Question New graphics card (+possibly new rig) - for gaming, mostly - question

[jonesmalaco]

So I've been eyballing a new rig for a while now (my PC is kinda ancient, motherboard bought in 2012, GPU in 2015, you get the idea...), and I finally was able to save some money to do it. But even so, I'm still on a little bit of a budget. My intent is to get a rig that can push 60 FPS on 4K on a constant basis (no dips in performance) with pretty much any triple-A game out there. I'll be gaming on a 4K TV that has a 60Hz refresh rate only (no monitors). My main question is if any of these new RTX's 40 series (4080 or 4090) can push over 60 FPS (obviously, 120 FPS being ideal) on 4k? So I'd consider getting one of these new TV's that has a 120Hz refresh rate (TV's are relatively "cheap" where I live... computer parts, on the other hand, are NOT)... Ideally, a GPU with a mounted waterblock would work since temperatures in a tropical country (where I live) tend to get extremely hot during the summer. But I've observed that GPU's prior to the 40 series (mostly the 30 series) have very similar prices. Only GPU's like the 2080, for example, seem to go out for lower prices, but I don't believe (that's why I'm asking here) they can do 4K at 60FPS, correct?

I guess I'm basically asking for a buyer's guide for the whole rig, but decided to start with the GPU. I may post it elsewhere (or some moderator can move it) if things start going over to many details about the other parts, 'till then...

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

The 4090 can push 4K 60 fps on Ultra settings with RT on with no problems at all. I do it in games like CP 2077, Last of Us, Hogwarts Legacy, Forza Horizon 5... to name a few. It won't do 120 fps... but I have seen 90 fps or so. I personally don't see a difference in 60 fps or 120 fps on my OLED display so I run at 60 which isn't a problem at all.

I run the 7950x3D CPU... but if you are just gaming the 7800x3D is more suitable for gaming only systems. I do a lot of video production, streaming, etc... on the side and preferred the extra CPU cores.

If you have parts that old you are going to want to start new.

 

[Eximo]

That or the 7900XTX and you ignore ray tracing. You want that big VRAM buffer if you are going always try to run 4K. Without RT you can expect a pretty decent frame rate in most titles for several years at least.

Can't really recommend a 4080 (16GB) or 7900XT (20GB) for pure 4K. They've priced these so that you only want to look at the top models.

 

[jonesmalaco]

The 4090 can push 4K 60 fps on Ultra settings with RT on with no problems at all.

So there isn't really any "budget" options, right? 'Cause it seems that the RTX 30 series are all over US$1000 the same way, which makes me guess it's not even worth it (RTX 40 series just a little above the price of the 30's...)

If you have parts that old you are going to want to start new.

Yeah, for sure. That's my intention.

That or the 7900XTX and you ignore ray tracing

Hmmm, I'm not that into getting an AMD. I've had problems with a GPU of theirs a few years ago, and I got like "snake bitten".

Can't really recommend a 4080 (16GB)

You mean to say that the (lower) price difference from the 4090 doesn't make it worth it?

What about intel CPU's? You also wouldn't recommend 'em?

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

So there isn't really any "budget" options, right? 'Cause it seems that the RTX 30 series are all over US$1000 the same way, which makes me guess it's not even worth it (RTX 40 series just a little above the price of the 30's...)

Not really... the 3090 will do 4K Ultra... but nowhere near as good a job as the 4090. The 4090 is a quantum leap in performance improvement over the 3090... which can't be said about the rest of the 4000 series.

Result

www.3dmark.com

That's a comparison between my 10900k/3090 and 7950x3D/4090.

Night and day.

 

[jonesmalaco]

That's a comparison between my 10900k/3090 and 7950x3D/4090.

Wow... it's not even debatable 😯

 

[Eximo]

Nothing wrong with a 13700K for gaming (12900K essentially). 13900K gets you more efficiency cores for workstation tasks.

7800X3D is more likely to achieve higher FPS in some titles, but you aren't after pure FPS, you want high graphics, so the CPU matters a lot less. All the load will be on the GPU at 4K.

I'm still rocking a 10th gen, again, high graphics settings makes the CPU less relevant and I tend to leave the settings cranked up.

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

7800X3D is more likely to achieve higher FPS in some titles, but you aren't after pure FPS, you want high graphics, so the CPU matters a lot less. All the load will be on the GPU at 4K.

That's why I went 7950x3D. The other might be the "best" gaming CPU but when you are in 4K and already capping 60 fps what's all that extra fps give you? Nothing. The 7800x3D lags behind in productivity and I'd rather have the added cores.

 

[jonesmalaco]

Nothing wrong with a 13700K for gaming (12900K essentially). 13900K gets you more efficiency cores for workstation tasks.

7800X3D is more likely to achieve higher FPS in some titles, but you aren't after pure FPS, you want high graphics, so the CPU matters a lot less. All the load will be on the GPU at 4K.

I'm still rocking a 10th gen, again, high graphics settings makes the CPU less relevant and I tend to leave the settings cranked up.

That's why I went 7950x3D. The other might be the "best" gaming CPU but when you are in 4K and already capping 60 fps what's all that extra fps give you? Nothing.

So the "consensus" is that an AMD processor is better for gaming than an intel? Interesting... Will and AMD processor work better with an AMD gaming motherboard? Which one you guys suggest?

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

So the "consensus" is that an AMD processor is better for gaming than an intel? Interesting... Will and AMD processor work better with and AMD gaming motherboard? Which one you guys suggest?

Nothing wrong with the Intel processors as long as you don't mind the high power draw and have a good cooler. I went with AMD because it's a new platform (AM5) with easy upgrades for the next few years while the current 13th gen Intel platform is EOL.

The AMD processors are also much more efficient... especially the x3D variants. Lower power draw... better thermals. I went with an x670e board because the price was right and it's the high end chipset.

Benchmarks go both ways... some AMD wins, some Intel wins.

 

[jonesmalaco]

Nothing wrong with the Intel processors as long as you don't mind the high power draw and have a good cooler. I went with AMD because it's a new platform (AM5) with easy upgrades for the next few years while the current 13th gen Intel platform is EOL.

The AMD processors are also much more efficient... especially the x3D variants. Lower power draw... better thermals. I went with an x670e board because the price was right and it's the high end chipset.

Very interesting. I had no idea AMD had better cooling and used less power... So does that mean I don't have to ("manually", as in, buy one) waterblock the CPU, if it's an AMD (since it cools better), even in the tropics? That would be nice, since I'd be planning on getting the GPU (being the 4090) with the waterblock included... I could save money instead of getting a separate waterblock for the CPU then.

So what about the motherboard? I've had and AMD before (Maximus Hero, forgot the number) and no complaints whatsoever...

Thanks for all the info Travis!

 

[Eximo]

Hero should have been an intel board I think. Crosshair was always AMD.

You don't "need" to water cool either CPU or GPU unless you really want to.

Most 4090 coolers are extremely oversized (Gigabyte just re-released a card with a smaller cooler) You can also set power limits to keep them cooler. You can get 95% the performance at like 80% power.

X3D chips run cool because they are internally limited. The 3D cache is sensitive to voltage, so they can't push as far as the normal 7000 series. Even with that, AMD is more efficient than Intel at the moment on their P cores. Likely be on par next generation though. Intel's E cores are efficient as named, and on the 13900K can do more calculations per watt than AMD, but those aren't very useful for gaming tasks, they just take a little burden off of them.

 

[Avro Arrow]

I don't know what you're hoping for but 4K60Hz is top-tier gaming, not budget gaming (unless your budget is $1500 or more). Here's the best that you could probably do for 4K60Hz, keeping in mind that there's literally no chance that you'll be able to use your existing platform for it because PCI-Express 2.0 x16 or PCI-Express 3.0 x8 will be a major hindrance to the kind of high-end card that you'll need for 4K60Hz.

This is about as good as you're going to be able to do:

CPU: Ryzen 5 7600 - $219
Motherboard: ASRock B650M-HDV/M.2 - $120
RAM: Team T-Force Vulcan 32GB DDR5-6000 - $82
Video Card: Powercolor RX 7900 XTX Hellhound 24GB - $960
PSU: Corsair RM850e 850W 80+Gold Fully Modular - $130

Total: $1,511

That right there, is a "budget" 4K60Hz gaming platform.

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

Thanks for all the info Travis!

I don't know what you're hoping for but 4K60Hz is top-tier gaming, not budget gaming (unless your budget is $1500 or more).

... and if anyone is on the fence about it...

View: https://youtu.be/H_m8U27N-LI


It's worth the cost. LOL @ the wingsuit to the finish line.

 

[jonesmalaco]

Hero should have been an intel board I think. Crosshair was always AMD

You are correct, my bad. Maximus Hero (ROG) = ASUS.

You don't "need" to water cool either CPU or GPU unless you really want to.

I'd definitely want to water cool the GPU, since as I said, summers are unforgiving here, and I have no air-conditioning in the room where my computer is installed. So anything around 70ºC already heats up the whole environment. About the CPU, I'll take your guys word on it and assume it doesn't need water cooling at all.

I don't know what you're hoping for but 4K60Hz is top-tier gaming, not budget gaming (unless your budget is $1500 or more)

Yeah, sorry I wasn't specific on values when I said "budget", but thanks a lot anyways for posting the cheapest possible, really appreciate it. I was willing to spend about the double of that (3000) at max... Yes, I know 3K isn't exactly "budget" but just seeing that the Gigabyte Waterforce (either the 4080 or the 4090) goes over US$2200, I guess I can forget about that price-tag :\ (the 16GB 4080 seems to be even more expensive than the 24GB 4090 on newegg, which seems weird. I wonder why that is.
About the price, the waterforce GPU totally compensates it, 'cause if you do the conversion to my local currency, the 4090 alone (without watercooling) would go out for about US$2100 (again, local price/currency). So about US$2200 "ish-something" on a high-end gpu WITH watercooling, when comparing both, it ends up being a good deal overall.
Also, I'd still have to buy a couple of SSD's and the case. The case (as the Power Supply Unit, which you listed) would be too bulky to import it, so I'd most probably buy them locally anyways (besides, they're manufactured locally, so it wouldn't really compensate, again, to import it).
About the motherboard, you suggested the ASRock B650M-HDV/M.2... Since I'd already be spending so much (mostly the GPU), maybe the Gigabyte X670 Aorus Elite AX wouldn't be such a bad idea...? Also, I'd probably be able to bundle it with the AMD CPU (as listed on Amazon). But I'd totally consider your opinion on this one.

Thanks a lot.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Yeah, sorry I wasn't specific on values when I said "budget", but thanks a lot anyways for posting the cheapest possible, really appreciate it. I was willing to spend about the double of that (3000) at max...

Well then I'm glad I showed that you don't have to pay double.

Yes, I know 3K isn't exactly "budget" but just seeing that the Gigabyte Waterforce (either the 4080 or the 4090) goes over US$2200, I guess I can forget about that price-tag :\ (the 16GB 4080 seems to be even more expensive than the 24GB 4090 on newegg, which seems weird. I wonder why that is.
About the price, the waterforce GPU totally compensates it, 'cause if you do the conversion to my local currency, the 4090 alone (without watercooling) would go out for about US$2100 (again, local price/currency). So about US$2200 "ish-something" on a high-end gpu WITH watercooling, when comparing both, it ends up being a good deal overall.

Just keep in mind that watercooling doesn't mean that the GPU isn't generating the same amount of heat and that the air coming through the radiator will be just as hot (if not hotter) as the air coming out of an air cooler would be. You might want a custom loop that has the radiator outside of your window so that you don't bake in the room.

Also, I'd still have to buy a couple of SSD's and the case. The case (as the Power Supply Unit, which you listed) would be too bulky to import it, so I'd most probably buy them locally anyways (besides, they're manufactured locally, so it wouldn't really compensate, again, to import it).

I was just trying to give you an idea of what's out there because I don't know what country you're in. If you can get it locally, so much the better.

About the motherboard, you suggested the ASRock B650M-HDV/M.2... Since I'd already be spending so much (mostly the GPU), maybe the Gigabyte X670 Aorus Elite AX wouldn't be such a bad idea...?

You have to ask yourself this question:
"Is there anything that I know I'm going to need that the Gigabyte X670 Aorus Elite AX has but the ASRock B650M-HDV/M.2 does not?"
If your answer is no, then get the ASRock B650M-HDV/M.2. Remember, the two things that gamers waste the most money on are:

1. Liquid AIOs for CPUs that aren't Intel 12th or 13th-gen.
2. High-end motherboards with features that gamers never use.

Also, I'd probably be able to bundle it with the AMD CPU (as listed on Amazon). But I'd totally consider your opinion on this one.

I would say "absolutely not". There is no reason whatsoever for a gamer to buy an R9-7950X productivity CPU, especially when they're concerned about heat output. Those 16 cores are utterly useless when it comes to gaming and are meant for prosumers.

The absolute most you should aim for as far as your CPU is concerned is a Ryzen 7 7800X3D and I wouldn't even really recommend that. You want 60FPS at 2160p, something that you could probably achieve with a Ryzen 5 3600X and an RTX 4080 or 4090 (depending on your settings). If I were you, I'd get a Ryzen 7 7600 because it will run cooler, quieter and still give you way more than 60FPS.

Don't spend more, just spend smarter.

Thanks a lot.

I'm glad to help!

 

[jonesmalaco]

GPU isn't generating the same amount of heat and that the air coming through the radiator will be just as hot (if not hotter) as the air coming out of an air cooler would be.

Not the case, I can assure you. I've used both fan cooled and water cooled in the same room and the difference is absurd. I used the same video card with both cooling systems, first fan based (obviously), then custom watercooled (and the radiator wasn't outside the window). The fan GPU would hit 80ºC while the watercooled wouldn't even hit 45º. But then again, it was about 8 years ago (with the 970), and cooling (fan) tech probably got better in this interval, I can't say, since I'm far from being an expert. That's why I believe you guys.

If I were you, I'd get a Ryzen 7 7600 because it will run cooler, quieter and still give you way more than 60FPS.

Thanks a lot for the tips Avro... but you meant Ryzen 5 7600 (and not Ryzen 7)... correct? (Just makin' sure...)

 

[Avro Arrow]

Not the case, I can assure you. I've used both fan cooled and water cooled in the same room and the difference is absurd. I used the same video card with both cooling systems, first fan based (obviously), then custom watercooled (and the radiator wasn't outside the window). The fan GPU would hit 80ºC while the watercooled wouldn't even hit 45º. But then again, it was about 8 years ago (with the 970), and cooling (fan) tech probably got better in this interval, I can't say, since I'm far from being an expert. That's why I believe you guys.

Hmmm.... that doesn't make any sense because liquid cooling doesn't reduce the amount of heat being generated by the part, it's just better at exchanging it with the outside air. After all, heat is energy and energy cannot be destroyed, only moved or converted. If you're happy with it though, that's all that matters.

Thanks a lot for the tips Avro... but you meant Ryzen 5 7600 (and not Ryzen 7)... correct? (Just makin' sure...)

Yes, sometimes I type faster than I can keep track of. Of course you're right, I meant Ryzen 5 7600. Usually I just type it in a short form, like R5-7600.

It would seem that I have a gift for screwing myself up!

 

[Eximo]

Water cooling a GPU basically gives it a few extra boost bins and much more stable clock frequencies in general.

There can be some potential power savings since running cooler makes the GPU more efficient, but you are also adding a pump to the system with its own power requirements, so probably evens out.

But yes, the heat has to go somewhere and it doesn't really matter how it gets cooled, it will still waste the same amount of energy as waste heat.

 

[DSzymborski]

Not the case, I can assure you. I've used both fan cooled and water cooled in the same room and the difference is absurd. I used the same video card with both cooling systems, first fan based (obviously), then custom watercooled (and the radiator wasn't outside the window). The fan GPU would hit 80ºC while the watercooled wouldn't even hit 45º. But then again, it was about 8 years ago (with the 970), and cooling (fan) tech probably got better in this interval, I can't say, since I'm far from being an expert. That's why I believe you guys.

I think you're missing what he's getting at.

Yes, the custom water cooled card will run cooler than the fan-based card. But not because it's generating less heat; a custom water cooler works better because it removes heat to the environment more effectively. PC cooling in this context is a heat transfer strategy, not something which physically makes thing actually cooler. Watts = heat.

The room itself will not be cooler with a water-cooled GPU than a fan-cooled on. In fact, it might be ever so slightly warmer since it'll be a bit more efficient at heating up your room by removing heat from the PC to the environment around it. He's mentioning it because you referred to your room being hot. the only way to make the room itself with PC part choice is to use less power.

 

[Avro Arrow]

I think you're missing what he's getting at.

Yes, the custom water cooled card will run cooler than the fan-based card. But not because it's generating less heat; a custom water cooler works better because it removes heat to the environment more effectively. PC cooling in this context is a heat transfer strategy, not something which physically makes thing actually cooler. Watts = heat.

The room itself will not be cooler with a water-cooled GPU than a fan-cooled on. In fact, it might be ever so slightly warmer since it'll be a bit more efficient at heating up your room by removing heat from the PC to the environment around it. He's mentioning it because you referred to your room being hot. the only way to make the room itself with PC part choice is to use less power.

You got it Big D!

 

[Order 66]

That or the 7900XTX and you ignore ray tracing. You want that big VRAM buffer if you are going always try to run 4K. Without RT you can expect a pretty decent frame rate in most titles for several years at least.

Can't really recommend a 4080 (16GB) or 7900XT (20GB) for pure 4K. They've priced these so that you only want to look at the top models.

Sure the 7900XTX isn't as good at RT as a 4090, but it is on par with the 3090.