Will this system last for the next gen gaming?

[Fenris Wolf]

Hey so i'm planning on a full system upgrade because my old rig is more than five years old now (Specs available at the bottom) and i have never tried or even saw 4K up close. Actually i made some decisions about what to buy and i would really appreciate if you could tell me i might face any bottlenecks or not. But this is not the reason i'm posting right now. My question is whether i should upgrade my system now or should i wait for next gen consoles to release, New hardware announces and then start my upgrade plans? What i fear is if i get this system, Within the next 12 month it might become outdated and ultra expensive compared to the new hardware. (which might be more powerful and cheaper compared to what i'm getting) So Here are the parts:

 

• CPU: Core i9-9900k + MSI Core frozer XL CPU cooler
• Motherboard: ASUS TUF Z390-Plus
• GPU: ASUS ROG-Strix RTX 2080Ti
• RAM: Kingston HyperX Predator DDR4 32Gb 2x 16GB 3000MHz
• SSD: SAMSUNG 970 PRO 1TB PCIe NVMe M.2 SSD Drive
• PSU: Cooler Master Vanguard V1000 80Plus Gold
• Case: Enermax Thormax GT (or maybe i just go with Master Tech T500)
• Monitor: LG 27UD69-W 27" 4K UHD IPS

 

As you can see, this will cost a lot. My sole purpose is gaming and i don't do any programming. Currently i have a PS4 and the chances are i will get a PS5 as well. What do you think? Should i wait until late 2020 or even mid 2021 for my next gen PC upgrade or will this system handle the bizarre system requirements we will face in the next few months?

BTW here is my current system:

 

• CPU: Core i5 4460
• Motherboard: ASUS B85 Plus
• GPU: Zotac GTX 1060 6GB (Upgraded about a couple of years ago from a 770 2gb)
• RAM: 4x 4GB DDR3 1800MHz (upgraded from 8gb and it's running on 798.1MHz apparently)
• PSU: 600 Watt Green
• TV: 32" Samsung LED UA32F5550AM 1080p with god knows latency level. And yes, It's really old...

 

Personally i guess within a year or two, New hardware with lower cost and more power will be available and it will turn my system to an old rig which can't run newer games at 4k - Ultra settings and high fps. What do you think? Should i wait or should i go for it?

 

 

 

[Master Disaster]

There is no "next gen" when it comes to PC gaming, PCs are constantly evolving  and new hardware is constantly coming out.

 

That system is hugely powerful for gaming and will last you a very long time, as new games release with increased requirements you can adjust fidelity to suit.

 

Also remember, it's much easier to upgrade a video card than it is to buy a new console as your entire existing library still works on PC, on console you're starting again.

 

One tip though, drop the 32GB of RAM, for gaming it's literally pointless to have more than 16GB.

[Fenris Wolf]

Just now, Master Disaster said:

There is no "next gen" when it comes to PC gaming, PCs are constantly evolving  and new hardware is constantly coming out.

 

That system is hugely powerful for gaming and will last you a very long time, as new games release with increased requirements you can adjust fidelity to suit.

  

Also remember, it's much easier to upgrade a video card than it is to buy a new console as your entire existing library still works on PC, on console you're starting again.

  

One tip though, drop the 32GB of RAM, for gaming it's literally pointless to have more than 16GB.

Hey thanks for the Answer! So i shouldn't be worried then. You think this CPU will last for 5 years of gaming in very high settings?

Oh and thanks about the RAM part. TBH i wanted to go with 64GB (!) at first because i thought finding a pair for the 16 or 32 will be hard a few years from the time i buy the sticks but then again as you've mentioned, It's easily upgraded and it's cheaper than the other components.

[Master Disaster]

People still happily game on 2600Ks.

 

[Sakkura]

A better way to "future proof" is to save some money that can be spent on a new graphics card in a couple years.

 

You can easily save some money on not just the RAM, but also the SSD. For consumer use there's no reason to get a Samsung 970 Pro over, for example, a Samsung 970 Evo Plus.

[Fenris Wolf]

1 hour ago, Sakkura said:

A better way to "future proof" is to save some money that can be spent on a new graphics card in a couple years.

 

You can easily save some money on not just the RAM, but also the SSD. For consumer use there's no reason to get a Samsung 970 Pro over, for example, a Samsung 970 Evo Plus.

So in general at least for now should i avoid getting any sorts of SSD (whether m.2 or the traditional one) and stick with my current 3Tb HDD? I just wanted one of them for the faster load times in games but if that's the case, I should avoid them for now.

 

[Master Disaster]

7 minutes ago, Fenris Wolf said:

So in general at least for now should i avoid getting any sorts of SSD (whether m.2 or the traditional one) and stick with my current 3Tb HDD? I just wanted one of them for the faster load times in games but if that's the case, I should avoid them for now.

 

No, that's not what he said. The SSD you listed is blazing fast but in a home system for playing games you wouldn't notice any difference if you went for a slightly slower one. Heck you'd barely notice any difference if you went for a considerably slower one.

 

You should get an SSD for Windows 100%, just not the fastest of the fast.

[Fenris Wolf]

Just now, Master Disaster said:

No, that's not what he said. The SSD you listed is blazing fast but in a home system for playing games you wouldn't notice any difference if you went for a slightly slower one. Heck you'd barely notice any difference if you went for a considerably slower one.

 

You should get an SSD for Windows 100%, just not the fastest of the fast.

Then can you suggest any models?

[Master Disaster]

Sakkura already did, 970 Evo Plus is considered the sweet spot for average use.

 

When buying computer hardware there's a thing called the point of diminishing returns. Essentially as hardware gets more expensive it generally gets quicker but there's a point where the price starts to increase faster than the performance and you end up paying much more money for something that's barely any faster than the models below it.

[Fenris Wolf]

34 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Sakkura already did, 970 Evo Plus is considered the sweet spot for average use.

 

When buying computer hardware there's a thing called the point of diminishing returns. Essentially as hardware gets more expensive it generally gets quicker but there's a point where the price starts to increase faster than the performance and you end up paying much more money for something that's barely any faster than the models below it.

Thank you to both of you! One more thing, Will the system face any bottlenecks? What if i change the GPU with a GTX 1080Ti Mini or even keep my current 1060 6Gb to upgrade this one particular part at a later date?

[Guest]

Why the 9900K when you can get a 3700X for a lot less ? At 4K there will be virtually no difference.

 

Also that board is terrible for a 9900K. The cooler is also pretty average.

[Fenris Wolf]

On 7/27/2019 at 4:44 PM, lee32uk said:

Why the 9900K when you can get a 3700X for a lot less ? At 4K there will be virtually no difference.

 

Also that board is terrible for a 9900K. The cooler is also pretty average.

I need something to last for a really long time (without bottlenecking at least for the next 5 years)

That AMD model is currently not available where i live right now sadly. Can you suggest better stuff?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Fenris Wolf said:

I need something to last for a really long time (without bottlenecking at least for the next 5 years)

That AMD model is currently not available where i live right now sadly. Can you suggest better stuff?

Can you not order it online ? The 3700X should be in stock in most places.

 

If you for some reason want to stick with the 9900K then get a better motherboard. Any of the Gigabyte Z390 Aorus boards for example. You can probably do better on the cooler as well. I would be looking at something like a BeQuiet Dark Rock Pro 4.

[Fenris Wolf]

16 hours ago, lee32uk said:

Can you not order it online ? The 3700X should be in stock in most places.

 

If you for some reason want to stick with the 9900K then get a better motherboard. Any of the Gigabyte Z390 Aorus boards for example. You can probably do better on the cooler as well. I would be looking at something like a BeQuiet Dark Rock Pro 4.

Actually it's possible. It is also possible to wait a couple of months (tops) for it to become available where i live. Thank you very much for your suggestion! It's actually a better deal compared to 9900k. What about Ryzen 7 2700x Tho? Is it good for 4k Gaming? (mixed with a 1080Ti) 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Fenris Wolf said:

Actually it's possible. It is also possible to wait a couple of months (tops) for it to become available where i live. Thank you very much for your suggestion! It's actually a better deal compared to 9900k. What about Ryzen 7 2700x Tho? Is it good for 4k Gaming? (mixed with a 1080Ti) 

For 4K gaming pretty much any good cpu is going to give similar performance in most games. If you want to buy something to last then try for the 3700X. The 2700X is still good, although the 2700 is usually cheaper and can be overclocked. Even one of the 6 core Ryzen will be fine as you have an upgrade path anyway on AM4.

[trevb0t]

4 hours ago, Fenris Wolf said:

Actually it's possible. It is also possible to wait a couple of months (tops) for it to become available where i live. Thank you very much for your suggestion! It's actually a better deal compared to 9900k. What about Ryzen 7 2700x Tho? Is it good for 4k Gaming? (mixed with a 1080Ti) 

Even when the older piece is overclocked, the 3700X gives favorable results over the 2700X. It also natively supports faster RAM, and utilizes it well.

The 9900K is still top dog for gaming, though. Despite Zen 2 closing the margin of victory substantially.

 

As you said, there is no future proof system. That said, either option has SMT (or HT), is overclockable, and pulls solid numbers. So that's what you wanna see in a CPU in terms of asking for longevity.

Nothing on the market currently tops the RTX 2080Ti in performance, and that includes a brand new tier of GPUs. So whether it will or not, it's the best we've got.

That said, a 2080 Super is a pretty dang good savings, and it's not far behind in performance.

 

My question is this?

What games do you play that 4K is going to provide a favorable experience?

That monitor has a 60hz refresh rate, because frankly asking higher than 60FPS on ultra settings out of demanding AAA games at 4K is unrealistic. This is actually detrimental to the high end experience in any FPS games, MOBA games, etc. (anything competitive essentially.) that you might play, since a higher refresh rate is desirable for snap responsiveness.

I would look at a really nice 1440p (2K) monitor at 144hz, 1ms and that has Free/G-Sync. 

It will still provide an outstanding picture for those visually stunning titles that you want to juice harder, and it will be capable of keeping up with the higher FPS you'll pump out of less demanding, more competitive titles. 

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/p4WfrH/msi-optix-mag27cq-270-2560x1440-144-hz-monitor-optix-mag27cq

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/BcTrxr/dell-monitor-s2716dg

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/cdcMnQ/asus-rog-swift-pg278qr-270-2560x1440-144hz-monitor-pg278qr

[Fenris Wolf]

47 minutes ago, trevb0t said:

Even when the older piece is overclocked, the 3700X gives favorable results over the 2700X. It also natively supports faster RAM, and utilizes it well.

The 9900K is still top dog for gaming, though. Despite Zen 2 closing the margin of victory substantially.

 

As you said, there is no future proof system. That said, either option has SMT (or HT), is overclockable, and pulls solid numbers. So that's what you wanna see in a CPU in terms of asking for longevity.

Nothing on the market currently tops the RTX 2080Ti in performance, and that includes a brand new tier of GPUs. So whether it will or not, it's the best we've got.

That said, a 2080 Super is a pretty dang good savings, and it's not far behind in performance.

 

My question is this?

What games do you play that 4K is going to provide a favorable experience?

 That monitor has a 60hz refresh rate, because frankly asking higher than 60FPS on ultra settings out of demanding AAA games at 4K is unrealistic. This is actually detrimental to the high end experience in any FPS games, MOBA games, etc. (anything competitive essentially.) that you might play, since a higher refresh rate is desirable for snap responsiveness.

 I would look at a really nice 1440p (2K) monitor at 144hz, 1ms and that has Free/G-Sync. 

 It will still provide an outstanding picture for those visually stunning titles that you want to juice harder, and it will be capable of keeping up with the higher FPS you'll pump out of less demanding, more competitive titles. 

 https://pcpartpicker.com/product/p4WfrH/msi-optix-mag27cq-270-2560x1440-144-hz-monitor-optix-mag27cq

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/BcTrxr/dell-monitor-s2716dg

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/cdcMnQ/asus-rog-swift-pg278qr-270-2560x1440-144hz-monitor-pg278qr

Well, Mostly i play single player games (AC Odyssey, TW3, Watch Dogs etc.) and the only multiplayer i play is R6 Siege. That's why i wanted to favor Resolution actually.

By the way i never overclocked anything and to be honest i'm afraid if i screw something up. That's why i didn't consider such thing in my original post. Plus, I sit close to the monitor and right now, 1080p looks pretty fine to me. Don't know how much difference there is when it comes to 1440p or even 4k (lol)

[celerystruct]

3 hours ago, Fenris Wolf said:

Well, Mostly i play single player games (AC Odyssey, TW3, Watch Dogs etc.) and the only multiplayer i play is R6 Siege. That's why i wanted to favor Resolution actually.

By the way i never overclocked anything and to be honest i'm afraid if i screw something up. That's why i didn't consider such thing in my original post. Plus, I sit close to the monitor and right now, 1080p looks pretty fine to me. Don't know how much difference there is when it comes to 1440p or even 4k (lol)

Why spend all this money to achieve a resolution that you can't even distinguish the difference?

 

On 7/27/2019 at 2:24 AM, Fenris Wolf said:

Personally i guess within a year or two, New hardware with lower cost and more power will be available and it will turn my system to an old rig which can't run newer games at 4k - Ultra settings and high fps. What do you think? Should i wait or should i go for it?

 

Also you don't need to worry too much about new hardware making your pc unable to run your old games. That doesn't make sense. Why would your system run 4k today but then suddenly stop doing 4k tomorrow because a new gpu comes out?

 

I'd cut costs on a few places and aim for 1440p at 80+ fps on high to maybe ultra settings, if you're playing single player games. 

 

On 7/27/2019 at 2:24 AM, Fenris Wolf said:

PSU: Cooler Master Vanguard V1000 80Plus Gold

Also you don't need a 1000w psu, 500-550 should be fine.

[trevb0t]

8 hours ago, Fenris Wolf said:

Well, Mostly i play single player games (AC Odyssey, TW3, Watch Dogs etc.) and the only multiplayer i play is R6 Siege. That's why i wanted to favor Resolution actually.

By the way i never overclocked anything and to be honest i'm afraid if i screw something up. That's why i didn't consider such thing in my original post. Plus, I sit close to the monitor and right now, 1080p looks pretty fine to me. Don't know how much difference there is when it comes to 1440p or even 4k (lol)

In either case, I think the move toward 1440p would be the more intelligent option for the same reasons as indicated above. 1440p is going to give you that very clear, crisp, highly defined image, but isn't so large that you're taxing high end gear just to keep up with a 60hz monitor.

 

As far as overclocking, you don't need to do so. Both components are inherently powerful. The ability to overclock,  however IS a huge factor if longevity is the goal, since 2nd, 3rd, 4th gen Intel chips, etc. (we are currently on 9th gen.) are still being used as viable gaming chips thanks to overclocking.

[Fenris Wolf]

On 7/30/2019 at 2:19 AM, trevb0t said:

In either case, I think the move toward 1440p would be the more intelligent option for the same reasons as indicated above. 1440p is going to give you that very clear, crisp, highly defined image, but isn't so large that you're taxing high end gear just to keep up with a 60hz monitor.

 

As far as overclocking, you don't need to do so. Both components are inherently powerful. The ability to overclock,  however IS a huge factor if longevity is the goal, since 2nd, 3rd, 4th gen Intel chips, etc. (we are currently on 9th gen.) are still being used as viable gaming chips thanks to overclocking.

 

On 7/29/2019 at 9:49 PM, celerystruct said:

Why spend all this money to achieve a resolution that you can't even distinguish the difference?

 

 

Also you don't need to worry too much about new hardware making your pc unable to run your old games. That doesn't make sense. Why would your system run 4k today but then suddenly stop doing 4k tomorrow because a new gpu comes out?

 

I'd cut costs on a few places and aim for 1440p at 80+ fps on high to maybe ultra settings, if you're playing single player games. 

  

Also you don't need a 1000w psu, 500-550 should be fine.

Sorry for the delay but i wanted to thank everyone who helped me with this.

 

Right now i changed a lot of my original ideas for the upgrade. Based on my new ideas, I ditched 4k or even 1440p display and i want to stick with 1080+60fps, So now i have 3 plans:

 

Plan A

• Ryzen 9 3900x
• MSI X570-A PRO ATX
• G.Skill Aegis 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3000Mhz
• ASUS RX5700-8G Graphics Card

 

Plan B

• Intel Core i9-9900K
• ASUS PRIME Z390-P
• ADATA XPG GAMMIX D10 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-2400
• ASUS RX5700-8G Graphics Card

 

Plan C 

• Intel Core i5-9600k
• KingSton HyperX FURY DDR4 16GB 2400MHz CL15
• GigaByte Z370P D3 LGA 1151 Motherboard
• ASUS RX5700-8G Graphics Card

Question1: I'm from an older gen i5 processor. 4460 as I've mentioned. It's still working of course but i'm not happy with it generally. Would jumping from this cpu to an i5-9600k be a legit choice? Will i benefit from higher speed in applications usage such as Photoshop, Browsers, Games etc. ?

Question 2: Just happened to find a legit store selling a tray i9-9900k 100$ cheaper than the normally sold version (like instead of 500$ it's 400$) With this price, Is there anything i should be aware of while buying such part without the official boxing etc.?   Question 3: Is going from GTX 1060 6gb to RX 5700 (non-XT) good? I can go with RTX cards as well. Since i just want to play in 1080p 60fps, i think RTX 2080 or even 2070 can handle the rtx effects while maintaining a high fps, correct?

The purpose of this build is to keep my system future proof for at least 5 years (Playing in Ultra settings+60fps) However i don't do any sort of job other than gaming on it. Maybe sometimes i want to fire up photoshop or do some digital art on it. 

Side note: I don't plan to OC my hardware, So the possibility is out of the window. Also i want to keep my budget below 2000$.

[trevb0t]

2 hours ago, Fenris Wolf said:

 

Sorry for the delay but i wanted to thank everyone who helped me with this.

 

Right now i changed a lot of my original ideas for the upgrade. Based on my new ideas, I ditched 4k or even 1440p display and i want to stick with 1080+60fps, So now i have 3 plans:

 

Plan A

• Ryzen 9 3900x
• MSI X570-A PRO ATX
• G.Skill Aegis 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3000Mhz
• ASUS RX5700-8G Graphics Card

 

Plan B

• Intel Core i9-9900K
• ASUS PRIME Z390-P
• ADATA XPG GAMMIX D10 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-2400
• ASUS RX5700-8G Graphics Card

 

Plan C 

• Intel Core i5-9600k
• KingSton HyperX FURY DDR4 16GB 2400MHz CL15
• GigaByte Z370P D3 LGA 1151 Motherboard
• ASUS RX5700-8G Graphics Card

Question1: I'm from an older gen i5 processor. 4460 as I've mentioned. It's still working of course but i'm not happy with it generally. Would jumping from this cpu to an i5-9600k be a legit choice? Will i benefit from higher speed in applications usage such as Photoshop, Browsers, Games etc. ?

Question 2: Just happened to find a legit store selling a tray i9-9900k 100$ cheaper than the normally sold version (like instead of 500$ it's 400$) With this price, Is there anything i should be aware of while buying such part without the official boxing etc.?   Question 3: Is going from GTX 1060 6gb to RX 5700 (non-XT) good? I can go with RTX cards as well. Since i just want to play in 1080p 60fps, i think RTX 2080 or even 2070 can handle the rtx effects while maintaining a high fps, correct?

The purpose of this build is to keep my system future proof for at least 5 years (Playing in Ultra settings+60fps) However i don't do any sort of job other than gaming on it. Maybe sometimes i want to fire up photoshop or do some digital art on it. 

Side note: I don't plan to OC my hardware, So the possibility is out of the window. Also i want to keep my budget below 2000$.

If you want to play 1080p at 60hz, all you need is a Ryzen 5 2600 and a GTX 1660Ti. (Or even your current 1060.)

If you're fronting for high end gear, I would absolutely either grab a 1080p 144hz monitor, or as above a 1440p 144hz. 

Based on your choice of titles, 1440p would be the better choice.

 

The 9600k is effectively out of the running. The Ryzen 5 3600 has effectively knocked all i5 models out, since it pulls equal or better FPS, is MultiThreaded, unlocked, and costs $200 at full price. 

[Fenris Wolf]

30 minutes ago, trevb0t said:

If you want to play 1080p at 60hz, all you need is a Ryzen 5 2600 and a GTX 1660Ti. (Or even your current 1060.)

If you're fronting for high end gear, I would absolutely either grab a 1080p 144hz monitor, or as above a 1440p 144hz. 

Based on your choice of titles, 1440p would be the better choice.

 

The 9600k is effectively out of the running. The Ryzen 5 3600 has effectively knocked all i5 models out, since it pulls equal or better FPS, is MultiThreaded, unlocked, and costs $200 at full price. 

It may sound a bit weird but were i live 2600 is not available, instead r7 2700x and a normal 2700 is available. Which should i go for based on your suggestion? and the thing is, My monitor is capped at 60hz... and currently i have no plans for a monitor upgrade. But i would still follow any suggestions you guys have.

[trevb0t]

6 minutes ago, Fenris Wolf said:

It may sound a bit weird but were i live 2600 is not available, instead r7 2700x and a normal 2700 is available. Which should i go for based on your suggestion? and the thing is, My monitor is capped at 60hz... and currently i have no plans for a monitor upgrade. But i would still follow any suggestions you guys have.

What monitor do you currently have? If it doesn't have either Freesync or GSync as a feature, I would maybe hold off on upgrading your GPU. Without the variable frame rates, having too powerful a GPU could cause screen tearing from just pumping more FPS into it than it can ever hope to display. (Essentially just making your games look like crap by making them look too damn good for the refresh rate to handle.)

 

If you don't plan to OC (I went back and brushed up, and see that you don't) then the 2700X would be the better choice. If available, the 3600 or 3700X would be a smart step up. They pull better FPS, and are just more efficient, higher frequency, better chips than their predecessors. 

[Fenris Wolf]

46 minutes ago, trevb0t said:

What monitor do you currently have? If it doesn't have either Freesync or GSync as a feature, I would maybe hold off on upgrading your GPU. Without the variable frame rates, having too powerful a GPU could cause screen tearing from just pumping more FPS into it than it can ever hope to display. (Essentially just making your games look like crap by making them look too damn good for the refresh rate to handle.)

 

If you don't plan to OC (I went back and brushed up, and see that you don't) then the 2700X would be the better choice. If available, the 3600 or 3700X would be a smart step up. They pull better FPS, and are just more efficient, higher frequency, better chips than their predecessors. 

Well TBH since i haven't upgraded in ages, I'm still on an old LED TV, Not a monitor... So no, It doesn't have Freesync or Gsync. So you suggest a Monitor upgrade as well? Then i think a 1440p is a logical step up compared to 1080p and since it's a cheaper choice compared to 4k panels, What should i go for?

 

 

[brob]

4 hours ago, Fenris Wolf said:

The purpose of this build is to keep my system future proof for at least 5 years (Playing in Ultra settings+60fps) However i don't do any sort of job other than gaming on it. Maybe sometimes i want to fire up photoshop or do some digital art on it. 

Side note: I don't plan to OC my hardware, So the possibility is out of the window. Also i want to keep my budget below 2000$.

 

For pure gaming the i7-9700K will do as good a job as the i9-9900K into the foreseeable future. You might also consider the AMD 3700X.

 

Do not use DDR4-2400 memory. i7-9700K and i9-9900K stock memory speed is DDR4-2666. But you may find better pricing for DDR4-3000 CL15 or DDR4-3200 CL16. 

 

A lower-end gpu does not strike me as a good investment for a gaming system.