Hi i have a question

[sejmroz]

english is not my first language so sorry for mistakes

So my pc today has amd athlon x4 840 16gb of ram and rx 460 and i want to get upgrade but i dont know what to upgrade first i can either buy first amd ryzen 5 2600x and 16gb ram and motherboard or new gpu 1660Ti 8gb or rx vega 56 from saphire the pulse version and than if i would buy the cpu ram and mobo i would get like rx 590 and if i would get the gpu first i would get amd ryzen 1600/1600x and cheap motherboard and 16gb of ram all new

cpuz cpu :https://imgur.com/glBVGKg

cpuz ram :https://imgur.com/1Oabvf1

msi afterburner :https://imgur.com/iKpeTQo

[Zando_]

I'd go for the R5 1600 and a vega 56. The 1660 Ti is a great card but it's 6GB (ya had a typo there) and can't outperform the V56. At stock the V56 competes with a 1070 IIRC, OCed it's even better. I had an R5 1600 and that kept up with a 1080 just fine so you should be fine with that combo. Only things the V56 has going against it is that it runs hot at stock and eats a lot of power, if your PSU can't feed it then the 1660 Ti is a good option (had 0 issues with mine at 1080p144Hz). 

[Turtle Rig]

1 minute ago, Zando Bob said:

I'd go for the R5 1600 and a vega 56. The 1660 Ti is a great card but it's 6GB (ya had a typo there) and can't outperform the V56. At stock the V56 competes with a 1070 IIRC, OCed it's even better. I had an R5 1600 and that kept up with a 1080 just fine so you should be fine with that combo. Only things the V56 has going against it is that it runs hot at stock and eats a lot of power, if your PSU can't feed it then the 1660 Ti is a good option (had 0 issues with mine at 1080p144Hz). 

Why not a RX 570 for a amazing price to go along great with the CPU and what not.

[Zando_]

1 minute ago, Turtle Rig said:

Why not a RX 570 for a amazing price to go along great with the CPU and what not.

Because the OP said they had the 1660 Ti and Vega 56 as options if they got an R5 1600, so why the fuck would I recommend a GPU that performs at far, far below the level of either of those cards? I've had an RX570, they don't compete with a 1660 Ti (which I also have). If you can afford the 1660 Ti or V56 they're much better performers and the 570 isn't even an option, it competes at the 1050 Ti price point. 

[Turtle Rig]

1 minute ago, Zando Bob said:

Because the OP said they had the 1660 Ti and Vega 56 as options if they got an R5 1600, so why the fuck would I recommend a GPU that performs at far, far below the level of either of those cards? I've had an RX570, they don't compete with a 1660 Ti (which I also have). If you can afford the 1660 Ti or V56 they're much better performers and the 570 isn't even an option, it competes at the 1050 Ti price point. 

Thanks for clearing that up Zando Bob.... Were on the same page now lol!  Ya I have no experience with AMD video card, but I got my mate a RX 570 when he had a Core 2 Quad 8GB RAM system lol.  He has upgrade anxiety or something.  Anyhow he told me its soo fast and smooth but drops frames in certain areas.  I told him once we get you a new box you will get huge boost in FPS and what not.  So I got him a 2700x  Gigabyte X470 Ultra Gaming and now he is blown away at how smooth games are even Lara Croft and what not.  He was in shock and he uses vsync on so hes stuck at 60fps but sustained.  I wish I got him a 580 but oh well.  This is why I mentioned RX 570 and what not.  So ya my bad...  But ya hes happy.  He came from a 760 GTX btw.  So ya once again this is why I said why not a RX 570.  But thanks for clearing it all up ZB.  Thank you

[Zando_]

1 minute ago, Turtle Rig said:

Thanks for clearing that up Zando Bob.... Were on the same page now lol!  Ya I have no experience with AMD video card, but I got my mate a RX 570 when he had a Core 2 Quad 8GB RAM system lol.  He has upgrade anxiety or something.  Anyhow he told me its soo fast and smooth but drops frames in certain areas.  I told him once we get you a new box you will get huge boost in FPS and what not.  So I got him a 2700x  Gigabyte X470 Ultra Gaming and now he is blown away at how smooth games are even Lara Croft and what not.  He was in shock and he uses vsync on so hes stuck at 60fps but sustained.  I wish I got him a 580 but oh well.  This is why I mentioned RX 570 and what not.  So ya my bad...  But ya hes happy.  He came from a 760 GTX btw.  So ya once again this is why I said why not a RX 570.  But thanks for clearing it all up ZB.  Thank you

If you "have no experience with AMD video card" then why would you recommend one? I recommend the Vega 56 because I've done my reading on that and actually ran it's big brother, the Vega FE (RX Vega 64 but with 16GB VRAM, basically). I recommend the 1660 Ti because I've done my reading on that and actually have one, in my rig, right now. If you don't know anything about the GPU you just recommended, and admit that to my face, why would you recommend it in the first place. 

 

You do this all the time on other threads too, if you're gonna throw out an option, at least do a few minutes of Google research on it first to see if it's at least decent. Takes about 2 minutes to see the RX 570 performs far below the 1660 Ti and Vega 56, and if you've ever read up on it before you'd know it's usually pitched as a better option in the 1050 Ti range, sometimes as a cheaper 1060 3GB alternative, but only its bigger brother the 580 is pitched against the 1060 6GB (sometimes the 590, haven't seen those recommended much because they're usually just an OCed 580 that costs more). All of which are GPUs below the 1660 Ti and Vega 56 (both around 1070 territory depending on clocks and such). 

[sejmroz]

and what do you think about the option i buy first the ryzen 5 2600x and then the rx 590?

and my psu in 600watt unit from zalman

[Zando_]

3 minutes ago, sejmroz said:

and what do you think about the option i buy first the ryzen 5 2600x and then the rx 590?

and my psu in 700watt unit from zalman

I'd rather go with a beefier GPU than CPU. The 2600X is a decent upgrade over a 1600, but it's not massive and a Vega 56 or 1660 Ti will let you run a higher res with better settings, or up them on your current res/run a higher refresh rate. Depending on the game the 1660 Ti ranges from equal to the 590 to a decent chunk better, and the V56 is pretty consistently above both: https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3445-evga-gtx-1660-ti-xc-review-benchmark

 

Like I said I've ran a 1600 with a 1080 and didn't have any issues, so if it's a tradeoff of a 2000 series or a better GPU, I'd get the 1600, 3000MHz RAM (CL14 or CL16, 1st gen Ryzens don't like going past 2933 unless you're on specific B-die kits so there's no need for 3200Mhz RAM or higher), and a Vega 56 assuming that Zalman PSU is a quality unit and will handle the Vega. If you decide you don't want that, then the 1660 Ti would be the next step down, and if you just plan to stick with 1080p60 and want a better CPU, the 2600X/590 combo is your winner. You do have a plus in the fact that none of these combos will be bad, they're all solid, well rounded setups so you should have a good gaming experience with any of them. Really depends on if you want a slightly better CPU or a decent chunk more GPU performance. 

[sejmroz]

thank you so much for the help i think i will go with the vega 56 and then in december buy the 1600 and mobo and ram that sems like the best way to upgrade my pc

[Turtle Rig]

17 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

If you "have no experience with AMD video card" then why would you recommend one? I recommend the Vega 56 because I've done my reading on that and actually ran it's big brother, the Vega FE (RX Vega 64 but with 16GB VRAM, basically). I recommend the 1660 Ti because I've done my reading on that and actually have one, in my rig, right now. If you don't know anything about the GPU you just recommended, and admit that to my face, why would you recommend it in the first place. 

 

You do this all the time on other threads too, if you're gonna throw out an option, at least do a few minutes of Google research on it first to see if it's at least decent. Takes about 2 minutes to see the RX 570 performs far below the 1660 Ti and Vega 56, and if you've ever read up on it before you'd know it's usually pitched as a better option in the 1050 Ti range, sometimes as a cheaper 1060 3GB alternative, but only its bigger brother the 580 is pitched against the 1060 6GB (sometimes the 590, haven't seen those recommended much because they're usually just an OCed 580 that costs more). All of which are GPUs below the 1660 Ti and Vega 56 (both around 1070 territory depending on clocks and such). 

Because I bought my brother a RX 570 and it blew him away at Core 2 Quad 8GB RAM.  I told him things will get faster when he ugprades.  So I bought him a 2700x Gigabyte X470 Gaming Ultra and 32GB Trident Z RGB and he is amazed at how smooth all games are now.  He says he can even play Lara Croft with high settings and its smooth like butter.  So I have no experience but after seeing what this RX 570 did for him after we upgarded him this is why I recommend a 570 or 580 and what not.  Hope that clears it up.

[Zando_]

13 minutes ago, Turtle Rig said:

Because I bought my brother a RX 570 and it blew him away at Core 2 Quad 8GB RAM.  I told him things will get faster when he ugprades.  So I bought him a 2700x Gigabyte X470 Gaming Ultra and 32GB Trident Z RGB and he is amazed at how smooth all games are now.  He says he can even play Lara Croft with high settings and its smooth like butter.  So I have no experience but after seeing what this RX 570 did for him after we upgarded him this is why I recommend a 570 or 580 and what not.  Hope that clears it up.

Do you... do you put any thought at all into your posts? You already stated this and my question is why you'd think that means it's a competitor for a 1660 Ti or Vega 56? You can give someone driving an old econobox an EcoBoost Mustang and it'll blow them away, but it's not gonna beat the GT350R. If someone is comparing something at a different level of performance, just because a low/midrange option blew your buddy away doesn't mean it competes on the mid-high end of things. 

[Turtle Rig]

20 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

Do you... do you put any thought at all into your posts? You already stated this and my question is why you'd think that means it's a competitor for a 1660 Ti or Vega 56? You can give someone driving an old econobox an EcoBoost Mustang and it'll blow them away, but it's not gonna beat the GT350R. If someone is comparing something at a different level of performance, just because a low/midrange option blew your buddy away doesn't mean it competes on the mid-high end of things. 

Dude Im sorry.  I don't know the difference from say a RX 580 and 1660Ti.  We had good experience after this upgrade with his 570 I got for him.  So Im going by what he stated even on a COre 2 Quad..... but once we upgarded him he is blown away so I suggested a RX 570 or a 580,, sh*T come and stick a knife in my eye now!!! Your too harsh man.  Also I never said a 570 or 580 is faster or slower then a Vega and what not.  I just made a suggestion from what was my brothers experience with this.

[sejmroz]

and do you think i will be able to overclock the ryzen 5 1600 with the stock cooler?

[Zando_]

2 minutes ago, Turtle Rig said:

Dude Im sorry.  I don't know the difference from say a RX 580 and 1660Ti.  We had good experience after this upgrade with his 570 I got for him.  So Im going by what he stated even on a COre 2 Quad..... but once we upgarded him he is blown away so I suggested a RX 570 or a 580,, sh*T come and stick a knife in my eye now!!! Your too harsh man.

An essay for you (please actually read it): 

Spoiler

No I'm not too harsh at all. You keep giving people a load of misinformation or confusing blabber, then when someone tells you that's incorrect, you do three things: 1) you give them a really pandering apology (often an annoying DM) and some sort of really confusing justification for stating things as facts that are just wrong, 2) you then continue to argue how misinforming someone after doing no research and literally admitting you don't know what you're talking about was right, and then 3) you either ghost them or get mad at them and call them a meanie like you are now. 

If you want people to not call you out, do some research. If someone tells you you're wrong, read what they said and see if they're right, if they are then there's no harm in admitting that. But don't tell them they're right and then in the same sentence tell them you were right too, that's pretty damn contradictory. 

 

Gist of it is: just read. Read up on stuff you plan to give advice on, if you're not sure about something use AFAIK (As Far As I Know, this tells the person you're not an expert on the subject but you're doing your best), or if you're foggy on something IIRC (If I Recall Correctly, again telling the person you have some experience here but you're not sure on the details). If someone tells you you're wrong, read their reasons for thinking so, do some quick research of your own. If they turn out to be right, thank them for giving you that information and re-evaluate your opinions and change your advice to reflect that in future. Like how I used to think 1.4v was a safe voltage for 2000 series Ryzens, thanks to reading up and being corrected by other people, I know now 1.38v is the max recommended for a daily voltage, and you want to keep them under 85C. But I also know that's different for 3000 series Ryzens, they handle up to 1.5v with no issues. I'm not sure on the max temp so I'm assuming it's still the same (85C) until I'm told otherwise. When I am, I won't give them a confusing mishmash of words to try and justify how my incorrect "facts" were wrong, I'll thank them for that and then change my advice in the future. You've got the "wow thanks I didn't know that" down, but then in the same breath you try and justify why your misinformation was good, and continue giving it in the future instead of changing to reflect what you learned. 

 

I'm not trying to stick a knife in your eye, I'm here on this forum to help people to the best of my ability, which is the point of forums. You're usually not helping people because you don't bother to back up any of your facts. 

 

3 minutes ago, sejmroz said:

and do you think i will be able to overclock the ryzen 5 1600 with the stock cooler?

Yep. IIRC most people hit around 3.8Ghz on the stock cooler before temps get too high, they come with a good one out of the box. Most 1st gen Ryzens push to 3.9 or 4 on a better cooler so you're not getting massive gains with an aftermarket one, mostly just a bit less noise or lower temps. Depending on what you're comfortable with it could be worth it or not. Defo run it on the stock cooler first though, no need to upgrade if you decide it performs up to snuff already.  

[Turtle Rig]

2 minutes ago, sejmroz said:

and do you think i will be able to overclock the ryzen 5 1600 with the stock cooler?

The stock Wraith Prism is a very good stock cooler.  But you can't compared it to even a hyper evo 212 which is like 25 bucks to 30 bucks now.  If your serious about cooling and want to push your clocks a bit then I would personally get a Noctua DH-15 or better yet a Be Quiet Dark Rock Pro.  My old mans 9900k we got him a DRP and the thing is silent with two fans on it and cools things down very nicely.  He has not experience any issues but also note he has his on 4.8Ghz.. Anyhow if your serious about stability and want to push your clock you can on the stock cooler, But I wouldn't recommend you do that.

[Zando_]

30 minutes ago, Turtle Rig said:

The stock Wraith Prism is a very good stock cooler.  But you can't compared it to even a hyper evo 212 which is like 25 bucks to 30 bucks now.  If your serious about cooling and want to push your clocks a bit then I would personally get a Noctua DH-15 or better yet a Be Quiet Dark Rock Pro.  My old mans 9900k we got him a DRP and the thing is silent with two fans on it and cools things down very nicely.  He has not experience any issues but also note he has his on 4.8Ghz.. Anyhow if your serious about stability and want to push your clock you can on the stock cooler, But I wouldn't recommend you do that.

Again with the misinformation my dude. I ran my R5 1600 at 1.4v with a 4Ghz OC, full flat prime 95 small FFT for an extended period of time on a 120mm AIO, something that's far below the level of an NH-D15 (which btw does slightly beat out the Dark Rock Pro 4, making that not actually the better option for pure performance, the NH-D15 is slightly beat by the Thermalright Le Grande Macho RT though) and that sucker only hit the mid 70s. These aren't hot chips at all, I highly advise pushing your clock on the stock cooler if you're just looking for a midrange OC, you'll be fine. If you wanna take it to the top you don't need a massive cooler, the 1600 doesn't make much heat. I'd avoid the 212 Evo because it's usually not the best value had has a jank mounting method (cooler master is known for crappy mounts), but I think the new might have fixed that? Regardless you only need a midrange cooler for a 1600, they won't push past 4Ghz, 4.1 if you're lucky so it's usually not worth redlining the voltage anyways, all the extra heat for a possible 100Mhz or so boost isn't worth it in games. 

[sejmroz]

or should i buy used gtx 1080 8gb Sea hawk EK X ? for same price as rx vega 56 around 2 year old gtx 1080

[Zando_]

9 minutes ago, sejmroz said:

or should i buy used gtx 1080 8gb Sea hawk EK X ? for same price as rx vega 56 around 2 year old gtx 1080

I'd go 1080. The Vega 56 with an AIO and 272% power target (no idea if that cooks the card over time or not) can beat a 1080/2070, but that's a little advanced. 1080s are still incredibly good GPUs, isn't the Seahawk an AIO cooled one too? I had SLI 1080s that did 2100Mhz on the core on air with 0 issues, even running them as single cards they're beasts. A friend has them in his rig now and they're still top performers. 

[sejmroz]

and if should i buy this vega 56:SAPPHIRE PULSE Radeon RX Vega 56 8G HBM 2 or this one:SAPPHIRE PULSE Radeon RX Vega 56 8G HBM2

[Zando_]

Just now, sejmroz said:

and if should i buy this vega 56:SAPPHIRE PULSE Radeon RX Vega 56 8G HBM 2 or this one:SAPPHIRE PULSE Radeon RX Vega 56 8G HBM2

(don't forget to quote people)

Those are the same card? Both Sapphire Pulses, should be good. Sapphire makes very good Radeon cards, their Pulses are the mid tier, Nitro and Nitro+ ones are the higher end, all of them are nice cards from my reading and experience with one of their 480s. 

[sejmroz]

nah the 1080 is not aio colled but there is rx vega 64 for like 200buck's and the guy says they are new but that is scatchy and the 1080 is advretisted as new too so i am kinda scatched out and rather go lower performence but new

 

[sejmroz]

yea sorry this is the second one GIGABYTE RX VEGA 56 GAMING OC 8G

[sejmroz]

2 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

(don't forget to quote people)

Those are the same card? Both Sapphire Pulses, should be good. Sapphire makes very good Radeon cards, their Pulses are the mid tier, Nitro and Nitro+ ones are the higher end, all of them are nice cards from my reading and experience with one of their 480s. 

nah the 1080 is not aio colled but there is rx vega 64 for like 200buck's and the guy says they are new but that is scatchy and the 1080 is advretisted as new too so i am kinda scatched out and rather go lower performence but new

yea sorry this is the second one GIGABYTE RX VEGA 56 GAMING OC 8G

[Zando_]

3 minutes ago, sejmroz said:

nah the 1080 is not aio colled but there is rx vega 64 for like 200buck's and the guy says they are new but that is scatchy and the 1080 is advretisted as new too so i am kinda scatched out and rather go lower performence but new

 

Yeah if they're at all sketch I'd go with the Vega 56 new. Still an excellent card with a lot of room to push it if you want to in future, and a Vega 56 will always work better than getting scammed for a "1080" or "Vega 64" that isn't real. If you're not getting good vibes about a used sale, I'd avoid it. 

 

2 minutes ago, sejmroz said:

yea sorry this is the second one GIGABYTE RX VEGA 56 GAMING OC 8G

Defo the Sapphire, Gigabyte cards have issues AFAIK. I don't know what they were, but from everyone else's recommendations they're pretty garbage, whereas Sapphire cards are pretty much the gold standard. XFX and ASUS cards are very good too, just avoid blower coolers if you can (the GPUs work fine, but they're loud when you ramp up the fans) unless you're building in a cramped case. 

 

EDIT: IIRC PowerColor makes the Red Dragon line as well, those are beastly GPUs, GamersNexus used one of those for the crazy OC card that beat 1080s and 2070s I told you about. 

[sejmroz]

1 minute ago, Zando Bob said:

Yeah if they're at all sketch I'd go with the Vega 56 new. Still an excellent card with a lot of room to push it if you want to in future, and a Vega 56 will always work better than getting scammed for a "1080" or "Vega 64" that isn't real. If you're not getting good vibes about a used sale, I'd avoid it. 

 

Defo the Sapphire, Gigabyte cards have issues AFAIK. I don't know what they were, but from everyone else's recommendations they're pretty garbage, whereas Sapphire cards are pretty much the gold standard. XFX and ASUS cards are very good too, just avoid blower coolers if you can (the GPUs work fine, but they're loud when you ramp up the fans) unless you're building in a cramped case. 

I am building in midi tower that was like 20buck's and what means AFAIK? and should i buy fans my build right now has no case fans