aquielisunari :
That_Tech_Guy_Again :
starrenstyle :
I have a 1050Ti 4gb palit overclock edition i'm using 1366x768 resolution.
Whenever i play games it just drops like damn it's annoying not just rainbow six siege but even in pubg league is smooth but it's avg around 40-60 it's annoying cause this gpu is 1050ti 4gb lol anyway if anyone would help it's appreciated fast response please.
Drivers updated from GeForce Experience.
Specs
A12-9800
1050Ti palit 4GB OC edition
8GB RAM
Personally i would wait until april, since the Ryzen 2 (second generation) chips are coming out then. They will supposedly be at the same price points as The first Ryzen chips. However, they should be faster and possibly using the 7nm lithography.
That_Tech_Guy_Again :
aquielisunari :
That_Tech_Guy_Again :
aquielisunari :
starrenstyle :
aquielisunari :
1080 Ti - top end
1080 - very high end
1070/Ti - high end
1060 - mid-range
1050 Ti - entry level
1050 - low end
1030 - bottom end
The 1050 Ti isn't exactly a superstar. You then paired an entry level card with a bottom end APU that hurts performance even more. Nothing is wrong with your PC. It's performing as expected and only upgrades will help.
I do know it's an entry level gpu but 40fps on league? c'mon man seriously?
Very serious. You are using a CPU that shouldn't be used for gaming. I am a gamer. As such I chose the 4690K a couple years ago. That A10 is about $100 less expensive and a lot less powerful. You should research your next build a little more or save some more money. I took a little over 9 months to save just for my gfx card. You have to pay to play. You haven't so you're stuck on the outside looking in.
Technically, what you said is not completely accurate. My current CPU specs are AMD APU A6 - 7310 2.0Ghz. Now that is not definitely not very impressive and is even less impressive than his A12 APU. However, i can play games which are about 5 years old (which is ancient on PC terms) at a reasonable fromrate roughly 30-60fps depending on specific game and graphcs settings. There is more to whether or not someone CAN and SHOULD play games on a very low end CPU/APU. You should take into account your graphics settings/Framerate/Resolution/And other things which i have probably not thought about at this moment. Also, there is no such thing as "THIS thing is meant for THIS task"
. That is nothing more than a marketing ploy.
Is a 1080 Ti meant for Pong and Tetris? No, it is meant for high end gaming. I am not offering marketing terms. I didn't say the OP should but a gaming CPU. What I said was technically correct. The OP was having an issue with a game. The reason is because of the CPU. Your solution was to go up a rung on the ladder. All that for over $100. That's a waste of money. If the OP goes for the 1200 I think that'll big a big waste.
You're having CPU issues? go for the $93 CPU. It'll be better than your $115 CPU. It's about 15% better. You can't pick on price alone. This I know. Still that "upgrade" you suggested barely qualifies.
Ummm??? 1080 Ti??? I am pretty sure he said 1050 Ti... Which falls in the range of budget GPU. You, yourself even classified the 1050 Ti into the Entry Level Category, did you not? Now you are saying that it is for high end gaming? I will first of all, assume you are references that is intent is to playing AAA-titles at around 60 fps and 1080p on atleast moderate presets if not the highest presets in-game. If that is the benchmark you wish to achieve then it is highly possible that the GPU is the bottleneck SINCE, it is a GTX 1050 Ti....... Note the 50 in the name.
I was also referring to the Ryzen 3 1300X.... Not the 1200.
😀 The 1080 Ti was an example of something that is meant for gaming. The A12 9800 is an example of something not meant for gaming. The OP is proof of that.
Ahhh, the 1300x. Better. Specifics help. See what I get for assuming?
Why would you be using a GPU as 1 exmaple? and then a CPU as another example?
I should correct myself, and you, I should have used the word "infer" not assume... As i made an inference based upon the previous evidence which was provided.
You stated "Is a 1080 Ti meant for Pong and Tetris? No, it is meant for high end gaming".
And also "
1080 Ti - top end
1080 - very high end
1070/Ti - high end
1060 - mid-range
1050 Ti - entry level
1050 - low end
1030 - bottom end
"
I was not referring to the GTX 1080 Ti as the "Marketing ploy". Nor was i referring to any of the specified CPU/GPU as a marketing ploy. I was referring to "what is considered....meant for gaming" as the marketing ploy... It is sucha broad concept, since almost all cpu's will be able to play run games on them (depending on the game). Thereby making what you said "technically inaccurate". Which is why you must take into account all the settings being used while playing the games in question.
Note - the concept of "Meant for gaming" Is the marketing ploy.
Firstly, it appeared as though you were implying that the entry level GPU 1050 Ti was not meant for gaming since it is an entry level. You should not use a gpu example in combination with a cpu example. It is just confusing.
Secondly, i was not saying that the CPU, SHOULD be used for gaming, i was saying that it COULD be used for gaming. Whereas you implied that it would be unable to be used for most/all games.
As noted by the fact that OP was playing Rainbow six Siege which.... even though there might be significant fps dips. It would depend on what exactly you are playing, since he also mentioned pugb and league averaging around 40-60 fps
On a side note... An analogy of what you are saying is the same as what most people are saying but the RX Vega 64 and Vega Frontier Edition... Yes... according to AMD themselves the the Vega Frontier Edition IS NOT MEANT FOR GAMING..... However, both the Vega 64 and the Vega Frontier Edition.... Will perform approximately the same in games. Albeit, you will need to change your settings in Vega Frontier Edition... to "Gamer Mode". BUT, for all intents and purposes, they will perform approximately the same in most gaming related scenarios.
Do take into account the specific referncing of the vega should not be taken into consideration, i am referring to the concept of what "is to be considered meant for gaming, and NOT meant for gaming". Since 40-60 fps would be considered by most casual gamers as decent, it would also be considered playable/meant for gaming (in relation to whatever components are achieving these 40-60 fps results).
So about the CPU..... YES, technically it is NOT meant for gaming, however, Practically, it IS meant for gaming, since it can achieve the desired results when paired with the GTX 1050 Ti. (For most games which are not CPU dependant..... and which are not the latest AAA-titles)
I would also like to note that yes the i5 8400 is definitely a better offering, however i would also like to note that i am not as familiar with the 8 gen i5 series... as much as i am with the 8 gen i7 series.... or even more so, Ryzen CPU's.... Since his APU was an AMD APU... I had thought of suggesting a a "low-level" CPU Which would give a bit of a bump in performance... YES, the i5 8400 is better... however, how much will the motherboard for it cost? Will he also need to change other components?
I also inferred that he did not have enough money for a complete build of his own. Since he got the PC as "a gift". And only added the 1050 Ti after he got the PC. The 1050 Ti costs approximately $250 last time i checked 2 about 2 months ago, although the price might have skyrocketed due to mining.
More parameters and variables of what both our standards are should have been referenced before starting this debated, otherwise if we have TWO different "bars" so to speak... which we are trying to reach, will will both end up with TWO different answers.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram