SenioRR

That's not enough for all that, the $165/m they are paying right now is a good price so I'd stick with that until a larger budget can be allocated. Honestly unless they can go for a proper HA setup with 2 servers and a storage array it's not really worth deploying anything, for startups it's better to find a good deal for hosting and leave all of that to the provider.

Not an expert but from what I have heard you should avoid Nvidia GPUs if you need one
Still, hackintosh setups are yet to be perfect from what I understand.
Here is a video I would recommend:
 

Here, this will help:

 

A couple of months back, I was getting really annoyed by Windows. Whether it was the constant updates that took forever or general instability, I wanted to get away from Microsoft and switch over to Linux. The first days, just like you say, are intimidating but eventually Linux will feel like home and your Windows habits will disperse.
When I was getting started, and by no means am I an expert now, I watched pretty much all of Wendell's videos on Level1Tech and Level1Linux channels.
Here are two videos which I would recommend to anyone new to Linux:
Linux might be confusing right now, but you will eventually realize that it does many things better than Windows.
When you are having problems with something, there is a good chance someone out there did too.
There lots of answers and guides available to help you troubleshoot issues you might encounter.
Don't get discouraged when things go wrong!

Here, this will help:

 

Here, this will help:

 

I would recommend getting an RTX 2070 if your budget is $400.
For just over $400 (~$440) you can get an RTX 2070.
 

No, you can just hold the fan blades in place while you blow compressed air through the fins. 

I mean the site was already a very rough way of estimating performance, although quiet convenient so a lot of new users would look at UserBenchmark.
I mean just look at this:
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-8350K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-TR-2990WX/3935vsm560423
Or this:
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-4670K/1537vs153
Even this!
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-9350KF-vs-Intel-Core-i9-9980XE/m775825vsm652504
 
Either the people behind UserBenchmark have lost all of their brain cells OR there was a sizeable cheque sent their way.
Anyway, I usually go to GamersNexus for benchmarks but an upcoming PC enthusiast might look at UserBenchmark as a reliable source of information on part performance.

No worries. Just a little note in terms of upgrades: get a GPU first once you're ready. The APU will run just fine with a GPU in the build.
You could also save a little bit by going for 8GB of DDR4 but this 16GB kit is a very good deal in my opinion and it also runs at a nice speed of 3200MHZ which any Ryzen CPU/APU will be happy to utilise.

Here is my suggestion:
PCPartPicker Part List Type Item Price CPU AMD Ryzen 3 2200G 3.5 GHz Quad-Core Processor $79.89 @ OutletPC Motherboard Gigabyte B450 AORUS M Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard $68.99 @ Newegg Memory G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3200 Memory $64.99 @ Newegg Storage Kingston A400 240 GB 2.5" Solid State Drive $29.99 @ Amazon Storage Western Digital Caviar Blue 1 TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive $42.89 @ OutletPC Case Cooler Master MasterBox Q300L MicroATX Mini Tower Case $44.99 @ Walmart Power Supply Corsair CXM 650 W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-modular ATX Power Supply $78.89 @ OutletPC   Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts     Total (before mail-in rebates) $435.63   Mail-in rebates -$25.00   Total $410.63   Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-07-26 09:02 EDT-0400   Use the APU for now but in the future you can replace it with a regular Ryzen CPU and thrown in a GPU.
The case I have chosen is, in my opinion, one of the best budget cases which also looks great.
You obviously should go for a case you prefer if you don't like it.

Your only solution is to email Valve.
It will likely take some time but once they confirm that you have indeed been compromised and your account has been altered, they will likely revert the changes and return your items.
Here is their support page on stolen accounts: https://help.steampowered.com/en/wizard/HelpWithAccountStolen
 

Follow the steps on the support page.
Ensure your PC doesn't have any malicious software; scan it with an antivirus.
Make sure you change your password for your email account too.
Once you are sure that noone else but you has access to your PC and email account, contact Valve and begin the account recovery process.

The maximum resolution supported by VGA is 2048x1536 so the motherboard tried to fill your 4K TV but it simply can't because of the VGA limitations.
A motherboard with HDMI would work just fine.
I doubt it can handle the Ryzen 9 3900x from the looks of the VRMs.
If you want a list of motherboard that are ready for the 3900x as well as Ryzen 3000 series in general, I recommend you check out this video from Buildzoid:
 

Unlikely it will be bottlenecked by an overclocked i7 4790k.
Perhaps some rare CPU-heavy games might see a slight drop in FPS but I doubt it will be noticeable.

I mean the site was already a very rough way of estimating performance, although quiet convenient so a lot of new users would look at UserBenchmark.
I mean just look at this:
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-8350K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-TR-2990WX/3935vsm560423
Or this:
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-4670K/1537vs153
Even this!
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-9350KF-vs-Intel-Core-i9-9980XE/m775825vsm652504
 
Either the people behind UserBenchmark have lost all of their brain cells OR there was a sizeable cheque sent their way.
Anyway, I usually go to GamersNexus for benchmarks but an upcoming PC enthusiast might look at UserBenchmark as a reliable source of information on part performance.

Answering your questions:
CPU: Yes, there are better AMD ones! The 3800X (just a overclocked 3700X, not worth it imo) and the 3900X. The 3950X is coming out soon.
GPU: There are different versions of the 2080 Ti. Generally though, just go with a good airflow one and you'll be great!
MBD: X570 would be the best and would allow you to take advantage of PCIe 4.0 in SSDs, which is quite nice. However, a good X470 would work too.
RAM: 3600MHz is the sweet spot for AMD Ryzen 3000. Go for the lowest CL that fits in your budget.
PSU: Platinum and Gold is part of the 80+ rating, a rating which rates efficiency. It has nothing to do with PSU quality. There are a lot of good and bad ones; I'll choose a good one for you. About the wattage, it depends on the system.
SSD: NVME M.2s are way better in terms of sequential and 4K speeds, so it's quite good. However, for people who just game or web browse, this won't make a difference. In the future though, it might make a pretty big difference, so I'd go for a good NVMe if your budget can fit it.
 
In order to build the system in PCPartPicker though, I'll need to know your country and budget, and also if you need a keyboard, mouse, monitor, etc.

My thoughts exactly. The only remaining advantage intel has is single core. This is way too much to be a coincidence.....

Even fucking Skyrim can use 4 cores...so 8 years later, how is single threaded performance that important?

That's not even true anymore with Ryzen 3000. Sure it varies depening on compiler used or workload, but 3900X has the same single thread performance as 9900K even at 400-500MHz clock difference.

smells like intel marketing had a talk with userbenchmark, maybe even forgot a wallet on the table when leaving

Usually no. I don't think I have heard of any moderator getting paid.
Being a moderator is not a full-time job but instead active users who have been around for a long while can volunteer to become a moderator.

UserBenchmark.com has adjusted the algorithm for how the overall performance of a CPU is calculated.
 
Previously, single-core performance made up 30% of the result, quad-core made up 60%, and the final 10% was reserved for "multicore" performance. This was calculated so that an Intel Core i7-7700K would equal approximately 100% score.
 
The new scoring places the i9-9900K at the 100% mark, but also changes the makeup of the balancing of the scores. Single-core scoring now accounts for 40% of the result, and quad-core score takes a hit down to providing 57% of the score. Finally, the multicore score (specified to be 64 threads) only makes up 2% of the final score.
 
UserBenchmark claims that this is to better reflect the importance of single-threaded performance in gaming. However, more workloads have been embracing more threads. The balance change makes the results for effective CPU speed seem off, namely when it comes to AMD CPUs and even Intel CPUs that have more threads, but may lag behind on single-threaded performance.
 
For example, comparing the Ryzen 9 3900X to the Core i3-9350KF yields a mere margin of 3% in favor of the Ryzen 9. This is comparing a twelve-core 24-thread chip to a four-core chip.

 
However, comparing the "Real World Speed" tells a different story. The lowest improvement the tests show the Ryzen 9 having is 2%, but the largest gain is a whopping 85%.

 
And now some before-and-after with the Ryzen 5 3600:
 
(before)

 
(after)

 
The Average Bench drops 15.6%. Granted, some of this drop could be because of the change of reference CPU. But the effective speed, average user bench, and peak overclock bench all take major hits.
 
Intel has a similar decrease, though not to as much of a degree, on the i7-8700K:
(before)

 
(after)

 
 
And about the i9-9900K being at 100%, I believe it fair to say that it has more than 9% effective speed than an i3-9350KF.

 
The change in results has caused some uproar, especially among those who are fans of AMD, as this change seems to punish CPUs with higher core counts, which AMD is excelling at.
 
 
 
 
UPDATE 7/26/2019: UserBenchmark has addressed concerns... by brushing them off at best.
The UserBenchmark FAQ page on the effective CPU speed has been updated. (Archived version here)
 
They specifically address the AMD community's displeasure with the change:
So they noticed an issue and "fixed" it?

This seems to say otherwise.
 
But it doesn't stop there:
Good job, UserBenchmark. You admitted what we have known for a long time: you are only good for estimations. But, more importantly, you are admitting your tests have flaws. Why should we not be upset when your recommendations are saying we can all go get i3s and compare them to Ryzen 9s? People are not going to be concerned with a slight test inconsistency. People are going to be concerned when tests are poorly balanced across all products.
 
 
And one last bit on their "improved" FAQ page:
Granted, something similar was on the last version. I think that the concerns the community has are reasonable. People who don't know better may waste money based on this site. And, to top it off, a nice video of how some people put too much fat on sheep before slaughtering them.
 

Userbench should not be used for any serious comparison, it's good to get a general idea, but you should ALWAYS go and find full reviews on both products and compare them yourself

in a time where things are mostly multithreaded they think its a good idea to go the other way
 
 
@emosun revy ❤️