Is this pc good at minecraft, a bus simulator, overwatch and occasionally fortnite games? Or would you recommend something else to me?
Would take a RX 570
But yes, go
Thanks for the tip!
Looks good. If you want to play Minecraft with modpacks and better textures, but I would take a graphics card with more VRAM.
The calculator would be enough for it, but I think it is poorly compiled.
An obsolete Ryzen 2xxx you should not buy today; you better take a 3600, if you can afford it somehow. The performance is drastically better.
The 1050 Ti also makes no sense, for the same money you get the much better successor card with 1650 GPU.
The power supply is covered; with your computer enough 350 W. 400 W are synonymous ok, but a 500 W PSU brings nothing.
Whether the additional 120mm fan makes sense, you can argue. In any case, he is not necessary.
The SSD should be an M.2 card nowadays and not SATA anymore. This is outdated and brings no financial benefits anymore.
The RX 570 is an AMD card. It brings more power for the purchase price, but also draws much more power. So you pay the price over time over the electric bill and have a hotter computer that makes more noise and blows more heat in the room. I would not do that.
Minecraft makes zero demands. There are 4 GB more than adequate.
Yes but less fps we gamer need fps
Then he can also buy a GT1030 with a passive cooler. That makes even less noise. However, he wants to play decent, so…
So here?
https://www.mindfactory.de/...67763.html
no, not the 4GB RX 570, but the 8GB: https://www.mindfactory.de/...95291.html
I'm also a gamer, but still I do not like a noisy loud PC, which also blows me fat in the summer in the room. In addition, he saves, as I said, in the long term no money, as he pays the utility bill. I would rather sit on nvidia. You get cards in every power range (even so fast that AMD has nothing comparable to offer) and have much higher energy efficiency. Is a question of the purse, but the electricity bill you have to pay, except that it is not so obvious that the costs are related to the PC.
Such a nonsense. Sure, slower cards are usually also more economical, but at the same power (!) Nvidia cards consume drastically less power than that of AMD. Depending on the model, we even talk about half the power consumption!
The 1050 ti has significantly less power. Nothing equal
When playing with extreme shaders and high-resolution textures, MC also needs a lot of power.
I do not know if you do not want to understand me or if it is not enough for you to understand. The 1050 TI has less power for the same price, but with the same performance nvidia gets the 1060, which still consumes significantly less power. In other words, with the same performance, the AMD cards consume significantly more power and generate more heat, forcing AMD to sell above the price because their cards are technologically inferior. As a consequence, you get more power at AMD, but also more power for your money, and over time, this power consumption eats up the price savings again, whereas the other disadvantages of heat development remain. AMD has nothing to offer at the very fastest peak performance cards, as nvidia is undefeated.
The 1050 TI is not an adequate comparison card anyway, because it is outdated and today you get the successor card 1650 with significantly better performance for the same price.
Achso what are you talking about for a garbage ey if you buy a reference design is your own fault and you get from the AMD card ultimately more power and this consumes only 130w in some games a performance of the 1060 6gb my dear I do not know where the problem I had a 580 at that time and it was so cool and also partly silent where is the PROBLEM? NOW I have a Vega 56 and have no heat problems.
The 1050ti has less power than a 570 my dear, how about one time you would inform yourself a bit but well you are back then such a tremendous troll who lives up to a brand that does not deserve it because they only rip off their consumers last night I have to Laugh like the 1050ti only with newer drivers 10 FPS LESS THAN 3 YEARS THIS IS BUT ABZOCKE AND ABNORMAL WITH AMD THERE's NO WAY AFTER THE TIME THE AMD CARDS ARE BETTER OPTIMIZED AND ARE FASTER THAN EARLIER
Achso and the rx570 is not outdated? To be fair, we compare 470 vs 1050ti. Rx470 is 5% slower than a 570 but still far FASTER AND DESPITE THE SAME AGE
Apparently, you're an AMD fanboy, who always shouts at AMD without looking at facts. Unfortunately, there are many of them; has led to many poorly advised users, especially in the days before the Ryzen 3xxx, when Intel was even better in gaming.
Achso what are you talking about for a garbage ey
Thank you for documenting your objectivity so vividly.
if you buy a reference design is your own fault
I can't remember talking about reference designs.
In addition, you get from the AMD card ultimately more power and this consumes only 130w
That makes 75 W of the 1050 TI against 130 W of the AMD card, so almost twice. Thank you for confirming my statement.
I have to laugh like the 1050ti only by newer drivers 10 FPS LESS THAN 3 YEARS OLD
Where did you get that nonsense from?
Achso and the rx570 is not outdated? To be fair, we compare 470 vs 1050ti.
If you were reasonably informed, you would know that the 1050TI is also outdated. So you would have to compare the RX 570 with the 1650. And that is even powerful in terms of performance closely for the AMD card…
But also more power for your money, and over time, this power consumption eats up the price savings again
whether, the price savings is eaten, ultimately depends on the useful life and how long the card runs at full load. If the card is not running at full load, then the power consumption difference between the grakas is not that drastic anymore. Even undervolte sometimes works wonders.
I do not remember what I had there, but I had before my current map a GTX 970 with 4 GB, as the memory was running short.
I have only seen benchmarks how the 1050ti was used for the comparison of 3 years old drivers and the new drivers the difference was that with the 3 years old driver it had a max of 10 FPS more than the new ones just look on YouTube is there enough! Well, twice the efficiency but more than twice as slow…
Heavily tight? The card is nothing more than ne tuned 1050ti the 1650 rips there nothing down the 16er series cards one can confidently throw away all
And imagine if the 1050ti would have a rx570 performance that would eat as much as ne 1060 and get just as hot. Sorry bad cards consume little power and give off little heat
If you can't afford 20 euro for more electricity in the year then you should worry the best about the cell phone how much electricity pulls out of the socket or the PC itself would not be better for you if you sell everything electronically and directly The electronically meaningful devices keep you surviving you can look so on the stream. Honestly, if you can't afford a power then he should not buy a PC for the first time
Your sayings are becoming more and more unobjective. Apparently you have no idea at all, otherwise you would not say that in 1650 it is only a tuned 1050 TI, although there's even a structural miniaturization in between.
if the 1050ti had a rx570 performance that would eat as much as ne 1060 and get just as hot
What you tell is simply factually wrong. You outest yourself here as an ideological AMD fanboy who has no idea of the matter. And at this point, I break out of the discussion, because there's no point in discussing with you. Apart from sayings and factually false statements, nothing comes from you. In particular, no expertise.
In Minecraft? What did you tie that to?
Do you look at the memory usage?
Yes, I do not even want to argue with you then you're such a lost guy
Not really. I hope you do not speak of the memory usage of the main memory, because that has nothing to do with the graphics card. Apart from that Windows uses free main memory automatically to cache, so that one must be able to interpret the values.
But also the graphics card can hold more or fewer textures in memory (cache). Possibly. Textures then have to be reloaded from the main memory, when they are needed again. A real bottleneck arises only when the graphics memory is no longer enough for the textures that are to be displayed at the same time.
So I had it with a tool then read, as far as I remember were 3.6 / 4 GB occupied. I just tried it with 32x32er textures, there were 1.9 / 8 GB (Revelation Modpack). And yes, of course, the graphics memory.
I have a good cooler
For one, a better cooler also costs more money and thus eats up at least part of the savings compared to the purchase price of a performance-equivalent nvidia card. On the other hand, nevertheless, the whole interior of your PC gets hotter, with the result that e.g. Also, the CPU fan rotates faster (and louder) as the ambient temperature is higher. In addition, you will of course still blow the heat in the room.
In extreme cases, you also need a stronger power adapter, which then costs more money again.
