Take a look at the Fractal Design Define series.
The NVMe drive will speed up booting, but will have essentially zero effect on anything stored on the hard drive.
At 2 TB, Intel 660p if you're just gaming, HP EX950 if you're doing more (video editing for example). At 1 TB I'd add the Crucial P1 (gaming) or HP EX920 (heavier usage).
The brands don't actually matter all that much, especially if the drive will primarily be used as a game storage. I picked a few known players at lower prices.
The "Ultra" slot on your board will run an NVMe SSD at PCI 3.0, 4 lanes (x4). The other slot runs PCIe 2.0, 2 lanes. That's considerably slower on paper, but in real life usage you probably won't notice. Either slot can take a SATA m.2 form factor SSD; there's not much price advantage to SATA any more, so I don't really recommend them for new builds.
PCPartPicker Part List
Prices include 7% tax. If you really need to keep it under $500, change the CPU to a Ryzen 1200, you'll give up a few fps but it should be a ton better than any FX series CPU.
Not if it's a high end database server machine with 10TB of enterprise grade SSD and 512 GB of memory. If I thought I could build one of those for $3K I'd jump on it in a heartbeat.
The power delivery on that motherboard is rather lightweight for the CPU. It will work, but will likely throttle the CPU if the motherboard parts (VRM's) get too hot. Ideally the motherboard would be upgraded, but in the meantime, if things get hot, consider a small fan blowing on the VRM's. There won't be a predefined mounting point for such a fan, but you can probably rig something up with cable ties.
I still don't see it, but that's OK. The list looks pretty solid. Make sure you have a monitor that can display the high fps that this setup should be able to put out. (I didn't price-shop for cheaper parts.)
RX 570 works if you need to save money and still get OK fps on a lot of games; you might have to compromise on graphics details settings depending on game.
If you have a bit more to spend, take a look at a 1650 Super.
Should work well. Any special reason for the R5 case instead of the R6 (or newly released R7)?
Agree, system 1 for gaming. The other build looks like a workstation type of build, the extra cores and memory don't do much for gaming and the video card is slower.
What's the build for?
You'll need a video card of some sort, the Ryzen 2600 doesn't have embedded video. What do you want to do with the computer?
I've used an NVMe SSD in a PCIe 2.0 machine and it's really hard to tell the difference between it and a SATA drive. Just buy any inexpensive SSD of the appropriate size and use that.
If your best deal ends up being NVMe, go ahead, it will work (although if it's a boot drive I might counsel a bit more caution).
It's smaller than the R6, 120mm exhaust rather than 140mm for instance. I think the R6 might have a greater variety of configurations for storage and airflow, and the new R7 improves on it.
I don't think the 275Q looks bad at all, but I don't know that I would rank it higher than the Define R6 or R7.
If you plug the fans into the PSU they will run at full speed all the time. Is that actually what you want? Surely it's better to plug the fans into the motherboard so that you get speed control. If you have more fans than you have motherboard fan headers, you can use splitters (up to a point), or a fan hub.
Yes, that's the reason. You can ignore that message; a single 8-pin EPS connector is plenty. You don't need the second one, as far as I'm concerned it's mostly there to say "look how big and tough a motherboard I am."
I generally try to avoid videos since they usually have 30 seconds of content uncompressed into 10-15 minutes of tedium. Care to summarize?
Thanks for the feedback / update too, it's always good to know whether advice works or not (even when it's someone else's advice!)
Maybe I'm just having a travel day moment, but I'm not following ... you're saying that the Gaming Edge has worse VRM thermals than say a non-heat-sinked B450 with 3 or 4 phases? or do I mis-understand?
It's going to depend at least partly on the game and game engine. For a very heavily threaded game engine, the 9900K might have an extra edge. For game engines that run 8 most-active threads or less, the 9900K advantage is small and mostly due to slightly higher clocks.
Not to pile on, but I'll pile on ... The FX-9590 and the whole bulldozer series in general can clock high partly because it doesn't do a lot of work per clock cycle. AMD took it too far in that direction, and even at crazy looking clock speeds, the thing is basically a dog.
It's probably not to worry about. If there seems to be a lot of excess, you might consider very very carefully wiping the excess off, but don't unmount the CPU or cooler. All you want to do is to keep it from oozing down into the CPU socket or pins and preventing a good contact. Most thermal pastes including the stock Wraith stuff are non-conductive, and a little bit on the edge of the CPU isn't going to hurt anything.
Hyperbole much? I'll bet it's better than say a gigabyte B450m DS3H.
Now, if you're only talking about X570's, some board(s) have to be worst, and it might well be the Gaming Edge. Question is, is "worst" still good enough? You can drive a 3600 just fine with an Asrock B450m Pro4, are the Gaming Edge VRM's worse? (I don't actually know but it would be hard to believe that they are.)
I'm not sure what you are asking. You've used up all the available SATA ports from your motherboard? are you asking about an add-on SATA controller? Please clarify.
While I agree that 450w would work if the PSU is a good one, I do think it might be coming a bit close to the edge; especially with a well cooled 3800X which can draw a fair bit over the nominal TDP rating. If I were doing it, I'd probably go with a 650w supply, and 550w would be OK.
750w is more than you need, but with the way PSU prices seem to bounce around, if 750w is the best deal on a good unit, go for it.
Ti is an nvidia tag that generally indicates an enhanced version; a 2080 Ti is a large step faster than a 2080. Super is a fairly recent nvidia tag indicating a (usually) relatively minor step up, so a 2080 Super is maybe 10%? faster than a 2080.
The Turbo label is gigabyte's and doesn't mean anything in particular.
4K gaming is very demanding of the GPU, and you need a powerful GPU to get smooth gameplay at the higher detail levels (and in some cases, even the lower ones). A 2080 Super should be able to push 60-ish fps in most games at most reasonable graphics detail levels. A 2080 Ti will go faster, but then you run into monitor limits; to get a 4K panel that runs faster than 60 Hz is very expensive, and there's no point in having a computer that can consistenly outrun the monitor.
In theory I don't see why not. Whether such a thing has actually been coded up, I don't know.
Yes, although it's not all that different in concept from other combo solutions like Apple's Fusion Drive, or AMD's StoreMI. I don't know if the Optane setup that Intel were pushing for a while is a caching or tiering architecture, but it doesn't matter that much.
With Optane though you get a big improvement in random I/O, not as much with sequential. Traditional SSD combos it's the other way around.
Optane and traditional SSD, particularly NVMe, are very different. Most SSD's are fastest doing sequential I/O. Optane is a random I/O beast but generally kind of meh doing sequential. I've not used the stuff in real life, too expensive.
one or more of:
I think you're indulging in a bit of selection bias, as well. If I pick a page from the recent completed builds, I get an average price of $1818, and the average is skewed up quite a bit by one $5700+ build that includes a very expensive monitor, custom loop, 9900KS, and more. Throw that one out and you get $1600+ for an average. That's not really all that much.
If you have not noticed, English speakers are using fewer singular pronouns and more plural pronouns.
If you have not noticed, English speakers are using fewer singular pronouns and more plural pronouns.
I have to say that I haven't noticed.
best of luck with your build.
You can hang onto the BR if you want to. The PCpartpicker wattage estimate is a peak value that you probably won't reach, and even if you do, a 500w supply can handle it. The RX 580 doesn't present as difficult a load as some video cards (Vega 64 comes to mind).
You're welcome! As far as the CPU cooler goes, the stock cooler especially on the 3600 (non-X) is pretty marginal, but it's good enough to start with if you don't want to get into messing with it. You can always upgrade the CPU cooler later on if you decide you want to.
The GT 1030 is extremely weak compared to the GPU's in the lists that Battlestar put up, or the 1660 that I mentioned. The memory is a bit slow and there's no SSD which will mean poor boot and game loading times. That list looks like a poor value to me.
Battlestar's list with the 1660 non Super, which is at least 3x faster than the 1030, looks something like this:
I believe there are a couple other MSI B450 boards that have the no-CPU flash feature, although I no longer recall the list. (gaming plus was one, i think.) AFAIK only the MSI B450's have the no-CPU flash.
There's also the Asrock B450M/AC which has wifi and Ryzen 3000 support out of the box. I tend to forget that one. I've not used it and don't know how it would compare to the Aorus Pro.
If you like the looks of the P400, you might consider the P400A which has mesh in front for better airflow.
Where do you feel the build is falling short? because you aren't going to get much of an upgrade in single core speed, about the best you can do is add cores.
I think your weakest part is likely the GPU, and I'd add another 8 GB of memory. I'd leave the CPU and motherboard alone unless you have fairly conclusive indications that going to an 8-core (or more) CPU will help you.
An SSD will of course help boot and game loading speeds. If this is a gaming / general purpose build, almost any SSD will do.
Ok, that's a interesting use of the calculator. It's hard to say how accurate it is, but if you're using the numbers purely in a relative sense then there might be some value to it.
These forums regularly see people who have been mis-taught about "bottlenecking" elsewhere, and I generally try to disabuse them of the notion that getting a particular number on some bottleneck calculator has any usefulness.
Given Oz pricing, I'd probably take this idea and change it around a bit. The Sabrent Rocket in particular is poorly priced in Australia.
I was good with this post up until we get to the bottleneck prediction. Please - bottleneck calculator numbers are completely meaningless, except for the one scenario that the calculator is assuming -- whatever that is.
There's always a rate limiting part. The CPU generates the frames, the GPU renders them according to the resolution and detail settings, the monitor displays them. That's the pipeline. The slowest part of the pipeline will vary depending on what's running, what graphics details settings are, the monitor resolution, and the monitor refresh rate. The base frame rate is set mostly by the CPU performance and the way in which the game engine is coded. The GPU render speed can vary based on resolution and graphics detail settings. The monitor refresh rate is generally a hard limit defined by the panel used.
An Athlon 200GE can easily keep up with a 2080 Ti running Overwatch or LoL at 4K displaying on a 60 Hz panel, because in that case the bottleneck is the monitor. Switch to a fast 4K panel and the GPU is likely to be maxed out in many games. Change the scenario to Battlefield V at low, 1080p on a fast panel and the CPU is pretty clearly the limiting part. You can't just reduce it to a number.
At that point, the simplest way forward is probably to buy a used Ryzen 1200 off of ebay or equivalent, do the update, and then sell the CPU. You probably won't take much of a money loss on it, the biggest loss will simply be the hassle.
Of course, if you can borrow a 1st/2nd gen CPU that makes it easier.
I think it would be generally easier to drop in a CPU rather than attempt to put the motherboard into a different case, but maybe we're just talking semantics there.
Choice 4: get the B450 Aorus Pro Wifi and hope that you are getting a new build unit with an updated BIOS. Your chances are reasonably good if you are buying from a retailer with plenty of turnover.
I'm not interested in a debate. For a 3600, either motherboard is good enough. If someone wants to buy the MSI board for whatever reason, it will work fine - just like commuting in a Beetle will be fine, not to mention costing less in gas, maintenance, and insurance. (and no, I'm not going to assume that those are the same for the two cars; assuming a dog is a cat doesn't make it one.)
I already said I wouldn't argue against the Asus TUF, and it's probably the better buy; but I'm not going to tell someone who gets the MSI board for a 3600 that they are making a mistake, because I don't think they are.
I trust this I have explained myself clearly enough and have no further interest in this matter.
I believe that line uses Kaby Lake CPU's, so pretty much any DDR4-2400 2x8GB ought to work. These, for instance (just picked one with the lowest pcpartpicker price at the moment).
Or, if you need to dial back the bottom line by a little, a 1660 (non-Super) will still give you a pretty decent 1080p gaming experience, at the cost of either a few fps or lower graphics settings for the same fps. Still well into the smooth play range though.
Need a little more info: do you need monitor, keyboard, mouse? If you have a monitor what is its refresh rate and resolution? Do you need the windows license and/or peripherals included in the £800?
What will you be using the computer for? if gaming, what general sorts of games, and what are you looking for (high fps, high detail, best compromise, etc)?
Funny how that mobo looks tiny in that case. This should be a very nice running box.
It's a lot of computing power for a secondary system, nice.
That's up to. In real life you are unlikely to see any difference, and in fact the RAID 0 striping might be slower if it changes what the individual SSD's see from sequential to smaller semi-random reads and writes.
For SSD's, RAID 0 is mostly useful as a way to present multiple SSD's as a single drive, with load leveling across the SSD's.