Question New PC Build

[Greatham]

Hello,

First of all, thanks for any comments and information,
My current PC is getting on a bit and decided to build a good computer that will last me several years, I have put the following together and wondering what peoples option is or if they think its a good sound build!

I mainly play PC games however not an extreme hard core gamer there for I wont look at overclocking the PC hence the lack of addtional cooling system,
I am aware I can save a hundred by changing the cpu you say - i7 8700 main reason am upgrading is because my cpu is limiting the hell out my current pc,

Motherboard I believe will be good enough and can take the NVMe SSD cards and fit the cpu / handle the graphics card

Case I believe will be pretty big, with the option of putting my Hard Drives in the below section of the computer I wont be limiting my graphics card fitting and can hopefully manage my cables better.

What am not sure off is whether the Graphics card will bottleneck the cpu or vice versa, or if i have done a pretty good match up, and if I should consider a bigger PSU,

CPU
Intel - Core i7-9700K 3.6 GHz 8-Core Processor £359.99

CPU Cooler
Cooler Master - Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler £25.42

Motherboard
Gigabyte - Z390 AORUS MASTER ATX LGA1151 Motherboard £214.00

Memory
Corsair - Vengeance LPX 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3000 Memory £69.59

Storage
Western Digital - Blue 1 TB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive £115.27

Video Card
Gigabyte - GeForce RTX 2070 8 GB WINDFORCE Video Card £437.99

Case
Thermaltake - Core X71 ATX Full Tower Case £131.81

Power Supply
EVGA - SuperNOVA G3 750 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply £118.97

Base Total: £1473.04


Thanks for any advice!

 

[jay32267]

That CPU won't bottleneck pretty much any GPU out there.
You could run an RTX 2080 Ti with it no problem.
....and I think 750 watts is enough.

 

[MrN1ce9uy]

Very nice for the most part. It is lacking in CPU cooler. Should be okay for the most part, but some games use AVX and I think it will get pretty warm.

 

[Greatham]

Very nice for the most part. It is lacking in CPU cooler. Should be okay for the most part, but some games use AVX and I think it will get pretty warm.

Thanks mate,
So I could possibly run it the way I have it. then if I notice its getting hot or fans going mental I could add in a cpu cooler at a later date,

Would something like this do the job or do you think I might have to go bigger?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Corsair-CW...21&hvtargid=pla-479597206252&psc=1&th=1&psc=1

 

[jay32267]

"So I could possibly run it the way I have it. then if I notice its getting hot or fans going mental I could add in a cpu cooler at a later date, "

This is what I would do.

 

[MrN1ce9uy]

Thanks mate,
So I could possibly run it the way I have it. then if I notice its getting hot or fans going mental I could add in a cpu cooler at a later date,

Would something like this do the job or do you think I might have to go bigger?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Corsair-CW...21&hvtargid=pla-479597206252&psc=1&th=1&psc=1

You could add one later, or get that one now. I'm not a fan of the Corsair H100i. Too many people come here after the pump quit working wondering why their CPU is overheating. But they are wildly popular and by far the most popular liquid cooler overall as far as market share goes. They sell them at Best Buy and other stores, so more people tend to buy them than any other liquid cooler.

Edit: Wait, that's the new PRO series H100i with a 5 year warranty. Those are better than the older ones. Good choice.

 

[JJoner]

You can probably save some money on the motherboard as an Aorus master is a higher end board and is overkill for no overclocking.

If you can wait then I'd wait for Ryzen 3000, you should get 9700k performance for significantly cheaper if the leaks are true.

Also the 9700k wont bottleneck the 2070. If anything the GPU will be the bottleneck, however that's pretty normal for most systems.

 

[SgtScream]

PCPartPicker Part List
CPU: AMD - Ryzen 7 2700X 3.7 GHz 8-Core Processor (£258.78 @ Aria PC)
Motherboard: Asus - TUF X470-PLUS GAMING ATX AM4 Motherboard (£117.40 @ Alza)
Memory: Corsair - Vengeance LPX 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3000 Memory (£71.58 @ Aria PC)
Storage: Samsung - 860 QVO 1 TB 2.5" Solid State Drive (£100.38 @ Aria PC)
Storage: Western Digital - Blue 3 TB 3.5" 5400RPM Internal Hard Drive (£72.78 @ Aria PC)
Video Card: Gigabyte - GeForce RTX 2080 8 GB GAMING OC Video Card (£646.00 @ Amazon UK)
Case: Thermaltake - Core X71 ATX Full Tower Case (£131.81 @ Amazon UK)
Power Supply: Corsair - TXM Gold 750 W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-modular ATX Power Supply (£79.00 @ AWD-IT)
Total: £1477.73
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-05-23 15:39 BST+0100

 

[Greatham]

Thanks guys,
Regarding the SSD, is the NVMe SSD's worthit or should the 2.5" SSD's give basically the same output,
I was thinking NVMe SSD fitting' just so I dont have to think about upgrading the ssd for several years, I dont often see builds with the NVMe SSD?

 

[jay32267]

Thanks guys,
Regarding the SSD, is the NVMe SSD's worthit or should the 2.5" SSD's give basically the same output,
I was thinking NVMe SSD fitting' just so I dont have to think about upgrading the ssd for several years, I dont often see builds with the NVMe SSD?

For gaming....for me personally I am running SATA SSDs and I don't see it worth the time or the money to upgrade to NVMes at this point. I am not waiting on load times very much at all.

 

[SgtScream]

Thanks guys,
Regarding the SSD, is the NVMe SSD's worthit or should the 2.5" SSD's give basically the same output,
I was thinking NVMe SSD fitting' just so I dont have to think about upgrading the ssd for several years, I dont often see builds with the NVMe SSD?

That's fine, it's just going to cost more money

 

[coastie65]

Hello,

First of all, thanks for any comments and information,
My current PC is getting on a bit and decided to build a good computer that will last me several years, I have put the following together and wondering what peoples option is or if they think its a good sound build!

I mainly play PC games however not an extreme hard core gamer there for I wont look at overclocking the PC hence the lack of addtional cooling system,
I am aware I can save a hundred by changing the cpu you say - i7 8700 main reason am upgrading is because my cpu is limiting the hell out my current pc,

Motherboard I believe will be good enough and can take the NVMe SSD cards and fit the cpu / handle the graphics card

Case I believe will be pretty big, with the option of putting my Hard Drives in the below section of the computer I wont be limiting my graphics card fitting and can hopefully manage my cables better.

What am not sure off is whether the Graphics card will bottleneck the cpu or vice versa, or if i have done a pretty good match up, and if I should consider a bigger PSU,

CPU
Intel - Core i7-9700K 3.6 GHz 8-Core Processor £359.99

CPU Cooler
Cooler Master - Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler £25.42

Motherboard
Gigabyte - Z390 AORUS MASTER ATX LGA1151 Motherboard £214.00

Memory
Corsair - Vengeance LPX 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3000 Memory £69.59

Storage
Western Digital - Blue 1 TB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive £115.27

Video Card
Gigabyte - GeForce RTX 2070 8 GB WINDFORCE Video Card £437.99

Case
Thermaltake - Core X71 ATX Full Tower Case £131.81

Power Supply
EVGA - SuperNOVA G3 750 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply £118.97

Base Total: £1473.04


Thanks for any advice!

This looks good. I used that HyperX 212 in my upgrade. Not really happy with the mounting aspect, but really happy with the snap on fan.

 

[JJoner]

Thanks guys,
Regarding the SSD, is the NVMe SSD's worthit or should the 2.5" SSD's give basically the same output,
I was thinking NVMe SSD fitting' just so I dont have to think about upgrading the ssd for several years, I dont often see builds with the NVMe SSD?

I'd say get an M.2 because some cost the same as sata SSD's. The Intel 660p isnt as fast as like a 970 evo but costs the same as SATA drives, while being 4x faster. It still doesn't make a difference really but why not get it if it's better for the same price.

 

[King_V]

What am not sure off is whether the Graphics card will bottleneck the cpu or vice versa, or if i have done a pretty good match up

This statement is completely without meaning. Throw "bottleneck" out of your vocabulary, and absolutely banish from your brain any concept of having to "match up" a CPU to a GPU.


Which CPU and GPU you need can be quite independent of each other. You could have a system with, say a GTX 1050 that runs very well because with a monitor that's 1280x720 @ 60Hz, then if you upgrade to a 3840x2180 monitor, it will utterly bring the system to its knees.

What is your monitor's resolution and refresh rate?
Does your monitor have FreeSync, GSync, or neither?
What games are you playing?

... and, really, I am sincerely curious as to why you think your current i7-8700 is such a limiting factor? Or is the i7-8700 something else you were considering, and not actually what you have now? In either case, have you used tools to graph CPU, GPU, RAM, etc usage over time, and the CPU is always pegging at 100%?

 

[MrN1ce9uy]

This statement is completely without meaning. Throw "bottleneck" out of your vocabulary, and absolutely banish from your brain any concept of having to "match up" a CPU to a GPU.

So tell me @King_V, why don't you pair an RTX 2080 with an Intel Celeron for your gaming PC? After all, you shouldn't have to "match up" a CPU to a GPU and there's not such thing as bottlenecking right? At what resolution would that Celeron not limit the capability of that RTX 2080? There is always a bottleneck; whether it's the CPU, GPU, RAM, monitor resolution, refresh rate, the software itself, etc.

Bottleneck = limiting factor

It's a lot more simple than some make it out to be.

&& OP never said he had an i7-8700(K). He said he could save money by going with that instead.

 

[King_V]

So tell me @King_V, why don't you pair an RTX 2080 with an Intel Celeron for your gaming PC? After all, you shouldn't have to "match up" a CPU to a GPU and there's not such thing as bottlenecking right? At what resolution would that Celeron not limit the capability of that RTX 2080? There is always a bottleneck; whether it's the CPU, GPU, RAM, monitor resolution, refresh rate, the software itself, etc.

Bottleneck = limiting factor

It's a lot more simple than some make it out to be.

&& OP never said he had an i7-8700(K). He said he could save money by going with that instead.

The term is so horribly misused as to be meaningless.

But, yes. I mean, sure, you're taking an extreme example, but it still can happen.

So, I'll take another extreme example Take a game that a Celeron would be sufficient to run, at high speed, were graphics rendering not limited. Let's say the game involves sophisticated 3D, but it's running at 1024x576 @ 60 Hz with no problem - ie: the game logic, independent of the graphics, is such that the Celeron can keep things going at that speed.

A fairly modest video card could handle that easily. Now let's go to 3840x2160 resolution, and keep the frames/sec at 60. The Celeron can still keep up, but the video card is now the issue. RTX 2080 would be necessary at that point, no?

 

[Greatham]

The term is so horribly misused as to be meaningless.

But, yes. I mean, sure, you're taking an extreme example, but it still can happen.

So, I'll take another extreme example Take a game that a Celeron would be sufficient to run, at high speed, were graphics rendering not limited. Let's say the game involves sophisticated 3D, but it's running at 1024x576 @ 60 Hz with no problem - ie: the game logic, independent of the graphics, is such that the Celeron can keep things going at that speed.

A fairly modest video card could handle that easily. Now let's go to 3840x2160 resolution, and keep the frames/sec at 60. The Celeron can still keep up, but the video card is now the issue. RTX 2080 would be necessary at that point, no?

Hi,

I get what your saying It is a very vague term and when asking for help saying bottleneck isnt very descriptive, I was more wanting to confirm that I wasnt going to restrict myself in any way with either of the pieces am getting,
My current build is ancient 9 years old, defo not the 8700 cpu, my main issue at the moment is my cpu, as in no other resource is getting drained bar the cpu, if i wanted to I could just upgrade my mobo and cpu / ram but wanted a new build that could handle games I want to play,
Currently playing destiny but don't want to be limited or worry whether my pc can handle newer games =]

Thanks for your input =]

 

[Greatham]

I'd say get an M.2 because some cost the same as sata SSD's. The Intel 660p isnt as fast as like a 970 evo but costs the same as SATA drives, while being 4x faster. It still doesn't make a difference really but why not get it if it's better for the same price.

Thank you =] will look into it =D

 

[King_V]

Hi,

I get what your saying It is a very vague term and when asking for help saying bottleneck isnt very descriptive, I was more wanting to confirm that I wasnt going to restrict myself in any way with either of the pieces am getting,
My current build is ancient 9 years old, defo not the 8700 cpu, my main issue at the moment is my cpu, as in no other resource is getting drained bar the cpu, if i wanted to I could just upgrade my mobo and cpu / ram but wanted a new build that could handle games I want to play,
Currently playing destiny but don't want to be limited or worry whether my pc can handle newer games =]

Thanks for your input =]

Gotcha - that helps clarify.

That said, I don't think that the 9700K (aside from being a K, thus overclockable) will get you much over an 8700. However, I guess a more apt comparison is 8700 vs 9700, or instead 8700k vs 9700k. At that sort of comparison, I would look for whichever one is cheaper, since the performance will be VERY close. My gut might lean for the 9th gen for the 8 cores as compared to the 8th gen for the 6 cores/12 threads. I'm thinking with gaming for a few years at least, 8 cores should be plenty, and there are apparently issues with vulnerabilities that need to be mitigated with Intel's form of hyperthreading. Still a very approximate guide is that a hyperthreaded core is kind of equivalent to 1-1/2 cores. It's not a great analogy, but is rougly what you can expect the resulting performance will be. Of course, it depends on the game/software you're running.


So: if the 9700k and 8700k are the same, or the 9700k is only a little more expensive, I'd go with the 9700k. If deciding to go with the 9700 vs 8700 instead of the K versions, then the same basic rule applies.

Now, if you're not planning on overclocking, I wouldn't suggest paying much of a premium for the k versions over the non-k. 100 or 200Mhz depending on the load/conditions is not worth any serious extra money to me. Even if you are going to overclock, overclocking tends to be "luck of the draw".

Think about it, 200Mhz extra is about 4.5% of the clock speed of these CPUs. And an extra 4.5% clock speeds gets you LESS than 4.5% extra performance increase overall, because everything else in the system (RAM, GPU, etc.,) is still unchanged.

What can I say, I'm a lot more of a "bang-for-the-buck" kind of guy instead of "absolute max"

 

[Greatham]

Gotcha - that helps clarify.

That said, I don't think that the 9700K (aside from being a K, thus overclockable) will get you much over an 8700. However, I guess a more apt comparison is 8700 vs 9700, or instead 8700k vs 9700k. At that sort of comparison, I would look for whichever one is cheaper, since the performance will be VERY close. My gut might lean for the 9th gen for the 8 cores as compared to the 8th gen for the 6 cores/12 threads. I'm thinking with gaming for a few years at least, 8 cores should be plenty, and there are apparently issues with vulnerabilities that need to be mitigated with Intel's form of hyperthreading. Still a very approximate guide is that a hyperthreaded core is kind of equivalent to 1-1/2 cores. It's not a great analogy, but is rougly what you can expect the resulting performance will be. Of course, it depends on the game/software you're running.


So: if the 9700k and 8700k are the same, or the 9700k is only a little more expensive, I'd go with the 9700k. If deciding to go with the 9700 vs 8700 instead of the K versions, then the same basic rule applies.

Now, if you're not planning on overclocking, I wouldn't suggest paying much of a premium for the k versions over the non-k. 100 or 200Mhz depending on the load/conditions is not worth any serious extra money to me. Even if you are going to overclock, overclocking tends to be "luck of the draw".

Think about it, 200Mhz extra is about 4.5% of the clock speed of these CPUs. And an extra 4.5% clock speeds gets you LESS than 4.5% extra performance increase overall, because everything else in the system (RAM, GPU, etc.,) is still unchanged.

What can I say, I'm a lot more of a "bang-for-the-buck" kind of guy instead of "absolute max"

Thanks, Greatly appreciate that info, cleared a lot up for me, I wasnt sure if going for the K series was really worthit and didnt think the K series was only really useful if you are planning on overclocking, there for it would be best to go for the 9700 or 8700, unless ofc there are better choices than them two without adding an extra 300 quid XD