Other Building a PC?

[VidaRed]

My Incomplete Build so far:-

AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
MSI B450 TOMAHAWK MAX
G.Skill Flare X Series 16 GB DDR4-3200 CL14
Samsung 970 Evo Plus 500 GB M.2-2280 NVME
Zotac GeForce RTX 2060 6 GB

I have to choose a 24 inch 1080p 144hz monitor with 1ms response time and i might reconsider the graphics aswell ? Should i go with 2060 or 5700 or downgrade to 1660 ti ? Should i be looking at 1080 or 1440p or 4k ?

 

[GhastlyHun]

My Incomplete Build so far:-

AMD Ryzen 7 3700X
MSI B450 TOMAHAWK MAX
G.Skill Flare X Series 16 GB DDR4-3200 CL14
Samsung 970 Evo Plus 500 GB M.2-2280 NVME
Zotac GeForce RTX 2060 6 GB

I have to choose a 24 inch 1080p 144hz monitor with 1ms response time and i might reconsider the graphics aswell ? Should i go with 2060 or 5700 or downgrade to 1660 ti ? Should i be looking at 1080 or 1440p or 4k ?

1080p is no longer adequate in 2019 imho. If you want 144 Hz, 1440p is pretty much the only viable option, because 144 Hz / 4k is super rare and even superer expensive.
I'd personally never go below 4k again, I'm a sucker for pixel density, over repetition rate. If you play shooters or anything requiring very fast response time, 144 Hz / 1440p is the way to go for you.
The 5700 is a bit faster than the 2060 (non-super), your choice depends on whether you want to play any raytracing-enabled games (although the 2060 will probably not give you a very satisfactory experience here, due to the large performance hit).

 

[Igor Drefljak]

1080p is no longer adequate in 2019 imho. If you want 144 Hz, 1440p is pretty much the only viable option, because 144 Hz / 4k is super rare and even superer expensive.
I'd personally never go below 4k again, I'm a sucker for pixel density, over repetition rate. If you play shooters or anything requiring very fast response time, 144 Hz / 1440p is the way to go for you.
The 5700 is a bit faster than the 2060 (non-super), your choice depends on whether you want to play any raytracing-enabled games (although the 2060 will probably not give you a very satisfactory experience here, due to the large performance hit).

4k for me seems a massive waste on a monitor. 1440p is sharp enough on your standard 24-27" screen.

As for 1080p not being adequate. I wouldn't really want to use it myself, but then ask all the best twitch streamers what their resolution is and it'll be 1080p

 

[GhastlyHun]

but then ask all the best twitch streamers what their resolution is and it'll be 1080p

Well, competitive gamers also reduce graphics settings for maximum performance / lowest input latency. It very much depends on your user profile. As I said, for me it's pixels first - not just in games, but also for desktop applications, everything profits from the increased pixel density.

 

[VidaRed]

1080p is no longer adequate in 2019 imho. If you want 144 Hz, 1440p is pretty much the only viable option, because 144 Hz / 4k is super rare and even superer expensive.
I'd personally never go below 4k again, I'm a sucker for pixel density, over repetition rate. If you play shooters or anything requiring very fast response time, 144 Hz / 1440p is the way to go for you.
The 5700 is a bit faster than the 2060 (non-super), your choice depends on whether you want to play any raytracing-enabled games (although the 2060 will probably not give you a very satisfactory experience here, due to the large performance hit).

The games i play are mostly shooters with the main one being csgo hence the option of 1080 still lingering on. I might have to get a better gpu than 2060 if i play on 1440 resolution because i need to fully utilize the 144hz monitor.

 

[Redlambs]

Only this time they have a technological advantage (manufacturing in TSMC's 7nm process vs. Intel's umpteenth iteration of 14nm) for the first time ever, and it shows.

And yet, they are still behind.

And btw, no. Multicore is not the best option for gaming or devs under a strict timeframe. Raw power on less cores is still the king, hence why the Ryzen still can't match up.

The games i play are mostly shooters with the main one being csgo hence the option of 1080 still lingering on. I might have to get a better gpu than 2060 if i play on 1440 resolution because i need to fully utilize the 144hz monitor.

Are you suggesting a 2060 can't keep up with a 144hz monitor?

Let me tell you something, I have no real idea about what Ghastly is going on about, but hz != fps != resolution. It's the the age old thing of people confusing themselves about numbers and the differences.


Edit: Reading back this comes across way more arsey than intended! It's just I'm not really sure why people are talking about hz or fps in any way related to resolution other than lower res brings higher fps (but not hz!).

 

[GhastlyHun]

And yet, they are still behind.

And btw, no. Multicore is not the best option for gaming or devs under a strict timeframe. Raw power on less cores is still the king, hence why the Ryzen still can't match up.

'behind'. Yes, Intel's 9900k wins most gaming benchmarks by a measurable but hardly ever perceptible margin, but it's more power hungry and more expensive than a 3700X or 3800X. As soon as you also do work with your PC, its value proposition looks really bad compared to Ryzen 3000.

Are you suggesting a 2060 can't keep up with a 144hz monitor?

Let me tell you something, I have no real idea about what Ghastly is going on about, but hz != fps != resolution. It's the the age old thing of people confusing themselves about numbers and the differences.

I was talking about what to buy for different preferences, like pixel density > refresh rate or the other way around, because @VidaRed 's requirements had not been stated before.
If high refresh rate is the most important criterion, 4k screens are basically ruled out because there are only very few and very expensive ones with >60Hz, let alone the cost for the graphics horse power to reach the high FPS needed to profit from the possible high refresh rate.
For 1440p, there are enough offerings with 144Hz to choose from, and a 2060 or 5700 can certainly reach the FPS in CSGO to make full use of the monitor's refresh capabilities. That's why I recommend 1440p. (Still disregarding 1080p for its low pixel density at 24/27". Seriously, nobody can want to look at this anymore)

 

[Redlambs]

'behind'. Yes, Intel's 9900k wins most gaming benchmarks by a measurable but hardly ever perceptible margin, but it's more power hungry and more expensive than a 3700X or 3800X. As soon as you also do work with your PC, its value proposition looks really bad compared to Ryzen 3000.



I was talking about what to buy for different preferences, like pixel density > refresh rate or the other way around, because @VidaRed 's requirements had not been stated before.
If high refresh rate is the most important criterion, 4k screens are basically ruled out because there are only very few and very expensive ones with >60Hz, let alone the cost for the graphics horse power to reach the high FPS needed to profit from the possible high refresh rate.
For 1440p, there are enough offerings with 144Hz to choose from, and a 2060 or 5700 can certainly reach the FPS in CSGO to make full use of the monitor's refresh capabilities. That's why I recommend 1440p. (Still disregarding 1080p for its low pixel density at 24/27". Seriously, nobody can want to look at this anymore)

Why is 1440p the best for 144hz though? That's the question I'm asking, what is the correlation there?

Because apart from some monitors that offer it, despite not actually being that much better for the cost, I don't get why you are pushing it.

I mean if resolution is king, then you higher than that. If fps is, then you go 1080p at low settings regardless of display. If you want pro performance, them a 1080p @ 144hz monitor with games running at > 200fps is ultimate. No?

1440 @144hz is very specific considering you seem to want to push ryzen because of costings, don't you think?

 

[GhastlyHun]

As i said (repeatedly), i disregard 1080p because of its sheer eyeball-withering ugliness.

 

[Redlambs]

So answer my question.

Why is 1440p the best to 144hz. And what fps do you recommend running on it whilst you are at it? Surely 144fps rather than the 120 the new consoles do, right?

 

[GhastlyHun]

So answer my question.

Why is 1440p the best to 144hz. And what fps do you recommend running on it whilst you are at it? Surely 144fps rather than the 120 the new consoles do, right?

VidaRed is looking for a fast new monitor, i.e., 144 Hz capable. These are available in 1080p, 1440p, and 2160p, with diagonals in the 24-27" range. Of these products, 1080p ones are shit for their low pixel density, and 4k ones are shit for their ridiculous prices and lack of a wide range of products to choose from. That leaves 1440p. What's the big deal here?

 

[Redlambs]

VidaRed is looking for a fast new monitor, i.e., 144 Hz capable. These are available in 1080p, 1440p, and 2160p, with diagonals in the 24-27" range. Of these products, 1080p ones are shit for their low pixel density, and 4k ones are shit for their ridiculous prices and lack of a wide range of products to choose from. That leaves 1440p. What's the big deal here?

Because if he wants real performance for shooting games, then 1440 is unecessary. He is much better off at 1080, putting the extra into the gpu and running as many frames as possible. Especially for the likes of CS:GO and all the popular shooters right now.

You have to remember, that not every game is made well enough to take advantage of the extra ooompth anyway, which is why 1080 is the mainstay no matter what. I do get what you are saying there mate, but between that and asking why Bojan didn't downgrade, I was just a bit confused as to why you keep pushing the mid ground is all.

 

[2mufc0]

Because if he wants real performance for shooting games, then 1440 is unecessary. He is much better off at 1080, putting the extra into the gpu and running as many frames as possible. Especially for the likes of CS:GO and all the popular shooters right now.

You have to remember, that not every game is made well enough to take advantage of the extra ooompth anyway, which is why 1080 is the mainstay no matter what. I do get what you are saying there mate, but between that and asking why Bojan didn't downgrade, I was just a bit confused as to why you keep pushing the mid ground is all.

1080 is a massive overkill for 1080p gaming. Most he should get is a 1070 even that is slightly overpowered for 1080p.

If he's getting a 1080 it's a no broaner to upgrade to a higher resolution, 1440p can be run at a very high frame rate these days, so why not? It is noticeably better than 1080p too.

 

[GhastlyHun]

Because if he wants real performance for shooting games, then 1440 is unecessary. He is much better off at 1080, putting the extra into the gpu and running as many frames as possible. Especially for the likes of CS:GO and all the popular shooters right now.

CS:GO has requirements so low that RTX2060 and RX5700 reach ~140 FPS even under 4k. In the end all comes down to @VidaRed 's use profile. If more demanding games are on the list, a 2060 / 5700 may not have the power to max out a 1440p 144Hz monitor for those, and a different combination of components will make more sense.

 

[Redlambs]

CS:GO has requirements so low that RTX2060 and RX5700 reach ~140 FPS even under 4k. In the end all comes down to @VidaRed 's use profile. If more demanding games are on the list, a 2060 / 5700 may not have the power to max out a 1440p 144Hz monitor for those, and a different combination of components will make more sense.

Yeah I'm with it. But pushing much higher than 144fps is what you want in those games anyway.

It does all depend on what games and to what standard though. No way if you want to compete is anything above 1080 is worth using in any game.

But if the budget is there, then just like Bojan you might as well get the best. But for shooting games like CS played at a reasonable level, 144hz at the most frames possible is way higher on the list than resolution.

I will say though, that anyone coming from a console or standard 60hz monitor, you are in for a treat at 144hz (or even 244)

 

[Nickosaur]

Thoughts on Ryzen or Intel CPU?

Looking to build a pc for general use and gaming.

Also - how do you keep up to date with the latest parts? How often do Intel/Ryzen release new hardware? Is there anything new in that regard in the pipeline?

 

[Massive Spanner]

Thoughts on Ryzen or Intel CPU?

Looking to build a pc for general use and gaming.

Also - how do you keep up to date with the latest parts? How often do Intel/Ryzen release new hardware? Is there anything new in that regard in the pipeline?

My thoughts are that I'm lost!

Seems the new Ryzen's are better bang for buck and much closer to Intel now in single core performance as well as having more cores, but then their Mobo's are so fecking expensive and you need 3000mhz+ DDR RAM to get the best out of them that I wonder if it's worth it because they certainly don't work out any cheaper.

 

[Nickosaur]

My thoughts are that I'm lost!

Seems the new Ryzen's are better bang for buck and much closer to Intel now in single core performance as well as having more cores, but then their Mobo's are so fecking expensive and you need 3000mhz+ DDR RAM to get the best out of them that I wonder if it's worth it because they certainly don't work out any cheaper.

You seem to know a lot more than I do!

I was looking at the MSI B450 mobos, tomahawk or gaming pro - so they wouldn't be getting the best out of the ryzen?

 

[Massive Spanner]

You seem to know a lot more than I do!

I was looking at the MSI B450 mobos, tomahawk or gaming pro - so they wouldn't be getting the best out of the ryzen?

Hmm no I didn't say that? I said RAM, not motherboard mate, but obviously the better the motherboard the better it is for the CPU, though a lot of features on more expensive mobos nowadays are far from being essential. The problem with the new Ryzen series is that the mobos to go with it are really expensive. You can get last gen mobos that'll work with them too but you would need to flash a BIOS updates so make sure you're comfortable with doing something like that first.

if your PC is mainly just for gaming you really don't need to worry much about whether it's AMD or Intel though, unless you plan on going really high end for 4k, most €200 CPU's are more than enough for what you'll want.

 

[Nickosaur]

Hmm no I didn't say that? I said RAM, not motherboard mate, but obviously the better the motherboard the better it is for the CPU, though a lot of features on more expensive mobos nowadays are far from being essential. The problem with the new Ryzen series is that the mobos to go with it are really expensive. You can get last gen mobos that'll work with them too but you would need to flash a BIOS updates so make sure you're comfortable with doing something like that first.

if your PC is mainly just for gaming you really don't need to worry much about whether it's AMD or Intel though, unless you plan on going really high end for 4k, most €200 CPU's are more than enough for what you'll want.

i'm hopeless. sorry, i misread.

ah okay, fair enough. i'm very new to all this, been doing some background reading on the buildapc subreddit, but a lot of it still baffles me. but its something i really want to do.

 

[GhastlyHun]

Thoughts on Ryzen or Intel CPU?

Looking to build a pc for general use and gaming.

Also - how do you keep up to date with the latest parts? How often do Intel/Ryzen release new hardware? Is there anything new in that regard in the pipeline?

First things first: The company making Ryzen CPUs is called AMD
Both Intel and AMD release *something* more or less anually. There is no general rule (anymore) on how substantial an improvement that something is over its predecessor. Intel has been struggling the last 2-3 years with its stagnating lithography process, which hampers serious improvements in terms of core count and performance per watt, and thus they are currently being comprehensively beaten by AMD's Ryzen and Epyc offerings for professional use cases in the desktop and server space. AMD has dumped its own manufacturing years ago and has gone over to the leading chip manufacturer TSMC, which currently gives them an edge in transistors per mm² and performance per Watt.

Intel will probably release some consumer CPU with more cores than their current 8 in their current line-up (called 'Coffee Lake'), but with the same architecture, in the next months, but they will run into the physical limitations of performance per watt, i.e. heat generation, due to their manufacturing process, and need to drop the maximum all core frequency for the top dog CPUs. For gaming and light workloads those won't be interesting anyway. Their 10nm parts for desktop, equalling the manufacturing tech TSMC offers AMD today, are not on their roadmaps until 2022.

AMD's next consumer CPU (Ryzen 4000 series) is 12+ months away. If you buy an AM4 mainboard with a 500 series chipset, you will be able to drop in one of those Ryzen 4000 CPUs. After Ryzen 4000, AMD will most likely use a new socket with DDR5 support.
Intel is notorious for needing a new mainboard with almost every new CPU release, even their aforementioned core bump from 8 max to 10 max will come with a new socket (LGA 1200).



With all of that out of the way, Intel's current offerings still have their merits, like greater choice of mainboards and in most cases the best single-threaded performance due to their high clock speeds.
For better advice, we'll need more detail about your workload (gaming vs office/productive), the games you want to play, and of course your budget.

 

[Nickosaur]

First things first: The company making Ryzen CPUs is called AMD
Both Intel and AMD release *something* more or less anually. There is no general rule (anymore) on how substantial an improvement that something is over its predecessor. Intel has been struggling the last 2-3 years with its stagnating lithography process, which hampers serious improvements in terms of core count and performance per watt, and thus they are currently being comprehensively beaten by AMD's Ryzen and Epyc offerings for professional use cases in the desktop and server space. AMD has dumped its own manufacturing years ago and has gone over to the leading chip manufacturer TSMC, which currently gives them an edge in transistors per mm² and performance per Watt.

Intel will probably release some consumer CPU with more cores than their current 8 in their current line-up (called 'Coffee Lake'), but with the same architecture in the next months, but they will run into the physical limitations of performance per watt, i.e. heat generation, due to their manufacturing process, and need to drop the maximum all core frequency. For gaming and light workloads those won't be interesting anyway. Their 10nm parts for desktop, equalling the manufacturing tech TSMC offers AMD today, are not on their roadmaps until 2022.

AMD's next consumer CPU (Ryzen 4000 series) is 12+ months away. If you buy an AM4 mainboard with a 500 series chipset, you will be able to drop in one of those Ryzen 4000 CPUs. After Ryzen 4000, AMD will most likely use a new socket with DDR5 support.
Intel is notorious for needing a new mainboard with almost every new CPU release, even their aforementioned core bump from 8 max to 10 max will come with a new socket (LGA 1200).

With all of that out of the way, Intel's current offerings still have their merits, like greater choice of mainboards and in most cases the best single-threaded performance due to their high clock speeds.
For better advice, we'll need more detail about your workload (gaming vs office/productive), the games you want to play, and of course your budget.

Cheers mate, much appreciated. Like I said above I'm new to all of this so everything you said here is genuinely useful to know.

I think part of the problem is i don't really know what i want yet. Won't need to be too high-spec - i'm not interested in things like streaming, or overclocking. I just like the idea of building my own pc, and once i've got it I'll use it for some AAA gaming (Cyberpunk, FM, some of the Microsoft Game pass games) and general work (i write a lot, and the occasional use of Adobe creative suite). I don't really have a set budget. At a guess I'd say around £1500, but that would include monitors, mouse and keyboard.

 

[GhastlyHun]

Cheers mate, much appreciated. Like I said above I'm new to all of this so everything you said here is genuinely useful to know.

I think part of the problem is i don't really know what i want yet. Won't need to be too high-spec - i'm not interested in things like streaming, or overclocking. I just like the idea of building my own pc, and once i've got it I'll use it for some AAA gaming (Cyberpunk, FM, some of the Microsoft Game pass games) and general work (i write a lot, and the occasional use of Adobe creative suite). I don't really have a set budget. At a guess I'd say around £1500, but that would include monitors, mouse and keyboard.

Any idea what resolution you want to run? The GPU is in most cases a lot more critical for the gaming performance than the CPU, and will therefore eat a big part of the budget.

 

[Nickosaur]

Any idea what resolution you want to run? The GPU is in most cases a lot more critical for the gaming performance than the CPU, and will therefore eat a big part of the budget.

4k i guess? I haven't experienced 4k gaming yet as i've got a pretty old tv hooked up to my xbox one.

I was trying to follow the discussion at the top of the page on resolutions and monitors but that flew straight over my head

 

[Redlambs]

It all begins with your budget mate. Then look at preferences for gaming, i.e smoothness vs looks (fps vs resolution) and all that.

True 4k is expensive to run with, and we are still a way off it being the norm, however lower resolutions and scaling up at decent speeds is easily achievable on a reasonable budget. As discussed above, Ryzen cpus are cheaper but to get the most out of them, you pretty much need to spend the same as Intel anyway and again, single core performance not mattering as much is still some way off. However, the gap between AMD/Intel and ATI/Nvidia in terms of cpus and gfx cards isn't what it once was, so it's pretty much a case of highest numbers for your budget.

Start with PCPARTPICKER.com to get an idea for what your budget can stretch too.

 

[GhastlyHun]

4k i guess? I haven't experienced 4k gaming yet as i've got a pretty old tv hooked up to my xbox one.

I was trying to follow the discussion at the top of the page on resolutions and monitors but that flew straight over my head

Probably every kind of resolution and refresh rate on the PC will feel like an upgrade to the xbox+old tv combo
4k is very demanding though. With stuff like Cyberpunk 2077, we can safely assume that even next year's high end GPUs will struggle to deliver constant high framerates on high quality settings at 4k. What I'm saying is... maybe don't go to 4k straight away, or be aware that you will need to fiddle with game quality settings to get a smooth experience, unless you spend really big on graphics cards.

 

[2mufc0]

It's difficult to play everything maxed on 4k unless you spend bucket loads, however it can be done on a lesser budget but you have to turn some details down and turn certain extras off (AA, hair works etc) . Tbh I never noticed the difference between ultra and high settings so it doesn't bother me.

 

[Massive Spanner]

Unless you have a massive budget I'd aim for 1440p and a high refresh rate over trying to go 4k. The cost of going from 1080p > 1440p is maybe 20% - 25% whereas it's probably double, if not more, to get the best out of 4k.

 

[Nickosaur]

Hmm okay, noted. Will do a bit more digging. Cheers guys!

 

[VidaRed]

VidaRed is looking for a fast new monitor, i.e., 144 Hz capable. These are available in 1080p, 1440p, and 2160p, with diagonals in the 24-27" range. Of these products, 1080p ones are shit for their low pixel density, and 4k ones are shit for their ridiculous prices and lack of a wide range of products to choose from. That leaves 1440p. What's the big deal here?

Yeah I'm with it. But pushing much higher than 144fps is what you want in those games anyway.

It does all depend on what games and to what standard though. No way if you want to compete is anything above 1080 is worth using in any game.

But if the budget is there, then just like Bojan you might as well get the best. But for shooting games like CS played at a reasonable level, 144hz at the most frames possible is way higher on the list than resolution.

I will say though, that anyone coming from a console or standard 60hz monitor, you are in for a treat at 144hz (or even 244)

Which 1440p monitor would you recommend ? It should be 144hz or higher with 1ms response time.

 

[Nickosaur]

Any opinions on the RT 5700/xt gpus?

They look pretty good at that price point.

 

[VidaRed]

VidaRed is looking for a fast new monitor, i.e., 144 Hz capable. These are available in 1080p, 1440p, and 2160p, with diagonals in the 24-27" range. Of these products, 1080p ones are shit for their low pixel density, and 4k ones are shit for their ridiculous prices and lack of a wide range of products to choose from. That leaves 1440p. What's the big deal here?

Yeah I'm with it. But pushing much higher than 144fps is what you want in those games anyway.

It does all depend on what games and to what standard though. No way if you want to compete is anything above 1080 is worth using in any game.

But if the budget is there, then just like Bojan you might as well get the best. But for shooting games like CS played at a reasonable level, 144hz at the most frames possible is way higher on the list than resolution.

I will say though, that anyone coming from a console or standard 60hz monitor, you are in for a treat at 144hz (or even 244)

Which 1440p monitor would you recommend ? It should be 144hz or higher with 1ms response time.

 

[GhastlyHun]

I read a different test of that monitor which was also very positive. It's also nice that it gives you variable refresh with both GPU vendors, because it doesn't use Nvidia's proprietary G-Sync solution, but the VESA specified open VRR protocol (which Nv has finally chosen to support a while ago). Seems a very good 1440p/144Hz monitor.

 

[VidaRed]

I read a different test of that monitor which was also very positive. It's also nice that it gives you variable refresh with both GPU vendors, because it doesn't use Nvidia's proprietary G-Sync solution, but the VESA specified open VRR protocol (which Nv has finally chosen to support a while ago). Seems a very good 1440p/144Hz monitor.

Upon further reading i learnt that the response time is actually 4ms, its unplayable on the fastest setting wherein the response time is at the advertised 1ms! And the contrast ratio is in the 700's, being a ips display it should be above the 1000 mark.

Im in the 1440p @ 144hz camp now (3700x + 5700xt should suffice with freesync!)

 

[2mufc0]

Upon further reading i learnt that the response time is actually 4ms, its unplayable on the fastest setting wherein the response time is at the advertised 1ms! And the contrast ratio is in the 700's, being a ips display it should be above the 1000 mark.

Im in the 1440p @ 144hz camp now (3700x + 5700xt should suffice with freesync!)

You won't get more than 100FPS with that card unless you tone down the settings, although it is a very good one.

Whilst everyone says 1440p 144hz is the way to go, to actually get 140FPS at that resolution requires a very high end setup. Probably costs the same as running 4k at max.

 

[GhastlyHun]

You won't get more than 100FPS with that card unless you tone down the settings, although it is a very good one.

Whilst everyone says 1440p 144hz is the way to go, to actually get 140FPS at that resolution requires a very high end setup. Probably costs the same as running 4k at max.

In brand new and demanding games maybe. It's definitely no use to generalize it like that.
In CSGO, for example, the 5700 XT easily hits >200 FPS in 1440p.

 

[2mufc0]

In brand new and demanding games maybe. It's definitely no use to generalize it like that.
In CSGO, for example, the 5700 XT easily hits >200 FPS in 1440p.

Yeah that's fine but i'm speaking on averages. If CSGO is the only type of game he's going to play fair enough, but he definitely won't get that performance across the board.

 

[Redplane]

Any opinions on the RT 5700/xt gpus?

They look pretty good at that price point.

Supposedly they re likely to drop in the sub 200 range when Nvidia releases their new cards - making it an even better value. Heard drivers are still buggy on them too so probably can't hurt to wait a bit.

 

[GhastlyHun]

Yeah that's fine but i'm speaking on averages. If CSGO is the only type of game he's going to play fair enough, but he definitely won't get that performance across the board.

Of course not, but there simply is no card that gives you a guaranteed 100 FPS at 1440p in whichever game.

 

[2mufc0]

Of course not, but there simply is no card that gives you a guaranteed 100 FPS at 1440p in whichever game.

That was the point i was making mate, everyone keeps saying 1440P 144hz is the sweet spot but to actually max out on that is just as expensive as 4k max.