New Gaming PC Time - Thoughts on This Build?

Fergy1987 on 14/06/2019 - 15:55
Last edited 14/06/2019 - 15:56

So thinking of getting myself a treat with a new gaming PC. Looking for any thoughts, critiques or judgement on the below build.

I haven't been a massive gamer lately but that's probably more so that my garbage PC cant run anything good.

So on with the build

CPU Intel Core i5 9400F 2.9Ghz $248.00
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix B360 G Gaming $159.00
Memory G Skill 32GB 3200C16D Ripjaws $295.00
GPU Galax Geforce RTX 2080 EX 8GB $989.00
Case Corsair Crystal 280X Black $159.00
PSU Seasonic 750W G Series $179.00
Cooling Noctua NH-L9x65 Low Profile $79.00
SSD 2 x Crucial MX500 500GB M.2 $210.00 total
OS Windows 10 Home 64bit $149

Brings me to a total of $2467.00

Now I just have a BenQ 27" GL(numbers here) Monitor not a gaming monitor so saw there was a ASUS ROG STRIX 31.5 2k 144hz monitor at Umart for $699.00 that I may have to consider - But could this just come later? Am I really going to suffer with my standard monitor

I have been out of the game of PC's for a while so not really sure on the latest tech, or compatibility issues etc so anything obvious you see let me know or even just thoughts on particular parts you may already have.

Any other thoughts would be appreciated. Anything thats overkill, or replace the CPU cooler with something like a liquid cooler? Saving money is always good, but I wouldnt mind having the PC for quite some time so dont want to have to upgrade anytime soon after purchase

Thanks everyone

Computing Computer Desktop Computer

Comments

  • Michael1983 on 14/06/2019 - 16:10

    Do you consider build on AMD/Radeon hardware? I'm in the same boat thinking of upgrade. One thing makes me unsure is the driver and software support for Radeon GPUs. Remember back in 2005-2009 it was a disaster.

    • Fergy1987 on 14/06/2019 - 16:13

      I've actually never built with an AMD or Radeon, I've always been an Intel NVidia fanboy. So yeah I have always just stuck with what I have known. I didnt want to screw around trying to learn all the models etc of AMD :P

      I worked in a Computer store when I was like 15 and used to refuse to put Radeons in PC's just because of the drivers haha.

      • Kangal on 14/06/2019 - 17:33
        +6

        That's odd, since Radeons were the best GPU money could buy (at least until the GTX 680).

        And Athlons were the best CPUs money could buy (at least until Intel Core2Duo).

        Now?
        Best CPU is on AMD's camp, and best GPU is still in Nvidia's camp (yeah, Navi looks like an "enhanced GCN 2.0" and not that great).

        • Diji1 on 14/06/2019 - 17:39
          -5

          Best CPU is on AMD's camp

          Not if you just consider gaming it isn't.

          • Kangal on 14/06/2019 - 19:57
            -3

            @Diji1: For gaming, you want an AMD CPU. Intel's slower now.

            Intel CPUs also are slower for multitasking/multicore scenarios, use more power, and have security vulnerabilities.

            The best reason for getting an Intel CPU now is if you want Hackintosh.

            • ngengerous on 14/06/2019 - 20:42

              @Kangal: https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/amd-vs-intel/

              Gaming is still better on Intel at the moment. AMD will win in multicore scenarios, yes, but purely for gaming, Intel are slightly ahead.

              • Kangal on 14/06/2019 - 21:30
                -5

                @ngengerous: Nope, Gaming is better on AMD.

                Intel's slower in IPC/single-core performance to Zen2 or Ryzen 3000. Not to mention Intel's slower in total performance/multicore. Not to mention Intel uses alot more power and needs more cooling. And not to mention Intel's have security vulnerabilities.

                There's no reason to get an Intel CPU, not unless Intel decides to cut their prices by heaps, which is required for them to stay in the market. They are the new underdog. Except for Hackintosh, where Intel gets better driver support, but I can see this improving for Ryzen in the near-future, especially with Apple contemplating a shift away from Intel for their Mac's towards either AMD or custom ARM chip.

                The Story So Far:

                Bulldozer FX 8370 - 2012 - $200 - 125W - 100 CB Single core - 700 CB Total/multicore
                Zen 1 (TARGET) —— 2016 - $500 - 140W - 140 CB Single core - 1,400 CB Total/multicore
                Zen 1 (r7-1800X) —- 2017 - $400 - 95W — 160 CB Single core - 1,620 CB Total/multicore
                Zen+ (r7- 2700X) — 2018 - $350 - 105W - 180 CB Single core - 1,750 CB Total/multicore
                Zen 2 (r7-3800X) — 2019 - $400 - 105W - 210 CB Single core - 2,190 CB Total/multicore
                Zen 2 (TARGET) —- 2019 - $500 - 105W - 195 CB Single core - 2,050 CB Total/multicore

                As compared to Intel:
                i7-2600k - 2011 - $300 ——— 95W - 130 CB Single core - 650 CB Total/multicore
                i7-5690x - 2014 - $1,000 - 140W - 140 CB Single core - 1,300 CB Total/multicore
                i7-6900k - 2016 - $1,100 - 140W - 170 CB Single core - 1,500 CB Total/multicore
                i7-7820x - 2017 - $700 —- 140W - 180 CB Single core - 1,700 CB Total/multicore
                i7-9900k - 2019 - $500 —- "95W" - 210 CB Single core - 2,000 CB Total/multicore

                …this is just a general idea, obviously, but a handy scaling list nonetheless.

                • [Deactivated] on 16/06/2019 - 12:04
                  +1

                  @Kangal: That's fine on paper, but look at any bench marks online, and the equivalent Intel chips all have better FPS than AMD chips. Perhaps that will change in 3 weeks.

                • sghetti on 18/06/2019 - 09:19

                  @Kangal: Games are not yet up to speed with utilising a massive amount of cores and threads. The only game I'm aware of recently in Division 2 which had some sort of partnership with AMD.

                  Majority of games still rely on 1 or 2 cores/threads and will benefit from a smaller amount of cores at higher clock speeds.

              • [Deactivated] on 16/06/2019 - 19:03
                +7

                @ngengerous: Keep in mind Ryzens (even gen 1) are aging extremely well as new generation of games take advantage of multiple cores.

                We're seeing more and more benchmarks swing in AMDs favour.

                https://youtu.be/97sDKvMHd8c

          • N1NJ4W4RR10R on 15/06/2019 - 21:31
            +4

            @Diji1: Ryzen 3k launch is About 3 weeks away. You'd be looking at equivalent to Intel performance for way better pricing.

      • Diji1 on 14/06/2019 - 17:38
        +2

        Pretty sure Intel is still the best gaming CPU.

        • ngengerous on 14/06/2019 - 20:42
          +1

          Not by a huge margin, but yes, Intel is definitely in the lead.

    • macrocephalic on 16/06/2019 - 16:48
      +2

      I have a radeon and ryzen build. I have had no driver issues at all. 2009 was a decade ago.

      • conan2000 on 16/06/2019 - 17:18
        +2

        I have only had on non-Nvidia graphics card, and had major issues with drivers on it, but that would have been 10+ years ago. I was thinking of changing until I had to troubleshoot the in-laws computer about 18 months ago and the issues were entirely due to radeon drivers, so while I'd like to think thit was just bad reputation from a decade ago, they still have issues (albeit nowhere near as bad as they used to be).

        • Blitzfx on 17/06/2019 - 10:01
          +2

          Also, I usually upgrade my PC every 5-10 years. I'm not putting up with the potential risk of driver issues for 5-10 years when I've had 0-problems with Nvidia.

      • k-rokfm on 18/06/2019 - 13:47

        1940 was almost 80 years ago but people are still holding grudges for some reason

    • Spazzwan on 16/06/2019 - 16:55
      +2

      One thing makes me unsure is the driver and software support for Radeon GPUs

      AMD drivers are superior atm, but their graphics hardware are still hard to recommend.

    • idonotknowwhy on 17/06/2019 - 09:40
      +1

      Hey mate, Ryzen CPUs are excellent.
      As for gpus, the are stable these days. If you can find equivalent performance for a lower price buying amd, go for it (lookup benchmarks).

      One caveat though, if you want to use anything opengl (like the wiiU or switch emulators), amd are not an option as they have terrible OpenGl drivers on windows (even running these apps on Linux gets you +40% fps with amd).

  • p1 ama on 14/06/2019 - 16:24
    +15

    It’s fine, though I’d say wait for the new Ryzen chips, they’ll be better than Intel in every way (that’s coming from someone who owns Intel systems). I’d have a look at the Ryzen 3700X as the sweet spot, it’ll be an 8 core, 16 thread part for not terribly much more than what you’re spending. The Ryzen 3600 will also be a good choice, similar price to the 9400F for more performance.

    If you’re going with your current config, I’d ditch the two SSDs for one 1TB drive and I’d ditch your cooler for something like a Noctua NH-U14S (or 12S if the 14S doesn’t fit). You don’t need a low profile cooler for your case, so no point paying more and sacrificing performance to go with a low profile. Your RAM is also super expensive, the benefits of faster RAM are marginal. Same goes with your PSU. You could probably gun for a 2080 Ti if you economise a but elsewhere. That’ll give you a huge boost.

    • wannagrababargain on 14/06/2019 - 16:29
      +2

      I would say spend as much as you can afford on the PSU, it really is that important. You have thousands of dollars of equipment hanging off the quality of power supplied by the PSU. Seasonic is one of the best PSUs around, it is cheap 'insurance' for your expensive delicate parts.

      • p1 ama on 14/06/2019 - 18:51
        +9

        Yes, but you're not going to need a 750W for an RTX 2080 and 9400F, that will be fine on a 550W which is much cheaper, or 650W if you want some leeway. The need for big PSUs are gone, multi-GPU setups are over.

      • stephendt on 18/06/2019 - 11:25

        Nah. Just get a good quality 350 or 450w. My i7 8700 rig with an RTX 2070 doesn't draw more than 270w under max sythetic load and runs perfectly on a Corsair VS350, and future components will only be more power efficient. It idles at 33w. Gaming load is maybe 200w. Spending big bucks on a PSU is pretty overrated.

        • wozz on 18/06/2019 - 16:01

          I disagree with "Spending big bucks on a PSU is pretty overrated"
          Have come across quite a few PCs with tough to diagnose reset or freezing issues in the past..
          I agree you don't necessarily need a super high wattage PSU, but definitely should spend good cash on a good quality PSU that actually meets the wattage that its rated for (and can do decent wattage on each rail)..

    • Diji1 on 14/06/2019 - 17:41
      +1

      they’ll be better than Intel in every way

      This is what what they claimed for the last Ryzen launches and they weren't.

      • p1 ama on 14/06/2019 - 18:50

        This is what what they claimed for the last Ryzen launches and they weren't.

        Not really, for the last Ryzen launch (which was just a refresh of first gen Ryzen), it was pretty much well known that single-threaded performance would still be behind Intel.

        Given that Ryzen was still very modestly clocked and Intel had the bananas clocked out of them, with the node shrink and improvements to the architecture, this generation of Ryzen will push higher clocks and with IPC improvements should be able to reach Intel. The issue with Intel is that they haven't improved the single-threaded performance at all since Skylake (which goes to show how great they were), but it's only a matter of time if they're not improving.

  • wannagrababargain on 14/06/2019 - 16:25
    +11

    Ryzen 3000 is available in 3 weeks. The new associated Ryzen boards will also support PCI-E 4.0.If nothing else I would at least wait for that event, even if you weren't going to get a Ryzen it's likely there will be heavy discounts on the Intel side in response.

    Why 2 x SSDs? Seems pointless to waste 2 slots on such low capacity. Just get a 1TB unit to start with, save the second slot to add in another one later when you need more space.

    Those low profile heatsinks are not that much better than OEM heatsink. If going aftermarket heatsink get the biggest one that will fit in your case. Most cases will now specify what the max CPU heatsink height support is.

    You won't suffer terribly with current monitor but some kind of adaptive sync monitor for the future would be a good choice.

    • Fergy1987 on 14/06/2019 - 16:30

      That is a valid point about the SSD's lol - Not sure what I was thinking. I think on paper I wanted to up it to 1gb but just wrote x2 instead haha. Also saves me $40 so that's a win right there

      Yeah I think I might be ditching that CPU Cooler for something better.

      Thank you

      • Antikythera on 17/06/2019 - 16:47

        that case really limits the height of CPU cooler you can fit. that case is probably designed with AIO watercoolers in mind. with 150mm case clearance a Noctua NH-C14 might be your best option for an air cooler, but make sure you check RAM clearance.

    • Diji1 on 14/06/2019 - 17:42

      will also support PCI-E 4.0

      Which doesn't do anything other than allowing people to use PCIe NVMe expansion cards which you probably weren't considering you go on to extol the virtues of using a single SSD.

      • p1 ama on 16/06/2019 - 13:49
        +1

        Which doesn't do anything other than allowing people to use PCIe NVMe expansion cards

        Yes and no. It definitely doesn't matter now, just like people said PCIe 3.0 didn't matter at the time of its release. However, with more and more devices going towards PCIe, at some point, I think the bandwidth becomes important.

        It's not inconceivable that someone will have a GPU, capture card, two NVMe SSD's, for example. Bandwidth will just increase as devices get faster.

        I agree with you that it's not important now, but if you have the option, why wouldn't you go for it.

        • This Guy on 18/06/2019 - 00:20

          I agree with you that it's not important now, but if you have the option, why wouldn't you go for it.

          Because it's not out yet, and the rumors are that it will add atleast ~$30 to $60 to a motherboard (X590 is a more expensive and power hungry chipset, new trace layouts are needed to implement PCIe 4 and some board partners have said they are selling their X590 boards as a premium product (MSI for example)).

          • Zazer on 02/07/2019 - 21:08
            +1

            @This Guy: I know I'm a bit late, but OP doesn't need an X590 motherboard. X570 would do them just fine and mean that they could use PCIE 4.0 in the future.

      • This Guy on 16/06/2019 - 14:57

        OP is only putting in 1TB.

        OP will need further storage in the future for all their games. I would expect PCI-E 4.0 SSDs to become more common in five or so years when
        OP needs more storage and the next big new bus standard comes out.

        Ryzen 3000 is a big deal because AMD is advertising faster cores at the same frequency as intel with lower power use and more cores. And AMD said they will charge significantly less for all this. PCI-E 4.0 is a bonus, not the point.

        These claims are feasible because AMD have separated the I/O from the CPU, meaning the the parts produced on a leading edge process are tiny and cheap. The changes to cache configurations support their claims.

        However, it is all marketing fluff so far, hence everyone is saying wait. The NDA breaks on the 7/7. It is fairly safe to say, wait 3 weeks. The only foreseeable outcomes of waiting are save money, get more for the same money or buy something overpowered because marketing.

  • DarthAntz on 14/06/2019 - 16:40
    +7

    sounds like you'll be browsing ozbargain on a $3000 PC soon.

    You dont need to spend that much money to be capable of gaming satisfaction.
    16gig of ram is enough.
    get 1 m.2. drive for windows and a few games, then a SSD for bigger storage. Even a HDD for media.
    120mm aio cooler for the cpu.
    2070 will be enough. the refresh super might be worth it too. You can also find a 1080ti second hand for a good price.

    i recently bought the nzxt h500 case and its really nice.

    as above, wait for ryzen 3. Aim to save $1000 from the advice here and elsewhere.

    • This Guy on 16/06/2019 - 15:07
      -5

      I disagree with your RAM advice. 32GB RAM is a good amount for a new enthusiast build. Web browsers chew though RAM worse than windows at the moment.

      • macrocephalic on 16/06/2019 - 16:51
        +7

        More ram is usually better, however I haven't found I needed more than 16gb yet. Browsers can chew a bit, but it's rare for them to chew more than 4gb still. If you have an NVMe drive then swapping to memory isn't so bad; not like in the old days where swapping to a spinning disk ruined your PC performance.

        • This Guy on 17/06/2019 - 14:57
          +1

          Affordable NVMe drives use three level NAND (TLC)(Whole article), which means they use 8 different voltage levels per cell. They are not suitable for caching/a page file as they have a low endurance.

          Yes, they may be rated for 2TB/day write, but that is for a complete re-writes of the drive. When used as a boot drive and a cache, only a small section of the drive will suffer very high wear. I have had a MLC SSD boot drive fail in just over three years from this use case (16GB RAM, page file and 1TB MLC SSD).

          OP selected a TLC SSD, but there are also now 4 level SSDs (QLC) M.2 SSDs which would be even less apropriate to cache on.

          edit (I missed half of your comment, sorry):

          Caching off a HDD wrecked performance but did not kill the HDD.

          And I have seen both Chrome and Firefox hit silly numbers when I have left a few Youtube videos in the background and opened a new window to browse.

      • DarthAntz on 17/06/2019 - 10:44
        +2

        I read the rest of your comments on here and I'll have to agree with you. Its 2019. 16gig of ram was sufficient for a long time. Plus the price of RAM, and 32gig kits are getting better every deal.

      • frewer on 17/06/2019 - 20:23

        With RAM, if you turn off most of the fancy look features of window it will save a lot of RAM

        • This Guy on 18/06/2019 - 00:13

          Windows 10 currently only uses ~2GB

          Even then, OP is spending $1000 on a GPU. They shouldn't need to turn any settings down.

          • frewer on 18/06/2019 - 18:48
            +1

            @This Guy: I guess, because Im on win7 and using mixed of RAM. Before I did that, the OS often says it run out of ram.

      • sghetti on 18/06/2019 - 09:20
        +1

        32gb of RAM is overkill in the majority of use cases. You'd need a very specific use case to need any more than 16gb. Those use cases do not include gaming.

        • This Guy on 18/06/2019 - 11:30

          Most games use 8 to 11GB RAM. If OP wants to leave chrome running they will be caching to a TLC SSD. Which is a bad idea.

  • Axelstrife on 14/06/2019 - 16:53
    +9

    Seriously mate wait for ryzen 3000, you are picking the worst time possible to build a PC.

    The way it currently stands AMD's latest Ryzen 3000 looks to match or beat intels best CPU's they have out right now.
    In Cinebench R20 the Ryzen 3600 beats the 9600k in single core
    while this just a benchmark, it's shows just how far Ryzen has come and warrents wating for gaming comparison's before buying so close to it's release.

    AMD's GPU's are still very much meh and not worth considering.

  • MagicMushroom on 14/06/2019 - 17:34

    Looks like you don't care much about price?

    • Fergy1987 on 14/06/2019 - 17:39
      -2

      I've basically gone balls deep as to what I'd pay but would definitely drop things out if not worth it

  • theHMASfriendship on 14/06/2019 - 18:27
    +1

    Wait for ryzen, even if you end up going intel. Might be some price drops to compete.

    And get a 1tb nvme drive.

  • dny on 14/06/2019 - 21:52

    wait for the enthusiasts to get on board the Ryzen 3000 train and then pickup a current intel build for a bargain

    Also have you considered one of TechFast's deals?

  • The mikky on 14/06/2019 - 22:00
    +1

    32gb ram on an i5 for gaming is overkill 16gb more than plenty

    • This Guy on 16/06/2019 - 15:09
      +3

      That i5 is 6 core and is feeding a RTX2080. 32GB RAM is right.

      • The mikky on 16/06/2019 - 19:36

        Not for gaming.

        • This Guy on 17/06/2019 - 00:28

          32GB will improve frame rates by ~5% at 1440p with a 2080 Ti in many titles. There is about a 10% difference between a RTX 2070 and RTX 2080 at 1440p for ~ $300 difference (2070: $799, 2080: $1099). A 5% improvement in FPS for ~$160 is a similar FPS/$ as paying extra for a 2080 over a 2070.

          Many games are already using 11GB while running. Add a few mods and you can easily push 20GB. And OP wants to run off a TLC SSD, which die quickly when cached with a page file.

          Then there are background tasks. It is not unusual for a web browser to chew 6-10GB. It's nice to be able to leave your web browser open while gaming.

          And there are current trends. Many people now watch videos while gaming as most games are now skinner boxes and many popular videos are lower budget, influencer created.

          • selphie on 18/06/2019 - 01:43

            @This Guy: From your first link, 32GB RAM had almost no advantage vs 16GB except for Hitman 2 at 1440p? In fact 8GB is still doing well comparatively on all games, which is a bit of a surprise.

            Most games barely use 10GB RAM. By mods I assume you mean texture mods, they use GPU memory, not system RAM.
            For average users who browse and game, 16 GB today is still more than enough; you'll barely ever reach the RAM ceiling unless running professional modelling/photo-editing apps.

            • This Guy on 18/06/2019 - 12:06

              @selphie: You are right.

              I thought that page benchmarked Ashes of the Singularity, Civ 6 and Just Cause 3, showing 4% to 7% increases at 1440 ultra settings (no AA) on a 2080 Ti. I can't find that page now. I must have dreamed it.

              Different developers handle mods in different ways. All I know is that I have more than doubled the system RAM use in multiple games using mods. I have had my computer hang while loading heavily modded games with the bottleneck appearing to be system RAM.

              You don't reach the 'RAM ceiling' as windows caches (swaps) RAM with your boot drive or SSD.

              But since I dreamt up benchmarks last night, take my words with a grain of salt.

        • AlienC on 18/06/2019 - 08:48
          +1

          It is not the gaming performance you have to worry about it is the everything else background multi tasking.

          I game on a 1050 Ti / i7-2600 / 32gb ddr3 and even though I don't really push my gaming performance much I multi task a lot in the background and can have easily 3 to 5 apps working in the background and that is when the extra ram helps to stop things crashing or programs slowing down fighting for limited ram space.

          I assume OP won't just be doing one thing at a time and possibly even experimenting with many things from streaming to hosting to possibly editing.

          16gb should be the minimum now for modern gaming.

          32gb is a bit overkill honestly somewhere around 20gb is ideal for the time being but getting sticks in the configuration is another questionable headache so OP probably just went for simple 32gb like I did.

          I remember trying to squeeze so much life out of my 4gb ram laptop and it was a pain never again no point building a new pc with the potential for running out of ram again.

          • The mikky on 18/06/2019 - 12:37

            @AlienC: True, but it’s much more cost effective to simply buy 16gb now, see if you are hitting the limits with multi tasking, then add another 16gb. That way if you don’t need it, you aren’t wasting money on a component you aren’t using.

            • Kill Joy on 18/06/2019 - 14:02

              @The mikky: But often RAM works best on dual channel configurations (multiple of 2 sticks), so buying 1 stick of 16GB RAM is often much slower then running 2x8GB sticks of ram due to the nature of DDR ram. So probably best just to get 2x of whatever you need straight up.

              • The mikky on 18/06/2019 - 15:49

                @Kill Joy: 4 slots, so run 4 X 8

                • Kill Joy on 18/06/2019 - 16:02

                  @The mikky: I thought you were implying they get 1x16GB stick, 2x8GB does make the most sense performance and cost wise.

  • p1 ama on 14/06/2019 - 22:43

    You're spending close enough to this - might as well put in the difference and get a much better system.

    PCPartPicker Part List: https://au.pcpartpicker.com/list/Hjmgkd

    CPU: Intel - Core i7-9700KF 3.6 GHz 8-Core Processor ($589.00 @ Mwave Australia)
    CPU Cooler: Cooler Master - Hyper 212 RGB Black Edition 57.3 CFM CPU Cooler ($57.00 @ Shopping Express)
    Motherboard: ASRock - Z390 Pro4 ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($172.00 @ Shopping Express)
    Memory: G.Skill - Ripjaws 4 Series 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3000 Memory ($116.60 @ Newegg Australia)
    Storage: Crucial - P1 1 TB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($149.00 @ Shopping Express)
    Video Card: Gigabyte - GeForce RTX 2080 Ti 11 GB GAMING OC Video Card ($1599.00 @ Mwave Australia)
    Case: NZXT - S340 Elite ATX Mid Tower Case ($141.10 @ Umart)
    Power Supply: EVGA - SuperNOVA G1+ 650 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply ($135.00 @ Shopping Express)
    Total: $2958.70
    Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
    Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-06-14 22:43 AEST+1000

    • Axelstrife on 15/06/2019 - 08:53
      -5

      "Ripjaws 4 Series 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3000 Memory"

      Almost 3k and only CL15 3000mhz ram, terrible decision imo. Absolute minimum of 3200mhz expecially as he's going for high fps gaming with that 144hz he's planning to buy.

      • p1 ama on 15/06/2019 - 11:16
        +2

        No chance 3200 MHz and 3000 MHz makes any difference. Try for yourself.

        • Axelstrife on 15/06/2019 - 12:07
          -6

          Umm i have i run CL14 3200mhz, maybe you should try yourself of check out the maybe videos on youtube showing the clear difference.

          • p1 ama on 15/06/2019 - 13:27
            +1

            @Axelstrife: Well you must feel pretty silly for wasting your money!

            • Axelstrife on 15/06/2019 - 13:34
              -2

              @p1 ama:

              1. I bought my ram used cheaper than any new one cost.
              2. I get higher FPS with CL14 3200 over what cl15 3000mhz would give me.

              Silly? Not at all, though you look extremely silly with what you are saying.

              • p1 ama on 15/06/2019 - 14:03
                -2

                @Axelstrife: Alright, you take your 200 MHz epeen extension, I'll spend the difference on things that make a real difference.

                • Axelstrife on 15/06/2019 - 14:47
                  -2

                  @p1 ama: Clearly you know fk all about computers going by that response.

              • The mikky on 15/06/2019 - 17:16

                @Axelstrife: Exactly how many frames ? The increase would be minimal if at all.

                You would only see a difference if the CPU is getting fully flogged, gaming does not do that. So no real point.

      • This Guy on 16/06/2019 - 15:29
        +1

        RAM speed makes a difference to FPS WHEN THE RAM IS FEEDING THE GPU.

        Part of the reason we moved to DX11 was to reduce call times (the CPU work on each frame) reducing the bottleneck of RAM and CPU for frame rates.

        OP is using a discrete GPU with it's own RAM. A 200mHz increase to system RAM speeds is a waste of money.

        If OP wants to waste money, OP should focus on lower timings as intel is slowly kill off all of their branch predictor tech (due to vulnerabilities) making RAM latency the most important, non important metric (size is really the only thing that matters in intel systems currently).

        Feel free to prove me wrong :-p

        • AlienC on 18/06/2019 - 08:49

          ^ This Guy

    • Antikythera on 17/06/2019 - 02:04

      +1 for an EVGA power supply instead of the Seasonic in the OPs build, but the G1 models weren't great. Aim to get a G2 or G3 version. https://au.pcpartpicker.com/product/MfJwrH/evga-power-supply… for example is excellent quality with a 10 year warranty for $175

      750w PSU is likely overkill but the EVGA G2 650w / 550w models weren't sold much in Australia.

      Also tend to agree to wait if possible and see how the 3rd Generation Ryzen turn out.

  • dcep on 15/06/2019 - 14:49

    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/462921

    2080 Ti build for $2,249

  • N1NJ4W4RR10R on 15/06/2019 - 21:36
    +2

    I'd advise waiting the 3 weeks for the ryzen 3000 series launch. The 3600 should perform better (I believe it's near/straight equivalent to the 8700k) for $50~ more.

    Grab an MSI b450 tomahawk to go with it. You'll need to flash the bios, but I believe you can just do it bia USB on the MSI mobos.

    Do you need that much RAM?

    A bigger cooler from Noctua may be better (assuming not a sff case, haven't looked at it). The nh-u14s would be a good option.

    I wouldn't buy a proper key for windows. Ebay has $10 - $20 keys. But that's up to you.

    Edit - I think a 1tb drive, either that one or the 860 from Samsung, should cost less. But not sure on that.

    • Fergy1987 on 16/06/2019 - 07:21

      Yeah i am not even sure how the licensing for Windows works these days.
      I have a legit copy of it on my pc now but I assume you can't just keep using that key on multiple machines.

      Don't really know anything about the eBay keys. Do you just download Windows for free from Microsoft as like a trial version and then buy the key to activate it?

      • N1NJ4W4RR10R on 16/06/2019 - 09:42

        You might be. Not sure how it works to well to be honest so it might be worth looking into it.

        On the ebay licenses, it's the same as a normal windows installation.
        YouTube should have plenty of how tos for it. You'd need your own usb though.

      • Menzoberranzan on 18/06/2019 - 12:35

        Windows is linked to your Microsoft Account now so setting up on a new PC is a breeze.

        If you don't have W10 already, the ebay way works perfectly. When I did my build last year I bought a genuine W7 Pro key for a few dollars. Microsoft still seems to be giving a free corresponding upgrade to W10 so I ended up with a W10 Pro. Simple, cheap as chips, and all authentic. Updates are all up to date and install with no issues.

        • Fergy1987 on 18/06/2019 - 13:36

          So if I've got W10 on my current PC, I can just sign into my Microsoft account and get it on the new PC too?

          • Menzoberranzan on 19/06/2019 - 21:03

            @Fergy1987: Sounds about right to me. The old fear of hardware-linking isn't that valid these days anymore

    • This Guy on 16/06/2019 - 15:37
      +1

      Don't buy a last gen motherboard for a next Gen CPU unless the reviews say the new chip set is a waste of money.

      Many AMD motherboards need a supported CPU in the socket to update the BIOS, meaning OP might need to buy a cheap current gen CPU to able to update it (reducing any cost saving).

      Many AM4 motherboards are also said to not be getting updates for Ryzen 3000.

      AMD's board partners are said to be releasing 70 motherboards at launch.

      Wait, then design a new build in 3-4 weeks.

      • N1NJ4W4RR10R on 16/06/2019 - 17:58

        I believe some of MSIs boards have the ability to update the bios via USB. Tomahawk being an example (I think)

    • macrocephalic on 16/06/2019 - 20:55
      +1

      Agree on the windows key. I have used the cheap ones on multiple PC's and never had any issue. Even if it did stop working, windows 10 works fine without a key, and you can just buy another $10 key again. You'd have to do that 10+ times before a RRP key starts to look attractive.

  • peteru on 16/06/2019 - 01:50

    Upgrade to Z390 and i7-9700K. Stick with 32GB RAM. Go one large NVME SSD, like HP EX950, instead of two smaller ones.

    You don't want to be replacing the system at Christmas time because you skimped on the core components.

    I personally would not buy Windows and stick with Linux for my needs, but if your requirements dictate Windows 10, go Pro, not Home. More scope for using it for interesting stuff if you ever want to do more than play your five favourite games.

  • azndraon on 16/06/2019 - 14:11

    go for 1440p 144hz if you can, changes your life

  • AEKaBeer on 16/06/2019 - 15:15

    Wait the 3 weeks, the 3600 non-x looks to be on par with the 9600K for most games and having the extra 6 threads via SMT will absolutely help for games that support hyperthreading. From a non gaming high thread count work loads, the 12 threads will put it around the same performance as the 9700K.

    For that class of CPU I probably wouldn't bother with an X570 board but it depends on how much a lower end one costs I guess.

  • ribze1 on 16/06/2019 - 16:02

    Sorry to hijack but thought a good time to ask with so many PC experts in here for your thoughts on whether i should bite the bullet and upgrade at the end of the year.

    My computer is 4.5 years old and going strong still hence don't really want to upgrade as i don't really game anymore. Occasionally i'll play BF4.

    I have two issues:

    1. My 250gb SSD is almost full, i use my 2 x 1TB HDD for storage
    2. I have windows 7 which will no longer be supported from 1 Jan 2020

    Current specs:
    Intel Core i5 4690 @ 3.50GHz
    4GB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
    ASUS H97-PRO (SOCKET 1150)
    12GB DDR3 @ 665MHz
    250GB Samsung 840 EVO
    2 x 1TB HDDs
    750w PSU
    24" Samsung monitor

    • conan2000 on 16/06/2019 - 17:26
      +1

      What do you generally do with the machine? I have the same processor with 16Gb RAM, but an older graphics card (GTX 760) and there doesn't appear to be much point in upgrading other than the graphics card for me. I do a bit of gaming, and photoshop/lightroom, which are the only things that would push my machine. Just move to a supported OS when Windows 7 goes out of support, and buy yourself some new hard drives. I have a 1Tb Samsung NVMe drive in mine.

      • ribze1 on 16/06/2019 - 19:48

        General internet activities, i watch movies and tv shows on it etc. Wife uses it for some revit/autocad work from time to time, doesn't have any issues dealing with that.

        Thanks for the response.

    • IceCreamBandit on 16/06/2019 - 17:31
      +1

      I have windows 7 which will no longer be supported from 1 Jan 2020

      Get the free upgrade to Windows 10. Many claim it is still possible

      I also agree with conan2000 and have a similar build. I see no need for an upgrade except for a GPU in the next year or two.

      • ribze1 on 16/06/2019 - 19:48

        Awesome, will give this a go.

    • EnALup on 16/06/2019 - 19:23

      BF4 should be fine with that spec. Had exact same specs and upgraded in Jan to have better play for BFV. ( I upgraded my win 7 free to win 10 last year)
      BFV was bottle necking i5 CPU.
      Upgraded to Ryzen 2700x with same GPU, 500 GB NVM SSD, 16 GB RAM. I am getting over 60 fps on hull HD for BFV. Though when the game starts, it is down to 20 fps and gains back after 5-10 seconds.

      CPU load is mostly less than 60% with GPU maxing over 95%. Once GPU prices are settled down, I will upgrade with it with team red, to benefit from Free sync and a better 27" or over monitor.

      • ribze1 on 16/06/2019 - 19:49
        +1

        Cheers

    • Antikythera on 17/06/2019 - 02:16

      odd to have 12GB of RAM. do you have 2x4GB and 2x2GB? if so, and you feel like you want more RAM, look to replace the 2x2GB with matching 2x4GB to your existing 2x4GB sticks. though dont spend too much money on that. any DDR3 you buy will not be usable in a new system.

      have a look at the 1TB SSD for ~$160 https://au.pcpartpicker.com/product/vRWfrH/samsung-860-qvo-1…

      it is not quite as fast as a new NVMe M.2 SSD you would want if you bought a new motherboard that supported that faster interface. but is well matched with your current system. i bought one for my file server's OS drive and run it with 2x 10TB HDD.

      • ribze1 on 18/06/2019 - 19:44

        Yeah i know, i added 2x4gb to my existing 2x2gb from old build (same speed) as you alluded to :P

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join