Competition Future Proof 4K Build

Apr 27, 2020
9
0
10
Visit site
PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: AMD Ryzen 3 3200G 3.6 GHz Quad-Core Processor ($94.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: ASRock X570 Phantom Gaming 4 ATX AM4 Motherboard ($154.99)
Memory: Patriot Viper Steel 8 GB (1 x 8 GB) DDR4-3000 Memory ($34.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Mushkin Enhanced RAW 240 GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($37.99 @ Newegg)
Video Card: XFX Radeon VII 16 GB Video Card ($549.99 @ Best Buy)
Case: Fractal Design Focus G ATX Mid Tower Case ($57.99 @ Walmart)
Power Supply: Antec High Current Gamer Gold 650 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply ($49.96 @ Amazon)
Total: $980.90
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2020-04-27 15:28 EDT-0400

The motherboard is X570 to be used to upgrade the CPU later. Further, the 16 GB Vram makes up for the 1 x 8 GB stick. The SSD is OK for now while waiting for faster PCie SSD/NVE/ETC to come out. The graphics card can game at higher resolutions so the 4-core CPU should be fine for all current games in 2020.

Future Proof means having the newer Motherboard to upgrade later and having faster PCI lanes within a limited budget of $1000.
 
Last edited:
Apr 22, 2020
12
4
15
Visit site
Hey there! How's it going? Unfortunately, there are some errors in your build:
1: The Ryzen 3 3200G will bottleneck the Radeon VII by at least 50%.
2. The Ryzen 3 3200G only has 8 outgoing PCIE lanes because of the onboard Vega 8 GPU, so it will only run the VII at 8x PCIE bandwidth instead of 16.
3. The 16 Gigabytes of Vram in the GPU will not make up for 8 gigs of ddr4. The Ryzen CPU's require more ram, and in faster quantities to work its best.

If I were to do this, I would change the CPU out for a Ryzen 5 1600 or 3600, downgrade the VII to a 5700/XT (Or a Nvidia RTX 2070), and get 16 Gigabytes of ram at that speed.
Notice: I'm not trying to make fun of your build. I'm just trying to help you make it a bit better.
 
Feb 15, 2020
101
88
170
Visit site
I have a Radeon VII. Its a great card. I would not use it for 4K gaming however. The VII falls more in line with a RTX 2080S with more VRAM of course. Great card but the RTX 2080Ti is what you want if you want to 4K at high frames with recent AAA titles.
 
It will depend on the games played of course, but the Radeon VII is overall sadly not quite in the 2080 Super 'class'. More like 1080 ti / 2070 Super overall.

 

Inspireless Llama

Community Contributor
That a 3200G is fine for games in 2020 is arguable too. My 2200G (5-10% slower) had trouble running Dota2 at 60FPS solid with a dedicated GPU and that's officially a game from 2013. And that was 1440p, not 4k.

But I don't think we're meant (or meaning to) burn this build to the ground though :)
 
Apr 8, 2020
31
57
120
Visit site
Future-proofing for 4K gaming isn't much of a thing yet, I don't think.

The RTX 2080 Ti is the first GPU I've had that can reliably stay in the ballpark of 60 FPS at 4K without reducing the graphics settings too much. While games are absolutely playable in 4K, I wouldn't call it future-proof. It's not glued to 60 FPS, and at lower resolutions I always aim for around twice the framerate.

So, one of the best GPU's today can only just play 4K games reliably, even with lowered expectations. True, monitors that can even display 4K over 60 FPS are rare, but that also speaks to the newness of the technology.


Properly 4K-capable graphics cards are only just becoming a thing. Maybe Nvidia's next line of GPU's will offer more in the future-proofing department, and maybe AMD's got something huge yet to be announced, but for now it's better to focus on what's available and to lower your expectations somewhat.


Additionally, you don't want to run a single stick of RAM. 8GB total system RAM is on the low side these days, and running only a single stick will halve the system's RAM speed. Also, it's already been said but it's worth repeating: VRAM isn't the same as standard RAM, and it's used for totally different things. VRAM only affects graphics rendering.
 
Apr 27, 2020
9
0
10
Visit site
Thanks for your replies... The reason behind that build is that I am basing it on my current setup.
I have an i5-2500k @ 4.8 GHz and one of my RAM sticks burnt out so I am using just 8 gigabytes at 1607 MHz. Additionally I have an 1080 Ti Reference card with an 1440p monitor. To this day I have no problems what-so-ever playing any game at 1440p. I can play all the newest games at ULTRA quality. Further, I am currently playing Borderlands 3 up-scaled to 4K with over at least 30 FPS more around 45 - 60 FPS. I think it is important to turn off things on your motherboard that you don't use as to not use up your bandwidth. For example, I turn off the eSata ports, HD audio, ETC.

Check out youtube and you will see people still rocking the 2nd gen I5 or i7s in "20 games in 2020." Is there a bottleneck - yes - but who cares if your getting over 60 FPS? - unless you have an new high refresh rate monitor that may take advantage of the higher refresh rates.

I want to buy a new system but for gaming its all in the GPU and I think it is absurd that they sell the 2080 Ti at $1.200. I bought my 1080 Ti at $699 when it was NEW.

Please, show me that I am wrong with my setup because I desperately want to upgrade my computer but see no reason to when I can play all my games at 1440p and my computer loads up in 5 secs with an SSD.

But I do agree if I had a 4K monitor I don't think the 1080 Ti on Ultra would cut it.
 
Apr 27, 2020
9
0
10
Visit site
I would say wait until the new Playstation/Xbox comes out and developers will (hopefully) develop great graphics over time that will make use of a higher CPU core counts. By that time, it may be time to invest in the Newest - yet not released AMD and Intel chips and motherboards. But I am disappointed that CPU's haven't really gained much performance the last 10 years and afraid that CPUs have hit a ceiling and not overclockable to 6 GHz EVER.
 
who cares if your getting over 60 FPS?
At 1440p, anyone with a monitor over 60hz.

Which is quite a lot of people since 75 hz monitors are a thing. And yes, some of us do actually feel the difference - if you don't, fair enough.

Also, when talking about bottlenecks, it's not just the average fps. Even more importantly, it's FPS drops that make gameplay less smooth that are a factor. I see periodic CPU-related drops even on my RTX 2060 on some modern titles with my 3770k at 1440p.

Please note the 4 core / 4 thread CPUs causing FPS drops to below 60 even at 1080p and/or drops much further below 60 than the cheapest 6 core CPUs
Techspot: https://www.techspot.com/review/1983-intel-vs-amd-budget-cpu-battle-2020/
GN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhzsqgOY0sQ

For general gaming, recommending a quad core CPU (without even SMT), and then starving it with single channel RAM (bearing in mind, Ryzen CPU too) is bananas.

Plus... value! If budget is an issue, just buy a B450 mobo, and R5 3600, and keep them both for years and years. Instead of buying a CPU that will already bottleneck the system, and will need replacing asap.

If the OP wants to spend their money that way, that's their choice so your choice. And we're all pleased they find their current setup satisfactory for their personal tastes I'm sure.

But it's genuinely irresponsible to post advice that's that bad - based on so much stuff that is demonstrably wrong (4C/4T CPUs not being bottlenecks / not causing FPS drops to below 60fps, VRAM somehow making up for single channel and only 8gb RAM?!). Someone looking for advice might see it and actually think it was correct :/
 
Last edited:
I would say wait until the new Playstation/Xbox comes out and developers will (hopefully) develop great graphics over time that will make use of a higher CPU core counts.
This is so far behind the times it's not even funny. Note benchmarks above.

And that there have been mainstream games that make use of more than 4 cores/threads for years now. e.g. FO4 (2015), benefitting from high frequency but also hyperthreading.
 
The first thing I thought when I saw the spec above was trolling.

The quality of the spec "advice", the choice to defend it, the logic used... and the fact that PC Gamer has many of the same moderators as Tom's Hardware (you could say it's Tom's Cousin...) does make me wonder whether my instincts were right on this one.
 
Apr 27, 2020
9
0
10
Visit site
This is so far behind the times it's not even funny. Note benchmarks above.

And that there have been mainstream games that make use of more than 4 cores/threads for years now. e.g. FO4 (2015), benefitting from high frequency but also hyperthreading.

I'm almost positive that your setup will not game as well as my setup despite having less RAM with an older card. Benchmarks don't tell the picture. I think that needing more than 8 GBs of RAM is a fallacy in todays market.
 
Last edited:
Apr 27, 2020
9
0
10
Visit site
"
Single Channel vs. Dual Channel
Theoretically, Dual Channel memory mode does means double bandwidth but in gaming, you won’t really notice any difference compared to single-channel mode. The only thing that matters is the amount of RAM, so it is better to get more memory rather than anything else.
 
Apr 27, 2020
9
0
10
Visit site
"
Single Channel vs. Dual Channel
Theoretically, Dual Channel memory mode does means double bandwidth but in gaming, you won’t really notice any difference compared to single-channel mode. The only thing that matters is the amount of RAM, so it is better to get more memory rather than anything else.
I have to make sure that people don't think that having dual channel as compared to single channel really matters for gaming.
 
Last edited:
Apr 27, 2020
9
0
10
Visit site
"
Single Channel vs. Dual Channel
Theoretically, Dual Channel memory mode does means double bandwidth but in gaming, you won’t really notice any difference compared to single-channel mode. The only thing that matters is the amount of RAM, so it is better to get more memory rather than anything else.

Be cool, stay in school!
 
Very poor effort. Grade E -. Quoting off some random junk blog and not even linking to it.

Some games benefit significantly from dual vs single channel RAM.

And AMD Ryzen CPUs, due to their architecture, benefit even more from dual over single channel RAM.
https://www.hardwaretimes.com/dual-...-gaming-performance-in-ryzen-3000-processors/
https://youtu.be/mwx1JTRUmM8

Particularly in maintaining smoother framerates.

In 2014, single vs dual - outside of integrated graphics - might not have been such a big deal. But in modern times, yes, having RAM in dual channel is very important.

Find a better hobby - it takes you longer to post this stuff that it does to google an article that just confirms what's widely-known and link it.
 
Last edited:
Apr 27, 2020
9
0
10
Visit site
I'm just saving money and don't want to make big budget purchase. In some games YES in some other games NO with AMD Yes and with Intel NO. Some games work better with less RAM at higher speeds some games work better more RAM at the same speed. Until the game developers start requiring more than 4 core I'll upgrade. Until Games require more than 8 GBS MINIMUM I'll upgrade. For some reason with my particular intel motherboard SOMEHOW - it gets more FPS than two sticks. If your running a lot of background operations during your gaming you will probably need more.
This all started when I was just trying to build a budget build and save money. If prices were cheaper I would get 32 GBs of RAM. My focus is saving money and not following into marketing traps that tell you - "you need as much RAM as possible."

I say SAVE YOUR MONEY until you see PERCEIVABLE performance like that of SSDs and video cards that have more than 3 GB vRAM. For example having 400 FPS on 8 GBs or 440 FPS doesn't really matter. I agree I haven't used AMD since the 9850 Black Edition so to your point I am ignorant about AMD CPUS - you are right that is what I read - they do perform hand and hand w/ AMD. Again, I'm looking at best bang for your buck.
 
Last edited:
Apr 27, 2020
9
0
10
Visit site
I'm just saving money and don't want to make big budget purchase. In some games YES in some other games NO with AMD Yes and with Intel NO. Some games work better with less RAM at higher speeds some games work better more RAM at the same speed. Until the game developers start requiring more than 4 core I'll upgrade. Until Games require more than 8 GBS MINIMUM I'll upgrade. For some reason with my particular intel motherboard SOMEHOW - it gets more FPS than two sticks. If your running a lot of background operations during your gaming you will probably need more.
This all started when I was just trying to build a budget build and save money. If prices were cheaper I would get 32 GBs of RAM. My focus is saving money and not following into marketing traps that tell you - "you need as much RAM as possible."

I say SAVE YOUR MONEY until you see PERCEIVABLE performance like that of SSDs and video cards that have more than 3 GB vRAM. For example having 400 FPS on 8 GBs or 440 FPS doesn't really matter. I agree I haven't used AMD since the 9850 Black Edition so to your point I am ignorant about AMD CPUS - you are right that is what I read - they do perform hand and hand w/ AMD. Again, I'm looking at best bang for your buck.

Question Back: Does quad channel perform better than dual?
 
This is going all over the place.

My focus is saving money and not following into marketing traps that tell you - "you need as much RAM as possible."
Indeed, and 32gb RAM is a waste for general gaming setups - only useful for certain niche areas.

However, in some modern titles, you will see much more stuttery gameplay with 8gb RAM than 16gb.
Even without background programs.

8gb may still be fine for some budget level builds but given the price difference between 8gb and 16gb, the fact that 16gb will be necessary if it isn't already, potential compatibility issues adding another stick down the line especially with higher frequencies, and the benefits of having RAM in dual channel, gamers should almost always aim for 2 x 8gb 3000MHz (or faster, depending on pricing) RAM.

This all started when I was just trying to build a budget build and save money.
If you had dropped the motherboard in your build above to a B450, upped the CPU to an R5 3600, and gone with sensible RAM, I don't think anyone would have batted an eye. And it would still fit in the same budget.

It's not about spending more, it's about spending the same, more wisely.

Again, I'm looking at best bang for your buck.
Then an X570 mobo is not 'it'.

until you see PERCEIVABLE performance
That's the thing. There are real, tangible differences to:

- CPU with more than 4 threads/cores.
- 16gb vs 8gb RAM
- RAM being run as dual channel, not single (especially, but not exclusively, with AMD CPUs).

Across a wide variety of games.

Differences like significantly reducing stutter by reducing framerate drops.

That's not marketing guff, that's fact - evidenced by tests from multiple, independent media. This is like debating whether the earth is round or not.

Question Back: Does quad channel perform better than dual?
That's a non-issue for 99%+ of gamers because desktop motherboards are not quad channel. You need HEDT for that.

However, there is apparently some evidence that running 4 sticks of RAM rather than 2 may improve performance in some titles even on dual channel motherboards.

However, those are the kinds of performance gains that really are negligible - we're talking 1-2fps different, not terrible framerate drops and stutter. And in view of the disadvantages of 4 x 4gb over 2 x 8gb, 2 x 8gb remains the go-to recommendation.
 

Latest posts