Rate my build (Warning: X299 platform)

[Morgoth97]

At this rate I might have to rename my title 7820x vs Ryzen 1700 or Threadripper.

[kaiju_wars]

2 hours ago, Morgoth97 said:

At this rate I might have to rename my title 7820x vs Ryzen 1700 or Threadripper.

IDK why, you did ask us to rate it and for help

3 hours ago, Morgoth97 said:

Hello forum,

I'm planning to start building my first PC (for gaming and some CAD) by the end of the week and I was wondering if I was missing anything essential or perhaps you'd like to criticize me for my choice of platform? 

Also, any tips would be appreciated.

 

 

P.S

Yes, I do have a monitor and others essential peripherals, tools and tube bending tools. 

People rated your build and gave you tips on what would probably be better for your use-case.

[just_dave]

X299 = Burn your money on both setup and electricity bills

X370-F Strix + R7 1800X = save a few bucks on both setup and bills

Also, why the fuck are people so concerned about numbers, higher frequency doesnt automatically mean higher performance as hardware unboxed has shown, if you get Ryzen 7 1800X, Strix X370-F mobo and 32 gigs (2*16) of 3200MHz DDR4, you can do much better than your current setup

[Morgoth97]

8 hours ago, kaiju_wars said:

-Snip-

I haven't received any feedback apart from people telling me that my build isn't cost effective which I totally agree; it is overkill which is exactly my goal. 

 

My my main purpose was gaming so I really don't understand why people even mention 1700 or 1800x; they're purely for content creating and given the price range it's unfair to compare Ryzen 7 to X299. I think Threadripper would be a better comparison especially (AMD)1900x vs (Intel)7820x.

 

Ryzen 7 compromises single core performance to stay in the low price range which (sorry for being captain obvious) appeals to most people who are price elastic.

 

Perhaps if Threadripper was announced before I purchased my x299 platform I might have considered it but I didn't expect high performance CPUs from AMD.

 

Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate constructive criticism which could potentially be useful  when I decide to upgrade in the future.

 

 

 

 

[Morgoth97]

8 hours ago, dave_k said:

X299 = Burn your money on both setup and electricity bills

X370-F Strix + R7 1800X = save a few bucks on both setup and bills

Also, why the fuck are people so concerned about numbers, higher frequency doesnt automatically mean higher performance as hardware unboxed has shown, if you get Ryzen 7 1800X, Strix X370-F mobo and 32 gigs (2*16) of 3200MHz DDR4, you can do much better than your current setup

Wrong, he showed that 1800x will outperform the 7820x in performance per dollar. 

Granted the 7820x has a longer latency than the 1800x because of he mesh architecture but I don't see myself using software that's sensitive to CPU latency.

 

Hold on, I do believe games are sensitive to core frequency so the higher it is, the better the frame rate unless you're overclocking incorrectly where the CPU is suspectible to thermal throttling. Or am I wrong?

[kaiju_wars]

Just now, Morgoth97 said:

I haven't received any feedback apart from people telling me that my build isn't cost effective which I totally agree; it is overkill which is exactly my goal. 

 

My my main purpose was gaming so I really don't understand why people even mention 1700 or 1800x; they're purely for content creating and given the price range it's unfair to compare Ryzen 7 to X299. I think Threadripper would be a better comparison especially (AMD)1900x vs (Intel)7820x.

 

Ryzen 7 compromises single core performance to stay in the low price range which (sorry for being captain obvious) appeals to most people who are price elastic.

 

Perhaps if Threadripper was announced before I purchased my x299 platform I might have considered it but I didn't expect high performance CPUs from AMD.

 

Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate constructive criticism which could potentially be useful  when I decide to upgrade in the future.

 

Because Ryzen was designed for gaming, but it wasn't designed for only gaming.

Also AMD never actually compromised any single core performance.  They weren't trying to beat Intel.  They made it very clear they were looking for 40% IPC gains over Bulldozer.  

They beat that. (IIRC, they got 52% IPC gains).

As a result, Ryzen is a much better value than competing Intel chips at the moment, especially if you plan to game and anything else.  (For example, streaming.  Which LTT proved AMD's claim of only needing Ryzen 7 to stream actually true).

 

That's why people are recommending Ryzen.

 

Also, if gaming is your main focus, and that's what you'll do 99.99% of the time.  Go with an i7 7700K. It's honestly all you'll need, and it's the best gaming only chip out right now.

Honestly, best advice, regardless... don't go X299.  It doesn't matter if you'll never need more PCIe lanes.  Purposefully gimping a platform based on how much you spent on a CPU is a very shitty thing to do.

 

Either go with an i7 7700K if gaming truly is your main focus, or wait for Threadripper if you want an enthusiast platform.

That's the best advice.

[just_dave]

6 minutes ago, Morgoth97 said:

Wrong, he showed that 1800x will outperform the 7820x in performance per dollar. 

Granted the 7820x has a longer latency than the 1800x because of he mesh architecture but I don't see myself using software that's sensitive to CPU latency.

 

Hold on, I do believe games are sensitive to core frequency so the higher it is, the better the frame rate unless you're overclocking incorrectly where the CPU is suspectible to thermal throttling. Or am I wrong?

Modern games like Prey are well optimized, they spread the load between multiple cores, so you might get better performance with more cores rather than frequencies

[DocSwag]

19 hours ago, Morgoth97 said:

MSI Lightning actually sports the best thermals for air cooled 1080 Ti (obviously because it's triple slot) and I also find it very appealing and hence fitting in my showcase styled Chassis. 

 

I've chosen 7820x over 1700 simply because the frequency is much better when water cooled in a custom water loop. Also, I wouldn't consider myself price elastic.

 

I chose an NVME SSD over a Sata 3 one for multiple reasons:

1- It's much faster and I'll get better boot times.

2- It's more future proof.

3- I plan to run more NVME SSDs so I'd get noticeably much faster transfer rates between them.

4- I don't have to hassle over wires.

5- It's looks more impressive on paper.

But does it really matter? All 1080 tis oc about the same so you're paying $100 more for what, rgb?

 

If you have the cash then I guess 7820x is worth going for.

 

1. Not true, NVMe doesn't boot faster than sata drives

2. What exactly is that supposed to mean

3. File transfer rates will be faster, yes, but how often would you actually transfer files between NVMe SSDs?

4. There are m.2 sata ssds

5. Which doesn't necessarily transfer to real world performance

[Zando_]

20 hours ago, Morgoth97 said:

At this rate I might have to rename my title 7820x vs Ryzen 1700 or Threadripper.

Add the 7700K too, it's better for gaming than the newer X299 CPUs, IIRC.