Better <$1,000 PC?

[4a454646]

Budget (including currency): $1000

Country: USA

Games, programs or workloads that it will be used for: Gaming in general

Other details (existing parts lists, whether any peripherals are needed, what you're upgrading from, when you're going to buy, what resolution and refresh rate you want to play at, etc): 
Not very good with computers, can someone do a quick comparison for me? I.e. price, performance, company markup, etc.
Much appreciated!

PC 1:       PC 2: 

[jaslion]

So the pc on the left is very old and has a firehazard psu

The pc on the right has a bad psu, no longer good enough cpu for new games and a pretty poor airflow case. I also assume its a gigabyte ds3h motherboard due to the price which is the lowest end b450 there is and it sure ain great. The case is also terrible it has NO airflow.

 

Problem is with building you can get everything but a cpu and gpu for normal price now so everything is just crap right now. The only thing you can really do is wait.

[Bombastinator]

LTT recently attempted to build a console beater PC for $500. The video may be useful.

 

the motherboard on pc#1 is not listed.  It’s kind of a key feature.  The PSU I know nothing about but it sounds sketchy.

Edited January 26, 2021 by Bombastinator

[GhostRoadieBL]

2 minutes ago, jaslion said:

no longer good enough cpu for new games

a single generation old i5 isn't good enough for 1080p gaming on a 1660super? wow, you are misinformed. 

 

10 minutes ago, 4a454646 said:

Budget (including currency): $1000

it's a tough market right now, If you are absolutely sure you need a prebuilt and don't mind the compromises with horrible power supplies and between 300-400$ markups on the systems (at their part MSRP cost, current market is a dumpster fire)

 

https://www.microcenter.com/product/626587/dell-xps-8940-gaming-computer 

gets you a 10700 and 1650 to sell and trade up in a while when the card doesn't do what you need it to anymore. difference between 1660super and 1650 are minimal when looking at 1080p med for most games at this spec range anyway, better to put the $ into a better cpu which will not need a change for a while compared to a graphics card which gets changed more often. 

 

Other option

https://www.microcenter.com/product/625907/powerspec-b245-desktop-computer

runs integrated graphics and can play 1080p low or 900p med on most titles so you can at least game until the used market catches up and can put the rest of the budget into a graphics card (should be able to find rtx2060 but you'd have to swap the PSU for 500+w for $80 which would give you a better overall system. 

 

If you dont mind waiting MicroCenter has this

 

you will have to wait for the 2060 to be back in stock in a month or two. 

 

[jaslion]

1 minute ago, GhostRoadieBL said:

a single generation old i5 isn't good enough for 1080p gaming on a 1660super? wow, you are misinformed. 

No I am not. Look at the new games released over the last year, the new cod, any ubi game, cyberpunk, battlefield,... all stutter on 6core i5's (so ones without ht) because simply put the games use those 6 cores to their fullest or near fullest so the moment any other application needs to use the cpu the game stutters and this will only get worse with the new consoles out.

 

So yeah no it really is bad. A gtx 1660 is fine the i5 is not.

 

For your build I don't agree with the psu as it's rather low quality and the ssd as it's one of the far slower ones due to limited cache and very slow qlc and a regular wd blue drive would be better for pretty much the same price.

 

Gpu wise well it just sucks as nothing exists right now so OP will probs have to just rely on igpu if they buy now which I do not recommend.

[GhostRoadieBL]

1 hour ago, jaslion said:

No I am not. Look at the new games released over the last year, the new cod, any ubi game, cyberpunk, battlefield,... all stutter on 6core i5's (so ones without ht) because simply put the games use those 6 cores to their fullest or near fullest so the moment any other application needs to use the cpu the game stutters and this will only get worse with the new consoles out.

that disregards every entry level gaming system on the planet, i3's, 3300x's, 3400G's there are so many 4 core systems which still game and run well over 60fps minimums. If you cherry pick games like Assassins Creed Odyssey or Anno 1800 they will stutter from poorly optimized game engines utilizing the CPU poorly, 

I can personally attest to Cyberpunk running better on 6cores without SMT than it did with 12 threads on a Ryzen 2600x (even slower than a 9400F with the same number of cores) and the only stuttering was from poor programming, not cores maxed out. 

 

also

https://pc-builds.com/cyri/Core_i5-9400F/GeForce_RTX_2060/0SN137/16/500/

 

1 hour ago, jaslion said:

For your build I don't agree with the psu as it's rather low quality and the ssd as it's one of the far slower ones due to limited cache and very slow qlc and a regular wd blue drive would be better for pretty much the same price

yes the PSU is on the lower tiers of the chart but it is still way better than a prebuilt's grey market PSU so it at least fits into the budget and will absolutely be more reliable than the ones OP was looking at. 

SSD wise, It's NVME, faster than any HDD on the market, and "very slow" QLC is still more than fast enough for an OS and game library. You could go WD Blue for $30 more but that's over budget and gains you literally nothing in daily use. The main reason for NVME is cable management and a file transfer boost over Sata, you could spend $70 more and get a cached 970 Evo but that's also outside the budget so more $ for more important parts in a general purpose gaming system.

 

 

so what would you build for <$1000 which plays well and can actually be bought now?

Edited January 26, 2021 by GhostRoadieBL

[Downkey]

2 hours ago, 4a454646 said:

Budget (including currency): $1000

Country: USA

Games, programs or workloads that it will be used for: Gaming in general

Other details (existing parts lists, whether any peripherals are needed, what you're upgrading from, when you're going to buy, what resolution and refresh rate you want to play at, etc): 
Not very good with computers, can someone do a quick comparison for me? I.e. price, performance, company markup, etc.
Much appreciated!

PC 1:       PC 2: 

To keep it short... both suck. The Lyte PC uses outdated components, and has a F tier PSU and case.

 

The NZXT is bad value for the money, has a bad Psu, and a Bad case.

[jaslion]

43 minutes ago, GhostRoadieBL said:

that disregards every entry level gaming system on the planet, i3's, 3300x's, 3400G's there are so many 4 core systems which still game and run well over 60fps minimums. If you cherry pick games like Assassins Creed Odyssey or Anno 1800 they will stutter from poorly optimized game engines utilizing the CPU poorly, 

I can personally attest to Cyberpunk running better on 6cores without SMT than it did with 12 threads on a Ryzen 2600x (even slower than a 9400F with the same number of cores) and the only stuttering was from poor programming, not cores maxed out. 

 

 

I do not disregard them I specifically said non ht 6 cores. The 3300x, i3 10100, 3400g and many others don't ahve the issue because they have 8 threads not 6.