#11. Posted:
Scratched
  • TTG Senior
Status: Offline
Joined: Dec 12, 201014Year Member
Posts: 1,556
Reputation Power: 111
Status: Offline
Joined: Dec 12, 201014Year Member
Posts: 1,556
Reputation Power: 111

Scratched wrote
On that note though.... There's a good amount of options for some Micro ATX and ATX motherboards at a cheaper price, keep in mind though 21 tends to look at the best value where as I look at the best for the future.

Uh, no? I recommend the B450 Tomahawk because it's a better quality motherboard than any other AM4 motherboard up to like $150. So, it's going to be better "for the future" than any other sub $120 AM4 mobo, especially if OP decides to upgrade to an R9 when they're cheap on the used market.


I didn't say anything about your choice being bad. It's one I'd look at for the price. Regardless though there ARE options for a cheaper price that can enable some amount of money to go elsewhere.

Scratched wrote
ASRock B450 Steel Legend ATX
ASRock B450M Pro4-F Micro ATX
MSI B450M BAZOOKA V2 Micro ATX
ASRock Fatal1ty B450 GAMING K4 ATX

These are meh, I'd consider them entry level. Fine options for the price, but it's worth spending the extra for a B450 Tomahawk IMO.

If he had 100.00 USD more I wouldn't even consider anything outside of 370 or 570 motherboards outright too. But yes, entry can give some value to stop something like a bottleneck at this level of hardware to a fair degree is my aim to what I was showing. I have a friend who's latest mission was to infuriate me by asking me to fix a clunker I heavily advised against making to begin with.. Refused every piece of advice and white knuckles were raised.

Scratched wrote
Gigabyte B450 AORUS M Micro ATX
ASRock B450M-HDV R4.0 Micro ATX

These are bad. Avoid.

And those two are bad. BUT the price isn't... I've had to learn the hard way some people will take even salvaged parts to make a PC. So I aim at things at least better than refurbished chancing.

Scratched wrote
Personally though I'd go with
This
9400F, MSI Z390 and 16GB at 3000MHz. Slightly over budget, but you'd get similar performance to an 8700K and 9700K.

The i5-9400F does not perform similarly to an i7-8700k/9700k. At least not for the most part. Even in games now, the 6 threads of the 9400F can hold it back. Also, really no reason to get a Z390 mobo with a locked i5, just save the money and get a B360/B365 motherboard?
Regardless, AM4 is undoubtedly the better option for upgradability and even now, R5 is the better option over i5 IMO.

Depends what your game settings are. Not everyone plays ...in even 1080p in 16:9. As much as it confuses me and infuriates me that someone with a 2080 Ti I know plays Siege and CS:GO on the lowest settings while only using a 120Hz 1080p monitor.. Regardless, yes it very much so does compare very well. Obviously not in every bracket for CPU performances, BUT gaming wise it most certainly can. I'd rather see good enough performances and stand reason for resale and clarity on what to upgrade on in the future than low or mid range that will likely bottle neck in the next two years.
#12. Posted:
21
  • Fairy Master
Status: Offline
Joined: Oct 05, 201311Year Member
Posts: 16,216
Reputation Power: 3087
Motto: Me big smarts. Brainy boy do learns much
Motto: Me big smarts. Brainy boy do learns much
Status: Offline
Joined: Oct 05, 201311Year Member
Posts: 16,216
Reputation Power: 3087
Motto: Me big smarts. Brainy boy do learns much
Scratched wrote Depends what your game settings are. Not everyone plays ...in even 1080p in 16:9. As much as it confuses me and infuriates me that someone with a 2080 Ti I know plays Siege and CS:GO on the lowest settings while only using a 120Hz 1080p monitor.. Regardless, yes it very much so does compare very well. Obviously not in every bracket for CPU performances, BUT gaming wise it most certainly can.

techspot.com/review/1885-ryzen-5-...-i5-9400f/
AC Odyssey, 1080p V HIgh settings, i5-9400F is more than 20% behind an i7-8700k in terms of AVG and LOW FPS.
Battlefield V, 1080 Ultra, i5-9400F LOW FPS is 30% behind an i7-8700k.

There are plenty other example, the i5-9400F is regularly 20%+ slower than an i7, and LOW FPS is horrendous in quite a few titles, especially when compared to an R5 or i7 because the lack of threads on the 9400F is already starting to hold it back. Sure, you can alleviate the "bottleneck", but at that point, why not just buy an R5 2600 which has twice as many threads anyway, and far better upgrade potential in the future.

Scratched wrote I'd rather see good enough performances and stand reason for resale and clarity on what to upgrade on in the future than low or mid range that will likely bottle neck in the next two years.

What? I don't know what you're talking about? Bottleneck? The i5-9400F is the CPU that's going to be bottlenecked in 2 years time, since as I said, games are already utilising more than 6 threads. It's why in games like Far Cry 5, the 0.1% and 1% low FPS with the 6C/6T i5's is tanked compared to R5 or i7's.
Users browsing this topic: None
Jump to:


RECENT POSTS

HOT TOPICS