Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

First Time Builder After Feedback


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 dazza555

dazza555

  • Members
  • 13 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:11:14 AM

Posted 30 July 2017 - 09:06 PM

Hi all, after looking through some feedback on another post and hours of youtube videos I've steadily narrowed down my list of components. Now I was after some feedback and thoughts from experienced builders out there so here goes:

Motherboard: Asus Prime Z270-A
Processor: i7 7700K
CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D15
Case: Cooler Master Master Case Pro 5
Memory: Kingston HyperX Fury 16gb (2x8gb) 2133mHz
PSU: EVGA 500W 80+ Bronze
Storage: Corsair Force MP500 120gb

Planned down the line
GPU: GTX 1060 6gb
Storage: 4TB 7200RPM 3.5" drive
Memory: Another 16gb of Kingston HyperX Fury
Disk Drive: DVD burner BluRay Reader
Maybe upgrade to water cooling

Initially all I need the computer for is media serving over my home network through my external drives as well as being able to run microsoft office for my uni work. Eventually a little light gaming is planned as well as the need to run virtual machine and some mid-range photo editing. Also I'm trying to keep close to the $1000 price mark and my initial build sits at $1300.

So as an experienced builder what changes would you make and why? I do have some concerns about the PSU I've chosen, is it worth the extra money for a higher end one and should I aim for something with a bit more power? I also have some concerns about cooling, aside from my CPU cooler what other fans should I be looking at getting? Finally is there anything I've over looked or got completely wrong?

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine

  • Members
  • 2,453 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:03:14 AM

Posted 31 July 2017 - 04:41 AM

For virtual machine use, forget all quad cores immediately. i7-7700K is overpriced crap for anything else than "I want 500 FPS in CS" type of use.

So here goes with little less money:

PCPartPicker part list: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/fGpgM8
Price breakdown by merchant: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/fGpgM8/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 5 1600 3.2GHz 6-Core Processor ($197.88 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte - GA-AB350-Gaming ATX AM4 Motherboard ($86.89 @ OutletPC)
Memory: Team - Vulcan 16GB (1 x 16GB) DDR4-2400 Memory ($116.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: ADATA - XPG SX8000 256GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($118.65 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: MSI - GeForce GT 710 1GB Video Card ($32.99 @ Amazon)
Case: Cooler Master - MasterCase Pro 5 ATX Mid Tower Case ($109.98 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: EVGA - SuperNOVA G2 550W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($79.89 @ OutletPC)
Total: $743.27
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-07-31 05:40 EDT-0400

CPU cooler included, I put same case you did. That is much better than your first build.

#3 DJBPace07

DJBPace07

  • BC Advisor
  • 4,869 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:08:14 PM

Posted 01 August 2017 - 08:08 AM

That's a good build Drillingmachine has there.  Don't forget, you need a copy of Windows 10.  Theoretically, you can use Debian or Ubuntu and use Office 365 to save money on a Windows license.  If you are going to be using this build to watch or load disc based media, you'll need an optical drive.

 

That build is on a newer platform and can be expanded on in the future.  The only limitation on the AMD side of things with it is the inability to use Threadripper CPU's, but that doesn't seem like a priority with this build given the use case.


3939.png

 


#4 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 699 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:09:14 AM

Posted 04 August 2017 - 04:34 AM

For virtual machine use, forget all quad cores immediately. i7-7700K is overpriced crap for anything else than "I want 500 FPS in CS" type of use.

 

LOL!

 

The sad rant hits just keep coming, don't they?

 

Kindly post your links  of performance charts showing the 7700K taking an Office and/or gaming thrashing at the hands of a Ryzen...any Ryzen will do, you may feel free to include the $400+ models...

 

(I suspect it will be a long wait)


Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060


#5 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine

  • Members
  • 2,453 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:03:14 AM

Posted 04 August 2017 - 11:58 AM

LOL!
 
The sad rant hits just keep coming, don't they?
 
Kindly post your links  of performance charts showing the 7700K taking an Office and/or gaming thrashing at the hands of a Ryzen...any Ryzen will do, you may feel free to include the $400+ models...
 
(I suspect it will be a long wait)


As always I don't care about benchmarks at all. Office work is mostly SSD and/or memory speed, CPU is very rarely real bottleneck (at least when we are talking about Ryzen class, Atom's and other crap are different thing).

Remember that virtual machine usually requires at least three cores to run properly and then quad core feels slow already. As for gaming, I already said CS. Also Ryzen runs demanding games smoother than i7-7700K, benchmarks say nothing about that.

You may want to see this http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-reality-check-at-fx-gamexperience_1838

#6 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 699 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:09:14 AM

Posted 05 August 2017 - 02:45 AM

Note the Ryzen 1700 giving the 7700K it's typical 'manhandling in the average framerates, 1% lows, and minimums here in a variety of games....at a variety resolutions....including at Doom, BF1, a few others..

 

 

Stock vs. stock? same.....OC'd Ryzen vs. stock 7700K? Same...

 

If I want the Ryzen's admittedly 'good' (as opposed to great) gaming performance and buttery smoothness, I can underclock to 3.7 GHz or so....

 

I can understand perhaps your past rigs requiring 3 cores to run VMs smoothly if you were using the slower 8350 series might have influenced your perceptions.....


Edited by MDD1963, 05 August 2017 - 02:52 AM.

Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060


#7 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine

  • Members
  • 2,453 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:03:14 AM

Posted 05 August 2017 - 03:08 AM

Framerates and smoothness are different things. That's something that is almost impossible to benchmark as all smoothness is not visible on benchmark results. Also benchmarks are not done on IRL comparable situations, because there are no background tasks that exist on real life. So benchmarks are nearly useless on this topic. Old but good example:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2715/4

Minimum frame rates are almost same but smoothness:
 

After playing through the several levels on each platform, we thought the Phenom II 940 offered a better overall gaming experience in this title than the Intel Q9550 based on smoother game play. It is difficult to quantify without a video capture, but player movement and weapon control just seemed to be more precise.


Considering that is done without background tasks, IRL situation that smoothness on Phenom II would be even larger.

Also quite many users say Ryzen runs games like BF1 smoother than Intel's quad cores.

Edit: http://www.techspot.com/review/1345-amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x/page7.html

One thing I did notice is that all the games I have looked at so far -- which is considerably more than the four shown here -- were smooth on the Ryzen processors. GTA 5 for example plays really well on the Core i7-7700K, but every now and then a small stutter can be noticed, while the 1800X runs as smooth as silk, sans stuttering from what I observed.

I found a similar situation when testing Battlefield 1. Performance was smooth with the Ryzen processors while every now and then the quad-core 7700K had a small hiccup. These were rare but it was something I didn't notice when using the 1800X and 1700X. But as smooth as the experience was, it doesn't change the fact that gamers running a high refresh rate monitor may be better served by a higher clocked Core i7-6700K or 7700K.


Edited by Drillingmachine, 05 August 2017 - 03:11 AM.


#8 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 699 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:09:14 AM

Posted 05 August 2017 - 03:19 AM

Notice now you ever so 'attempted' to smoothly say 'quad cores'...

 

Trying to now back out/wiggle out of 7700K/1700 gaming comparisons? (I don't blame you.)

 

Are we still addressing the 7700K , ...with 8 threads? Or  are you now intending to backpedal, and merely say Ryzen is a better choice than the i5 (I agree?)

 

I agree Ryzen 6c/12t or any R7 is the better choice over the 4c/4t designed i5....

 

So despite the 7700K having better 1% lows, better minimums, and better average framerates (only a 49% gap in some games), the Ryzen is 'smoother' than the 7700K...

 

Heck, I'm convinced...

 

I will immediately underclock to 3.7 GHz to replicate the 'smoothness' you must experience..


Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060


#9 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 699 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:09:14 AM

Posted 05 August 2017 - 03:32 AM

Framerates and smoothness are different things. That's something that is almost impossible to benchmark as all smoothness is not visible on benchmark results. Also benchmarks are not done on IRL comparable situations, because there are no background tasks that exist on real life. So benchmarks are nearly useless on this topic. Old but good example:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2715/4

Minimum frame rates are almost same but smoothness:
 

After playing through the several levels on each platform, we thought the Phenom II 940 offered a better overall gaming experience in this title than the Intel Q9550 based on smoother game play. It is difficult to quantify without a video capture, but player movement and weapon control just seemed to be more precise.


Considering that is done without background tasks, IRL situation that smoothness on Phenom II would be even larger.

Also quite many users say Ryzen runs games like BF1 smoother than Intel's quad cores.

Edit: http://www.techspot.com/review/1345-amd-ryzen-7-1800x-1700x/page7.html

 

 

If you can't actually claim/sustain a smoothness victory over the 7700K, by all means,... reach back "X" amount of years to an old Core2 Quad comparison...

Bravo....!

 

OBTW...at current Amazon prices, the R7-1700 is $290, with the 7700K at...$298...good call on 'overpriced' , too....


Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060


#10 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 699 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:09:14 AM

Posted 05 August 2017 - 03:40 AM

Lord help us all if the 7700K drops to sub-$290, I guess.....although I strongly suspect you'd still call them overpriced.

 

We can always resume the 'soldered on heat shield' advantages, which helps propel the 1800x from 4.0 GHz turbo....to an OC of...4.05 GHz?

 

Or, point to the claims of Ryzen 7-1700 sipping power like a fanless Celeron, despite tests showing that when R5-1700 is OC'd to 3.9 GHz, it draws more power at the wall (130-140 watts in fact) than the 7700K when both are under load...

 

But then, who cares about those miniscule details....just point to the factory's '65watt TDP', and merely imply they sip power in true-green fashion...


Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060


#11 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 699 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:09:14 AM

Posted 05 August 2017 - 03:45 AM


So, as 'evidence' of your AMD Ryzen smoothness victory, we see posted comparisons of an i3 vs an FX8350, and, for a battle of recent processors in gaming...a 2700K vs. an FX 8150?

 

This is now almost amusing... :)


Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060


#12 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine

  • Members
  • 2,453 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:03:14 AM

Posted 05 August 2017 - 04:21 AM

That quad core example was years ago when quad/hexa cores were HEDT.

Yes, Ryzen runs games smoother IRL. Perhaps not on benchmarks.

If you can't actually claim/sustain a smoothness victory over the 7700K, by all means,... reach back "X" amount of years to an old Core2 Quad comparison...
Bravo....!
 
OBTW...at current Amazon prices, the R7-1700 is $290, with the 7700K at...$298...good call on 'overpriced' , too....


Core 2 quad comparison proved that smoothness and benchmarks are different thing. Also that article was done by reputable site so you just cannot say that was just random user opinion.

R7-1700 advantages: much better motherboard platform, smaller power consumption, double amount of cores/threads, much better build quality, runs much cooler, includes pretty good stock cooler

i7-7700K advantages: slightly higher FPS on some gaming benchmarks

Yes, i7-7700K is overpriced.

Lord help us all if the 7700K drops to sub-$290, I guess.....although I strongly suspect you'd still call them overpriced.
 
We can always resume the 'soldered on heat shield' advantages, which helps propel the 1800x from 4.0 GHz turbo....to an OC of...4.05 GHz?
 
Or, point to the claims of Ryzen 7-1700 sipping power like a fanless Celeron, despite tests showing that when R5-1700 is OC'd to 3.9 GHz, it draws more power at the wall (130-140 watts in fact) than the 7700K when both are under load...
 
But then, who cares about those miniscule details....just point to the factory's '65watt TDP', and merely imply they sip power in true-green fashion...


Ryzen does not overclock well because manufacturing tech limits. Same applies to power consumption when overclocked (btw 1700 has 8 cores while 7700K has 4).

You may want to see this http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-reality-check-at-fx-gamexperience_1838
 
So, as 'evidence' of your AMD Ryzen smoothness victory, we see posted comparisons of an i3 vs an FX8350, and, for a battle of recent processors in gaming...a 2700K vs. an FX 8150?
 
This is now almost amusing... :)


Again, that example proves that benchmarks are not same as smoothness while gaming IRL. That applied then and it applies now.

Feel free to link newer articles like that if you find any.

#13 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 699 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:09:14 AM

Posted 05 August 2017 - 04:55 AM

"i7-7700K is overpriced crap for anything else than "I want 500 FPS in CS" type of use."

 

Here we see the 7700K 'struggling' to keep it's minimum and 1% lows rivaling those of the 1700X...average framerate advantage? just 54%....

advantage on 1% lows? 46%.....

  And for the .1% lows...7700K struggles with a mere 66% advantage...

 

"i7-7700K advantages: slightly higher FPS on some gaming benchmarks"

Yes, ..."slightly higher FPS" indeed

What sorcery is this....!

dota2-1080p-144hz.png


Edited by MDD1963, 05 August 2017 - 05:12 AM.

Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060


#14 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 699 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:09:14 AM

Posted 05 August 2017 - 05:01 AM



"Ryzen does not overclock well because manufacturing tech limits."
 
On that,...well, I have to agree.... :) 

Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060


#15 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine

  • Members
  • 2,453 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:03:14 AM

Posted 05 August 2017 - 05:23 AM

"i7-7700K is overpriced crap for anything else than "I want 500 FPS in CS" type of use."
 
Here we see the 7700K 'struggling' to keep it's minimum and 1% lows rivaling those of the 1700X...average framerate advantage? just 54%....
advantage on 1% lows? 46%.....
  And for the .1% lows...7700K struggles with a mere 66% advantage...
 
"i7-7700K advantages: slightly higher FPS on some gaming benchmarks"
Yes, ..."slightly higher FPS" indeed
What sorcery is this....!


Who cares about percentages? Even i7-7700K@4.9 GHz is too slow on those settings so nobody gives a bleep even if Ryzen is 5000% slower.

Edited by Drillingmachine, 05 August 2017 - 05:23 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users