PC Building Guide and Discussion #13

[aleshemsky83]

since disabling my overclock my games ahve been having some troubles. Apex for example stutters a fair bit and hovers around 80-90% usage. might have to reenable and try to fiddle with the voltage till its stable again

man I really need to get my Ryzen build done at some point lol

Better to have a GPU bottleneck than a cpu bottleneck. Get some supersampling in there.

 

[aleshemsky83]

I'm kind of interested in those qualcomm snapdragon windows laptops, they advertise 24 hour battery and i5 8250u performance, but theres hardly any respectable reviews out just closed door demos by online magazines that repeat the claims without any hands on testing. Sounds too good to be true. They've been out a while so im not sure why theres not more reviews.

 

[Dick Sledge]

I'm trying to eliminate all possibilities of these crashes I'm having.

New compatible ram. Check

New higher end psu. Check

Return the psu extensions. Check

Hopefully all of that works?

 

[guinness]

I'm kind of interested in those qualcomm snapdragon windows laptops, they advertise 24 hour battery and i5 8250u performance, but theres hardly any respectable reviews out just closed door demos by online magazines that repeat the claims without any hands on testing. Sounds too good to be true. They've been out a while so im not sure why theres not more reviews.

Lenovo Yoga C630 WOS (Snapdragon) Convertible Review

That's the only one I see at bestbuy.com (currently $600 US). Per that review, while it can run most typical software, it's a mixed bag. For software that's optimized for ARM, it's probably better.

For the money, I could get a better Intel-based laptop, but fanless designs are intriguing, although Intel has their Y-series CPUs, which are fanless too.

 

[Dick Sledge]

New compatible ram came in and installed. Played Control for over an hour with no crash. It's still clearly not the full picture but who knows. A step in the right direction.

 

[SeidoN]

seems like im not alone in my assessment of Control's performance

 

[Dick Sledge]

seems like im not alone in my assessment of Control's performance

With my 2080, when it's not crashing, I've been getting in the 80s usually with every thing on high except I think shadows on medium and one other thing on medium.

 

[SeidoN]

With my 2080, when it's not crashing, I've been getting in the 80s usually with every thing on high except

80 seems acceptable if Raytracing is on. if not, its not impressive. compare it to say Gears 5 which imo looks incredible and runs at 80-100fps maxed on a meagre RX580 which is less than a 3rd of the cost of an RTX2080

 

[Dick Sledge]

80 seems acceptable if Raytracing is on. if not, its not impressive. compare it to say Gears 5 which imo looks incredible and runs at 80-100fps maxed on a meagre RX580 which is less than a 3rd of the cost of an RTX2080

Dx11 so no ray tracing.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

80 seems acceptable if Raytracing is on. if not, its not impressive. compare it to say Gears 5 which imo looks incredible and runs at 80-100fps maxed on a meagre RX580 which is less than a 3rd of the cost of an RTX2080

There is a reason why Gears 5 can be maxed out far more easily. The game is nowhere near as demanding.

 

[SeidoN]

There is a reason why Gears 5 can be maxed out far more easily. The game is nowhere near as demanding.

and yet looks much nicer. I dont care about the tech under the hood when the game flat out looks better. Control is only "demanding" cause its simply unoptimized lol

funny to me youre still defending this game when its been repeatedly called unoptimized by professional benchmarkers. do you own stock in Remedy?

 

[Do Make Say Think]

and yet looks much nicer. I dont care about the tech under the hood when the game flat out looks better. Control is only "demanding" cause its simply unoptimized lol

funny to me youre still defending this game when its been repeatedly called unoptimized by professional benchmarkers. do you own stock in Remedy?

There is a big difference between "unoptimized" which Control is, and "bad performance"

 

[SeidoN]

There is a big difference between "unoptimized" which Control is, and "bad performance"

what does that even mean? the game performs badly because its unoptimized. thats always been my point. theres zero reason for Control to run so poorly. we are not at the point yet where you should need a 700 dollar GPU to get 60fps when raytracing is off. if it was ON the results would be fine. add in the fact that Control honestly doesnt even look that great. the graphics are pretty bland. reminds me alot of Remedy's last title Quantum Break which also had pretty meh graphics at the time and struggled to hit 60fps on decent GPUs

 

[Do Make Say Think]

what does that even mean? the game performs badly because its unoptimized. thats always been my point. theres zero reason for Control to run so poorly. we are not at the point yet where you should need a 700 dollar GPU to get 60fps when raytracing is off. if it was ON the results would be fine. add in the fact that Control honestly doesnt even look that great.

It does not perform badly, that is my point. If you can't run Control at 60 FPS on DX11, well then then the problem is not the game.

 

[SeidoN]

If you can't run Control at 60 FPS on DX11 l, well then then the problem is not the game.

And again the professional benchmarkers disagree with you. I'm more inclined to believe them, sorry

 

[Do Make Say Think]

And again the professional benchmarkers disagree with you. I'm more inclined to believe them, sorry

Professional benchmarkers.... Sure.

 

[SeidoN]

Professional benchmarkers.... Sure.

Yep. Channels who benchmarks games and hardware literally for a living against some random on a hockey board. Not a tough choice

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Yep. Channels who benchmarks games and hardware literally for a living against some random on a hockey board. Not a tough choice

I'm not trying to convince you. I just want it to be clear that the game doesn't run poorly.

Even those benchmarks don't make that claim.

Games are far easier to futureproof now, not being able to max a game and have it run at 120 FPS does not mean it runs poorly. Not a lot of rigs will be able to get that kind of performance with Gears 5 at 4k, no dynamic resolution and everything cranked to the max.

Should people be aware that Control is a very demanding game to run with all graphical settings to the max? Yes, because we are now at a point where max settings are futureproof. The times have changed.

Is it annoying that the RTX GPUs cost a fortune? Yes, absolutely. However that is PC gaming: it keeps getting more expensive to have top of the line hardware, this is not new.

 

[Commander Clueless]

I'm not trying to convince you. I just want it to be clear that the game doesn't run poorly.

Even those benchmarks don't make that claim.

I feel like the only difference in definitions of "runs poorly" between you and SeidoN is one of you has an RTX 2070S and the other has an RX 580.

I think the emphasis that benchmark video is making is to warn people that Control is significantly more demanding than your average game.

The big question is - does it run well on lowered settings? This is something that many professional benchmarks neglect to show.




The real victims here are owners of base level consoles, though. From what I've seen, those can hit single digit frame rates at times...

Is it annoying that the RTX GPUs cost a fortune? Yes, absolutely. However that is PC gaming: it keeps getting more expensive to have top of the line hardware, this is not new.

True.

We talked about this in the Games thread, but I think the big difference right now is just how big of a jump in pricing it is compared to last gen. It's a staggering price jump for top of the line hardware from even last gen, and the price-to-performance boost is very lackluster....so in a sense, this is something new as it bucks the trend.

As awesome as ray tracing is visually, from a consumer perspective RTX is a big move in the wrong direction in terms of the budget minded.

Still wish I had one though....

 

[SeidoN]

I think the emphasis that benchmark video is making is to warn people that Control is significantly more demanding than your average game.

that would be fine if the visuals justified it. they dont imo. The guys literally says in the video that the game is in optimized. He's telling you black and white that the framerate isn't as good as he believes it should be and you guys are denying it like you have the video on mute or something g.

if you told me those were the benchmark results for Cyberpunk or Dying Light 2 id say well yes, seems acceptable. Control to me, doesnt have the visuals to back up its performance cost. even WITH the 2070S the framerate doesnt seem to be as good as it should so its not just a case of having a weaker card. even the stronger cards should be putting up higher fps than they are and the guys running the tests agree

one of you has an RTX 2070S and the other has an RX 580.

also this is a dumb comment. obviously the game will run better on a 2070S than a 580. thats not the point im making at all. but im done discussing this if its just gonna be a "your PC sucks bro" argument

 

[Do Make Say Think]

A game not being optimized does not mean it runs poorly, it means it could run better. This is all fairly standard stuff.

Also that "professional benchmarker" spent like 20 seconds on Control. If you want a real in-depth look at ray-tracing and performance in Control here, check this out:



You computer doesn't suck, I can't know that. I do know that you put a lot of stock in click-bait though and you were spreading like the gospel. Unfortunately it is also very clear that you haven't played the game or seen it run properly.

 

[Commander Clueless]

that would be fine if the visuals justified it. they dont imo. The guys literally says in the video that the game is in optimized. He's telling you black and white that the framerate isn't as good as he believes it should be and you guys are denying it like you have the video on mute or something g.

if you told me those were the benchmark results for Cyberpunk or Dying Light 2 id say well yes, seems acceptable. Control to me, doesnt have the visuals to back up its performance cost. even WITH the 2070S the framerate doesnt seem to be as good as it should so its not just a case of having a weaker card. even the stronger cards should be putting up higher fps than they are and the guys running the tests agree

I believe we are in agreement with this point.

Responding to DMST's comment of the benchmarks not making "this claim (re: runs poorly)", I was attempting to say the benchmarks indicate that the game is more demanding relative to the norm.

also this is a dumb comment. obviously the game will run better on a 2070S than a 580. thats not the point im making at all. but im done discussing this if its just gonna be a "your PC sucks bro" argument

I didn't mean it like that at all.

Since you two were arguing over the definition of "runs poorly" vs "unoptimized", I was just making the obvious dumb point that perspective makes a difference (with a little humour that obviously didn't land).

I apologize if you thought I was insulting you in any way. I assure you it wasn't intentional.


Also, side note, but there's nothing sucky about the RX 580. It's still the ideal 1080p card for price-to-performance IMO (well, it or the 570).

 

[SeidoN]

Unfortunately it is also very clear that you haven't played the game

not true but w/e

anyway im glad the game runs well for you. im not running out and buying a 700 dollar GPU to play a game at 60fps that I do not believe justifies its taxing performance. ill leave it at that.

 

[Commander Clueless]

A game not being optimized does not mean it runs poorly, it means it could run better. This is all fairly standard stuff.

I don't quite follow you on this point.

In terms of pure frame rate, a game lacking optimization runs more poorly than games that are well optimized.


When you use the term "doesn't run poorly", do you mean it still has an acceptable frame rate? Or do you mean it doesn't have other problems (i.e. stuttering, tearing, crashing, etc.)?

Also that "professional benchmarker" spent like 20 seconds on Control.

True, but it's because he essentially said it's not a very effective benchmarking tool to determine average effectiveness of a GPU thanks to the lack of optimization.



I agree with @Do Make Say Think that the game is certainly still playable on lowered settings, etc. but I also agree with @SeidoN that a game requiring a beast GPU for the "PC standard" of 1080p 60 on High is a bit ludicrous.


I feel like this argument is a battle of assigning the same term with a different meaning...

 

[Do Make Say Think]

A game runs poorly when it there are structural issues, when something is wrong with the game. When the game runs fine but requires a powerful pc to run with all the bells and whistles, it is demanding.

Again, the game runs absolutely fine on a moderate PC with DX11. Of course anyone saying Control runs poorly will dodge that fact. Hell the game launcher tells you that most people should run it with DX11, that DX12 is for people for bigrigs.

This is only about standing up to uninformed dishonesty. However, it is clear that he has never played the game so I'm done beating this drum.