[SOLVED] Good PC Build

[mmolitor357]

I want to build a new PC and it's been a very long time since I've done a PC build. My budget it $3000, I already have a monitor mouse and keyboard. I need a Gaming PC that has a RTX 2080ti and an Intel i9. Also water cooling and maybe 16-32 GB ram. I want this PC to also be as quiet as possible Please help me with a build and tell me exactly everything I need for the build. Also would know that all the components will last for a while and are easy to overclock when the time comes.

 

[Phaaze88]

What is the make and model of this monitor?

Also would know that all the components will last for a while and are easy to overclock when the time comes.

The first part depends on how the market progresses. It'll probably be fine though.
As for the second one: overclocking is a hobby. If you just want EZ mode, then enable XMP for the memory, and Multi/All Core Enhancement, then save and exit bios.
Min-maxing OCs requires patience; it isn't a one-trick pony. There's some trial and error involved.
If you really want to get in-depth, there are overclocking guides here: https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/overclocking-cooling-and-water-cooling-sticky-index.2664784/

 

[LordVile]

I want to build a new PC and it's been a very long time since I've done a PC build. My budget it $3000, I already have a monitor mouse and keyboard. I need a Gaming PC that has a RTX 2080ti and an Intel i9. Also water cooling and maybe 16-32 GB ram. I want this PC to also be as quiet as possible Please help me with a build and tell me exactly everything I need for the build. Also would know that all the components will last for a while and are easy to overclock when the time comes.

Can I ask why you need an i9? They’re not the wise choice atm.

 

[Hellfire13]

Intel is on the verge of releasing their new gen. of processors. You should probably wait for that...
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/future-hardware-releases/

PCPartPicker Part List

Type|Item|Price
:----|:----|:----
CPU | Intel Core i9-9900K 3.6 GHz 8-Core Processor | $519.99 @ B&H
CPU Cooler | CRYORIG R1 Ultimate 76 CFM CPU Cooler | $109.99 @ Amazon
Thermal Compound | Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut 1g 1 g Thermal Paste | $8.39 @ Amazon
Motherboard | Gigabyte Z390 AORUS MASTER ATX LGA1151 Motherboard | $279.99 @ B&H
Memory | G.Skill Flare X 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR4-3200 Memory | $139.99 @ Newegg
Storage | ADATA XPG SX8200 Pro 1 TB M.2-2280 NVME Solid State Drive | $149.97 @ Amazon
Video Card | MSI GeForce RTX 2080 Ti 11 GB GAMING X TRIO Video Card | $1194.00 @ Newegg
Case | Thermaltake View 71 TG RGB ATX Full Tower Case | $189.99 @ B&H
Power Supply | SeaSonic FOCUS Plus Platinum 850 W 80+ Platinum Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply | $178.98 @ Newegg
Case Fan | Thermaltake Riing Plus 14 RGB TT Premium Edition (5 Fan Pack) 63.19 CFM 140 mm Fans | $149.99 @ Amazon
| Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts |
| Total (before mail-in rebates) | $2941.28
| Mail-in rebates | -$20.00
| Total | $2921.28
| Generated by PCPartPicker 2020-04-23 07:32 EDT-0400 |

 

[mmolitor357]

Can I ask why you need an i9? They’re not the wise choice atm.

It's been a while and I have been reading and it sounds like its the best choice at the moment, if the i7 is still really good which one do you recommend that's best?

 

[Phaaze88]

What's the monitor that this PC is being hooked up to?

 

[Hellfire13]

It's been a while and I have been reading and it sounds like its the best choice at the moment, if the i7 is still really good which one do you recommend that's best?

Neither of them are good value atm, but since you have the budget, for a few more bucks you should go for the 16 threads instead of 8. It will give you way more longevity than the price difference.

 

[LordVile]

It's been a while and I have been reading and it sounds like its the best choice at the moment, if the i7 is still really good which one do you recommend that's best?

An AMD chip, the platform has another gen if CPU in it and you can get a 12 core 3900X for £100 less than the 8core 9900K. The chips are also cooler

 

[Shektron]

An AMD chip, the platform has another gen if CPU in it and you can get a 12 core 3900X for £100 less than the 8core 9900K. The chips are also cooler

I agree with this, as long as you don't have a 144 Hz or more display, Ryzen 3000 is much better value, and if you wait for Ryzen 4000 you might even be able to go with Ryzen for 144+ Hz displays.

 

[LordVile]

I agree with this, as long as you don't have a 144 Hz or more display, Ryzen 3000 is much better value, and if you wait for Ryzen 4000 you might even be able to go with Ryzen for 144+ Hz displays.

To be fair if you’re wanting high frame rates you’d be on low settings anyway

 

[evamajlak]

For higher frame rates you need to completely shifted to low and smooth setting.

 

[sizzling]

For higher frame rates you need to completely shifted to low and smooth setting.

Define high frame rates? In COD MW which is a very cpu and gpu heavy game I achieve 120+ FPS at 1440p with a mixture of medium/high settings. The gpu (2080 Super) is maxed out while the cpu (3700x) has 12 cores in use at about 50-60% usage each.

An i9/i7 really only has a lead over Ryzen if running a low resolution like 1080p and a high end gpu like a 2080 or above. Remember these cpu comparisons are designed to maximise differences between cpu and not representative of the configuration most users will have. How many people buy an i9 then use a 1080p monitor?

 

[Phaaze88]

How many people buy an i9 then use a 1080p monitor?

Quite a few.
You probably want to give people the benefit of the doubt - a number of them would surprise you.

The OP still hasn't said what the monitor is though.

 

[Shektron]

To be fair if you’re wanting high frame rates you’d be on low settings anyway

Not necessarily. Especially not when you build a PC worth $3000 - with that budget you'd want high framerates at high or ultra settings, not low.

 

[LordVile]

Not necessarily. Especially not when you build a PC worth $3000 - with that budget you'd want high framerates at high or ultra settings, not low.

Nah you’d wanna play at low. Means you can see more and less particles

 

[Shektron]

Nah you’d wanna play at low. Means you can see more and less particles

But it's not necessary that you'd want that in every game. Not all games are reflex-type FPS, there are many where you still want high FPS but you also want good visual quality, and since the OP doesn't specify what games they wish to play, it would be better to assume that he plays both types of games, which means he needs hardware suitable for both situations.

 

[LordVile]

But it's not necessary that you'd want that in every game. Not all games are reflex-type FPS, there are many where you still want high FPS but you also want good visual quality, and since the OP doesn't specify what games they wish to play, it would be better to assume that he plays both types of games, which means he needs hardware suitable for both situations.

Generally if you’re not playing a twitch shooter high FPS isn’t a great want though as you’re GPU limited with higher settings at higher resolutions which I’m expecting the OP to play at 1440p with the GPU they have. 1080p would be a waste.

 

[Hellfire13]

Nah you’d wanna play at low. Means you can see more and less particles

That is when you have a below par machine that cannot generate the frame rates due to collateral limitations. If you have a balanced machine with performance capability, that aint a problem. Thats the reason you stack up to a high end system in the first place with that kinda budget. In your own words, a powerful machine will let you see more even with more particles.

 

[LordVile]

That is when you have a below par machine that cannot generate the frame rates due to collateral limitations. If you have a balanced machine with performance capability, that aint a problem. Thats the reason you stack up to a high end system in the first place with that kinda budget. In your own words, a powerful machine will let you see more even with more particles.

No you want the lower settings so the screen isn’t as busy. You don’t want particles and effects, think about it you can run CSGO and get 200FPS on a potato why does everyone play at low?

 

[Phaaze88]

Not necessarily. Especially not when you build a PC worth $3000 - with that budget you'd want high framerates at high or ultra settings, not low.

Some people do exactly that though. Sad, but true.
9900K + 2080Ti + 1080p, either 144 or 240hz monitor, low settings, getting uber fps in CSGO, Fortnite, CoD, etc...

No you want the lower settings so the screen isn’t as busy. You don’t want particles and effects, think about it you can run CSGO and get 200FPS on a potato why does everyone play at low?

That has to do with the input lag thing, right?

 

[Hellfire13]

No you want the lower settings so the screen isn’t as busy. You don’t want particles and effects, think about it you can run CSGO and get 200FPS on a potato why does everyone play at low?

You are not making any sense to me. When the system is capable enough to handle "busy" comfortably and then some, why would you be bothered to avoid it??? If your hardware is tractioned enough to generate and handle the throughput, your particle issue blows out the window. Atleast that's how it works in the practical world.

 

[mmolitor357]

What's the monitor that this PC is being hooked up to?

165hz 1440p ASUS

 

[Shektron]

Intel is on the verge of releasing their new gen. of processors. You should probably wait for that...
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/future-hardware-releases/

PCPartPicker Part List

Type|Item|Price
:----|:----|:----
CPU | Intel Core i9-9900K 3.6 GHz 8-Core Processor | $519.99 @ B&H
CPU Cooler | CRYORIG R1 Ultimate 76 CFM CPU Cooler | $109.99 @ Amazon
Thermal Compound | Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut 1g 1 g Thermal Paste | $8.39 @ Amazon
Motherboard | Gigabyte Z390 AORUS MASTER ATX LGA1151 Motherboard | $279.99 @ B&H
Memory | G.Skill Flare X 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR4-3200 Memory | $139.99 @ Newegg
Storage | ADATA XPG SX8200 Pro 1 TB M.2-2280 NVME Solid State Drive | $149.97 @ Amazon
Video Card | MSI GeForce RTX 2080 Ti 11 GB GAMING X TRIO Video Card | $1194.00 @ Newegg
Case | Thermaltake View 71 TG RGB ATX Full Tower Case | $189.99 @ B&H
Power Supply | SeaSonic FOCUS Plus Platinum 850 W 80+ Platinum Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply | $178.98 @ Newegg
Case Fan | Thermaltake Riing Plus 14 RGB TT Premium Edition (5 Fan Pack) 63.19 CFM 140 mm Fans | $149.99 @ Amazon
| Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts |
| Total (before mail-in rebates) | $2941.28
| Mail-in rebates | -$20.00
| Total | $2921.28
| Generated by PCPartPicker 2020-04-23 07:32 EDT-0400 |

For the monitor OP has just mentioned, I would agree to go with this build indeed, Ryzen 3000 probably won't let you push to 165 FPS in as many games as Intel would.

No you want the lower settings so the screen isn’t as busy. You don’t want particles and effects, think about it you can run CSGO and get 200FPS on a potato why does everyone play at low?

Yes but, you see, not everyone only plays CS GO all day, every day. And since the OP also has not mentioned this in his post, it would be wrong to assume that all he wants to do with his $3000 PC is play CSGO at low settings. That's all. And that's why getting a strong GPU and CPU is ideal for him, because he might play games that need them for 165 FPS.

 

[LordVile]

You are not making any sense to me. When the system is capable enough to handle "busy" comfortably and then some, why would you be bothered to avoid it??? If your hardware is tractioned enough to generate and handle the throughput, your particle issue blows out the window. Atleast that's how it works in the practical world.

Because you actually want to SEE other players not be drowned in particles that fill half the screen. For example I play overwatch and have setting at medium because at Epic when you’re in a team fight all you see are brightly colours lights. It’s not about having capable hardware. Even though I could get easy over 100FPS on epic. In FPS games if you have foliage on low that tree is now half as big and see through or flat out vanished so you have better line of sight with a sniper etc.

 

[Hellfire13]

Because you actually want to SEE other players not be drowned in particles that fill half the screen. For example I play overwatch and have setting at medium because at Epic when you’re in a team fight all you see are brightly colours lights. It’s not about having capable hardware. Even though I could get easy over 100FPS on epic. In FPS games if you have foliage on low that tree is now half as big and see through or flat out vanished so you have better line of sight with a sniper etc.

Ahh...i get it now. You wanna lower the settings in order to see more clearly like shadow filtering and stuff. But that's basically limited to esports only, and I don't think the OP has mentioned anything particularly to this end. Also if the machine is capable enough, the frame rate will be pretty consistent in either scenario and hence a moot point.