[SOLVED] Build check?

[Fatpcsnat]

Hello! I just finished my proposed build, nothing has been purchased yet, and as I am fairly new to PC building, I would love a more experienced view on my build. Any thing I did wrong or could do better would be greaty appreciated. Ive included the link to the build below, I assume it updates when I change it.

I might overclock the CPU, GPU, and other essentials, but only once I purchase one of Intels
“Performance Tuning Protection” plans.

https://pcpartpicker.com/user/Fatpcsnat/saved/gbQtgs

 

[Darkbreeze]

I don't see any issues with that build. Very nice system. Good component choices.

The ONLY issue I see is MAYBE the 165hz monitor. At 1440p, you're never going to achieve anywhere near 165 FPS on any reasonably demanding games, so unless you intend to play low demand or eSports type titles, you might want to consider the 2080 TI, OR, a monitor with a lower refresh rate. 99% of people will never be able to visually appreciate the difference in the refresh rate if it's higher than 120-144hz anyhow. For a 1440p monitor I'd think 144hz would be the max and 120hz might result in a whole lot less tearing based on the frame rates your system will actually be able to achieve at that resolution unless you're playing games that typically are low demand and tend to achieve very high frame rates even with middling hardware.

 

[Maximilian Jancke]

I would opt for a more powerful PSU. The i9 are known to be very power hungry, and more so if you are planning to overclock it.

 

[Darkbreeze]

That PSU is MORE than enough for that system. Plenty, even if you plan to overclock. The whole system power recommendation for the RTX 2080 is only 550w, and that is even somewhat exaggerated to help deflect problems with lower quality power supplies, which that is definitely not. It's fine, even if you plan to overclock both the CPU and graphics card.

That's only a 95w CPU, no more than many others, and less than some older gen i7's.

 

[King Dranzer]

Here is the list:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel - Core i9-9900K 3.6 GHz 8-Core Processor ($525.89 @ B&H)
CPU Cooler: Corsair - H115i PRO 55.4 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($132.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: Asus - ROG MAXIMUS XI CODE ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($346.99 @ B&H)
Memory: G.Skill - Trident Z RGB 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR4-3000 Memory ($200.98 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung - 970 Evo Plus 1 TB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($247.99 @ Amazon)
Video Card: Asus - GeForce RTX 2080 Ti 11 GB ROG Strix Gaming Advanced Video Card ($1329.99 @ B&H)
Case: Corsair - Crystal 570X RGB Mirror Black ATX Mid Tower Case ($181.99 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: Corsair - HX Platinum 1200 W 80+ Platinum Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($159.99 @ Amazon)
Monitor: Asus - ROG SWIFT PG278QR 27.0" 2560x1440 165 Hz Monitor ($554.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Keyboard: Corsair - K95 RGB PLATINUM Wired Gaming Keyboard ($159.99 @ Amazon)
Mouse: Logitech - G903 Wireless Optical Mouse ($108.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $3950.78
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-03-02 03:40 EST-0500

Better looking build. Improved components.

I like to maintain only 60% usage even under-load on PSU if possible and budget allows to do so.

32GB RAM upgraded from 16GB.

Monitor is 90% same spec wise but costs lot less and is more meaningful at-least budget wise.

Better Keyboard and Mouse combo.

 

[Fatpcsnat]

I don't see any issues with that build. Very nice system. Good component choices.

The ONLY issue I see is MAYBE the 165hz monitor. At 1440p, you're never going to achieve anywhere near 165 FPS on any reasonably demanding games, so unless you intend to play low demand or eSports type titles, you might want to consider the 2080 TI, OR, a monitor with a lower refresh rate. 99% of people will never be able to visually appreciate the difference in the refresh rate if it's higher than 120-144hz anyhow. For a 1440p monitor I'd think 144hz would be the max and 120hz might result in a whole lot less tearing based on the frame rates your system will actually be able to achieve at that resolution unless you're playing games that typically are low demand and tend to achieve very high frame rates even with middling hardware.

I do have a Asus - GeForce RTX-2080Ti in the build, does it not show up?

 

[ElectrO_90]

The weak spot for me in the original PC specs was defnitely the Storage - using an aged Samsung
I see King Dranzer has made a better one using the latest Technology from Samsung
I don't agree with his build though - just the Storage change.

PSU way over the top - You dont need 1200W in this build - even 500 watt would be enough, but 650-750 gives you play room
Keyboard/mouse are yours to choose from - you know what you like, although his alternatives are good choices.
The QR monitor he chose is maybe 1-2% better, but ONLY because it is not curved. If you want curved get curved!

Also I would like to add, the monitor may be over kill in Frequency, as Darkbreeze says, but I don't agree with his statement about it, because a monitor should last you a good 5 years imo, so in 5 years time, we will be another 2-3 GPU's advanced and you would easily I believe max out the monitor then.

 

[King Dranzer]

The weak spot for me in the original PC specs was defnitely the Storage - using an aged Samsung
I see King Dranzer has made a better one using the latest Technology from Samsung
I don't agree with his build though - just the Storage change.

PSU way over the top - You dont need 1200W in this build - even 500 watt would be enough, but 650-750 gives you play room
Keyboard/mouse are yours to choose from - you know what you like, although his alternatives are good choices.
The QR monitor he chose is maybe 1-2% better, but ONLY because it is not curved. If you want curved get curved!

Also I would like to add, the monitor may be over kill in Frequency, as Darkbreeze says, but I don't agree with his statement about it, because a monitor should last you a good 5 years imo, so in 5 years time, we will be another 2-3 GPU's advanced and you would easily I believe max out the monitor then.

PSU 850W is minimum recommended if OP wants to OC as i9-9900K and RTX2080Ti both are power hungry beasts and push beyond 700W mark which makes 750W PSU run at full load which is not good if it can be avoided. But as I said before if he goes with that 1200W PSU even with OC load at full utilization it will hit 60% usage mark of PSU which is where I like the usage to sit as mainly PSU is not stressed to limit over period of time which is good and then it can be used in multiple builds and even if future setup has more components which need higher power utilization in total then he can still use this PSU without the requirement of upgrade.

 

[Darkbreeze]

That's kind of lame. We all know that when it comes to storage and gaming, even the oldest of SSDs is going to be just as beneficial as a brand new M.2 device since storage speed plays VERY LITTLE into the performance when gaming. There are FEW instances where storage speed has any affect in games, and none are while actually doing anything. Loading times are ALL that will be affected, so the whole "the whole weak spot for me was the storage" really doesn't fly.

Even in NON-gaming, unless you are consistently using that drive for large file transfers to another SSD, the benefits of an M.2 drive are minimal. It will net you a big fat Nothingburger when it comes to 85% of what most users do on their systems which is mainly RANDOM access and RANDOM reads/writes. Will it boot faster? Usually. So yeah, you'll save half a second over a normal SSD. Will it load textures, maps, levels, etc. faster? Sure, so again, you'll doing do those things twice as fast as almost instantly like with a standard SSD, which means you probably won't even notice the difference.

For just about everything else, it's highly unlikely you'll notice any difference except on benchmarks. Windows and games won't be faster just from having an M.2 drive in most cases. Now, if you're using that drive as the primary device for professional graphics or 3D applications, you might definitely see some benefits from it especially if you're working with, saving and loading very large files and projects. Otherwise, for a primarily gaming type system, it's a nice to have, not a weak spot.


"Power hungry beast"? Can you show me where there is DEFINITIVE proof that the 9900k is? Because it's a 95w CPU. EXACTLY the same as the 8700k (And more efficient actually, because it's the SAME TDP even with two additional physical cores.) and has LESS power consumption than the 2700x (105w). I see a lot of fail in this thread or at least a lot of misconceptions when it comes to an understanding of the realities of this hardware.

Especially since not everybody intends to overclock a CPU that has already been pushed to the limit in terms of it's stock behavior from the factory. The overclocking headroom for 95% of 9900k samples will be so low that for most people it won't be worth doing anyhow without extreme measures and even then, is not really something recommended at that level for a daily driver.


And no, the original build did NOT have a 2080 TI, it had a 2080, else I wouldn't have posted that.

 

[Fatpcsnat]

Here is the list:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel - Core i9-9900K 3.6 GHz 8-Core Processor ($525.89 @ B&H)
CPU Cooler: Corsair - H115i PRO 55.4 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($132.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: Asus - ROG MAXIMUS XI CODE ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($346.99 @ B&H)
Memory: G.Skill - Trident Z RGB 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR4-3000 Memory ($200.98 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung - 970 Evo Plus 1 TB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive ($247.99 @ Amazon)
Video Card: Asus - GeForce RTX 2080 Ti 11 GB ROG Strix Gaming Advanced Video Card ($1329.99 @ B&H)
Case: Corsair - Crystal 570X RGB Mirror Black ATX Mid Tower Case ($181.99 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: Corsair - HX Platinum 1200 W 80+ Platinum Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($159.99 @ Amazon)
Monitor: Asus - ROG SWIFT PG278QR 27.0" 2560x1440 165 Hz Monitor ($554.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Keyboard: Corsair - K95 RGB PLATINUM Wired Gaming Keyboard ($159.99 @ Amazon)
Mouse: Logitech - G903 Wireless Optical Mouse ($108.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $3950.78
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-03-02 03:40 EST-0500

Better looking build. Improved components.

I like to maintain only 60% usage even under-load on PSU if possible and budget allows to do so.

32GB RAM upgraded from 16GB.

Monitor is 90% same spec wise but costs lot less and is more meaningful at-least budget wise.

Only things I disagree with are the power ans the ram, your not going to need 32 gigs of ram unless you plan to be multitasking (ie.

Better Keyboard and Mouse combo.

That's kind of lame. We all know that when it comes to storage and gaming, even the oldest of SSDs is going to be just as beneficial as a brand new M.2 device since storage speed plays VERY LITTLE into the performance when gaming. There are FEW instances where storage speed has any affect in games, and none are while actually doing anything. Loading times are ALL that will be affected, so the whole "the whole weak spot for me was the storage" really doesn't fly.

Even in NON-gaming, unless you are consistently using that drive for large file transfers to another SSD, the benefits of an M.2 drive are minimal. It will net you a big fat Nothingburger when it comes to 85% of what most users do on their systems which is mainly RANDOM access and RANDOM reads/writes. Will it boot faster? Usually. So yeah, you'll save half a second over a normal SSD. Will it load textures, maps, levels, etc. faster? Sure, so again, you'll doing do those things twice as fast as almost instantly like with a standard SSD, which means you probably won't even notice the difference.

For just about everything else, it's highly unlikely you'll notice any difference except on benchmarks. Windows and games won't be faster just from having an M.2 drive in most cases. Now, if you're using that drive as the primary device for professional graphics or 3D applications, you might definitely see some benefits from it especially if you're working with, saving and loading very large files and projects. Otherwise, for a primarily gaming type system, it's a nice to have, not a weak spot.


"Power hungry beast"? Can you show me where there is DEFINITIVE proof that the 9900k is? Because it's a 95w CPU. EXACTLY the same as the 8700k (And more efficient actually, because it's the SAME TDP even with two additional physical cores.) and has LESS power consumption than the 2700x (105w). I see a lot of fail in this thread or at least a lot of misconceptions when it comes to an understanding of the realities of this hardware.

Especially since not everybody intends to overclock a CPU that has already been pushed to the limit in terms of it's stock behavior from the factory. The overclocking headroom for 95% of 9900k samples will be so low that for most people it won't be worth doing anyhow without extreme measures and even then, is not really something recommended at that level for a daily driver.


And no, the original build did NOT have a 2080 TI, it had a 2080, else I wouldn't have posted that.

Thanks for clearing up some misconceptions! Sorry, I had added a 2080Ti, guess it didnt update.

So you are suggesting I go with the 860 series rather than the 960?

 

[Darkbreeze]

No, I'm not suggesting you "should", I'm simply saying that you're not going to see any difference in gaming performance by choosing one over the other. That said, there might be OTHER reasons to choose the M.2 drive that I am unaware of because I'm not you and don't know what you'll be using the system for every day. Just because somebody games doesn't mean they don't also use the machine for work, or other hobby pursuits, or use high end applications that might benefit from the speed of an M.2 drive, or transfer large files from that drive to another SSD. I will say though that if you don't have a secondary drive that is also some form of M.2 storage device, then obviously file transfers from one drive to the other are going to be limited to whatever speed the other SSD is capable of.

So in reality, aside from a very few specific situations, the theoretical speed of M.2 drives is VERY RARELY ever a factor in the real world. If you are using one for, say, backup images of your operating system, then yeah, those are going to happen really fast. Or as a scratch disk for Photoshop or another professional application that makes heavy use of cache/scratch disks, yes, it will definitely help. As the OS drive, most of what you do on there won't see any benefit from it over a standard SATA SSD.

 

[King Dranzer]

That's kind of lame. We all know that when it comes to storage and gaming, even the oldest of SSDs is going to be just as beneficial as a brand new M.2 device since storage speed plays VERY LITTLE into the performance when gaming. There are FEW instances where storage speed has any affect in games, and none are while actually doing anything. Loading times are ALL that will be affected, so the whole "the whole weak spot for me was the storage" really doesn't fly.

Even in NON-gaming, unless you are consistently using that drive for large file transfers to another SSD, the benefits of an M.2 drive are minimal. It will net you a big fat Nothingburger when it comes to 85% of what most users do on their systems which is mainly RANDOM access and RANDOM reads/writes. Will it boot faster? Usually. So yeah, you'll save half a second over a normal SSD. Will it load textures, maps, levels, etc. faster? Sure, so again, you'll doing do those things twice as fast as almost instantly like with a standard SSD, which means you probably won't even notice the difference.

For just about everything else, it's highly unlikely you'll notice any difference except on benchmarks. Windows and games won't be faster just from having an M.2 drive in most cases. Now, if you're using that drive as the primary device for professional graphics or 3D applications, you might definitely see some benefits from it especially if you're working with, saving and loading very large files and projects. Otherwise, for a primarily gaming type system, it's a nice to have, not a weak spot.


"Power hungry beast"? Can you show me where there is DEFINITIVE proof that the 9900k is? Because it's a 95w CPU. EXACTLY the same as the 8700k (And more efficient actually, because it's the SAME TDP even with two additional physical cores.) and has LESS power consumption than the 2700x (105w). I see a lot of fail in this thread or at least a lot of misconceptions when it comes to an understanding of the realities of this hardware.

Especially since not everybody intends to overclock a CPU that has already been pushed to the limit in terms of it's stock behavior from the factory. The overclocking headroom for 95% of 9900k samples will be so low that for most people it won't be worth doing anyhow without extreme measures and even then, is not really something recommended at that level for a daily driver.


And no, the original build did NOT have a 2080 TI, it had a 2080, else I wouldn't have posted that.

Please check again, and I hope that you really did not believe that Intel i9-9900K has max TDP of 95W. That goes way beyond 95W TDP and is crazy power hungry beast. Intel no more gives Max-TDP in spec list.

For RTX2080 750W PSU willl do fine but still I was stating it for RTX2080Ti.

 

[Fatpcsnat]

Please check again, and I hope that you really did not believe that Intel i9-9900K has max TDP of 95W. That goes way beyond 95W TDP and is crazy power hungry beast. Intel no more gives Max-TDP in spec list.

For RTX2080 750W PSU willl do fine but still I was stating it for RTX2080Ti.

I realize there are some conflicting opinions at play, but would an 850 good of a 2080Ti, or should I go higher?

 

[Darkbreeze]

2080 TI, WHOLE SYSTEM recommendation is 600w.

http://www.realhardtechx.com/index_archivos/Page362.htm


9900k TDP IS 95w.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/processors/core/i9-processors/i9-9900k.html


I don't know who you're trying to baffle with BS, but it won't fly here.

 

[Stormswa1]

isn't the whole benefit of the m.2 drives cosmetic? I was under the impression that the speed is so minimal that its not noticeable but the fact that you eliminate a cord is why they are used. That's basically why I choose to include mine in my build.

 

[King Dranzer]

Thanks for clearing up some misconceptions! Sorry, I had added a 2080Ti, guess it didnt update.

So you are suggesting I go with the 860 series rather than the 960?

Darkbreeze is correct stating that there big noticeable difference in game loading time. But there is noticeable difference in other scenarios. If budget allows there is no harm in going for a better one as it can come handy for future use if you plan on using PC for other productive work.

 

[Fatpcsnat]

2080 TI, WHOLE SYSTEM recommendation is 600w.

http://www.realhardtechx.com/index_archivos/Page362.htm


9900k TDP IS 95w.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/processors/core/i9-processors/i9-9900k.html


I don't know who you're trying to baffle with BS, but it won't fly here.

Thanks, I think ill go with an 850, gives me some extra toom for overclocking, and I dont mind spending a little more for some peace of mind.

 

[Darkbreeze]

If the reason is for aesthetic/cosmetic reasons, then nobody can really argue with that. But it's a lot to pay in comparison just to lose a cord or two. Especially these days when the majority of cases put the drives on the backside of the motherboard tray out of sight anyhow.

 

[King Dranzer]

2080 TI, WHOLE SYSTEM recommendation is 600w.

http://www.realhardtechx.com/index_archivos/Page362.htm


9900k TDP IS 95w.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/processors/core/i9-processors/i9-9900k.html


I don't know who you're trying to baffle with BS, but it won't fly here.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review/21

 

[King Dranzer]

isn't the whole benefit of the m.2 drives cosmetic? I was under the impression that the speed is so minimal that its not noticeable but the fact that you eliminate a cord is why they are used. That's basically why I choose to include mine in my build.

SATA M.2 drives are usually used for that purpose and to make the build easy with less cables to manage. But NVMe M.2 SSDs are lot faster than SATA SSDs depending on workload they are used for.

 

[ElectrO_90]

The SSD was the weak spot - because it was an old SSD, where you can get a modern new 6 times faster (yes 6) using the M2 Nvme Evo Plus.
Storage, does not necessitate to just "storing" it was his only drive, which means he should be putting a decent drive in a machine that is costing an arm and a leg.

i don't know anyone who would spend $4,000 and put in an old aging Evo 860 - makes no sense.

 

[Maximilian Jancke]

That PSU is MORE than enough for that system. Plenty, even if you plan to overclock. The whole system power recommendation for the RTX 2080 is only 550w, and that is even somewhat exaggerated to help deflect problems with lower quality power supplies, which that is definitely not. It's fine, even if you plan to overclock both the CPU and graphics card.

That's only a 95w CPU, no more than many others, and less than some older gen i7's.

Sure, the 750 watt PSU is sure up to the task to power that rig, even if you OC it. But I suggested a more powerful one, since typically PSUs are at their most efficient when they are under 50% load.

 

[Darkbreeze]

No, power supplies are at their most efficient when they are between 50-75% of the maximum peak capacity. Look at the specs for ripple, voltage regulation and noise on any reputable power supply.

Most high quality power supplies will live in the sweet zone if you figure about 40% overhead beyond what you expect the maximum peak draw will be. But that's not always realistic and certainly is rarely a reality. If it was, then everybody with a power supply in the top two tiers would be running 1000w+ power supplies based on the recommendations. The recommendations ALREADY factor in some overhead. Usually about 25%. So calculating about 40% overhead will generally never let you down and the PSU will live it's life mostly cool, quiet and with a minimum expectation of ripple or voltage fluctuation and probably never come anywhere near what we see them running at in the hot box during review testing.

Which is another factor. A units efficiency will change based on temperature. It's efficiency at 30°C will not be the same as its efficiency at 40°C.

And that's a good thing, because it means it will last a lot longer than if you're running a system that pulls 450w on a 500w power supply, regardless of how good it might be.

This is a good primer on picking a power supply, although, even for Jon, it's a bit light on actual recommendation details.

http://www.jonnyguru.com/forums/showthread.php?1036-The-quot-power-supply-FAQ-quot

 

[Darkbreeze]

The SSD was the weak spot - because it was an old SSD, where you can get a modern new 6 times faster (yes 6) using the M2 Nvme Evo Plus.
Storage, does not necessitate to just "storing" it was his only drive, which means he should be putting a decent drive in a machine that is costing an arm and a leg.

i don't know anyone who would spend $4,000 and put in an old aging Evo 860 - makes no sense.

Pretty obviously, you are talking out your internet hole. The 860 EVO was released in 2018. Clearly that is not an "aging" model.

Samsung Electronics Advances SATA Lineup with 860 PRO and 860 EVO Solid State Drives Powered by V-NAND

RIDGEFIELD PARK, N.J. – Jan. 23, 2018 – Samsung Electronics America, Inc. today introduced the 860 PRO and 860 EVO solid state drives (SSDs), the most up-to-date additions to the company’s SATA interface lineup. The products are aimed at consumers who require fast, reliable performance across...

news.samsung.com