Built a PC without knowing much

[Alopez]

So I got help building a rig about two years ago and I now know there are components that don't make much sense. I just wanted to get some feedback as to what parts I should replace. I play games and do architecture work (3D programs and rendering), if that helps at all. 

 

CPU: AMD FX-9590 4.7GHz 

 

CPU Cooler: Phanteks tc14pe

 

MOBO: ASRock 990FX Extreme9 ATX AM3+ 

 

Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws Z series 32GB DDR3 1866

 

Storage: Kingston SSD v300 120GB / 2TB Toshiba HDD

 

GPU: I had (2) 2 GB Gigabyte GTX 770s in SLI but i have a 1080 coming in the mail tomorrow that'll replace those

 

Case: Phanteks Enthoo Evolv ATX 

 

PSU: EVGA 1000W 90+ Gold Certified 

 

Monitors: LG 34UC87C ultrawide / ASUS VG248QE 144Hz

 

I'm thinking of upgrading the CPU, but with that comes the whole re-outfitting a bunch of other components as I understand it. Suggestions? 

 

Thanks in advance!

[elbarto.2]

The CPU is basically the best on the entire market having an industry-leading 4.7 GHz on 8 cores.  You can't really upgrade it.

[toastythomas]

As long as you upgrade the CPU with another CPU in the same socket set. You shouldn't have to do anything else.

[aisle9]

The only upgrades available for your CPU would necessitate a switch to Intel. Like, seriously, the 9590 is the absolute top-end AMD chip. Scary, I know. Most likely, you'd be looking at $250-ish for an i5-6600K (or $300+ for an i7-6700K), a new Z170 motherboard and new DDR4 RAM. Could get pricey.

 

Otherwise, the Kingston SSD is kind of junk, but even with that in mind, I don't see anything that really screams, "Upgrade me!"

[Alopez]

Just now, elbarto2003 said:

The CPU is basically the best on the entire market having an industry-leading 4.7 GHz on 8 cores.  You can't really upgrade it.

It's the best as far as AMD is concerned, but isn't it considerably outperformed by something like an i7 4690?

[Tyrosen]

1 minute ago, elbarto2003 said:

The CPU is basically the best on the entire market having an industry-leading 4.7 GHz on 8 cores.  You can't really upgrade it.

I'm pretty sure GHz has nothing to do with other chips. The term GHz used to mean something, and could be used to identify as speed, but nowadays, GHz can only be used to identify it's speed in its OWN generation. that new stupid 10 core intel Haswell e has only 3.0GHz, while the skylake has 4.0GHz, which proves my point

[Alopez]

1 minute ago, aisle9 said:

The only upgrades available for your CPU would necessitate a switch to Intel. Like, seriously, the 9590 is the absolute top-end AMD chip. Scary, I know. Most likely, you'd be looking at $250-ish for an i5-6600K (or $300+ for an i7-6700K), a new Z170 motherboard and new DDR4 RAM. Could get pricey.

 

Otherwise, the Kingston SSD is kind of junk, but even with that in mind, I don't see anything that really screams, "Upgrade me!"

Yeah that's kind of the direction I knew it would go. The difference between the two is pretty substantial right? Will the CPU bottleneck the incoming 1080 at all? 

[aisle9]

Just now, Alopez said:

It's the best as far as AMD is concerned, but isn't it considerably outperformed by something like an i7 4690?

As a processor, yes, Haswell or later i5's (particularly the higher-clocked ones) will outperform it. i7's will eat it for lunch, crap out its remains and then eat them for dinner.

 

As a space heater, it knows no equal. It makes a wonderful hot plate for boiling tea. If you have a house you want to get rid of, hook it up to a 480W Logisys PSU, toss some papers on the ground around it, then turn on Prime 95 and walk away.

[aisle9]

1 minute ago, Alopez said:

Yeah that's kind of the direction I knew it would go. The difference between the two is pretty substantial right? Will the CPU bottleneck the incoming 1080 at all? 

A 6600K might. An i7, whether it's a 4770, 4770K, 4790, 4790K, 6700 or 6700K will not.

[Alopez]

1 minute ago, aisle9 said:

A 6600K might. An i7, whether it's a 4770, 4770K, 4790, 4790K, 6700 or 6700K will not.

Yeah it's a super awesome space heater for sure lol. And if i knew better before when i was initially purchasing the stuff, i'd know not to side with AMD. Am I correct in assuming there isnt an enormous difference in performance between the 6700k and the 4790k? I wouldnt want to have to upgrade to DDR4 if it isnt necessary because i know its more expensive. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, elbarto2003 said:

The CPU is basically the best on the entire market having an industry-leading 4.7 GHz on 8 cores.  You can't really upgrade it.

I presume you mean the best AMD cpu on the market ? As an Intel i7 will beat out the FX-9590.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Alopez said:

Yeah it's a super awesome space heater for sure lol. And if i knew better before when i was initially purchasing the stuff, i'd know not to side with AMD. Am I correct in assuming there isnt an enormous difference in performance between the 6700k and the 4790k? I wouldnt want to have to upgrade to DDR4 if it isnt necessary because i know its more expensive. 

The i7 6700K should be your choice of cpu if moving to Intel. No point in going for the older gen Haswell. Also DDR4 costs about the same as DDR3.

[aisle9]

3 minutes ago, Alopez said:

Yeah it's a super awesome space heater for sure lol. And if i knew better before when i was initially purchasing the stuff, i'd know not to side with AMD. Am I correct in assuming there isnt an enormous difference in performance between the 6700k and the 4790k? I wouldnt want to have to upgrade to DDR4 if it isnt necessary because i know its more expensive. 

I'll defend AMD's A-series APUs to the death as the perfect CPU for low-budget desktops and almost any laptop, their Athlon X4's are some of the best price-to-performance CPUs out there, and I'm genuinely hopeful that Zen finally kicks Intel in the pants and forces them to start innovating instead of just taking baby steps and marking up the price by 15%.

 

If you can find a decent Z97 board at a lower price point--and that's becoming difficult for Micro ATX, let alone Mini ITX--yes, a 4790K will perform very close to a 6700K. I stumbled across a $130 Z97 Mini ITX board tonight and nearly bought it for the sake of having it--that's how pricey they're getting. Plenty of ATX Z97s out there still, so you're ok there if that's your form factor (and it probably is).

[Alopez]

1 minute ago, aisle9 said:

I'll defend AMD's A-series APUs to the death as the perfect CPU for low-budget desktops and almost any laptop, their Athlon X4's are some of the best price-to-performance CPUs out there, and I'm genuinely hopeful that Zen finally kicks Intel in the pants and forces them to start innovating instead of just taking baby steps and marking up the price by 15%.

 

If you can find a decent Z97 board at a lower price point--and that's becoming difficult for Micro ATX, let alone Mini ITX--yes, a 4790K will perform very close to a 6700K. I stumbled across a $130 Z97 Mini ITX board tonight and nearly bought it for the sake of having it--that's how pricey they're getting.

I totally agree with everything youve just said about Intel's stagnating progress in CPU innovation. There's not gain to be had by innovating when theyve got no competition, which sucks for the consumer and technological progress on the whole unfortunately. 

 

Ok, say that Im partial to going for the 6700k, (keeping in mind that ive got an ATX compatible case), what sort of mobo/RAM would be recommended to go along with it? 

[pcshme33]

9 minutes ago, Alopez said:

Yeah it's a super awesome space heater for sure lol. And if i knew better before when i was initially purchasing the stuff, i'd know not to side with AMD. Am I correct in assuming there isnt an enormous difference in performance between the 6700k and the 4790k? I wouldnt want to have to upgrade to DDR4 if it isnt necessary because i know its more expensive. 

Very little difference.

[Zyndo]

18 minutes ago, Alopez said:

Snip

The only thing here that could use upgrades is the CPU and the SSD. the V300 isn't exceptionally fast as far as SSD's go, and it doesn't even compare to the newer NVME drives. That being said, even a somewhat slow SSD is still a heck of alot faster than a HDD, and plenty fast for 99% of all users needs. I don't think you really NEED more speed.

 

When it comes to CPU that just depends on your budget. I wouldn't upgrade to an i5 if I were you, the performance difference would be too minimal for the investment you would have to make on the motherboard, CPU, and RAM. However if you wanted to go i7 6700k, Z170, and DDR4 RAM, then that would be a good idea. However, there are options even stronger than that on the market today if your workload is more than gaming. You could go 6800k, X99, and DDR4. You could even buy something better than a 6800k if you think your computer would need it, but a 6800k would be a large improvement over what you currently have. It all depends on your budget

[BuckGup]

God that is one hot CPU. I would swap to intel or plan to swap 

[pcshme33]

20 minutes ago, elbarto2003 said:

The CPU is basically the best on the entire market having an industry-leading 4.7 GHz on 8 cores.  You can't really upgrade it.

You do understand the difference in architecture and performance advantages intel has over amd correct? A 4 core i5 or i7 intel cpu will smash any amd cpu right now. 

[aisle9]

Just now, Alopez said:

I totally agree with everything youve just said about Intel's stagnating progress in CPU innovation. There's not gain to be had by innovating when theyve got no competition, which sucks for the consumer and technological progress on the whole unfortunately. 

 

Ok, say that Im partial to going for the 6700k, (keeping in mind that ive got an ATX compatible case), what sort of mobo/RAM would be recommended to go along with it? 

Definitely a Z170. The only four mobo OEMs I look at are ASUS, MSI, Gigabyte or AsRock. Honestly, I don't think you can go particularly wrong with any of them. ASUS' build quality is great and their software is easily the best, but they're pricey. MSI's kind of average and unremarkable in every way--good thing or bad thing. Gigabyte makes some really nice boards at good prices, but their customer service is atrocious and it seems like their QA is slipping. AsRock has quietly become one of my top two. They've got a checkered past, but their newer mobos have great software features and work perfectly fine, and there's no arguing with that price.

 

RAM is more of a personal decision. I'd go with 16GB, particularly given your rendering use case. RAM speed is up to you. I use DDR3-1600 in my Haswell rigs and DDR4-2400 in my Skylake box. Not for any particular reason other than it was cheapest at the time among brands I care to buy. You might want to go DDR4-2400 or faster if your mobo allows you to, again, because you're rendering.

 

Another possibility for you is Broadwell-E, given that you're, again, rendering, and rendering eats up extra cores. An i7-6800K with its two extra cores and four extra threads might be right up your alley.

[Alopez]

6 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

Definitely a Z170. The only four mobo OEMs I look at are ASUS, MSI, Gigabyte or AsRock. Honestly, I don't think you can go particularly wrong with any of them. ASUS' build quality is great and their software is easily the best, but they're pricey. MSI's kind of average and unremarkable in every way--good thing or bad thing. Gigabyte makes some really nice boards at good prices, but their customer service is atrocious and it seems like their QA is slipping. AsRock has quietly become one of my top two. They've got a checkered past, but their newer mobos have great software features and work perfectly fine, and there's no arguing with that price.

 

RAM is more of a personal decision. I'd go with 16GB, particularly given your rendering use case. RAM speed is up to you. I use DDR3-1600 in my Haswell rigs and DDR4-2400 in my Skylake box. Not for any particular reason other than it was cheapest at the time among brands I care to buy. You might want to go DDR4-2400 or faster if your mobo allows you to, again, because you're rendering.

 

Another possibility for you is Broadwell-E, given that you're, again, rendering, and rendering eats up extra cores. An i7-6800K with its two extra cores and four extra threads might be right up your alley.

Thanks so much for your feed back! 

 

As of right now i think im more likely to side with the 6700k for budget purposes. I dont have a clearly defined budget, but the couple of hundred dollars in difference between the cpu and mobo are swaying me that way. The money saved might be put toward liquid cooling the thing, as i am now running all of it under a massive Phanteks cooling unit.

 

Do you think as it stands now (with the AMD processor) that the 1080 will be bottlenecked badly? 

[aisle9]

Just now, Alopez said:

Do you think as it stands now (with the AMD processor) that the 1080 will be bottlenecked badly? 

Definitely bottlenecked, not sure by how much. YouTube might be able to help with that.

[OnionRings]

PSU might be a bit overkill. I would upg to an i7 now too, AMD chips are aged, they still work yea but they're old.

[Zyndo]

Well since I haven't heard what your budget is, here is an idea of how much a CPU upgrade will cost. The price can go up or down a bit depending on your choice of motherboard and RAM speeds, but this should give you a good estimation on how much this should cost.

 

6700k (4 cores + hyperthreading 16 PCIE lanes)

http://pcpartpicker.com/list/T7Gx3C

 

6800k (6 cores + hyperthreading, 28 PCIE lanes)

http://pcpartpicker.com/list/WLgBZ8

 

6900k (8 cores + hyperthreading, 40 PCIE lanes)

http://pcpartpicker.com/list/6gMxcc

 

Then there is also Xeons, but I do not know enough about them to be recommending that line of CPU

6 minutes ago, Alopez said:

Do you think as it stands now (with the AMD processor) that the 1080 will be bottlenecked badly? 

That will depend on the game and on the graphical settings/fps at which you play. It will not be detrimental in most situations, and will be a good improvement over your current SLI setup. And when you do bottleneck it won't be the end of the world, as it can't perform any worse than you currently have in your computer.

[Alopez]

6 minutes ago, OnionRings said:

PSU might be a bit overkill. I would upg to an i7 now too, AMD chips are aged, they still work yea but they're old.

Right, I discovered that a while back, but not before i had purchased it before i knew anything on the topic unfortunately

[Alopez]

2 minutes ago, Zyndo said:

Well since I haven't heard what your budget is, here is an idea of how much a CPU upgrade will cost. The price can go up or down a bit depending on your choice of motherboard and RAM speeds, but this should give you a good estimation on how much this should cost.

 

6700k (4 cores + hyperthreading 16 PCIE lanes)

http://pcpartpicker.com/list/T7Gx3C

 

6800k (6 cores + hyperthreading, 28 PCIE lanes)

http://pcpartpicker.com/list/WLgBZ8

 

6900k (8 cores + hyperthreading, 40 PCIE lanes)

http://pcpartpicker.com/list/6gMxcc

 

Then there is also Xeons, but I do not know enough about them to be recommending that line of CPU

That will depend on the game and on the graphical settings/fps at which you play. It will not be detrimental in most situations, and will be a good improvement over your current SLI setup. And when you do bottleneck it won't be the end of the world, as it can't perform any worse than you currently have in your computer.

I hadn't really decided for sure how much i wanted to spend, but i wanted to get an idea of what to upgrade and how much it would cost in different scenarios. Ill most likely be going with the 6700k build. Thanks for the input though! i really appreciate it.