New PC, looking for advice on spec

Hi all,

Finally time for a new PC, my current 10 year old PC has done very well but am starting to get more and more BSoDs (one per day at least) and other issues that make me suspect the mobo is finally on the way out. I've been saving up for a while now so have the funds to go for it as well.

Main uses for the PC are gaming, watching TV/movies/streams (often also while gaming), photo editing along with all the usual day to day stuff emails, word processing, spreadsheets etc. Other things:
- Needs to not be too bulky and heavy as I sometimes transport it in the car (maybe once every couple of months).
- Needs to be wifi enabled as wired connection not feasible.
- Personally I’m not interested in glass windows or RGB.
- I would like the PC to be reasonably quiet for general operation.

I’m not planning on building myself (although I am actually an Engineer me and hardware do not always get on well together!), hoping to get it as a custom 3XS system from Scan (previous PC was 3XS from Scan).

I am aware that what I’ve specced below is probably way over what I need day-to-day but I want this system to last me a good long while (last 2 PCs both lasted 10 years or more) hence a lot of this is trying to futureproof things as far as is possible. I tend to like to spend a good amount of money on something and then not have to get a new version for as long as possible!

My current thoughts on spec:

CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X
Mobo: X570 Gigabyte Aorus Master
Case: be quiet! Pure Base 500, black
Cooling: H115i RGB Pro XT (if go for front radiator, or smaller H100i if went top - not sure what is best see notes below)
RAM: 32Gb (2x16) Corsair Vengance LPX (not sure if I have to be careful about exact tpye to be 'best' compatible with the 3900X?)
GPU: MSI NVIDIA Geforce RTX 2060 Super 8Gb Gaming X Turing. This is the component I’m least decided on, have picked the MSI one for now as has the 0dB which I like and reviews said was not too bad for noise when loaded.
PSU: Corsair RMx 850W 80 plus Gold full modular (750W might be sufficient but thought 850W would be better for future proofing, say better GPU in future, more drives etc.)
Drive: O/S + applications&games: 2Tb Samsung 970 EVO plus, SSD PCIe M.2
Drive: Data: 4Tb Seagate barracuda
Drive: Backup/archive: 6Tb Seagate barracuda (really just to hold a differential Acronis back-up of O/S and data drive)

Ideally I would have liked to have an optical drive, but cases with this option are generally too large or of older design, so I would plan on buying a separate external USB 3.0 bluray/DVD player/burner.

Haven’t put in a dedicated soundcard as I’m assuming what you get on mobo’s these days is sufficient?

I know it seems like a lot of storage but I have a lot of documents and photos and those will grow over the years (in current PC have 500Gb system drive, ~1.5Tb data/applications and a 4Tb backup drive plus material only on external HDDs as running out of space).

Cooling.
I’m not planning on overclocking the CPU (in the past that has just caused me more hassle in the long run).
Preference is liquid cooling – have had a liquid cooler (Corsair H50) in current PC that is still going ok.
My worry with an air cooler is that it’d be a big block of metal stressing the motherboard when I’m transporting the PC about.

Current thought would be to have the 280mm H115i mounted at the front on the case.
Not sure if I should just go with the stock Corsair fans on this, or get quieter ones?
And/or get more fans so it’s a push/pull config? (I know the pure base 500 case isn’t the best for airflow compared to other cases so maybe needs more fans?)
Case comes with 2 pure wing 140mm fans so would leave one at the rear. Other one maybe have as an extra intake or exhaust at the top?

Other option would be to go for the smaller 240mm H100i and have as a top mounted exhaust? While perhaps getting another 140mm fan so have 2 at the front and the one at the rear.

I’m really not sure what is the ‘better’ set-up with the cooling!

Any comments or observations from anyone on any of the above would be appreciated as it’s been a while since I had to spec a PC and things have changed quite a bit in the last 10 years!

Thanks,

(\(\;;/)/)

You are overspending on parts for zero reason,and in the end it makes little sense to do so. The fact is making a more cost effective build now,would actually mean you can upgrade the system more often.

Motherboard=waste of money
GPU=new ones coming out in a few months time,so I would not buy one now. Also the RTX2060 Super is overpriced. RTX2070 cards were cheaper before the current problems. Just use your old one.
PSU=Unless you intend to run high end GPUs,500~600W is fine.An 850W PSU won't be efficient at lower loads,but the RMx series looks a safe choice.
Coolers= be careful with your choices,QC/QA seems to have gotten worse on the newer liquid coolers with more examples of failure. Corsair is probably one of the better brands though IMHO.
SSD=Samsung are utterly overpriced,and are not worth the money IMHO.
CPU=Zen3 is coming out at the end of year,so might worth seeing how it pans out.

If you don't want the system to be bulky either go mini-ITX or mATX. There are also compact full ATX cases such as the Riotoro CR1080:
https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/revi...case,4759.html

CPU and motherboard

AWD-IT do some great value bundle deals. They sell the Ryzen 9 3900 non-X for £325ish which is around £75 cheaper than what they charge for the Ryzen 9 3900X. They are almost the same in WRT to performance:
https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/revi...eview-eco-mode

MSI Mag B550 Tomahawk bundle:
https://www.awd-it.co.uk/msi-mag-b55...ocket-am4.html

Around £505. The MSI Mag X570 bundle would cost £30 more,but the motherboard is out of stock.

If you mATX,the MSI Mag B550 Mortar Wifi bundle costs around £494:
https://www.awd-it.co.uk/msi-mag-b55...ocket-am4.html

RAM

I would go for 3600MHZ C18 or C16 RAM. Ideally you want RAM kits using Samsung B-die or Crucial E-die.

Corsair uses a lottery of memory chips,although they do "AMD optimised" kits:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Corsair-Ven.../dp/B082DGZJ9C

When Hexus reviewed them 2 years ago,they had Samsung B-die but I cannot be certain what chips they use now. However,these kits definitely have Micron E-die:
https://uk.crucial.com/memory/ddr4/bl2k16g36c16u4b

SSD

The 2TB Adata SX8200 PRO would do the job IMHO:
https://www.cclonline.com/product/29...Drive/SSD1066/

The WD SN750 is also cheaper than the Samsung 970 EVO,and has UK based RMA:
https://www.cclonline.com/product/27...Drive/SSD0988/

However,the Adata SX8200 PRO costs significantly less!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

SSD=Samsung are utterly overpriced,and are not worth the money IMHO.

---

I use them for high end work machines, they have good IOPS and a reputation for reliability which matters if you are caning it hard for days on end.

Machines where downtime isn't so important, I use something cheaper. I certainly wouldn't store games on one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix

I use them for high end work machines, they have good IOPS and a reputation for reliability which matters if you are caning it hard for days on end.

Machines where downtime isn't so important, I use something cheaper. I certainly wouldn't store games on one.

---

Personally I wouldn't still get them,as they massively overhyped for the price,and some of their cheaper drives are made with cheap NAND,and use cheap parts. I would avoid a number of them like the plague.They are increasing coasting on their good name,with some really rubbish recent releases. They also have gotten greedier and greedier,and prices have been going up at a higher rate than competitors. Then they position drives with worse performance at more mainstream price points.

Their OVO line is rubbish,their 860 EVO SATA line is overpriced,and the 970 EVO line is incredibly overpriced for the performance.

https://tpucdn.com/review/samsung-97..._over_time.jpg

https://tpucdn.com/review/adata-sx-8..._over_time.jpg

That is the original SX8200 against the original 970 EVO. Who makes a drive with such a small SLC cache??

The newer SX8200 PRO,is even better off.

https://tpucdn.com/review/adata-sx82...ined_write.png

https://tpucdn.com/review/adata-sx82...-over-time.jpg

The EVO Plus,is improved,but the WD drives are still cheaper,and the Adata SX8200 PRO is almost half price.

If I was that worried about a mission critical system,I wouldn't buy an EVO at all,when there are commercial drives you can get which are more tuned to reliability.

I have not recommended any Samsung consumer drive in the last 4~5 years as they are overpriced. Companies such as WD are cheaper and have UK based RMA too. Crucial has excellent reliability and is cheaper. Known people using Crucial drives with some bioinformatics workloads which have been hammered and they are still fine. Not known a failure with any of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

That is the original SX8200 against the original 970 EVO. Who makes a drive with such a small SLC cache??

---

Interesting graphs; the Samsung has an average write speed of 663MB/s vs the ADATA on 506MB/s.

Then the ADATA Pro 1TB only manages 1782MB/s vs the little 970 Pro which manages 2091MB/s despite its disadvantage of being half the size.

Sorry mate, you aren't selling me on the ADATA there, I think you need to choose your graphs better ;) :D

Generally I only look at 1TB+ benchmarks, who buys a 512GB SSD if they care about performance?? Partly because you want as many flash channels as possible so you can have lots of pages open for simultaneous parallel access (small drives generally have fewer chips soldered on not smaller ones), partly because you want to give the garbage collection lots of elbow room to recover faster and harvest spare pages, and if you are using an MLC/QLC drive then the SLC cache is a percentage of the total size, sometimes a percentage of the unused space.

If I'm buying a small 250 or 500GB SSD, it will be some cheap client machine that I don't much care about. Last time I used WD Blue NVMe, they've been pretty good so far, but I generally choose whatever is good value. I have even used Adata (shock!) :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix

I use them for high end work machines, they have good IOPS and a reputation for reliability which matters if you are caning it hard for days on end.

Machines where downtime isn't so important, I use something cheaper. I certainly wouldn't store games on one.

---

Agree with this. I get quite a few power-cuts where I live, and not having a UPS, unexpected shutdowns happen very occasionally. In my experience Samsung SSDs never miss a beat after such an occurrence, whereas a WD Black SSD corrupted my Windows installation. Bad luck maybe, but I have found Samsung SSDs to be pretty resilient & reliable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix

Interesting graphs; the Samsung has an average write speed of 663MB/s vs the ADATA on 506MB/s.

Then the ADATA Pro 1TB only manages 1782MB/s vs the little 970 Pro which manages 2091MB/s despite its disadvantage of being half the size.

Sorry mate, you aren't selling me on the ADATA there, I think you need to choose your graphs better ;) :D

Generally I only look at 1TB+ benchmarks, who buys a 512GB SSD if they care about performance?? Partly because you want as many flash channels as possible so you can have lots of pages open for simultaneous parallel access (small drives generally have fewer chips soldered on not smaller ones), partly because you want to give the garbage collection lots of elbow room to recover faster and harvest spare pages, and if you are using an MLC/QLC drive then the SLC cache is a percentage of the total size, sometimes a percentage of the unused space.

If I'm buying a small 250 or 500GB SSD, it will be some cheap client machine that I don't much care about. Last time I used WD Blue NVMe, they've been pretty good so far, but I generally choose whatever is good value. I have even used Adata (shock!) :D

---

I love how you could not read the graphs and ended up proving my point.The 970 PRO 1TB costs £304. You seemed to have not realised the OP was looking at the EVO. The 970 EVO Plus 2TB is £400. The Adata SX8200 2TB costs £230.

The Adata for the first 150GB written was at 1700MB/S,and the 970 EVO exhausted its SLC cache at 22GB and hit 600MB/S,so again proving the point,the 970 EVO has a more small SLC cache.Unlike you,I actually bothered to do some research,instead of worrying about brands. For most use cases,the SX8200 was faster than the 970 EVO.

Also you should try and keep upto date when making recommendations. Prices change and new models come out.

I also find it very weird,that instead of trying to help the OP,you are trying to justify a £400 SSD,when their own GPU is barely £400.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrJim

Agree with this. I get quite a few power-cuts where I live, and not having a UPS, unexpected shutdowns happen very occasionally. In my experience Samsung SSDs never miss a beat after such an occurrence, whereas a WD Black SSD corrupted my Windows installation. Bad luck maybe, but I have found Samsung SSDs to be pretty resilient & reliable.

---

Mine had no problems and neither did any of the Crucial drives. In my experience having me and my mates with at least 20 WD and Crucial drives and they have been fine. If you had done your research Crucial was amongst the first companies to actually include power protection on their consumer SATA SSDs,years ago! SSDs such as the Crucial M550 had it.

I find it utterly weird none of you actually want to comment on helping the OP,but instead made this into "must justify a Samsung SSD is not overpriced" kind of thread.

Even the SN750 was closer to £300 for the 2TB version a while back.Even at £365 its overpriced,but at least RMA is local.

Anything much over £150/TB for a PCI-E 3.0 drive is pushing into PCI-E 4.0 drive territory. Samsung is having a laugh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

Also you should try and keep upto date when making recommendations. Prices change and new models come out.

---

I do. I buy them regularly, and check prices and benchmarks before I do so. I was reacting to your saying the Samsung is overpriced, and for many uses I agree (as I said, I wouldn't store games on them and it sounds like the OP might want to look elsewhere).

BUT

Your blanket comment that they are overpriced isn't fair. Your graphs to show that Adata are the slower option back up that it should be cheaper. If a drive fails, the downtime is *very* expensive so for professional use I edge towards Intel and Samsung as the brands with the best reliability image.

I really like to buy SSDs from a company where they actually make the flash. Tighter coupled engineering should make for a better drive. There aren't many of those though, given there aren't many companies that own semiconductor fabs.

Anyway, I've made my pitch. If you really care about the extra performance or want the reliability reputation, Samsung might be worth a look.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix

I do. I buy them regularly, and check prices and benchmarks before I do so. I was reacting to your saying the Samsung is overpriced, and for many uses I agree (as I said, I wouldn't store games on them and it sounds like the OP might want to look elsewhere).

BUT

Your blanket comment that they are overpriced isn't fair. Your graphs to show that Adata are the slower option back up that it should be cheaper. If a drive fails, the downtime is *very* expensive so for professional use I edge towards Intel and Samsung as the brands with the best reliability image.

I really like to buy SSDs from a company where they actually make the flash. Tighter coupled engineering should make for a better drive. There aren't many of those though, given there aren't many companies that own semiconductor fabs.

Anyway, I've made my pitch. If you really care about the extra performance or want the reliability reputation, Samsung might be worth a look.

---

If you are that concerned about downtime,you wouldn't a consumer grade SSD,you would spend the money on the commercial grades ones,which are geared towards reliability. You would be having daily drive backups,or mirroring the drives. All you are doing is trying to "scare" the OP into buying an overpriced Samsung SSD,which is when you consider their CPU is £400,their GPU is £400.

Also what is the OP doing:

" Main uses for the PC are gaming, watching TV/movies/streams (often also while gaming), photo editing along with all the usual day to day stuff emails, word processing, spreadsheets etc."

Did you even bother to read the use case scenario??

You seem to to have some massive thing for Samsung SSDs,even to the extent of trying to sell a small SLC cache as a good thing. So an 970 EVO which throttles down to SATA speeds after 22GB is better than an SSD which does so after 150GB?? So basically an SSD which is slower for 95% of file copies. Micron makes its own flash. WD makes its own flash and controllers.

No PCI-E 3.0 SSD should be over £150/TB unless its MLC.

Hi Spider95,

I have the same board with a Ryzen 9 3900 and can confirm that it's solid and has good built-in wi-fi (I also work where a wired connection isn't possible). The sound is good, too.

Most compatible RAM is 3600 MHz, as that aligns with frequency of the AMD 'Infinity Fabric', which I understand is essentially the Front Side Bus, handling data between the RAM and the CPU.

As for cooling, I've got a be quiet! Dark Pro 4 CPU fan, which is really quiet and effective. I've also got the be quiet! Pure Base 500 and it's great for back to front ventilation, directly through the CPU fan. I've added another fan at the front to direct a stream of air to the GPU. So far my CPU sits between 35 and 40 degrees unless I'm doing a benchmark, when it might hit 70 or so. GPU doesn't go over 70, as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

Mine had no problems and neither did any of the Crucial drives. In my experience having me and my mates with at least 20 WD and Crucial drives and they have been fine. If you had done your research Crucial was amongst the first companies to actually include power protection on their consumer SATA SSDs,years ago! SSDs such as the Crucial M550 had it.

I find it utterly weird none of you actually want to comment on helping the OP,but instead made this into "must justify a Samsung SSD is not overpriced" kind of thread.

Even the SN750 was closer to £300 for the 2TB version a while back.Even at £365 its overpriced,but at least RMA is local.

Anything much over £150/TB for a PCI-E 3.0 drive is pushing into PCI-E 4.0 drive territory. Samsung is having a laugh.

---

Wow, you really do have a problem with anyone who expresses an opinion that diverges in the slightest from your own, don't you? I wasn't trying to make this into a "justify a Samsung is not overpriced kind of thread". I didn't actually comment on Samsung's pricing. I agree they are expensive, and that there are plenty of cheaper options if you can't afford, or don't want pay their prices. I was simply stating my experience of having owned a few Samsung SSDs, as did you regarding WD drives. Ultimately it's OP to decide what he chooses to buy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrJim

Wow, you really do have a problem with anyone who expresses an opinion that diverges in the slightest from your own, don't you? I wasn't trying to make this into a "justify a Samsung is not overpriced kind of thread". I didn't actually comment on Samsung's pricing. I agree they are expensive, and that there are plenty of cheaper options if you can't afford, or don't want pay their prices. I was simply stating my experience of having owned a few Samsung SSDs, as did you regarding WD drives. Ultimately it's OP to decide what he chooses to buy.

---

You both had a problem when I pointed Samsung was overpriced. If you dodn't have problem with anyone who expresses an opinion that diverges in the slightest from your own,you wouldn't be responding,right??

What?? So now you have a problem when I pointed out Crucial had power protection for years?? You did know that right??

https://bit-tech.net/reviews/tech/st...12gb-review/1/

Look at the the thread title,none of you are interesting in offering the OP some feedback on any part of the build outside the SSD. But both of you felt the need to get involved because I said they were overpriced.....which they are in the UK. Which can be observed by looking at price/TB compared to other reputable brands.

Oh! Noes! Somewhat said it was overpriced - just like I said the motherboard was overpriced for the purpose of usage. Why don't you moan at me for saying that too.

Which they are,if you looking at performance and price/TB. Instead BOTH of you started making subjective comments about how Samsung was more reliable,etc. Do you think I haven't been long enough to see people start putting "doubt" in other's minds??

Remember,you are spending someone else's money and someone who has not built a PC for years. They themselves are not sure of what they want to get,which is quite clear on what they have listed.Also,dunno what weird game you are playing - I always go for the cheaper option. I am not here to justify people spend £100s more on PCs that they don't need.

But apparently on Hexus £200 extra for an SSD is fine,when it costs more than their graphics card. Now the poor OP,will feel scared buying any other brand. Good one. They might as well buy the Samsung now.

Some of you are acting like Samsung never had SSD problems at all.

Excuse me, Cat, but can I respectfully suggest we re-orientate to answering the OP's questions, please?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helios451

Excuse me, Cat, but can I respectfully suggest we re-orientate to answering the OP's questions, please?

---

Well respectively you should ask the other two also,as they have basically tried to imply any SSD brand apart from Samsung isn't reliable. I don't understand what their problem is with saying Samsung is overpriced,which seems to be them implyng everything else is "less reliable",which I have a problem with. They seemingly ignore Samsung also have bugs too. Even the SN750 2TB was £300ish a few days ago. So that is anything between £90~£160 cheaper not going for Samsung.This is enough to get a RTX2070 Super.

You can even get a 2TB PCI-E 4.0 SSD for less money(or similar) than a 970 EVO(Corsair MP600,Gigabyte Aorus,Seagate FireCuda 520,etc). It is overpriced.

Even if you look at the reviews,the MSI Tomahawks have really overbuilt VRMs,especially in a stock configuration. The X570 is mostly advantageous if you have multiple PCI-E 4.0 NVME SSDs,as that is where X570 scores over B550. But some of the B550 motherboards have better VRMs than X570 motherboards.

Thanks all so far for your replies, lots of interesting info to have a look at and digest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

You are overspending on parts for zero reason,and in the end it makes little sense to do so. The fact is making a more cost effective build now,would actually mean you can upgrade the system more often.

Motherboard=waste of money
GPU=new ones coming out in a few months time,so I would not buy one now. Also the RTX2060 Super is overpriced. RTX2070 cards were cheaper before the current problems. Just use your old one.
PSU=Unless you intend to run high end GPUs,500~600W is fine.An 850W PSU won't be efficient at lower loads,but the RMx series looks a safe choice.
Coolers= be careful with your choices,QC/QA seems to have gotten worse on the newer liquid coolers with more examples of failure. Corsair is probably one of the better brands though IMHO.
SSD=Samsung are utterly overpriced,and are not worth the money IMHO.
CPU=Zen3 is coming out at the end of year,so might worth seeing how it pans out.
If you don't want the system to be bulky either go mini-ITX or mATX.

---

Thanks CAT-THE-FIFTH, I do get your point here about cost effective now and upgrade the system more often - however I don't want to have to upgrade the system more often, I would prefer to pay more to have a really good solid base system (CPU, mobo, power, cooling and case) that will last me a good long time (yes I know that components may only have a particular life, that is a risk) - and only have to think about upgrades for more 'simple' replacements: RAM, GPU, Hard drives. Because that is the level I am comfortable with in terms of what I'm happy to fiddle about with inside the case. I'm going to be getting Scan (hopefully) to build the system for me, I'm not doing it myself (I am in no way interested in building a PC) - so want everything to be in there from the get-go so is all covered by the 3XS warranty (although I will maybe speak to them about possibility of reuse graphics card). Is this a cost effective approach? Maybe not in the long run - but that's only one part of the equation I'm considering. Not the approach everyone would take I know, but personally it's what I prefer to do.

Have not looked at all your links yet but thank you very much for all the info and suggestions.

Re GPU & CPU: I'm not sure I can wait until the end of the year, or indeed a few months - as I fear my current system is on its last legs. However good to know these are what to watch out for that are 'coming soon'.
Mobo: Part of the reasons for this one was it has PCIe 4, wifi and also a good number of USB ports and got good reviews. Expensive, yes: But seemed like a mobo that would last me a good long time and cover a lot of bases in the future - which is one of my higher priorities.
PSU: If I do go with the spec I plan then 750W I think is the minimum based on the values I put into a power calc (I forget which one) plus leaving a reasonable overhead so PSU is not too fully loaded plus future proofing in case in the future I went with a more power hungry graphics card. However if I end up going for a lesser spec then I'll need to redo the calcs and yes go lower.
SSDs: I see there is a lot of discussion on this in other posts here! I have not read the detail so cannot comment on this yet (other than saying I currently have a Samsung 850 EVO SSD I've been quite happy with). I'm still trying to decide what is best here for O/S applications and games. Possibly might consider smaller M.2 for the system and then get an SSD for game/apps - but then losing speed advantage of the M.2
Cooling: Yes I'm in a quandary about this. My big concerns with air coolers are having big lump of metal stressing the mobo, and also noise. However liquid coolers are not without risk!

Good point about considering smaller mobos and/or more compact cases & so less heavy/bulky. I'd kind of picked ATX because that is what I'm used to. I suspect smaller cases may mean smaller fans (noisier), not so good airflow and less space for drives etc. However I will go back and look at that in case I'm missing something!

Cheers,

(\(\;;/)/)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helios451

Hi Spider95,

I have the same board with a Ryzen 9 3900 and can confirm that it's solid and has good built-in wi-fi (I also work where a wired connection isn't possible). The sound is good, too.

Most compatible RAM is 3600 MHz, as that aligns with frequency of the AMD 'Infinity Fabric', which I understand is essentially the Front Side Bus, handling data between the RAM and the CPU.

As for cooling, I've got a be quiet! Dark Pro 4 CPU fan, which is really quiet and effective. I've also got the be quiet! Pure Base 500 and it's great for back to front ventilation, directly through the CPU fan. I've added another fan at the front to direct a stream of air to the GPU. So far my CPU sits between 35 and 40 degrees unless I'm doing a benchmark, when it might hit 70 or so. GPU doesn't go over 70, as well.

---

Thanks Helios451 - I think I did bother you on your own build thread about this as well a week or two back!

(\(\;;/)/)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helios451

can I respectfully suggest we re-orientate to answering the OP's questions, please?

---

Yes, please.

Re SSDs: I get the points that have been made, obviously there are differing (and passionate) opinions on this! I appreciate the debate and if people have more to add on pros cons of SSDs then great! But I'd really like feedback on the other parts of the build too :)

Yes I will make the decisions on what I will buy - I try and take on board all the opinions I get from people in the know but I also do my own research. So don't worry, I'm not necessarily swayed by one particular comment or so on one forum :)

Cheers all,

(\(\;;/)/)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spider95

Thanks all so far for your replies, lots of interesting info to have a look at and digest.



Thanks CAT-THE-FIFTH, I do get your point here about cost effective now and upgrade the system more often - however I don't want to have to upgrade the system more often, I would prefer to pay more to have a really good solid base system (CPU, mobo, power, cooling and case) that will last me a good long time (yes I know that components may only have a particular life, that is a risk) - and only have to think about upgrades for more 'simple' replacements: RAM, GPU, Hard drives. Because that is the level I am comfortable with in terms of what I'm happy to fiddle about with inside the case. I'm going to be getting Scan (hopefully) to build the system for me, I'm not doing it myself (I am in no way interested in building a PC) - so want everything to be in there from the get-go so is all covered by the 3XS warranty (although I will maybe speak to them about possibility of reuse graphics card). Is this a cost effective approach? Maybe not in the long run - but that's only one part of the equation I'm considering. Not the approach everyone would take I know, but personally it's what I prefer to do.

Have not looked at all your links yet but thank you very much for all the info and suggestions.

Re GPU & CPU: I'm not sure I can wait until the end of the year, or indeed a few months - as I fear my current system is on its last legs. However good to know these are what to watch out for that are 'coming soon'.
Mobo: Part of the reasons for this one was it has PCIe 4, wifi and also a good number of USB ports and got good reviews. Expensive, yes: But seemed like a mobo that would last me a good long time and cover a lot of bases in the future - which is one of my higher priorities.
PSU: If I do go with the spec I plan then 750W I think is the minimum based on the values I put into a power calc (I forget which one) plus leaving a reasonable overhead so PSU is not too fully loaded plus future proofing in case in the future I went with a more power hungry graphics card. However if I end up going for a lesser spec then I'll need to redo the calcs and yes go lower.
SSDs: I see there is a lot of discussion on this in other posts here! I have not read the detail so cannot comment on this yet (other than saying I currently have a Samsung 850 EVO SSD I've been quite happy with). I'm still trying to decide what is best here for O/S applications and games. Possibly might consider smaller M.2 for the system and then get an SSD for game/apps - but then losing speed advantage of the M.2
Cooling: Yes I'm in a quandary about this. My big concerns with air coolers are having big lump of metal stressing the mobo, and also noise. However liquid coolers are not without risk!

Good point about considering smaller mobos and/or more compact cases & so less heavy/bulky. I'd kind of picked ATX because that is what I'm used to. I suspect smaller cases may mean smaller fans (noisier), not so good airflow and less space for drives etc. However I will go back and look at that in case I'm missing something!

Cheers,

(\(\;;/)/)

---

The whole of being cost effective,is to get the same performance for less money. That leaves money left from your budget,to put in a better CPU or GPU,etc at a later date. This is a better way of keeping a system upto date,as say a few years down the line,you add a better GPU,more storage,etc.

Also,anything over £150 is technically high end for a motherboard anyway.

Spending more does not equate to longer lifespan. For example,my mates had AMD 970 based motherboards which were sub £100 and lasted over 8 years,and they seemed to last longer than some of the fancy 990 ones I saw about. Those expensive X570 motherboards are made for overclocking with LN2,etc. The issue is you are running the CPUs at stock clockspeeds,so realistically it won't really yield any improvements IMHO.

The differences between the B550 and X570 are outlined here:
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3...450-x470-zen-3

So you need to ask yourself how much I/O do you really need.

The MSI Mag X570 is one of the best X570 motherboards out there:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD65w5RVmtY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2KbpmMg44M

The MSI Mag Mortar B550M is also great of you want to go mATX,as the X570 choice is very limited in that form factor. Also most B550 motherboards don't have a tiny fan cooling the "chipset" heatsink. But "any" over £200 motherboard should last you years,with a stock CPU unless it has some serious design flaws.

The RAM recommendations are the same,ie, Samsung B-die or Micron E-die at 3600MHZ. The same goes with the CPU coolers,I think Corsair so far haven't been affected by the spate of AIO cooler failures from various brands such as EVGA but do some checking. Personally one of the air coolers,might have potentially less issues,over a 5~10 year period though but some of them do seem too weigh too much. OTH,if you are not overclocking,the stock AMD cooler is pretty solid(a bit noisy),so any reasonable £50 air cooler would probably be fine. However,I can only say I have only really tracked AIO cooler lifespan upto the 5 year mark,so have no experience beyond that.

WRT,power consumption,I am running a 450W SFX PSU with a GTX1080,and never gone past 520W for a PSU myself in the last 15 years. 650~750W will be fine for years,especially if you don't overstress it. Also remember,too high a wattage,means low loads will be massively outside of peak efficiency. Look for Gold/Platinum/Titanium effiency as these concentrated more and more on lower loads,with each of the newer tiers.

Ask if Scan do the OEM only Ryzen 9 3900 - its slightly slower than a Ryzen 9 3900X,but is cheaper. It also consumes less power,will be easier to cool,and should put less strain on the motherboard and need less cooling(TBF even a £160 b550 motherboard won't be strained by a Ryzen 9 3950X). Its why I suggested it.

The new consoles have PCI-E 4.0 SSDs,so its why I find Samsung charging so much for their PCI-E 3.0 2TB ones a bit rich. Don't get swayed by brand wars. For a technical forum,it's a piece of equipment inside the PC,not a whole Mac vs PC level argument! ;) Also the whole reliability wars stuff is moot for a normal user,ie,as long as there isn't any obvious design flaw and as long as the RMA location isn't HK or something like that! ;) My oldest SSD still in use is a Kingston from 2012,which I won on here. None of the SSDs mentioned here,are proper commercial grade stuff,ie,all consumer grade SSDs.

Like I said a 2TB PCI-E 4.0 drive is now close in price to Samsung and WD(seems the price on the WD went up a few days ago by around £60). However,SSD pricing is starting to drop,so don't get ripped off paying over the odds for older technology drives,especially with consoles using PCI-E 4.0 SSDs.

Look at the 1TB drives,Samsung and to a lesser degree WD,seem to add a bigger premium to 2TB drives,ie,they cost more per TB than the 1TB. The 1TB drives from WD,Samsung and Adata are a bit closer together in price. But the Adata is relatively cheap for a 2TB NVME SSD. So if you want a Samsung the 1TB drives are OK priced.

Personally my view with SSDs is that their failure mode tends to be not graceful at all,ie,they either just die,or start having BSODs. So always best to have backups,or even a clean OS install on another older drive just in case something happens. If anything I find Windows more of a PITA nowadays.

With the GPU I would wait. Ampere and RDNA2 will be at the start of their lifespans,and RDNA2 is used in the consoles. I wouldn't buy Turing or RDNA1 based GPUs now,especially as you keep parts for a long time.

Anyway,good luck!

Edit!!

Testing of some of the B550 motherboards:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8d4C80Ub_o

They can be as good or better than many lower end X570 motherboards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

The RAM recommendations are the same,ie, Samsung B-die or Micron E-die at 3600MHZ.

---

I'm trying not to get sucked back into this, but... officially that is an overclock and AIUI would void the AMD CPU warranty. In a pre-built, it should come with a Scan warranty, so you should be covered, and some ram kits go *way* higher than 3600 so it is hardly pushing the boundaries of overclocking, but there is still a "comfort level" consideration to be made there so raising a small flag.

I personally run at the official 3200 limit, but one of my recent builds for someone else is a 3900X with 32GB of 3600MHz ram and it runs flat out for hours every working day and hasn't missed a beat.

Thanks for all that info again CAT-THE-FIFTH, working my way through the info.

Yes, looks like I was perhaps aiming too high with mobo with the x570 since I am not considering overclocking, so am now looking at B550 mobos as possible alternative - as you still do get some PCIe 4 support for what (I think) are the important things of M2 and GPU. I'm not sure if I'd ever actually have the 'need' of all the x570 PCIe 4 ? Since I'm not sure what would be out there even over the next few years (that isn't GPU or storage) that I'd need v4 for?

(\(\;;/)/)

The B550 has a single PCI-E 4.0 16X graphics slot,and a single PCI-E 4.0 NVME slot,and the other slots will be PCI-E 3.0,whereas the X570 has support for more than one PCI-E 4.0 NVME SSD(I think two are supported in total),and an additional PCI-E 4.0 4X slot.

Edit!!

TBF some motherboards such as the B550 and X570 Tomahawk are close in price anyway,but some other brands have more of a difference.

Buildzoid examines a lot of B550 motherboards:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihg6XQiqW7A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihg6XQiqW7A

A few more videos looking at other B550 motherboards:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5PMp_7h59w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BIprmPbJk8

BTW,if you are whacking an AIO on the CPU,just make sure there is airflow over the VRMs,ie,it will keep them cooler. It's one advantage of horizontal CPU coolers,ie,they keep air flowing over the VRMs.

There might be some other models from Gigabyte,etc which might interest you too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spider95

Yes, looks like I was perhaps aiming too high with mobo with the x570 since I am not considering overclocking,

---

There are cheaper X570 boards if you want to hedge your bets a bit.

My recent 3950X build had one of these in it:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/ASRock-X570...dp/B07TGHV63W/

Now that was specced just before the B550 boards came out which at the time was what I really wanted to use, but it had been performing well and the user is very happy with it. It gets a hard life, but it isn't overclocked which is where the excessive heat tends to kick in. The heatsinks aren't that big, so I would want a bit of airflow over a board like that.

You don't get Wifi on that board, but you do get an M.2 Wifi connector to plug in a laptop Wifi card. Wifi is something I wouldn't really want integrated directly on the board, the standards will change a few times if you are keeping the machine a long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix

I'm trying not to get sucked back into this, but... officially that is an overclock and AIUI would void the AMD CPU warranty. In a pre-built, it should come with a Scan warranty, so you should be covered, and some ram kits go *way* higher than 3600 so it is hardly pushing the boundaries of overclocking, but there is still a "comfort level" consideration to be made there so raising a small flag.

I personally run at the official 3200 limit, but one of my recent builds for someone else is a 3900X with 32GB of 3600MHz ram and it runs flat out for hours every working day and hasn't missed a beat.

---

It is technically running the RAM outside JEDEC spec(2400MHZ IIRC) and also the memory controller out of official spec. Basically its all the same RAM,but I assume its binned for higher clockspeed,etc. I faced the same dilemma with my build,and that was with a Zen+ CPU which 2933MHZ is the official spec. I got a 3200MHZ kit as it was the same price as slower kits(cheapest 3200MHZ kit at the time),and I had a good chance of getting Samsung B die,which I did. However,the motherboard has DOCP settings and has ran it at 3200MHZ,and memory testing seems to indicate it is fine.

AMD also confuse the matter by stating 3600MHZ RAM is the sweet spot in their official slides:
https://premiumbuilds.com/wp-content...ryzen-3000.jpg

Also 3200C14 is almost the same.3200C14 kits are not cheap sadly. However,the advantage of faster RAM is you can always run it slower,and tune it with lower CAS latencies,and then save a memory profile. The problem is I don't personally like taking slower RAM and overclocking it,as it would involve too much testing for my liking. But then I don't even overclock my CPUs anymore! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix

You don't get Wifi on that board, but you do get an M.2 Wifi connector to plug in a laptop Wifi card. Wifi is something I wouldn't really want integrated directly on the board, the standards will change a few times if you are keeping the machine a long time.

---

Yes that is very true. Wifi wasn't something I was necessarily wanting for definite on the mobo, it was just that the ones I liked for other things happened to have it.
If mobo comes with that will use it to start with and if standards do change I could get a wifi card and disable the mobo one.
If mobo doesn't come with wifi, would get a wifi card from the get-go.

And with x570 boards, have not ruled them out completely because there are other cheaper options, just that B550s are now also in the mix! There is a B550 version of the Gigabyte Auros Master which seems quite good - has lots of USBs which I like (although it is one of the more expensive B550s).

I really just have to figure out how much full PCIe 4 really is going to matter to me in the next 5-10 years (well, hoping/assuming the PC lasts that long of course!).

(\(\;;/)/)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spider95

I really just have to figure out how much full PCIe 4 really is going to matter to me in the next 5-10 years (well, hoping/assuming the PC lasts that long of course!).

---

I think that is largely down to how likely you are to replace the GPU in that time.

Right now PCIe4 is pretty pointless. But in 5 to 10 years it will be like having a PCIe2 motherboard now, not a disaster but might hurt performance a bit if you have a high enough end GPU.

I will confess it was part of my recent buying a B550 motherboard for a use case where B450 would clearly do. In 5 years time I might move hardware around, and that board could end up playing games and wanting a CPU update. But then I'm likely to rebuild machines occasionally as parts fail and family requirements change.

If you are more of a mind to put a machine together and just leave it, then go cheap on the mobo and plough the money saved into the GPU or CPU.

Talking of which, you haven't said what your current GPU was when there was talk of re-using it. If it is really old, then you probably don't want to do that.

I wouldn't go for a GPU right now.... not with what is coming along. Talk of re-using the GPU is just for the next few months. The problem is Turing and RDNA1 are coming to the end WRT to primary driver optimisations and feature support. RDNA2 based GPUs will be in the new consoles,and Ampere will be the focus of Nvidia driver optimisations for the next few years. There is noise Ampere is being released next month,and Jayztwocents just made a video saying AMD is asking him to confirm his address details,hinting he will be receiving new RDNA2 GPUs in the near future.

For the £400ish the OP was looking at on spending on the RTX2060 Super,plus the money they are saving on the cheaper motherboard,they will probably have £500~£600 towards a new GPU. I think for that kind of money you could get a really nice RDNA2 or Ampere based GPU in a few months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix

Talking of which, you haven't said what your current GPU was when there was talk of re-using it. If it is really old, then you probably don't want to do that.

---

Current GPU is a Asus Strix NVidia GTX 970.

I'd really rather not have to reuse it, would rather keep it in the old PC.

Super2060 is where my initial thoughts were in order to have an 8Gb card to do me a good few years. Yes I know better ones are coming out, but I may not be able to wait (and ideally do not want to use old).

However compromise is perhaps I look for a slightly lower spec card in the 6Gb VRAM range - although some of the ones I've looked at only have 1 display port, whereas ideally I'd like 2 (but then they do have DVI which I could maybe live with ...)

GAH! too many decisions, too many shiny things :)

(\(\;;/)/)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spider95

Current GPU is a Asus Strix NVidia GTX 970.

I'd really rather not have to reuse it, would rather keep it in the old PC.

Super2060 is where my initial thoughts were in order to have an 8Gb card to do me a good few years. Yes I know better ones are coming out, but I may not be able to wait (and ideally do not want to use old).

However compromise is perhaps I look for a slightly lower spec card in the 6Gb VRAM range - although some of the ones I've looked at only have 1 display port, whereas ideally I'd like 2 (but then they do have DVI which I could maybe live with ...)

GAH! too many decisions, too many shiny things :)

(\(\;;/)/)

---

Its not only speed but feature support. Both Turing and RDNA1 are transitory uarchs. RDNA1 is basically bridging GCN to RDNA2. Turing introduces a whole ton of new features,but is too slow to implement many of them effectively at the mainstream level.

RDNA2 will be the basis of most cross platform titles,as its what all the main consoles will have. So think next 5 years or so. Ampere apparently has some major improvements to RT performance(probably will beat AMD IMHO). TBH,is waiting 1~3 months really that long?

Both designs IMHO will be de-prioritised from primary driver optimisations,within a year of the new ones launching. The only reason why I think AMD Polaris/Hawaii stayed relevent for so long,as they had derivatives in the consoles.

ATM,you are seeing one of the biggest changes in PC graphics,for 20 years,with the more towards RT,upscaling,etc. The consoles are rumoured to have around RTX2070 Super to RTX2080 level GPU performance. Its also a launch of a new console generation,which also means the GPU makers,need to pull out the stops,to kind of draw attention back to the PC! ;)

I have mates on older GPUs,who are waiting for the new ones,despite rebuilding the rest of their rigs during lockdowns,and mates who had Turing/Navi GPUs,who realised during lockdown,the secondhand prices were good,so sold them. One of them is now using a refurbished RX470(had an RX5700XT) as an example. I think they lost £50 over a year of ownership or something daft like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spider95

Current GPU is a Asus Strix NVidia GTX 970.

---

OK, so at the risk of oversimplifying, from the relative performance chart on here:

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-spec...-gtx-970.c2620

that is equivalent in performance to an RX5500 or GTX 1650 Super. So you need to consider how much faster you need.

The worry with getting a current card is that if it has been out 2 years already, then you don't get that many years of driver support left. That's on top of Nvidia should be going from 12nm to 7nm silicon, packing a performance jump. Second gen ray tracing might be useful, or might not we don't know :)

OFC if they only release 3070 and 3080 then you could be waiting for ages for a 3060 to come out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix

OK, so at the risk of oversimplifying, from the relative performance chart on here:
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-spec...-gtx-970.c2620
that is equivalent in performance to an RX5500 or GTX 1650 Super. So you need to consider how much faster you need.
.

---

Ah that's good to at least get a general idea of relative performance with what I have, thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix

OFC if they only release 3070 and 3080 then you could be waiting for ages for a 3060 to come out.

---

TBF,they already put aside £420ish for a RTX2060 Super. If they went with a "cheaper" motherboard around the £200 mark,instead of the £350 one,that would mean closer to £600 on the GPU. If that doesn't buy a RTX3070 at least I would be surprised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

TBF,they already put aside £420ish for a RTX2060 Super. If they went with a "cheaper" motherboard around the £200 mark,instead of the £350 one,that would mean closer to £600 on the GPU. If that doesn't buy a RTX3070 at least I would be surprised.

---

Cost is part of the equation yes (and very important), but there are other trade offs I need to consider (as I may not overall be able, or want to, wait a few months - that is just how it is for me). And just to note: Even if I did save that money on the mobo, doesn't mean I'd want to necessarily fork out £600 on a future GPU. That's not always the balance or trade-off that I would make (probably not what most others do, but it's just how I operate).

Having said all that, the info in your earlier post about the new upcoming GPUs is really useful to know, some interesting things there.

Although (from admittedly a VERY quick seach/look) there seems to be little concrete about specs, dates (other than 'probably soon'), price etc. for the new cards - thats a lot of unknowns for me to gamble on what I 'might get' by waiting versus getting something now when I need it. Again though, new cards being released may mean current cards come down in price as well.

Lots to consider, thanks again!

(\(\;;/)/)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spider95

Cost is part of the equation yes (and very important), but there are other trade offs I need to consider (as I may not overall be able, or want to, wait a few months - that is just how it is for me). And just to note: Even if I did save that money on the mobo, doesn't mean I'd want to necessarily fork out £600 on a future GPU. That's not always the balance or trade-off that I would make (probably not what most others do, but it's just how I operate).

Having said all that, the info in your earlier post about the new upcoming GPUs is really useful to know, some interesting things there.

Although (from admittedly a VERY quick seach/look) there seems to be little concrete about specs, dates (other than 'probably soon'), price etc. for the new cards - thats a lot of unknowns for me to gamble on what I 'might get' by waiting versus getting something now when I need it. Again though, new cards being released may mean current cards come down in price as well.

Lots to consider, thanks again!

(\(\;;/)/)

---

GPUs are not like CPUs,they live and die on game support and drivers. Once companies move to new designs,they are not going to prioritise old ones. The issue is that raytracing support is a big generational change,and as much as I think its a bit overhyped IMHO,its going to be where the future lies,especially if a GPU is being kept for 5~6 years. The last change this big was programmable shaders in DX8/DX9.

On the AMD side,the uarchs which were in consoles,ie,GCN1.1(Hawaii) and GCN1.3(Polaris) have aged very well,and GCN1.2 and Vega,seem to be having problems now. So I see RDNA1,probably starting to fall behind RDNA2 as the consoles will use it - most major PC games are developed for consoles now.

With Nvidia,they are certainly pushing RT and upscaling too. Any major hardware changes here,won't put Turing in a good light. So,say Ampere does RT twice as better as Turing(rumours say more),an RTX3060 might end up being as fast as RTX2080TI once you start using RT,and RT performance is something Nvidia can probably scale up more easily than rasterised performance.

With the RDNA2 based GPUs,there are huge changes over RDNA1,which were highlighted in the PS5/XBox Series X launches,ie,added RT support,but also VRS,and various other technologies. Turing has a degree of these technologies,but especially with the more mainstream models,lacks sufficient processing power. We already have pictures of the coolers,and other leaked information on Ampere. Latest leaked information is that Ampere and RDNA2 launched will be over the timespan of September through to November.

I have a Pascal based GPU now,and if it went kaput,I have an old GTX960,I would rather struggle with that for 4 months,then get one of the current GPUs.

The issue is that Turing was a poor generation in terms of price/performance as Nvidia jacked up prices,so you essentially had no change in price/performance over Pascal. When AMD released the RX5700XT it helped pushed prices down a bit,but it's not been a great generation at all. In fact IMHO,one of the worst in terms of generational uplift for years.

For example the RTX2080TI was 25~30% faster than a GXT1080TI for 50% increase in respective launch prices. Compare that with the move from Maxwell with Pascal which was massive. The GTX1080TI was 75% faster at qHD than the GTX980TI for a 10% increase in launch price. AMD didn't bother releasing a flagship RDNA1 GPU. Ampere and RDNA2 should realistically have better generational performance jumps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spider95

(as I may not overall be able, or want to, wait a few months - that is just how it is for me)

---

Sounds like a back story there. Want to play the new MS flight simulator on release day perhaps? :D

Rumours are pointing at the new Nvidia cards being 40% faster than existing cards. That is believable, the 7nm process they are made on is ISTR about 40% lower power consumption than the 12nm of the current cards, so in the same power rating they can cram in 40% more transistors. But at this point even Nvidia don't know what the pricing is, they supposedly decide on or the day before launch.

Then there is the whole issue of ray tracing and AI support which should be added/improved. That's sort of why I made the quip about MS Flight Simulator; where a 10 year old PC would happily run FSX but would probably be dog slow on the new one. If you are one of the millions in that boat (plane?) then you probably don't care *that* much about the up-coming video card generation as you have a very specific use case. If you want to run all the latest games, then you might get some buyer's remorse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix

That's sort of why I made the quip about MS Flight Simulator; where a 10 year old PC would happily run FSX but would probably be dog slow on the new one. If you are one of the millions in that boat (plane?) then you probably don't care *that* much about the up-coming video card generation as you have a very specific use case. If you want to run all the latest games, then you might get some buyer's remorse.

---

Lol. No I don't actually have any specific game or use-case I am aiming at. Not waiting a few months is more related to my preference of buying the whole new PC as a whole built 3XS package from Scan and not faff about with having to move current GTX970 into new machine (plus not sure what that would do re warranty - a question I need to ask Scan about as well). As I said in my first post, PC is creaking and may not last much longer so I will want to be buying new PC sooner rather than later.

I want to be able to run all the new games coming out, but I am not someone who is particularly bothered about squeezing every last pixel, fps and/or bells and whistles out of a GPU. Although obviously I want things to also look great where possible :)

So sounds like the new GPUs will be quite a step up in capability. I imagine, as with everything, the new GPUs will initially be expensive, and who knows how long it will be before anything but the top tier cards come out. But even if that is not the case will there not also be be a lag before new games actually start to really take advantage of these new things? e.g. not many current games have ray tracing, but that will likely start to come in (along with other things) but that might take a while?

I'm now thinking perhaps what I should do is set my sights a little lower, buy a card now that is decent enough that will meet my requirements and support most new releases well for the next 2-3 years or so, then plan on upgrading GPU at that point (when there may be a much better idea of where the upcoming new technology has actually got to, and prices may be better).

Cheers,

(\(\;;/)/)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spider95

I'm now thinking perhaps what I should do is set my sights a little lower, buy a card now that is decent enough that will meet my requirements and support most new releases well for the next 2-3 years or so, then plan on upgrading GPU at that point (when there may be a much better idea of where the upcoming new technology has actually got to, and prices may be better).

---

Usually my suggestion would be an 8GB RX 570 or RX 580 as they are really cheap (I have a couple that cost me about £130), but your existing 970 is basically the same performance.

In terms of warranty, companies don't want to ship a machine with parts missing as that isn't really a functional machine at that point, so what you have to do is specify a cheap component that you can rip out. Stuff like the GPU is user upgradable, they should be OK with that, but might require you to put the card they sold you back in if you want a warranty repair.

I don't see a problem with Scan allowing you to use your old GPU?? Most of these companies if you ring them or e-mail them,should be able to assemble a custom PC for you from a specs list you already have. AFAIK,Overclockers Uk does this. Scan have a subforum here where you can ask. The PCs on their websites tend to be pre-configured builds.

There are some GTX1660 Super deals for around £200ish now. That should be around 50% faster than a GTX970. No RT support,but it does support variable rate shading. The RTX2060 series RT support is a bit crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

There are some GTX1660 Super deals for around £200ish now. That should be around 50% faster than a GTX970. No RT support,but it does support variable rate shading. The RTX2060 series RT support is a bit crap.

---

I was thinking the same.

... there is the matter of the 4000 series CPUs coming out in a couple of months. Such an unfortunate time to be buying :(

Spider95, I\'ve PM\'d you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix

I was thinking the same.

... there is the matter of the 4000 series CPUs coming out in a couple of months. Such an unfortunate time to be buying :(

---

It kind of is! I did have some mates,who had PCs which went kaput(or where really ancient),who had to upgrade(both where AM3+ based rigs) in the last few months. However,I managed to tell them to hold off the GPU upgrade for the time-being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

It kind of is! I did have some mates,who had PCs which went kaput(or where really ancient),who had to upgrade(both where AM3+ based rigs) in the last few months. However,I managed to tell them to hold off the GPU upgrade for the time-being.

---

Zen3 could be as much of a disruption as Ampere GPUs, but at least in that case you can get a 3600 "for now" and it is an awesome little chip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix

Zen3 could be as much of a disruption as Ampere GPUs, but at least in that case you can get a 3600 "for now" and it is an awesome little chip.

---

One of them doesn't really game on their PC that much,and it was an upgrade from a Phenom II X6 1045T to a Ryzen 9 3900 non-X(was around £300ish as part of a bundle). I did tell them they could wait a bit longer,but were working more from home,so were getting fedup with the old system. The other one got a Ryzen 5 3600,but the rig had gone kaput,but they kept their old R9 390.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH

I don't see a problem with Scan allowing you to use your old GPU?? Most of these companies if you ring them or e-mail them,should be able to assemble a custom PC for you from a specs list you already have. AFAIK,Overclockers Uk does this. Scan have a subforum here where you can ask. The PCs on their websites tend to be pre-configured builds.

---

Thanks and yes they may be ok with old GPU yes, and yes I need to ask - just have not had time to do so yet (work is hectic - I really need a holiday!). But regardless of that, as I have said I may not want to re-use the GPU and instead may compromise with something lesser now and upgrade sooner than I was planning (replacing GPU is something I am happy with doing as that is something I have done before). I just haven't decided yet as there is still a lot to consider.

My current system came from Scan. Started as a sort of pre-configued 3XS PC but then got tweaked quite a bit after a lot of discussion with them. I'm planning on doing the same again this time, not initiated this yet (as I'm still not set on what my spec list actually is), but getting closer thanks to all the helpful advice I'm getting! :)

(\(\;;/)/)

Update: After some pondering and more research this is now my revised spec list. Gone with the lower specced GPU for now with the intention to update 2-3 years down the line once the GPU scene settles a bit.

List still to be confirmed/discuss with Scan but hopefully am getting closer. Thanks all for your helpful comments.

CPU:AMD Ryzen 9 3900X

Mobo: B550 Gigabyte Aorus Master (I realise this B550 is more expensive than some x570 boards but I don’t like the active fan on those boards – a possible point of failure down the line. It also meets my requirements of minimum 9 USB, with the USB3 all being 3.2, has latest wifi standard, great VRMs and 3 M.2 slots.).

Case: be quiet! Pure Base 500, black. Possible with an extra case fan (depending on where radiator is mounted)

Cooling: Either an H115i RGB Pro XT or the smaller H100i - depending on where it's best to mount the radiator (going to discuss with Scan)

RAM: 32Gb Corsair Vengance LPX

GPU: Gigabyte geforce GTX 1660 super OC.

PSU: Corsair RMx 750W 80 plus Gold full modular (may bring this down to 650W - TBD)

Drive: O/S + some apps & games: 500Gb Seagate firecuda 520 SSD PCIe4 M.2
Drive: Other apps/games: 1Tb Seagate firecuda 510 SSD PCIe3 M.2
Drive: Data/files: 2Tb Seagate barracuda HDD
Drive: Backup/archive: 4Tb Seagate barracuda HDD.

(\(\;;/)/)