Noob looking at doing a build

[Peebles24]

A question with not a clear cut answer perhaps. A better question is, "Which performs better for how I use it?" Different video cards will excel in various games and computation tasks but not in others when compared with each other. A good place to start would be to research the web and find head to head testing comparing the cards you are looking at across a broad range of use scenarios. Here is an example, though not using the rtx 2060: https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-RTX-2080-vs-AMD-RX-Vega-64/4026vs3933. Although I suspect the rtx 2060 is too new to have much data like that quite yet.

That is the problem, I'm not finding much data to look at, ecspecially when i have the 2060 narrowed down to basically the top performing 2060. From what i can find the sapphire nitro+ vega 64 is the best of its line without going to the water cooled version.

As for how will i use it, final fantasy 13 and 15 which from what i can find the vega runs those very well. Other games will most likely be first person shooters like call of duty, dont really see that game used in test.
Currently my set up with my borrowed evga gtx 960 ssc 2gb will run call of duty black ops 3 at all max settings 120 fps. Very impressive for sure. Of course that may change with a good monitor, currently im hooked up to my 32" lg 720p 60hz tv.

 

[Bill_Bright]

I agree with trents above. Understand you are into the level where you are trying to compare equally matched competitors. There is no single one that is best at everything. I recommend you research your favorite programs and see what is a better match for your top priority games, etc.

Alternatively - narrow your choices to 2 or 3 and flip a coin. Then stop researching! If you continue to research, you will constantly second-guess yourself and wonder if you made the wrong choice - regardless which one you picked. Not to mention, as soon as you buy, something newer, flashier, faster, more efficient, and prettier will come out tomorrow and claim the new cutting-edge "state-of-the-art" making your choice a dog and totally obsolete!

That's just the way of life in consumer electronics. We saw it back in the 70s with home audio reproduction electronics. And it is happening now (and has been for awhile) with TVs, monitors and computer electronics (which includes smart phones).

 

[trents]

Totally agree with Bill_Bright's advice. You can drive yourself nuts over splitting hairs whether this one or that one is better but technology changes so fast that whatever choice you wind up making is already irrelevant and obsolete within a year or less. I think ED gave some good imput on the total impact of power draw on your system. As a made up example, if the Vega 64 gives you 15% better performance in your range of use but jacks internal case temps up to where thermal throttling is starting to happen with the GPU or CPU or causes your fans to ramp up to helicopter noise levels then the net effect may be undesirable.

This may not cover the games you play but it might help: https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-RTX-2060-6GB-vs-AMD-RX-Vega-64/4034vs3933

I found this statement in the above linked article have something important to say: "The 33% faster 1080 Ti offers better value for money than an RX 64 would even if it were available at its list price of $599."

Look at this: https://m-x-c.ecwid.com/ASUS-GeForce-GTX-1080-Ti-ROG-STRIX-0TI-11G-GAMING-Graphics-Card-p130155529 Not sure if it is sold out yet. If I didn't need ray tracing I would sure look at this.

 

[Peebles24]

I ended up going with a msi gtx 1080 sea hawk x for the same price as a 2060 and apparently my pc is beastly.

 

[Bill_Bright]

and apparently my pc is beastly.

I guess that depends on your personal perspective. As a hardware guy, when I see a clean interior, good cooling and proper cable management, I see beauty, not beast.

 

[Peebles24]

I guess that depends on your personal perspective. As a hardware guy, when I see a clean interior, good cooling and proper cable management, I see beauty, not beast.

Thank you sir

 

[Tír na nÓg]

We'll, not into AMD more than Intel, but for roughly 1k, you could have got a 8 cores, plus SSD and all the bells and whistles, leaving 300+ for a decent graphic card.

A 4 cores processor is valid in a laptop, but not really in a desktop anymore.
My 2 cents...

 

[Zerileous]

Firstly, why are you posting in a build that has been done already this kind of stuff? Does the OP no benefit, let him enjoy his new system.

Second, while I do agree somewhat (look at my sig), which use cases for the OP necessitate more than 4 cores? I'm not aware of any. He has a CPU with an IPC advantage and plenty of OC headroom. Solid choice IMHO.

 

[Peebles24]

Only thing left to do us install the cablemods cables if they ever show up.

 

[wingman99]

Looks good and nice overclock.

 

[Peebles24]

Thanks

 

[wingman99]

We'll, not into AMD more than Intel, but for roughly 1k, you could have got a 8 cores, plus SSD and all the bells and whistles, leaving 300+ for a decent graphic card.

A 4 cores processor is valid in a laptop, but not really in a desktop anymore.
My 2 cents...

At 1080p there is only 10% relative gaming performance improvement from a i3 8350k 4 core, 4.0GHz to i9 9900k. With GTX 1080Ti. Link: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_9700K/13.html

 

[EarthDog]

And more for games that can utilize more cores and threads... that is an average. I would go 4c8t to start in 2019 for a serious gaming rig. If anything for future proofing.

 

[wingman99]

And more for games that can utilize more cores and threads... that is an average. I would go 4c8t to start in 2019 for a serious gaming rig. If anything for future proofing.

What games can use more cores and threads that would be grater than 10% performance improvement? I would like to see that performance comparison from a i3 8350k or i5 4 core 4.0GHz+.

 

[EarthDog]

Looking at the link you already provided, AC Origins and civ show way more than 10% gains...fc5... Prey also. I stopped there. It varies wildly by title is the point.

As you can also see, some had very little/no difference, so it depends. One also has to consider the OS that these are tested arent a typical install either. It is bloat and other application free which a normal OS with everyone's programs and apps, etc can chew away at a 4c4t processor more than 8c/16t so those results may show larger differences.

 

[wingman99]

Thanks, I was just thinking that the i3 8350k was not that bad from the 10% average relative gaming performance benchmark at techpowerup. However, looking at some of the individual benchmarks the performance is poor with a GTX 1080Ti.

I would go 4c8t to start in 2019 for a serious gaming rig. If anything for future proofing.

I agree serious gaming rig should have 4c8t and greater. However, if folks have a 4c4t and only going to use GTX 1060 or comparable video card that is fine also.

 

[EarthDog]

I dont think it's that bad either. For a budget gamer, it's fine. But if the budget allows 4c8t+ then it's clear it can be beneficial in several titles.

Bf V may make a 4c4t CPU die too... iirc it used all 16c/t I have enabled on my CPU evenly..maybe that was the latest cod.... I dont recall. But yeah, there can be notable differences.

 

[wingman99]

I did a lot of testing with BFV and 4c4t using a RTX 2070 and there is no FPS loss from comparing it to 6c6t. Of Course that is testing with the slower RTX 2070 so it probably won't show there. I feel battlefield 1 and 5 are GPU dependent games. BF 1-5 use the same game engine.

Have you ever disabled your cores to a total of 4 for compare gaming in BFV with your video card?

 

[EarthDog]

No.. I havent.

From guru 3d in bf v...

 

[wingman99]

No.. I havent.

From guru 3d in bf v...

View attachment 204933

That does not make much sense the 6c/6t is faster than the 8c/16t at 1080p? Do you have a link to that benchmark?