Will This work out?

[jerubedo]

14 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

You said you tested a board that wasn't even the same one for a streaming build for 1 day in Vegas then sold it off.  Did you not?  Unless you tested an entire batch for 6+ months of the same board your opinion really doesn't matter.  That's how companies like puget systems do their testing for reliability.  Simply saying you built hundreds of computers doesn't add to the reliability of the board either.  Collecting RMA rates would add to your argument.

"There will always be a buyer. I sold off a build I did using, I think, that same board, if not a similar A320.I had put it together for an event we were streaming in Vegas, and when it was done I was able to sell the whole system while I was still in Vegas (and yes, I let the buyer know that the build wasn't really upgradeable). He was still happy to take it and I recovered roughly 80% of the cost."  Okay, to be fair you were talking about selling it.  However, this is the extent of your testing with the board.  You didn't test an entire batch, you probably didn't have the exact board either, and you didn't test past the event because you sold it.  Meaning that your experience holds no weight to the argument.

The ONLY point in that chunk you quoted was that I sold it. I never said I tested it did I? I used it of course. I never ever used the word tested. I also never said 1 day. The conference was a week. 

 

At that point in the conversation we were talking about resale, not reliability. The only point I made about reliability is that lower end boards in general are fine for use with low end CPUs. 

[GoldenLag]

2 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

The ONLY point in that chunk you quoted was that I sold it. I never said I tested it did I? I used it of course. I never ever used the word tested. 

How does this help you in your defence of a bad build the OP wasted his money on?

 

Like good that you are being honest, but please just be honest and learn from the misstake you made the OP commit?

[jerubedo]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

The point is that's the extent of your testing

Again I've never tested it. I've never pointed to personal experience with this A320 board. 

 

4 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

.  You also tried to argue "We've had AM4 boards for longer than that now and no such memes/data."  -That's personal experience not RMA rates or a long term batch test for reliability. 

How is that personal experience at all? 

 

That quote you state next I stand behind. I've tested a lot of low end boards and they are fine with correct pairings on CPU. Personal experience on a wide scale does indeed have some weight. It's not the only data point, though. 

[jerubedo]

6 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

"We've had" -that's the start of saying in your own personal experience.  Which doesn't matter.  But, why are you ignoring the other arguments by myself and GoldenLag?  Also, my own personal experience does not matter.  Puget systems testing an entire batch matters.  A reputable person like buildzoid going over the pros and cons of a board matters.  RMA rates from the manufacturer themselves matters!  You and I, two random people on the internet, do not have the same reputation to have an opinion that matters on the same scale of those companies or people.  I could simply stand by saying that MSI is utter shit because I have been building computers since the 90s and had 1 of their boards DOA.  Does that matter?  Nope!

We as in we the people. All of us. I'm not ignoring anything else. I've just already addressed all of the arguments you provided previously and for the consistency of this thread I won't repeaty arguments. 

[LukeSavenije]

39 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

Again, literally never said that. 

okay...

 

this can go on for ages

 

I'll try to explain it once, and sorry for what I've said that has been offending to anyone.

 

a320 boards are just like some b350 and x370 boards rushed because AMD gave little time to develop the boards, this affected MSI heavily, as some of their boards are powertrottling on b350 and a320. the higher failure rates on it doesn't make it better either. 

 

there was a reason i put all a320 boards that low with @valdyrgramr and @GoldenLag. i wrote r3 with it because it's technically keepable of holding it on stock (hence the lack of oc after it)

 

but me as a person that has done a lot of research in am4 boards in general would honestly recommend at least a tier c, but if possible a tier b. the tier b's are leagues better and are able to hold better chips down the line. a good motherboard is a good investment

[GoldenLag]

4 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

We as in we the people. All of us. I'm not ignoring anything else. I've just already addressed all of the arguments you provided previously and for the consistency of this thread I won't repeaty arguments. 

ActuLly you havent adressed the horridness of the 500GB HDD properly (which is what OP picked) and while you did a temporary (to late) fix with a 120GB SSD. How long does that last?

 

Wait does this mean he has to spend more money later on a HDD? Oh no.....

 

Edit: i just want you to learn and know what to recommend when. And what standards a system should follow.

[jerubedo]

14 minutes ago, LukeSavenije said:

i wrote r3 with it because it's technically keepable of holding it on stock (hence the lack of oc after it)

This is the point I've been trying to make. And no worries Luke, I don't think you've ever said anything that has offended anyone :). At the end of the day my point is that @GoldenLag'a approach boils down to "have a decent computer now that doesn't really achieve your goal and then achieve your goal later by upgrading." I just don't agree with that approach. I'm much more about have what you want now. 

[jerubedo]

16 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Wait does this mean he has to spend more money later on a HDD? Oh no.....

The luxury of an SSD at this budget is just that, a luxury. Most console gamers aren't upgrading to an SSD. They have been on a 500GB HDD for ages. Yes it will take 35 secs to boot vs 10 secs. But in gaming it's generally avceptable.

[LukeSavenije]

1 minute ago, jerubedo said:

 

i get your idea. but i know the guy, he's just trying to protect everyone because he also knows that a320 was rushed, cheaped out and everything. I'd call h310 better honestly.

 

I'm just trying to stay on topic with the boards. because of all of this msi has seen some bad failure rates, and this board is maybe even the worst one. It's not like i don't get why you would. i just wouldn't recommend it

 

so my recommendation is to invest in a proper motherboard, it's a important part, even if that makes little performance difference

 

and a simple idea at this pricepoint: maybe get some used stuff?

[GoldenLag]

4 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

"have a decent computer now that doesn't really achieve your goal and then achieve your goal later by upgrading." I just don't agree with that approach. I'm much more about have what you want now

Except the pc does a good job from the beginning anyway because the vega 8 is a decent little chip for what it is.

And yes upgrading later would be ideal 

4 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

The luxury of an SSD at this budget is just that, a luxury. Most console gamers aren't upgrading to an SSD. They have been on a 500GB HDD for ages. Yes it will take 35 secs to boot vs 10 secs. But in gaming it's generally avceptable.

It will also be a slower more clunky experience. There is more than just game load times. HDDs are just a crime in 2019. 

 

Comming from a guy who used HDDs for a very long time as a daily driver.

 

In gaming its usually acceptable, but not if it also operates as a system drive. With 8GB of Ram he will be pagefiling a lot. Meaning it will constantly be running making an allready bad experience worse. 

[LukeSavenije]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

 

or maybe get a second hand card?

 

not informed about indian second hand market tho

[jerubedo]

4 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Personally, in OP's budget I would do this 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Type	Item	Price
CPU	AMD - Ryzen 3 2200G 3.5 GHz Quad-Core Processor	₹8320.00 @ Amazon India
Motherboard	Gigabyte - B450 AORUS M Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard	₹9145.00 @ Amazon India
Memory	Patriot - 8 GB (2 x 4 GB) DDR4-2133 Memory	₹5262.00 @ Amazon India
Storage	Gigabyte - 240 GB 2.5" Solid State Drive	₹2808.00 @ Amazon India
Storage	Seagate - Momentus 7200.4 500 GB 2.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive	₹2125.00 @ Amazon India
Case	Deepcool - SMARTER MicroATX Mini Tower Case	₹2650.00 @ Amazon India
Power Supply	Corsair - CX (2017) 450 W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply	₹3990.00 @ Amazon India
	Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts
	Total	₹34300.00
	Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-04-22 02:45 IST+0530

or

https://in.pcpartpicker.com/list/bWMb3b

then get a GPU later.  If doing the second one I would get a second stick later too.  Your framerate won't be as high at first, but you'd be removing other headaches first.

This is assuming he wants to bother with upgrading later, even. He may just want a one and done. 

[LukeSavenije]

Just now, jerubedo said:

This is assuming he wants to bother with upgrading later, even. He may just want a one and done. 

rather do it right in two parts than wrong in one

 

cheaping out on some parts is a bad idea, which includes

 

psu since it can literally explode (cx is good tho, don't get me wrong)

mobo, as it can kill anything connected to it as it delivers power too

hdd/ssd, since we're talking about our precious data

 

and if he does want one and be done, I'd actually get everything except storage and psu second hand at this price point

[GoldenLag]

24 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

This is assuming he wants to bother with upgrading later, even. He may just want a one and done. 

Even then this build is still miles better as the experience is actually good.

[GoldenLag]

23 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Hard to tell since they haven't responded after maybe page 2.  

He has probably gone ahead with the first 500GB HDD build that is a total waste of money. 

 

Sad to see valuable money go that way. 

[jerubedo]

Just now, GoldenLag said:

He has probably gone ahead with the first 500GB HDD build that is a total waste of money. 

 

Sad to see valuable money go that way. 

You're so dramatic. The build will run, it will game, and not badly by any means, it'll do web browsing, email checking, video watching, etc. The HDD will be a little slower but by no means will hamper anything. And the motherboard is just fine for a non-OCed 1200. Whether it will die or not is all speculation. 

[GoldenLag]

11 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

You're so dramatic. The build will run, it will game, and not badly by any means, it'll do web browsing, email checking, video watching, etc. The HDD will be a little slower but by no means will hamper anything. And the motherboard is just fine for a non-OCed 1200. Whether it will die or not is all speculation. 

Im dramatic because its a lot of money down the drain towards a bad system experience. Its an experience from 2010.

 

As build suggestors you hold a lot of power over where people's money go. And not realizing this and learning to not make people buy systems that wont serve them in a good way is just  not the way to go. 

 

And yes that PC will run. Will it run well? Not really. Will it run for long? Probably not. Can you recoup you losses nicely? Not really. Can i at least upgrade it in the future? Not really. Does it give good FPS while gaming? Yeah it does game quite okay. Will it feel like a PC from the year 2015 and beyond? Nope, not at all. 

[jerubedo]

2 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

Im dramatic because its a lot of money down the drain towards a bad system experience. Its an experience from 2010.

 

As build suggestors you hold a lot of power over where people's money go. And not realizing this and learning to not make people buy systems that wont serve them in a good way is just  not the way to go. 

 

And yes that PC will run. Will it run well? Not really. Will it run for long? Probably not. Can you recoup you losses nicely? Not really. Can i at least upgrade it in the future? Not really. Does it give good FPS while gaming? Yeah it does game quite okay. Will it feel like a PC from the year 2015 and beyond? Nope, not at all. 

The way I build for my direct customers is to, within their budget, fit in the best component that affects their use case. For gaming that entails fitting in the best possible GPU while pairing it with a CPU that won't bottleneck it. Then move on to best RAM, best storage, best tower, in that order. And of course while using a proper PSU for the price range. 

 

For productivity I try for the best CPU generally (depends on what kind of productivity), then best RAM, then GPU, then storage, then tower, in that order. 

 

I've never had a complaint from anyone who I've built for. I've never had someone complain about a part dying early (except for the occasional HDD or SSD, and not off-brands or lower quality units, either). 

 

In this case it's for gaming. So I'm focusing on delivering the best performance in that regard. They can still do other "computer stuff" just fine, albeit not as fast as if it were with an SSD or more powerful CPU.

[LukeSavenije]

8 minutes ago, jerubedo said:

 

so diablotek, cheap a320 and a scrapyard hdd is the best thing to do here?

 

sorry, but i really don't understand why you would do this

[jerubedo]

12 minutes ago, LukeSavenije said:

so diablotek, cheap a320 and a scrapyard hdd is the best thing to do here?

No, no, of course not. I was saying within reason. A PSU that won't explode (ie, tier C and above), a decent tower for actual airflow, etc.

[jerubedo]

17 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Because to him the frame rate clearly is all that matters. 

For a gaming rig, YES. Exactly. Within reason. As long as boot times aren't 5 minutes, and that the PSU won't explode, and that nothing is dangerous. I remain unconvinced that the motherboard is a hazard. I've not yet been shown any actual data that points to this. And the boot time may be 35 secs, and the time to bring up chrome might be 5 secs vs 1 sec, but honestly that's not a "bad" experience. It's worith it to have a 5 sec wait to bring up chrome to have 60 FPS in a game vs 30 FPS.

[LukeSavenije]

Just now, jerubedo said:

No, no, of course not. I was saying within reason. A PSU that won't explode (ie, tier C and above), a decent tower for actual airflow, etc.

I'd do tier b, so it doesn't group regulate

 

but speaking about power, isn't that what a motherboards function is too? why would you use a high failure rate board then?

[jerubedo]

1 minute ago, LukeSavenije said:

why would you use a high failure rate board then

again, I'm not at all seeing anything that demonstrates a high failure rate. I've  seen sites talking about build quality in general without any numbers, and I've seen data that has low end MSI motherboards in general having an equal or so RMA rate to other brands (their high end was a different story).

[jerubedo]

Oh and of course I always make sure there is upgradability where budget allows with the above being prioritized first.

[jerubedo]

16 minutes ago, LukeSavenije said:

I'd do tier b, so it doesn't group regulate

Oh, you're right. I forgot it was A+,A, B, C. I was thinking A,B,C,D. So yes, tier B and above.