Power needed rx6700 and rx7500

[Madrileno7]

I have a dell g5090 with psu of 460w and run a rtx 2060 super just fine the card says its maximum consumption is 175 w…. I can not upgrase the psu and only play 1080p levels and wanted to upgrade to rx6700 175w or rx7600 160w consumption does anybody know if there is chance i can make this work?

 

[KedsDead]

If the PSU can support 175w and has the space, you can run a 6700xt. One of my kids has a 6700xt in his system, undervolted to 1090mv, it pulls anywhere from 115w to 130w while he is playing. He mostly plays at 1080p aswell.. I am sure you can do the same with the 7600xt, but the 6700xt is faster.

 

[adilazimdegilx]

This a little complicated. Normally, between Rx6700 and rx7600, I would suggest rx7600 since you are on a power budget, there is no need to take a chance with Rx6700. Also you can always undervolt and keep it under certain levels. Though, 6000 series also has bad reputation with power spikes and AMD actually recommends minimum 600w with rx6700.

However there are 2 problems. First, neither of them are a good upgrade over your 2060 super. They are only about 20-30% faster. It might not worth to upgrade and take a chance with your PSU in this regard. And you'll lose DLSS support as well, which can help you in 1080p more than FSR on AMD's side.

Second problem is your motherboard. I checked on Dell website and it says it has PCIe 3.0. This is a problem for Rx7600 (also for RTX4060 and 4060Ti as well) since they work on 8x PCIe lanes. So you'll also be losing some performance because of it. So overall performance increase would be even less than above percentages.

I don't think you should upgrade on this system (well, unless it's free). If there was a 4060Ti with 16x lanes, that would be the perfect upgrade for you albeit expensive (about 50% more performance for 15w less power). However AMD and Nvidia are competing really hard with each other to be the greediest on budget segment nowadays...

 

[Madrileno7]

Thanks for the quick reply and example appreciate it

Thank yoi yes my system is pcue 3.0 but hanks for the heads up

 

[dgianstefani]

NVIDIA cards use less power if you are concerned. But either if those options should be fine IF your PSU is a good one.

Otherwise grab a discounted 4060 Ti which is ~15-50% faster than a RX 7600.

Price Cuts Bring the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti to Within $15 of Radeon RX 7600 XT

A series of price cuts on Best Buy for the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti (8 GB) sees the card now drop to $344, down from its $399 MSRP, reports VideoCardz. This new low price puts it within just $15 of the recently launched AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT. For the vast majority of gamers playing at 1080p, this is...

www.techpowerup.com

 

[Madrileno7]

NVIDIA cards use less power if you are concerned. But either if those options should be fine IF your PSU is a good one.

Otherwise grab a discounted 4060 Ti which is ~15-50% faster than a RX 7600.

Price Cuts Bring the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti to Within $15 of Radeon RX 7600 XT

A series of price cuts on Best Buy for the GeForce RTX 4060 Ti (8 GB) sees the card now drop to $344, down from its $399 MSRP, reports VideoCardz. This new low price puts it within just $15 of the recently launched AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT. For the vast majority of gamers playing at 1080p, this is...

www.techpowerup.com

will check out 4060 ti is the 8gb good enough i just game on weekends at about 1080p 144mhz but yes power is main threat to me as dell really did me dirty with this build and psu

 

[dgianstefani]

will check out 4060 ti is the 8gb good enough i just game on weekends at about 1080p 144mhz but yes power is main threat to me as dell really did me dirty with this build and psu

For 1080p 8 GB is plenty.

 

[Redwoodz]

I would not run a 6700 on that psu, the 6650XT is around 30% faster than 2060 Super and uses less watts. Matches or beats 7600. I would grab a used one.

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

Dell G5090 has an i5-9600K, amirite?

If that's right you're better off selling this PC (don't forget to replace your old storages with anything BNIB so the buyer won't get your data no matter how they try) and buying a new one when the budget allows you to do it.

At this point, 1080p144 gaming is completely murdered by your CPU being way too old and way too slow. No GPU upgrade will improve things for you. At least noticeably.

 

[dgianstefani]

Dell G5090 has an i5-9600K, amirite?

If that's right you're better off selling this PC (don't forget to replace your old storages with anything BNIB so the buyer won't get your data no matter how they try) and buying a new one when the budget allows you to do it.

At this point, 1080p144 gaming is completely murdered by your CPU being way too old and way too slow. No GPU upgrade will improve things for you. At least noticeably.

9600K is absolutely fine for 1080p144hz.

It's not like we're talking about a quad core.

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

9600K is absolutely fine for 1080p144hz.

At stock? With whatever garbage RAM Dell placed inside that PC? It's ~75 FPS territory, not more.

 

[dgianstefani]

At stock? With whatever garbage RAM Dell placed inside that PC? It's ~75 FPS territory, not more.

A 10400f which is limited to 2666 ram gets 140 fps.

It's not a 1:1 comparison since the 10400f has a slower boost clock and hyper threading but it's close enough, Skylake six core.

9600K is fine.

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

It's not a 1:1 comparison since the 10400f has a slower boost clock and hyper threading but it's close enough, Skylake six core.

You should've been comparing to the 10100. It's the closest CPU. HTless 6-core CPUs and 4/8 CPUs are only good for 100+ FPS if you're playing something dated or not demanding. Modern AAA games are barely comfortable on such processors. Especially Baldur's Gate and likes of this game, being capable of stuttering even on i7-12700K level CPUs.

I owned an 8600K in 2020. It was enough for 60 FPS then. Was enough for 100 FPS. But it already wasn't fine for 144 FPS. And I'm talking a 5 GHz clocked CPU paired with fast RAM.

 

[dgianstefani]

You should've been comparing to the 10100. It's the closest CPU. HTless 6-core CPUs and 4/8 CPUs are only good for 100+ FPS if you're playing something dated or not demanding. Modern AAA games are barely comfortable on such processors. Especially Baldur's Gate and likes of this game, being capable of stuttering even on i7-12700K level CPUs.

I owned an 8600K in 2020. It was enough for 60 FPS then. Was enough for 100 FPS. But it already wasn't fine for 144 FPS. And I'm talking a 5 GHz clocked CPU paired with fast RAM.

OK and a 10100 is still testing at 126 FPS with the latest bench...

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

OK and a 10100 is still testing at 126 FPS with the latest bench...

That does only tell you the average framerate story. 1% lows are terrible compared to 12400F and other modern/semi-modern gaming CPUs. These things stutter, these things micro-freeze. You won't have your 100+ FPS experience smooth with that running frametime slaloms.

You already got a fast refresh rate display. Go ahead, limit your 7800X3D to 6 cores, disable SMT, choke it to 2.5 GHz (where it still would probably provide more FPS than the 9600K thanks to better architecture and a humongous L3 cache) and try preserving your 144 FPS in modern games. Spoiler: you can't do it.

 

[dgianstefani]

That does only tell you the average framerate story. 1% lows are terrible compared to 12400F and other modern/semi-modern gaming CPUs. These things stutter, these things micro-freeze. You won't have your 100+ FPS experience smooth with that running frametime slaloms.

You already got a fast refresh rate display. Go ahead, limit your 7800X3D to 6 cores, disable SMT, choke it to 2.5 GHz (where it still would probably provide more FPS than the 9600K thanks to better architecture and a humongous L3 cache) and try preserving your 144 FPS in modern games. Spoiler: you can't do it.

Min FPS of 90 is absolutely fine.

This isn't high end gaming, he's on a budget. Suggesting he replace his entire platform when he's going to be using a $300 GPU isn't helpful.

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

Suggesting he replace his entire platform when he's going to be using a $300 GPU isn't helpful.

I hate the fact people don't read my messages correctly.

"When the budget allows you to do it" clearly shows some time in the future. $300 GPUs of today are already handicapped by 9600K. $300 GPUs of tomorrow will be capped even harder. And they also will feel like an upgrade, unlike today ones which are rather a sidegrade.

 

[dgianstefani]

I hate the fact people don't read my messages correctly.

"When the budget allows you to do it" clearly shows some time in the future. $300 GPUs of today are already handicapped by 9600K. $300 GPUs of tomorrow will be capped even harder. And they also will feel like an upgrade, unlike today ones which are rather a sidegrade.

The $300 GPU he's considering has an average of 105 and a minimum of 85 FPS. Perhaps you can explain how it's handicapped by a CPU with an average of ~126 and a minimum of 90 FPS.

 

[damric]

Don't waste your time. Save up and build your own PC.

 

[KedsDead]

I'm not sure why everyone is stuck on 144hz or higher equal better. Maybe for first person shooters, because more frames equal more hit boxes, but for single player games, or top down multiplayer games, a solid 60fps is the same as a solid 144fps.

 

[Chrispy_]

At stock? With whatever garbage RAM Dell placed inside that PC? It's ~75 FPS territory, not more.

This is something to consider. I've seen enough reviews of Dell prebuilts to know that it's going to be garbage-tier 2133MHz DDR4, possibly single-channel and the BIOS will be set to throttle hard and early to premptively counteract the pissy-little minimum-cost VRMs and wimpy cooler.

The i5-9600K in TPU review charts would have been DDR4-3200, decent timings, and dual-channel and the CPU would have been adequately cooled. It's likely anywhere from 20-50% faster than the Dell box.

 

[Madrileno7]

Dell G5090 has an i5-9600K, amirite?

If that's right you're better off selling this PC (don't forget to replace your old storages with anything BNIB so the buyer won't get your data no matter how they try) and buying a new one when the budget allows you to do it.

At this point, 1080p144 gaming is completely murdered by your CPU being way too old and way too slow. No GPU upgrade will improve things for you. At least noticeably.

thanks for reply but its the i9 9900k up to 5.0 oc but havent tried that option yet

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

i9 9900k

You're good then. 9900K is more than enough.

Just make sure you got fast dual channel RAM. 6700 series GPUs won't feel much faster anyway. Better wait until you can afford an RTX 4070 or something like that.

 

[Chrispy_]

thanks for reply but its the i9 9900k up to 5.0 oc but havent tried that option yet

9900K will be fine, assuming it's cooled decently.
Do you know your RAM config and speeds? If you're spending money on a GPU you should check you aren't wasting money by using a terrible, slow, single-channel RAM config.

Download CPU-Z and check the SPD tab to see how many RAM sticks are installed, what their rated speed is, and then go to the Memory tab to see what speed Dell are actually running them at.
Dual-channel DDR4-2666 (1333MHz) is acceptable, and that's likely what Dell used if they weren't being shit - because that's the best official DRAM speed for 8th/9th gen Intel and Dell don't typically overclock anything.

DDR4-2133 will be a reasonably noticeable performance bottleneck worth replacing the RAM for. If it's single-channel, regardless of the speed, you need to buy new RAM because you're wasting that CPU with awful memory bandwidth!

 

[Madrileno7]

9900K will be fine, assuming it's cooled decently.
Do you know your RAM config and speeds? If you're spending money on a GPU you should check you aren't wasting money by using a terrible, slow, single-channel RAM config.

Download CPU-Z and check the SPD tab to see how many RAM sticks are installed, what their rated speed is, and then go to the Memory tab to see what speed Dell are actually running them at.
Dual-channel DDR4-2666 (1333MHz) is acceptable, and that's likely what Dell used if they weren't being shit - because that's the best official DRAM speed for 8th/9th gen Intel and Dell don't typically overclock anything.

DDR4-2133 will be a reasonably noticeable performance bottleneck worth replacing the RAM for. If it's single-channel, regardless of the speed, you need to buy new RAM because you're wasting that CPU with awful memory bandwidth!

hey ty it is actually the Dual-channel DDR4-2666 with 32gb of it and I only have pcie 3.0 mother board so i think best bet for me to see actual improvement is to get a used rx6700 because of my psu limit and pcie 3.0 just uncertain how much of a gain it will be over 2060 super i only game on weekends and im falling a bit short of 60 fps so even a 10 percent boost would make that more enjoyable for me id appreciate your thoughts on that and grateful there are guys like you out here helping me.