[SOLVED] Budget Build for my friend, how good is it?

[TheUltraMarine]

Hey everyone! So I recently put together a build that was for a budget of $725, filling out all of his needs, 16 GB of ram, 4+ cores, 1 TB of storage, some RGB, all that, here's the link to the list if anyone want's to check it out (https://pcpartpicker.com/list/3LDFyk) I also included a 450 W PSU to make sure he has the flexibility not only to overclock his CPU and GPU, but to be able to upgrade parts in the future. I want to know how good this build is overall.

 

[DSzymborski]

There's a huge gulf between the 1650 and the 1650 Super. The included fan is just fine; there's little purpose in getting an aftermarket cooler at this price point.

 

[TheUltraMarine]

There's a huge gulf between the 1650 and the 1650 Super. The included fan is just fine; there's little purpose in getting an aftermarket cooler at this price point.

Even for overclocking to 3.7-3.9 GHz?

 

[helper800]

This is the same but better. @DSzymborski is right in not needing an aftermarket cooler.
PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 2600 3.4 GHz 6-Core Processor ($159.94 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: Gigabyte B450M DS3H Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard ($76.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3200 Memory ($69.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1 TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($39.88 @ Amazon)
Video Card: PNY GeForce GTX 1660 6 GB XLR8 Gaming Overclocked Edition Video Card ($199.99 @ Amazon)
Case: Thermaltake Core V21 MicroATX Mini Tower Case ($76.98 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: EVGA SuperNOVA GM 450 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully Modular SFX Power Supply ($80.09 @ Amazon)
Custom: Windows 10 (G2A Key) ($21.63)
Total: $725.48
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2020-04-29 07:44 EDT-0400

 

[DSzymborski]

Even for overclocking to 3.7-3.9 GHz?

Yes and even then, the gulf between a 1650 and a 1650 Super crushes the marginal difference you get from an overclock. Even if the choice was 1650 + overclocking vs. 1650 Super + no overclocking, the latter would be as easy a choice as there is.

And that's not even the choice. AMD's modern included fans are quite solid and the Hyper 212 is simply a good budget cooler anyway. Now, if we were talking a top-of-the-line air cooler/AIO and a motherboard more suited for overclocking, it might be a different story, but that's not this build.

 

[DSzymborski]

And the 1660 is even better. The 1650 non-super is an extremely uncompetitive GPU at its price point. You gain a lot from a 1650 Super or a 1660 and it's inferior to the 570 that's also cheaper.

The case for a 1650 is essentially when you have a hard $150 limit and a rather garbagey PSU that is inappropriate for a 570. It's nearly impossible to justify in any other typical situation.

 

[TheUltraMarine]

And the 1660 is even better. The 1650 non-super is an extremely uncompetitive GPU at its price point. You gain a lot from a 1650 Super or a 1660 and it's inferior to the 570 that's also cheaper.

The case for a 1650 is essentially when you have a hard $150 limit and a rather garbagey PSU that is inappropriate for a 570. It's nearly impossible to justify in any other typical situation.

So the main changes are taking out the aftermarket cooler, using the stock one instead, and switch up to the 1660?

 

[geofelt]

I will never again build without a ssd for the "C" drive. It makes everything you do much quicker.
240gb is minimum, it will hold the os and a handful of games.

If you can go 500gb you may never need a hard drive.
With ssd prices down, even 1tb is reasonable.

You can defer on the hard drive unless you need to store large files such as video's.
It is easy to add a hard drive later.

Buy a ssd of whatever size you can afford and ditch the HDD.
500gb or perhaps 1tb.
You can always add capacity later.
I might suggest a 1tb intel 660P nvme drive for about $120.
You can ditch the extra cooler, the stock cooler is fine.

Actually, no amount of cooling is going to make much difference; ryzen does not overclock well.

A balanced gamer will budget about 2x the cost of the processor for the graphics card.
Here, you are about 1:1.
Consider, if you must, a lesser processor and a stronger graphics card.
Particularly if you play fast action games.

 

[Rui Neves]

get a ssd of 120gb or 240 gb for the OS and some softwares , get a Ryzen 5 1600 AF(same and cheaper) or Ryzen 5 3600(better CPU ) if you have some budget , there´s no point having the R5 2600 , or you get the 3600 or the 1600 AF . Get a 550w PSU for future GPU upgrade if needed

 

[helper800]

get a ssd of 120gb or 240 gb for the OS and some softwares , get a Ryzen 5 1600 AF(same and cheaper) or Ryzen 5 3600(better CPU ) if you have some budget , there´s no point having the R5 2600 , or you get the 3600 or the 1600 AF . Get a 550w PSU for future GPU upgrade if needed

I disagree strongly here. The 2600 is much better than the 1600 particularly for games and is not too much behind the 3600. The 2600 is also easier to find a out of the box compatible motherboard than the 3600. For a budget build the 2600 is in a really good position right now.

 

[King_V]

I disagree strongly here. The 2600 is much better than the 1600 particularly for games and is not too much behind the 3600. The 2600 is also easier to find a out of the box compatible motherboard than the 3600. For a budget build the 2600 is in a really good position right now.

@Rui Neves was referring specifically to the 1600AF, which is basically a very slightly downclocked 2600. Whwever it becomes available at $85, it's an amazing deal.

I would also agree with getting a 550W PSU if any future upgrades are anticipated.

 

[TheUltraMarine]

So how about this, he wanted at least four cores with about 3.1 GHz on the core clock, still having the capacity to clock to 3.3-3.4 GHz with the stock cooler, how about going down to a Ryzen 3 1200, giving me the budget to upgrade to a 1 TB NVME SSD instead of the hard drive, and by taking the suggestion earlier and switching up to the 1660 6B OC card, I am only 2 dollars above budget, how does that sound?
EDIT: I've also gone ahead and got a better PSU.

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/hqsFyk

 

[King_V]

Did your friend specify 4-cores? Did he say why, specifically?

The Ryzen 3 1200, after all, is 4 cores, but does NOT have multi-threading, whereas the 2600 for example, is 6 cores, but has multithreading, so
12 threads.

 

[Rui Neves]

I disagree strongly here. The 2600 is much better than the 1600 particularly for games and is not too much behind the 3600. The 2600 is also easier to find a out of the box compatible motherboard than the 3600. For a budget build the 2600 is in a really good position right now.

I was talking about the R5 1600AF it´s the same as 2600 but with lower clocks , on gaming will be almost no change in fps .... 90% of people will not notice any difference on gaming performance , and it can be overclocked anyway to be exactly the same as 2600 spending less money . That´s why i think buying the 2600 it´s a bad deal , only worth buying the 1600AF or buy the 3600 .... I am not the only one on internet with this opinion , it can be searched on youtube or google it ...

 

[helper800]

I was talking about the R5 1600AF it´s the same as 2600 but with lower clocks , on gaming will be almost no change in fps .... 90% of people will not notice any difference on gaming performance , and it can be overclocked anyway to be exactly the same as 2600 spending less money . That´s why i think buying the 2600 it´s a bad deal , only worth buying the 1600AF or buy the 3600 .... I am not the only one on internet with this opinion , it can be searched on youtube or google it ...

@Rui Neves was referring specifically to the 1600AF, which is basically a very slightly downclocked 2600. Whenever it becomes available at $85, it's an amazing deal.

"Whenever it becomes available at $85, it's an amazing deal."
Exactly my point.

 

[King_V]

"Whenever it becomes available at $85, it's an amazing deal."
Exactly my point.

No it wasn't. Judging by the following, you were thinking about the regular 1600, and not the 1600AF.

I disagree strongly here. The 2600 is much better than the 1600 particularly for games

The reality is that the performance difference between the 1600AF and the 2600 is incredibly small.

 

[helper800]

No it wasn't. Judging by the following, you were thinking about the regular 1600, and not the 1600AF.

The reality is that the performance difference between the 1600AF and the 2600 is incredibly small.

Neither the normal or the AF version of the 1600 are as powerful as the 2600 and the 1600 AF cannot be found.

 

[Rui Neves]

Neither the normal or the AF version of the 1600 are as powerful as the 2600 and the 1600 AF cannot be found.

You should search what are you saying , 90% of people will not notice any difference beetwen the 1600AF and 2600 LOL , you gain like 5 fps on 2600 ... , and if you overclock the 1600 AF you have the same exact performance .

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVjqzhIfZHs

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn-MRrUN4Hk

, take some time and watch

 

[helper800]

@Rui Neves Just because you cannot discern the performance that is marginally higher it does not take away from the fact that it (2600) is faster. Again, the 1600 AF is currently impossible to find. You cannot recommend a product that cannot be sold. I also never argued that the 1600 AF was not close in performance to the 2600, I argued that the normal 1600 was a lot slower because it is. Continue to argue something I did not say though. The only thing I said was that the 1600 was slower than the 2600 and now I am getting downvoted on a post the OP said I solved.

 

[King_V]

@helper800 - drop it. You missed the fact that you didn't pay attention that the 1600AF was being discussed rather than the original 1600, and now you're moving the goalposts just to claim some stance of being right.

A point had been made, and your original refutation of it was wrong. End of story.

 

[helper800]

@helper800 - drop it. You missed the fact that you didn't pay attention that the 1600AF was being discussed rather than the original 1600, and now you're moving the goalposts just to claim some stance of being right.

A point had been made, and your original refutation of it was wrong. End of story.

I love it when people tell me what I was thinking at any given point. I also said as much that I was arguing that the 2600 was faster than the original 1600 and not the 1600 AF. The 2600 is still also at a minimum 10% faster than the 1600 AF. That combined with it my other points and not being 85 dollars anywhere makes it idiotic to spend 80-90% on something that is 80-90% the performance when the op could fit it in the build. If you are mad at the facts then there is nothing anyone can do for either of you.

 

[USAFRet]

Play nice, or don't play at all.

Stop with the sniping, or no one will like the outcome.

 

[Rui Neves]

I love it when people tell me what I was thinking at any given point. I also said as much that I was arguing that the 2600 was faster than the original 1600 and not the 1600 AF. The 2600 is still also at a minimum 10% faster than the 1600 AF. That combined with it my other points and not being 85 dollars anywhere makes it idiotic to spend 80-90% on something that is 80-90% the performance when the op could fit it in the build. If you are mad at the facts then there is nothing anyone can do for either of you.

My final answer to all this discussion about the difference in performance it is in all youtube videos , I think anyone can see that I and @King_V are right about this ... maybe you will not find it for 85$ but is cheaper anyway and a great deal , it´s the cheapest CPU for playing games well enough....

 

[yngwie98]

If he only needs 4 cores, a Ryzen 3 3100 would work. Definitely get an SSD to start, add a HD later.