Recent comments in /f/gadgets

Strais t1_j855vgj wrote

No big cities suck and suburbs suck worse. Go find a better place to live (rent of a full size 2+ bed detached house for less than $500 a month) with some country or mountains around you. Quit trying to keep up with the Joneses it’s not built to be possible.

−10

KsnNwk t1_j855uf7 wrote

If you want a PC for cheap and one that perform rival consoles.

You ann just get a RTX 3060 and ryzen 5600. That's 100 for mobo, 100 for ram, 120 for cpu and 329 for gpu. It's still a litte more powerful and should handle 1440p 60fps high settings gaming with dlss.

That's 150 more than for consoles, but on PC you don't pay for Online and games are cheaper over time.

Also consoles albeit adv. for 4K run most games at 1400p-1800p dynamic resolutions and at medium settings at best to active 60fps.

−1

ReviewImpossible3568 t1_j855lcy wrote

Apple’s components are not the same. The M series chips use on-package ultrafast (I forget what type) memory that’s accessible by the CPU and GPU and cannot physically be swapped, it’s not like before when they soldered the DIMMs for no reason, packaging it this way actually gives a performance benefit. The SSD I will give you being overpriced, but Apple’s SSDs are still super fast and not that bad.

2

ReviewImpossible3568 t1_j854vfi wrote

An RX 5700? Not at all. Those are RDNA2 graphics and Zen 2 (3700X, not 2700X), if I recall correctly (I looked it up once upon a time, but don’t remember the exact SKU it was similar to) it’s more like a 6700XT/6800. In raw performance, a 3060Ti would actually be pretty close.

PC is still better in my personal experience, but the consoles are unbeatable value right now and there’s no need to act like they have worse hardware than they do.

Edit: looked it up and the core count is in between 6700XT and 6800, but it’s also clocked lower so it probably performs about in the middle given the slightly lower overhead and higher optimization that you can get on a console.

4

GachaSheep t1_j854e9a wrote

Your economic recommendation is… purchasing GPUs that are the price of an entire console, and then for 4k, recommending me cards that cost even more?

I understand you had helpful intentions, and perhaps I should have clarified better, but the cost of pc building (and manufacturers actively choosing to reduce production/withhold stock to keep prices high) in this economic climate is the entire problem/reason why people like myself are hesitating to build even when we want to, and why PC CPU shipments are in decline.

Suggesting I purchase even more expensive parts than I was even planning for the build in the first place is kind of missing the point (though to be fair I suppose I never posted the intended build).

21

KsnNwk t1_j852uzs wrote

Consoles have a 2700x in them and an RX 5700 / RTX 2070 in them.

A 5600 and 3060Ti (2080 Super) would already run much better than what consoles can do. It would run 1440p, 60fps, high settings in newest games.

If you aim at 4K in the newest games, then I would recommend at least 4080 for Ray Tracing or 7900XT for non Ray Tracing gaming.

The 5600 cpu would still be enough to get high fps gaming. Unless you can find am5 and 7600 and ddr5 for simlar price or not that much more (100-200) I would go route of going with 5600, ddr4, and b550.

−16

KsnNwk t1_j851rwq wrote

I don't entirely disagree, but synthetic benchmarks are different than games.

Plus, the money not spent on CPU, Mobo, and RAM can be spend on GPU and Monitor.

If it still plays smooth for him that is what matters, not just numbers.

I gone with 4770k GTX770 to a 1060, then 1080 then 2080 and upgraded to 1440p. In single player games it was very good. Stupidly enough I was completely fine in AAA title. But actually it was old competitive games like CSGO or simracing games that had micro stutter ever so often.

Upgraded to 5800x3d 32gb 3600cl16 and b550 wifi. Spent 510€ on that and problems were gone.

But thar 510€ plus another 300€ could gotten me a 4070Ti for 4K gaming and for SP, I would still be fine with my 4770K and 16gb ddr3.

4

KsnNwk t1_j84zv0r wrote

Except PS4 and nintendo.

At this point in time probably already PS5 and XsX also making in profit.

But PS4 and nintendo usually profit or break even from the start. This was the only reason why I did not get a PS4. Skipped PS first time ever, but also was frustrated with lack of SSD on PS4. It was actually a good turn around for me, that's how I got into PC gaming and MMOs.

Now I enjoyed the PS4 libary on PS5 and PC. Gave away PS5 to my cousin, cause PS5 games are coming out on PC now too. I rather spend more money on upgrading PC rather than spend money twice on hardware.

Albeit I may come back to PS5 gaming if PSVR2 will become big and have nice libary of games.

1

HiCanIPetYourCat t1_j84yhqi wrote

Just as an example, I just got an RTX4090 and put it in my 2021 built 5600x based PC. The 5600x is several generations newer and a whole lot more powerful than a 4790. My Timespy benchmark was 19,000ish, Cinebench was 28,000ish.

I then upgraded to a new 13900 cpu, one gen ahead of the 5600x. The same GPU then scored 30,000 in Timespy, and 40k in Cinebench. Even that one gen old CPU was a gigantic bottleneck on the new GPU.

I don’t know what card he’s on but it must be a 3080 or better if he’s running 4k 60fps on that old CPU, which means he would see a huge gain from upgrading.

If it works it works and whatever, this is just how it be ☺️

3

GachaSheep t1_j84xc2k wrote

I want to build a new PC for my husband to replace his old 4790k/GTX970 build, but just the graphics card we’re aiming for alone is nearly the cost of a PS5. Sure, the costs of high-end cards came down once crypto crashed, but it feels like that whole thing barely made a dent in the prices of mid-tier cards.

54