Jump to content


PC build question


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

apollos_343 #21 Posted Mar 10 2017 - 03:29

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 6820 battles
  • 4
  • [GUNS1] GUNS1
  • Member since:
    05-07-2015

Here is another build log that's about 1000$ cheaper than my last one (in Canada) and is still a ballin gaming pc:

 

No.|                Part Name
1. |    AMD Ryzen R5 1600X
2. |    ASRock AB350 Pro4 Moherboard
3. |    CORSAIR Vengeance LPX 32GB ram
4. |    AMD RX 480 8GB
5. |    WD Blue 1TB HDD
6. |    Samsung 960 EVO M.2 250GB
7. |    be quiet! DARK ROCK PRO 3
8. |    Phanteks Enthoo Pro M
9. |    CORSAIR RMi Series RM750i

 

You could get a 16gb kit of ram instead of 32, to bring the cost down, without sacrificing performance. 



apollos_343 #22 Posted Mar 10 2017 - 03:33

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 6820 battles
  • 4
  • [GUNS1] GUNS1
  • Member since:
    05-07-2015

And here is a build log still about 600$ cheaper than my last and will still play WOT great!

 

No.|                Part Name
1. |    AMD Ryzen R5 1400X
2. |    ASUS PRIME B350-PLUS AM4 Motherboard
3. |    CORSAIR Vengeance LPX 16GB
4. |    AMD RX 480 8GB
5. |    WD Blue 1TB HDD
6. |    Phanteks PH-TC12DX CPU Cooler
7. |    Thermaltake Core V31
8. |    EVGA 600 B1

 

You can further reduce cost by using the included CPU cooler if you wanted to, but I always recommend not to cheap out on cooling.



Lethalhavoc #23 Posted Mar 10 2017 - 03:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 37926 battles
  • 8,627
  • Member since:
    01-18-2013
Why do you keep recommending AMD CPU's when he's more concerned with single and dual core usage?

Harkonen_siegetank #24 Posted Mar 10 2017 - 03:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 27945 battles
  • 5,167
  • [_LOL_] _LOL_
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011
And why do you suggest CPU that isn't out yet?

ErnieWrecker #25 Posted Mar 10 2017 - 03:42

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 4687 battles
  • 127
  • [AVNGE] AVNGE
  • Member since:
    07-02-2016

View PostLethalhavoc, on Mar 10 2017 - 03:11, said:

 

I think a person should build a system that can crush single/dual core usage games like WoT, as there are numerous games like this one the market.

The biggest reason for this is that by extension the same system will be able to crush multi core games just as efficiently.

 

For the simple sake of longevity, I would always go for something more powerful. My next system is going to have 32Gb RAM, a 1Tb M.2 SSD, and a GTX 1080 with the option for SLI. I might throw in another SSD for the extra storage.

ErnieWrecker #26 Posted Mar 10 2017 - 03:45

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 4687 battles
  • 127
  • [AVNGE] AVNGE
  • Member since:
    07-02-2016

View Postapollos_343, on Mar 10 2017 - 03:29, said:

Here is another build log that's about 1000$ cheaper than my last one (in Canada) and is still a ballin gaming pc:

 

No.|                Part Name
1. |    AMD Ryzen R5 1600X
2. |    ASRock AB350 Pro4 Moherboard
3. |    CORSAIR Vengeance LPX 32GB ram
4. |    AMD RX 480 8GB
5. |    WD Blue 1TB HDD
6. |    Samsung 960 EVO M.2 250GB
7. |    be quiet! DARK ROCK PRO 3
8. |    Phanteks Enthoo Pro M
9. |    CORSAIR RMi Series RM750i

 

You could get a 16gb kit of ram instead of 32, to bring the cost down, without sacrificing performance.

 

AMD? No thanks! Maybe in about a year after they've been repeatedly tried and tested and have been shown to consistently perform just as good vs. Intel.

Lethalhavoc #27 Posted Mar 10 2017 - 03:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 37926 battles
  • 8,627
  • Member since:
    01-18-2013

View PostErnieWrecker, on Mar 09 2017 - 22:42, said:

 

For the simple sake of longevity, I would always go for something more powerful. My next system is going to have 32Gb RAM, a 1Tb M.2 SSD, and a GTX 1080 with the option for SLI. I might throw in another SSD for the extra storage.

 

But, it's not like he's going to be stuffing a budget Intel CPU in this new system.



Lethalhavoc #28 Posted Mar 10 2017 - 03:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 37926 battles
  • 8,627
  • Member since:
    01-18-2013

View PostErnieWrecker, on Mar 09 2017 - 22:45, said:

 

AMD? No thanks! Maybe in about a year after they've been repeatedly tried and tested and have been shown to consistently perform just as good vs. Intel.

 

The new Ryzen chips are having issues with playing older games on lower settings.

So something not's right.



Horribad_At_Tanks #29 Posted Mar 10 2017 - 04:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 2264 battles
  • 5,095
  • Member since:
    11-07-2012

Ryzen is not for gaming it's for workstations and professional encoders and such. Old 3rd gen i5 are on par with the 1700 on gaming and the newer i5 make short work of it.

 

 

View PostErnieWrecker, on Mar 09 2017 - 21:42, said:

 

For the simple sake of longevity, I would always go for something more powerful. My next system is going to have 32Gb RAM, a 1Tb M.2 SSD, and a GTX 1080 with the option for SLI. I might throw in another SSD for the extra storage.

 

Longevity? Well for gaming you can pick pretty much any i5 of any gen you want and pair it with a gtx 1080 ti and not bottleneck it. Quad core intel cpu have maxed out on gaming performance for a while due to games rarely using more than four threads due to syncing issues. A 2nd gen i5 2500k with an oc will game just as good as the newest kaby lake though the kaby lake will smoke it on synthetic tests which are geared towards encoding performance and such. Hell the $55 g4560 gives near identical gaming performance vs a ryzen @ 1080/1440p and due to it having hyperthreading it's not half bad for other more cpu intensive work. Intel has amd bottled up on market share past the narrow scope of those uses where the program can fully utilize an 8/16 core cpu.

 

 



Harkonen_siegetank #30 Posted Mar 11 2017 - 06:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 27945 battles
  • 5,167
  • [_LOL_] _LOL_
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

View PostErnieWrecker, on Mar 09 2017 - 21:45, said:

 

AMD? No thanks! Maybe in about a year after they've been repeatedly tried and tested and have been shown to consistently perform just as good vs. Intel.

 

I'm gonna support them still, just so Intel wont have monopoly on the market (and/or price gouging that comes with it).

PD_Banana_Fish #31 Posted Mar 11 2017 - 07:57

    Captain

  • Players
  • 18804 battles
  • 1,305
  • Member since:
    06-22-2013

View PostHorribad_At_Tanks, on Mar 10 2017 - 04:10, said:

Ryzen is not for gaming it's for workstations and professional encoders and such. Old 3rd gen i5 are on par with the 1700 on gaming and the newer i5 make short work of it.

 


 

 

 

Longevity? Well for gaming you can pick pretty much any i5 of any gen you want and pair it with a gtx 1080 ti and not bottleneck it. Quad core intel cpu have maxed out on gaming performance for a while due to games rarely using more than four threads due to syncing issues. A 2nd gen i5 2500k with an oc will game just as good as the newest kaby lake though the kaby lake will smoke it on synthetic tests which are geared towards encoding performance and such. Hell the $55 g4560 gives near identical gaming performance vs a ryzen @ 1080/1440p and due to it having hyperthreading it's not half bad for other more cpu intensive work. Intel has amd bottled up on market share past the narrow scope of those uses where the program can fully utilize an 8/16 core cpu.

 

 

 

is your colon on fire?  cuz ur blowin smoke outta ur azz

Horribad_At_Tanks #32 Posted Mar 11 2017 - 17:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 2264 battles
  • 5,095
  • Member since:
    11-07-2012

View PostPD_Banana_Fish, on Mar 11 2017 - 01:57, said:

 

is your colon on fire?  cuz ur blowin smoke outta ur azz

 

Are you a moron? Cause you ain't making any sense. Lookup gaming benchmarks where they use older i5 paired with new gpu and see that the frames are identical on most resolutions. Again a 2nd gen i5 2500k with a decent oc is still going to be just fine for gaming but you will of course see a marked difference in encoding and render speeds. Well except for the i7 2600. That still holds up well on encoding and such vs even the newest chips.

Tracassin #33 Posted Mar 20 2017 - 01:51

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 9548 battles
  • 697
  • Member since:
    05-06-2015

View Postapollos_343, on Mar 09 2017 - 21:24, said:

If you want to spare no expense and get the best performance for the dollar, here is a ballin build for you:

 

No.|                Part Name              
1. |    AMD Ryzen R7 1800X              
2. |    MSI X370 XPOWER GAMING TITANIUM Motherboard Asus Crosshair VI Hero
3. |    CORSAIR Vengeance LPX 64GB ram G.SKILL F4-3200C14D-16GTZSK 16GB(8GB*2) (so you can run your 16GB DDR4 memory at 3200Mhz)
4. |    2x AMD RX 480 8GB or a single GTX 1080ti Zotac GTX 1080Ti AMP Extreme (faster than a Titan Pascal!)
5. |    WD Blue 2TB HDD Samsung Pro 960 512GB M.2 SSD
6. |    Plextor M8Pe AIC 512GB NVMe SSD
7. |    be quiet! DARK ROCK PRO 3 Corsair H80i v2
8. |    Corsair Graphite Series 780T-W
9. |   CORSAIR RMi Series RM1000i

 

This build list is even color matched!

 

I have update this list with better stuff.



Tracassin #34 Posted Mar 20 2017 - 02:03

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 9548 battles
  • 697
  • Member since:
    05-06-2015

View PostHorribad_At_Tanks, on Mar 09 2017 - 22:10, said:

Ryzen is not for gaming it's for workstations and professional encoders and such. Old 3rd gen i5 are on par with the 1700 on gaming and the newer i5 make short work of it.

 

 

 

Longevity? Well for gaming you can pick pretty much any i5 of any gen you want and pair it with a gtx 1080 ti and not bottleneck it. Quad core intel cpu have maxed out on gaming performance for a while due to games rarely using more than four threads due to syncing issues. A 2nd gen i5 2500k with an oc will game just as good as the newest kaby lake though the kaby lake will smoke it on synthetic tests which are geared towards encoding performance and such. Hell the $55 g4560 gives near identical gaming performance vs a ryzen @ 1080/1440p and due to it having hyperthreading it's not half bad for other more cpu intensive work. Intel has amd bottled up on market share past the narrow scope of those uses where the program can fully utilize an 8/16 core cpu.

 

 

 

Stop spreading lies!

 

i5 for gaming... lol.. this is not for a console, it's for a PC.

 

Look at my Ryzen 7 1800X vs a i7 7700k in single and multi-thread bench in cpu-z and you'll get a real sense of unbiased benchmark of the cpu.

 

 

You wont get any "i5", overclocked or not, beating a stock 7700k lol.

 

A Ryzen 7 cpu will futureproof your gaming for the next 5 years with a decent DX12 videocard.

Your OC'ed i5 is already trying to catch its breach and you think it will handle the next games that will be coming out? lol again

Games were designed and optimized for 4-core Intel processors for the last 6 years, all because of how graphics and handled. That's the ONLY thing that those 4-core (new or old) have for them. Everywhere else, they get badly defeated, so why settle for worse and waste money on old technology?

 

Educate yourself with this analysis instead that shows that the faster the graphic cards get, worse are the Intel cpus in the SAME benchmarks!!  @9:04 is what you are looking for!

 


Edited by Tracassin, Mar 20 2017 - 02:19.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users