[SOLVED] Opinion on Build

King_V

Distinguished
I don't know - there are some applications that would like more memory, but gaming isn't among them. Maybe photo or video editing? This is a little outside of my knowledge, though.

Intel may give you a FEW fps higher when running a high end graphics card and 1920x1080 resolution. However, if your frames exceed 144fps, then your monitor isn't going to be able to display them faster, unless you turn Vsync off, then you get tearing.

Definitely get a FreeSync monitor, when you do get one. You'll want the adaptive sync (and NOT paying the "Nvidia tax" to be locked into Nvidia-only GSync) that FreeSync offers, to keep things smooth when the frame rates dip.


Also - unless the price is the same (or less) for the 144 Hz monitor, don't pay extra for 144Hz over, say, 100 or 120. The human eye can't pick that up, and the human body can't respond that quickly. Having done a little digging, the fastest humans can react to is about high 80s, roughly. Maybe low 90s.
 
Reactions: MatthewPav

King_V

Distinguished
Is this predominantly for gaming?

Do you have a monitor currently? If so:
  • What's its resolution?
  • What's it's refresh rate?
  • Does it have FreeSync, GSync, or neither?
    • If FreeSync, what is the FreeSync range?
Assuming it's predominantly for gaming:
  • 32GB is excessive, not necessary
  • the 970 EVO, while a good SSD, is a bit of overkill.
  • The 8th generation Intel seems like an odd choice for a new system
 
Reactions: MatthewPav
Mar 24, 2020
24
1
15
0
Is this predominantly for gaming?

Do you have a monitor currently? If so:
  • What's its resolution?
  • What's it's refresh rate?
  • Does it have FreeSync, GSync, or neither?
    • If FreeSync, what is the FreeSync range?
Assuming it's predominantly for gaming:
  • 32GB is excessive, not necessary
  • the 970 EVO, while a good SSD, is a bit of overkill.
  • The 8th generation Intel seems like an odd choice for a new system
I don't currently have a moniter but i was gonna use something with 144hz refresh rate.
It is predominately for gaming but I do plan on doing some school on it as well(going to major in computer science)
What do you think i should replace those parts with? (price not an issue)
 

King_V

Distinguished
Well, I would most likely consider a Ryzen 3600, or perhaps a 2600x, with a B450-based motherboard.

Go with 2x8GB RAM.

Am I correct in assuming you're going with a 1920x1080 monitor? Are you trying to go for the ultra-high frame-rates in gaming?
 
Mar 24, 2020
24
1
15
0
Well, I would most likely consider a Ryzen 3600, or perhaps a 2600x, with a B450-based motherboard.

Go with 2x8GB RAM.

Am I correct in assuming you're going with a 1920x1080 monitor? Are you trying to go for the ultra-high frame-rates in gaming?
Is there any reason you advise against intel? I was wanting something that will run really high framerates. Is there any application where 32gb would be necessary?

Also is there any build suggestions that are really good for high quality gaming?
 

King_V

Distinguished
I don't know - there are some applications that would like more memory, but gaming isn't among them. Maybe photo or video editing? This is a little outside of my knowledge, though.

Intel may give you a FEW fps higher when running a high end graphics card and 1920x1080 resolution. However, if your frames exceed 144fps, then your monitor isn't going to be able to display them faster, unless you turn Vsync off, then you get tearing.

Definitely get a FreeSync monitor, when you do get one. You'll want the adaptive sync (and NOT paying the "Nvidia tax" to be locked into Nvidia-only GSync) that FreeSync offers, to keep things smooth when the frame rates dip.


Also - unless the price is the same (or less) for the 144 Hz monitor, don't pay extra for 144Hz over, say, 100 or 120. The human eye can't pick that up, and the human body can't respond that quickly. Having done a little digging, the fastest humans can react to is about high 80s, roughly. Maybe low 90s.
 
Reactions: MatthewPav
Mar 24, 2020
24
1
15
0
I don't know - there are some applications that would like more memory, but gaming isn't among them. Maybe photo or video editing? This is a little outside of my knowledge, though.

Intel may give you a FEW fps higher when running a high end graphics card and 1920x1080 resolution. However, if your frames exceed 144fps, then your monitor isn't going to be able to display them faster, unless you turn Vsync off, then you get tearing.

Definitely get a FreeSync monitor, when you do get one. You'll want the adaptive sync (and NOT paying the "Nvidia tax" to be locked into Nvidia-only GSync) that FreeSync offers, to keep things smooth when the frame rates dip.


Also - unless the price is the same (or less) for the 144 Hz monitor, don't pay extra for 144Hz over, say, 100 or 120. The human eye can't pick that up, and the human body can't respond that quickly. Having done a little digging, the fastest humans can react to is about high 80s, roughly. Maybe low 90s.
Thanks man. Super informative.
 

Nemesia

Respectable
Nov 6, 2019
2,369
454
1,890
89
Thanks man. Super informative.
Not very accurate tho. Human eyes do not see in FPS and whoever is telling you that the human eyes will only see around 80 fps is totally wrong.

https://www.pcgamer.com/how-many-frames-per-second-can-the-human-eye-really-see/

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1vy3qe View: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1vy3qe/how_many_frames_per_second_can_the_eye_see/


https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-highest-frame-rate-fps-that-can-be-recognized-by-human-perception-At-what-rate-do-we-essentially-stop-noticing-the-difference

The human eyes can see a lot more than 80 fps. It doesn't even see in fps. This is not how our eyes work.

He was right tho about the 120Hz to 144Hz. Not much of a difference but the eyes thing is totally wrong and probably believed the people who were saying "People can't see higher than 60fps" type of meme. Which is false.
 
Reactions: MatthewPav
Mar 24, 2020
24
1
15
0
Not very accurate tho. Human eyes do not see in FPS and whoever is telling you that the human eyes will only see around 80 fps is totally wrong.

https://www.pcgamer.com/how-many-frames-per-second-can-the-human-eye-really-see/

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1vy3qe View: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1vy3qe/how_many_frames_per_second_can_the_eye_see/


https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-highest-frame-rate-fps-that-can-be-recognized-by-human-perception-At-what-rate-do-we-essentially-stop-noticing-the-difference

The human eyes can see a lot more than 80 fps. It doesn't even see in fps. This is not how our eyes work.

He was right tho about the 120Hz to 144Hz. Not much of a difference but the eyes thing is totally wrong and probably believed the people who were saying "People can't see higher than 60fps" type of meme. Which is false.
That's really interesting. Thanks I appreciate it.

I also decided to change to the I9 9900K because i want to game and do software engineering and some photoshop as well.
 

King_V

Distinguished
@Nemesia if you're going to say I'm stating something wrong . . don't make assumptions about what I "probably think" or "probably believe" and perhaps use links to scientific research rather than gaming articles (which, unfortunately, I can't even read at work).

Particularly as someone who most definitely could see the flickering of a CRT at 60Hz with a solid, white or near white color.

You talk about how the eye doesn't see in "frames" yet the reddit and quora links talk about frames.

You'll note that I brought up both what the eye can see, and physical reaction time. I'll see if I can re-dig up the article (I know I posted it in these forums at one point), but the fastest EVER recorded human response time to stimulus is: 13 milliseconds. Or, 0.013 seconds.

So, 1 ÷ 0.013 = 76.923. So, around 77 frames/second.

Note, as I said, I can't see the pcgamer link or what it claims, but one of your own links claims 120 milliseconds, which is an order of magnitude slower.


EDIT: found it: https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/nvidia-explains-why-it-thinks-high-frame-rates-matter-in-competitive-games.3551156/#post-21447919

Or, of you don't care to read the rest of the post, the link I referenced: https://www.livescience.com/42666-human-brain-sees-images-record-speed.html

And that's with an entire image just quickly flashed on the screen, not subtle changes.

Can the human eye SEE faster than that? Maybe to some extent. Even IF that's possible, what good is information that goes by faster than you can react to it?

This also doesn't account for the fact that with motion, there have been many optical illusions shown where you see motion that actually isn't happening because the brain is predicting what will happen next based on what's already been seen. The Hering Illusion on this page is one example.


I've said it before, and I'll say it again: when someone can provide documented, reproducible scientific research with people gaming at various refresh rates, and able to accurately tell what refresh rate they're seeing without being told in advance, on the SAME screen, then I'll reassess my conclusion. Otherwise, it's just wishful thinking.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS