trzasku

None of them - wait for the 40 series at this point. 

I agree. 
Since the MSI is a mid tier card the difference between it and the premium Strix 3090 would be about 5 frames at 4k. So for that price I would go with the Strix. 
 
The Strix 3080 ti is a nice card and at 3440 X 1440 it will last longer than it would at 4k. My only grip with it is that it does not come in white.
The Strix 3090.
The difference in frames with the Stix 3080ti is probably close to zero but I like having the vram. 
If Normal is selected in the power management mode in the Nvidia control panel the fans do not come on until the GPU hits about 56 to 60c. If Prefer Maximum Performance is selected they will spin all the time. To see the difference you have to reboot the computer.
It is the way with all my 30 series cards.
 
If the GPU are in a hot case the fans will spin.
 
With my 3090 ti that I am using now, the fans only come on while gaming and I can't hear them over the case fans.
This is the setup I use to keep it cool.
 
 
 
 
  
 

Overclocking on modern cards, whether factory OC or "OC headroom" is close to meaningless. The amount you can OC them isn't enough to make a significant performance difference. They're already at their limit. That's why the "factory OC" models tend to have clocks like a whole whopping 30mhz higher. 

Top Build quality, Quiet, OC headroom. Looks good.
Top Build quality, Quiet, no OC headroom. I don't like the looks
Would not buy.
Good Build quality, Quiet, no OC Headroom. Looks good.
I have one.
I would take it over the Tuf but not the Strix. 
Pay more and get a 3090/3090 ti. 
For a 3090 I would only buy a Strix or a Gaming X Trio.
I have 2 MSI 3090s and their vram stays cool since they have heat pipes on the backplate.
 
I sold my Strix 3080 10gb since it did not have enough vram for my modded games. The stuttered in places an crashed in others.

I personally don't buy into the hype of factory OC'd cards. If it were me (and those were my only choices), I'd go with the cheapest Gigabyte RTX 3080 Ti Gaming OC. Not sure where you're located, but Amazon has that listed at $960 in the USA.

Stick with FHD. 4K looks great, but it'll kill battery life and will largely be wasted when you're mostly working with text.
 
I really wish Dell (and other Windows PC vendors, for that matter) had an in-between option like 1440p, although Microsoft's poor resolution scaling is partly to blame for that.

Do you have any possibility to try it for yourself somewhere, somehow?
 
i personally dare to say: 4k.
Simply because you mentionied, how Text is very important.
Even on 13,3 - 14" i can see the benefit in having more than 1080p, since it's still not sharp enough, to "not see ANY pixels at all" (or the "pixel structure"). At least: I personally think, stuff on my Macbook Pro 13" Display looks noticeable better than on a 14" Thinkpad T-series with 1080p.
Plus, Windows doesn't have the very best Font rendering. There's even an App, that changes Windows' Font rendering to make it similar to MacOS (MacType).
FHD will absolutely work. But if you are even remotely sensitive for edges on Fonts, you might probably see a better, cleaner Text on 4k.
 
It's just more expensive, and reduces Batterylife. That's why most prefer FHD. Because it's "good enough"
 
However: I can't possibly know, how you would really percieve it. But i know, from FHD on 15", there is very visiblie room for improvement in terms of Sharpness.

You should copy everything you want to save to safety and format. There are actually a lot of locked files which are pain to remove (you need Linux or safe-mode to do it).
 
Moved to Windows.

Nope. It's just fine. I recommend unplugging all drives that aren't the drive you're actually installing Windows one, so you're sure nothing important accidentally gets installed on one of the other drives.

As long as you set boot priority to the new drive (done in Bios) then you will have no problems. When doing the fresh install on the new SSD I recommend unplugging all other drives, once you OS is loaded you can plug all the old drives back in. 

I mean VRM is a big thing for a high end cpu but something like the MSI B550 tomahawk's VRM can likely handle any cpu you could throw at it

A B550 board would probably be best then, especially since X570 boards' fans can die and make horrible noises.
I will push Asus, simply because I've used Asus things since ever.

I should also touch on VM's. 6 Cores is enough for most VM-hosts, depending on what you need to do from within the VM. Most tasks can use 2 threads in a VM and be buttery smooth.

The question is if the $55 adds that much more value to the system (and solution) as a whole.
 
I reccomended the 5600X and 5800X on the basis that more than 6 Zen3 cores will not add much more value to the system and solution.

Mostly the games. Excel will use mutli-core to some degree, but generally in big slow documents it's not worth it to get more than 4 cores for Excel work. Load and calculate times will be single thread bound 95% of the time (Except in very very specialized cases). It's best to design the spreadsheets to be efficient, rather than throwing expensive CPU's at it.

Most of your uses are single-thread bound. This gears you towards a Zen 3 based CPU. You likely won't see much benefits from the additional cores, unless you're doing really heavy work in Photoshop.
 
My reccomendation would be the Ryzen 5 5600X or Ryzen 7 5800X. Neither Intel nor AMD benefit significantly from overclocking, like the 3770K does. PBO will take care of that for you, on AMD's side. CPU Turbo Boosts has come a long way in the last 7 years.

I suggest waiting until there is stock, never buy from scalpers. But generally speaking, I'd suggest getting the 5800X, when at RRP.

I vote the 5800X as well.

I'd recommend you doing a 2-step upgrade, get a B550 board and the ram and a cheaper CPU for now. I'd argue a Ryzen 3 3100 could be resold in 3-6 months for at least 50-60% of its value and then you can buy a higher end CPU once the resellers have more stock. You'd lose 50 or 60€ in the resell, but you save 200 or 300 from not buying from resellers.

Edit: Get a lower end CPU now and resell in the future when stock stablizies

AMD Ryzen, not Intel for the 5600X/5800X.
AMD is the king now!

if your playing games at 1080p and 1440p then get the 6800 xt
if your playing game at 1800p and above then get a 3080

for whatever reason the 6800 xt doesnt like 4k as much as the 3080 does but at the same time the 6800 xt ends up beating the 3080 in lower resolutions like 1080p and 1440p

another thing, a r5 5600x performs just as well or better than a r7 3700x due to its 20%~ ipc uplift over zen 2 
 
as far as ram goes i personally recommend the G.SKILL Trident Z Neo 16gb (2x8) 3600mhz ram kit if you go the zen 3 route (get either 2x8 or 4x8, but 64gb will be overkill)

and when it comes to ssd's and how well they perform in windows 10 boot times and loading times in games sata ssd's perform exactly the same as m.2 ssd's BUT because you work with bigger files you have a real reason to get a m.2 ssd

and that psu should be okay with a reference 3080, and it will definitely be okay with a 6800 xt

Yes, more recent frames will be displayed on the monitor.
You might not notice much at 150, but play at 300fps on a 60hz monitor and then play at 60fps and you will notice how much more responsive 300fps feels.

you want some headroom so during fights you won't dip below 100hz, it's those moments that matter if you are competitive, I also personally don't like to push my gpu to 100% usage during a long gaming session, so headroom's always good, though you can save money with a 2060, turn everything down to medium, or spend some more for the 2080, avoid the 2070 like the plague (though it's not as bad in apex, in other games it's mostly 10% faster than a 2060 for 40% more.

For ultrawide 1440p 100Hz max settings? Go the RTX 2080. Or just save some money and lower the graphical settings.

This is for 2560x1440, so expect 3440x1440 results to be lower.


 
You might want to buy a console then.

welcome to the internet.....