First Time Build Help

[MegaVoltz]

4 hours ago, SupamanLawson said:

So 1700 over a 1600? What about the ryzen issues? Ive been reading alot of reviews with motherboard issues, a mixture of recent and old reviews. I dont know much about either system, but id like to be informed about it before I make a decision. 

 

And again i do not plan on OCing but maybe in the future. 

 

At least you guys have limited me to 2-3 CPUs. so that narrows things down a bunch. Just everything else is intimidating. I definitely ONLY want to go cheaper where the build as a whole wont suffer. 

The Ryzen platform is fairly mature at this point, the drivers and ram support have just gotten SO much better.

The only choices I would recommend for your CPU are the r5 1400, 1600, r7 1700, or 1800x if you want a seriously future-proof machine, and the only graphics cards I would recommend right now are the GTX 1050 ti, 1060 3/6gb, 1070 or 1080. The 1080 Ti for me is just not worth it as GPU technology advances so quickly that the card is left in the dust 2-3 years from now. Remember the 780 ti and 980 ti? They didn't last long, the 980 ti got replaced with a 1070. A 1070. Just shows how quickly generations improve. If anyone bought a 1080 Ti they will regret it big time once the 20XX series comes out.

Remember it is always better long-term to go for a better CPU even if that means cheaping out on your graphics card. Reason for that being GPU technology advances FAR quicker than GPU technology. An 11 year old CPU (C2Q Q6600) can still play GTA V at 1080p with 30-45 fps depending on your settings. An 11 year old graphics card can NOT. A budget graphics card from 5 years ago can barely play Witcher 3 at 720p lowest settings, with stutters below 15 fps. It simply isn't playable. This is a fine example of a video card going obsolete.

However a now 6 year old CPU is still chugging along (i5 2500k). This is due in part to Intel's crappy incremental generational performance improvements, also due in part to the fact that Moore's Law is coming to an end. You can buy that CPU for $60, overclock it to 4.5GHz on the STOCK COOLER (with very reasonable temps!), and have essentially an i5 7400. If a $60 (used) CPU can rival a near-$200 CPU then I'd say that's a good indication that CPU performance progression is more or less slowing down. GPU performance progression is faster than it ever was.

That's why you should buy the 1700 over a cheaper option. You will thank yourself in 5 years.

[MegaVoltz]

16 minutes ago, herman mcpootis said:

the 1700 doesn't gain much performance increase over the 1600 in gaming and the 7700k performs better than the 1700 in gaming, stick to the 1600 for your budget.

That's true today, however in a year or less game developers will start leveraging the extra cores, threads, and cache of the 1700. Fact is that although it has the potential to be nearly 50% faster than the 1600 in games, game developers just aren't taking advantage of Ryzen's features yet. That will change in a year or less however.

You know why that's true? Because the i5 2500K was beating the AMD FX 8350 in every single game in 2011-12. In recent years, the performance has gotten closer and closer, and NOW the 8350 is BEATING the 2500k in current games. Why?

 

Because game developers have started DEVELOPING for more cores. This trend will continue into the future, with Coffee lake having more cores and threads than Kaby Lake, and Zen 2 will have more cores and threads than Zen.

Long story short, the 1700 is a better deal.

[Herman Mcpootis]

1 minute ago, MegaVoltz said:

That's true today, however in a year or less game developers will start leveraging the extra cores, threads, and cache of the 1700. Fact is that although it has the potential to be nearly 50% faster than the 1600 in games, game developers just aren't taking advantage of Ryzen's features yet. That will change in a year or less however.

i don't care about your magical crystal ball, until we see legit evidence that the 1700 starts beating the 7700k in more games, the 7700k is better in games, end of story.

3 minutes ago, MegaVoltz said:

You know why that's true? Because the i5 2500K was beating the AMD FX 8350 in every single game in 2011-12. In recent years, the performance has gotten closer and closer, and NOW the 8350 is BEATING the 2500k in current games. Why?

14:57, even the dual core+HT G4560 beats the FX 8370, the 2500k still performs much better in games.

[DocSwag]

6 hours ago, MegaVoltz said:

Try this one:

R7 1700 = 8 core 16 thread

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 7 1700 3.0GHz 8-Core Processor  ($294.99 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master - Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($29.99 @ B&H)
Motherboard: MSI - B350M PRO-VDH Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard  ($74.96 @ B&H)
Memory: G.Skill - Ripjaws V Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-2800 Memory  ($116.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: ADATA - Premier Pro SP600 128GB 2.5" Solid State Drive  ($59.94 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital - Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  ($49.99 @ Best Buy)
Case: NZXT - S340 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case  ($69.99 @ B&H)
Power Supply: EVGA - SuperNOVA NEX 750W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply  ($99.09 @ B&H)
Total: $795.94
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-09-05 14:27 EDT-0400

 

That's without a GPU or OS.

1700 over 1600 for gaming pc? Why get a 212 evo when stock is just as good? Mobo with NO VRM heatsinks+Ryzen 8 core getting OCed is a disaster waiting to happen, and why oh why a NEX psu?!?

6 hours ago, MegaVoltz said:

The 1700 has double the cores and threads for less money. Also it can be overclocked on $60-80 motherboards, and it comes with a cooler. The 7700K costs more, only has FOUR cores, you need to spend tons on a beefy cooler because that thing is held together with the equivalent of toothpaste, and it can't be overclocked unless you spend upwards of $150 on a motherboard! Not even mentioning the R7 will outperform it in the future due to developers taking advantage of those cores and threads. If they were properly utilized today, the 1700 would be nearly twice as fast as the 7700K in current games.

Basically all it comes down to is short term pain, long term gain. It's not even a big deal because the 7700k only beats the 1700 by ~15% in most current games, that gap will close as time goes on.

Yes r7 will win in the future, but the question is how far in the future?

 

Even say r7 starts winning in 3-4 years. By that time, the 7700k will have been beating the 1700 for 3-4 years. After 5 years or so you'll probably be looking at a CPU upgrade. So the 7700k enjoys a lead for 3-4 years and the 1700 MAYBE for 1-2 years? How is that worth it?

15 minutes ago, MegaVoltz said:

The Ryzen platform is fairly mature at this point, the drivers and ram support have just gotten SO much better.

The only choices I would recommend for your CPU are the r5 1400, 1600, r7 1700, or 1800x if you want a seriously future-proof machine, and the only graphics cards I would recommend right now are the GTX 1050 ti, 1060 3/6gb, 1070 or 1080. The 1080 Ti for me is just not worth it as GPU technology advances so quickly that the card is left in the dust 2-3 years from now. Remember the 780 ti and 980 ti? They didn't last long, the 980 ti got replaced with a 1070. A 1070. Just shows how quickly generations improve. If anyone bought a 1080 Ti they will regret it big time once the 20XX series comes out.

Remember it is always better long-term to go for a better CPU even if that means cheaping out on your graphics card. Reason for that being GPU technology advances FAR quicker than GPU technology. An 11 year old CPU (C2Q Q6600) can still play GTA V at 1080p with 30-45 fps depending on your settings. An 11 year old graphics card can NOT. A budget graphics card from 5 years ago can barely play Witcher 3 at 720p lowest settings, with stutters below 15 fps. It simply isn't playable. This is a fine example of a video card going obsolete.

However a now 6 year old CPU is still chugging along (i5 2500k). This is due in part to Intel's crappy incremental generational performance improvements, also due in part to the fact that Moore's Law is coming to an end. You can buy that CPU for $60, overclock it to 4.5GHz on the STOCK COOLER (with very reasonable temps!), and have essentially an i5 7400. If a $60 (used) CPU can rival a near-$200 CPU then I'd say that's a good indication that CPU performance progression is more or less slowing down. GPU performance progression is faster than it ever was.

That's why you should buy the 1700 over a cheaper option. You will thank yourself in 5 years.

An 1800x for a CPU recommendation?!?

 

Intel isn't having "crappy generational improvements" in the grand scheme of things. We've hit the point where even if you double the amount of transistors maybe you'll get 10-15% more ipc. Intel isn't throttling improvement on the ipc side of things, they're just hitting a wall.

5 minutes ago, MegaVoltz said:

That's true today, however in a year or less game developers will start leveraging the extra cores, threads, and cache of the 1700. Fact is that although it has the potential to be nearly 50% faster than the 1600 in games, game developers just aren't taking advantage of Ryzen's features yet. That will change in a year or less however.

You know why that's true? Because the i5 2500K was beating the AMD FX 8350 in every single game in 2011-12. In recent years, the performance has gotten closer and closer, and NOW the 8350 is BEATING the 2500k in current games. Why?

 

Because game developers have started DEVELOPING for more cores. This trend will continue into the future, with Coffee lake having more cores and threads than Kaby Lake, and Zen 2 will have more cores and threads than Zen.

Long story short, the 1700 is a better deal.

Yeah they'll start developing for more cores but read above, by the time that happens Ryzen will have been losing for a clipped of years.

 

Also, I would like a source for 8350 beating 2500k.

[LienusLateTips]

What's happening here

[DocSwag]

19 minutes ago, JDE said:

What's happening here

Someone is recommending R7 for pure gaming and I and @herman mcpootis are disagreeing with it.

 

(also worth noting is I think a 1600 would be a better choice for op over a 1700 or 7700k anyways since at the budget we're looking at op would be better off spending the money on the gpu)

[SupamanLawson]

1 hour ago, herman mcpootis said:

@SupamanLawson whats your budget with a GPU?

I really have no budget for the GPU. I want the best gpu for whatever cpu I am recommended. 

 

I heard about bottlenecking wether it be the cpu or gpu and I want neither to happen.  I would like a balanced system. 

[Herman Mcpootis]

2 minutes ago, SupamanLawson said:

I really have no budget for the GPU. I want the best gpu for whatever cpu I am recommended. 

 

I heard about bottlenecking wether it be the cpu or gpu and I want neither to happen.  I would like a balanced system. 

there's always gonna be a bottleneck somewhere in the build, don't worry about it and just get the best rig you can with your budget. 

[SupamanLawson]

3 minutes ago, herman mcpootis said:

there's always gonna be a bottleneck somewhere in the build, don't worry about it and just get the best rig you can with your budget. 

Ultimately my $800 isn’t a hard cap. I want a build that will last 3-4 years if possible. I literally know nothing about PCs except that I want to build one for the experience and the accomplishing feeling of the build rather than buying pre built.

 

So I was looking for the best cpu, motherboard, gpu and psu. Because I’m just beginning and want to learn.  

 

All im gathering is an R5 1600 or a 7700k. 

[LienusLateTips]

1 minute ago, SupamanLawson said:

Ultimately my $800 isn’t a hard cap. I want a build that will last 3-4 years if possible. I literally know nothing about PCs except that I want to build one for the experience and the accomplishing feeling of the build rather than buying pre built.

 

So I was looking for the best cpu, motherboard, gpu and psu. Because I’m just beginning and want to learn.  

 

All im gathering is an R5 1600 or a 7700k. 

If you want this to last 3-4 years, go for the R5. It has more cores, and games are quickly optimizing for more and more cores. In addition to that, next year AMD is coming out with Zen 2 and after that Zen 3 and maybe even Zen 4. The old motherboards will all be compatible so you have a solid upgrade path.

[SupamanLawson]

22 minutes ago, JDE said:

If you want this to last 3-4 years, go for the R5. It has more cores, and games are quickly optimizing for more and more cores. In addition to that, next year AMD is coming out with Zen 2 and after that Zen 3 and maybe even Zen 4. The old motherboards will all be compatible so you have a solid upgrade path.

 

Thanks for the recommendation. 

 

More people seem seem to recommend the same.  So I’m leaning towards a ryzen build. 

 

Now what’s motherboard. I don’t want to go completely cheap and risk breaking something or getting bad quality. I want a good quality good price motherboard

[LienusLateTips]

35 minutes ago, SupamanLawson said:

Now what’s motherboard. I don’t want to go completely cheap and risk breaking something or getting bad quality. I want a good quality good price motherboard

B350 Fatalty seems to be the best under $100 right now. For a mid range option the best would probably be the X370 PRIME Plus and the X370 Strix. The high end is occupied by the X370 Taichi and the Crosshair VI Hero, but I wouldn't recommend those two for a CPU mid range like this.

[SupamanLawson]

7 minutes ago, JDE said:

B350 Fatalty seems to be the best under $100 right now. For a mid range option the best would probably be the X370 PRIME Plus and the X370 Strix. The high end is occupied by the X370 Taichi and the Crosshair VI Hero, but I wouldn't recommend those two for a CPU mid range like this.

So fatality or asus prime plus/strix. 

 

Any rec on a psu. I dont even know what bronze or gold is. I gathered enough to know wattage.  

 

Gpu rec? 

 

[SupamanLawson]

Why are there so many bad reviews on Ryzen boards? 

 

Why are are some of them about bad vrms?

 

and is usb c useful or needed?

[MegaVoltz]

On 9/5/2017 at 8:47 PM, DocSwag said:

1700 over 1600 for gaming pc? Why get a 212 evo when stock is just as good? Mobo with NO VRM heatsinks+Ryzen 8 core getting OCed is a disaster waiting to happen, and why oh why a NEX psu?!?

Yes r7 will win in the future, but the question is how far in the future?

 

Even say r7 starts winning in 3-4 years. By that time, the 7700k will have been beating the 1700 for 3-4 years. After 5 years or so you'll probably be looking at a CPU upgrade. So the 7700k enjoys a lead for 3-4 years and the 1700 MAYBE for 1-2 years? How is that worth it?

An 1800x for a CPU recommendation?!?

 

Intel isn't having "crappy generational improvements" in the grand scheme of things. We've hit the point where even if you double the amount of transistors maybe you'll get 10-15% more ipc. Intel isn't throttling improvement on the ipc side of things, they're just hitting a wall.

Yeah they'll start developing for more cores but read above, by the time that happens Ryzen will have been losing for a clipped of years.

 

Also, I would like a source for 8350 beating 2500k.

Why don't YOU come up with a part list then mr. omniscient

[MegaVoltz]

On 9/5/2017 at 8:42 PM, herman mcpootis said:

i don't care about your magical crystal ball, until we see legit evidence that the 1700 starts beating the 7700k in more games, the 7700k is better in games, end of story.

14:57, even the dual core+HT G4560 beats the FX 8370, the 2500k still performs much better in games.

 

Disproved.

Also disproves your theory about the 7700k being better. OP SAID he wanted a computer for 3-4 years into the future. The 7700k is a QUAD CORE. The 1600 offers much better value for the money. Don't even bother to dispute that. The 1600 has more real cores than the i7 has hyper-threads.

[DocSwag]

51 minutes ago, MegaVoltz said:

 

Disproved.

Also disproves your theory about the 7700k being better. OP SAID he wanted a computer for 3-4 years into the future. The 7700k is a QUAD CORE. The 1600 offers much better value for the money. Don't even bother to dispute that. The 1600 has more real cores than the i7 has hyper-threads.

That video has been disproven by Hardware Unboxed.

 

Value. The problem with that is, what if someone isn't going for "value?" What if someone is going for best possible gaming performance? In which case a 7700k is better, since it just has better performance.

 

Not everyone is going for best perf/$.

 

EDIT: Also, comparing purely based on cores is a horrible comparison metric. The same argument could be used to say an 8350 is better than a 7700k which is just not true.

[DocSwag]

1 hour ago, MegaVoltz said:

Why don't YOU come up with a part list then mr. omniscient

Alrighty.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel - Core i7-7700K 4.2GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($322.88 @ OutletPC) 
CPU Cooler: CRYORIG - H7 49.0 CFM CPU Cooler  ($34.89 @ OutletPC) 
Motherboard: ASRock - Z270 Pro4 ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  ($109.39 @ OutletPC) 
Memory: Team - Vulcan 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3000 Memory  ($134.99 @ Newegg) 
Storage: MyDigitalSSD - BP5e Slim 7 128GB 2.5" Solid State Drive  ($54.99 @ Amazon) 
Storage: Western Digital - Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  ($45.87 @ OutletPC) 
Case: Phanteks - ECLIPSE P400 TEMPERED GLASS ATX Mid Tower Case  ($64.99 @ Newegg) 
Power Supply: Corsair - TXM Gold 550W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply  ($74.99 @ Amazon) 
Total: $842.99
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-09-08 14:10 EDT-0400

 

A little bit over, which could be brought down by a cheaper case, lower speed ram, and/or a bit cheaper mobo.

[MegaVoltz]

4 hours ago, DocSwag said:

Alrighty.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel - Core i7-7700K 4.2GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($322.88 @ OutletPC) 
CPU Cooler: CRYORIG - H7 49.0 CFM CPU Cooler  ($34.89 @ OutletPC) 
Motherboard: ASRock - Z270 Pro4 ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  ($109.39 @ OutletPC) 
Memory: Team - Vulcan 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3000 Memory  ($134.99 @ Newegg) 
Storage: MyDigitalSSD - BP5e Slim 7 128GB 2.5" Solid State Drive  ($54.99 @ Amazon) 
Storage: Western Digital - Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  ($45.87 @ OutletPC) 
Case: Phanteks - ECLIPSE P400 TEMPERED GLASS ATX Mid Tower Case  ($64.99 @ Newegg) 
Power Supply: Corsair - TXM Gold 550W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply  ($74.99 @ Amazon) 
Total: $842.99
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-09-08 14:10 EDT-0400

 

A little bit over, which could be brought down by a cheaper case, lower speed ram, and/or a bit cheaper mobo.

7700K is a CPU with no upgrade path and only 4 cores.

What about the 1600?

[MegaVoltz]

4 hours ago, DocSwag said:

That video has been disproven by Hardware Unboxed.

I'd just LOVE to see your source for that.

[DocSwag]

52 minutes ago, MegaVoltz said:

7700K is a CPU with no upgrade path and only 4 cores.

What about the 1600?

And that's why if you want my actual recommendation, it would be to wait one month for the 8700k.

 

1600 is worse in gaming.

50 minutes ago, MegaVoltz said:

I'd just LOVE to see your source for that.

 

[LienusLateTips]

4 hours ago, MegaVoltz said:

7700K is a CPU with no upgrade path and only 4 cores.

What about the 1600?

Problem is only Intel at this point delivers the top gaming performance. 

[MegaVoltz]

11 hours ago, JDE said:

Problem is only Intel at this point delivers the top gaming performance. 

The 1600 costs less than 1/3rd less while being ~20% less powerful in single-threaded performance than the 7700k. It would be a VERY good deal nonetheless even without the countless other advantages of a 6-core 12-thread processor.

[MegaVoltz]

1 minute ago, DocSwag said:

Yeah I really don't see it...

 

[LienusLateTips]

1 hour ago, MegaVoltz said:

 

Adored TV has been known to be a non reputable source tho...