TR Forums

This sounds exactly like what I did this weekend.

Kept my screens (which I refreshed in late 2015) (2x 24" 1080 & 1x 25" 1440 Ultrasharps)

Intel i7 860 -> Ryzen 5 1600
Gigabyte ??? -> MSI Tomahawk Arctic B350
16GB DDR3 1333 -> 16GB DDR4 2666 (cause 32GB is so expensive right now)
Thermaltake Toughpower 775w -> Seasonic SS-760
Antec 300 -> Fractile R5

Kept
Optical Drive
Crucial BX200
WD 300GB Raptor
Seagate 1.5GB 7.2k
Radeon R9 290 watercooled

MileageMayVary wrote:

This sounds exactly like what I did this weekend.

And? Any noticeable jump in feel from the i7-860 to the Ryzen 5?

I've updated my list and have settled on the following:

AMD Ryzen 5 1600X - $249

GIGABYTE AORUS GA-AX370-Gaming K7 - $209

G.SKILL TridentZ Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4 3200 - $147

GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1060 6GB Windforce OC - $259

I added a 1060 back in after I realized the 1060 almost doubles the frame rates of the 960 in almost every game at 1080p/Ultra settings. With the HDD, am looking at $967 as the final damage.

OptimumSlinky wrote:

MileageMayVary wrote:

This sounds exactly like what I did this weekend.

And? Any noticeable jump in feel from the i7-860 to the Ryzen 5?

Of all things, the first thing I noticed was how much quicker web pages loaded.

MileageMayVary wrote:

OptimumSlinky wrote:

MileageMayVary wrote:

This sounds exactly like what I did this weekend.

And? Any noticeable jump in feel from the i7-860 to the Ryzen 5?

Of all things, the first thing I noticed was how much quicker web pages loaded.

Ha! Of all things!

OptimumSlinky wrote:

Ha! Of all things!

Of the main games I play, Civilization 5, World of Warships, and World of Warcraft: World of Warcraft, I had turned down Raid graphics to 4 to maintain playable framerates now I have it turned up to 7 for the same FPS; World of Warships is a smoother; Civ5 no noticeable difference.

I ought to fire up Doom or Borderlands the Presequel again.

MileageMayVary wrote:

... Raid graphics ...

Does it make me weird that when I first skimmed this post, I thought of the other meaning of RAID (as in, a RAID array)?

I suppose multi-head monitor configurations could be considered RAID-0 for displays...

just brew it! wrote:

MileageMayVary wrote:

... Raid graphics ...

Does it make me weird that when I first skimmed this post, I thought of the other meaning of RAID (as in, a RAID array)?

I suppose multi-head monitor configurations could be considered RAID-0 for displays...

Well, given that my GPU has 1x DP 1x HDMI and 1xDVI, I run the 1440 off of HDMI and daisy chain the 1080s off of the DP. Close enough for Monitor RAID?

MileageMayVary wrote:

just brew it! wrote:

MileageMayVary wrote:

... Raid graphics ...

Does it make me weird that when I first skimmed this post, I thought of the other meaning of RAID (as in, a RAID array)?

I suppose multi-head monitor configurations could be considered RAID-0 for displays...

Well, given that my GPU has 1x DP 1x HDMI and 1xDVI, I run the 1440 off of HDMI and daisy chain the 1080s off of the DP. Close enough for Monitor RAID?

Heh. Works for me!

My setup is more ghetto than that. A while back I decided to put a couple of old 17" displays (which were just sitting around gathering dust) to use to get a little extra screen real estate. My GPU is 1x DVI, 1x VGA, and 1x HDMI; so my main display runs off the DVI port, and the old 17" displays run off the VGA and HDMI ports (the latter via an active HDMI-to-VGA converter, since the old displays are analog-only).

You may want to consider the G. Skill Flare X memory instead of the Trident Z. The Flare X has been certified to run on the new AMD platform. I'm not sure about how well the Trident Z works. I had some Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 that didn't work very well on my X370 board, only running at DDR4 2133. When I would try to enable the built in profile, my board wouldn't even POST. I got some of the Flare X with the same specs that you listed and it's running fine at DDR4 3200 using the built in profile. It's a little more pricey than the Trident Z, but it could save you some aggravation.

Here's the link to what I got:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232530&cm_re=g._skill_flare_x-_-20-232-530-_-Product

OptimumSlinky wrote:

GIGABYTE AORUS GA-AX370-Gaming K7 - $209

Good choice. I've very happy with my GA-AX370-Gaming K5.

astrotech66 wrote:

You may want to consider the G. Skill Flare X memory instead of the Trident Z. The Flare X has been certified to run on the new AMD platform. I'm not sure about how well the Trident Z works. I had some Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 that didn't work very well on my X370 board, only running at DDR4 2133. When I would try to enable the built in profile, my board wouldn't even POST. I got some of the Flare X with the same specs that you listed and it's running fine at DDR4 3200 using the built in profile. It's a little more pricey than the Trident Z, but it could save you some aggravation.

Here's the link to what I got:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232530&cm_re=g._skill_flare_x-_-20-232-530-_-Product

Very interesting insight. Went ahead and changed it to 16GB of Flare-X 3200. Thanks.

End User wrote:

OptimumSlinky wrote:

GIGABYTE AORUS GA-AX370-Gaming K7 - $209

Good choice. I've very happy with my GA-AX370-Gaming K5.

I have a GA-X58A-UD5 that's been the core of my Bloomfield build since 2010 and hasn't ever given me any trouble, so I figured Gigabyte wasn't a bad bet. I actually downgraded it to the K5 since I won't ever use any of the K7-only features.

Well, i can tell you my i3-6300(2c/4t at 3.8Ghz) [edit: with GTX 1060 6GB, 2x16GB 2133 RAM] has score of 52 min, 66 avg and 85 max fps in the new Superposition benchmark for 1080p medium default settings with Win 10 at Creators update level. Was planning to upgrade to i7-7700k, got it w/Z170 board, but its just too capable for my VMs, gaming and work.

A GTX 1060 6GB uses around 120 Watts under torture, i7-7700k about same with slight OC. A 450Watt PS is overkill for most any single GPU PCs. (1080 ti is 250W under torture) (Of course those 15W 3.5" HDDs do add up,...)

I would personally go with a cheap i3-7300(4.0Ghz, 4MB cache) ($150 + $125 MB) build that i would not feel guilty replacing in 2-3 years. It will be FULLY capable machine for next 2-3 years, at least if you are happy with good 1080p@60.

If you want 6-8 years, 1080p@120+, 1440p/4k,.. different story. I would only go i7k with not crazy OC, its faster single thread performance, that will add a year or two at systems end of life versus a slower Ryzen if you truly want it to last 6-8 years. I moved from 8 year Q6600 (OC to 3.0Ghz from start) to the i3/z170 with intention to move to i7-7700k. The weakest link is single thread tasks, and that will show its age first... For my Q6600 that was regularly Windows Update doing its regular virus definition update/check. One core pegged at 25%, rest sitting idle, taking its sweet time... (Plus it didnt have instructions for new hypervisors, real reason i upgraded.)

Dont forget to add in cost for a decent UPS. I cant count the number of brownouts/blackouts my PCs have gone through over the years and plain surges(make sure to go into menus and set the UPS to most aggressive protection/switch to battery mode for low/high voltage). I think that's the number one item for longevity besides luck.

blahsaysblah wrote:

Dont forget to add in cost for a decent UPS. I cant count the number of brownouts/blackouts my PCs have gone through over the years and plain surges(make sure to go into menus and set the UPS to most aggressive protection/switch to battery mode for low/high voltage). I think that's the number one item for longevity besides luck.

+1

I use the CP1500PFCLCD.

Please use Windows 10

southrncomfortjm wrote:

If you want another 7 year processor, spend the money and get the 1700X. Save the money from going a step down on the motherboard and the PSU. 750W is a lot for a system with just a 960. 600 watt gold or titanium should be just fine.

This was my initial thought as well, move down to a 'cheaper' seasonic and move something else up, perhaps even an 1800x.

blahsaysblah wrote:

Well, i can tell you my i3-6300(2c/4t at 3.8Ghz) [edit: with GTX 1060 6GB, 2x16GB 2133 RAM] has score of 52 min, 66 avg and 85 max fps in the new Superposition benchmark for 1080p medium default settings with Win 10 at Creators update level. Was planning to upgrade to i7-7700k, got it w/Z170 board, but its just too capable for my VMs, gaming and work.

A GTX 1060 6GB uses around 120 Watts under torture, i7-7700k about same with slight OC. A 450Watt PS is overkill for most any single GPU PCs. (1080 ti is 250W under torture) (Of course those 15W 3.5" HDDs do add up,...)

I would personally go with a cheap i3-7300(4.0Ghz, 4MB cache) ($150 + $125 MB) build that i would not feel guilty replacing in 2-3 years. It will be FULLY capable machine for next 2-3 years, at least if you are happy with good 1080p@60.

If you want 6-8 years, 1080p@120+, 1440p/4k,.. different story. I would only go i7k with not crazy OC, its faster single thread performance, that will add a year or two at systems end of life versus a slower Ryzen if you truly want it to last 6-8 years. I moved from 8 year Q6600 (OC to 3.0Ghz from start) to the i3/z170 with intention to move to i7-7700k. The weakest link is single thread tasks, and that will show its age first... For my Q6600 that was regularly Windows Update doing its regular virus definition update/check. One core pegged at 25%, rest sitting idle, taking its sweet time... (Plus it didnt have instructions for new hypervisors, real reason i upgraded.)

I'd love to mnow why you think IPC means longevity vs core/thread count (double)? Something like the Q6600 was successful because it had both cores and great IPC. If the 7700k is +- 10% IPC over 8c/16t Ryzen, and the market starts favoring multi-core more like we are finally seeing... Then it stands to reason that the Ryzen system is more likely to be the next 6-7 year build, not 4c/8t.

It's great to do specific tasks fast, but if you do multiple things then more cores are going to beat out IPC everytime. The Ryzen IPC isn't even remotely inadequate. I'm not sure why people who tout Intel's IPC as being Soooo far ahead can't see that it isn't the difference between Bulldozer and Sandybridge here, not by a long shot.

Because its the little things that matter. In 6-8 years, the responsiveness of the system is what will make or break buying a new system. How long will it take to open a new tab... Quality of life.

There are plenty of other reasons to get the more core and fully capable Ryzen but for just average person aiming for really long build, the 8 faster threads will be better for vast majority of games/activities.

Probably Ryzens 16MB L3 cache will make a true multi-tasker less prone to minimum fps events. If you have the slightest priority for transpiling videos, compiling,... Hands down Ryzen 7.

Also, like i said, instead of $600, i would do the $300 1500X or 1600 build that is more than good enough for xx60/ RX480 class and replace it in 3 years.

More than $150 on MB is just utter waste for average/good build. Just read the reviews. Plenty of very capable $80+ MBs.


I didnt spell it out, but a big factor on Intel's side is that 200-chipset boards are exactly same as 100-chipset boards, except they learned the teething mistakes from the 100 boards. Just look at the big ones. If you were following closely on the complaints/issues, you can see the 200 boards are basically the 100s with the flaws fixed(most). Versus the brand new AM4 platform that is still getting major micro-code updates for the CPU.

You want an 8 year build, most folks would choose the goliath.

blahsaysblah wrote:

More than $150 on MB is just utter waste for average/good build. Just read the reviews. Plenty of very capable $80+ MBs.

If I followed your logic by getting a $84 GA-AB350M-HD3 over a $170 GA-AX370-Gaming K5 I'd be missing out on an Intel nic, Type-C, SLI support, and a ton of USB 3.1 Gen 1 ports. That $84 would have been a total waste of money.

blahsaysblah wrote:

You want an 8 year build, most folks would choose the goliath.

There is no such thing as an 8 year build if you are a AAA gamer. A good build may last 3-5 years. My current OC'ed 3770K gaming rig lost its edge after 3 years. If all you do is browse the web and watch YouTube then you are better of getting an iPad and an Apple TV or Chromecast.

End User wrote:

blahsaysblah wrote:

More than $150 on MB is just utter waste for average/good build. Just read the reviews. Plenty of very capable $80+ MBs.

If I followed your logic by getting a $84 GA-AB350M-HD3 over a $170 GA-AX370-Gaming K5 I'd be missing out on an Intel nic, Type-C, SLI support, and a ton of USB 3.1 Gen 1 ports. That $84 would have been a total waste of money.

Well, I guess the good news is that you're technically correct. You would indeed be missing out on... Intel NIC: not a meaningful upgrade for SOHO tasks over RealTek. Yes, it's quantitatively worse, but not really qualitatively. If I swapped out NICs for a Windows 10 desktop you'd never notice.

SLI support? That thing that NVIDIA is actively depreciating and tells everyone not to use? The thing that isn't supported in newer game engines? That SLI?

The only practical difference is the Type-C port, which is still rolling out today, as in not even all brand-new phones use it yet. Besides phones, what uses Type-C? Anything? Regardless, a USB 3.1 addin adapter isn't going to cost $85. And it's not like those PCIe 1x slots are going to be used for anything else. Then again, a Type-A to Type-C cable probably costs $5 on Monoprice, and you'd only need to plug that in once.

Vhalidictes wrote:

The only practical difference is the Type-C port, which is still rolling out today, as in not even all brand-new phones use it yet. Besides phones, what uses Type-C? Anything?

My 38UC99-W.

End User wrote:

Vhalidictes wrote:

The only practical difference is the Type-C port, which is still rolling out today, as in not even all brand-new phones use it yet. Besides phones, what uses Type-C? Anything?

My 38UC99-W.

I don't know that I'd even admit to owning that.

Well, considering the outlandish cost, I'd hope that it supports all the latest buzzwords! The Bluetooth speakers are an even bigger mystery... if you wanted wireless lossy degraded sound, why would it be located on the monitor?

Certainly a nice piece of kit for all that, though.

Vhalidictes wrote:

End User wrote:

Vhalidictes wrote:

The only practical difference is the Type-C port, which is still rolling out today, as in not even all brand-new phones use it yet. Besides phones, what uses Type-C? Anything?

My 38UC99-W.

I don't know that I'd even admit to owning that.

Well, considering the outlandish cost

Worth
every
penny.

Vhalidictes wrote:

The Bluetooth speakers are an even bigger mystery... if you wanted wireless lossy degraded sound, why would it be located on the monitor?

It is a horrid feature. I'll never use it.

End User wrote:

Worth
every
penny.

I bought this the other day. https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA3FA5MR4432

Completely beautiful. You could buy 6 of them and make a curved wall for LESS money than your (very nice) monitor. Or six of the 27" version for the same money if size is important.

EDIT: I'm a sucker for VA panels though. IPS has the advantage but... that glow...

Vhalidictes wrote:

End User wrote:

Worth
every
penny.

I bought this the other day. https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA3FA5MR4432

Completely beautiful. You could buy 6 of them and make a curved wall for LESS money than your (very nice) monitor. Or six of the 27" version for the same money if size is important.

EDIT: I'm a sucker for VA panels though. IPS has the advantage but... that glow...

I've already got a bunch of 27" 2560x1440 IPS displays. A ton of displays and bezels is precisely what I wanted to avoid.

I paid that money to get the best solution for my needs. Paying LESS was not the point.