Question Buying a new pc.

[UgleDrengen]

Hello fellow gamers.
I've been looking for a new PC, while staying in queue for classic wow for 2 hours straight.
What pc specs would be best, for current gaming (mostly WoW, pubg and csgo)

Ryzen 5 3600X + RX 5700 XT + 16GB ram
or
i5 9600K + RTX 2070 + 16GB ram

A local dealer has the intel + nvidia system for 60$ more than the ryzen + amd system. And therefore I would think the ryzen + amd system is better.
I really want to buy a PC that's future proof, but I dont know if the RTX games will shine in the near future. Or if the bad reputation from AMD's firestarter heat from GPU will be a problem.
I'm not planning to do any video, music making. Only pure gaming with nice FPS and graphics.

I'm upgrading from:
i7 3770k - 4,2ghz
GTX 970
8GB ram

 

[feelinfroggy777]

They are both good builds. WoW runs best with fast single core performance, so that gives the 9600k an edge, but a small edge. The 2070 and 5700xt will have near identical performance. The only difference would be ray tracing.

If you want future proof, then you may want a card that can handle ray tracing. Again, the extra threads on the 3600x may come in handy down the road over the 9600k. Ultimately, you really cant go wrong with either, so maybe the cheaper of the two should win out.

 

[jeremyj_83]

I would go with the Ryzen + Radeon over the Intel + nVidia. Overall the 3600X is faster than the 9600K, and in gaming with a 2080Ti they are within a 5% of each other. The 5700XT is on average 10% faster than the 2070.

 

[feelinfroggy777]

The 5700XT is on average 10% faster than the 2070.

According to techpowerup review below, the 5700xt was 1% better in the 22 games tested.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-5700-xt/28.html

 

[jeremyj_83]

According to techpowerup review below, the 5700xt was 1% better in the 22 games tested.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-5700-xt/28.html

That is quite different than what I get from anandtech and tomshardware reviews.
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2522?vs=2513
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14618/the-amd-radeon-rx-5700-xt-rx-5700-review/16 - this compares against the 2060 Super which is within +- 1-2% of the 2070.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx_5700-rx_5700_xt,6216-7.html

Both of them have the ~10% performance advantage for 5700XT vs 2070/2060 Super

 

[feelinfroggy777]

That is quite different than what I get from anandtech and tomshardware reviews.
https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2522?vs=2513
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14618/the-amd-radeon-rx-5700-xt-rx-5700-review/16 - this compares against the 2060 Super which is within +- 1-2% of the 2070.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx_5700-rx_5700_xt,6216-7.html

Both of them have the ~10% performance advantage for 5700XT vs 2070/2060 Super

They are comparing the 2060 super, not the 2070 which is what the OP is looking at purchasing. The 2060S lags behind the 2070, even if it is slightly.

 

[jeremyj_83]

They are comparing the 2060 super, not the 2070 which is what the OP is looking at purchasing. The 2060S lags behind the 2070, even if it is slightly.

I understand that those are against the 2060 Super, with the exception of the anandtech bench results, but the different between the 2060 Super and 2070 is +- 1-2% so that won't make the difference between the 2070 and 5700XT go from ~10% adv for 5700XT to 1%. At worst that makes the difference +8% for the 5700XT vs 2070.

 

[feelinfroggy777]

I am not against the 2060S. I am just going with information provided by reputable review sites.

Pcgamer review shows the 5700xt at a 7% increase from the 2060S. Only about 3% over the 2070. Therefore, as mu original statement, the 5700xt and the 2070 have near identical performance.

https://www.pcgamer.com/amd-radeon-rx-5700-xt-review/

Here is a quote from the techpowerup conclusion:

"Averaged over our whole test suite, we see the Radeon RX 5700 XT 2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070. This makes the card a whopping 20% faster than Vega 64 and puts it just 8% behind Radeon VII, which is really impressive. Just last week, NVIDIA countered AMD's Navi plans by preemptively releasing the RTX 2060 Super, which is nearly as fast as the RTX 2070—the 5700 XT is 5% faster. Also new is NVIDIA's RTX 2070 Super, which is actually based on the RTX 2080 GPU—that card is 12% faster than the RX 5700 XT. The RTX 2080 Ti is still the king of the hill, delivering 50% more FPS than the RX 5700 XT, though at more than twice the price. With those performance results, we can definitely recommend the RX 5700 XT for maximum details gaming at 1440p resolution, or high-refresh-rate gaming at 1080p. "

Again, it shows an edge over the 2070 (2%) and the 2060S (5%). Again, 5700xt showing near identical performance to the 2070 in gaming.

I am not downplaying the 2070 or 2060S. They offer ray tracing which is something the 5700xt does not.

 

[jeremyj_83]

I am not against the 2060S. I am just going with information provided by reputable review sites.

Pcgamer review shows the 5700xt at a 7% increase from the 2060S. Only about 3% over the 2070. Therefore, as mu original statement, the 5700xt and the 2070 have near identical performance.

https://www.pcgamer.com/amd-radeon-rx-5700-xt-review/

Here is a quote from the techpowerup conclusion:

"Averaged over our whole test suite, we see the Radeon RX 5700 XT 2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070. This makes the card a whopping 20% faster than Vega 64 and puts it just 8% behind Radeon VII, which is really impressive. Just last week, NVIDIA countered AMD's Navi plans by preemptively releasing the RTX 2060 Super, which is nearly as fast as the RTX 2070—the 5700 XT is 5% faster. Also new is NVIDIA's RTX 2070 Super, which is actually based on the RTX 2080 GPU—that card is 12% faster than the RX 5700 XT. The RTX 2080 Ti is still the king of the hill, delivering 50% more FPS than the RX 5700 XT, though at more than twice the price. With those performance results, we can definitely recommend the RX 5700 XT for maximum details gaming at 1440p resolution, or high-refresh-rate gaming at 1080p. "

Again, it shows an edge over the 2070 (2%) and the 2060S (5%). Again, 5700xt showing near identical performance to the 2070 in gaming.

I am not downplaying the 2070 or 2060S. They offer ray tracing which is something the 5700xt does not.

I find it interesting that we are seeing such widely different numbers from the benchmarks. The stuff you are citing shows 3% difference and what I'm showing shows 7-10% difference.

For buying retail the 2070 isn't a very good buy considering the difference in cost compared to the 2060 super and 5700XT. However, currently ray tracing isn't used very much.

 

[feelinfroggy777]

I find it interesting that we are seeing such widely different numbers from the benchmarks. The stuff you are citing shows 3% difference and what I'm showing shows 7-10% difference.

Its because different games get different results, differences in the systems will give different results. The review sites use different games and different systems, so their results will be different. Techpowerup has been my go to site for a long time, they are the developers of GPUz and I like their reviewer. So my bias leans towards their reviews. But Tom'shardware and Anandtech both provide good reviews as well. Ultimately, we are talking about a difference between 4-7% which in the real world really means nothing.

 

[cryoburner]

It could be that Techpowerup's 5700 XT was thermal throttling a bit more than the units the other sites tested, perhaps due to differences in test conditions. Techpowerup's reference 5700 XT got up to 92 degrees in their temperature test, whereas the temperatures in Tom's Hardware's gaming temperature test stayed under 85 degrees, and didn't go over 89 degrees even during their Furmark stress test.

And of course, the choice of games can make a difference, especially for a new GPU architecture, where performance in certain titles may still need to get optimized through driver updates, or updates from the developer for games that are still being developed.

As for which system I would go with, both seem like good options based on the core components, but assuming that 5700 XT is a reference model with the less-than-ideal cooler, I might lean a bit more toward the 2070 build. Some specs for the supporting hardware are not listed here though.

 

[Tinibigz_1992]

Hello,

Go with the 2070, I just got one for 420 price tag on newegg, so for 20 bucks more you would have a better card for future proofing the system. We all want results now but results in 2 years will be important as well. 2070 will out perform the 5700XT in the future by more then the percents you see now. Plus the cooling is poor on the 5700XT as stated in many reviews of this card, cooling is the most important thing to get great performance.

Enjoy your choices either way the you go you will be happy. AMD has made great steps towards Nvidia not just Intel.

 

[jeremyj_83]

Hello,

Go with the 2070, I just got one for 420 price tag on newegg, so for 20 bucks more you would have a better card for future proofing the system. We all want results now but results in 2 years will be important as well. 2070 will out perform the 5700XT in the future by more then the percents you see now. Plus the cooling is poor on the 5700XT as stated in many reviews of this card, cooling is the most important thing to get great performance.

Enjoy your choices either way the you go you will be happy. AMD has made great steps towards Nvidia not just Intel.

Considering the 2070 FE doesn't out perform the 5700XT reference cards I doubt it will out perform it in 2 years time. Not to mention AMD's cards tended to age better than nVidia, at least historically and especially with GCN. While Navi isn't GCN, it has its roots in GCN so I would expect it to age better than the 2070.

 

[Tinibigz_1992]

Considering the 2070 FE doesn't out perform the 5700XT reference cards I doubt it will out perform it in 2 years time. Not to mention AMD's cards tended to age better than nVidia, at least historically and especially with GCN. While Navi isn't GCN, it has its roots in GCN so I would expect it to age better than the 2070.

Many opinions not to much fact, I pretty sure the person buying the card is not getting FE, so how is that valid? since neither of us can see or tell the future but to spend 400 bucks and not to get features that Nvidia offers (Ray Tracing) which will be in many more titles in 2 years is a choice.

I stated either way you choose it's worth it but in my opinion the Nvidia card will perform better in two years.

Plus the cooling on the AMD card is not as good, and that is fact. I give AMD credit they have bridged the gap but if you could build a PC would you go with the AMD top end or Nvidia? If money is not a issue. (Be honest with this answer not just to prove you point)

Considering the 2070 FE doesn't out perform the 5700XT reference cards I doubt it will out perform it in 2 years time. Not to mention AMD's cards tended to age better than nVidia, at least historically and especially with GCN. While Navi isn't GCN, it has its roots in GCN so I would expect it to age better than the 2070.

 

[jeremyj_83]

Many opinions not to much fact, I pretty sure the person buying the card is not getting FE, so how is that valid? since neither of us can see or tell the future but to spend 400 bucks and not to get features that Nvidia offers (Ray Tracing) which will be in many more titles in 2 years is a choice.

I stated either way you choose it's worth it but in my opinion the Nvidia card will perform better in two years.

Plus the cooling on the AMD card is not as good, and that is fact. I give AMD credit they have bridged the gap but if you could build a PC would you go with the AMD top end or Nvidia? If money is not a issue. (Be honest with this answer not just to prove you point)

I stated the FE due to the fact that most of the reviews have the FE for the 2070 and the FE is factory overclocked already. Ray tracing is a very cool idea, but the performance hit is massive right now and you would have to turn your settings or resolution way down to take advantage of it in titles in 2 years. I currently am in the process of getting ideas to upgrade my 6 year old desktop and the GPU I am looking at getting is a third party 5700XT. The cheapest RTX 2070 is $40 more than the most expensive 5700XT. That doesn't make much sense to pay 10% more for 7% worse performance on average. Same as spending and extra $100 on the 2070 Super to only gain 5% more performance on average vs the 5700XT. When it comes to price/performance right now the 2060/Super & 2070/Super don't make any sense when compared to the 5700/XT, unless you explicitly need ray tracing or CUDA for work.

*Note these prices are found on pcpartpicker with only newegg and amazon selected.

 

[cryoburner]

Plus the cooling on the AMD card is not as good, and that is fact.

The cooling on the reference version of the card is not particularly good. The cooling on the partner cards is perfectly fine, as they use the more typical open-air cooler designs rather than the blower kind. Those cards are just coming to market now though, so I suspect a system at a shop will likely have a 5700 XT with the reference cooler.

Ray tracing is a very cool idea, but the performance hit is massive right now and you would have to turn your settings or resolution way down to take advantage of it in titles in 2 years.

Yeah, that's the question that's still up in the air, how will raytraced lighting effects in games a couple years from now perform on first-generation RTX hardware? Even with the current handful of games that support raytracing, performance with those effects enabled is arguably not great, especially for anyone targeting resolutions above 1080p. If the next generation of graphics cards feature much more capable raytracing hardware, the first generation cards might get left behind, performing alongside much lower-end models unless those effects are disabled. And if the effects are disabled, well, it's just a card that cost more while not performing quite as well.

I actually like the idea of having the option to enable the effects though, and I'm sure there will be some games that make decent use of the hardware while still performing at a reasonable level. Another thing to consider is that some of these effects, like indirect lighting, have already been done in certain games to some degree even without dedicated hardware, and it's possible that the hardware could be used to accelerate the computation of such effects in a way that improves performance or visuals, without increasing detail to a degree where there's a big performance hit. Current games utilizing the effects are doing so in ways that make performance take a back seat to visuals, treating the feature more like a tech demo, but there still aren't enough examples to know whether other implementations could work better.

so for 20 bucks more you would have a better card for future proofing the system.

Of course, they're comparing systems in a shop where the price difference is around $60. And it's not just the GPU that's different, but the CPU as well. The 2070 is paired with a 9600K, while the 5700 XT is paired with a 3600X, at a lower price. In most current games, a 9600K might manage slightly better performance, particularly if its overclocked, but down the line it seems likely that the 12 threads of the Ryzen part could make it the more stable performer. It's again a tradeoff though, with the 9600K having a bit higher performance per-core, but fewer hardware threads available. Personally, I would rather have the Ryzen part (assuming its paired with decent RAM), but they're both arguably fine options.

 

[Tinibigz_1992]

Thank you all for the insight, I hope the young man or women makes a great choice and has no issues regardless. Tech love either way. The key is to make it all work for a extended period of time.

Good luck with your choice and happy hunting those parts.