add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

First build, advice/suggestions welcome!

brazyjosh

7 months ago

Hello everyone, This is my first ever time building a PC and I would like some feedback on my build. I would like to run AAA games and multiplayer games like Overwatch, Apex and Rainbow 6 on high to ultra high settings (1440p 144hz). I don't plan on overclocking with this build, and I plan on focusing mostly on gaming with very light Photoshop and Microsoft Office use. Any suggestions are appreciated!

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Type Item Price
CPU AMD - Ryzen 7 2700X 3.7 GHz 8-Core Processor $294.99 @ Amazon
Motherboard MSI - B450 TOMAHAWK ATX AM4 Motherboard $114.88 @ OutletPC
Memory G.Skill - Trident Z RGB 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3200 Memory $125.98 @ Newegg
Storage Crucial - MX500 500 GB 2.5" Solid State Drive $62.95 @ Amazon
Storage Seagate - Barracuda 2 TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive $59.78 @ OutletPC
Video Card Asus - GeForce RTX 2080 8 GB ROG Strix Gaming OC Video Card $769.99 @ Newegg
Case Fractal Design - Meshify C White TG ATX Mid Tower Case $89.98 @ Amazon
Power Supply EVGA - SuperNOVA G3 550 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply $85.56 @ OutletPC
Wireless Network Adapter Gigabyte - GC-WB867D-I PCI-Express x1 802.11a/b/g/n/ac Wi-Fi Adapter $35.90 @ OutletPC
Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts
Total (before mail-in rebates) $1710.01
Mail-in rebates -$70.00
Total $1640.01
Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-04-18 03:36 EDT-0400

Comments

  • 7 months ago
  • 2 points

Keep in mind that 144 FPS at 1440p is more demanding than 60 FPS at 4K, which already demands a 2080 Ti, so a 2080 won't cut it for all games, especially modern games at ultra/max settings. Furthermore, for modern AAA games, using a Ryzen 2700X, I wouldn't look past 100 FPS - 120 FPS depending on the game. I'm saying this so you have this in mind. If you want 144 FPS (or the maximum FPS) at 1440p, you shouldn't look at anything short of a 9900K + a 2080 Ti, and budget out a minimum of $2500. Yes, FPS is expensive.

On this build though, if this is your maximum budget, Ryzen is definitely the better value choice, and I would suggest a few tweaks like this for more value:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Type Item Price
CPU AMD - Ryzen 7 2700X 3.7 GHz 8-Core Processor $294.99 @ Amazon
Motherboard Asus - Prime X470-Pro ATX AM4 Motherboard $149.99 @ Amazon
Memory Team - T-Force Delta RGB 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3200 Memory $99.99 @ Newegg
Storage Intel - 660p Series 512 GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive $65.89 @ OutletPC
Storage Seagate - Barracuda 2 TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive $59.78 @ OutletPC
Video Card Asus - GeForce RTX 2080 8 GB ROG Strix Gaming OC Video Card $769.99 @ Newegg
Case Fractal Design - Meshify C White TG ATX Mid Tower Case $89.98 @ Amazon
Power Supply SeaSonic - FOCUS Plus Gold 550 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply $50.98 @ Newegg
Wireless Network Adapter Gigabyte - GC-WB867D-I PCI-Express x1 802.11a/b/g/n/ac Wi-Fi Adapter $35.90 @ OutletPC
Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts
Total (before mail-in rebates) $1672.49
Mail-in rebates -$55.00
Total $1617.49
Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-04-18 05:47 EDT-0400
  • I would get a better motherboard for a 2700X than the one you've chosen. Not compulsory, but it will feel nicer. Just a suggestion.

  • Same performance, but cheaper, RAM. Unless you absolutely want the Trident Z for looks, these will be just fine and you're saving $25. There are 3000 MHz variants of these, they're only going for $85, so you can save another $15, which I actually think is worth it, because 200 MHz isn't a noticeable difference, you won't know the difference outside of benchmarks and side by side comparisons, but I chose the 3200 MHz in case you absolutely want this speed.

  • Forget about the MX500. Yes, they're great, but they've been superseded now. 660p, $3 more, 12 GB more capacity, but this is an NVMe SSD. Just more value overall.

  • Swapped to a cheaper PSU that is equally as good. I think this PSU is probably one of the best buys right now with and without the mail-in rebate, so there's no contest, just get this one.

  • Slightly cheaper overall, no loss in performance, better motherboard and faster SSD.

  • Just my opinion.

  • 7 months ago
  • 2 points

Nothing wrong with a 450 motherboard and personally I would avoid the 660p M.2 drive and stick with a better brand. It starts out faster yes but slows down as it fills and running benchmarks they have made it run slower than a regular hard drive.

For pure gaming I would get the i5 9600K,

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

Did I say there was anything wrong with a B450?

All SSDs slow down if you fill it up too much. SSDs should never be filled above 80% as a general rule of thumb, so I'm not sure what you're getting at unless you're saying these slow down significantly and become slower than the TLC SSDs after 50% has been filled.

I wouldn't. It's stated that the intention is to play AAA games which a good handful use more than 12+ threads. A 6 thread CPU is just simply not recommended. For example, Battlefield V, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Assassin's Creed Odyssey, Black Ops 4, etc, they all use 12+ threads.

  • 7 months ago
  • 2 points

That is not true look at the benchmarks even the i5 8400 beats ALL AMD processors.

If you using 12 cores and the first 4 are at 80% and the other 8 are at 10% that is using all cores I guess but still getting out performed by a 6 core Intel.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1754-battlefield-5-cpu-multiplayer-bench/

For the drive the SLC cach gets smaller and smaller as it fills up.

And I said running benchmarks it has slowed lowed down to a regular hard drive speed not a SATA SSD speed.

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

Benchmarks don't tell the whole story. You don't get it, do you? Not once did I say Ryzen was faster. Threads don't improve FPS numbers, threads bring frame delivery consistency, reducing micro stutter, and this can only be experienced, not just represented by a number. If you make this kind of argument, check the benchmarks for 8350K, overclock it to 5.0 GHz and the FPS is high, but it doesn't mean it plays games like Battlefield V and Black Ops 4 nearly as smooth as a 2600X when it boils down to actual gameplay. To represent gaming as a whole with FPS is misleading. This is the perfect example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIjvrPTU58c

"Oh look, 8350K actually delivers higher FPS, so everyone, if you got the 8600K for $100+ more or the 8700K for $200+ more, you wasted your money."

Yeah, no, it doesn't work like that for gaming. FPS is not everything.

You try to use benchmarks way too much and misinterpreting a lot of the behind the scene details. Benchmarks are meant to be a guidance, they're not meant to be, "it proves this." Saying something like 9600K gives more FPS is entirely different to saying 9600K is simply better for gaming, because you're trying to directly link more FPS = better, when that is not always the case.

Honestly, you can disagree with what I say, but leave it in a separate comment for the submitter to read. There's no need to reply to my comments. We've been through this in another post, and I don't intend to respond further, because you clearly favour Intel with bias.

[comment deleted by staff]

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube