Why does it say "Brand May Vary" on the GPU ?
• GPU: GeForce RTX 3060 12GB (Brand May Vary)
It means whatever they have in stock at the moment. This PC is good for entry-level gaming. I would also want to find more info on the motherboard itself and what does it carry. For example what the maxed memory ram allowed for the system? Can you add 2nd GPU later on as SLI?
You guys realize GPU prices are tanking and stock is replenishing, right? Don't pay absurd amounts for cheapo GPUs like this one.
No I don't realize this actually because everywhere that sells them is still going OOS extremely quickly. I would rather buy a 3060 and build a PC than buy a premade, but what is the source of this information?
Usual reminder you are massively overpaying for a graphics card in a build like this due to the market. Built this system on pcpartpicker without the GPU and it's about a $500-$550 system at these specs minus the 3060. So, you're paying a healthy $650-$700 for a 3060 which is nuts.
Unless you just want to overpay because of the GPU market, wait until GPU prices fall, they inevitably will, and systems like this will be under $1k easily.
The way how both parties run this country nothing is going down price-wise. So stop telling people wait until the GPU prices to fall. It's not going to happen for a very long time unfortunately.
Why does it say "Brand May Vary" on the GPU ?
• GPU: GeForce RTX 3060 12GB (Brand May Vary)
From the customer pictures they're either evga or MSI. The PSU must also be brand may vary. Someone posted a Thermaltake psu, and the other had an evga.
man... the graphic card shortage is so BS. games rarely uses faster CPU, if you build anything in the last 5 years, your system minus graphic card is probably good for the next 5 years. i would much rather just buy the GPU for 300 dollars, than the entire system for 1k.
This seems pretty legit, is this a good long term investment for someone who wants to transition to PC gaming?
It always depends on what games you plan to play. That's you're starting point. When quarantine hit, i got a used i5-3XXX processor computer for $70 bucks, a new ssd for $50 and a used gtx 1060 for $100 (impossible to find at this price now) and it's more than capable for my street fighter v and Dota 2 at 1440 resolution.on highest settings.
Before the shortage of chips hit, i was advising everyone to by used. The chip shortage has caused graphic cards to go up exponentially, so I think gaming computers are best bought as a factory build these days.
On a side note, if anyone needs a computer for basic use, just go to craigslist or offerup.com and look up optiplex. I5-3XXX cpu with 8 gig of ram is more than enough for daily basic use.
Usual reminder you are massively overpaying for a graphics card in a build like this due to the market. Built this system on pcpartpicker without the GPU and it's about a $500-$550 system at these specs minus the 3060. So, you're paying a healthy $650-$700 for a 3060 which is nuts.
Unless you just want to overpay because of the GPU market, wait until GPU prices fall, they inevitably will, and systems like this will be under $1k easily.
$650-$700 for a RTX 3060 is nuts. In 2019, you could have bought the $500 RTX 2070 Super and got better gaming performance than this $650-$700 RTX 3060.
man... the graphic card shortage is so BS. games rarely uses faster CPU, if you build anything in the last 5 years, your system minus graphic card is probably good for the next 5 years. i would much rather just buy the GPU for 300 dollars, than the entire system for 1k.
Really depends what you're playing, at what res and settings.
If you're 4k gaming with a relatively high end card that can handle that- yeah, even older than 5 year CPUs won't make much difference.
If you're gaming at 1080p, and even somewhat at 1440p, a LOT of games are CPU bound and it can make a big difference.
They use a 3080, then they test a suite of 9 games at 1080, 1440, 4k...with a range of 7 CPUs including 9th/10th gen intels, Ryzen 3600 and 3900x AMDs, and even a 2013 i7-4770k Haswell....(normalizing everything else like memory speeds as much as possible)
At 1080p medium going from the 10th gen i9 down to a 9th gen cost you 10 fps, the i9 10th gen down to a 3900x Ryzen cost you almost 40 fps... 10 more fps gone dropping to the 3600, 12 more to the i3....and almost another 40 gone with the Haswell CPU.
At 1080p Ultra the i9s were about the same- but you still lost 15 fps dropping to the 3900x, another 7 to the 3600, and you're down 30 fps from the i9 to the i3 (and 30 more to the Haswell).
Those are 70% and 47% FPS drops from top to bottom CPU...but even sticking to relatively "current" stuff you saw notable differences.
At 1440p medium the ryzens "only" give up ~15-25 fps, the i3 about 30, and the Haswell about 70 fps compared to the i9.
1440p ultra the ryzens only lose about 10-12 fps, the i3 only 3 more, then 18 more for Haswel.
But by the time you get to 4k MEDIUM, EVERYTHING is within about 5 fps of each other-- except Haswell, which is now just 15 fps behind.
Lastly at 4k Ultra? Everything is within 3 fps, except Haswell... which is only 6 fps slower- a mere 8% difference from the 4th gen i7 to the 9th/10th gen i9.
That review was especially interesting to me, since my "old" desktop gaming rig was an i7-4770k with an Aorus Xtreme OCed 1080ti I was using for 4k gaming with pretty respectable results on a 4k/60Hz OLED--- now whole setup is my wifes 4k gaming machine.
They use a 3080, then they test a suite of 9 games at 1080, 1440, 4k...with a range of 7 CPUs including 9th/10th gen intels, Ryzen 3600 and 3900x AMDs, and even a 2013 i7-4770k Haswell....(normalizing everything else like memory speeds as much as possible)
At 1080p medium going from the 10th gen i9 down to a 9th gen cost you 10 fps, the i9 10th gen down to a 3900x Ryzen cost you almost 40 fps... 10 more fps gone dropping to the 3600, 12 more to the i3....and almost another 40 gone with the Haswell CPU.
At 1080p Ultra the i9s were about the same- but you still lost 15 fps dropping to the 3900x, another 7 to the 3600, and you're down 30 fps from the i9 to the i3 (and 30 more to the Haswell).
Those are 70% and 47% FPS drops from top to bottom CPU...but even sticking to relatively "current" stuff you saw notable differences.
At 1440p medium the ryzens "only" give up ~15-25 fps, the i3 about 30, and the Haswell about 70 fps compared to the i9.
1440p ultra the ryzens only lose about 10-12 fps, the i3 only 3 more, then 18 more for Haswel.
But by the time you get to 4k MEDIUM, EVERYTHING is within about 5 fps of each other-- except Haswell, which is now just 15 fps behind.
Lastly at 4k Ultra? Everything is within 3 fps, except Haswell... which is only 6 fps slower- a mere 8% difference from the 4th gen i7 to the 9th/10th gen i9.
That review was especially interesting to me, since my "old" desktop gaming rig was an i7-4770k with an Aorus Xtreme OCed 1080ti I was using for 4k gaming with pretty respectable results on a 4k/60Hz OLED--- now whole setup is my wifes 4k gaming machine.
that was a great read, and very informative. granted i am running 1950x that was released in 2017, so about 4 years ago. haswell is released in 2013 so that's about 8 year ago. but even with that processor, i'd argue while the number are staggering only on the paper, we are talking about over 100 fps. the difference between 100 fps and 200 fps.. while significant, aren't all that tangible if at all. if there is a game that running on a old processor (in this case haswell) result in 30 fps and playing on the latest processor goes over 60, then that's much more important in my mind.
on that note, the result of 1440p Ultra and 4k (since that's what i am playing at) basically shows 4770k and 10900k are all playable... the worse case being 4k metro exodus, the 4770k run at 42.4 fps and 10900 run at 43? like wtf?
so here my conclusion after reading it, for games that shows dramatic difference in frame rate, even the low 4770 can provide over 60 fps in ALL cases, for games that actually need higher performance, the difference between 8 year old process and new process is about 5 fps, if even that.
i think this article actually solidify my point of view, the benefit of getting a newer processor, as long as your current processor isn't ancient, aren't important at all.
The way how both parties run this country nothing is going down price-wise. So stop telling people wait until the GPU prices to fall. It's not going to happen for a very long time unfortunately.
Has absolutely nothing to do with politics of who is in office. Has 100% to due with a chip shortage and crypto-mining. The chip shortage is being worked out and should return to relative normal by end of year/early next year.
Paying these prices right now is just downright dumb unless you like watching your money burn when prices return to normal, and they will.
$1,249 now. Would anyone be able to speculate as to its ability to run FIFA and F1 (and similar games) at 1440p, especially vs. my current rig (i7-4770, 24 GB RAM, R9X Fury)
?
so here my conclusion after reading it, for games that shows dramatic difference in frame rate, even the low 4770 can provide over 60 fps in ALL cases, for games that actually need higher performance, the difference between 8 year old process and new process is about 5 fps, if even that.
I believe there is one outlier called Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020. A Ryzen 7 2700X only gets 38 FPS at 1080p ultra when using a Radeon RX 6900 XT. While using a Ryzen 7 5800X gets 55 FPS at the same settings.
31 Comments
Your comment cannot be blank.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
• GPU: GeForce RTX 3060 12GB (Brand May Vary)
It means whatever they have in stock at the moment. This PC is good for entry-level gaming. I would also want to find more info on the motherboard itself and what does it carry. For example what the maxed memory ram allowed for the system? Can you add 2nd GPU later on as SLI?
Unless you just want to overpay because of the GPU market, wait until GPU prices fall, they inevitably will, and systems like this will be under $1k easily.
It's good start.
• GPU: GeForce RTX 3060 12GB (Brand May Vary)
From the customer pictures they're either evga or MSI. The PSU must also be brand may vary. Someone posted a Thermaltake psu, and the other had an evga.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Before the shortage of chips hit, i was advising everyone to by used. The chip shortage has caused graphic cards to go up exponentially, so I think gaming computers are best bought as a factory build these days.
On a side note, if anyone needs a computer for basic use, just go to craigslist or offerup.com and look up optiplex. I5-3XXX cpu with 8 gig of ram is more than enough for daily basic use.
Unless you just want to overpay because of the GPU market, wait until GPU prices fall, they inevitably will, and systems like this will be under $1k easily.
Really depends what you're playing, at what res and settings.
If you're 4k gaming with a relatively high end card that can handle that- yeah, even older than 5 year CPUs won't make much difference.
If you're gaming at 1080p, and even somewhat at 1440p, a LOT of games are CPU bound and it can make a big difference.
https://www.tomshardwar
They use a 3080, then they test a suite of 9 games at 1080, 1440, 4k...with a range of 7 CPUs including 9th/10th gen intels, Ryzen 3600 and 3900x AMDs, and even a 2013 i7-4770k Haswell....(normalizing everything else like memory speeds as much as possible)
At 1080p medium going from the 10th gen i9 down to a 9th gen cost you 10 fps, the i9 10th gen down to a 3900x Ryzen cost you almost 40 fps... 10 more fps gone dropping to the 3600, 12 more to the i3....and almost another 40 gone with the Haswell CPU.
At 1080p Ultra the i9s were about the same- but you still lost 15 fps dropping to the 3900x, another 7 to the 3600, and you're down 30 fps from the i9 to the i3 (and 30 more to the Haswell).
Those are 70% and 47% FPS drops from top to bottom CPU...but even sticking to relatively "current" stuff you saw notable differences.
At 1440p medium the ryzens "only" give up ~15-25 fps, the i3 about 30, and the Haswell about 70 fps compared to the i9.
1440p ultra the ryzens only lose about 10-12 fps, the i3 only 3 more, then 18 more for Haswel.
But by the time you get to 4k MEDIUM, EVERYTHING is within about 5 fps of each other-- except Haswell, which is now just 15 fps behind.
Lastly at 4k Ultra? Everything is within 3 fps, except Haswell... which is only 6 fps slower- a mere 8% difference from the 4th gen i7 to the 9th/10th gen i9.
That review was especially interesting to me, since my "old" desktop gaming rig was an i7-4770k with an Aorus Xtreme OCed 1080ti I was using for 4k gaming with pretty respectable results on a 4k/60Hz OLED--- now whole setup is my wifes 4k gaming machine.
If you're 4k gaming with a relatively high end card that can handle that- yeah, even older than 5 year CPUs won't make much difference.
If you're gaming at 1080p, and even somewhat at 1440p, a LOT of games are CPU bound and it can make a big difference.
https://www.tomshardwar
They use a 3080, then they test a suite of 9 games at 1080, 1440, 4k...with a range of 7 CPUs including 9th/10th gen intels, Ryzen 3600 and 3900x AMDs, and even a 2013 i7-4770k Haswell....(normalizing everything else like memory speeds as much as possible)
At 1080p medium going from the 10th gen i9 down to a 9th gen cost you 10 fps, the i9 10th gen down to a 3900x Ryzen cost you almost 40 fps... 10 more fps gone dropping to the 3600, 12 more to the i3....and almost another 40 gone with the Haswell CPU.
At 1080p Ultra the i9s were about the same- but you still lost 15 fps dropping to the 3900x, another 7 to the 3600, and you're down 30 fps from the i9 to the i3 (and 30 more to the Haswell).
Those are 70% and 47% FPS drops from top to bottom CPU...but even sticking to relatively "current" stuff you saw notable differences.
At 1440p medium the ryzens "only" give up ~15-25 fps, the i3 about 30, and the Haswell about 70 fps compared to the i9.
1440p ultra the ryzens only lose about 10-12 fps, the i3 only 3 more, then 18 more for Haswel.
But by the time you get to 4k MEDIUM, EVERYTHING is within about 5 fps of each other-- except Haswell, which is now just 15 fps behind.
Lastly at 4k Ultra? Everything is within 3 fps, except Haswell... which is only 6 fps slower- a mere 8% difference from the 4th gen i7 to the 9th/10th gen i9.
That review was especially interesting to me, since my "old" desktop gaming rig was an i7-4770k with an Aorus Xtreme OCed 1080ti I was using for 4k gaming with pretty respectable results on a 4k/60Hz OLED--- now whole setup is my wifes 4k gaming machine.
on that note, the result of 1440p Ultra and 4k (since that's what i am playing at) basically shows 4770k and 10900k are all playable... the worse case being 4k metro exodus, the 4770k run at 42.4 fps and 10900 run at 43? like wtf?
so here my conclusion after reading it, for games that shows dramatic difference in frame rate, even the low 4770 can provide over 60 fps in ALL cases, for games that actually need higher performance, the difference between 8 year old process and new process is about 5 fps, if even that.
i think this article actually solidify my point of view, the benefit of getting a newer processor, as long as your current processor isn't ancient, aren't important at all.
Paying these prices right now is just downright dumb unless you like watching your money burn when prices return to normal, and they will.
?
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
https://www.techspot.co