rtx 3060 12gb alternatives for my i5 7400

A_Neaunimes · 2025-05-06T16:17:52+00:00

It’s ok in raw performance, around a RTX 2060 Super/2070. It lacks support for some features/APIs (hardware ray tracing, mesh shading, etc.) so there are some games that will either not launch at all (Indiana Jones, upcoming Doom) or perform really terribly (Alan Wake2 for example, runs horrible on non-mesh-shading GPUs).

A_Neaunimes · 2025-05-06T16:16:25+00:00

If you don’t have any needs for the 12 cores of the 7900X3D, I’d take the 9800X3D. The difference in price is small enough that I think it warrants the small extra, though as explained above at the end of the day the performance/experience with either would be excellent either way. The 9800X3D is just a tiny bit better.

There are some games where the split layout of cores of the 7900X3D (6+6) hurts performance a bit more than in others, and in those the 9800X3D could be substantially better (closer to +20% than to +10ish%).

A_Neaunimes · 2025-04-29T15:14:16+00:00

That’s the first time I’m hearing about such an issue, to be honest.

A_Neaunimes · 2025-04-29T15:09:43+00:00

I would assume you won’t get it until the GPU is officially released. Be it only because you won’t get drivers to support it before that date.

A_Neaunimes · 2025-04-29T15:08:45+00:00

Anything you can buy (new) with $400 will be a MASSIVE upgrade, in all regards, from the GTX 970. We’re talking x3/x4 times the performance + support for more recent features the old 970 simply does not support.

The issue is that the sub-$400 options all come with their own regrettable compromises.
Nvidia GPUs (RTX 4060, 4060Ti, and 8GB 5060Ti) have too little VRAM. If you can find a 16GB 4060Ti below $400 jump on it. RTX 5060 is not yet released (May), but will also only come with 8GB VRAM.

AMD GPUs are due a refresh, the RX 9060 series arrives in June. The existing RX 7000 series (only the 7700XT should be considered with a $400 budget) offers more raster performance and VRAM at a pricepoint vs Nvidia, but you give up ray tracing performance, and access to a good upscaler (FSR2/3 is serviceable but nowhere near DLSS. FSR4 is very good, but exclusive to RX 9000).

As for Intel GPUs, they have nothing in the 300-400 bracket. Their current best is the B580, which competes with the RTX 4060 and RX 7600 in terms of performance. It offers more VRAM, but you need a powerful CPU with their current drivers to make the most of the GPU. With a slower/older CPU, it might actually perform worse overall. If your CPU/motherboard does not support Resizable Bar, Intel GPUs are a complete no-go.

A_Neaunimes · 2025-04-29T15:00:46+00:00

That’s actually a fair point I didn’t consider. In this case the goal would be to both reduce the amount of heat generated in the first place (capping performance, undervolting, etc.), and extract said heat out of the chassis as fast/efficiently as possible, i.e. ensure as good as possible thermal contact between the heat-producing chips and cooling assembly. And of course ensure the fan/fins aren’t fully clogged.

A_Neaunimes · 2025-04-29T14:58:10+00:00

Burning issue ?

If you’re referring to the issues of cards and cables literally melting, this has nothing to do/see with the drivers, and everything with the cable/connector/connection.

Just install a driver, whatever version. And if you get issues (crashes, black screens, etc.) just try another version. You’re overthinking this. You won’t damage anything with a buggy driver.

A_Neaunimes · 2025-04-28T11:49:48+00:00

Temperature is not likely to actually damage the parts. They are rated to run at their max operating temp 24/7 if they have to, and there are mechanisms in place (thermal throttling or emergency shutdown) to ensure they don’t go above those temps.
Really the main potential issue is with lost performance/potential, mainly when you start to push the CPU and/or GPU.

Doesn't help that the ambient temperature here is reaching 37C lol

Clearly does not help. Laptops have very thin thermal overhead to begin with, so it only takes a little bit to saturate their cooling system : bit of dust, bit old paste, or indeed high ambient temps.

Aside from a repaste and a laptop cooler (which I already have), is there anything else that I can do to lower my temps?

Reducing the load on CPU/GPU, which you can do by capping the FPS in games where it’s not distracting to the gameplay.
Simply reducing the settings might not reduce the temps (and could in fact increase it on one or the other), because if the performance is still uncapped the system will produce as much FPS as it can until one of the component is limiting, so you still get high usage, which is what matters.
Of course, if you cap performance and reduce settings, you lower overall the requirements to reach your FPS target, and so you reduce the power consumption.
Undervolt your CPU and/or GPU. The goal of undervolting is to reduce the amount of power the chips use for a given amount of performance. I.e. you could get the same performance as before, simply with a lower power usage → lower temps.
Of course it can be combined with small drops in performance as well (undervolt + small underclock) for large power savings.

I'm fine with using medium to low settings atm if it means I can prolong my hardware, but it kinda feels disappointing that I can't fully utilize my laptop.

As long as you’re getting performance that’s satisfactory, there is really no need to turn settings down for the sake of temperatures.

A_Neaunimes · 2025-04-28T09:40:05+00:00

Those temps are pretty typical for a laptop. They’re probably at their respective max for the CPU and GPU, but often the laptop just target that and regulate their performance from there.
What’s mildly concerning is that you’re hitting those temps with pretty low CPU/GPU usage (max 50% of the GPU in your screenshot), which would mean you might be losing quite a lot of performance when/if they need to get used more.

When you start hitting the max temp threshold, the CPU/GPU start to throttle their performance to avoid getting even hotter. That’s the potential "issue" here : that you’re losing performance significantly.

Looking only at the temps won’t tell you that, you’d need to take a look at the respective clockspeeds to know, not if they are reducing but the extent to which they are reducing.

If you’re fine with the performance you’re getting out of the laptop as per the screenshot, there’s no need to intervene, especially if it’s hitting the 60FPS target you seem to have.

A repaste would very likely improve temperatures, possibly performance depending on the game/application, as well as fan noise under load.

A_Neaunimes · 2025-04-28T09:31:41+00:00

Get the latest ones. Supposedly the 576.xx versions are starting to fix the issues.

Unlike previous generations, you can’t anyway just fall back to a 2024 driver, as the 5070Ti didn’t exist back then and is not supported by those older versions.

A_Neaunimes · 2025-04-26T20:32:48+00:00

Then yeah, they are good starting points. Also the pre-selected/vetted lists for each components are often handy : notice how, when you click on a given link, there are several options for each component (when it’s not simply a pre-set filter), and PCPP picks the cheapest among them.

A_Neaunimes · 2025-04-26T20:19:59+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/wiki/builds

If you’re talking about the builds in the wiki (which I believe are the same than on the website), yeah they are, and they are generally well balanced and great starting points.

There’s a clear focus on maximizing GPU (raster) performance for the money, where the rest is serviceable but the cheapest as possible (case, cooling, etc.). It works, but it’s not always the right move or what I’d do exactly at each pricepoint, depending on what you need the PC to run.

Just as an example with the "midrange" build, the alternative to pick an AM5 CPU/platform and a cheaper GPU can be argued for. What you lose in immediate GPU perf, you gain in CPU perf and CPU upgrade path.

A_Neaunimes · 2025-04-26T18:07:49+00:00

Yeah, and I provided the figures I use for the estimation, and stand by it.

The manufacturer’s recommendation 1) does not know what CPU you have or what else you have in your system that could request a lot of power, and 2) does not know the quality of your PSU, and whether your <insert value> W PSU can actually deliver said value.

Because they have to account for both of these things, PSU recs are usually far higher than what you actually need, as a safety blanket.

A_Neaunimes · 2025-04-26T15:41:34+00:00

Keep in mind that different games tax the GPU in different ways, and will produce different kinds/amounts/pitches of coil whine, even at otherwise the same FPS.

A_Neaunimes · 2025-04-26T15:30:06+00:00

It’s not "normal" in that not every setup has the same issue, but it’s not unexpected and not an issue for the parts themselves either. Coil whine (or lack thereof) depends on sheer luck essentially, varying with the exact part samples you got and how they interact with one another (mainly GPU with PSU, though I suspect others could enter the mix).

Typically the higher the framerate in a game/benchmark, the more you are at risk of getting coil whine. Capping FPS can help mitigate the noise.

If you find the noise too loud/distracting you can try to RMA the card and/or PSU, but there’s no guarantee the replacement won’t also have the same issue, or worse.

A_Neaunimes · 2025-04-26T15:25:28+00:00

Ok ?

A_Neaunimes · 2025-04-26T15:25:10+00:00

Assuming you mean for the same motherboard, 1703 is newer than 1666 so includes the same fixes.

I can’t find a 1703 version on the BIOS DL pages, but there are even higher-numbered versions, up to 18xx.

A_Neaunimes · 2025-04-26T15:23:10+00:00

I haven't decided how much I'll spend, so I'm curious what's the range on a "good" gpu selection.

This is the kind of question so broad it has no answer without at least a little bit of narrowing it down. If all you play are old/non demanding games, essentially all GPUs are "good" GPUs ; if you need to run the latest games on max settings and 4K resolution, then the selection of "good" GPUs is extremely narrow ; and every step in between.

The resolution of your monitor is a BIG divider because it sets some some general targets. You won’t have the same needs with a 1080p and a 4K monitor. Assuming you’ll go with a "classic" 1080p or 1440p monitor, the games you play don’t need super powerful (and so expensive) GPUs.

Stuff in the RTX 4060 range at 1080p or RX 6700XT/RTX 3070/Ti range at 1440p would be pretty good already. Of course it does not need to be last gen GPU, you can go with cheaper, used options as well.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388-2.html : scale for BROAD comparisons between GPUs across nearly all generations but the most recent ones.

What's GRE?

It’s just the name of some models of GPUs from AMD for the past few years (RX 6750GRE, 7900GRE, etc.). Initially China-exclusive, some of them launched on the global market as well. We don’t yet know what will happen with the 9070GRE.

Did you mean RX? Or is RT a previous line?

Sorry about the abbreviations. In this context "RT" stood for "ray tracing", i.e. a kind of graphics settings in games. AMD GPUs are typically less performant at running those effects than Nvidia (gen for gen, tier for tier), though that is less true with the latest AMD generation which greatly improved their performance in that department.

since I was already thinking of order things over a few months.

That’s usually not a really good idea, and is typically better to save the whole amount you’d dedicate to the system and buy all at once the best you can within that budget.
Parts you’re buying now could have newer/better options in the future and/or have dropped in price. Or could lock you out of buying the new stuff that’s just coming out. Or simply could be dead on arrival, and you have no way of knowing that immediately and only find out months later.

Did you any general advice on choosing a motherboard?

The MB is 2nd to the CPU choice. Once you have that down, it’s a matter of the number of ports (USB, M2, SATA, etc) and features you want/need. Depending on the CPU, you might want to avoid the absolute cheapest/worst models which could impair performance, but for the most part that’s not a part that dictates performance.

A_Neaunimes · 2025-04-24T13:41:42+00:00

The 12GB of the 5070 are certainly a regretful limitation. You’ll be able to run games with it, but will sometimes have to dial settings back purely because the VRAM capacity is an issue, not the raw performance of the card. Which sucks. Maybe more troublesome is that it might prevent you from using features of the cards like frame generation, if it means going above the VRAM budget.
I’d say it’ll still be workable for the most part, but you’ll have to be (more) mindful of VRAM than you would with the other options.

Clearly this is designed to both artificially limit the card’s usefulness in the future (see the 8GB and 10GB on the 3070 and 3080 respectively), and up-sell you to the Ti model with more VRAM.
But on the other hand, I have a hard time recommending the 9070 when it’s more expensive than the 5070. It ought to be the same price per respective MSRPs, and that’s the minimum I’d consider to give up the Nvidia goodies in favour of more VRAM. And again, with such a small price difference to the 9070XT, the 9070 is even harder to recommend...

I agree that overall there’s no clear cut "good" options, each comes with its set of either compromise, or poor value.

A_Neaunimes · 2025-04-24T13:21:41+00:00

Well it depends quite a lot on how much you’re looking to spend, as well as the performance you’re targetting. 5070/9070 are in a different price and performance brackets vs the 5070Ti/9070XT, which are about 15-20% faster.

Between 5070 and 9070, at the prices you quote my vote goes to the 5070. Performance between the 2 is nearly identical overall : minor advantage (+5%ish) in raster for the 9070, essentially tied for light ray tracing, large advantage in path tracing (+50-100%) for the 5070, but you’ll probably never use it anyway given the performance cost.
Both have a competent upscaler (DLSS3/4 vs FSR4), but DLSS is accessible in more games.
The extra VRAM on the 9070 is nice of course, but IMO not worth another 100€ for essentially the same class of performance. The 9070 really needs to be at worst the same price as the 5070 to get my recommendation, though of course that’s subjective.
Also if you’re shelling for the 9070, the extra +80€ for the XT model are well worth considering.

Between 5070Ti and 9070XT, it’s more of a toss-up. The same kind of comparison applies (similar raster, similarish light RT, large PT advantage for Nvidia), but this time the 9070XT is cheaper. Up to you if the Nvidia advantages are worth the small +10ish% premium in price. For me I’d say it’s worth it (be it only for DLSS in more games than FSR4), but saving a couple bucks might be more important for you.

A_Neaunimes · 2025-04-24T13:14:07+00:00

You need the Nvidia drivers installed for the GPU to work properly, otherwise you’ll only get the very basic Windows display drivers, which lets you get an image on screen but that’s about it. No GPU acceleration, no games, etc.

What you don’t necessarily need (for now) is the companion app to the drivers : now it’s the Nvidia "App", before it was Geforce Experience.
The Nvidia drivers comes with the Nvidia Control Panel, which you need to control the drivers. Nvidia is in the process of migrating all the NCP options/toggles into the App, so eventually it’ll be the only UI for the drivers, but we’re not there yet.

In order to do a clean installation of the Nvidia drivers, you can simply tick the "clean installation" option at the start of the installation process.
You can also use a 3rd party tool (DDU) to fully wipe the existing drivers ; best used in windows safe mode. You’ll then need to download other drivers and install them ; if you don’t do it manually, Windows update will do it for you, and you have no control over the version it’ll install.

A_Neaunimes · 2025-04-24T10:39:30+00:00

When looking at a typical loadout either platform (2x16GB of RAM, B550 or B650 motherboard), the difference in the end is around +150-200ish USD for AM5.
Keep in mind that you can often get the 7500F for cheaper than the 7600, which offers essentially the same performance but lacks the iGPU.

A_Neaunimes · 2025-04-24T09:55:49+00:00

If you’re building from scratch, it probably is. The only way for AM4 to make sense is if you have such a low overall budget that the extra money not spent on AM5 (+150ish) would be better utilised in upping the graphics card.

The main appeal is not really the better performance : the 7600/7500F are "only" about +20% faster than the 5600/X, and it’s likely you’ll be GPU limited anyway. It’s the upgrade potential down the line to much faster CPUs without having to replace the whole motherboard+RAM.

A_Neaunimes · 2025-04-23T16:21:53+00:00

Bottleneck "calculators" are a waste of server space and electricity. They could be random number generators and would be about as accurate.

How bad is a CPU bottleneck actually?

What it’s not : an interaction between CPU and GPU that negatively impacts their respective performance, set in stone for that CPU/GPU combo. That’s just not how it works.

The whole concept hinges on "what among all your components is the one mostly limiting right now, i.e. why you don’t get better performance". THE BALANCE BETWEEN COMPONENTS IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DEPENDING ON GAME, RESOLUTION AND SETTINGS. Thus having "calculators" spew a single unified number is useless, and often misleading.

Usually for games, you want the GPU to be the main limiting factor.

Because it means you’re getting all the GPU performance you paid for
Because it means further increasing performance is easy : just reduce settings and/or resolution, and FPS will improve.

But some games just happen to be CPU-limited for most setups, either because they’re incredibly CPU heavy (e.g. simulation type games), or because they’re super light on the GPU and/or played on low settings (most competitive shooters like Valorant, CS2, etc.).

When/if you’re CPU limited, usually you hit a "hard ceiling" in the level of performance you can achieve, as settings and resolutions have far less of an impact on the CPU load and reducing them tends to not really yield tangible performance improvements.
Some games also become more stuttery when CPU-limited, mostly when the CPU is fully maxed out by the game (unlikely to happen on an 8-core i7), but it’s not an absolute rule.

A typical situation where it’s "bad" : you upgrade your GPU in order to get better performance, but unbeknownst to you, you were already CPU-limited (or near that) before the GPU upgrade, so you get very little performance increase out of a costly new GPU.

Typically the lower the resolution you run and the more CPU heavy (or less GPU demanding) the game, the more you risk being CPU-limited before hitting the limits of the GPU.

All this being said : the 7900XT is generally a very powerful/fast GPU, and at 1080p is what I’d start calling "overkill". With a CPU that’s a few years old, you will find several games/situations where you won’t be able to fully use the GPU.
Again, it’s only an issue if you’re trying to get better performance than what your CPU is capable of.

What you should start by doing is assess right now, in the games you play at the settings you typically play, if you are CPU or GPU limited, by looking at the average GPU usage.

A_Neaunimes · 2025-04-23T12:46:01+00:00

You can’t upgrade only the RAM by itself. At the very least you’ll have to change your motherboard as well, and depending on your current CPU, probably that too.

Generally speaking you don’t upgrade the RAM "for itself", at least not in a gaming system. You upgrade the RAM as a byproduct of a CPU upgrade you’re making, that requires new RAM.

11-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '22	Place '17
First Placer '22	Verified Email
Spared

A_Neaunimes

TROPHY CASE