# Thinking about an AMD Ryzen build



## Daniel Dukai (Mar 3, 2017)

Now that Ryzen is out on the market, I started to piece together my next build. Here's what I have so far. I am waiting for AMD's RX Vega cards to get an idea for the total price.

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/mqyLYr

My estimated budget would be around $1000.

I doubt I can fit everything into $850. The graphics card is going to be relatively expensive, I assume.


----------



## Cisco001 (Mar 3, 2017)

SeaSonic M12II 520  $53
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10446076&PID=3938566&SID=

Case - what style would you like? Probably allow $50 - 70

RAM - DDR4 2666 at same price...

GPU would leave you about $260, GTX 1060 6GB/ RX480 8GB.

If you need to fit everything with $850, you probably need to get intel i5. 
I am not sure if intel i5 bottleneck GTX1060 or RX480.
By the way, could you reuse your existing case + PSU?


----------



## Daniel Dukai (Mar 3, 2017)

Does this PSU have enough overhead?

For the case: my heart's desire is a Coolermaster HAF 912.  Not sure how to pick one though. I'd like it to be big enough so it can have enough airflow.

I wasn't sure about the RAM's clock speed. 

GPU: If I'd buy this system right now, I'd consider those two cards. But I'd rather wait for VEGA. What do you think?

If I have to, I'll spend $1000 but I'd rather not get an i5 if I can help it. Jumping from 2 cores to 8 cores would be huge for me, since I was out of the loop for 4 cores anyways.

I don't even know the name of my computer case. It looks like a run of the mill no-name budget case. (MS, MSG W are on the front) I doubt I can fit my new stuff into it, and I really don't like it anymore to be honest.

The PSU is absolute crap, I'm sure, but I can check it for you.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 3, 2017)

Bad idea. Wait for the 1400-1500-1600. 8c/16t is useless for gaming. Even the 6 cores from the 1600 are too much.

Cooler I would recommend Cryorig H7 and RAM at least 2666MHz.

The Vega cards were just announced. They'll be released probably in June. I wouldn't wait. Just get the 4Gb 480.



Cisco001 said:


> I am not sure if intel i5 bottleneck GTX1060 or RX480.



Not at all.

I would definitely get the Seasonic S12II 620W.

By the way, the I5s are 4 cores.


----------



## Daniel Dukai (Mar 3, 2017)

6 / 8 cores may be overkill AT THE MOMENT. But what about futureproofing? I don't want to get 4 cores with an i5 if they will be outclassed in the next 1-2 years. I am buying this rig for the long run.

EDIT: Can't find the cyrorig in the parts list.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 3, 2017)

Have you seen the gaming benchmarks? The 1700 and 1800 are outperformed by the 7600k and 7700k.

The 1400-1500 series have higher clocks ( they can be OCed more because of the low core count, probably) and less threads, and in the best cases games use 4.

Unless you do content creation or video editing get a 4 core CPU. Everyone will tell you the same. Getting more cores doesn't mean it'll last longer, or that it'll perform better everywhere.

Until there are more reviews and benchmark I would just go Kaby lake or Skylake. Any 1151 I5 will last long enough. And if you realm want to future proof it get a 7700k and forget about it.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 3, 2017)

PCPartPicker part list: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/8x3sWX
Price breakdown by merchant: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/8x3sWX/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-7600K 3.8GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($238.75 @ SuperBiiz) 
CPU Cooler: CRYORIG H7 49.0 CFM CPU Cooler  ($34.99 @ Newegg Marketplace) 
Motherboard: MSI Z270-A PRO ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  ($101.98 @ Newegg) 
Memory: *G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-2666 Memory  ($94.99 @ Newegg) 
Storage: Samsung 850 EVO-Series 250GB 2.5" Solid State Drive  ($93.99 @ Amazon) 
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  ($49.33 @ OutletPC) 
Video Card: *MSI Radeon RX 480 4GB Video Card  ($185.66 @ Jet) 
Case: Thermaltake Versa H23  ATX Mid Tower Case  ($39.99 @ NCIX US) 
Power Supply: SeaSonic S12II 620W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply  ($48.99 @ NCIX US) 
Total: $888.67
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
*Lowest price parts chosen from parametric criteria
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-03-03 17:35 EST-0500


----------



## Darren (Mar 4, 2017)

I'd cautiously say 4 cores isn't going to cut it in 1-2 years but that's just me. I already see usage of my 8 cores in 2015-2016 games and the trend will only continue more with DX12 scaling with cores better. 4 core usage is definitely not "best case", stuff is already utilizing 6-8 threads with ease.


----------



## mistersprinkles (Mar 4, 2017)

^What he said, but also, it has been shown now that Ryzen is out, that Intel beats it for most games. There are some super multithreaded games (ie, ashes of the singularity) that run great on AMD now but for the most part for TODAYS games, it is behind Intel. Whether that matters to you based on what you want now and what you think the future will bring is up to you. I just thought it bared mentioning that in most current games Intel is stilll ahead. Also there should be an Intel price cut coming soon. So they say.


----------



## Darren (Mar 4, 2017)

Everything is kind of tricky right now as nobody really knows what to expect in terms of core usage over the coming years.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 4, 2017)

Darren said:


> I'd cautiously say 4 cores isn't going to cut it in 1-2 years but that's just me. I already see usage of my 8 cores in 2015-2016 games and the trend will only continue more with DX12 scaling with cores better. 4 core usage is definitely not "best case", stuff is already utilizing 6-8 threads with ease.



I would not say "with ease". That´s on the best DX12 games like Ashes of Singularity. Also hyperthreading makes no sense after 6 cores. The performance gained by enabling it is not noticeable, in fact on the 1800X is worse:

http://www.pcgamer.com/the-amd-ryzen-7-review/5/


----------



## Darren (Mar 4, 2017)

Deadpool said:


> I would not say "with ease". That´s on the best DX12 games like Ashes of Singularity. Also hyperthreading makes no sense after 6 cores. The performance gained by enabling it is not noticeable, in fact on the 1800X is worse:
> 
> http://www.pcgamer.com/the-amd-ryzen-7-review/5/


I'm talking about my real world experience with games and using an 8 core processor for the past several years. Not benchmarks.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 4, 2017)

Darren said:


> I'm talking about my real world experience with games and using an 8 core processor for the past several years. Not benchmarks.



I have an eight core CPU too. And I don't think yours can compare to the 1800X, neither can mine. I would definitely buy a 6 core CPU, for future proofing and what not, but definitely not an 8 core one. For gaming.

I'll still check it out in a few minutes. I just re-installed Fallout 4 and I'll try to establish the average core usage with RTSS and HWinfo. Would be interesting to see that game use 6-8 threads.


----------



## mistersprinkles (Mar 4, 2017)

Deadpool said:


> I have an eight core CPU too. And I don't think yours can compare to the 1800X, neither can mine. I would definitely buy a 6 core CPU, for future proofing and what not, but definitely not an 8 core one. For gaming.
> 
> I'll still check it out in a few minutes. I just re-installed Fallout 4 and I'll try to establish the average core usage with RTSS and HWinfo. Would be interesting to see that game use 6-8 threads.



Yes 83XX can definitely not compare. The thing is, to also touch on your previous comment, that apps are optimized for hyperthreading the way Intel does it, not the way AMD does it (since its so new). Also, I have looked at a lot of benches and comparisons, and if you are doing heavily multithreaded actual work, AMD pwns intel at the same price point. However for gaming, because stuff is so optimized for intel, you are still better off with intel.

Also, even though hyperthreading is, for games, not so hot right now, there are definitely situations with actual work (not games) where HT really does make a difference.


----------



## Daniel Dukai (Mar 4, 2017)

Wow. So many answers in such a short amount of time. 

Intel does games better NOW, in 2017. For sure, bro. But what about later? Even the 7700k has 4 cores / 8 threads. From what I've seen, the Ryzen 7 beats the 6900k, but doesn't beat the 7700k. Which is fine. The GPU will matter more, in my opinion. I firmly believe that future games WILL utilize more cores and threads. 

Just going to wait a bit. The R5 is 4 to 6 cores. Not sure about those.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 4, 2017)

Daniel Dukai said:


> Wow. So many answers in such a short amount of time.
> 
> Intel does games better NOW, in 2017. For sure, bro. But what about later? Even the 7700k has 4 cores / 8 threads. From what I've seen, the Ryzen 7 beats the 6900k, but doesn't beat the 7700k. Which is fine. The GPU will matter more, in my opinion. I firmly believe that future games WILL utilize more cores and threads.
> 
> Just going to wait a bit. The R5 is 4 to 6 cores. Not sure about those.



It beats the 6900k in very few games by not a lot of FPS, in the others (80%), it´s worse by a considerable amount of FPS. Still costs half. However, it costs more than the 7700k, a lot more, and does worse, a lot worse.

I´ve tested my 8350 in Fallout 4 and most of the time it utilizes 4 cores at 40%-60%, and the other 4 at 25%-35%. I am positive that that usage is caused by Fallout because whenever you pause the game, inmediately Cores 5,6,7,8 go to 0%.


----------



## Darren (Mar 4, 2017)

Deadpool said:


> It beats the 6900k in very few games by not a lot of FPS, in the others (80%), it´s worse by a considerable amount of FPS. Still costs half. However, it costs more than the 7700k, a lot more, and does worse, a lot worse.
> 
> I´ve tested my 8350 in Fallout 4 and most of the time it utilizes 4 cores at 40%-60%, and the other 4 at 25%-35%. I am positive that that usage is caused by Fallout because whenever you pause the game, inmediately Cores 5,6,7,8 go to 0%.


This is what I mean by my usage with an 8320. I never attempted to compare an 1800X with an 8320. Just that my current chip has 8 cores and I see them used, same as you do with Fallout 4. That game is already over a year old and you see it using more than 4 threads.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 4, 2017)

Darren said:


> This is what I mean by my usage with an 8320. I never attempted to compare an 1800X with an 8320. Just that my current chip has 8 cores and I see them used, same as you do with Fallout 4. That game is already over a year old and you see it using more than 4 threads.



True. My mistake on that. New games do use more than 4 threads.

Either way, the 1800X is a bad choice. Anyone would get better results with a 7600K in games. I maintain what I said in my first post, and what I just found out actually makes me more certain, since we know DX12 games use 8 threads, and the 1800X does so bad on games, it is fairly accurate to assume that the Ryzen architecture is not as powerful as we expected.  This guy has two options the way I see it:


Wait for the 1500/1600 CPUs.
Go Kaby/Skylake, which seems like the safe choice, based on what we know about the 1800X.
Both will be cheaper and, hopefully, more effective.


----------



## C4C (Mar 4, 2017)

Deadpool said:


> Wait for the 1500/1600 CPUs.
> Go Kaby/Skylake, which seems like the safe choice, based on what we know about the 1800X.
> Both will be cheaper and, hopefully, more effective.



THIS. If you don't need a rig with workstation capabilities, why bother with the 1700/1800 lineup? 

I was able to get my i5-6600K up to 4.8GHz last night without it blowing up.. and from the CPU-Z benchmarks I posted here, it looks like it isn't afraid to stand up to the big kids on the playground. even 4.7GHz and 4.6GHz seem to do dandy. 

Unless you're upgrading from something like an FX-8XXX or Haswell-aged build, it doesn't seem like it's worth it to pull the trigger quite yet..


----------



## Darren (Mar 4, 2017)

Agreed on the above sentiment towards in Intel.

I just get tilted whenever people tell me 4 cores is enough these days as it's quite clearly not the case now and even less so in the future.


----------



## Okedokey (Mar 4, 2017)

4 cores 8 threads is loads still.  Ryzen still needs to be optimised I believe, so I would wait a bit first.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 4, 2017)

Darren said:


> Agreed on the above sentiment towards in Intel.
> 
> I just get tilted whenever people tell me 4 cores is enough these days as it's quite clearly not the case now and even less so in the future.



Let me stop you there. 4 cores are enough these days. Newer games can use more than 4 cores, but that doesn't mean that you need to get an 8 core CPU, if you 4 cores have enough quality and power to get the job done. Which its obviously not the case for AMD. At least right now. Are you trying to tell me that because Fallout 4 and newer titles can use more than 4 threads we all have to get 6900Ks? I'm inclined to think you are not.


----------



## Intel_man (Mar 4, 2017)

Deadpool said:


> Are you trying to tell me that because Fallout 4 and newer titles can use more than 4 threads we all have to get 6900Ks?


No... because the 7700k exists which is cheaper than the broadwell-e.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 4, 2017)

Intel_man said:


> No... because the 7700k exists which is cheaper than the broadwell-e.



I believe that´s a 4 core CPU.


----------



## Intel_man (Mar 4, 2017)

Deadpool said:


> I believe that´s a 4 core CPU.


It's hyperthreaded. So it has 8 threads.


Deadpool said:


> Are you trying to tell me that because Fallout 4 and newer titles can use *more than 4 threads* we all have to get 6900Ks?


----------



## johnb35 (Mar 5, 2017)

OK, time to take this to PM's instead of derailing the thread.


----------



## Daniel Dukai (Mar 5, 2017)

It is obvious that I don't understand a few things. Basically, following Deadpool's suggestions I should get 4 cores, 8 threads. Either an i5-6500 (or possibly 6600K) or an i7-7700K and be done with it. OR: wait for AMD's 4C/8T lineup and take it from there.
Both of these options (maybe not the overclockable CPUs) are within my budget. I have a few questions though:

1) What is more important? 4 cores at higher clock speeds or 8 cores at lower/medium clock speeds? How much work threads do?
2) VRAM - 4GB, 6GB, or 8GB? Why? What is the best bang for buck?

EDIT: The rig is mainly for gaming.


----------



## beers (Mar 5, 2017)

Keep in mind the i5 line doesn't contain HT, so they're 4c/4t CPUs.

1) depends on the workload and if you're comparing the same line of processors.  If the game only has four or less main threads then the higher clocked quad will be faster.  If it uses more threads you may or may not get more performance with more cores.  It really depends how the game was developed.

2) you're better off comparing models of card before considering vram


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 5, 2017)

Daniel Dukai said:


> It is obvious that I don't understand a few things. Basically, following Deadpool's suggestions I should get 4 cores, 8 threads. Either an i5-6500 (or possibly 6600K) or an i7-7700K and be done with it. OR: wait for AMD's 4C/8T lineup and take it from there.
> Both of these options (maybe not the overclockable CPUs) are within my budget. I have a few questions though:
> 
> 1) What is more important? 4 cores at higher clock speeds or 8 cores at lower/medium clock speeds? How much work threads do?
> ...



8 threads are not necessary. You do need at least 4 physical cores (unless you can find a dual-core that´s powerful enough, which you won´t). HT affects gaming very little as of now. Keep in mind you have the new Intel architecture (it´s almost the same, with some minor improvements, +5%), so instead of a 6600K you could get a 7600k for around the same cash, and get something a little bit better.

The build in post #7 should be a good starting point.

About the cards, VRAM doesn´t affect how many FPS you´ll get. It is a limiting factor sometimes when there are very big and high res maps. For example, I think it´s the last Batman game, if you wanted to activate an option about the view distance and quality you needed at least 3Gb VRAM. Also if you have a high res monitor, you´ll need more VRAM, because you´ll be rendering many more pixels, and thus using more VRAM. There are a number of other specs that afect FPS, but VRAM is not one of them.

In your budget I would recommend the RX480, depending on your monitor, the 4Gb or 8Gb version.

Edit: You could get a 1070 if you are willing to spend a bit more.


----------



## Intel_man (Mar 5, 2017)

Price cuts on the 1070 makes it very appealing now that the 1080ti is out.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 5, 2017)

Intel_man said:


> Price cuts on the 1070 makes it very appealing now that the 1080ti is out.



Yeah. It's the new 850 EVO


----------



## Intel_man (Mar 5, 2017)

It's more along the lines of the 960 EVO in terms of how much it still costs vs everything else in it's market.


----------



## Daniel Dukai (Mar 6, 2017)

How much does my 1080p monitor factor into all of this?
Current refresh rate is 60Mhz.

Not sure if I should get a new monitor just because of the refresh rate and the new video card.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 6, 2017)

Daniel Dukai said:


> How much does my 1080p monitor factor into all of this?
> Current refresh rate is 60Mhz.
> 
> Not sure if I should get a new monitor just because of the refresh rate and the new video card.



With that monitor I´d get the 4Gb version of the 480.

I have a 1080p 60Hz (kinda hard for it to be 60MHz, I don´t think there are many cards out there that can render 60000000 frames a second ).

No one can decide but you, just consider you´ll spend at least $200 on a 144Hz 1080p monitor. The same for a 1440p 60Hz one.


----------



## Daniel Dukai (Mar 6, 2017)

I am asking because I have no idea. The only reason I would get the 8GB version is because, as you said, future proofing. From the videos that I have watched, there is no substantial performance difference. The 4GB is just as good as the 8GB.


----------



## lucasbytegenius (Mar 6, 2017)

Deadpool said:


> With that monitor I´d get the 4Gb version of the 480.
> 
> I have a 1080p 60Hz (kinda hard for it to be 60MHz, I don´t think there are many cards out there that can render 60000000 frames a second ).
> 
> No one can decide but you, just consider you´ll spend at least $200 on a 144Hz 1080p monitor. The same for a 1440p 60Hz one.


I'd still get the RX 480 8GB despite that monitor. It's only $20-30 more and it's 5% faster, not to mention the RAM does come in handy with some of the newer games. GTA V comes to mind. The 8GB RX 480 is what I'm currently running, I had a 4GB for a week and swapped it for the 8GB.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 6, 2017)

Daniel Dukai said:


> I am asking because I have no idea. The only reason I would get the 8GB version is because, as you said, future proofing. From the videos that I have watched, there is no substantial performance difference. The 4GB is just as good as the 8GB.



Yeah it´s not a big leap to the 8Gb version either.



lucasbytegenius said:


> I'd still get the RX 480 8GB despite that monitor. It's only $20-30 more and it's 5% faster, not to mention the RAM does come in handy with some of the newer games. GTA V comes to mind. The 8GB RX 480 is what I'm currently running, I had a 4GB for a week and swapped it for the 8GB.



Yeah I mentioned that. Batman Arkham Knight comes to mind too. Some games do need more VRAM but as of now no one more than 4Gb (on 1080p, that I know of). Still it´s a good idea to think of the future.

Why do you say it´s 5% faster? Both have the same specs except for the RAM.

It is a good idea to get the 8Gb version just in case. Will definitely pay off in the future.


----------



## Daniel Dukai (Mar 6, 2017)

5% faster because if you watch a few videos, the 8GB can produce a few FPS more. But that's it.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 6, 2017)

Daniel Dukai said:


> 5% faster because if you watch a few videos, the 8GB can produce a few FPS more. But that's it.



It does have a higher memory frequency. That should help with high resolutions and AA too. It all indicates the 480 is a card for higher resolutions. I think it´s worth the $35 difference.

Edit: the 1070 is getting a price reduction. For about $360 it´s a nice option too.


----------



## Daniel Dukai (Mar 6, 2017)

Thanks. I'll check out the specs.
EDIT: Wow. That is impressive, but I am already reaching my limit after choosing a tower/case.
EDIT#2: http://digiworthy.com/2016/12/24/amd-vega-release-date-specs-price-rumors/#price
I will not even consider the RX Vega. It will be way too expensive for me. This build will be go to option:
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/mqyLYr

Should I put in a CPU cooler just in case?

Can somebody please help me pick a case?
- The graph card should fit without any problems
- Enough airflow
- Enough room


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 6, 2017)

Daniel Dukai said:


> Thanks. I'll check out the specs.
> EDIT: Wow. That is impressive, but I am already reaching my limit after choosing a tower/case.
> EDIT#2: http://digiworthy.com/2016/12/24/amd-vega-release-date-specs-price-rumors/#price
> I will not even consider the RX Vega. It will be way too expensive for me. This build will be go to option:
> ...



Hold on now. You still going with Ryzen? Have you seen the gaming results? You´d get more FPS with an I5 6400. And for half the price http://www.pcgamer.com/the-amd-ryzen-7-review/5/

And that SSD is just a bad choice. Get a SATA 850 EVO for the same price http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compar...-vs-Crucial-MX300-SATA-M2-275GB/2977vsm159989


----------



## Daniel Dukai (Mar 6, 2017)

I don't want to get an i5. Yes, I have seen the gaming results. Nobody has a crystal ball, but I'd rather get Ryzen. The difference is negligible to me.

I am really worred that my 4-core CPU would not last me long enough. 8 cores may seem overkill now, but I'd rather have Ryzen 7 than an i5 or i7.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 6, 2017)

Daniel Dukai said:


> I don't want to get an i5. Yes, I have seen the gaming results. Nobody has a crystal ball, but I'd rather get Ryzen. The difference is negligible to me.
> 
> I am really worred that my 4-core CPU would not last me long enough. 8 cores may seem overkill now, but I'd rather have Ryzen 7 than an i5 or i7.



We established a few posts above that games can use 8 cores. And still those results look bad for the 8 core AMD CPUs. We even checked Fallout 4. The 1700 has 30FPS less than the 7700K. Why do you insist on getting something expensive and less effective? Having 8 cores doesn´t mean anything if those are bad cores. Would you get an 8350? No because it has 8 crappy cores. The same goes for the 1700 when it comes to gaming. Some could say games are not optimized for SMT, but even with SMT disabled the $500 1800X performs worse than the $180 6400. Many reviews look the same way http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-cpu,4951-6.html

I must sound like a broken record by now. I´m not going to mention this anymore, if you do want to go ahead with the Ryzen build, know that you are paying a lot that will not perform as you expect it. Not now, and probably not in the future.

If you do want to go for Ryzen, wait for the Ryzen 5 line. See some benches and determine if the architecture is worth it or not.


----------



## beers (Mar 6, 2017)

Deadpool said:


> Having 8 cores doesn´t mean anything if those are bad cores.


Please stop blowing crap out of proportion.  I'm sure the OP would appreciate taking your sensationalism elsewhere.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 6, 2017)

beers said:


> Please stop blowing crap out of proportion.  I'm sure the OP would appreciate taking your sensationalism elsewhere.



I sure as hell doubt it because I´m the only one trying to help him. In this case, the 8 cores from the 1800X are outperformed by the 4 cores of the 6600k. How would you call that?

Do you recommend him to get the 1800X, do you have a better advice or you are just trying to correct me?


----------



## Daniel Dukai (Mar 6, 2017)

Thanks for putting up with my stubborness, Deadpool. I'll listen to everybody, but I have seen videos about gameplay with the Ryzen processors. I don't care about numbers, I care about the results I see with my own eyes. Gameplay footage with smooth and stable FPS.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 6, 2017)

Daniel Dukai said:


> Thanks for putting up with my stubborness, Deadpool. I'll listen to everybody, but I have seen videos about gameplay with the Ryzen processors. I don't care about numbers, I care about the results I see with my own eyes. Gameplay footage with smooth and stable FPS.



All right then. I would say you find reviews of the motherboards before buying, but given the situation I doubt you´ll find any http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-ryzen-motherboards-explained-amd-am4-chipset-buy_192052

You should at least read a couple of articles. Main differences are that both allow OC, but only the X370 allows SLI/Crossfire setups.

In your case the Asus you picked actually allows Crossfire too. There is not much VRM information, but I found a discussion about this on a different forum. Read up http://www.overclock.net/t/1624051/vrm-on-the-new-am4-motherboards/30

Also, get a cooler, not many are compatible though, and change that SSD for the 850 EVO, or something better if you want to.

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/9JR9BP


----------



## Daniel Dukai (Mar 6, 2017)

Thanks, the case looks awesome.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 6, 2017)

Daniel Dukai said:


> Thanks, the case looks awesome.



Yeah it´s just a parametric choice. If you click the thing that says "from parametric filter" you´ll have all cases matching the specs of that one. Some others look better.

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/case/#m=11,56,94,106,229&p=0&t=3,4&u=1&sort=a8&page=1

That´s with the filter applied.

In my opinion this is the best looking case with a price that low. https://pcpartpicker.com/product/xzNypg/thermaltake-case-ca1d900m1wn00


----------



## Daniel Dukai (Mar 6, 2017)

mistersprinkles said:


> ^What he said, but also, it has been shown now that Ryzen is out, that Intel beats it for most games. There are some super multithreaded games (ie, ashes of the singularity) that run great on AMD now but for the most part for TODAYS games, it is behind Intel. Whether that matters to you based on what you want now and what you think the future will bring is up to you. I just thought it bared mentioning that in most current games Intel is stilll ahead. Also there should be an Intel price cut coming soon. So they say.



I know that Intel's CPUs are better - this year. But I want to build a machine that can last me quite a bit. I doubt I can afford it later.


----------



## Daniel Dukai (Mar 8, 2017)

Since I live in Hungary, I had to check some prices online. It turns out that any build that I make will substantially cost more in HUF than in USD. Made me sad and angry at the same time.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 8, 2017)

Daniel Dukai said:


> Since I live in Hungary, I had to check some prices online. It turns out that any build that I make will substantially cost more in HUF than in USD. Made me sad and angry at the same time.



And why is that? Taxes?


----------



## Daniel Dukai (Mar 8, 2017)

Yeah. VAT and probably some things that I don't understand yet.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 8, 2017)

Daniel Dukai said:


> Yeah. VAT and probably some things that I don't understand yet.



It´s that way almost everywhere. In my country I usually pay %35-45 more.


----------



## Daniel Dukai (Mar 8, 2017)

Deadpool said:


> It´s that way almost everywhere. In my country I usually pay %35-45 more.



So how do you calculate the budget for your builds? Or do you pick parts first and check prices later?


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 8, 2017)

Daniel Dukai said:


> So how do you calculate the budget for your builds? Or do you pick parts first and check prices later?



In Pcpartpicker there is an option that lets you add taxes to the values in the Preferences section. I always add 50% tax and that gives me an idea.


----------



## Daniel Dukai (Mar 9, 2017)

Considering the insane price differences in Hungary, I am afraid that an i5-6500 build will have to do if I want to fit into my budget.
I know I sound like a broken record but ... Is this an okay build to replace my current desktop rig?

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/TQk2Yr

As I may not be able to acquire certain parts, some sort of guide for brands would be welcome.
Thank you!


----------



## beers (Mar 9, 2017)

Any inclination to throw an Ivy Bridge 3xxx series i5 into your existing build?  Might save you from spending on a board/ddr4 and get some more life out of your system.


----------



## Daniel Dukai (Mar 9, 2017)

beers said:


> Any inclination to throw an Ivy Bridge 3xxx series i5 into your existing build?  Might save you from spending on a board/ddr4 and get some more life out of your system.



I'd rather spend that money on a new build rather than tinkering with an already old build that I want to discard anyways.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 9, 2017)

Daniel Dukai said:


> Considering the insane price differences in Hungary, I am afraid that an i5-6500 build will have to do if I want to fit into my budget.
> I know I sound like a broken record but ... Is this an okay build to replace my current desktop rig?
> 
> https://pcpartpicker.com/list/TQk2Yr
> ...



Add an HDD, and get better PSU. The Seasoninc S12II 620W is usually around that price.


----------



## Daniel Dukai (Mar 9, 2017)

I'll take my existing HDD (I'll check and post the specs) and use it alongside the SSD. But I also have an external drive (1TB).

What do you recommend for an HDD? Western Digital? Which color? Etc.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 9, 2017)

Daniel Dukai said:


> I'll take my existing HDD (I'll check and post the specs) and use it alongside the SSD. But I also have an external drive (1TB).
> 
> What do you recommend for an HDD? Western Digital? Which color? Etc.



WD Blue and Seagate Barracuda are the most common choices.


----------



## Intel_man (Mar 9, 2017)

Seagate is garbage. Buy WD or HSGT drives.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 9, 2017)

Intel_man said:


> Seagate is garbage. Buy WD or HSGT drives.




Why do you say that?


----------



## Intel_man (Mar 9, 2017)

Because they're known to be more failure prone than other brands. 







full report: https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-benchmark-stats-2016/


----------



## Daniel Dukai (Mar 9, 2017)

I can support that. My first and only Barracuda died very shortly after purchase.

EDIT:
By the way: how hard is it to assemble this? I am not an avid builder and the only thing that I do is maybe swap out drives.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 9, 2017)

All I can say is that in 2016 the failures went down to below WD level (6% vs ~3-4%), and that I have had a Seagate for over 6 years now.

It is not hard to build. There is a guide in this forum that you can follow.


----------



## Darren (Mar 9, 2017)

Seagate has been known to have crappy 2TB+ drives. Their 1TB's are fine. My Barrucuda is going strong 5+ years and I put them in numerous builds several years ago with zero failures.


----------



## Intel_man (Mar 9, 2017)

Deadpool said:


> All I can say is that in 2016 the failures went down to below WD level (6% vs ~3-4%), and that I have had a Seagate for over 6 years now.


Statistics 101.

Always determine your statistics based on values with the most data, which comes from that graph I presented above. Don't just use 1 year's worth of data when there's more available data gathered.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 10, 2017)

Intel_man said:


> Statistics 101.
> 
> Always determine your statistics based on values with the most data, which comes from that graph I presented above. Don't just use 1 year's worth of data when there's more available data gathered.



Don´t worry about that. I aced statistics and probablity in college.

You can´t talk statistics with a chart that compares values obtained from 45 samples and values from 38000 samples. That´s statistics 101. Neither can you judgue an entire brand for results obtained like this:

"BackBlaze’s methods haven’t been without controversy either. In the past, the company has been criticized for changing its storage pod designs, which can impact the reliability of a certain cluster of drives.

And rather than order 1,000 drives directly from a manufacturer, the company in the past has said it sourced hard drives by buying consumer external backup drives and “shucking” the hard drives to repurpose in its data center. The drives also run on a 24/7 duty cycle, which hard drive makers have said is outside the design of a consumer hard drive..." http://www.pcworld.com/article/3071...e-latest-backblaze-survey-claims-to-know.html






Also the Seagate drives have the best performance/price ratio.


----------



## Intel_man (Mar 10, 2017)

Deadpool said:


> You can´t talk statistics with a chart that compares values obtained from 45 samples and values from 38000 samples. That´s statistics 101. Neither can you judgue an entire brand for results obtained like this


But I'm not deliberately comparing drives with 45 samples to 38000, nor am I comparing values from a "chart". I posted a table. Sample groups from HGST is more than sufficient in numbers to be directly compared to Seagate drives in a few different hdd size categories. 



Deadpool said:


> "BackBlaze’s methods haven’t been without controversy either. In the past, the company has been criticized for changing its storage pod designs, which can impact the reliability of a certain cluster of drives.
> 
> And rather than order 1,000 drives directly from a manufacturer, the company in the past has said it sourced hard drives by buying consumer external backup drives and “shucking” the hard drives to repurpose in its data center. The drives also run on a 24/7 duty cycle, which hard drive makers have said is outside the design of a consumer hard drive..."


There needs to be more information on how many of them are like that and if a specific brand is the only one being targeted. 



Deadpool said:


> Also the Seagate drives have the best performance/price ratio.


Never said it wasn't.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 10, 2017)

Intel_man said:


> There needs to be more information on how many of them are like that and if a specific brand is the only one being targeted.



There isn´t. That´s why I don´t think that "table" is reliable. Certainly not enough to discard an entire brand. Enough to raise suspicions? Yeah maybe. But not enough to be conclusive.

I´m not saying the table is useless. It´s very useful to get an idea of what you can expect. Sadly there are not many more studies about the topic. This table should be a good starting point to ask around and observe what kind of results others had with the critical drives models or specific sizes.

I had a WD Blue 320Gb for seven years and a Seagate Barracuda 500Gb for six, and I´m still using both.


----------



## beers (Mar 10, 2017)

The 1.5 TB and 3 TB Seagate drives were pretty notorious for sucking the D.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 10, 2017)

beers said:


> The 1.5 TB and 3 TB Seagate drives were pretty notorious for sucking the D.



I'm not saying no. I'm just saying that you should not arrive to that conclusion just by looking at that table.


----------



## johnb35 (Mar 10, 2017)

Deadpool said:


> I'm not saying no. I'm just saying that you should not arrive to that conclusion just by looking at that table.


You don't have to look at the table, there have been many reports online about it.  We were even talking about it when they first started coming out with the issues.


----------



## beers (Mar 10, 2017)

Sounds like OP already had a negative experience with them.

I'd go HGST or WD Blue/Black (or, this lovely 3 TB WD Red right here).  Any other questions you had for the build @Daniel Dukai  ?


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 10, 2017)

johnb35 said:


> You don't have to look at the table, there have been many reports online about it.  We were even talking about it when they first started coming out with the issues.



And I agree.



beers said:


> I'd go HGST or WD Blue/Black (or, this lovely 3 TB WD Red right here).  Any other questions you had for the build @Daniel Dukai  ?



Damn it I forgot. I should have said Red!


----------



## Intel_man (Mar 10, 2017)

beers said:


> (or, this lovely 3 TB WD Red right here)


----------



## Daniel Dukai (Mar 10, 2017)

My backup plan is going to be the i5 build, but I'll wait it out for the six core Ryzen. Maybe... just maybe....


----------



## Daniel Dukai (Mar 11, 2017)

What does this compatibility issue mean and how to rectify it?

The motherboard M.2 slot #0 shares bandwidth with a SATA 6.0 Gb/s port. When the M.2 slot is populated, one SATA 6Gb/s port is disabled.
Granted, I am looking at my friends specs https://pcpartpicker.com/list/H9jPcc

EDIT: Oh, I see. I messed up the list ...
He bought this a while ago to replace his old AMD machine.


----------



## johnb35 (Mar 11, 2017)

It means exactly what it says, when an M2 drive is installed in that slot one of the sata ports is disabled.  Which means you can't use it.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 11, 2017)

It's not really an issue, unless you want to use 8 HDDs. Most motherboards have more than 4 SATA III ports so don't worry about that. You can check just by looking at the motherboard.


----------



## Daniel Dukai (Mar 11, 2017)

The only reason this message popped up is because I added a laptop SSD to that list by mistake.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 11, 2017)

Daniel Dukai said:


> The only reason this message popped up is because I added a laptop SSD to that list by mistake.



No. Any M.2 SSD will cause the same "issue" in certain motherboards.


----------



## MisterEd (Mar 22, 2017)

For AM4 motherboards pay close attention to the qualified RAM. I have found that Ryzen builds are very picky about RAM. On many motherboards a lot of the tested RAM works at lower speeds than the rated ones. For example for the PRIME B350-PLUS look at the file PRIME_B350-PLUS_Memory_QVL.pdf.

I pre-ordered a Ryzen CPU, motherboard, and RAM before there were any guidelines on what RAM worked best. Unfortunately the 2666MHz RAM I got only works at 2133MHz. A future BIOS update may solve the RAM problem but for now I have to live with the lower speed.


----------



## Daniel Dukai (Mar 22, 2017)

Thanks for the info. For now, I can only toy around and think about what I will build. I will wait a few months for BIOS updates, but also because I need to get the money for the build.


----------



## mistersprinkles (Mar 23, 2017)

I hate the money part of any new build. Why can't PC components grow on trees? We could have CPU trees, GPU trees, motherboard trees, case trees, powersupply trees, RAM trees, and so on.

You could buy a bag of RAM tree seeds for like a dollar and farm your own RAM trees. The RAM you needed you would keep and you could sell your excess RAM at a computer farmer's market for a dollar or two per pound.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 23, 2017)

Growing your own GPUs. Now that's some good business.


----------



## lucasbytegenius (Mar 23, 2017)

Deadpool said:


> Growing your own GPUs. Now that's some good business.


Novideo GreenForce GTX


----------



## Daniel Dukai (Mar 25, 2017)

I have been looking at different builds at different budgets, and I can't help but feel that a budget restraint might lead me to put a worse part into my build in relation to the others. A really good build costs around $1500 with quality parts?


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 25, 2017)

Daniel Dukai said:


> I have been looking at different builds at different budgets, and I can't help but feel that a budget restraint might lead me to put a worse part into my build in relation to the others. A really good build costs around $1500 with quality parts?



Where?


----------



## Daniel Dukai (Mar 25, 2017)

I watched this video out of curiousity and to learn something about building a PC as everything is thoroughly explained. He explains why he chose certain parts.






It left me somewhat confused though. Isn't the B350 motherboard enough? Is the X370 really that necessary for that build?

I should really stop thinking about computer parts before I go crazy. I am still not going to buy it until September or something.

EDIT: And by that time, new parts may come out, BIOS-es get optimized, new GPUs get released, etc. I might as well scrap the builds I've made so far.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 25, 2017)

Well if you are an overclock savvy, you may want to get a x370 board. They tend to have better VRMs and better VRM's heatsinks. The M.2 thing he mentioned is not true because there are many b350 with M.2 slots. Also there is the no SLI thingy.


----------



## Darren (Mar 25, 2017)

Deadpool said:


> Well if you are an overclock savvy, you may want to get a x370 board. They tend to have better VRMs and better VRM's heatsinks. The M.2 thing he mentioned is not true because there are many b350 with M.2 slots. Also there is the no SLI thingy.


Nope.

Ryzen clocks just as well on B350 as it does X370 honestly, at least within a very small margin. I've seen 1700's at 4.2 GHz on B350's. There's a massive voltage wall around 4.0GHz that you won't be pushing past regardless of the board. Luck of the silicon lottery will affect it more. If you're trying to save money then spending extra for potential OC of maybe 1-200MHz is pointless. 

I just wanted a high end board that looked good.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 25, 2017)

That doesn't mean the VRMs and heatsinks aren't better.


----------



## Darren (Mar 25, 2017)

Deadpool said:


> That doesn't mean the VRMs and heatsinks aren't better.


I didn't say they weren't, but them being better has negligible to nonexistent impact on performance and we're trying to save money here. An extra $40 saved going with a B350 board can be dumped into the GPU and get you way more performance for that $40.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 25, 2017)

Darren said:


> I didn't say they weren't, but them being better has negligible to nonexistent impact on performance and we're trying to save money here. An extra $40 saved going with a B350 board can be dumped into the GPU and get you way more performance for that $40.



You said Nope to my entire comment! Anyways, unless you really want SLI I wouldn't get an X370.


----------



## Intel_man (Mar 25, 2017)

Looks like the main difference between the B350 and X370 is the number of USB 3.1 G1 and G2 ports, SLI/CF capability, and a couple more PCI-E lanes.


----------



## Darren (Mar 25, 2017)

Deadpool said:


> You said Nope to my entire comment! Anyways, unless you really want SLI I wouldn't get an X370.


I totally did, my bad. I meant nope as in like nope you don't need to spend the extra for an X370 if you're in the interest of saving money.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 25, 2017)

Intel_man said:


> Looks like the main difference between the B350 and X370 is the number of USB 3.1 G1 and G2 ports, SLI/CF capability, and a couple more PCI-E lanes.



I think most, if not all B350s have CF support.


----------



## Darren (Mar 25, 2017)

Deadpool said:


> I think most, if not all B350s have CF support.


Not SLI though because good old Nvidia makes you (or rather the mobo manufacturer) pay for that license.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 25, 2017)

Darren said:


> Not SLI though because good old Nvidia makes you (or rather the mobo manufacturer) pay for that license.



It's all just good ol' business.


----------



## Intel_man (Mar 25, 2017)

I'm just reading off of AMD's own chart for CF/SLi compatibility.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 25, 2017)

Intel_man said:


> I'm just reading off of AMD's own chart for CF/SLi compatibility.



If you read carefully it says 2x8 PCIE 3. That's because the x370 are the only ones that do that. In the B350s you get 16 lanes for the first card and only 4 for the second.


----------



## Intel_man (Mar 25, 2017)

Oh yeah, CF doesn't have the minimum pci-e lanes requirement. But you probably don't want to crossfire in a 16x-x4 configuration. Going from x8 to x4 on the 2nd card actually hurts performance gains compared to x8-x8.


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 25, 2017)

Intel_man said:


> Going from x8 to x4 on the 2nd card actually hurts performance gains compared to x8-x8.



Indeed.


----------



## beers (Mar 25, 2017)

Deadpool said:


> Indeed.


Why are you arguing both sides?


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 26, 2017)

beers said:


> Why are you arguing both sides?



What? I don't prefer either. I was just pointing out differences.


----------



## mistersprinkles (Mar 26, 2017)

Deadpool are you twoface?


----------



## Deadpool (Mar 26, 2017)

mistersprinkles said:


> Deadpool are you twoface?



Damn that make up though... 

You could have used the newer, cooler version of Mr. Dent.


----------

