Discussion New to computer building. How are my choices?

[Cjesseg]

I'm planning on building my own computer from scratch.
I'm totally new to building computers, however. The only thing that I know is what I've read that I'll need to build one. And I'll read more on how to actually build one when I get all the parts.

With a lot of research about the bests and pros/cons of each. I've made my choices.

I have it picked out here
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/DMJzJ8
(Let me know if the link doesn't work and I list the parts myself.)

This is a build that will be more dedicated to both gaming. Such as Skyrim, Fallout, etc. and game development using Unreal Engine 4, Make Human, and Blender. Than anything else.
But will also have music creation on the side.

Honestly, I'm not too worried about the price if its a solid, trustworthy build. I'm not wealthy by any means lol don't get me wrong! I'm just more worried about going cheap and getting crap equipment that's a waste of both time and money.

Please let me know what you think. The site says they're compatible. But I would like to know from experienced humans if they are. Keep in mind I'm new, so go easy lol
Of course if I forgot anything, please let me know. I would also very much appreciate it if you would list the tools and any other accessories that I will need when I go to put it together. Or at least a link to a good list. So ill be ready when I do.
Thank you so much!

 

[kanewolf]

A 1TB HDD with a 1TB SSD is an unusual combination. Usually the HDD would be much larger capacity since it would be for bulk storage of video or photos.

 

[Cjesseg]

A 1TB HDD with a 1TB SSD is an unusual combination. Usually the HDD would be much larger capacity since it would be for bulk storage of video or photos.

I read a 1 TB should be plenty of room. And a 2 way more then enough. But I'm taking any and all advice into consideration. So thank you for saying something.
I also read that the SSD isn't AS necessary to have a bunch of space on as the HDD. So should go with a 2TB+ HDD and stick with a 1TB SSD?

 

[USAFRet]

For me, I would not build a PC without an SSD for the OS and applications.
But you could fit in a larger HDD for not a lot more money.

Or even reduce down to a 500GB SSD, and increase the HDD size for the same overall money.

All up to you and your space needs.

 

[Shektron]

I read a 1 TB should be plenty of room. And a 2 way more then enough. But I'm taking any and all advice into consideration. So thank you for saying something.
I also read that the SSD isn't AS necessary to have a bunch of space on as the HDD. So should go with a 2TB+ HDD and stick with a 1TB SSD?

It may be an unusual combination, but if it's all you think you need there's no need for more storage. Only buy more storage if you think you'll need it, no point buying a large HDD if you will only store so much data on it at any time. If you think a total of 2 TB is enough for the number of software and games you have installed at any point on time, then no need to buy more - it's just not very common to have same-sized SSD and HDD, nothing wrong with it though.

One more thing - if you aren't going to overclock, and even if you will, you really don't need such a beefy cooler - for moderate overclocks, the stock cooler is good enough, no need to spend extra. But if you are going for higher overclocks, then it's good enough.

Also, where's your motherboard?

 

[Cjesseg]

It may be an unusual combination, but if it's all you think you need there's no need for more storage. Only buy more storage if you think you'll need it, no point buying a large HDD if you will only store so much data on it at any time. If you think a total of 2 TB is enough for the number of software and games you have installed at any point on time, then no need to buy more - it's just not very common to have same-sized SSD and HDD, nothing wrong with it though.

One more thing - if you aren't going to overclock, and even if you will, you really don't need such a beefy cooler - for moderate overclocks, the stock cooler is good enough, no need to spend extra. But if you are going for higher overclocks, then it's good enough.

Also, where's your motherboard?

Thank you. I do plan on a higher overclock.
And I added the motherboard in. I noticed that it was missing after looking over it.
Here's the link back to it. I'll also edit the post to update the list.

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/DMJzJ8

 

[Shektron]

Thank you. I do plan on a higher overclock.
And I added the motherboard in. I noticed that it was missing after looking over it.
Here's the link back to it. I'll also edit the post to update the list.

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/DMJzJ8

And have you considered waiting for Ryzen 3000 to launch? Rumored launch date is July 7, so if you can wait then it has a good per core speed increase over second gen, which can be important for gaming and maybe even game development. If you can't wait that long, however, then I think you have yourself a good list of parts.

 

[Cjesseg]

And have you considered waiting for Ryzen 3000 to launch? Rumored launch date is July 7, so if you can wait then it has a good per core speed increase over second gen, which can be important for gaming and maybe even game development. If you can't wait that long, however, then I think you have yourself a good list of parts.

Thank you so much. Big help! I can definitely wait lol I've waited this long. A couple months longer isn't a big deal

 

[cryoburner]

Rumored launch date is July 7...

It's not only rumored anymore. AMD's CEO Lisa Su announced in her Computex presentation that "all of these processors go on shelves on July 7th", referring to at least the 3700X, 3800X and 3900X (8 and 12 core models) that were talked about during the presentation. The only thing is, launch prices of the lowest-priced 8-core start at $329. That's about $120 (57% more) than what this Ryzen 2700 is selling for. The performance per core might be around 20% faster when both CPUs are overclocked, but you would be paying a fair amount more for that added performance.

The 6-core, 12 thread models might also be worth considering though. If they offer similar per-core performance gains over their predecessors, the $199 Ryzen 3600 might come relatively close to the 2700 at heavily-multithreaded workloads, while offering substantially better performance at more moderately-threaded tasks, which tend to be more common. Assuming those performance numbers pan out, and the 3600 ends up overclocking well, I would personally take that over a similarly priced 2700. It was a bit less clear about whether those would be coming on the 7th though, as they were not mentioned in the main presentation. With first-gen Ryzen, the 6-core models came a month later, while with the second generation they launched at the same time.

As for that current build, it looks pretty good, though at least going by those prices listed on PCPartPicker, I wouldn't pay $225 for a 4GB 7200RPM hard drive. At this point, the main advantage of traditional hard drives is their low cost-per-gigabyte for bulk storage. Paying significantly more for slightly better performance generally doesn't make much sense, as it brings prices closer to SSDs. I would look for a less expensive drive, or one with more capacity if you happen to think you might have need for it.

 

[King_V]

Do you have a monitor? What is the resolution and refresh rate, and does it have FreeSync, GSync, or neither?

 

[Cjesseg]

Do you have a monitor? What is the resolution and refresh rate, and does it have FreeSync, GSync, or neither?

I haven't picked a monitor yet, no.
What do you recommend? I'm open to suggestions.

 

[Cjesseg]

It's not only rumored anymore. AMD's CEO Lisa Su announced in her Computex presentation that "all of these processors go on shelves on July 7th", referring to at least the 3700X, 3800X and 3900X (8 and 12 core models) that were talked about during the presentation. The only thing is, launch prices of the lowest-priced 8-core start at $329. That's about $120 (57% more) than what this Ryzen 2700 is selling for. The performance per core might be around 20% faster when both CPUs are overclocked, but you would be paying a fair amount more for that added performance.

The 6-core, 12 thread models might also be worth considering though. If they offer similar per-core performance gains over their predecessors, the $199 Ryzen 3600 might come relatively close to the 2700 at heavily-multithreaded workloads, while offering substantially better performance at more moderately-threaded tasks, which tend to be more common. Assuming those performance numbers pan out, and the 3600 ends up overclocking well, I would personally take that over a similarly priced 2700. It was a bit less clear about whether those would be coming on the 7th though, as they were not mentioned in the main presentation. With first-gen Ryzen, the 6-core models came a month later, while with the second generation they launched at the same time.

As for that current build, it looks pretty good, though at least going by those prices listed on PCPartPicker, I wouldn't pay $225 for a 4GB 7200RPM hard drive. At this point, the main advantage of traditional hard drives is their low cost-per-gigabyte for bulk storage. Paying significantly more for slightly better performance generally doesn't make much sense, as it brings prices closer to SSDs. I would look for a less expensive drive, or one with more capacity if you happen to think you might have need for it.

Thank you for all of the info. I'm going to wait for this new Ryzen. I have to save and buy each piece one at a time anyway lol
What hard drive to you recommend?
As stated, the price isn't that big of a deal to me. But I see what you mean. I chose it for it's great rating on different sites.

I'm open to all suggestions. And I'll look into it. Thank you so much!

 

[Ponckenzy]

I'm planning on building my own computer from scratch.
I'm totally new to building computers, however. The only thing that I know is what I've read that I'll need to build one. And I'll read more on how to actually build one when I get all the parts.

With a lot of research about the bests and pros/cons of each. I've made my choices.

I have it picked out here
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/DMJzJ8
(Let me know if the link doesn't work and I list the parts myself.)

This is a build that will be more dedicated to both gaming. Such as Skyrim, Fallout, etc. and game development using Unreal Engine 4, Make Human, and Blender. Than anything else.
But will also have music creation on the side.

Honestly, I'm not too worried about the price if its a solid, trustworthy build. I'm not wealthy by any means lol don't get me wrong! I'm just more worried about going cheap and getting crap equipment that's a waste of both time and money.

Please let me know what you think. The site says they're compatible. But I would like to know from experienced humans if they are. Keep in mind I'm new, so go easy lol
Of course if I forgot anything, please let me know. I would also very much appreciate it if you would list the tools and any other accessories that I will need when I go to put it together. Or at least a link to a good list. So ill be ready when I do.
Thank you so much!

Get a ryzen 2700x instead of a non x

 

[Cjesseg]

Get a ryzen 2700x instead of a non x

What's the main difference, if you don't mind explaining, please?

 

[King_V]

I haven't picked a monitor yet, no.
What do you recommend? I'm open to suggestions.

This is what I call a Hard Question, and a LOT of it is based on subjective preferences. If there's a store (say, Microcenter, for example) fairly close to you that has a large selection of monitors on display, I extremely strongly recommend going there and looking at several in person.

For example, I used to have a 27-inch 1920x1080 monitor, which for me looked great, but some people say is too big for that resolution. Likewise with my son's current 34-inch 2560x1080.

First rule: More pixels means more GPU power required for gaming. Whereas a sub $200 graphics card can manage 1920x1080 at 60fps for a lot of AAA games at high/max details, if you go with a 4k monitor (3840x2160, so 4 times the number of pixels as the 1920x1080) then only a GTX 2080Ti is going to be able to manage 60fps at max details on AAA games.

Alternately, a 1920x1080 monitor with, say, a 60Hz refresh rate requires no more than a modest GPU , whereas the same resolution at 75Hz, and thus ideally, gaming at 75 fps, requires a somewhat more GPU, and if you push to 120 or 144Hz and want to take full advantage of that, even at the same resolution, starts moving into the upper-end of GPU performance and power.

I personally have a very strong preference for ultrawide, larger, and curved, but that all makes things more expensive.

Finally, adaptive sync is VERY helpful to keep things smooth. Basically, if the frames-per-second in a given game for a given GPU starts to vary, dipping down at more complex scenes, the monitor's refresh rate will dip as well to match, to prevent tearing and maintain smoothness. FreeSync works with AMD GPUs, although Nvidia is now supporting them on their 10, 16, and 20 series GPUs, and GSync, which is Nvidia-only and costs more. I think with Nvidia now supporting FreeSync, that GSync will be a dying technology, so I'd definitely go with a FreeSync monitor.

So, the personal preference is one thing, and the other is that the monitor resolution and refresh rate (or range, when talking about FreeSync). And, finally, what your goals are. ie: if you want higher res, vs if you want faster refresh rates, or both, etc. Because of this, your GPU and Monitor selections are really tied to each other.

 

[cryoburner]

What's the main difference, if you don't mind explaining, please?

If you are overclocking with an aftermarket cooler, there's not much difference.

At stock clocks, the 2700X has notably faster multi-core boost clocks that come relatively close to overclocked performance out of the box. With the 2700, you need to overclock to get to that level of performance. The 2700X also comes with a better stock cooler to better support those higher clocks, but if you were going with an aftermarket cooler anyway, that wouldn't be particularly relevant.

Again, if you are not in a hurry, I would see what the 3000 series has to offer though, as performance per core should see a nice boost. Also, AMD is going to be launching new graphics cards as well, and while the exact performance level or pricing is not yet known, one of the cards is expected to be around the performance level of a 2070. There are also rumors that Nvidia may be planning to launch some updated cards to counter them, and it has been suggested that prices of some of their existing cards might be reduced to some extent. More will likely be announced at E3, which is within the next couple weeks.

As for hard drives, I have no specific models to suggest, though I think the WD Black 4TB you have in that PCPartPicker list is an older listing, as they can be found for around $160...
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/dG...4tb-35-7200rpm-internal-hard-drive-wd4005fzbx

It's also sometimes possible to find 4TB 7200RPM drives on sale for closer to $100, though WD Blacks typically don't get that low.

 

[Cjesseg]

The PC part picker website says that the "Noctua - NH-D15 82.5 CFM CPU Cooler may require a separately available mounting adapter to fit the MSI - X470 GAMING PLUS ATX AM4 Motherboard."
I've also read that the site has been incorrect at times.

What do you guys think? What is the adapter that it says that I might need?

 

[King_V]

My thoughts would be to wonder why you're not going with the included Wraith cooler? AMD's included coolers are pretty competent.

If it proves insufficient (you plan to overclock, etc, or want something beefier and quieter) then you can always look into an aftermarket cooler later.