I already picked up Subnautica, Subnautica: Below Zero and Portal 2. Pretty stoked.
I already had subnautica on epic games but I prefer steam where possible. Save games are easy enough to transfer over, already confirmed. I had assumed mods would be much easier on Steam but I was sadly mistaken. Subnautica mods are a much bigger pain in the ass than Cities Skylines mods.
Not sure how many more hundreds of hours I’m going to be playing Subnautica before finally moving on to Below Zero, which I’ve never seen before. I’m going to guess 2.
Hello all, I’m looking for some advice. I had to replace my GPU a few months ago due to a hardware failure on the old one. I wound up with an Asus GTX 1650 with 4GB RAM.
At the same time, I upgraded my hard drive and PSU - the hard drive was showing some SMART errors, and the PSU fan was starting to make some unusual noises.
So now I figure it’s not a bad idea to upgrade my CPU - I’m currently using an FX-6300 I got in 2014. It looks like motherboard and CPU prices are high at the moment, but not as bad as GPUs. I want to get a CPU that’s comparable in performance with the GPU - no point in going crazy on CPU power if it doesn’t increase the list of games I can play.
Reading some websites, I think I’m looking at either an intel i3-10100 or Ryzen 5 5600G. Any thoughts about either one and how it matches with the GPU? Obviously I have to switch out the mobo as well. I’m guessing I need new RAM also - currently I’m using this RAM, but I assume it’s pretty slow for a current CPU/mobo.
And one more question - will I have to reinstall Windows 10, or should I be able to swap the CPU mobo and boot with the existing install?
Also, I’m not in any rush, if prices are still dropping or big sales are on the horizon I can put these plans off for a while.
I appreciate any help any of you can offer. Thank you.
Yes I have, and loved it, for the first time about a month ago. As soon as I finished it I went to install part two when I realized I didn’t yet own part two. I had a sad.
Right at this moment Subnautica is absolutely too much fun for any other game to have a chance, but I will get to it.
Pretty sure Windows installations are tied to motherboards. The only exception is if you registered your Windows through a Windows live account. If so, you can activate it on a new computer and it just deactivates the windows on the old computer. You can still use it, of course, but it won’t be activated.
Here’s a parts list for a budget computer I was considering setting up for my 1050 ti for after I upgraded to a 3050. (Unfortunately the 3050 experiment didn’t pan out.)
Sounds like you have the power supply, video card and hard drive sorted, but need everything else. Everything else I would recommend is in the parts list. (You might consider upping the CPU to a 10400, but I don’t think it’s strictly necessary. And it’s almost $100 more, so, yeah, 10100 should be fine.)
EDIT: That fractal case was on sale for $40 when I initially set up the parts list. At almost $60 it’s not nearly as attractive.
Excellent, thank you. Any reason I can’t re-use my existing case? It’s in perfect shape. And is upgrading from the stock cooler recommended if I don’t plan to overclock?
Older cases might not have as much room for more modern coolers. Stock coolers are small, and are probably fine for a 10100, but I suspect it would run hot. (You can’t overclock a 10100.)
That said, there’s no reason you can’t find a cheap lower profile cooler that could handle a 10100 and fit in your existing case no problem. And even then, there’s no harm in waiting until you see firsthand whether the stock cooler is sufficient.
(Unless cleaning up and reapplying thermal paste would be particularly annoying for you. I think it would be for me. I’d rather spend $25 up front to ensure I only have to apply the thermal paste once.)
EDIT: Also, if your case isn’t micro you may not want a micro motherboard.
I would consider the i3-12100f in lieu of the i3-10100 if you can swing it. It’s the current gold standard in cheap gaming PC processors and would put you on the latest platform for things like PCIe Gen4 down the line. Go with a motherboard that uses DDR4 to save money versus the DDR5 ones.
That said, the i3-10100 will still be a substantial upgrade and you’ll enjoy having it if you go that route.
Not a terrible idea, though in practice I’m not sure how much help it would actually offer. You can still plug gen 4 devices into a gen 3 slot and it’ll run fine, so it’s not like you’d be unable to use them at all.
Here’s a stripped down 12th generation parts list, removing the cooler, power supply and hard drive. I did add in a rosewill case that I really like and is currently on sale for $50. Total $301, or $251 without the case.
Assuming he decides to keep his case – that rosewill one is so pretty, though! – it’s 30% more expensive to go 12th gen. I don’t think either cpu will be a bottleneck to a 1650. My 10400 practically snores while my 1050 ti is pinned at 99%. Do you think the value added would be worth it?
Barring other bottlenecks, the 12100f is about 30% faster/powerful than the 10100 so that additional cost translates directly into performance. Which speaks well for the 12100f since usually you gain less additional performance per dollar the more you spend. Likely the 1650 will be more of the chokepoint for performance but the 12th gen will give more headroom for upgrades in the future. Which is also what I meant about things like the PCIe Gen4 – it’s not so much a question about his immediate hardware making the most use out of it, but more about being able to make meaningful upgrades in the future without needing another major platform change.
However, if someone is unlikely to make upgrades until seven years go by and then buy a whole new system then perhaps it’s less meaningful. There’s a valid argument to be made for it either way.
I do think the 12100f will have greater longevity than the 10100. That extra performance comes from things like having twice the L3 memory cache which will help delay it becoming a creaky old i3 processor as time goes by. Again, how much this matters depends a lot on the use case.
We’re in agreement, but just for clarity’s sake this 30% faster will manifest in things like booting the computer and compressing large files. I think it would only offer a modest improvement in FPS while gaming, if any at all. (My guess is 3% or less.)
You’re right that it would scale better. Imagining an upgrade to a 3060 TI in, say, a year; a 12100 would definitely seem like the smart decision in that case.
No, I meant gaming as well. But that’s assuming no GPU bottleneck.
Some sample FPS averages from looking online (using a 3070ti)
GTAV: 116 vs 157
Red Dead Redemption 2: 89 vs 116
Witcher 3: 127 vs 159
Watch Dogs Legion: 66 vs 96
CP2077: 78 vs 116
Forza 5: 117 vs 162
Mafia Definitive: 93 vs 132
Also you’ll get much better 1% and 0.1% lows which translates into less stutter or hitches when playing. Again, not saying you’ll see the same width of improvements using a GTX 1650 (you won’t) but if you think you’ll upgrade your GPU before you buy a new CPU, there’s value to be had.
I’m saying you won’t see any because a 1650 will be running full throttle before the 10100 would be. The 12100 would be running an even lower percentage, but anything less than pinned means improving the CPU won’t improve your FPS.
For example, let’s say playing subnautica the 1650 is pinned at 99% with the 10100 running at 40%. A 12100 might be running at 25% compared to the 10100s 40%, but they’ll both give you the same FPS because the 1650 is what’s limiting you. Of course a 3070 TI will show a dramatic difference. In fact, it’ll show the complete difference I bet; both CPUs would max out before the video card.
Do I have that right?
Then again, a game like City Skylines would probably be noticeably faster with a 12100 than a 10100 because that game is CPU limited. I get the feeling more games are graphics card limited than CPU limited, though.
Again, to clarify, I agree with your point that the 12100 is a more future-proof choice. What I’m saying is that the 30% increase in price won’t translate into 30% improved gameplay performance until you upgrade the video card. If that eventual upgrade isn’t a certainty, I’m not sure the 30% price hike is worth it.
(I mean, if you do upgrade, it would absolutely have been worth it. But then again maybe you also upgrade to a 10600K and get the same effect.)
CPU improvement can show up in subtle ways. I upgraded my cpu from a 2500k to a 9900k, so a big jump, and even in GPU bound games there was an increase in smoothness and less stuttering even though my frame rate did not improve overall for most games. I think there are moments where the game has to wait for the CPU which creates a little hitch, but that doesn’t show up so much in the average frame rate numbers, the effect is subtle. Now whether that would make a difference between the 10100 and 10300 I don’t know, but it was there from my upgrade.
Also, not all games are GPU bound. Some use the CPU much more heavily. So you can definitely find yourself CPU bound in a game, although most of the time you will indeed be GPU bound.
Right. That’s what I was saying (or trying to say, anyway). If you’re going to put together a system with a GTX 1650 and sit on it for however long and then go buy a whole new system then the value of the 12th gen over the 10th gen will be fairly minimal. If you think you’re likely to upgrade your GPU in that time, the 12th gen chip will allow your system to jump ahead, not only from the new GPU but also the significant performance bump being unlocked in your CPU. Depends on what kind of user you are.
That, I wouldn’t do. The i5-10600K and i3-12100 are close enough that the additional cost of the older i5 isn’t worth it. Plus the i5-12400f is cheaper than the i5-10600K, performs better and puts you on the newer platform.
Wow, i really appreciate all the info and discussion about this. I’m leaning towards the 12th gen solution, since it does open up some possibilities in the future.
One more question, are cpu/mobo prices still trending down, or are they pretty stable at the moment? I don’t mind waiting a month or 2 to save 20%, but otherwise I’ll probably do it soon.
My experience (which is limited to the past 18 months, but checking prices multiple times every single week in that span) is that they never really change other than naturally through age. I never really saw any meaningful price differences through the shortages. It was pretty much only video cards with the crazy fluctuations.
The 10 series CPU and motherboard are 30% cheaper because they’re two years old. If you wait two years, the 12 series will be 30% cheaper, but for the exact same reasoning you’d probably go with the 14 series instead.
Now RAM is a totally different story. There’s new DDR5 RAM, and motherboards that handle it are more expensive. The bleeding edge tax, you could call it, since DDR4 was the standard for over half a decade. The DDR5 RAM itself is also more expensive. That’s why Jophiel wisely suggested you stick with DDR4 RAM.
If you wanted to wait a few months for those prices to come down, hmm; I don’t know enough to even hazard a guess. Anyone else have any idea when DDR5 may become affordable?
In any case, 30 series video cards should start dropping even more once the 40 series are out later this year and into next. When looking at the lower end, that’s probably next summer. They tend to release new series from the top down.
Meaning if you decided to wait until, say, after Christmas, you might have a chance to get a budget 12th generation (12100) DDR5 system with maybe a 3050 all for a few hundred. Or maybe not until next summer. Or maybe older budget 30 series cards don’t get cheaper, they just stop getting made to force you to go 40 series.
Probably not relevant, but as I understand it you can overclock a 12100. It’s locked just like the 10100, but high-end 12th generation motherboards can apparently overclock non-K chips.
While probably of little practical utility --Who’s going to spend $600 on a motherboard and then plug a 12100 into it? – that’s kind of cool.
Oh yeah, definitely not now. I meant as part of an upgrade package down the line, getting a 30 series video card and upgrading a 10100 to a 10600 at the same time. But now dictating this I realize that would require getting an overclockable motherboard to begin with, so yeah, never mind.
Then you’re paying for an $80 processor and a $200 processor when you could have just bought a (roughly equal) $105 processor or a superior $160 processor. That’s tough to justify.
To be fair, the original request was for a CPU that would match well with a 1650 and the i3-10100 is indeed the least expensive current retail option that fits the bill. So it’s not a bad or wrong pick. I personally think the potential benefits of the i3-12100f for a fairly nominal price bump make it a better long term option but that’s just, like, my opinion, man. It’s not like recommending an i7-12700k or anything though which is what I assume Muldoonthief was trying to avoid.