companies newest cards in their market segments. Just wait a few years, like always AMD will end up with better performance from better drivers and more RAM.

[jerubedo]

2 minutes ago, Daniel Z. said:

Wow, a massive 6 months! That’s amazing!

Seriously though, saying a 6 month time proves that the 2060 ages better is ridiculous both are their respective companies newest cards in their market segments. Just wait a few years, like always AMD will end up with better performance from better drivers and more RAM.

No, I'm saying the 56 has already had ample time to age. Not that the 2060 is showing age better. The Vega 56 came out 2 years ago now.

[trevb0t]

Just now, Stefan Payne said:

there are enough people with an Ryzen 2000 CPU that like to have the games that now come with the CPU...

SO yeah, you can absolutely do that!

Division 2 is... Alright. I do play it now and again.

My 580 came with Res Evil 2 which I think is a much better game than the current offerings, and DMC 5 (eh...)

And my CPU came with Division 2.

 

Really though 5 months later, I'm done with those games. They will soon be if they aren't already dropping price in Steam.

My CPU still remains inferior in gaming to a 9600K....

 

Again I do workload, so the Ryzen 2600 makes sense...

But this isn't a huge win in the argument.

[Daniel Z.]

2 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

No, I'm saying the 56 has already had ample time to age. Not that the 2060 is showing age better. The Vega 56 came out 2 years ago now.

“Ample time” This is true, and we’ve seen it constantly improve compared to the Nvidia competitors. 

[jerubedo]

2 minutes ago, Daniel Z. said:

“Ample time” This is true, and we’ve seen it constantly improve compared to the Nvidia competitors. 

Yeah, I'm not arguing that. But this is the problem I have with all the AMD people. You all care more about what comes later. I care about right now. I'd rather have better performance up front than have better performance later. If I want better performance later, I'll sell my current parts and get new parts. And we'll see if they actually make up the 7% difference. They've already come up 5% since launch, so I doubt they have much further they can push things.

[trevb0t]

2 minutes ago, Daniel Z. said:

“Ample time” This is true, and we’ve seen it constantly improve compared to the Nvidia competitors. 

I don't think that @jerubedo is questioning the validity of a V56. They are great cards.

She's saying that Sony's current movement indicates that RT is going to show a big spike.

It is the near future of gaming, whether it's a big thing now or not...

The newest Unreal Engine includes easy access to it for creators... See Anthony's video on it!

 

The argument isn't that your V56 suggestion is bad... It's whether a 2060 with RTX is a better prospect for a few extra bucks given the new data from PS5 hardware.

Either way, if OP can wait for Navi, there may be big stuff there...

[jerubedo]

1 minute ago, trevb0t said:

don't think that @jerubedo is questioning the validity of a V56. They are great cards.

She's saying that Sony's current movement indicates that RT is going to show a big spike.

It is the near future of gaming, whether it's a big thing now or not...

The newest Unreal Engine includes easy access to it for creators... See Anthony's video on it!

This is exactly what I'm saying!

 

1 minute ago, trevb0t said:

The argument isn't that your V56 suggestion is bad... It's whether a 2060 with RTX is a better prospect for a few extra bucks given the new data from PS5 hardware.

Either way, if OP can wait for Navi, there may be big stuff there...

Yep! I think the Vega 56 is just fine. It's a good card, albeit a little power hungry.

[trevb0t]

9 minutes ago, Daniel Z. said:

“Ample time” This is true, and we’ve seen it constantly improve compared to the Nvidia competitors. 

Nobody can look at old gen AMD GPUs and suspect that the Vega aren't going to age well.

They absolutely will.

2 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

Yep! I think the Vega 56 is just fine. It's a good card, albeit a little power hungry.

I usually shrug that off myself, since it's about $10 more for any given unit to grab 100W more PSU  

[Daniel Z.]

6 hours ago, jerubedo said:

Yeah, I'm not arguing that. But this is the problem I have with all the AMD people. You all care more about what comes later. I care about right now. I'd rather have better performance up front than have better performance later. If I want better performance later, I'll sell my current parts and get new parts. And we'll see if they actually make up the 7% difference. They've already come up 5% since launch, so I doubt they have much further they can push things.

Not everyone has the money to keep buying new parts. If we look at the 1060 and 580, the 580 now soundly beats the 1060 in basically every scenario. With RT, I doubt it will be popular, just like VR.

[jerubedo]

1 hour ago, Daniel Z. said:

With RT, I doubt it will be popular, just like VR.

Those two things are not at all comparable. VR requires you to wear and annoying headset, to be active (something not everyone wants), it makes some people physically sick, and it requires extra hardware lying around. 

 

Ray Tracing objectively makes games look better. It's technology that's been leveraged by Disney and Pixar for many many years now and it's the reason our favorite animated films looks so good. Now that all the coming tech will have dedicated support for it, it will be leveraged. Already they are patching in support for older games like Half Life 2.

[Fred944]

10 hours ago, Vejnemojnen said:

Slightly off the record/topik, but last week i had two requests for recommending sub600USD gaming PCs solely from new, store purchased &assembled partz.

 

I went with these 

Asrock b450m Pro4

Ryzen1600 (nice thing apart from being ~30 EUR cheaper than 2600, was it also has a better cooler, wraith spire..) 

2*8 GB patriot viper 4 3200 mhz dual channel rams 

Asrock rx570 phantomgaming x VGA 

Bq System power 9 400w psu 

Patriot burst 240GB ssd

Wd ezex blue 1tb HDD 

Bitfenix neos case or fractal focus g. 

 

This package was probably the best i was able to offer, which is roughly 600USD with assembly by the store. With 27% VAT in my country and the poor, abysmal exchange ratios, it's a fairly fine pack for fhd 60Hz gaming. 

 

If the op would choose 75Hz, he would save quite a lot of money. He should just get a rx580 card and a decent 400-450w psu along with some sub100€ monitor and there wouldnt be problems with esport games. 

 

Imho 

 

Oh and there's upgrade potential for the upcoming ryzen generations later... 

The RX 580 seems like it would be a downgrade from the 980 Ti. I already have the 144hz monitor... I don't play many esports. The game I was playing before my computer was destroyed was odyssey... I already ordered the parts recommended originally and I'm happy. I was happy with the performance I had and I'm getting an upgrade all around. I never had any of the stuttering people are talking about in this thread... and I've played many games, most are big releases. The only game I may have seen some stuttering in is Battlefield V with 64 players, but even then it's once out of every 10 minutes maybe. It's nothing that breaks the game for me...

[Vejnemojnen]

10 minutes ago, Fred944 said:

The RX 580 seems like it would be a downgrade from the 980 Ti. I already have the 144hz monitor... I don't play many esports. The game I was playing before my computer was destroyed was odyssey... I already ordered the parts recommended originally and I'm happy. I was happy with the performance I had and I'm getting an upgrade all around. I never had any of the stuttering people are talking about in this thread... and I've played many games, most are big releases. The only game I may have seen some stuttering in is Battlefield V with 64 players, but even then it's once out of every 10 minutes maybe. It's nothing that breaks the game for me...

Oh I did not know that you've had 980ti and the display at your disposal. I've checked the first post with your choices: fein, will serve you well.

[Daniel Z.]

1 hour ago, jerubedo said:

Those two things are not at all comparable. VR requires you to wear and annoying headset, to be active (something not everyone wants), it makes some people physically sick, and it requires extra hardware lying around. 

 

Ray Tracing objectively makes games look better. It's technology that's been leveraged by Disney and Pixar for many many years now and it's the reason our favorite animated films looks so good. Now that all the coming tech will have dedicated support for it, it will be leveraged. Already they are patching in support for older games like Half Life 2.

From a marketing and economic perspective, they are eerily similar. VR Ready was stamped on everything, just like the new RT marketing, but there was awful game support, just like Ray Tracing, and not many people would spend the amount necessary for more expensive hardware, just like Ray Tracing. 

 

RT in movies is completely different from RT in games. In movies, they have almost unlimited time and money for 100% accurate CPU Ray Tracing. Real time Ray Tracing is unattainable for the vast majority of people because of people the performance impact. Most people don’t play games to stare at sunlight, they play because it’s enjoyable to shoot or build or whatever else. 

[jerubedo]

32 minutes ago, Daniel Z. said:

From a marketing and economic perspective, they are eerily similar. VR Ready was stamped on everything, just like the new RT marketing, but there was awful game support, just like Ray Tracing, and not many people would spend the amount necessary for more expensive hardware, just like Ray Tracing. 

The point is VR is a burden to some people. Ray tracing is just a setting that burdens no one. That's why VR failed. The same with 3D. 3D was also a burden to people: it required glasses, it could be disorienting to people and make them sick, and even if you don't get sick, there's eye strain in long gaming sessions. Ray tracing support is bad right now because only four GPUs have the technology. With Sony now gambling on it and AMD also going in for it, you can bet that it'll be in a large number of games.

 

36 minutes ago, Daniel Z. said:

Real time Ray Tracing is unattainable for the vast majority of people because of people the performance impact.

Not really. Metro Exodus used ray tracing for global illumination, which is currently the most taxing thing you can use it for, and yet all four RTX models are able to achieve 60+ FPS. The 2060 and 2070 do require some other settings to be turned down, but that was the case anyway, as they are not able to hold 60 at max settings without RT and DLSS anyway at 1080p.

 

39 minutes ago, Daniel Z. said:

Most people don’t play games to stare at sunlight, they play because it’s enjoyable to shoot or build or whatever else. 

I think there's a lot who would disagree. Myself included. The look and feel of the world is what kept me so deep into the Witcher 3. I think that was the case for many as well, and I don't think it's a coincidence that it was one of the best selling games of all time.

[Daniel Z.]

1 hour ago, jerubedo said:

The point is VR is a burden to some people. Ray tracing is just a setting that burdens no one. That's why VR failed. The same with 3D. 3D was also a burden to people: it required glasses, it could be disorienting to people and make them sick, and even if you don't get sick, there's eye strain in long gaming sessions. Ray tracing support is bad right now because only four GPUs have the technology. With Sony now gambling on it and AMD also going in for it, you can bet that it'll be in a large number of games.

 

Not really. Metro Exodus used ray tracing for global illumination, which is currently the most taxing thing you can use it for, and yet all four RTX models are able to achieve 60+ FPS. The 2060 and 2070 do require some other settings to be turned down, but that was the case anyway, as they are not able to hold 60 at max settings without RT and DLSS anyway at 1080p.

 

I think there's a lot who would disagree. Myself included. The look and feel of the world is what kept me so deep into the Witcher 3. I think that was the case for many as well, and I don't think it's a coincidence that it was one of the best selling games of all time.

The most popular games like Fortnite, Apex, CSGO, and TF2 are all relatively easy to run. RT is a niche inside the niche of graphics-based games. What really sells games is storyline and enjoyment. Without it, we end up with something like Avatar. Exciting and advanced, but quickly forgotten.

[jerubedo]

Just now, Daniel Z. said:

The most popular games like Fortnite, Apex, CSGO, and TF2 are all relatively easy to run. RT is a niche inside the niche of graphics-based games. What really sells games is storyline and enjoyment. Without it, we end up with something like Avatar. Exciting and advanced, but quickly forgotten.

Except Avatar was the highest grossing film of all time. And the hype for Avatar 2 is pretty high. Those esports titles you mentioned are only popular because they are cheap or free and can be played on nearly any rig, making it accessible to everyone. Plus they are televised games, adding to that mentality. The most popular games of all times just so happen to be those that have pushed technology (graphics) including Final Fantasy VII and VIII, Final Fantasy X (all three of those titles pushed the limits of the consoles they were on), the Witcher 3, GTA V, and the list goes on.

[Daniel Z.]

38 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

Except Avatar was the highest grossing film of all time. And the hype for Avatar 2 is pretty high. Those esports titles you mentioned are only popular because they are cheap or free and can be played on nearly any rig, making it accessible to everyone. Plus they are televised games, adding to that mentality. The most popular games of all times just so happen to be those that have pushed technology (graphics) including Final Fantasy VII and VIII, Final Fantasy X (all three of those titles pushed the limits of the consoles they were on), the Witcher 3, GTA V, and the list goes on.

GTA V is popular now because it can now run on anything. Esports games are popular for the exact reason that you don’t have to spend thousands to run them well. I doubt that RT in consoles will be a big thing, as graphics in general are unimportant in console gaming.

[jerubedo]

11 hours ago, Daniel Z. said:

as graphics in general are unimportant in console gaming.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on that point. The PS4 has been really pushing graphics and wowing people, even myself, who has been accustomed to top tier PC graphics. The likes of God of War, Red Dead Redemption 2, Uncharted 4, Horizon: Zero Dawn, etc. all were VERY oriented towards graphical fidelity. 

[trevb0t]

15 hours ago, Daniel Z. said:

Not everyone has the money to keep buying new parts. If we look at the 1060 and 580, the 580 now soundly beats the 1060 in basically every scenario. With RT, I doubt it will be popular, just like VR.

Ray Tracing is a method by which images are rendered. VR is a type of gear that forces shitty games to be made around it.

ANY game could implement Ray Tracing, just like any can use AO or SSS (all do now, and didn't 8 years ago...) RT has just always been extremely hard to do in real time situations... I remember when we said Anti Aliasing was unlikely to ever work in real time... $5 steam games use it.

 

These are not comparable features...

12 hours ago, Daniel Z. said:

From a marketing and economic perspective, they are eerily similar. VR Ready was stamped on everything, just like the new RT marketing, but there was awful game support, just like Ray Tracing, and not many people would spend the amount necessary for more expensive hardware, just like Ray Tracing. 

 

RT in movies is completely different from RT in games. In movies, they have almost unlimited time and money for 100% accurate CPU Ray Tracing. Real time Ray Tracing is unattainable for the vast majority of people because of people the performance impact. Most people don’t play games to stare at sunlight, they play because it’s enjoyable to shoot or build or whatever else. 

VR gear is $500 plus to play shitty games made specifically for it...

It's a $40 difference between a Vega 56 and an RTX 2060....