13 replies to this topic

[Besh]

Mod(s), pls. excuse if this not the right place to post this, and move to where appropriate . I seem to recall there used to be a dedicated forums section for Tech advice, but I do not see it anymore XD .

Well, Title . After 6 1/2 after a to-the-max upgraded LenovoMinitower sporting the awesome i52320 @3.0GHz., it IS time to upgrade . I am looking at a budget of around 750,- Euros . I do not need a case ( have an empty Antec900 standing around ) . Looking to get stuff that is proven to run MW:O nicely . Am interested in Ryzen CPUs ( though I heard/read early models head problems with gaming (true?)) .

Thanks in advance .

p.s.: also recently learned AMD is going to introduce a new Line of CPUs within 6 months or so, better to wait for that to happen ?

Edited by Besh, 10 March 2019 - 01:18 AM.

[Sjorpha]

MWO performance is heavily dependent on single core performance, so when it comes to back for the buck there is no reason to spend money on having many cores and much more important what the clock speeds are and how much the processor can be overclocked on your system.

I don't know about the new AMDs, but unless their single core performances beats intel chips for the same price ranges it's not gonna be the best choice for MWO. For example I have an old i7 6700k clocked to 4.7 and it's good for running MWO.

[Jackal Noble]

Sjorpha, on 10 March 2019 - 01:42 AM, said:

MWO performance is heavily dependent on single core performance, so when it comes to back for the buck there is no reason to spend money on having many cores and much more important what the clock speeds are and how much the processor can be overclocked on your system.

I don't know about the new AMDs, but unless their single core performances beats intel chips for the same price ranges it's not gonna be the best choice for MWO. For example I have an old i7 6700k clocked to 4.7 and it's good for running MWO.

I’m sorry but this is absolutely terrible advice, at least in regards to suggesting a 6700k, which at now 3 generations outdated is severely overpriced relative to newer chips that offer better performance. Case in point, the 6700k is about $399 and severely overpriced for modern performance due to no longer being in production. A newer intel chip that is far less and offers better stock performance for less than half that would be the 8350k which runs 4 cores at 4ghz stock. One might even say that would be the best price/performance chip for MWO.
However if “someone” was smart they wouldn’t buy a processor solely for running MWO, a game that is now 7-8 years old. They would get a 6-8 core mainstream processor for about the same price because they are just better at most everything, plus newer chips tend to have larger L1-3 caches.
Finally the Ryzen 2nd gen chips have absolutely closed the gap on Intel chips in terms of price/performance. Only issue is being smart on Ram choice, but the 2600/2600x/2700x are absolutely fanforkingtastic still.
At OP, at the very least do not consider the the 6700k as a viable option because at its current price it’s overpriced AF compared to the performance you can get from cheaper and better more modern processors. Hell the 8700k is cheaper and that’s 6 cores.
Again the 8350k is better even at stock without Even needing to OC.

For the record I have a 6600k, but also have a 2700x rig that shreds.

Edited by Jackal Noble, 10 March 2019 - 10:07 AM.

[Besh]

Jackal Noble, on 10 March 2019 - 03:49 AM, said:

I’m sorry but this is absolutely terrible advice, at least in regards to suggesting a 6700k, which at now 3 generations outdated is severely overpriced relative to newer chips that offer better performance. Case in point, the 6700k is about $399 and severely overpriced for modern performance due to no longer being in production. A newer intel chip that is far less and offers better stock performance for less than half that would be the 8350k which runs 4 cores at 4ghz stock. One might even say that would be the best price/performance chip for MWO.
However if “someone” was smart they wouldn’t buy a processor solely for running MWO, a game that is now 7-8 years old. They would get a 6-8 core mainstream processor for about the same price because they are just better at most everything, plus newer chips tend to have larger L1-3 caches.
Finally the Ryzen 2nd gen chips have absolutely closed the gap on Intel chips in terms of price/performance. Only issue is being smart on Ram choice, but the 2600/2600x/2700x are absolutely fanfuckingtastic still.
At OP, at the very least do not consider the the 6700k as a viable option because at its current price it’s overpriced AF compared to the performance you can get from cheaper and better more modern processors. Hell the 8700k is cheaper and that’s 6 cores.
Again the 8350k is better even at stock without Even needing to OC.

For the record I have a 6600k, but also have a 2700x rig that shreds.

Many thanks for this . It has been over 10 years since I last built a custom PC, and I have not paid attention to anything going on hardware really since then . Would you be so kind and explain a bit about what you meant with "being smart about RAM choice" ( I am starting to think about a 2600...unless I decide to wait until next Gen hits the market ) .

[Sjorpha]

Jackal Noble, on 10 March 2019 - 03:49 AM, said:

I’m sorry but this is absolutely terrible advice, at least in regards to suggesting a 6700k, which at now 3 generations outdated is severely overpriced relative to newer chips that offer better performance.

I'm not advicing buying a 6700k for a new build, I just used the old one I have as an example of how mwo specifically
cares mostly about single core performance.

Many new processors are obvoisly better buys with better performance in all kinds of games, but your stable boost clocks per core will still largely determine mwo performance and if mwo performance matters to you you should pick a processor that can reach high stable clocks.

[LordNothing]

any current gen cpu is definitely better than what you are running. my 4790k was getting long in the tooth and i swapped it for an 8086k (pretty much a high binned 8700k with a 4ghz clock stock). the extra two cores were nice in some applications but it didnt feel like that much of an upgrade. just build something that will last, with moore's law dead in the water you wont really be needing to upgrade for awhile. ryzen was definately a contender for me, but i didnt like my mini itx mobo options and went intel instead. third gen should be out now/soon.

Edited by LordNothing, 10 March 2019 - 06:52 AM.

[LordNothing]

Besh, on 10 March 2019 - 04:31 AM, said:

Many thanks for this . It has been over 10 years since I last built a custom PC, and I have not paid attention to anything going on hardware really since then . Would you be so kind and explain a bit about what you meant with "being smart about RAM choice" ( I am starting to think about a 2600...unless I decide to wait until next Gen hits the market ) .

as far as ram goes there are 2 things you need to know:

1. the qvl list from the mobo manufacturer is your friend, use it.
2. dont go too nuts on the memory speed. it doesent help that much. if you are building a $3k rig sure, but you dont seem to be doing that.

[Redshirt4Life]

You can spend ~$100 on a Ryzen and it'll be all the performance this game will ever need. You don't need multicore performance. All the Ryzens are pretty much the same, so spending more $$$ on the 5's and 7's isn't necessary for gaming.

You don't need to wait for the newest chips either. Your concern should be about bottlenecks. You'd need one heck of a powerful GPU to bottleneck even $100 processors these days. Unless you are building some sort of bleeding tech NASA-grade gaming PC, more processing power isn't going to make a FPS difference.

If you don't know what bottlenecking is. Your system only runs as fast as the slowest component. Theoretically, a better processor would equal better performance, but if your graphics card is the slowest component (and video games tend to lean harder on graphics cards anyway) then any increase in processing power will make no increase in performance. It's essentially "wasted" performance. If the goal is to get the most performance for a particular dollar value this waste is just lost money that could have went to a better graphics card.

EDIT: monitors are another significant bottleneck worth mentioning. Your frames per second is limited to the refresh rate of your monitor. I found some really cheap gaming monitors. $200 got me a 32" curved 144hz display. It was built by spectre. Other then this, most of your budget should be going into the GPU.

Edited by Redshirt4Life, 10 March 2019 - 07:57 AM.

[Jackal Noble]

Besh, on 10 March 2019 - 04:31 AM, said:

Many thanks for this . It has been over 10 years since I last built a custom PC, and I have not paid attention to anything going on hardware really since then . Would you be so kind and explain a bit about what you meant with "being smart about RAM choice" ( I am starting to think about a 2600...unless I decide to wait until next Gen hits the market ) .

What LordNothing said was pretty spot on.

A 2600 would be a fantastic choice (esp if you don’t plan on overclocking ), would pair really well budget wise with a B450 motherboard. Note, it can also work/backwards compatible with the X360/X370 motherboards but not all board manufacturers updated the board BIOS so you might have to. I’d stick with the B450.
As far as my experience with RAM, it’s kind of a non issue I’ve run into on my Ryzen build, I had purchased DDR 4 3200 15 G Skill RAM that wasn’t on my Gigabyte boards QVL list and everything seemed fine. I activated the RAM XMP profile to get it to lock on in 3200 (default is 2400) annnd then instabilities kicked in causing bsods and or system crash. I ended up setting the RAM XMP back to 2400 and everything was ok and stable. After some reading on it, I discovered I could up the voltage settings and run the higher speeds and get the 3200 speed I wanted. Long story short for the Ryzen chips utilize the QVL list when picking RAM, it will make things go smoother. That to me is the only real drawback for the Ryzen, Intel chips get along better with RAM.

Finally, I can’t recommend pcpartpicker enough for someone to use when theory building a new pc, it is an amazing an easy to use resource that basically walks you through it. Check it out
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/

Edited by Jackal Noble, 10 March 2019 - 11:12 AM.

[Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie]

2 weeks ago I built a system with a ryzen 1600x for somebody. nothing fancy, but out of curiosity I installed mwo.
with more details on (the standard-mwo-installation), it ran way higher fps than my i7 2600 I ran at that time personally.

to the point:
I'm sure you can build a decent system that runs mwo nicely with even the smaller ryzens. up to you how much you wanna invest and if you're playing something else, though (other, more modern games, surely have different hardware recommendations)

[LordNothing]

Redshirt4Life, on 10 March 2019 - 07:36 AM, said:

You can spend ~$100 on a Ryzen and it'll be all the performance this game will ever need. You don't need multicore performance. All the Ryzens are pretty much the same, so spending more $$$ on the 5's and 7's isn't necessary for gaming.

You don't need to wait for the newest chips either. Your concern should be about bottlenecks. You'd need one heck of a powerful GPU to bottleneck even $100 processors these days. Unless you are building some sort of bleeding tech NASA-grade gaming PC, more processing power isn't going to make a FPS difference.

If you don't know what bottlenecking is. Your system only runs as fast as the slowest component. Theoretically, a better processor would equal better performance, but if your graphics card is the slowest component (and video games tend to lean harder on graphics cards anyway) then any increase in processing power will make no increase in performance. It's essentially "wasted" performance. If the goal is to get the most performance for a particular dollar value this waste is just lost money that could have went to a better graphics card.

EDIT: monitors are another significant bottleneck worth mentioning. Your frames per second is limited to the refresh rate of your monitor. I found some really cheap gaming monitors. $200 got me a 32" curved 144hz display. It was built by spectre. Other then this, most of your budget should be going into the GPU.

i think the biggest bottleneck right now is storage, not graphics. if you aren't booting from an ssd (or perhaps an optane accelerated mechanical drive) you will have a bad time. i run a pair of m.2 drives. a newer nvme drive and an older sata m.2 totaling a terabyte. i offload a lot of long term storage to a 4tb mechanical drive on the network.

a bad monitor can bottleneck a good video card, but you can always up the settings to take up the slack. even a video card a couple generations old can work out just fine at lower settings. my now retired 750ti worked out great in anything but cryengine games (and that was mostly due to lack of external power connectors, it drew all its power straight from the mobo and it tended to sag in mwo, leading to crashes, if not for that i wouldn't have bothered upping to a 1060 and a new psu just in case). i also question the value of 120+hz in multiplayer games where the server tick is significantly lower than framerate.

Edited by LordNothing, 10 March 2019 - 05:47 PM.

[Redshirt4Life]

Storage only effects loading times. Once the match is loaded its running on your RAM. That's what games are doing during load screens, transfering data from your hard drive to your RAM. I'm playing on an old 2tb spin disk I salvaged without problems. That said, it is a nice quality of life improvement and I think they are more reliable.

Edited by Redshirt4Life, 10 March 2019 - 06:55 PM.

[Jackal Noble]

Redshirt4Life, on 10 March 2019 - 06:51 PM, said:

Storage only effects loading times. Once the match is loaded its running on your RAM. That's what games are doing during load screens, transfering data from your hard drive to your RAM. I'm playing on an old 2tb spin disk I salvaged without problems. That said, it is a nice quality of life improvement and I think they are more reliable.

Yep, I for one am never going back to disc drives unless I absolutely need large scale data storage. M. 2 is just so very nice. I’m going on 3+ years on my first pair of M.2 and they are still in good overall health after fairly intense use. Slightly worried about row hammering but only because I know it exists, not because I have any experience with it.

It’s great to see these style of drives hover around and close to a price where it’s absolutely worth getting for the QoL they give users. 150 for a 1 TB 2500/1500 mbps R/W is almost reasonable.

[LordNothing]

Redshirt4Life, on 10 March 2019 - 06:51 PM, said:

Storage only effects loading times. Once the match is loaded its running on your RAM. That's what games are doing during load screens, transfering data from your hard drive to your RAM. I'm playing on an old 2tb spin disk I salvaged without problems. That said, it is a nice quality of life improvement and I think they are more reliable.

for gaming no its not really that important. well in mwo it is. when i got my new nvme drive i found i was the first one in the game, waiting for the last guy on the potato rig to connect one can see that it significantly adds unneccisary wait time, which affects fun. of course this is usually out of a system builder's control. i also notice significant improvements in performance from games like minecraft that are always swapping chunks out as you explore the world. really depends on the game.

but in everything else its a massive improvement. just opening a modern web browser from a mechanical drive is a grueling experience and practically instantaneous on an ssd. my old 4790k runs my 3d printer and uses some left over mechanical drives from previous builds (all it needs to do is slice and send gcode so it doesnt really need to be fast), and simply loading up thingverse is a nightmare. start doing workstation tasks and your head will be through your desk in no time.

Edited by LordNothing, 10 March 2019 - 08:28 PM.