New The PC Build Thread

Just use DLSS.

Using DLSS "quality" setting on a 1440p monitor looks better than native 1080p while running at essentially the same frame rate.


Then you can buy a new GPU at a later time without also having to buy another new monitor.
How is he going to "just use DLSS" on his 7 year old AMD GPU?
 
How is he going to "just use DLSS" on his 7 year old AMD GPU?

FSR then. Point is he will still have some time before having to buy a new GPU.
But he will need to buy a new GPU eventually, and when that happens it's much better to have a 1440p monitor than being stuck with a 27" 1080p monitor that he either has to replace or doesn't wanna replace because it's basically new.

In other words; buy a monitor to match your future GPU, not your 7 year old GPU.
 
Okay, it's a bit harder to recommend a 1440P monitor for an RX570.

Keep in mind most competitive FPS games will be mostly CPU bound as well especially something like Valorant that runs on a smart fridge, he could have a 4090 in his current PC and his FPS would barely go up.

You're staring at a whole system upgrade down the road at some point.
Yep, will do a full upgrade in the future. Current PC is old, but still going strong - i7-4770.

The main issue is the 60 Hz monitor (according to my son), and he doesn't really play AAA titles - just FPS gaming and other random games like Call of the Wild, Fishing Planet, etc.

So if I stay with 1080p, options are:

MSI G255F
AOC 24G4
Dell G2524H

But all of them seem to have some or other issue or negative reviews.

Or the Woot Vision 1440p or something similar.
 
Yep, will do a full upgrade in the future. Current PC is old, but still going strong - i7-4770.

The main issue is the 60 Hz monitor (according to my son), and he doesn't really play AAA titles - just FPS gaming and other random games like Call of the Wild, Fishing Planet, etc.

So if I stay with 1080p, options are:

MSI G255F
AOC 24G4
Dell G2524H

But all of them seem to have some or other issue or negative reviews.

Or the Woot Vision 1440p or something similar.

Pixel density of 1080p on a 27" inch panel is very low. Fine if you sit far away but otherwise the pixels are clearly visible. Would not recommend.

Rather have a look at carbonite if you wanna save some cash.
 
Yep, will do a full upgrade in the future. Current PC is old, but still going strong - i7-4770.

The main issue is the 60 Hz monitor (according to my son), and he doesn't really play AAA titles - just FPS gaming and other random games like Call of the Wild, Fishing Planet, etc.

So if I stay with 1080p, options are:

MSI G255F
AOC 24G4
Dell G2524H

But all of them seem to have some or other issue or negative reviews.

Or the Woot Vision 1440p or something similar.
I just personally think it would be crazy to buy a 24" 1080P monitor when you can get a 27" 1440P for the same price but any upgrade you do is going to be massive, just going from 60Hz to 144Hz+ is basically going to instantly make him better.
 
Pixel density of 1080p on a 27" inch panel is very low. Fine if you sit far away but otherwise the pixels are clearly visible. Would not recommend.

Rather have a look at carbonite if you wanna save some cash.
Yep, definitely won;t go 27" 1080p. I'm only looking at 24" 1080p or 27" 1440p.
 
I just personally think it would be crazy to buy a 24" 1080P monitor when you can get a 27" 1440P for the same price but any upgrade you do is going to be massive, just going from 60Hz to 144Hz+ is basically going to instantly make him better.
Okay cool. Just not sure why all the competitive gamers (in for example Fortnite) all still use 1080p monitors.
 
Okay cool. Just not sure why all the competitive gamers (in for example Fortnite) all still use 1080p monitors.

It depends on the game, and it is, in actual fact, a personal preference. A lot of the premier pros play competitively on high resolutions, even in games such as CS. Most players, they play as they train, and they train within parameters. This would include the mitigation of any frametimes, amongst various other variables. For normal people it doesn't make much of a difference, but for top-level players every ms counts.

This is why BenQ's Zowie range for professional esports players still has high refresh, very expensive, TN panels. The responsiveness is absolutely mind-blowing. Then people ask, why are people still buying TN panels when you can have IPS/OLED? Simple really, they professionally play games on it for a living.
 
Okay cool. Just not sure why all the competitive gamers (in for example Fortnite) all still use 1080p monitors.
The actual making money playing the game pro players probably don't even play native 1080P, they probably play stretched res, you could say for performance but these people have top of the range PCs, sometimes it can be used to make the enemies appear bigger on your screen but I would say the majority of the time it's literally just what they're used to playing on from having to use these setting growing up playing on slow PCs or laptop gamers just to get any sort of FPS and now it's just what they are used to playing.
 
Firstly it depends on the game. If it's an RTS or racing sim, they'll probably play at a higher resolution as there's no real downside. When it comes to competitive FPS, it's all about performance.

The difference between 200FPS and 600FPS can be massive even on a 60Hz monitor due to physics engine behaviour. Quake III Arena was the first I know of, where getting 333FPS made you jump higher and every other footstep silent, along with some other bugs. One of the Call of Duty games had something similar where you could jump further at a refresh rate above a certain number. There are a ton of games that inadvertently give an unfair advantage when the frame rate exceeds what the physics engine is capable of.

Over and above that, when you're playing at the level that milliseconds are the difference between winning and losing a duel, the difference between 144Hz (7ms/frame) and 360Hz (2.8ms/frame) can be a winning advantage. Maintaining 360FPS on many games is hard even with high end hardware, which is why a lower resolution is used. That and the fact that there's no such thing as a 4K 360Hz screen.

There's also the 1% and 0.1% lows. If your 1% lows are 15% lower than your average frame rate and 0.1% lows are 40% lower, the differences work out as follows:

Average Frame Rate1% Lows0.1% Lows
600FPS (not linked to refresh rate)510FPS360FPS
360FPS306FPS216FPS
165FPS140FPS99FPS

In this example, the 600FPS player's worst experience is equal to the 360FPS player's best. Those drops aren't unrealistic, as there are some game and hardware configurations where 1% lows can be 50% below average and 0.1% lows can be 80% lower than average (there are heavier games where it doesn't matter what hardware you have, at high resolution you'll hit 1% lows of 1FPS - I'm excluding that). That leads to the following:

Average FPS1% Lows0.1% Lows
600FPS (not linked to refresh rate)300FPS120FPS
360FPS180FPS72FPS
165FPS82FPS33FPS

When playing at a level where 5ms determines who wins, a 30ms frame-time will have a very negative outcome.

All in all, a more expensive, higher resolution monitor is a disadvantage.
 
Firstly it depends on the game. If it's an RTS or racing sim, they'll probably play at a higher resolution as there's no real downside. When it comes to competitive FPS, it's all about performance.

The difference between 200FPS and 600FPS can be massive even on a 60Hz monitor due to physics engine behaviour. Quake III Arena was the first I know of, where getting 333FPS made you jump higher and every other footstep silent, along with some other bugs. One of the Call of Duty games had something similar where you could jump further at a refresh rate above a certain number. There are a ton of games that inadvertently give an unfair advantage when the frame rate exceeds what the physics engine is capable of.

Over and above that, when you're playing at the level that milliseconds are the difference between winning and losing a duel, the difference between 144Hz (7ms/frame) and 360Hz (2.8ms/frame) can be a winning advantage. Maintaining 360FPS on many games is hard even with high end hardware, which is why a lower resolution is used. That and the fact that there's no such thing as a 4K 360Hz screen.

There's also the 1% and 0.1% lows. If your 1% lows are 15% lower than your average frame rate and 0.1% lows are 40% lower, the differences work out as follows:

Average Frame Rate1% Lows0.1% Lows
600FPS (not linked to refresh rate)510FPS360FPS
360FPS306FPS216FPS
165FPS140FPS99FPS

In this example, the 600FPS player's worst experience is equal to the 360FPS player's best. Those drops aren't unrealistic, as there are some game and hardware configurations where 1% lows can be 50% below average and 0.1% lows can be 80% lower than average (there are heavier games where it doesn't matter what hardware you have, at high resolution you'll hit 1% lows of 1FPS - I'm excluding that). That leads to the following:

Average FPS1% Lows0.1% Lows
600FPS (not linked to refresh rate)300FPS120FPS
360FPS180FPS72FPS
165FPS82FPS33FPS

When playing at a level where 5ms determines who wins, a 30ms frame-time will have a very negative outcome.

All in all, a more expensive, higher resolution monitor is a disadvantage.
Thanks for the explanation. So basically, by running lower resolution, you are protecting yourself in scenarios when it will not be possible to maintain the desired high frame rate, which "will" happen at some point.
 
Does anyone here have experience with ID-Cooling's FROST PTM-2 pads?

They don't explain much on their product page:


Dimensions - 40 x 40 x 0.2mm x 2pcs
Thermal Conductivity - 8.5 W/m-K
Thermal Impedance - 0.04℃-cm²/W
Operation Temperature - 40℃~200℃

Compared to Thermal Grizzly's PhaseSheet PTM:

https://www.thermal-grizzly.com/media/a4/d4/59/1721983254/TG_Datasheet_PS_EN_TGU20240731.pdf (PDF)

Dimensions: 50 x 40 x 0.2mm x 2pcs
Thermal Conductivity: ?
Thermal Impedance: ?
Operation Temperature: -75℃~200℃

I know both aren't Honeywell PTM 7950, but it sits within PTM 7000 spec. Thermal conductivity and impedance specs does not really matter since it is conditional, and not always true to spec. Mounting pressure also needs to be taken under consideration Neither is 0.25mm in height. Though both is said to phase change at ~45 degree Celsius. I haven't seen any reviews.

I want to change my paste on older GPUs with these pads and want to know whether it is any good?

I will stick to non-silicon paste with CPUs since I don't trust the above pads without reviews, and I very much doubt that it comes close to PTM 7950. It could possibly be PTM 7900 or the equivalent? Don't know.

I had a look at Igor's review:


I can only hope that it is more or less PCM8500 spec, but IIRC it has a higher change phase point? I know there are people who had issues with PCM8500 and PCM5000 where their CPUs took too long to make the pad change phase resulting in erratic behaviour. I have very little experience with these pads, so I don't want buyer's remorse.
 
I had a look at Gelid HeatPhase Ultra reviews, and the specs seem to be the same as ID-Cooling's FROST PTM-2. It is hard to say, on paper it is the same, but that doesn't mean its characteristics are the same. Gelid is a trusted brand, and have quality thermal pastes and pads.

Anyhow, moving on to the reviews. Conditions pending, the HeatPhase Ultra shows better results than their GC-Extreme paste and another reviewer gets comparative results to Arctic MX-6. That is good. Mounting pressure is the key to all pastes and pads.

I guess I will get some ID-Cooling pads and see how it compare to Hydronaut.
 
AMD patching another 'bug'.


MSI launches AGESA 1.2.0.1 firmware with "105W TDP" mode for Ryzen 9 9700X and Ryzen 5 9600X​

AMD AGESA BIOS PI 1.2.0.1 and 150W TDP mode​

MSI is releasing the new AGESA patch for trial use.
The motherboard manufacturer has announced the availability of the AMD AGESA BIOS PI 1.2.0.1 update, designed specifically to improve the performance of two of the four announced Ryzen 9000 processors. As we know, the 8-core 9700X and 6-core 9600X both come with a default 65W TDP, but MSI and seemingly AMD are addressing what many reviewers have noticed—these SKUs would benefit from a higher TDP.

MSI has just released a new BIOS that enables a feature called “105W TDP,” which increases the TDP for both parts and should result in a 13% performance boost compared to 65W mode. Keep in mind that TDP is not strictly a real-time power measurement, but this means 13% higher performance at a 62% higher TDP.

Currently, this is being trialled as read, and it won't be long until others release their updated BIOS.

Re re re reviews...
 
I had a look at Gelid HeatPhase Ultra reviews, and the specs seem to be the same as ID-Cooling's FROST PTM-2. It is hard to say, on paper it is the same, but that doesn't mean its characteristics are the same. Gelid is a trusted brand, and have quality thermal pastes and pads.

Anyhow, moving on to the reviews. Conditions pending, the HeatPhase Ultra shows better results than their GC-Extreme paste and another reviewer gets comparative results to Arctic MX-6. That is good. Mounting pressure is the key to all pastes and pads.

I guess I will get some ID-Cooling pads and see how it compare to Hydronaut.

Real world difference will be minor. Not really something to get too worked up about imo.

Those small temperature differences are comparable to opening a window for a couple minutes.
 
Real world difference will be minor. Not really something to get too worked up about imo.

Those small temperature differences are comparable to opening a window for a couple minutes.

For me, it's more about reducing maintenance. Just want to use something simple. This is more something I will apply to GPUs. I am going to test a pad on a Vega 64, that will give me results, quick.
 
For those wanting to upgrade their PC cooler. Progenix has possibly the best single tower cooler on special.


I mean,

CPU%20Cooler%20Benchmark%20LGA1700%20Intel%20~208W%20CPU%20PKG%20%28246W%20at%20EPS12V%29%2035dBA%20Noise-Normalized%20GamersNexus-4x_foolhardy_Remacri.png.webp


Starting at R649 (on special, think it may be the birthday special which may end soon) it is a bargain deal. Frame included. It is not a bad AMD cooler either. The Arctic has much better build quality than the ID-Cooling A620 Pro SE (which is a dual tower), and has more or less the same RAM clearance unlike the standard A620 (which is better built than its cheaper sibling).

BTW, the Corsair A115 is a plus R2000 cooler that sucks at cooling AMD.
 

ASUS adopts “105W TDP Mode” for Ryzen 9700X/9600X, feature no longer exclusive to MSI​


ASUS adopts “105W TDP Mode” for Ryzen 9700X/9600X, feature no longer exclusive to MSI

Ryzen 9000 gets a boost​

New, optional feature will appear in the BIOS.

Finally, there is confirmation that the so-called 105W mode is an official feature from AMD. This option was added exclusively by MSI two weeks ago for two Ryzen 9000 SKUs: the 8-core 9700X and 6-core 9600X. Now, ASUS is confirming that their latest pre-release BIOS is also introducing this feature.
 
pd-meg_x870e_godlike-lg.webp


MSI's new Godlike is a mighty looking board. 28-phase power delivery, 4 more phases over the AM4(670)-gen. 110A Dr.MOS. Like all other MSI 870 boards, this one includes an auxiliary PCIe 8-pin power connector which will support new GPUs. I don't even want to know where it will be priced at. Their new pro-series board does not look too bad either. Most users will buy the Carbon or Tomohawk.
 
For those wanting to upgrade their PC cooler. Progenix has possibly the best single tower cooler on special.


I mean,

CPU%20Cooler%20Benchmark%20LGA1700%20Intel%20~208W%20CPU%20PKG%20%28246W%20at%20EPS12V%29%2035dBA%20Noise-Normalized%20GamersNexus-4x_foolhardy_Remacri.png.webp


Starting at R649 (on special, think it may be the birthday special which may end soon) it is a bargain deal. Frame included. It is not a bad AMD cooler either. The Arctic has much better build quality than the ID-Cooling A620 Pro SE (which is a dual tower), and has more or less the same RAM clearance unlike the standard A620 (which is better built than its cheaper sibling).

BTW, the Corsair A115 is a plus R2000 cooler that sucks at cooling AMD.
Did you grab one? The special ran for the month of August and ended less than 11 hours after your post... and your post was within two hours of the last sale of one of them.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter