I ordered a new desktop PC - 2024

f33dm3bits

Gold Member
Gold Supporter
Joined
Dec 11, 2019
Messages
7,105
Reaction score
5,498
Credits
51,979
My current desktop PC was kind of old for my standards and it was already several generations past the release year when I bought it. I decided I would buy a new desktop PC so that it would be more future proof and that I am able to upgrade it longer, hopefully that is.

4000D AIRFLOW Tempered Glass Mid-Tower ATX Case
ROG STRIX 1000W Gold Aura Edition
ROG STRIX B650E-F GAMING WIFI
AMD Ryzen™ 9 7900X
ARCTIC Liquid Freezer II 360
VENGEANCE® 32GB (2x16GB) DDR5 DRAM 6000MT/S CL30 AMD EXPO Memory
980 PRO w/ Heatsink PCIe® 4.0 NVMe™ SSD 2TB
NITRO+ AMD Radeon™ RX 7900 XTX Vapor-X 24GB

What do you think of my new setup, will it be able to run Linux?
 
Last edited:


Nice
 
I'm fan of Intel+Nvidia, why do people opt for amd+ati? is it because of the price or something else?

edit:
You also want RAM with much lower CL, 30 is too high, especially if you're gamer.
 
Last edited:
I'm fan of Intel+Nvidia, why do people opt for amd+ati? is it because of the price or something else?
I currently have an Nvidia gpu with an Intel cpu, I decided to go different this time. It's because with an AMD gpu I can just use the opensource drivers in the kernel and I won't need to install them separately like how you now have to do it with the Nvidia drivers. Also I've read that you get more power for less with AMD cpu's, I don't know how true that is but from a quick glance it seems I would pay more for a comparable Intel cpu.
 
why do people opt for amd+ati? is it because of the price or something else?
I have always preferred AMD to Intel it goes back a long way when intel started making their own chips and they were unreliable [before this AMD and others made them under contract or licence for Intel]
and I was using ATI graphics long before the AMD takeover, in those days they were not the cheapest but IMO were again the most reliable,

but it's horses for courses, you say Toma'toe and I say tomar'toe
 
It's because with an AMD gpu I can just use the opensource drivers
Ah yes, this makes sense.

Also I've read that you get more power for less with AMD cpu's, I don't know how true that is but from a quick glance it seems I would pay more for a comparable Intel cpu.
That's true, comparable Intel CPU's are more expensive.

I have always preferred AMD to Intel it goes back a long way when intel started making their own chips and they were unreliable
I have similar reason why Intel, it's because AMD CPU's were getting hotter than Intel, I don't know if this is still true but it was true when I've been using amd, and I like cold PC so much that I never turned back to amd, I had it only once in my life.

I don't know what up-to-date reasons there might exist now but I'm loyal to Intel and Nvidia no matter what.

@f33dm3bits
Please see my edit, your RAM is CL 30, I would not buy it
 
@f33dm3bits
Please see my edit, your RAM is CL 30, I would not buy it
I saw your reply but will respond to this one. Why does that effect gaming? I did read you should be able to tune it to lower settings in the UEFI, so that's always an option and not anyone on Reddit mentioning that it's bad for gaming.
 
Why does that effect gaming? I did read you should be able to tune it to lower settings in the UEFI
Sorry I don't have specific reasons for gaming other that the fact that ex. CL 16 RAM will perform faster than CL 30 RAM.
And since CL\CAS is about speed, specifically about delay time for CPU to read from memory it should thus affect gaming or any other similar performance intensive applications.

I'm not sure if you can modify CL in UEFI, you can modify ram speed ex. adjusting MHz's but likely not CL, I'm pretty sure CL is fixed, have never done this.
 
and not anyone on Reddit mentioning that it's bad for gaming.
@CaffeineAddict And on a popular tech forum based in my country no one mentioning it but they mention that CL30 and 6000MT/s are the sweet spot as in how that person phrased it.
 
Last edited:
because AMD CPU's were getting hotter than Intel,
If you fitted the correct cooler, heat was not a problem, on my athalonx2 6000 the cooler was liquid filled and had so many tubes it looked like a mini chemical works, the the computer never overheated
 
If you fitted the correct cooler, heat was not a problem, on my athalonx2 6000 the cooler was liquid filled and had so many tubes it looked like a mini chemical works, the the computer never overheated
Sadly I no longer recall which CPU I was using but I heard this is no longer an issue in modern amd cpu's.
I never used liquid coolers though.
 
And on a popular tech forum based in my country no one mentioning it but they mention that CL30 and 6000MT/s are the sweet spot as in how that person phrased it.
@CaffeineAddict I also checked their best buy guides for a 4k gaming system, it said that choosing 36 over 32 will even give you a few percentages of performance improvement. I can always switch the ram in case, it seems that things are going slower.
 
I still miss my athlon2 x600 desktop, built it myself, it had 2x optical drives, 1x3.5 disc drive, 5 HDD's ati graphics with 1gb on board memory [that's why it wasn't cheap] and 7.1 surround sound, it never got too hot but by god did it get through the electricity compared to modern machines [I lost it during first covid lockdown, [power surge took out the PSU, motherboard ,GPU and 4 of the hard drives,]
 
it said that choosing 36 over 32 will even give you a few percentages of performance improvement.
I don't agree with this at all.

Reddit post which you mentioned if it's this one folks are mentioning that lower CL can give better fps:

Few quotes:
Speed and latency do matter and depending on the tasks it might be quite a bit.

It depends on the games you play. FPS can profit from low latency a bit.

For gaming it matters a lot. I did my own testing with my Ryzen 3700X, some games such as GTA V can spend up to 80% of the time waiting on RAM
 
Reddit post which you mentioned if it's this one folks are mentioning that lower CL can give better fps:
That was from two years ago, I did come across this thread, where someone mentions this.
For ddr4 the general consensus was CL was the best to focus on, but for ddr5 it might not be as true. So it's hard to answer this without a direct comparison.
And I came across this on the Corsair website.
As for CAS latency, DDR5 has achieved optimized CAS latencies a lot faster than DDR4 did when it was first released. Even with high latencies, DDR5’s massive bandwidth improvements are enough to compensate for its high latencies. For PC gaming, CL38 would be a good starting point to run games lag-free. Remember, the lower the value, the better, so going for DDR5 with a CAS latency as low as CL36 or CL34 is ideal, especially for games that are extremely sensitive to latency.

DRR5 may have slower timings compared to DDR4 at the initial release, but as the technology matures, DDR5 will improve and have tighter timings in the future.

DDR5 also has twice the capacity of DDR4. This means more data can be stored in the memory, and with larger space, more applications can be run simultaneously without slowing down your system. For gaming, 16GB has pretty much become the standard nowadays, as it should handle most of the games. That's changing though. 32GB is quickly becoming the new baseline for DDR5 systems, particularly if you're looking at 4K at the highest settings. Anything larger than 32GB is more than enough for any application you can throw at your system, and a good overhead to run larger game files (triple AAA titles) in the future.
So I'm getting the impression that it's different between DDR4 and DDR5.
 
So I'm getting the impression that it's different between DDR4 and DDR5.
Thanks for sharing, honestly I see that I'm out of date a bit here and I don't have DDR5 RAM.

I watched the video til 1/2 of it and it boils down to 2 facts:
1.) DDR5 RAM's with low latency do not exist yet
2.) CL does matter a little but not as much compared to DDR4 and previous standards.

This is new to me and I would conclude since you're already buying DDR5 you shouldn't care a lot because there is no low latency DDR5, but if you're able to get lower latency DDR ram ex. less than 30 then why not, it's very little performance gain the only question is how much more it costs, if not much then why not getting it.
 
less than 30 then why not, it's very little performance gain the only question is how much more it costs, if not much then why not getting it.
I did just check different ddr5 ram modules and it seems that for DDR5 CL30 is the lowest available.
 

Members online


Top