AvogadrosDog

Again, that's most likely down to drivers. If it was CPU then you'd see usage hitting near 100% and bottlenecking but that's not what we're seeing and that's not what these chips should be doing anyway. Try this:

Why did it frustrate you? What FPS did you want to hit? RAM overclocking may be worth doing considering how much RAM speed and timings influence Ryzen performance. But with respect to memory overclocking I can't help as I haven't done it myself. I'm actually looking into trying to get my 3200MHz RAM up to 3466MHz or, if possible, higher but I doubt I can go higher than 3466.

Yeah you should be fine. The PBO does a good job. On BFV my 3700X hits 4.2GHz all-core (70% usage max but majority of the time at ~50%) and on single core I can only see it hit around 4.3 GHz. I'm not worried. In fact, the only thing that has been of a somewhat concern for me is thermals as I find the Ryzen 3000 chips run a bit hotter than their precursors but my AIO is handling it fine.

3600 has a max boost clock of 4.2 GHz but that's only on one core and will only hit that for a split second - almost unnoticeable. You won't get higher than 4.0-4.1 GHz all-core boost on PBO. Your 3600 is performing as expected. The stuttering in BFV should be down to drivers and nothing to worry about. It's been shown by many reviewers that OCing the Ryzen 3000 CPUs actually hampers performance and it also prevents those chips from doing one of the things they're really good at - being efficient on power draw.

Z370 and Z390 are specially designed for OC? Not sure about that. OCing is dependent on VRM quality, not the chipset.

For gaming, 3600. The 2700 only if you plan to do some form of productivity workloads but even then the 3600 does it almost as well if not better because of the improved IPC.

With the current Ryzen 3000 lineup it's often better leaving it at stock with PBO enabled. No point in OCing really. The difference in performance between the 3600 and 3600X is almost indistinguishable to the end user. The performance difference is about 2-3% if I'm not mistaken. Hardly worth the extra 50$.

The beauty with going with Ryzen, even with changing the motherboard, is that you can go for a cheap CPU like the 3600 or even the 2600 and then upgrade in the future when the next gen Ryzen CPUs come out. Your upgrade options are really good on the AM4 platform. If you're worried about the cost of the CPU + motherboard then go for a 2600 and a B450 or X470 board. Then upgrade to a better CPU in the future - which is super doable on Ryzen.

I was basing off of what the Corsair manual state. I may have read it wrong, my bad.

PCPartPicker Part List Type Item Price CPU AMD Ryzen 5 3600 3.6 GHz 6-Core Processor €207.90 @ Alternate CPU Cooler Cooler Master Hyper 212 RGB Black Edition 57.3 CFM CPU Cooler €41.60 @ Amazon Deutschland Motherboard MSI B450 TOMAHAWK ATX AM4 Motherboard €104.84 @ Mindfactory Memory Kingston HyperX Predator 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3200 Memory Purchased For €81.00 Storage Samsung 860 Evo 500 GB 2.5" Solid State Drive Purchased For €72.40 Storage Seagate Barracuda 2 TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive €66.40 @ Amazon Deutschland Video Card Gigabyte GeForce RTX 2070 8 GB WINDFORCE Video Card €422.00 Case Fractal Design Meshify C ATX Mid Tower Case Purchased For €85.00 Power Supply Corsair RMx (2018) 650 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply €92.00 @ Amazon Deutschland Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts Total €1173.14 Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-08-14 10:39 CEST+0200 Just modifying a little what @Mr.Humble did. Like others said, you could wait for the 5700XT AIB models to come out and see how it compares against that RTX 2070 in terms of pricing but the RTX 2070 still isn't a bad card by no means.

Get the 750W then. You should be around ~70% load on that PSU with your current build. Maximum efficiency is around 50-60% load for the RMx and you'll have headroom for a 2080Ti.

If that's the case then can I ask why you're already set on the 9700k? I would be tempted to recommend at least the 3600 - probably the best value CPU currently out (other than maybe the 2600), has very good gaming performance comparable to that of the 9600k and in terms of workload and programmes it stomps most of the intel CPUs except the 9900k. The 3600 is actually comparable in performance to the 8700k, just to put things into context. Either the NH-D15s or Dark Rock 4 Pro are excellent air coolers - if I had to pick I'd go NH-D15S because if you can afford it why not get the best air cooler around that you can use on multiple builds, whether AMD or Intel. I would have a nice SSD for OS (250-500GB) but it doesn't have to be samsung - I personally only picked up the 970 Evo because they were giving away AC:OD for free with it so why not. For motherboard wouldn't you want to go for the WiFi/BT version of the Aorus Pro? I personally wouldn't agree about "waiting for the next piece of tech" because there will always be new tech around the corner. The RTX 2080 Super is a very nice card for high fps at 1440p gaming. You could even drop it to an RTX 2080 to save money and still have performance above a 1080 Ti but I'm not 100% on that, someone else can correct me. PSU-wise the RMx is a great PSU with a good reputation and much cheaper than the HXi variant and better than the Straight Power 11. Not sure about the Aerocool P7.

Well, it helps if we know what your needs are/what you want to do with this computer, budget and country.

People didn't know because of the system that they lived in. The USSR wasn't exactly open, especially about their own mistakes. And reactors have advanced a lot since those times - the latest gen IV reactors developed in Europe have been designed to withstand a terrorist plane crash on the reactor. Plus, it's well known that the reactors used by the Soviets was an unsafe type. They used reactors which increased in efficiency with temperature whilst reactors in the rest of Europe and the US used reactors which lost efficiency with increasing temperature. All just to save costs from the Soviets perspective.

Fukushima was actually caused by several design flaws. It was found in later reports that the measures they took against the event of a tsunami (like the tsunami wall or whatever it's called) was not sufficient. The wall should've been higher (based on data of previous tsunamis especially considering Japan is so susceptible to them) and the back-up generators should not have been placed in an area that was vulnerable to flooding. The Japanese messed up and they admitted to it - which is more than what can be said about the USSR over Chernobyl but then again it was the USSR so...