Help me build my PC 2020 Catch All

Am I wrong in thinking 4k gaming isn't worth it right now? I had the impression even the latest GPUs struggled with 4k.

Totes all about 8K now...

slazev wrote:

Am I wrong in thinking 4k gaming isn't worth it right now? I had the impression even the latest GPUs struggled with 4k.

That's my read on it.

Honestly, I think my next monitor upgrade priority is 144Hz (current monitor is 60Hz) way before I'm thinking about 4k.

More frames >> denser frames.

144Hz at 1440p at high/ultra seems to be the sweet spot for the high end cards right now from what I have read/watched. 4k is just so many pixels (4x 1080p). 1080p is just over 2.07 million pixels while 4k is almost 8.3 million, but 1440p is just under 3.7 million pixels so it is way easier for the current generation of cards to push.

Yep. 1440p is the sane halfway point that modern cards can push at high framerates.

There's a reason most of the high-end gaming monitor market targets 1440p.

Oh, didn't see there was a new thread.

Got a 1440/144 monitor last year, it surely feels like the best balance right now.

EvilHomer3k wrote:

As Legion said, you are buying a PC that will game at 2k or 4k resolution (depending on the game) but your monitors are only 1080P. I'd suggest a single, larger 28" 2k+ monitor. Then, assuming you have a monitor already, use that for your second monitor (doesn't have to be 144hz like your main monitor).

Ah! Okay. I was definitely looking for this to be a dual-monitor build.

Well, i'm going to betray my extreme ignorance here... how can you tell which ones are 2K or 4K?

EDIT: Alternatively, anyone have any recommendations for the kind of setup we're talking about?

Prederick wrote:
EvilHomer3k wrote:

As Legion said, you are buying a PC that will game at 2k or 4k resolution (depending on the game) but your monitors are only 1080P. I'd suggest a single, larger 28" 2k+ monitor. Then, assuming you have a monitor already, use that for your second monitor (doesn't have to be 144hz like your main monitor).

Ah! Okay. I was definitely looking for this to be a dual-monitor build.

Well, i'm going to betray my extreme ignorance here... how can you tell which ones are 2K or 4K?

EDIT: Alternatively, anyone have any recommendations for the kind of setup we're talking about?

2K = colloquialism for 2560x1440 resolution

4K = colloquialism/marketing term for 3840x2160 resolution

You find out by looking at the specs, although 4K monitors usually tout the feature in the title of the product listing.

Soooo, where do I go to buy a college laptop for the wife? She's gone back to school and will be there for a few years, and could use a lightweight rugged laptop.

Won't be used for gaming at all. Lightweight, long battery, will survive a clumsy owner. PC only, not Mac.

Suggestions/pointers?

Middcore wrote:

2K = colloquialism for 2560x1440 resolution

4K = colloquialism/marketing term for 3840x2160 resolution

You find out by looking at the specs, although 4K monitors usually tout the feature in the title of the product listing.

Got it. So would this build make more sense?

Is a CPU cooler required? The stock cooler sucks?

Jonman, rugged laptops are a thing. Dell Latitude 5420 is an entry-level example. Starts around $1800. These things are shock-resistant, waterproof, dustproof, etc, depending on the model you select.

If you go with a regular one, I'd invest in a good carry bag with a shoulder strap, and I'd put some adhesive rubber pads on the bottom to keep it from sliding around. Those two things should eliminate most of the obvious issues (crushing/torquing/bumping while carrying, and sliding off of surfaces).

No wonder I hadn't seen the PC building thread in my recent list. I'm a month late to the party but whatever.

Glad to see we're adopting the new car and sports video game tradition of naming next year months early.

I game strictly at 4K/60hz and I’m getting good performance from a single 2080Ti. For sure some effects will crush frame rates but I can typically get a nice mix of details and still keep a consistent frame rate. I’m typically just trying to keep things stable rather than perfect. Frame dips are more annoying to me than anything else.

Prederick wrote:
Middcore wrote:

2K = colloquialism for 2560x1440 resolution

4K = colloquialism/marketing term for 3840x2160 resolution

You find out by looking at the specs, although 4K monitors usually tout the feature in the title of the product listing.

Got it. So would this build make more sense?

Yes. If you wanted, you could save some money on the second monitor. There's nothing wrong with it being 144hz but you don't need it to be. My secondary monitor is 60hz and it doesn't affect the framerate of my primary during gaming at all.

slazev wrote:

Is a CPU cooler required? The stock cooler sucks?

If it's Intel, get an aftermarket cooler. Intel's stock coolers are awful.

AMD's stock coolers will allow you to get by. However, an aftermarket cooler can get you better temperatures with less noise.

slazev wrote:

Is a CPU cooler required? The stock cooler sucks?

The unlocked K-series processors haven't included a cooler since Haswell. This is in contrast to AMD, where buying an X-series processor generally means a beefier cooler is included.

Mentally add at least $50 for a decent cooler when comparing Intel to AMD.

Prederick wrote:

Got it. So would this build make more sense?

It seems insane to me to spend $4K and game on a TN monitor. An IPS equivalent to that Dell should be less than $200 more and will be noticeably better as your primary display.

Edit:
Just noticed your secondary is also TN. Highly recommend the latest version of the 24" Ultrasharps for a secondary display. Color reproduction is fantastic, it'll be cheaper than that Asus, and >60Hz isn't needed for anything other than gaming. Could even get a matching 27" for that $300.

Links:
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/QpH...
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/b8V...

LouZiffer wrote:
slazev wrote:

Is a CPU cooler required? The stock cooler sucks?

If it's Intel, get an aftermarket cooler. Intel's stock coolers are awful.

AMD's stock coolers will allow you to get by. However, an aftermarket cooler can get you better temperatures with less noise.

He's got one.
Corsair H150i PRO 47.3 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler

EvilHomer3k wrote:
LouZiffer wrote:
slazev wrote:

Is a CPU cooler required? The stock cooler sucks?

If it's Intel, get an aftermarket cooler. Intel's stock coolers are awful.

AMD's stock coolers will allow you to get by. However, an aftermarket cooler can get you better temperatures with less noise.

He's got one.
Corsair H150i PRO 47.3 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler

I didn't think slazev's question was related to Prederick's build. Maybe it was though... *shrug*

I am currently running a i3 6100 with a GTX 760. Which should I upgrade (and why) to get a better 1080p gaming experience? Let's assume I can only upgrade one.

I'd upgrade the card. Dual core 3.7GHz is still decent, for all but newer high-end games (that look for quad core). And the card will carry a lot of the processing load for most games. (You'll still run short on sims and such that do a lot of number crunching.)

Save until you can upgrade them both. You likely won't get your money's worth out of upgrading just one.

Math wrote:

I am currently running a i3 6100 with a GTX 760. Which should I upgrade (and why) to get a better 1080p gaming experience? Let's assume I can only upgrade one.

The biggest improvement would come from the card. Here's a comparison of a GTX750Ti (no GTX760 in the database) vs a GTX1660Ti (roughly $300 atm). https://www.anandtech.com/bench/prod...

These benches tend to be run with a i7 or better, so they're usually not CPU-limited. A modern card would give you roughly 4x the FPS in this scenario.

With the i3-6100 you'll be CPU-limited. Some cursory googling suggests a frame rate drop of roughly 40% can be expected. This would still give you a nominal doubling of framerate, but you leave a lot on the table with that dated processor.

Conversely, this review shows that using a 4-core i5 from the era would yield 20% more frames, a far cry from 100% more. Obviously a modern processor might give better results, but past 4 cores, you're reaching diminishing returns.

Caveat: I found it impossible to find direct comparisons between 760/i3-6100, 1660Ti/i3-6100, and 760/modern_CPU as nobody's really benching those last two scenarios, so these extrapolations are the best I could provide.

TLDR: If you absolutely need an upgrade and can only swing one, the card is the way to go and this is why. If you can wait to upgrade both, do so.

peanut3141 wrote:

Edit:
Just noticed your secondary is also TN. Highly recommend the latest version of the 24" Ultrasharps for a secondary display. Color reproduction is fantastic, it'll be cheaper than that Asus, and >60Hz isn't needed for anything other than gaming. Could even get a matching 27" for that $300.

Links:
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/QpH...
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/b8V...

Right, so more like this?

LouZiffer wrote:
slazev wrote:

Is a CPU cooler required? The stock cooler sucks?

If it's Intel, get an aftermarket cooler. Intel's stock coolers are awful.

AMD's stock coolers will allow you to get by. However, an aftermarket cooler can get you better temperatures with less noise.

peanut3141 wrote:
slazev wrote:

Is a CPU cooler required? The stock cooler sucks?

The unlocked K-series processors haven't included a cooler since Haswell. This is in contrast to AMD, where buying an X-series processor generally means a beefier cooler is included.

Mentally add at least $50 for a decent cooler when comparing Intel to AMD.

Alright, thanks. I'll take that into account for my next PC build (hopefully in November).

Malor wrote:

What I was taught when I was building PCs as a job was that you only needed two of the metal standoffs on any given motherboard, and in fact that could be better, not worse. Brass is conductive, and each standoff is a chance of a short. I was having a real problem with Tyan boards dying (this was in the mid 90s), and those were some of the best quality boards made at the time. Turns out the clearances around their screw holes were really tight in that era, and it was easily possible to short a board that way, just screwing it down normally.

I had similar problems in that era, though usually they didn't die, they just wouldn't properly POST.

My solution? two pieces of printer paper under the board and then punch only the threads through the pages. Worked like a charm.

Oh,that's very clever. I wish I'd thought of it. The distributor was kinda blaming me for the number of bad Tyan boards we were returning, so it's nice to get some feedback that it wasn't just me. (and maybe it was my fault for not troubleshooting better, because it sounds like you rescued more boards than I did.)

Seems like that trick might still be useful, although it would impede airflow. Do we know if modern motherboards do any real cooling from the underside? I don't *think* they do, but I'm not very current anymore on computer hardware.

Thanks to everyone for the responses! I'm looking at cards now, and am wondering if there's a reason these days to avoid less-popular brands like Inno3d, Palit, or Manli. Thoughts?

Also, 1 fan "mini" cards vs 2 or 3 fan cards: I hear that the small ones are noisy and use more power?

Math wrote:

Thanks to everyone for the responses! I'm looking at cards now, and am wondering if there's a reason these days to avoid less-popular brands like Inno3d, Palit, or Manli. Thoughts?

Inno3d and Palit are established brands in Asia that just don't really sell in North America, I think. Same for Colorful and Galax.

Manli I have literally never heard of.

"Mini" cards do not use more power, but they will be hotter and noisier.