ac88

I can't find the video where I saw a comparison. The Asus strix is supposed to be tied with the evga cooler.
What you might consider though is the evga hybrid.
 
But based on the link melete dropped. The MSI card is a killer. Might go for that myself.
 

I think you might have a different definition of "very quiet" than other people do. I think many people would call the MSI Gaming X Trio quiet.
 
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/msi-geforce-rtx-2070-super-gaming-x-trio/31.html

EVGA ftw3 version of the 2070 super has a pretty thick 3 fan cooler. Should be able to run that silently

Neither of those cards would be very quiet, for that you need a very overbuilt cooler that comes with an expensive card like a Kingpin, Galax HoF, or Lightning Z...
 
Of those 2 the 2070 Super is superior in every way but raw performance, but the difference is not even worth 50 monies.

I just bought the 2070S. Better drivers, better thermals by a lot (till sometime in august), much better look IMO (again will change in a few weeks), a little bit better raw performance, and RT. Lots of new exciting titles are supporting ray tracing. I even got two triple-A ray tracing supported games in a bundle with my 2070S. It is 100$ more but for something I'm going to have for at least two years, that's really not that much. Go out to eat three or four times and you spend around that if not more.  

@ac88 At Stock or Mildly Overclocked speeds, the AMD RX 5700 XT represents a better value for standard aspect ratio 1440p gaming (2560x1440 16:9), but I would wait for aftermarket cards to release in 4 weeks. The stock blower is barely okay on the lower end 5700 NON-XT. On the XT version, its hideously bad.
 
Meanwhile, the Nvidia RTX 2070-Super is a better value for Ultra-Wide 1440p (3440x1440 21:9) simply because the 5700XT is just barely not quite powerful enough for this resolution on high settings in some games. Again, this is comparing the two cards at stock to mildly overclocked speeds.
 
If you do the work and modify the RX 5700XT CORRECTLY AND SAFELY, the AMD card simply wipes the floor with the Nvidia competition for the price, closing in on the performance of an overclocked RTX 2080 NON-Super. See ny new thread for more info: 
 

Go for it. Your not going to break anything.

Do you need over 16GB of RAM?  I'd use the 16GB of 2666MHz.
 
 

If you are planning on mixing 3 different kits of memory, just because you have the ability to put them all in your motherboard. I would recommend against it. Stick with 1 kit of memory that has the fastest speed. So the 2x8GB 2666MHz will probably be best for you.

i would go for the 2070 super. 

Is it a bit more expansive? sure, but the performance is good and its basically near a 2080. and in some cases with or without oc even beating it. 

Besides.. ive had my eye on that 2070 super too. it looks pretty cool. 

It only works that way if one can easily afford to pay that much more but simply chooses not to.
 
Highly unlikely in this case, considering the "my budget is actually around € 600" part.
Keep in mind also that GPUs are alot cheaper in the US than in Europe (around 20% usually), so simply converting currencies based on what is listed on Ebay.com is really not sufficient.

Right, because everyone can afford a 2080 ti.

You never stated what it was for. Are you gaming? What resolution / refresh rate? Workstation? What kind?
 
The 2070 super should match the 2080 performance, and it's just over budget. I would personally get that.
 
Also, I hate your post by the way

@Turtle Rig does the answer to my question also comes to mind, perhaps? lol

The i5 4460. It's a great CPU, I have it in my rig. 

Between the two? I would pick the newer CPU. It would be much more power efficient and would be faster.
 
Don't confuse threads and cores. Hyperthreading doesn't necessarily make it better or have more cores. Many hypervisors can over-provision CPU cores to running VMs without problems. The only big problem would be if all the VMs are demanding heavy CPU use...which in that case, hyperthreading isn't going to help.

Unless the 660 has fallen behind with driver updates, i'm pretty sure it out performs the 750ti.

Component wise it's a no brainer to do it how you're planning.
 
Case wise thats entirely up to you, you'll be the one who has to look at it everytime you turn the pc on or whilst you're using the pc  

Yeah the power could be an issue with it, but as it's already in one of his builds i'd assume(or atleast hope) that OP has a psu with the connectors/wattage to run it  

Honestly either would work just as well in that application. A NAS isn't very demanding so there's little to no difference. Would choose the Xeon just so you can use the i5 for another system. 16 GB in a NAS is just as waste so it'll be much more useful in a desktop instead. Plus you have ECC support which is nice to have in a NAS I guess. 

For a server running all the time, I would highly recommend sticking with the xeon. From what you've said you use the machine for, the small bump in clock speed and the architecture improvements on the i5 are going to have very little impact on your machines ability to act as a fileserver or VM host. In fact, the extra virtualisation features that the Xeon has will make it better in that case.
 
The main benefit you get from the Xeon though, is the ECC memory. If this machine runs most of the time/all of the time, the likelihood of a random uncorrected bit becomes quite high; and for the limited benefit you'll gain from the i5, it's really not worth the change.

DDR3L memory can run at both 1.35v and 1.5v just fine.

I forgot that running Prime95 with HT on can cook thinks a bit harder, as I normally turn it off as similar apps I run don't benefit from HT. At 1.3V with that cooler, depending on ambient it might not be that far out. If you're stable or lower at 1.20 go with it, although depending on my system I might need to go up to 1.25V at 4.2 GHz, I never worked out what's needed for 4.0.

Phenom II by a long shot

AMD chip clearly. The extra cores would help quite a bit so you don't end up with two single core systems