/pcbg/ - PC Building General

>Assemble a part list
pcpartpicker.com/
>Learn how to build a PC (You can find a lot more detailed videos on other youtube)
youtube.com/watch?v=69WFt6_dF8g
>How to install Win7 on new CPUs
pastebin.com/TUZvnmy1

If you want help
>State the budget & CURRENCY for your build
>List your uses, e.g. Gaming, Video Editing, VM, Work
>For monitors, include purpose (e.g., photoediting, gaming) and graphics card pairing (if applicable)

CPUs
>R3 2200G - Bare minimum gaming WITH/WITHOUT a graphics card (Low end)
>R5 2400G - Consider IF on sale & closer to 2200G price
>R5 2600X - Good gaming & multithreaded work use CPU (Mid range)
>i7-8700k - Best for gaming, but most expensive when factoring in delid, high end cooler, etc.
>R7 2700X - Best high-end mixed usage on a non-HEDT platform
>TR 1950X/Used Xeon - VM Work / Streaming / Video editing (HEDT)
Overclocking
>Use Precision Boost2 offsets to overclock Ryzen2000X series!

RAM
>8GB - enough for glorified gaming use
>16GB - for heavy PC use
>32GB+ - if you have to ask, you don't need this much
>Current CPUs benefit from fast RAM; 2933-3200 MHz is ideal

Graphics cards
1080p
>MSRP of standard 1080p cards: 1050Ti, 140USD; 1060 6GB, $230; RX 560, $115; RX 570 4GB, $170; RX 580 8GB, $220+
>There have been good sales on AMD graphic cards lately in the US. Look for them
>GTX 1070 if you're looking for very high (100+) fps in newer games & you have a CPU + monitor to match
1440p
>GTX 1070/Ti, 1080, or Vega56/64; currently overpriced
>GTX 1080Ti if you're looking for very high (100+) fps & you have a CPU + monitor to match
4K
>Titan V OC

Storage
>Optane is good with StoreMi on Ryzen; not good on Intel
>240GB minimum for a storage drive
>2TB HDD are barely more $ than 1TB
>m.2 is a form factor, NOT a performance standard
>Consider getting a larger SSD, instead of small SSD & large HDD; add HDD later when needed

General
>PLAN YOUR BUILD AROUND YOUR MONITOR IF GAMING

Previous

Attached: 1526367705570.png (500x970, 47K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=4m3qnbzif3U
pcpartpicker.com/list/8jvGLJ
pcpartpicker.com/list/mXhXyX
newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA10V69K9881&cm_re=monitor-_-9SIA10V69K9881-_-Product
pcpartpicker.com/list/rg9H29
youtube.com/watch?v=AUyF--fJaaM
pcpartpicker.com/list/KwrgbX
nl.pcpartpicker.com/list/njZyKB
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Their upcoming 8 core may be better for gaming. Though it'll consume a lot more power.
Otherwise what you said is true. If you're an intel fanboy and have to buy Intel, 8700k is the clear choice over a locked 6 thread i5.

Should I trade my EVGA 980ti SC+ for a Fury X? My new monitor has is 1080p 144hz with freesync, just wondering if its worth the switch.

>I wouldn't consider it shit if you're getting 5-10 FPS less
That may sound innocent, but consider two things.
>1.) You pay more money, (60 euros more in my case) for less performance.
Tell me does that sound like a logical decision?
>2.) 10fps less may not seem much when you give that statement in a vacuum, but consider that the difference between 20 and 30 fps is huge, and the difference between 1000 and 1010 fps is small. Currently if you have a 120 hrz monitor or even 144hrz monitor, not only are you missing out of your potential for capping out your fps to what your monitor can you display, but it's also a question of stability and being able to maintain it.
>You can easily make the statement that the difference between 100 fps and 110 fps isn't huge, but at the same time you absolutely can't deny that maintaining higher minimums is wasted.
Tell me does that sound like a logical decision, getting less performance now and in the future when things get more demanding? If performance doesn't matter to you, and indeed in this case does money also no matter to you?
How can you possibly make a compelling argument to convince people to spend 60 euros more to get 10 fps minimums less?

>Especially if you plan on upgrading to a high end GPU
In case of the high end GPU the 8700 or 8700k seem far better in performance when it comes to gaming, if you don't want to bottleneck your high end GPU with your CPU.

It's not, freesync is a flickering meme. Also 4gb is not enough even for 1080p now. Keep your sweet 980ti.
t. buyer's remorsing freesync monitor + amd card owner

Oh shit that's disappointing. Was looking forward to the AIO but really isn't worth the performance decrease.

Don't do it. Not because of what says, he's retarded and FreeSync works perfectly fine. The FuryX was a disappointment that isn't getting the same FineWine treatment as older cards. It was an experimental test bench for HBM, the real cards are the Vega.
Keep your 980ti. Get a proper AMD card to take advantage of FreeSync when Vegas or whatever the successor is are decently priced. Blame miners for gouging up the price on Vega to 2 times what it should be.

Freesync quality heavily depends on the quality of the monitor (stay away from Samsung) and the software revision (hint: you can update your monitor).
Otherwise, unless you're really into adaptive sync, yeah I wouldn't take the Fury X if you already have a 980ti. Considering watercooling it.
Or consider a Vega 56 when those come down in price.

Considering the 8700k doesn't even beat the 7700k in some of the cherry picked older games the Intel fanboys seem to love, I doubt that. It will also be an absolute housefire to cool.

I agree.

Thanks, I've looked into Vega 56 but I'm in australia so stock is every dryer than my gf's arsehole and prices are way up there. Guess I'll wait for the next amd series to upgrade. They should come out next year yeah?

I'd like a Vega 56 to replace my ageing R9 390 too, but shit's way too expensive. It's supposed to be $400 MSRP, but it's going for the equivalent of $900 where I'm at. 1080ti are going for over $1100. It's simply not realistic in any way.