Best PC Builds (Archive)

[Matt_550]

Why a slow SSD? Because realistically a gaming rig will see no bonus to an NVMe, so why pay extra for nothing. A plain sata3/m.2 is far faster than a cpus gaming needs. Production apps or other programs using large file transfers would benefit a lot from the more expensive NVMe, but when that builder crammed every bit of gpu performance possible in that build, the priority was gaming, not production, so the NVMe really isn't warranted.

Why only 16gb of RAM at that point? 32gb should be automatic at that point. Not to mention these are "Best PC Builds" not "Best PC gaming Builds" so it should be the highest performance possible across all uses. So, yeah this build is handicapped RAM wise and by a slow SATA SSD.

Also, where is that 120mm radiator going? Product description is as such "Liquid cooling support: 240mm, 280mm, 360mm Radiators (Front and Top)" So to utilize the 120mm you'll have to sacrifice another fan to mount it if it'll even mount. So either top or front will only be 2 120mm fans rather than 3.

 

[John__Titor]

Didn't see the $1000 going that way. A 1600 on a locked board is heresy at that price point, and lots of builds had the same setup with B350 chipset, but I suppose the people have spoken.

 

[Karadjgne]

@matt_550,

Its a gaming build. Designed by the builder for gaming. It's not designed as an all purpose, gaming, editing, rendering, shopping pc. So it needs neither an NVMe nor 32Gb of ram as that would be a waste of budget, which was utilized to get better gpu performance instead.

These builds were NOT chosen by Tom's representatives, they were voted upon by Tom's readers, heralds and mods, so they WERE chosen by the General Public as such. Argue if you wish to, complain if you must, but nobody else is going to insist that 32Gb of ram is Automatic on a gaming pc that may or may not even see 12-13Gb usage at best. Why you insist on spending theoretical cash on ram that simply will not see usage is anyone's guess. That gaming pc is in no way 'handicapped' by sata3 ssd nor 'handicapped' by 16Gb of ram, since there's absolutely no reason for more.

By your logic, every single build in the entire article is 'handicapped' since it's not running 4-way sli, or the $2500 should automatically have 3-way sli 1080's vrs the 2-way 1080ti.

Most new cases do not come with every available fan mount pre-populated by factory fans, so the inclusion of a 120mm aio does not in any way' sacrifice' a fan, but adds a fan. My pc doesn't even use exhaust fans as such the 2x 140mm fans on my aio do double duty as top exhaust. So what are you trying to say? That just because an aio is included it can't possibly be used for anything else?

Your arguments don't hold water.

 

[bentremblay]

What caught my eye: two builds with Ryzen 5 1600 and i5 is no-show.

 

[Ne0Wolf7]

Didn't see the $1000 going that way. A 1600 on a locked board is heresy at that price point, and lots of builds had the same setup with B350 chipset, but I suppose the people have spoken.

Yeah, I didn't follow many of the categories very closely, but that and the 500 buck stand out to me, lots of people had overclockable ryzens and 1050tis at the $500.

 

[Lucky_SLS]

^ but that 500 itx build sure has some originality. Even I agree with your point, but seeing that itx, I just gotta say, 'good job'

 

[bentremblay]

^ but that 500 itx build sure has some originality. Even I agree with your point, but seeing that itx, I just gotta say, 'good job'

Well ... since I didn't say anything like "bad job", I don't see any logic to follow here.

"Core i5-8600K Cheat Sheet"
http://tomshardware.com/news/intel-coffee-lake-gaming-i5-8600k,35722.html

 

[JonDol]

Glad to see Ryzen took its deserved place in these builds and that peoples understood its true value: maybe not the absolute best gaming CPU but best available value/performance one. Congratulations to the winners !

 

[Matt_550]

"By your logic, every single build in the entire article is 'handicapped' since it's not running 4-way sli, or the $2500 should automatically have 3-way sli 1080's vrs the 2-way 1080ti."

You always go with the more powerful single card. So first off your and idiot trying to think the triple SLI is better than the dual SLI. Especially since Nvidia pretty much dropped support for anything over dual SLI due to the introduction of the high bandwidth sli bridge.

Secondly If it is a "gaming build" why go with the 1700x over the 7700K on an overclocking build? test after test has shown that the 7700K is superior after overclocking. The 7700K hits 4.8ghz with ease out of the box with a decent cooler and even at that point the 1700X is already lagging. I'm not a team green person but the results are out there and easy to find. At that price point with all the extra features the builder wanted, for gaming the 7700K is the best choice.

"Most new cases do not come with every available fan mount pre-populated by factory fans, so the inclusion of a 120mm aio does not in any way' sacrifice' a fan, but adds a fan. My pc doesn't even use exhaust fans as such the 2x 140mm fans on my aio do double duty as top exhaust. So what are you trying to say? That just because an aio is included it can't possibly be used for anything else?"

No it doesn't come with every fan populated it comes with 3 120mm front fans pre-installed and a 140mm exhaust. No where in the specs of the case does it say the rear exhaust can handle a 120mm fan. He already has the top or front fully taken up by the 360mm cooler. So at that point all fan spots are filled. Now to put that bulky 120mm somewhere he will either have to find a way to mount it to the rear exhaust. In that case the radiator did not come with a fan in the first place so he'd have to migrate one from the top or front where the 360mm radiator didn't go so he'd be sacrificing a fan from another area and the 140mm would be removed from the build. If he puts the 120mm radiator in a spot for 120mm fans it's bulk will block the fan next to it and force the removal of a 120mm fan since with the addition since after the install of the 360mm radiator every fan point is full. My arguments hold plenty of coolant that the builder left off their build too. So yeah the build isn't even complete because it fails to have distilled water or whatever coolant they choose. But there is enough money left over to purchase it. Obviously you've never worked with the H440 before have you?

 

[Karadjgne]

The purpose of any gaming cpu is to get minimum frames over the refresh of the monitor. So even a 1700x is capable of refresh over a 144Hz minimum. So why spend more for Intel to get max fps higher, when it's minimum frames that create the drops. Makes exactly no difference if a R7 1700x can hit minimums of 200fps and the i7-7700k can hit minimums of 175fps, both are higher than the monitors 144Hz, so in this instance, for all intents and purposes the cpu choice is irrelevant except when it comes to budget and the 1700x platform was cheaper.

Yes, in fact I have worked with a H440. Both on stock applications and case modifications. Not my favorite case for sure, but it works decently. But I will say this and it's true if almost every case I've ever dealt with, including the old AT cases and the vast majority of pre-builts. If a case will fit a 140mm fan, it'll fit a 120mm, 92mm, 80mm, 70mm or 40mm in that same spot. It attached to the grill not the predrilled holes. Some might be slightly lower, some might be askew, or even diagonal but you can get the fan to mount. As it is, if you go to the nzxt website and look at the specifications for the case, under fan mounts it lists the 140/120mm rear. It just includes a 140mm fan for that port.

So 'obviously' you didn't do your homework.

My CM 690 II Advanced case has slots for a 240mm up top. Currently it's home to a 120mm Corsair H55 and one of the stock case fans. Still trying to figure out why the bulk of a 120mm radiator is going to prevent usage of the port next to it. If you assume that the rad has to be mounted push, maybe, but if the rad is mounted pull, the fans sit side by side just fine. Which is actually the better way to mount an aio with fans that spin less than @1200rpm.

And honestly, that 120mm rad can be mounted anywhere in that case, including to the backside of one of the 360mm used fans, so the fan is sandwiched between both rads. Not the easiest mounting, but it's doable.

 

[Rogue Leader]

You always go with the more powerful single card. So first off your and idiot trying to think the triple SLI is better than the dual SLI. Especially since Nvidia pretty much dropped support for anything over dual SLI due to the introduction of the high bandwidth sli bridge.

Matt_550 this is your one and only warning, drop another personal insult on someone you will be taking a break from this site. If you can't discuss your points without demeaning others I suggest you post elsewhere

 

[Matt_550]

"The purpose of any gaming cpu is to get minimum frames over the refresh of the monitor. So even a 1700x is capable of refresh over a 144Hz minimum. So why spend more for Intel to get max fps higher, when it's minimum frames that create the drops. Makes exactly no difference if a R7 1700x can hit minimums of 200fps and the i7-7700k can hit minimums of 175fps, both are higher than the monitors 144Hz, so in this instance, for all intents and purposes the cpu choice is irrelevant except when it comes to budget and the 1700x platform was cheaper."

Monitors go up higher than 1080p and 144hz these days. https://pcpartpicker.com/product/XvfmP6/asus-monitor-pg279q

That build won't max out 1440 at 144hz. So every Fps that can be gained for a gaming build should be. It's cool that someone was able to get a custom cooling kit in at that price point. But is it the best build possible at that price point? In my view, too many things were sacrificed to include the kit. So the answer is no.

 

[Karadjgne]

No, but it'll do just fine at 1440p/60 or 1080p/144Hz or even for some who use mmorpg's primarily, 4k. And look damned good doin it.

 

[Matt_550]

"No, but it'll do just fine at 1440p/60 or 1080p/144Hz or even for some who use mmorpg's primarily, 4k. And look damned good doin it."

You, do that. I'd rather take a shot at crushing 1440 @ 144hz with that price point. BTW 1080 can be conquered with a lesser build. Heck the $2,000 build may benchmark close or even better than the $2,500 build this quarter. Wouldn't that be something if the $2,000 build beat the $2,500 build in performance.

 

[Karadjgne]

Not really. You are totally discounting aesthetics and prioritizing performance based solely on price point. If using standard cooling, that $2500 build could have dropped a budget range, and been lower than the $2000 build budget, but as is, with a full custom loop and it's appeal to many ppl, the $2500 budget is still a squeeze. If there was a $3500 budget bracket, other aspects of the build could have been substantially upgraded to the point of 'crushing' anything in the $2000 bracket. FCL are not cheap, but having one that still retains enough performance to actually warrant its use for that price is a minor miracle. I personally could care less about benchmarks, they mean almost nothing in real world applications, you couldn't tell the difference in 120fps and 150fps if you tried, at those speeds your brain simply can't differentiate the framerates, so a benchmark telling me X is better than Y because it's 10fps faster really does diddly.

And to be honest, the FCL in that $2500 build already 'crushes' the performance of any of the cooling solutions in any of the $2000 builds, benchmarks or not. FPS isn't everything.

 

[Ne0Wolf7]

I agree with you yo a point. What about in three or four years? If I drop 25 grand on a PC I'm going to expect it to last for quite a while. Although 120 vs 150 is an unnoticeable difference, how about 60 vs 90 or 30 vs 60 down the line? Games do get harder to run.

 

[Karadjgne]

Much depends on the monitor. If you are pulling a good 60fps on a 60Hz monitor you'd see no difference if it was an honest 60fps or a cut down 300fps. At 60Hz, you get 60. On a 144Hz, yes, you'd notice the difference between 60 and 90, but at those speeds, running something like gta:v you'd not really be paying much attention to that and you'd need the monitors sitting side by side for comparison, it's that small a difference. As fps gets lower, the differences get larger as you can better physically tell differences. Drop 5 pennies on a table, then drop 10 pennies. You can obviously tell a difference in amount as they hit. And that's a 5 penny difference. Drop 100 pennies, then drop 70 pennies. That's a 30 penny difference, but your brain can't tell the difference, simply too much, too fast.
Take the pc I built 4 years ago, all brand new parts, just released so still strong. A i5-3570k (#1 rated gaming cpu), gtx660ti. Cost $1200 all told. Less than a year later I spent less than $600 for an i7-3770K /gtx970 with only psu/gpu new. Price is no guarantee on longevity. Technology is simply progressing too fast to make any 'future proofing' a worthwhile endeavor. Look at the lga1151 kabylake cpus, sitting in a dead socket, no further upgrades possible, so even a really good pc of that gen is now obsolete, especially when a new i3 has the same capability as an older i5, 4c/4t with better IPC, throughput, Lcache etc. Professional usage is one thing, easy to drop $200k on a pc with Tesla etc but that kind of build saves a company money in the long run. $25k on a gaming pc will be obsolete in 5yrs or less, performance matched or beaten by new, cheaper releases.
That highly rated 3570k/660ti might have been a top contender years ago for 1080p, (680 was out of price range) but today it's minecraft, Sims and cs:go.

So with performance being somewhat equitable across certain ranges, all that leaves is aesthetics. Bling.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

My only question is why a slow SSD on a $2,500 build? The M2 Evo 960 is still King of the hill... No idea why you'd handicap your build at that price point.

The winning $750 build was running only an HDD, no SSD at all. To me that's unacceptable at any price point.
Everyone's priorities will be a little different.

You're welcome to try to show everyone up next time with a SSD based competitive performance build in the $750 category.... show us all up, I dare you.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

^ but that 500 itx build sure has some originality. Even I agree with your point, but seeing that itx, I just gotta say, 'good job'

Well ... since I didn't say anything like "bad job", I don't see any logic to follow here.

"Core i5-8600K Cheat Sheet"
http://tomshardware.com/news/intel-coffee-lake-gaming-i5-8600k,35722.html

If you're implying the 8600k should have been used, you need to realize one thing: It wasn't available at the time the lists were compiled and the deadline hit. We can't include future tech, announced or unannounced, as it has to be currently on the market and available through the prescribed vendors.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

"No, but it'll do just fine at 1440p/60 or 1080p/144Hz or even for some who use mmorpg's primarily, 4k. And look damned good doin it."

You, do that. I'd rather take a shot at crushing 1440 @ 144hz with that price point. BTW 1080 can be conquered with a lesser build. Heck the $2,000 build may benchmark close or even better than the $2,500 build this quarter. Wouldn't that be something if the $2,000 build beat the $2,500 build in performance.

Matt_550, I invite you to put your money where your mouth is. Join the list of those of us who submit builds into this competition. Show us how superior your builds are. (BTW: if the $2000 build did actually outperform the $2500 build, that'd be a feather in my cap.... however... I am not holding my breath.)

 

[ibjeepr]

My only question is why a slow SSD on a $2,500 build? The M2 Evo 960 is still King of the hill... No idea why you'd handicap your build at that price point.

The winning $750 build was running only an HDD, no SSD at all. To me that's unacceptable at any price point. Everyone's priorities will be a little different.

You're welcome to try to show everyone up next time with a SSD based competitive performance build in the $750 category.... show us all up, I dare you.

Take a look at my build. I did. And most other builds had an ssd as well. My build was much better balanced and feature laden while still killing 1080p gaming. But you just keep being a jerk...I dare you.
And if your reading comprehension skills were a little better you'd see my point in my post wasn't to slam the winning build but to remind the other poster that "Everyone's priorities will be a little different."

 

[Matt_550]

"No, but it'll do just fine at 1440p/60 or 1080p/144Hz or even for some who use mmorpg's primarily, 4k. And look damned good doin it."

You, do that. I'd rather take a shot at crushing 1440 @ 144hz with that price point. BTW 1080 can be conquered with a lesser build. Heck the $2,000 build may benchmark close or even better than the $2,500 build this quarter. Wouldn't that be something if the $2,000 build beat the $2,500 build in performance.

Matt_550, I invite you to put your money where your mouth is. Join the list of those of us who submit builds into this competition. Show us how superior your builds are. (BTW: if the $2000 build did actually outperform the $2500 build, that'd be a feather in my cap.... however... I am not holding my breath.)

I did, had a $500, $1,500 and $2,000 that made it to the vote. My $500 had superior performance than the one chosen as mine had a 1300X and a 1050Ti. https://pcpartpicker.com/list/Wms6HN

My $1,500 may have lagged slightly in gaming due to a 1080 Vs the 1080Ti, but I did included a 7700K and a 256gb Samsung 960 Evo. https://pcpartpicker.com/list/jQTwBP

My $2,000, https://pcpartpicker.com/list/gW7ZM8

 

[Matt_550]

Much depends on the monitor. If you are pulling a good 60fps on a 60Hz monitor you'd see no difference if it was an honest 60fps or a cut down 300fps. At 60Hz, you get 60. On a 144Hz, yes, you'd notice the difference between 60 and 90, but at those speeds, running something like gta:v you'd not really be paying much attention to that and you'd need the monitors sitting side by side for comparison, it's that small a difference. As fps gets lower, the differences get larger as you can better physically tell differences. Drop 5 pennies on a table, then drop 10 pennies. You can obviously tell a difference in amount as they hit. And that's a 5 penny difference. Drop 100 pennies, then drop 70 pennies. That's a 30 penny difference, but your brain can't tell the difference, simply too much, too fast.
Take the pc I built 4 years ago, all brand new parts, just released so still strong. A i5-3570k (#1 rated gaming cpu), gtx660ti. Cost $1200 all told. Less than a year later I spent less than $600 for an i7-3770K /gtx970 with only psu/gpu new. Price is no guarantee on longevity. Technology is simply progressing too fast to make any 'future proofing' a worthwhile endeavor. Look at the lga1151 kabylake cpus, sitting in a dead socket, no further upgrades possible, so even a really good pc of that gen is now obsolete, especially when a new i3 has the same capability as an older i5, 4c/4t with better IPC, throughput, Lcache etc. Professional usage is one thing, easy to drop $200k on a pc with Tesla etc but that kind of build saves a company money in the long run. $25k on a gaming pc will be obsolete in 5yrs or less, performance matched or beaten by new, cheaper releases.
That highly rated 3570k/660ti might have been a top contender years ago for 1080p, (680 was out of price range) but today it's minecraft, Sims and cs:go.

So with performance being somewhat equitable across certain ranges, all that leaves is aesthetics. Bling.

Technology will always be moving forward. But these competitions are to show what you can build at this point in time. Not "future proof" the build. Also, all the aesthetics have an added cost to upgrade as well when you upgrade your rig. A custom loop will require new cooling blocks for new GPUs and CPUs, so actually the cost to upgrade is much higher on a custom cooled build...

 

[Karadjgne]

That's always the case. Even adding fancy aftermarket rims to a car will invariably cost more in the end since the less tire you buy, the more expensive it is. My 245/45/18 cost $167 each. My 255/35/20 cost $210.

You won't be upgrading a i7-7700k to anything until you change platforms, and seriously doubt there's any viable need in a gaming pc to upgrade an R7 either. Not in the next 5 yrs or so. If you do its only because you are chasing performance benchmarks, to which point I say 'go for it' it's your money to waste. The 1080/1080ti is right at barely handling 4k/60Hz. Until there's a 4k/144Hz that's viable, and a gpu capable of pushing it like a 2080ti, that's not going to see any upgrades either. Maybe just an additional card/block or maybe keep the lower card on air using the cooling advantage offered by the loop on the upper card.

 

[Matt_550]

That's always the case. Even adding fancy aftermarket rims to a car will invariably cost more in the end since the less tire you buy, the more expensive it is. My 245/45/18 cost $167 each. My 255/35/20 cost $210.

You won't be upgrading a i7-7700k to anything until you change platforms, and seriously doubt there's any viable need in a gaming pc to upgrade an R7 either. Not in the next 5 yrs or so. If you do its only because you are chasing performance benchmarks, to which point I say 'go for it' it's your money to waste. The 1080/1080ti is right at barely handling 4k/60Hz. Until there's a 4k/144Hz that's viable, and a gpu capable of pushing it like a 2080ti, that's not going to see any upgrades either. Maybe just an additional card/block or maybe keep the lower card on air using the cooling advantage offered by the loop on the upper card.

I'd hate to liquid cool a single card setup in most cases, seems a waste when the AIOs are pretty stout if you do your research. It doesn't help that the cheapest option at that point is to add an air cooled lower card. Kind of takes away from the aesthetics. Adding a new card will ultimately carry a $200+ premium on top of the price of the new card for cooling parts. That plus draining the system. I'll take air cooled on a single card.

All depends on what you value and your setup is. If an R7 maxes out your monitor or gives you enough satisfaction, fantastic. But if you choose to upgrade your monitor or just want more performance an upgrade is the answer. I know I plan on upgrading my GPU every 2-3 years. Next GPU upgrade I'll probably upgrade my monitor too to justify it a little more. To be honest an R7 is starting to show it's age...