← Home ← Back to /v/

Thread 723485353

27 posts 24 images /v/
Anonymous No.723485353 >>723485591 >>723488235 >>723488998 >>723489009 >>723489646
>Ryzen 5 5600 + RX 6600
Anonymous No.723485591
>>723485353 (OP)
premium pc for premium gamers
Anonymous No.723488235 >>723488591 >>723492601
>>723485353 (OP)
HAHAHAHAHA
YOU POOR!
Anonymous No.723488591 >>723492601
>>723488235
post 3 games worth upgrading that build for
Anonymous No.723488998 >>723489646
>>723485353 (OP)
>Ryzen 5 7600 + RTX 4060
Anonymous No.723489009
>>723485353 (OP)
i have the exact same, didn't once feel like i need more
Anonymous No.723489226
>Ryzen 5 5600G with no dedicated GPU
Anonymous No.723489256 >>723489873
>Ryzen 7 9800X3D & RX 7900 XTX
Anonymous No.723489532
It is what it is
At least I can play every gooner game, and emulation I guess
Anonymous No.723489549
>R5 7600 + RX 7600
Anonymous No.723489646 >>723489951 >>723493067
>>723485353 (OP)
>>723488998
would either of these be good options if i wanted to just mostly play indie games and old shit at 1080p?
Anonymous No.723489873
>>723489256
7800x3D + 7900 XTX playing mostly Chiv2 lol
Anonymous No.723489951 >>723490493
>>723489646
that setup is basically a ps5 with better cpu, you can even run new games at console quality
Anonymous No.723490493 >>723491198
>>723489951
>that setup is basically a ps5 with better cpu
so ur telling him thats not a PS5 because anything with a better cpu than that will be pretty decent even for newer games as long as they're games thats very optimized
Anonymous No.723491198 >>723493067
>>723490493
GPU wise, the RX 6600 is basically a PS5, which is why I specified its CPU is better
Anonymous No.723491561 >>723493546
>intel i7-6950x + nvidia titan Xp
Anonymous No.723491698 >>723493807
>AMD
NGMI
Anonymous No.723492601
>>723488235
>>723488591
STILL WAITING
Anonymous No.723493067 >>723493184 >>723494690
>>723491198
What's actually closer performance wise would be the 6600xt. PS5 gpu is basically a 6700M missing some rdna2 specific things, so maybe like a 5700/6700 hybrid.
>>723489646
Low end RDNA 1/2/3 doesn't hold up, even something slower like a 3050 is way better to actually use.
It's basically mandatory at this point that you use DLSS (or for the 5 people who bought RDNA4, FSR4), if not games are going to look like ass until you're at 4k minimum.
Anonymous No.723493184 >>723494646
>>723493067
give me the best medium budget PC build, anon
Anonymous No.723493546
4690k + 970
>>723491561
Based
Anonymous No.723493807
>>723491698
intelaviv lost
Anonymous No.723494646
>>723493184
What's medium budget? To me that means $1000-$1500 for a full setup
Cheapest new build that can run new games with basically 0 genuine compromise :
RTX 5070 for 1080 or 1440p, 5070ti 4k. 9070/9070xt isn't really worth buying in most places including the United States. 5060ti isn't terrible but it's a pretty poor value if you can look past the vram situation, which with that type of performance isn't going to matter.
9060xt is bretty okay too for strictly 1080p or compromised 1440p, but performance is super variable, ranges anywhere from worse than a 3060ti to tied with the 5060ti, probably a combination of drivers and architecture .
For the processor you want a 14600k, 9600, or 7600. 14600k is a great deal if you can buy a used z690 board for like $80 or something but you will need an aio. It's also great if the pc is going to be more-mixed use/also used for "productivity"

Cheaper than this and all used, you want a z690 board + 12600kf + 3080/3080ti. On the gpu you'll have to research what's up and kind of weigh out price/performance when you actually go to buy.

Ultra cheap, 12100, 2070/2080/maybe a lucky 2080ti. once again a z690 board is nice for a future in socket upgrade. This (12100+2070) would basically be at marginally better than the consoles performance but with dlss

On cheap monitors, last I checked for under or around $150 you have your choice of 4k 100hz with an ips, 1440p 180hz ips/va, or 1080p 280hz va/300+ ips.
1080p is good again if you use transformer dlss/dlaa
Anonymous No.723494690 >>723495232
>>723493067
>3050 better than a RX 6600
you're tripping, dog
Anonymous No.723495232
>>723494690
That +30% performance is worthless when it's basically impossible to get good image quality on a 6600 at this point without just playing everything at 30fps.
If you're still on console or an old gpu (or an old amd gpu) I'm sure it's hard to realize it, but if you're comparing an nvidia gpu to an amd gpu that isn't the 9070/xt/9060 what a fair comparison would look like is using dlss transformer set to performance on the nvidia gpu, and leaving the amd one at native.
Anonymous No.723495426
>9800x3d + 5090
Anonymous No.723496353
>AMD Ryzen Al Max+ 395 with Radeon 8060S Graphics