PCPartPicker

  • Log In
  • Register

Want best bang for buck.

Forum Search

Guidelines

  • Be respectful to others
  • No spam
  • No NSFW content
  • No piracy or key resellers
  • No link shorteners
  • Offensive content will be removed

Topic

Unstoppable305 1 month ago

I'm fairly new to the pc thing and now wanting to build a pc. Just looking for any input that can save a couple dollars or if I'm spot on with either build. I dont stream I only game and also want to get vr soon (i will take opinions on that as well). I have a good budget to spend on the parts. I also already own the psu (evga supernova 1000 g3 gold), the gpu (msi gtx1080ti gaming x trio), and 4k monitor. The rig i am currently on is loaned to me from a friend so that is why I have parts but not the build. Any information is greatly appreciated.

AMD build: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/V6nHmq

Intel build: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/6KHBBb

Comments Sorted by:

kschendel 1 Build 2 points 1 month ago

If you aren't streaming and are gaming focused, I'd put you in an Intel build, but with the 9600K instead to save money (plus having better thermals than the 8700K). More cost effective SSD and 16GB memory instead of 32, as I don't think you need 32GB for gaming. (Not sure about VR as I know little about it.)

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Type Item Price
CPU Intel - Core i5-9600K 3.7 GHz 6-Core Processor $264.89 @ OutletPC
CPU Cooler Reeven - Ouranos 92.4 CFM CPU Cooler $59.37 @ OutletPC
Motherboard Gigabyte - Z390 AORUS ELITE ATX LGA1151 Motherboard $169.99 @ Amazon
Memory Crucial - Ballistix Sport LT 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3000 Memory $87.19 @ Newegg
Storage HP - EX900 500 GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive $78.99 @ Newegg
Storage Western Digital - Black 4 TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive $184.89 @ OutletPC
Case NZXT - H500i (White) ATX Mid Tower Case $99.99 @ Amazon
Operating System Microsoft - Windows 10 Home OEM 64-bit $99.39 @ OutletPC
Case Fan Corsair - LL120RGB LED (Three Fans With Lighting Node PRO) 43.25 CFM 120mm Fans $98.36 @ OutletPC
Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts
Total (before mail-in rebates) $1163.06
Mail-in rebates -$20.00
Total $1143.06
Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-03-23 09:36 EDT-0400

I'm not sure that you need all those extra fans but I left them in.

Unstoppable305 submitter 1 point 29 days ago

As i am being told by people who know a lot more than me or know where to look. i am being told i dont need the fans. I had them as a precaution anyway. I appreciate your time for the reply. I was not ready for everyone in this community to be so helpful. So would you go with the i7 9700K?

kschendel 1 Build 1 point 29 days ago

One thing I missed in my first reply is that you are gaming in 4k, right? 4K gaming is almost entirely GPU limited, and a 1080 Ti will typically manage 60-ish fps depending on game. What refresh rate is your monitor? If you have a 60 Hz monitor, or even 75 Hz, a 9600K is definitely enough, and I'd be inclined to switch my vote to Ryzen since you can get 60-75fps from a 2600X for just about any game:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Type Item Price
CPU AMD - Ryzen 5 2600X 3.6 GHz 6-Core Processor $184.99 @ Newegg
CPU Cooler Thermalright - Macho Rev.B 73.6 CFM CPU Cooler $49.90 @ Amazon
Motherboard Asus - ROG STRIX B450-F GAMING ATX AM4 Motherboard $138.98 @ Newegg
Memory Team - Vulcan 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3000 Memory $84.89 @ OutletPC
Storage HP - EX900 500 GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive $78.99 @ Newegg
Storage Western Digital - Black 4 TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive $184.89 @ OutletPC
Case NZXT - H500i (White) ATX Mid Tower Case $99.99 @ Amazon
Operating System Microsoft - Windows 10 Home OEM 64-bit $99.39 @ OutletPC
Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts
Total (before mail-in rebates) $932.02
Mail-in rebates -$10.00
Total $922.02
Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-03-23 23:21 EDT-0400

You could run this build on the stock cooler, and in fact I'd probably build it stock and see how it goes before buying the 3rd party cooler.

Unstoppable305 submitter 1 point 29 days ago

i dont do all my gaming in 4k but where i can i do. I appreciate the reply.

[comment deleted]
Planemaster 1 point 1 month ago

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Type Item Price
CPU Intel - Core i7-9700K 3.6 GHz 8-Core Processor $419.89 @ B&H
CPU Cooler Cooler Master - MasterLiquid ML240R RGB 66.7 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler $89.99 @ Newegg
Motherboard Gigabyte - Z390 AORUS ELITE ATX LGA1151 Motherboard $169.99 @ Amazon
Memory G.Skill - Ripjaws V Series 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3000 Memory $99.99 @ Newegg
Storage Samsung - 860 Evo 1 TB 2.5" Solid State Drive $147.99 @ Amazon
Storage Toshiba - X300 5 TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive $124.89 @ OutletPC
Video Card MSI - GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 11 GB GAMING X TRIO Video Card Purchased For $0.00
Case NZXT - H500i (White) ATX Mid Tower Case $99.99 @ Amazon
Power Supply EVGA - SuperNOVA G3 1000 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply Purchased For $0.00
Operating System Microsoft - Windows 10 Home OEM 64-bit $99.39 @ OutletPC
Case Fan Corsair - LL120RGB LED (Three Fans With Lighting Node PRO) 43.25 CFM 120mm Fans $98.36 @ OutletPC
Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts
Total (before mail-in rebates) $1380.48
Mail-in rebates -$30.00
Total $1350.48
Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-03-23 09:32 EDT-0400

I'd certainly go for an Intel build seeing as it is better for gaming and VR tends to rely on high refresh rates which are dictated by the speed of the CPU provided the GPU is adequate (and the 1080 Ti definitely is). The 9700K is the obvious choice. Enough cores for multitasking and some wiggle room, fastest single core performance on the market (alongside the 9900K). The 9900K might be an interesting choice but as you are only gaming, the hyperthreading isn't going to be helpful. Versus the 8700K, the 9700K is a better choice as, whilst performance is roughly the same, temps are going to be lower since the IHS is soldered directly on the die whilst the IHS on the 8700K is not soldered on. This means that even with a high end AIO, the 8700K will be prone to overheating unless you delid which brings risks of its own not to mention a breach in warranty.

Cooler is fine

Motherboard should really be a Z390 at this budget as they are built to handle the 9th gen chips. The Aorus line of Motherboards tend to be very good.

For gaming, you don't need 32GB, a lot of games don't even use more than 8GB right now. If you do find yourself running out of RAM then there are more slots for the sticks so it is upgradeable.

M.2. PCI-E drives are not worth the extra money for gaming. To utilise the speeds advertised, you need to be in a workload where you transfer large 10GB+ sized files between 2 separate drives capable of the same speeds. Gaming does not do this, instead it loads lots of smaller, random files to memory and back. The only difference in this regard is the extra cost. For this PC, you might as well get a 1TB SSD for your games as they've definitely come down in price.

The HDD is faster than the average 7200RPM drive but not by much and certainly not enough to notice any meaningful difference. For cheaper, you can actually get a larger HDD which will perform just as well.

Case is fine

Fans are fine but you may only be able to mount 2 of them in the H500i

Unstoppable305 submitter 1 point 29 days ago

Thank you for the reply. Yeah the reason i done an intel build was i was told that for vr they run better so you are the second person to tell me that. And im glad everyone telling me about the m.2 because i had no idea, i had a friend tell me they was faster so i figured it would help. But you have gave me a lot of knowledge thank you for your time. i will be redoing my list.

DanteLovesPizza 1 point 29 days ago

Try this:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Type Item Price
CPU AMD - Ryzen 7 2700X 3.7 GHz 8-Core Processor $289.99 @ Amazon
Motherboard ASRock - X470 Taichi ATX AM4 Motherboard $199.99 @ Amazon
Memory G.Skill - Aegis 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR4-3000 Memory $165.98 @ Newegg
Storage Intel - 660p Series 1 TB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive $114.99 @ B&H
Storage Seagate - Barracuda 2 TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive $59.89 @ OutletPC
Storage Seagate - Barracuda 2 TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive $59.89 @ OutletPC
Case NZXT - H500i (White) ATX Mid Tower Case $99.99 @ Amazon
Operating System Microsoft - Windows 10 Home OEM 64-bit $99.49 @ SuperBiiz
Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts
Total $1090.21
Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-03-23 13:08 EDT-0400
  • I'm taking you have $1500 as your budget based on your Intel build, but this isn't going to cost that much, since you have some parts already.

  • Honestly, at this level, it's AMD. You haven't detailed specifics, but based on what you've said, it's enough. You're gaming on a 4K monitor, and at 4K, you're most likely GPU bound, hence the CPU clock speed isn't going to be a big factor once you hit 100% GPU usage. When clock speed isn't a big factor, AMD, hands down, it's simply better value for money. At 1080p, 1440p, I would ask for more details, like games you played, FPS demand, etc, but at 4K, these don't really matter, and less so when you already have the GPU. If anything, 4K has been where AMD tried to cheat for Ryzen to say it matches Intel's performance, like 2700X hits 60 FPS just like 8700K, etc etc, and of course it does, because when you're GPU bottlenecked, the CPU doesn't matter after a certain point. For VR, not sure which is superior per se, because there's just not enough, but I can't imagine the two being too different. Furthermore, again, you're more likely to be GPU bound. So yeah, my answer is AMD, however, I went with the 2700X, assuming you will play AAA games now and in the future, since games are rapidly demanding more cores and threads now. Another factor to consider is upgrade-ability in case future games become more demanding on the CPU. If you get the 8700K, your only upgrade is the 9900K, and anything beyond that requires a new CPU, motherboard and most likely RAM, because DDR5 should be out at that point. If you get the 2700X, the next two generations of Ryzen will fit on the current motherboard, and providing you have a nice motherboard with good power delivery, like the one I've selected, you only need to replace the CPU, this is far cheaper than the Intel route.

  • If you go AMD, just use the stock coolers that come with them. If you're concerned about the noise, I would still try the stock cooler first, and then if you really want to quiet it down, just get a budget 120mm liquid cooler or a be quiet! Pure Rock, or something. You definitely don't need a 240mm liquid cooler, since it offers no performance gain. If you just want it for the RGB... Okay, that's fair.

  • Motherboard, already mentioned, just a nice motherboard for a nice CPU, and it gives you the option to upgrade the CPU if you need to.

  • Cheaper RAM, 200 MHz slower. $70 difference, there's just no contest. 200 MHz is not worth that money at all because it's not noticeable outside of benchmarks, so I'd save $70 and make do with the 3000 MHz RAM I've selected here.

  • Ditched the 970 EVO, because it's not the value pick. For $25 more, this 660p is a 1 TB compared to the 250 GB. TLC SSDs are officially dead for the masses. 250 GB is clearly a boot drive, yes, the 660p is slightly slower, but at four times the capacity, you can install far more games and programs on this, which will increase the load times on those, which will more than make up for the slightly slower boot up times.

  • Ditched the WD Black. These shouldn't be considered any more. WD Blacks don't offer anything more really, so the extra cost is kind of a waste. I went with two 2 TB HDDs for value, since it's cheaper like this than getting one 4 TB HDD. Yeah, it's an extra wire, but it's like 30% cheaper.

  • I took out the case fans, because they're absolutely unnecessary. Check out your case first. The front isn't clear or mesh, so no RGB is going to show and you won't see it, also, there's a video showing tests of the H500 (non i version) where extra fans don't cool the inside of the case any more at all. Also, you chose a 240mm liquid cooler, which can only mount on the front, since there's no other place to mount it. The only other mounting spots is the top and replacing the rear exhaust fan, which means regardless of the setup, you only need two more fans at most for this case. If you want the RGB, check out Cooler Master's H500, it comes with two 200mm RGB fans on the wrong already and it's about the same price as the H500i.

If you want Intel, at this budget since you have the GPU already, the 9900K is the only way to go:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Type Item Price
CPU Intel - Core i9-9900K 3.6 GHz 8-Core Processor $529.79 @ OutletPC
CPU Cooler Corsair - H115i RGB PLATINUM 97 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler $169.99 @ Amazon
Motherboard Gigabyte - Z390 AORUS PRO ATX LGA1151 Motherboard $179.99 @ Amazon
Memory G.Skill - Aegis 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR4-3000 Memory $165.98 @ Newegg
Storage Intel - 660p Series 1 TB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive $114.99 @ B&H
Storage Seagate - Barracuda 2 TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive $59.89 @ OutletPC
Storage Seagate - Barracuda 2 TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive $59.89 @ OutletPC
Case NZXT - H500i (White) ATX Mid Tower Case $99.99 @ Amazon
Operating System Microsoft - Windows 10 Home OEM 64-bit $99.49 @ SuperBiiz
Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts
Total $1480.00
Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-03-23 13:37 EDT-0400
  • 9900K over the 8700K, just superior in every way.

  • Better cooler for overclocking. Even for the 8700K, if you overclock to near 5.0 GHz, I would get a 280mm liquid cooler, because a 240mm is cutting it thin.

  • Nice Z390 and will let you overclock nicely. Cheaper than the Z370 you chose too.

  • Everything else has been discussed above.

  • All of these are just my opinions for your consideration.

  • Good luck.

Unstoppable305 submitter 1 point 29 days ago

Thank you brotha i very much appreciate your help. Gave me a lot to look into and that i didnt know. I appreciate the time you gave i will be changing my stuff shortly. I play alot of survival games (which optimization is horrible on) but i can run them currently at max settings. I do play games like battlefield, resident evil, destiny, anthem, etc. As i had stated i didnt know much about building a pc so i greatly appreciate your advise.

Unstoppable305 submitter 1 point 29 days ago

What case would you recomend? im looking for white preferably. Also the i9 9900k, is that like way over kill for me? Again i dont know much i just felt it was more of a work horse than what i needed. I am looking to build so i dont have to for a long time or until i get the itch again. But i didnt want to pay for something i would never really use the full potential on.

DanteLovesPizza 1 point 29 days ago

Yeah, games like Battlefield 1 and Battlefield V, they do use up to 12+ threads in multiplayer, so I would definitely go 2700X or 9900K for the best experience.

Cases are very subjective. You can check out Cooler Master's H500P (mesh version), it comes in multiple colour schemes and one of them is white, I think. It comes with RGB fans, has a mesh front for great airflow, sturdy and good quality. It's one of the cases I commonly recommend, since I prefer mesh fronts.

Not at all. If you play AAA games, in 4K, at maximum settings, honestly, the best CPU paired with the best GPU is not overkill in the slightest. The 9900K has more cores and threads, so if you're looking to build now to last you the longest time without upgrading the CPU or replacing the whole system, I would definitely go 9900K if you have the budget.

I always say this, two years ago before Ryzen first generation came out, the regular consumer CPUs were only 4 cores, 8 threads, and that was the situation for many years, hence most games didn't use that many threads. Two years later, we're using 12+ threads in gaming. Not a lot of them do, but they exist and it's becoming more common, and it shows you that games very quickly keep up with technology development. This will only develop more and more rapidly and if the rumour that Ryzen third generation is making 6 cores, 12 threads their entry level CPU, this will grow even further in the next two years, as Intel is developing a 10 core, 20 thread CPU. Competition between AMD and Intel is bringing rapid development in CPU technology, and the games are just quickly adapting to that. Get more now, it will simply last you longer.

Now, lacking threads when they're needed doesn't make games unplayable, it's just not as smooth because frame pacing is less consistent. An 8350K overclocked to 5.0 GHz vs 9900K overclocked to 5.0 GHz playing Shadow of the Tomb Raider, same clock speed, different experience. Even a 2600, which only has an all-core boost of 3.7 GHz will be smoother than the 8350K, despite having lower FPS, because it simply delivers more consistent frames.

I've rambled on enough, it's just my opinion on this.

Unstoppable305 submitter 1 point 28 days ago

You have no idea how much i appreciate your help and taking the time to write back. I have made adjustments and will look into the case you told me about. If i spend this kind of money i dont want to regret it, you know.

DanteLovesPizza 1 point 28 days ago

No problem, I'm just pitching my opinion forward.

Good luck and have fun with the building.

Planemaster 1 point 29 days ago

Why not go for a cheaper 9th gen chip? The 9900K won't be faster than a 9700K when gaming. On top of thay, 32GB of RAM will probably not be used in most, if not all games. Only reason I say this is that OP may end up spending money on unecesssary psrts where he could be saving money.

DanteLovesPizza 1 point 28 days ago

It's simple, the submitter already described they want to use it for as long as possible without upgrading. 8 cores, 8 threads is fine now for most games and playing games that requires 12+ threads, lacking 4+ threads isn't bad, sure. Two years down the line, when games need 16 threads, the 9700K will lack 8 threads making it a lot worse, while the 9900K is still very relevant. Another year or two, even if games need beyond 16 threads, the 9900K isn't severely lacking, but the 9700K is. You might argue that won't be the case, but there are games that use more than 12 threads already. I believe Black Ops 4 actually uses up to 15, and that's a recent game, so if there's any indication from that, I wouldn't save $100 now to upgrade years earlier. It's cheaper upfront, but when you divide if across the number of years you can use it before it needs upgrading, it's actually more expensive. Nonetheless, my suggestion is actually on the 2700X for 4K gaming anyway. 4K is far more likely to be GPU bound than CPU bound, so there's no point getting a faster CPU. I know the submitter doesn't want to upgrade for as long as possible, but the option to a third generation and fourth generation Ryzen is open too. This shouldn't be necessary since the next two generations won't see revolutionary development, but it is an option, that's all. 9900K is hard stuck, there's no upgrade from it without replacing half the system. Either way, my suggestion is an 8 core, 16 thread CPU if they want longevity.

32 GB of RAM was what they chose initially. It's not necessary for regular gaming, but I'm not sure if it's necessary for VR. Like I said, there's just not enough about VR for me to make that judgement and VR development isn't making much progress. Anything I read whether VR demands more RAM are basically single opinions from users, with absolutely no details, so I figured if 32 GB was chosen, the budget's there, there's no harm to it. I mean, sure, they can go 16 GB now and if VR does require more, then add another 16 GB, that's certainly an option, and if this was suggested, I would not oppose it at all. I just went along with what was chosen.

Planemaster 2 points 28 days ago

Regarding CPU's, games can use more cores and sure, Battlefield V does use 12 threads. However, it doesn't use 12 threads efficiently as seen in these benchmarks here between the 9700K and the 9900K and even the 9600K. This means that at this stage in CPU development, there is a limit on the number of threads a game can use efficiently and then it gets to a point where they use the extra threads, but in a way that is extremely inefficient.

There's a simple answer for this and it's that games rely heavily on the parallelisation of threads within the CPU. Parallelisation requires each task to be finished simultaneously and in synthetic workloads where the instructions are predictable, this is easy where we can get tasks to finish at the same time and move on in parallel. Games are not predictable workloads, unlike rendering, as each instruction/calculation is almost randomised due to in game events not being executed in uniformity.

The only way CPU's are going to become better at parallelisation is for the individual cores to become faster as well as improving latencies between cores, particularly in Ryzen chips as they utilise a CCX design which is cheaper than the single one Intel uses.

Point is that games can theoretically use more threads but with current CPU technology, it's pointless and inefficient granting minuscule gains or even performance decreases in scenarios where the attempt at parallelisation fails. This means that using a 9900K for "future proofing" scenarios in games is simply a waste of money if that is all you are doing.

DanteLovesPizza 1 point 28 days ago

Efficiency improvement is just a matter of time. The fact that it uses it already tells you games development companies are working towards that goal, and that's where longevity kicks in. Buy 8 threads now, sure, it's enough, it's fine, but look onto games utilising 16 threads in the future, and you only have half available. It may not be the best, but it helps, and it will give the system extra lifetime.

Put it like this and I've described this above. Look at two years ago just before Ryzen launched. The best consumer i7 CPU was the 7700K, 4 cores, 8 threads. Most games didn't even use that many threads, you were looking at six threads being used at the very most for most games. At that time, if you wanted to game, you didn't have the buy the 7700K, you can buy the 7600K, a 4 core, 4 thread CPU and it was enough, you could play games really well on it. Two years later, the 7700K is still somewhat relevant, but look at the 7600K. I would love to know how many people even use a 7600K for modern AAA games today, and this is only a two year old CPU. I don't even need to play Shadow of the Tomb Raider on both CPUs to know the game runs far smoother on the 7700K than the 7600K, because the lack of threads will just ruin the frame pacing on the 7600K. While the 7700K doesn't need an immediate upgrade to play modern AAA games, the 7600K most certainly does. The 9900K vs the 9700K is likely going to end up in the same situation judging by the current progress. The 7700K was also about $100 more than the 7600K. Buy enough just for now, upgrade far sooner. If people knew the market would be like this now, two years ago, no one would've bought the 7600K for gaming, that's for sure, or maybe you would? I don't know. But it's precisely the reason I suggest the 9900K over the 9700K. Regardless of what it's like in two years from now, the 9900K is definitely going to be relevant, the 9700K is taking a risk that it may be obsolete like the 7600K by saving $100. Or are you certain that the 9700K won't be in the same position two years later as the 7600K is now? If you are certain, based on what are you so certain? If you're not certain, then would you really save $100 on a $1500 setup to risk that? I'm frugal as it is, but this is a risk I wouldn't take. Again, this is just my personal take and personal opinion on the situation.

Planemaster 2 points 28 days ago

The state of the 7600K/7700K on its release and how it has aged will be very different compared to what will become of the 9700K/9900K. The reason that the 7600K and 7700K haven't aged well is because, as you said, games are using more threads. However, the story with the 9700K will be very different as with current technology, parallelisation takes a big performance hit when we throw 6 or more threads at it. In the future, this won't be a problem as the CPU's developed then will be fast enough to negate cut off point and increase the number of threads which can compute in parallel efficiently.

Let me put that straight, in the future, games will use more threads but only in the CPU's which can actually utilise all those threads, for example, CPU's which are extremely good at executing instructions at the exact same times. The CPU's that we have today won't be able to do that. The only reason this didn't happen with the 7700K and 7600K is because they hadn't hit that parallelisation whilst AMD have forced Intel to push chips that have already extended beyond this limit so the top end chips are beyond anything games will ever use.

I know where you are coming from in the sense of future proofing but in reality, due to the rapid multi core enhancements we are getting from Intel and AMD's competition, the rules aren't the same as when we had marginal CPU improvements.

Unstoppable305 submitter 1 point 28 days ago

the 32gb was what a friend told me to get. I do not need it i understand from everyone