安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
UE5.1 Requirements[docs.unrealengine.com]
While not directly listed on their minimum requirements page, several other features documentation makes note of VRAM requirements and in general there is a "soft expectation" of having at least 8GB of VRAM.
Also you wouldn't be able to use Nanite afaik as the 1060 only supports DirectX 12 up to shader model 5.0 and Nanite, along with Virtual Shadow Maps, require DirectX 12 shader model 6.6 atomics.
AIO Liquid Cooler or a beefy tower air cooler
B550 or B550M AM4 Motherboard
At least 1x NVME SSD
Corsair 2x 16GB 3600 DDR4
Corsair RMX 850 watt
RTX 3060 Ti / RX 6700 or better GPU
Clean install of Win10 64bit 22H2 or Win11 22H2
and you reckon 850 over 700?
Regarding the PSU, you just need to get what you're components need. The parts you're discussing would be fine with a 700W PSU. More importantly is getting a quality PSU, and the "80plus" badging has nothing to do with quality. That is just meeting a specific level of efficiency at specific PSU loads.
If you put what your budget range is, including if you think you might be willing to save up for a bit longer what your maximum is, then its much easier for people to try to help put together decent builds on PC Part Picker that are within your budget range and would be decently balanced for your budget.
Avoid the Ryzen G model CPUs. If you are going to be relying on a dedicated GPU anyways then you don't need a Ryzen G which has an onboard GPU.
But, say, when the time comes when you decide to get an RTX 3080/3080 Ti/3090 or RX 6800/6800XT/6900XT/6950 XT that are going for a good price, that 650W Gold PSU isn't gonna cut it any more, and you'd find yourself either giving up on the card on a good deal simply because your PSU can't hack it. Or, having to make the decision to get the card, and buy a new and more powerful PSU to power the card. Since you're buying now for a future GPU update, you might as well bite the bullet and get a more powerful PSU now.
I don't just say it, I practise this philosophy when I build my system. When I was building an R9 3900X system back in 2019, I knew I was gonna upgrade my GPU (I was running a Vega64 Red Devil). I decided to get a Corsair HX1000 Platinum which I'd figured would be good enough for a couple or GPU upgrades at the very least. It handle my system with the Nitro+ RX 6900 XT easily enough.
Then, I'd decided to go with an R9 5900X, and will soon be installing my XFX MERC 310 RX 7900 XTX, that 3+ years old PSU will have no problem handling them as well, I'm pretty confident of that. Even the spare 3900X and RX 6900 XT will be put to good use, building a 2nd gaming rig with them as base, and I have an ENERMAX MAXREVO 1500W at the ready for them, or I can reuse my trusty HX 1050 which is in my soon to be retired HTPC.
Roughly around 700$ excluding the gpu
rather put the cash towards a stronger cpu?
Looking it up, this seems confusing of AMD. I have to have a rare disagreement with PopinFresh if I'm reading correctly what this CPU is. I know you said you're on a budget, but sincerely, I'd go with the 5700X and avoid this. It's just the 5700G without the IGP. But the 5700G is not at all like the 5700X. Rather, it's like the 5500 is to 5600. Those Models actually fall more in-between Zen 2 and Zen 3 in performance rather than more firmly being Zen 3. They were better than the old IGP/APU versions (which were more of a full generation behind) but they're still not up to comparing with the architecture they actually use. Namely, lacking cache hurts them.
So this is really confusing of you, AMD.
The 5600 is basically a 5600X. And the 5500 seems similar, but it's actually different (not even chiplet based, but monolithic, lacks PCI Express 4.0, half the cache, etc.) since it's not built from the same mold as the 5600s, but rather it's a 5600G without the IGP. Okay, performance-wise only the missing cache matters much, which it matters a lot, but it's called a 5500 so it fits. I can accept this.
3600X >>> 5600G/5500 >>> 5600 > 5600X
Confusing still though because of the 5600G seeming out of place, but I can accept it insofar as the rest.
However now knowing there's a 5700 with the same thing going on makes it worse. Because how the 5600 is basically "99% of the 5600X but much cheaper", the 5700X itself is already in the same relationship with the 5800X. That means the 5700 being a 5700G without the IGP is more dishonestly named IMO. But they had nowhere else to name it given the 5600 was taken.
I'm not sure what pricing of the 5700 is (I'm expecting roughly similar to the 5700G?), but my general advice with the 5500 is to avoid in place of the 5600 (non-X). It's too much of a loss for barely any savings. meanwhile, the 5600X (and 5800X over the 5700X) aren't worth spending up to. The middle point is the best spot.
Sorry for the long post, I was just learning that a 5700 even existed and trying to reason out how I felt of it. I would personally only go with the 5700/5700G over the 5700X if it's a substantial savings (I'm guessing it's not?) and you can't stretch the extra (which I can't say since I don't know how stretched your budget is with the planned build already, but a regular 5700X is rather cheap and a good value already). Despite its performance deficit to the rest of Zen 3, the 5700G had somewhat of a small point going for it before the 5700X existed, when it was only the overpriced 5800X that existed in the octo core spot, but that's no longer the case.
Every other CPU in the lineup is either sub-optimal, or has a better alternative (usually either with one of the aforementioned, an Intel alternative, or in the case of the 5950X, an AM5 alternative). I'm not saying "don't ever buy anything but these four" because fringe exceptions exist, but I do believe these four CPUs are the only ones "that matter" for anyone not already on AM4 at least.
Don't go for the 5900X if you won't actually use the cores, but do go for it if you will. If you won't, either take the money savings with the 5700X or get more performance for the same cost (as the 5900X) with the 5800X3D. I'm not sure if game development can be multi-core heavy (I want to say it can be but won't always be?) so a 5700X or 5900X would be what I'd look at, but the latter would possibly take too much of $700 budget.
The other options for CPU would be to go with an AM5 based build. You not going to do well with a rather cheap motherboard and then stick a 5900X or 5950X on it. Going Ryzen 9 series or going AM5 is not going to be very budget friendly.
5700X is just a newer cheaper 5800X
The OP can even do this new build and for the time being, re-use existing GTX 1060 until can afford to get a modern GPU that will hold its own and last.
For the first, also mostly agree, with one exception. The 5900X has a good value for what it is. If you'll use the cores, that is. It actually has such a good value that it made the 5800X look downright bad originally (while the 5700X does that now). It was so good that you now have people confused and wondering if they should go with a 5900X or 5800X3D at a similar cost, when the answer should be rather straightforward (that answer being "it depends on if your use case justifies the extra cores", but my thinking is anyone who will justify the extra cores would know that and not even ask that to begin with as they would KNOW the 5900X is better for them, so anyone asking is often better with a 5700X or 5800X3D instead).
But a 5900X might not fit into OPs particular budget. If OP is set on making an AM4 platform last as long as possible, I would say the 5700X is the current sweet spot for such a budget if you can't fit a 5900X in now, and then maybe consider a used Ryzen 9 later when they are older and cheaper. It would need a decent board, but I'd probably be recommending a decent B550 anyway, which would handle a Ryzen 9 easily.
Yes I can't see a 5900X + higher end Motherboard -or- anything in an AM5 config fitting into the OPs budget
It would limit CPU upgrade options, and I've heard of people having a failed board (again, sometimes "good" ones) and because after a while you're at the mercy of the used market, it almost "forces" them to upgrade prematurely. Partly just my "feel" but I think an ultra budget B550 would be more risky in that regard.
I imagine you can get a good enough B550 around $150-ish now that would run a 105W/twelve core CPU later just fine? Maybe I'm wrong though but my board costs $200 when they were new over two and a half years ago and it would definitely handle anything, so I'm sort of presuming you can get something good enough for at least a 5900X around there.
If not it would limit OP to a 5700X or so as the best, which still isn't anywhere near bad, but if OP is doing development and wanting to keep it long, I think the option to add 50% more cores if desired down the line would be nice/worth it.