I just wanna say my high end pc cost me 2400 EU ish
2080rtx ti
i7 4ghz
32 DDR 4 ramm
Asus IX deluxe Mobo
1200 watt mudular psu
Coolermaster 5 pro case
+ some SSD and extra fans and RGB strips.
So 1000 $ or EU wont get you far..you can ofc gimp out the mobo and psu and have 16 bg ramm but that will still cost you at least 1800 ish EU.
Also i would be stupid to buy a gimped pc now, when games demands more and more and you wont be able to play newer games at full gfx and enjoy the full details.
Maybe you can buy a used pc for 1000 eu
So you wanted to brag about your system, fine you did and it is a very nice system. You do not need that system to play most of the games out there and especially don't need it to play the games he listed.
He can most certainly build a really nice PC for $1000 if not less that will play all the games he listed at a great resolution.
Yeah, he just wanted to shit on the OP for not having that much to spend. You can get a decent system for $1K.
Just curious why are you picking such expensive memory? just bought 16gb of DDR4 3200 for $90, $150 is a complete rip off. I would recommend a better GPU too, that 1660 just does not get it.
If you can wait for another month or so, Ryzen is coming out with some Ryzen 3 chips that would be even better.
A Ryzen 3 3300X will only be $120, but it's also only four cores. That's fine if you really need to save money, but I'm more inclined to plan on upgrading a GPU later if needed than a CPU.
Maybe I am unaware of current trends in gaming development, but 4 core and 8 threads sounds decent for a low-end gaming platform. The GPU is much more important in my mind, it would be advantageous to spend that extra money on a better GPU!
Just curious why are you picking such expensive memory? just bought 16gb of DDR4 3200 for $90, $150 is a complete rip off. I would recommend a better GPU too, that 1660 just does not get it.
If you can wait for another month or so, Ryzen is coming out with some Ryzen 3 chips that would be even better.
A Ryzen 3 3300X will only be $120, but it's also only four cores. That's fine if you really need to save money, but I'm more inclined to plan on upgrading a GPU later if needed than a CPU.
Maybe I am unaware of current trends in gaming development, but 4 core and 8 threads sounds decent for a low-end gaming platform. The GPU is much more important in my mind, it would be advantageous to spend that extra money on a better GPU!
There are already games out there that can use more CPU cores. For example Doom Eternal recommended is Ryzen 7 1800x or better, Borderlands 3 recommended is Ryzen 5 2600.
I've never seen any game recommend a GPU more powerful than GTX 1660 Super.
Just curious why are you picking such expensive memory? just bought 16gb of DDR4 3200 for $90, $150 is a complete rip off. I would recommend a better GPU too, that 1660 just does not get it.
If you can wait for another month or so, Ryzen is coming out with some Ryzen 3 chips that would be even better.
A Ryzen 3 3300X will only be $120, but it's also only four cores. That's fine if you really need to save money, but I'm more inclined to plan on upgrading a GPU later if needed than a CPU.
Maybe I am unaware of current trends in gaming development, but 4 core and 8 threads sounds decent for a low-end gaming platform. The GPU is much more important in my mind, it would be advantageous to spend that extra money on a better GPU!
You don't want a CPU that is barely good enough today and will be obsolete soon. Your upgrade options on the CPU if you want to upgrade in a few years may be limited to only what is already available today, or maybe you get one more generation that can add another 10%-20% performance or so. Anything more than that and you're looking at replacing the motherboard and memory, too.
In contrast, it's easy to upgrade just the GPU in isolation, so if you get something that feels dated in a few years, you can buy a new GPU and that's it. Furthermore, there will probably be options vastly more powerful than available today.
Furthermore, a somewhat too weak but not completely terrible GPU (say, an RX 5500 or GTX 1650) will be able to run pretty much any game just fine if you turn down some settings. A somewhat too weak CPU is going to get you poor frame rates no matter what settings you try. Some graphical settings do put extra load on the CPU, but rarely to anywhere near the same degree as the GPU. That's why games commonly have a huge chasm in performance between the minimum and recommended GPU, but a much smaller gap between the minimum and recommended CPU.
If you're a max settings or bust type who won't play a game unless you can play it at max settings, then the ability to turn down graphical settings may not bother you much. But if you don't mind turning down settings when you need to, you can get away with a much weaker GPU and still play whatever games you want. You probably don't want to jump to medium settings as your first attempt, but it's nice to have it as a backup option and still be able to play whatever game you want.
Just curious why are you picking such expensive memory? just bought 16gb of DDR4 3200 for $90, $150 is a complete rip off. I would recommend a better GPU too, that 1660 just does not get it.
If you can wait for another month or so, Ryzen is coming out with some Ryzen 3 chips that would be even better.
A Ryzen 3 3300X will only be $120, but it's also only four cores. That's fine if you really need to save money, but I'm more inclined to plan on upgrading a GPU later if needed than a CPU.
Maybe I am unaware of current trends in gaming development, but 4 core and 8 threads sounds decent for a low-end gaming platform. The GPU is much more important in my mind, it would be advantageous to spend that extra money on a better GPU!
There are already games out there that can use more CPU cores. For example Doom Eternal recommended is Ryzen 7 1800x or better, Borderlands 3 recommended is Ryzen 5 2600.
I've never seen any game recommend a GPU more powerful than GTX 1660 Super.
When was the last time you looked at GPU recommendations from games?
Just curious why are you picking such expensive memory? just bought 16gb of DDR4 3200 for $90, $150 is a complete rip off. I would recommend a better GPU too, that 1660 just does not get it.
If you can wait for another month or so, Ryzen is coming out with some Ryzen 3 chips that would be even better.
A Ryzen 3 3300X will only be $120, but it's also only four cores. That's fine if you really need to save money, but I'm more inclined to plan on upgrading a GPU later if needed than a CPU.
Maybe I am unaware of current trends in gaming development, but 4 core and 8 threads sounds decent for a low-end gaming platform. The GPU is much more important in my mind, it would be advantageous to spend that extra money on a better GPU!
You don't want a CPU that is barely good enough today and will be obsolete soon. Your upgrade options on the CPU if you want to upgrade in a few years may be limited to only what is already available today, or maybe you get one more generation that can add another 10%-20% performance or so. Anything more than that and you're looking at replacing the motherboard and memory, too.
In contrast, it's easy to upgrade just the GPU in isolation, so if you get something that feels dated in a few years, you can buy a new GPU and that's it. Furthermore, there will probably be options vastly more powerful than available today.
Furthermore, a somewhat too weak but not completely terrible GPU (say, an RX 5500 or GTX 1650) will be able to run pretty much any game just fine if you turn down some settings. A somewhat too weak CPU is going to get you poor frame rates no matter what settings you try. Some graphical settings do put extra load on the CPU, but rarely to anywhere near the same degree as the GPU. That's why games commonly have a huge chasm in performance between the minimum and recommended GPU, but a much smaller gap between the minimum and recommended CPU.
If you're a max settings or bust type who won't play a game unless you can play it at max settings, then the ability to turn down graphical settings may not bother you much. But if you don't mind turning down settings when you need to, you can get away with a much weaker GPU and still play whatever games you want. You probably don't want to jump to medium settings as your first attempt, but it's nice to have it as a backup option and still be able to play whatever game you want.
Sorry but that is just not true at all. Obsolete? That cracked me up. Usually your comments make sense, but not in this thread.
Some of the benchmarks were run against the Intel 7700 which was the gaming performance leader a couple years ago and the 3300 owned it.
Yeah if for ARPG's you won't need much power.This page i included should have decent enough pc's to run ARPG's and more.
If you don't feel like searching or seeking to build your own which won't save you that much anyhow or used like in your local newspaper or where ever then this page has some decent built pc's for around 1k.
Yeah if for ARPG's you won't need much power.This page i included should have decent enough pc's to run ARPG's and more.
If you don't feel like searching or seeking to build your own which won't save you that much anyhow or used like in your local newspaper or where ever then this page has some decent built pc's for around 1k.
Just curious why are you picking such expensive memory? just bought 16gb of DDR4 3200 for $90, $150 is a complete rip off. I would recommend a better GPU too, that 1660 just does not get it.
If you can wait for another month or so, Ryzen is coming out with some Ryzen 3 chips that would be even better.
A Ryzen 3 3300X will only be $120, but it's also only four cores. That's fine if you really need to save money, but I'm more inclined to plan on upgrading a GPU later if needed than a CPU.
Maybe I am unaware of current trends in gaming development, but 4 core and 8 threads sounds decent for a low-end gaming platform. The GPU is much more important in my mind, it would be advantageous to spend that extra money on a better GPU!
There are already games out there that can use more CPU cores. For example Doom Eternal recommended is Ryzen 7 1800x or better, Borderlands 3 recommended is Ryzen 5 2600.
I've never seen any game recommend a GPU more powerful than GTX 1660 Super.
When was the last time you looked at GPU recommendations from games?
GTX 1660 Super matches or exceeds recommended for at least games like: -Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order -Doom Eternal -Far Cry New Dawn -Borderlands 3 -Red Dead Redemption 2
I think the problem here is that you haven't looked at system requirements.
Just curious why are you picking such expensive memory? just bought 16gb of DDR4 3200 for $90, $150 is a complete rip off. I would recommend a better GPU too, that 1660 just does not get it.
If you can wait for another month or so, Ryzen is coming out with some Ryzen 3 chips that would be even better.
A Ryzen 3 3300X will only be $120, but it's also only four cores. That's fine if you really need to save money, but I'm more inclined to plan on upgrading a GPU later if needed than a CPU.
Maybe I am unaware of current trends in gaming development, but 4 core and 8 threads sounds decent for a low-end gaming platform. The GPU is much more important in my mind, it would be advantageous to spend that extra money on a better GPU!
There are already games out there that can use more CPU cores. For example Doom Eternal recommended is Ryzen 7 1800x or better, Borderlands 3 recommended is Ryzen 5 2600.
I've never seen any game recommend a GPU more powerful than GTX 1660 Super.
When was the last time you looked at GPU recommendations from games?
GTX 1660 Super matches or exceeds recommended for at least games like: -Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order -Doom Eternal -Far Cry New Dawn -Borderlands 3 -Red Dead Redemption 2
I think the problem here is that you haven't looked at system requirements.
Go ahead, try running any of those games in high end graphics with a 1660. I think you will be very disappointed.
Just curious why are you picking such expensive memory? just bought 16gb of DDR4 3200 for $90, $150 is a complete rip off. I would recommend a better GPU too, that 1660 just does not get it.
If you can wait for another month or so, Ryzen is coming out with some Ryzen 3 chips that would be even better.
A Ryzen 3 3300X will only be $120, but it's also only four cores. That's fine if you really need to save money, but I'm more inclined to plan on upgrading a GPU later if needed than a CPU.
Maybe I am unaware of current trends in gaming development, but 4 core and 8 threads sounds decent for a low-end gaming platform. The GPU is much more important in my mind, it would be advantageous to spend that extra money on a better GPU!
There are already games out there that can use more CPU cores. For example Doom Eternal recommended is Ryzen 7 1800x or better, Borderlands 3 recommended is Ryzen 5 2600.
I've never seen any game recommend a GPU more powerful than GTX 1660 Super.
When was the last time you looked at GPU recommendations from games?
GTX 1660 Super matches or exceeds recommended for at least games like: -Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order -Doom Eternal -Far Cry New Dawn -Borderlands 3 -Red Dead Redemption 2
I think the problem here is that you haven't looked at system requirements.
Recommendations are generally for 60 FPS gameplay at 1080p - and that's assuming you aren't going to be running any GPU demanding games on that card, like Destiny 2, PUBG, etc. or any software (like video, photography, etc.) software that doesn't require a better GPU.
It's also well-known that most system requirements are not accurate, a game's system requirmeents can change with ongoing development, and in most cases the system requirements are not for running the game at full graphics fidelity. Even if it looks like crap, they will tell you that card is "fine" simply because you can nerf the visuals down enough to achieve the target framerate.
Mid-Range Cards like the 2070 SUPER and 5700 XT will run modern AAA titles at Ultra/Epic Graphics at 144-240 FPS at 1080p, and over 100FPS at 1440p. They can game at 60 FPS at Medium-High Graphics settings at 4K. 1660 Super is a budget 1080p Gaming Card that will struggle to run a 120Hz Display in moderately demanding AAA titles without nerfing the visuals down quite a bit.
If you play competitive games, then you definitely should not go below the $350'ish price range for a GPU, as gaming at 60 Hz on a cheap monitor puts you at a pretty significant disadvantage - competitively.
You should budget around $400 ($450-450) for your GPU and just get something like a 2060S or RX 5700 XT - avoid used cards (mining). Mid Range is the sweet spot. Budget cards are great for people who only play casual games, or those who use the GPU for software like Adobe Premiere Pro or Photoshop (software that needs better than an iGPU for optimal performance, but not top-end gaming cards).
You can get Ryzen 7 3700X/Radeon RX 5700 XT/16GB 3GHz RAM/1TB NVMe SSD/800W Gold+ PSU systems for $1,199, pre-built, these days - with a fairly convenient warranty (everything covered under the same warranty, instead of each component you use in a build having its own RMA/Warranty policy). Why would anyone with a $1,000 budget settle for such a bad GPU?
Wait a few months and build something that is going to give you a better long term investment for the dollars spent. A 1660 SUPER is not that.
And if I may say so, there is something very liberating about just installing a game, setting the graphics to max, and still having it run at 150+ FPS while your GPU never goes about 70C.
Ryzen 3300x vs a 6 core Ryzen 3600 - see for yourself:
Those games like Borderlands 3 claming extra cores .. lol benchmarks don't show it at all - a 4 core 3300x actually outperfoms 6 core in Borderlands3 - oops.
Again the GPU is what really matters as long as your CPU is has high enough clock (3300x does) - and has 4 cores at least -it's clearly good enough *right now*
Of course with AMD 4000 CPUs all this might change drastically - but we are talking new socket, new mobos etc...
My advice - invest all your money in the best GPU you can get - and then get at least a 3300X (or better if you can afford) - no need to waste $300+ on CPU if your GPU is a beast.
I would also wait for Ampere and new AMD GPUs - because from all the rumors the current GPUs are going to be left in the dust.
Next generation of games are likely to be optimized better for higher core counts, so going with a 4 Core CPU is a bad investment in a Gaming PC, when you can get 6-8 cores for such cheap prices.
The worst I would go for the GPU is a Radeon RX 5700, which is slightly better than a GTX 2060 and slightly worse than a GTX 2060 Super. A 5700 XT is only $50 more, and better than a 2060 Super while being almost as good as a 2070 Super for gaming.
I wouldn't go below a Ryzen 5 3600 (for $25 more I'd get the 3600X for the free stock Overclock that doesn't void warranties - because it's only 6 Cores) or an i5-9600K (which can overclock very well with an AIO cooler).
Waiting for new AMD GPUs is a waste of time. The 5700 XT already runs the most demanding games at 150+ FPS (max settings) at 1080p and 90FPS+ (max settings) at 1440p, with most being playable at 60 FPS (high-max settings) at 4K.
Unless you have a specific need for a stronger card, then "waiting" and potentially paying more for a newer card makes no sense, especially when the current cards are going to drop in price (making paying more for the newer cards make even less sense).
Maybe if you want to run a 240-300Hz 1080p/1440p display or 120Hz UHD display, but no one with a 1K budget to build or buy a PC is going to be able to afford a display like that - especially if they need something with GSYNC due to choosing an Nvidia Card (though some FreeSync Monitors are GSYNC-Compatible... why would you skimp on that if you're already spending $500-1,000 on a display?).
-----
Lastly, it can simply be that this particular game isn't as well optimized for multi-core CPUs as some others. Which is why you have to pick one game out of maybe 10+ that performed better on the 3600. Also, the GPU used in that setup is really strong, so the effect the CPU is going to have on games that aren't CPU bound is going to be minimal.
I am not sure how the person in that video benchmarked these games, but generally you run the benchmark several times and then average out the results to get rid of any anomalies in the results (which happen often). For example, it could be that the PC decided to do an on-demand virus scan on some files being accessed while the game was running, or that Windows decided to do some housekeeping, or that for some reason the GPU temps went up higher during that run and drug down the frame rates as a result).
You need to pick games that are more CPU bound to see how much of an effect the change of CPU actually has on performance. For GPU bound games, the difference between the CPUs is going to be minimal simply because the CPU is simply not much of a factor. You could put even weaker CPUs with that GPU and probably get frame rates within the margin or error.
-----
In any case, I've never really recommended the Ryzen 5 3600 (really for $25 more you are better off getting the free warranty-covered stock overclock with the 3600X). I think people looking to build a system they don't want to feel the need to upgrade in the next year or so should go straight to the Ryzen 7 3700X.
Once more games start supporting DirectX 12, and start taking advantage of higher numbers of CPU Cores, those budget CPUs are going to inevitably fall behind. Building a system is not about looking at a benchmark from last week, it's about trying to predict your needs next year. You're evaluating this in a completely incorrect manner, IMO.
-----
P.S. "Something new is ALWAYS on the horizon."
A gaming PC on a $1,000 budget is not a gaming PC. It's an upper mid-range Productivity PC, and you can often get better hardware for the same cost from Dell, HP, ASUS, etc. at those price points. In order to make your money worth anything, you need to budget more than $1,200 - at the very lease - otherwise someone will buy the system I cited above and still end up with a laughably superior system for almost the same cost.
Just curious why are you picking such expensive memory? just bought 16gb of DDR4 3200 for $90, $150 is a complete rip off. I would recommend a better GPU too, that 1660 just does not get it.
If you can wait for another month or so, Ryzen is coming out with some Ryzen 3 chips that would be even better.
A Ryzen 3 3300X will only be $120, but it's also only four cores. That's fine if you really need to save money, but I'm more inclined to plan on upgrading a GPU later if needed than a CPU.
Maybe I am unaware of current trends in gaming development, but 4 core and 8 threads sounds decent for a low-end gaming platform. The GPU is much more important in my mind, it would be advantageous to spend that extra money on a better GPU!
There are already games out there that can use more CPU cores. For example Doom Eternal recommended is Ryzen 7 1800x or better, Borderlands 3 recommended is Ryzen 5 2600.
I've never seen any game recommend a GPU more powerful than GTX 1660 Super.
When was the last time you looked at GPU recommendations from games?
GTX 1660 Super matches or exceeds recommended for at least games like: -Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order -Doom Eternal -Far Cry New Dawn -Borderlands 3 -Red Dead Redemption 2
I think the problem here is that you haven't looked at system requirements.
Recommendations are generally for 60 FPS gameplay at 1080p
Yes. Generally the recommended is either high or medium settings, 60 FPS, 1080p resolution.
If you want to max out all graphic settings, or use higher FPS or resolution then you need a lot more GPU power, and also need to exceed OP's budget.
There are already games out there that can use more CPU cores. For example Doom Eternal recommended is Ryzen 7 1800x or better, Borderlands 3 recommended is Ryzen 5 2600.
I've never seen any game recommend a GPU more powerful than GTX 1660 Super.
Actual benchmarks show otherwise.
GPU is what matters the most - a high clock 4 core will outperform lower clock 6core.
See my post above
It depends tremendously on which games you want to run at which settings. Personally, I tend to turn off a lot of graphically demanding settings that I don't think make games look better. Depth of field and shadows tend to make games look worse to my eyes. Any sort of ambient occlusion makes games look different, but not really better. If you reduce the load on the GPU by 2/3 just by turning settings off like that, then you don't need as good of a GPU.
Too many people choose their settings as though the goal is to make your hardware run as poorly as possible. The goal should of choosing your settings should be to make the game look nice. If you can max the settings where you think higher looks better and turn off the settings that don't make the game look better, and get good performance that way, that's good enough.
Don’t listen to @DBagmuppetKano cpu recommendation. Dude is giving bad advice left and right and thinks he’s an expert because he watched some tech YouTube videos. No gamer in their right mind would buy a four core CPU in 2020. No one. It’s idiotic to suggest it. Why gimp your machine with a poor performance, very limited cpu? There are many six core cpu with better fps benchmarks to be had. Next gen consoles coming this year have EIGHT cores. The minimum recommended core count for AAA modern gaming is SIX CORES. Period end of story.
There are the OLED 55" TVs that are marketed as gaming monitors for twice as much as just buying the OLED TV. If you are going to buy, buy now. The pandemic is going to have a big impact on prices. The current generation of nVidia GPUs are mature and probably won't be outdated for 4 more years. 3ghz quad core CPUs without architectural bottlenecks are cheap. I just specced a mid-range PC for $750 with $199 dedicated to the case and another $25 for additional argb fans. The most important question is what's your monitor? No point speccing out to run 4k 120hz if you are running at 1080p 60hz.
Comments
I've never seen any game recommend a GPU more powerful than GTX 1660 Super.
In contrast, it's easy to upgrade just the GPU in isolation, so if you get something that feels dated in a few years, you can buy a new GPU and that's it. Furthermore, there will probably be options vastly more powerful than available today.
Furthermore, a somewhat too weak but not completely terrible GPU (say, an RX 5500 or GTX 1650) will be able to run pretty much any game just fine if you turn down some settings. A somewhat too weak CPU is going to get you poor frame rates no matter what settings you try. Some graphical settings do put extra load on the CPU, but rarely to anywhere near the same degree as the GPU. That's why games commonly have a huge chasm in performance between the minimum and recommended GPU, but a much smaller gap between the minimum and recommended CPU.
If you're a max settings or bust type who won't play a game unless you can play it at max settings, then the ability to turn down graphical settings may not bother you much. But if you don't mind turning down settings when you need to, you can get away with a much weaker GPU and still play whatever games you want. You probably don't want to jump to medium settings as your first attempt, but it's nice to have it as a backup option and still be able to play whatever game you want.
Some of the benchmarks were run against the Intel 7700 which was the gaming performance leader a couple years ago and the 3300 owned it.
If you don't feel like searching or seeking to build your own which won't save you that much anyhow or used like in your local newspaper or where ever then this page has some decent built pc's for around 1k.
Used is a good idea but typically local shops are on the lookout everyday and scooping up the good deals right away.
Anyhow a decent list here for around 1k.
https://www.amazon.com/slp/gaming-pc-under-1000/wvoshsgp36j97wh
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
-Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order
-Doom Eternal
-Far Cry New Dawn
-Borderlands 3
-Red Dead Redemption 2
I think the problem here is that you haven't looked at system requirements.
Recommendations are generally for 60 FPS gameplay at 1080p - and that's assuming you aren't going to be running any GPU demanding games on that card, like Destiny 2, PUBG, etc. or any software (like video, photography, etc.) software that doesn't require a better GPU.
It's also well-known that most system requirements are not accurate, a game's system requirmeents can change with ongoing development, and in most cases the system requirements are not for running the game at full graphics fidelity. Even if it looks like crap, they will tell you that card is "fine" simply because you can nerf the visuals down enough to achieve the target framerate.
Mid-Range Cards like the 2070 SUPER and 5700 XT will run modern AAA titles at Ultra/Epic Graphics at 144-240 FPS at 1080p, and over 100FPS at 1440p. They can game at 60 FPS at Medium-High Graphics settings at 4K. 1660 Super is a budget 1080p Gaming Card that will struggle to run a 120Hz Display in moderately demanding AAA titles without nerfing the visuals down quite a bit.
If you play competitive games, then you definitely should not go below the $350'ish price range for a GPU, as gaming at 60 Hz on a cheap monitor puts you at a pretty significant disadvantage - competitively.
You should budget around $400 ($450-450) for your GPU and just get something like a 2060S or RX 5700 XT - avoid used cards (mining). Mid Range is the sweet spot. Budget cards are great for people who only play casual games, or those who use the GPU for software like Adobe Premiere Pro or Photoshop (software that needs better than an iGPU for optimal performance, but not top-end gaming cards).
You can get Ryzen 7 3700X/Radeon RX 5700 XT/16GB 3GHz RAM/1TB NVMe SSD/800W Gold+ PSU systems for $1,199, pre-built, these days - with a fairly convenient warranty (everything covered under the same warranty, instead of each component you use in a build having its own RMA/Warranty policy). Why would anyone with a $1,000 budget settle for such a bad GPU?
Wait a few months and build something that is going to give you a better long term investment for the dollars spent. A 1660 SUPER is not that.
And if I may say so, there is something very liberating about just installing a game, setting the graphics to max, and still having it run at 150+ FPS while your GPU never goes about 70C.
The worst I would go for the GPU is a Radeon RX 5700, which is slightly better than a GTX 2060 and slightly worse than a GTX 2060 Super. A 5700 XT is only $50 more, and better than a 2060 Super while being almost as good as a 2070 Super for gaming.
I wouldn't go below a Ryzen 5 3600 (for $25 more I'd get the 3600X for the free stock Overclock that doesn't void warranties - because it's only 6 Cores) or an i5-9600K (which can overclock very well with an AIO cooler).
Waiting for new AMD GPUs is a waste of time. The 5700 XT already runs the most demanding games at 150+ FPS (max settings) at 1080p and 90FPS+ (max settings) at 1440p, with most being playable at 60 FPS (high-max settings) at 4K.
Unless you have a specific need for a stronger card, then "waiting" and potentially paying more for a newer card makes no sense, especially when the current cards are going to drop in price (making paying more for the newer cards make even less sense).
Maybe if you want to run a 240-300Hz 1080p/1440p display or 120Hz UHD display, but no one with a 1K budget to build or buy a PC is going to be able to afford a display like that - especially if they need something with GSYNC due to choosing an Nvidia Card (though some FreeSync Monitors are GSYNC-Compatible... why would you skimp on that if you're already spending $500-1,000 on a display?).
-----
Lastly, it can simply be that this particular game isn't as well optimized for multi-core CPUs as some others. Which is why you have to pick one game out of maybe 10+ that performed better on the 3600. Also, the GPU used in that setup is really strong, so the effect the CPU is going to have on games that aren't CPU bound is going to be minimal.
I am not sure how the person in that video benchmarked these games, but generally you run the benchmark several times and then average out the results to get rid of any anomalies in the results (which happen often). For example, it could be that the PC decided to do an on-demand virus scan on some files being accessed while the game was running, or that Windows decided to do some housekeeping, or that for some reason the GPU temps went up higher during that run and drug down the frame rates as a result).
You need to pick games that are more CPU bound to see how much of an effect the change of CPU actually has on performance. For GPU bound games, the difference between the CPUs is going to be minimal simply because the CPU is simply not much of a factor. You could put even weaker CPUs with that GPU and probably get frame rates within the margin or error.
-----
In any case, I've never really recommended the Ryzen 5 3600 (really for $25 more you are better off getting the free warranty-covered stock overclock with the 3600X). I think people looking to build a system they don't want to feel the need to upgrade in the next year or so should go straight to the Ryzen 7 3700X.
Once more games start supporting DirectX 12, and start taking advantage of higher numbers of CPU Cores, those budget CPUs are going to inevitably fall behind. Building a system is not about looking at a benchmark from last week, it's about trying to predict your needs next year. You're evaluating this in a completely incorrect manner, IMO.
-----
P.S. "Something new is ALWAYS on the horizon."
A gaming PC on a $1,000 budget is not a gaming PC. It's an upper mid-range Productivity PC, and you can often get better hardware for the same cost from Dell, HP, ASUS, etc. at those price points. In order to make your money worth anything, you need to budget more than $1,200 - at the very lease - otherwise someone will buy the system I cited above and still end up with a laughably superior system for almost the same cost.
Yes. Generally the recommended is either high or medium settings, 60 FPS, 1080p resolution.
If you want to max out all graphic settings, or use higher FPS or resolution then you need a lot more GPU power, and also need to exceed OP's budget.
Too many people choose their settings as though the goal is to make your hardware run as poorly as possible. The goal should of choosing your settings should be to make the game look nice. If you can max the settings where you think higher looks better and turn off the settings that don't make the game look better, and get good performance that way, that's good enough.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/261550/Mount__Blade_II_Bannerlord/
No-one has still been able to tell any game where 1660 Super would be below recommended specs.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
And DP 2.1... been waiting for that not nearly as long, but holding out for it for a while now.
You can get stuck waiting for the next great thing for a long while. Sometimes the wait is worth it, other times, it's just more waiting.
Eleven years later, as best as I can tell, New Egg currently has one OLED monitor in stock:
https://www.newegg.com/asus-90lm0470-b013b0-21-6-uhd/p/N82E16824236996
It's $4000 for a 21" monitor. I'm sure that the display quality is beautiful, but I'm glad I didn't wait.
If you are going to buy, buy now. The pandemic is going to have a big impact on prices. The current generation of nVidia GPUs are mature and probably won't be outdated for 4 more years. 3ghz quad core CPUs without architectural bottlenecks are cheap.
I just specced a mid-range PC for $750 with $199 dedicated to the case and another $25 for additional argb fans. The most important question is what's your monitor? No point speccing out to run 4k 120hz if you are running at 1080p 60hz.