I want to get an RTX 2070 Super + i9 9900k next year.
Is this combination good?
And a question by the way:
My processor is 80-100% full
And my graphics card has 20%
Can you improve anything there?
So only for Minecraft would I find it exaggerated. I mean you probably buy an RTX because of ray tracing in MC, I guess.
EDIT: Achso and to the thing with the 80-100% for the processor and 20% for the GraKa is called Bottleneck. If your processor is called is probably so bad that it slows down the GraKa.
Bad way too op for mc.
next year there will be better stuff in the p / l ratio. Would resort to ryzen 4000. Or if you are on budget on ryzen 5 3600. As a graka fits a 2070 super but it would be much too op and next year I think there would be better alternatives and the components above will no longer have the best p / l.
How much do you want to spend on your PC? I'd rather buy an Rtx 2080 (Super), but if you want to buy in a year, then buy the new 3000 amps from NVIDIA. I would recommend processor from Amd, because they simply have more cores, e.g. Ryzen 9 3900X. That would be a much more sensible combination.
What an i9 for? Play for MC only? Since a worse CPU and an RTX2080 would make more sense, then you can play the RTX Beta best. If it should only be the normal version, then a cheaper graphics card is enough. Such as. A GTX 1060/1660 to have massive FPS. Unless of course you want to use special "real-life" texture packs and blatant shaders.
Mc is almost more about CPU than GPU, both very important for high fps
Well. It depends on what kind of CPU. A newer 4-core with hyperthreading is sufficient.
The station wagon is good, but not necessary for Minecraft. If there's time until next year, I would not take a 9900K, until then the socket 1200 boards should be cheaper and an i7 10700K (F) make sense. Otherwise an R7 3700X, which is enough for the card and is a lot cheaper. An advantage with Intel would be that you may not need a new processor for the nighttime graphics card.
Dude what are you talking about
1.2080s is much too strong for mc and unnecessary because a 1050 or 1660 is fine for me but doesn't matter
2.amd just has more cores? Lol it depends on the models it is not that Intel eg has 4 and AMD 6 that is Bullsh * T
Answer net if nothing good comes out
I don't think Mc can have enough power at all. You can have 600fps in the normal MC, then test something with shaders and mods and lo and behold, the performance is no longer sufficient
Or let's assume you want to record at 300fps, for example, because I'm already reaching the limit with my 4 cores
But yes, a normal 4-core is definitely sufficient, but is it ready for everything that Minecraft can throw at it? Rather not
for shader, the GPU is more important than the processor, yes
It really depends on what he wants to do, for normal gaming it is of course overkill, but hey if he has the money why not, more performance is never wrong
Yes, that's exactly what I want to use with ray tracing.
And do not want to buy 1200 euro for an RTX 2080 Ti.
VINC767 I want to use this setup mainly for playing Mineceraft.
Of course I want to use shaders and I also stream on YouTube because that would be really appropriate.
I think
I don't think it's too OP for Minecraft.
(Shaders, mods, ray tracing)
I also asked this question because someone told me I should take NVIDIA & INTEL for Minecraft.
Apparently a Ryzen would not be so unnecessary.
So if you play Minecraft using ray tracing, that's not too OP.
If you turn on rytracing or pack several mods into the Vanilla Minecraft, then a good performance is also necessary. In this case, a 1050 or 1660 is not sufficient.
A 2060 is already enough for 60fps, if he wants more I would recommend a 2070s which is quite overkill for mc especially because he thinks I have a 60hz monitor
Thinking is not knowing. And even if a 2070S with ultra shaders, a high-resolution resource pack and several mods brings the whole thing to its knees. If you then have a 144 Hertz monitor and all graphics settings are at their maximum, it will be difficult even for a 2070S to keep the 144 Hertz even.
The question is whether next year there won't be much better options with nvidia 3000 and ryen 4000. If you only get it next year anyway I would wait and then ask again next year. Because saying what you want to buy in a year is not a good idea, especially with pc hardware
The question is whether this will still make sense in a year
Why not?
Because the new ryzen gen and rtx 3000 are coming and the p / l may exceed the 2070 and 3000 cpu?
That may be the case, but you could say that for every subsequent generation. So in the end it doesn't really matter. I personally would wait anyway until the new generations are out, and then buy the previous generation (e.g. Now RXT 2000 series) at a reduced price.
Amd simply has a much better price-performance ratio. If you turn on in MC Rtx, you only get 60 FPS. If he wants to gamble at 144 FPS, then even the 2080 ti won't do it for him. For example, Intel 5 costs around 200 euro and has 4 cores, whereas a Ryzen 5 2600 that costs 120 euro has 6 cores. Both have the same number of cores in their price. Better go get information and don't speculate.
You mean him or? Because I was tagged
Of course that comes in addition. That he then if he really wanted to buy a 2000 that would be cheaper
Yes ouh my mistake
Oh I mean you
No I mean you!
I didn't say that Intel is worse or so, I just said it corrected its false statement that amd CPUs have more cores than Intel. I didn't do that because of the correction, because I'm stupid and I'm an Intel fan boy. I myself prefer AMD and I also have an R5 3600
