Build Advice Suggestions for AMD-based Gaming PC Build ?

[NomadACB]

Hi everyone,

As the title suggests I am in need of some builds for a AMD Gaming Build. I have been using an Intel build but seemingly lots of people I know recommend switching up and trying a AMD Build!!

My Budget is £1000

I already have ample SSD Storage
I have all the peripherals

My games I currently play are Overwatch, Genshin Impact, Ark Survival Ascended, ect (Small Indie Games)

I am a also a (Very Small, part time) Streamer so build would be great to go with that.

Any help with this would be greatly appreciated

Many Thanks

 

[NomadACB]

I'm doing some Benchmark comparisons and between the CPUs there isn't much if not at all great difference perhaps the 7600X just squeezing ahead.

Between the GPUs, the first thing I noticed was that the Memory Clock was very different!!
Geforce RTX had 15000 MHz and the Radeon RX had 2250 MHz?? Is that like aa big deal or??

Also the Power needed jumps a bit with the Radeon RX and although it garners a lot more average fps on Direct 9, Direct 10, Direct 11 in the Direct 12 (which would be like Ark Survival Ascended) they both get an average of 69/70 FPS respectively.

 

[Wuwu]

The Radeon is vastly superior.

The biggest difference is from the GPU for games and that card is way way faster than a 3060.

 

[Darkbreeze]

So, there is about an 18-20% difference in performance between those two graphics cards, but there is a 70% difference in price. Now, unless you have very deep pockets and money is of no consequence to you, or unless you MUST have a certain level of performance that the 7700 XT becomes the minimum required tier to meet that requirement, it makes no sense to pay 70% more for at best a 20% increase in performance.

As well, MUCH of your FPS comes from the CPU especially on certain games or if you are running a lower resolution like you plan to, at 1080p. Considering that the 7600x has about a 20% faster single core performance than the 5700x, and about a 9% faster multithreaded performance because of that faster single core performance despite having two fewer cores, it makes that price difference of 6 bucks between those two builds seem irrelevant regardless which build you go with. Either of them is going to perform very well BUT here is another highly important thing to consider.

That 7700 XT build is using DDR4. That means that down the road when you decide to upgrade or rebuild, you are AGAIN going to have to buy new memory because at this point no new platforms will be using DDR4 anymore. Depending on how long it is until your next build that might not be an issue because if it is a VERY long time we might already be into DDR6 by then, but if you are looking at more like 3-5 years for the next upgrade after this one then it's very likely DDR6 will still be prohibitively expensive at that time and quite honestly by then we'll likely have two or three new generational platform releases using DDR5 that you could upgrade to rather than having to immediately go to DDR6 platforms, which would save you money. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for DDR4. Going forward, if you buy a platform with DDR4 now it will be the last platform you buy new that uses it and the fact that you went with DDR4 this time will have very little meaningful value in the future.

When I built a new system two years ago, I chose to remain with DDR4 because I was able to get a board that supported the 12th Gen Alder Lake 12700k AND I could use the DDR4 I already had from my previous Skylake build. Had I not been able to do that, there is no way I would have chosen to stick with ANY DDR4 platform despite the fact that DDR5 was about 40% more expensive at that time. Now, it is not, so there is really very little reason to remain on platforms using DDR4 considering they have no future and very little cost savings currently.

 

[Darkbreeze]

The Radeon is vastly superior.

The biggest difference is from the GPU for games and that card is way way faster than a 3060.

Your idea of "vastly" and my idea of vastly are obviously not in the same ballpark. 20% performance gain, for a machine that's only going to be running 1080p, and costs 70% more, makes no sense at all if you ask me. A 3060 with a 7600x will run basically ANY game at 1080p at more than acceptably high frame rates. Far more in fact. For the majority of games, it would even do completely fine at 1440p with that configuration.

And at 1080p there is NOT going to be much measurable difference based on GPU performance even if you are targeting very high frame rates. The GPU is basically going to be sitting there doing nothing for a comparatively long amount of time while the CPU serves those frames up. At 1080p with a 3060 you are NOT going to be GPU bound, but you MIGHT be CPU bound if you are looking for high frame rates in comparison to the 7600x. Even today there are very few games that use more than 6 cores well, so having those six cores come with a higher level of single core performance not only assures that you get better performance on anything that isn't optimized for at least six cores, but also it still outperforms that 5700x in multithreaded performance by about 9% so you are not losing anything either way, if it happens to be a game that IS optimized well for 6+ cores.

The only use case where that would change much would be if you are tending to do a lot of multitasking WHILE you game, as in streaming, recording, chatting, browser tabs, overlays and/or other simultaneous applications at the same time and even then, the 5700x does not have enough additional cores to offer any performance benefit over the 7600x despite it having fewer cores. Again, it beats the 5700x in both single core (By 20%) and multithreaded (By 9%) performance. And since at 1080p being GPU bound wouldn't be part of the conversation, that means that CPU performance is likely the bigger consideration. But again, ANY of these systems will perform perfectly fine at 1080p so maybe you want to go with the 7700 XT, HOPING that it will still be functional by the time you do the next upgrade, but I wouldn't count on it.

If you game a lot, and especially if you game fairly hard and for long periods of time, most of these cards are lucky to make it 5 or 6 years without developing some kind of problem. If you are a more casual gamer who doesn't tend to run very long sessions and keeps his system very regularly maintained, then it MIGHT be worth it for the next upgrade OR if you plan to move from 1080p to a higher resolution display at some point.

 

[NomadACB]

After reading through your response I think I'm gonna go with your build suggesting DarkBreeze. Thankyou so much for the suggestions and each of your answers been full of explanation so I can understand and gain some knowledge myself! I think your absolute right on a lot of things when it comes to that build vs others on suggestion. Appreciate everyone else giving me ideas and info though.

One last question is what case would you suggest to house it all? I recently done some thinking and my current case is ready for retirement also! I don't care for fancy tbh just something with good ventilation.

 

[Wuwu]

Please click the green human to continue - UserBenchmark

gpu.userbenchmark.com

Oh well.

edit... read it as 7800 xt not 7700, my bad.

 

[Darkbreeze]

If you want a different case, then to be honest that's almost it's own thread most of the time. But, we can do that here too. Really it totally depends on "what do YOU need and/or want in a case?"

Personally I think it is very hard to beat some flavor of Fractal Design case because they have basically something for everybody, or at least most people, and they are super terrific when it comes to product support if it's needed. They just don't even mess around. They are better even than EVGA in my opinion, and that's saying something.

Small? Large? Mid? Features? Color? RGB/ARGB? Water cooling support? PSU shroud? And so on.

 

[NomadACB]

Gotcha. I think my Partners PC is set up inside a Fractal too and its like a mid case. Well, its size means it can fit perfectly inside a 20KG Suitcase for travel!! I think I'll probably go for a copy cat of that most likely

Thanks for all your help everyone and too you DarkBreeze a massive thankyou. Really appreciate all the advice and knowledge

 

[NomadACB]

She has this Case

Fractal Design Focus G - Mid Tower Computer Case - ATX - High Airflow - 2x Fractal Design Silent LL Series 120mm White LED Fans Included - USB 3.0 - Window Side Panel - Black​

 

[Darkbreeze]

Focus G is is a good case, for the price, but it's a very entry level case and lacks a lot of the features and quality found on the majority of Fractal Design cases. Totally fine if you like it but just be aware of that. Be aware that the Focus G only has acrylic side panel options if you want a window, no tempered glass. That means you can expect that panel to get scratched very easily and likely look like garbage before too long if you plan to move it around much especially inside a suitcase. Or at least have potential for it. And there are no upgrade options for a TG side panel available for that case. Also, it's side panel is very thin and easily bent and it has a fairly weak side panel retention mechanism.

I've built several builds with the Focus G and again it's perfectly fine for the price but if we are being honest I think you'd be better off sticking with what you have now than spending the money on that case, or, if you really do want to make a change of case then I'd bite the bullet and expect that you're going to need to put out a moderately more expensive investment in order to select a model (Regardless of what brand and model you end up going with) that makes it actually worth spending money on rather than using what you have now.

Fractal design, Corsair, Lian Li, Cooler master, Be Quiet, Phanteks, Cougar and Hyte all have some models worth considering. If you don't see anything from any of them that strikes your fancy you might also look at NZXT and Thermaltake. They have a few decent choices as well although I generally avoid them. Thermaltake, because they tend to have a lot of gimmicky models and some that are just not good quality and NZXT because while they do have a few decent models, they also have a serious "wtf" factor on some of things they do like their CAM software which they require for just about anything that needs control software and has the NZXT name attached to it, and crap like their "smart device" that is not only not smart, doesn't actually DO anything, and is purely scam marketing. But they have a couple worth considering if you can't find anything decent you like from one of these others, which is doubtful.

 

[helper800]

Your idea of "vastly" and my idea of vastly are obviously not in the same ballpark. 20% performance gain, for a machine that's only going to be running 1080p, and costs 70% more, makes no sense at all if you ask me. A 3060 with a 7600x will run basically ANY game at 1080p at more than acceptably high frame rates. Far more in fact. For the majority of games, it would even do completely fine at 1440p with that configuration.

And at 1080p there is NOT going to be much measurable difference based on GPU performance even if you are targeting very high frame rates. The GPU is basically going to be sitting there doing nothing for a comparatively long amount of time while the CPU serves those frames up. At 1080p with a 3060 you are NOT going to be GPU bound, but you MIGHT be CPU bound if you are looking for high frame rates in comparison to the 7600x. Even today there are very few games that use more than 6 cores well, so having those six cores come with a higher level of single core performance not only assures that you get better performance on anything that isn't optimized for at least six cores, but also it still outperforms that 5700x in multithreaded performance by about 9% so you are not losing anything either way, if it happens to be a game that IS optimized well for 6+ cores.

The only use case where that would change much would be if you are tending to do a lot of multitasking WHILE you game, as in streaming, recording, chatting, browser tabs, overlays and/or other simultaneous applications at the same time and even then, the 5700x does not have enough additional cores to offer any performance benefit over the 7600x despite it having fewer cores. Again, it beats the 5700x in both single core (By 20%) and multithreaded (By 9%) performance. And since at 1080p being GPU bound wouldn't be part of the conversation, that means that CPU performance is likely the bigger consideration. But again, ANY of these systems will perform perfectly fine at 1080p so maybe you want to go with the 7700 XT, HOPING that it will still be functional by the time you do the next upgrade, but I wouldn't count on it.

If you game a lot, and especially if you game fairly hard and for long periods of time, most of these cards are lucky to make it 5 or 6 years without developing some kind of problem. If you are a more casual gamer who doesn't tend to run very long sessions and keeps his system very regularly maintained, then it MIGHT be worth it for the next upgrade OR if you plan to move from 1080p to a higher resolution display at some point.

A 7700 XT is ~70% faster than a 3060 12gb. That is a fact...

 

[Darkbreeze]

A 7700 XT is ~70% faster than a 3060 12gb. That is a fact...

No, it isn't. It COMPLETELY depends on WHAT you are doing, what resolution you are doing it at, what your quality settings are set to AND whether the CPU is sufficiently powerful enough to ensure the GPU isn't just "sitting there" waiting on it. As well, at 1080p, a card that is "70% faster" than an RTX 3060 is really NOT needed, so it's kind of a waste if there are no plans to move to a higher resolution display, or game on multiple 1080p displays rather than just one, in the near future. But yes, obviously it's a more powerful card, nobody is arguing that.

 

[helper800]

No, it isn't. It COMPLETELY depends on WHAT you are doing, what resolution you are doing it at, what your quality settings are set to AND whether the CPU is sufficiently powerful enough to ensure the GPU isn't just "sitting there" waiting on it. As well, at 1080p, a card that is "70% faster" than an RTX 3060 is really NOT needed, so it's kind of a waste if there are no plans to move to a higher resolution display, or game on multiple 1080p displays rather than just one, in the near future. But yes, obviously it's a more powerful card, nobody is arguing that.

A 3060 is a fairly anemic card with newer games today and will only get less performance on new games into the future. Compare the FPS in games that were similarly benchmarked in both of these Toms articles: 3060, 7700 XT

Borderlands 3 ultra 1080p DX12
3060 - 76.9 fps avg
7700 xt - 152.9 fps avg

Horizon zero dawn 1080p Ultimate
3060 - 95.7
7700 xt - 163.0

Watch Dogs Legion 1080p ultra
3060 - 39.0 fps
7700 XT - 123.4 fps

There are not many direct comparisons between the 3060 12gb and the 7700 XT because they are a magnitude of order apart by performance. If you take into account that the 7700 XT performs within 5% of the 6800 XT it makes it easier to compare performance between the two cards.

*I just checked userbenchmark, a site highly biased in favor of Nvidia and Intel products and it even says the 7700 XT is 71% faster than the 3060 12gb... I dont put any weight to the "benchmark" that site uses, but even so, with everything going against the 7700 XT on UB, it says 70% faster for the 7700 XT...

 

[Darkbreeze]

Well, I'll say this. And it's just an observation, not really a rebuttal of any kind. Any game, like Watch Dogs, that only gives you 39FPS at 1080p with an RTX 3060 is absolutely not a game I'd ever buy or play. And it's not surprising, as that game has ALWAYS been very poorly optimized. And I mean ALL versions of it. Just saying. Again, not really relevant to this conversation but an observation of, a garbage game.

But regardless, IMO your examples are not relevant because they are clearly cherry picked titled from among those tested. Looking at the full on 1080p 13 game average for the RTX 3060 on the TH reviews you linked to, it had an average 1% low FPS (Which is what ACTUALLY matters, not average peak FPS) of 73.2 FPS with a peak average FPS of 98.5.

The 7700 XT however, had an average 1% low FPS of 67 FPS with a peak average FPS of 86.7.

So either in general that card actually performs WORSE, OR, the review results are skewed and not trustworthy. Regardless though, a 1% low of 73.2 average is more than sufficient to exceed the 60 FPS expectation, which like I said, means that unless you are playing something you specifically know you need something more for (In which case, SAY that) then it is perfectly fine AND not everybody requires "Ultra" everything to be happy. Dropping to high settings still offers very good eye candy and considerably higher FPS performance. If however you are looking for very high refresh rate/FPS gaming, then you need to either expect to need to drop some settings down OR increase the budget. Going with the original £1000 budget would allow you to have both the higher (Questionably based on those reviews though) performing 7700 XT AND the 7600x or another higher performing CPU than the 5700X.

Again though, ANY of these configurations is going to offer good performance. Passmark's 3d score, which is what gaming is all about is the 3d performance, only shows the 7700 XT having a 20% difference from the 3060 though, so where you get 70% is just beyond me and isn't realistic.

Radeon RX 7700 XT vs GeForce RTX 3060 12GB [videocardbenchmark.net] by PassMark Software

www.videocardbenchmark.net

 

[helper800]

Well, I'll say this. And it's just an observation, not really a rebuttal of any kind. Any game, like Watch Dogs, that only gives you 39FPS at 1080p with an RTX 3060 is absolutely not a game I'd ever buy or play. And it's not surprising, as that game has ALWAYS been very poorly optimized. And I mean ALL versions of it. Just saying. Again, not really relevant to this conversation but an observation of, a garbage game.

But regardless, IMO your examples are not relevant because they are clearly cherry picked titled from among those tested. Looking at the full on 1080p 13 game average for the RTX 3060 on the TH reviews you linked to, it had an average 1% low FPS (Which is what ACTUALLY matters, not average peak FPS) of 73.2 FPS with a peak average FPS of 98.5.

The 7700 XT however, had an average 1% low FPS of 67 FPS with a peak average FPS of 86.7.

So either in general that card actually performs WORSE, OR, the review results are skewed and not trustworthy. Regardless though, a 1% low of 73.2 average is more than sufficient to exceed the 60 FPS expectation, which like I said, means that unless you are playing something you specifically know you need something more for (In which case, SAY that) then it is perfectly fine AND not everybody requires "Ultra" everything to be happy. Dropping to high settings still offers very good eye candy and considerably higher FPS performance. If however you are looking for very high refresh rate/FPS gaming, then you need to either expect to need to drop some settings down OR increase the budget. Going with the original £1000 budget would allow you to have both the higher (Questionably based on those reviews though) performing 7700 XT AND the 7600x or another higher performing CPU than the 5700X.

Again though, ANY of these configurations is going to offer good performance. Passmark's 3d score, which is what gaming is all about is the 3d performance, only shows the 7700 XT having a 20% difference from the 3060 though, so where you get 70% is just beyond me and isn't realistic.

Radeon RX 7700 XT vs GeForce RTX 3060 12GB [videocardbenchmark.net] by PassMark Software

www.videocardbenchmark.net

The 3060 review was when it released 3 years ago, if the 3060 were run on the same benchmarks as the 7700 XT it would show only about 2/3rds the performance of the 7700 xt. I showed the game performance that the two cards had in common between the two benchmarks because they were directly comparable. The 3060 is about 25-30% slower than the 6700 xt listed in that 7700 xt review. The 3060 would get about 50-60 fps average in the same benchmark as the 7700 XT, and the 1% lows would be in the high 40s at best if not low 40s.

Look at the relative performance here and scroll all the way down where it shows the 7700xt at 162% the performance of the 3060.

From techpowerup:

 

[Darkbreeze]

But you used that review. It's what YOU linked to. So is it relevant, or is it not? LOL.

 

[helper800]

But you used that review. It's what YOU linked to. So is it relevant, or is it not? LOL.

No, the only relevant data is what we can directly compare... If we were to take those two charts you linked as equivalent the 3060 would be 15% faster than the 7700 XT, which is obviously wrong....

 

[Darkbreeze]

I agree. It IS wrong, however, the supposed "platform" seems to the same, so it SHOULD be at least comparable. And, if it's not, then it comes to it being a CPU bound issue, which is what I said from the start might be a factor in high FPS scenarios. Not arguing with you, just saying, a little one way and also a little the other, but overall, the 3060 is TOTALLY fine for MOST games at 1080p.

You can't tell me it isn't, because with high settings, even at 1440p, I am able to play MOST games, with only a very few that I might have to drop a few more settings down with custom sliders, with my RTX 2060 and a 12700k. Almost everything does easily between 60-144fps at ultra or high and basically anything will with that card if I drop settings to a combination of high with a few mostly hardcore settings set a little lower. Depends on the game but totally does not feel like I am really compromising anything when I do that. And if you DO prefer the eye candy, maybe the FPS aspect isn't a really big deal to you anyhow. Some people really just like to "play", and don't care about any competitive aspects of the game so long as they aren't seeing tearing or micro stutters, or whatever.

 

[helper800]

I agree. It IS wrong, however, the supposed "platform" seems to the same, so it SHOULD be at least comparable. And, if it's not, then it comes to it being a CPU bound issue, which is what I said from the start might be a factor in high FPS scenarios. Not arguing with you, just saying, a little one way and also a little the other, but overall, the 3060 is TOTALLY fine for MOST games at 1080p.

So the reason both of the overall geomean 1080p performance metrics for the Tom's benchmarks are not comparable is because only three of the games that were tested were the same. Those are the games I laid out in my post. The other games that were tested were different so the average overall testing FPS metrics are not comparable. I am also not arguing, just trying to explain the logic behind what I was saying, I obviously did a poor job.

You can't tell me it isn't, because with high settings, even at 1440p, I am able to play MOST games, with only a very few that I might have to drop a few more settings down with custom sliders, with my RTX 2060 and a 12700k. Almost everything does easily between 60-144fps at ultra or high and basically anything will with that card if I drop settings to a combination of high with a few mostly hardcore settings set a little lower. Depends on the game but totally does not feel like I am really compromising anything when I do that. And if you DO prefer the eye candy, maybe the FPS aspect isn't a really big deal to you anyhow. Some people really just like to "play", and don't care about any competitive aspects of the game so long as they aren't seeing tearing or micro stutters, or whatever.

A 3060 will not be able to play a lot of the newer games at 60 fps high settings, what I consider the minimum for gaming. Newer / harder to run games include; Hogwarts Legacy, Cyberpunk 2077, Microsoft Flight Simulator, Red Dead Redemption 2, God of War, Forspoken, Uncharted: The legacy of thieves, Halo Infinite, Horizon Zero Dawn, Metro Exodus, FarCry 6, Diablo 4, The Last of Us 1 & 2, Starfield, et cetera. I am sure I missed something.

My main concern is that if you have to drop a bunch of settings to get 60 FPS today, what about a year or two from now? Will you be able to run that new game that comes out at 60 fps at high settings? Probably not considering it cannot do that with all games today.

 

[Darkbreeze]

Well, at least some of those I think you're not entirely accurate about, however, the OP clearly outlined the games they play and none of them are anywhere near as demanding as those you outlined, which are of course some of the most demanding games we've ever seen and while they ARE popular, they are definitely not the MOST popular or common.

Again though, if you require that being able to play such games at high or better be on the table, then you have to be more realistic about your budget. Otherwise, you make concessions. And, I know for a fact that a lot of people do not require being able to play at a minimum of 60 fps high settings on very demanding games, because I encounter them saying so on here all the time. Some people are fine with a combination of medium to high settings if the game is particularly demanding. But I think the OP has plenty of food for thought with everything that's been talked about already so I'll just leave off any further discussion unless they have specific questions. Good luck.

 

[NomadACB]

Well definitely got plenty of food for thought from this thread!!

I have gone ahead to purchase the parts from DarkBreeze's recommendations but before I go ahead with a GPU, is their any alternative middle ground pieces?? Not worried but just curious is all!

Also with the Ram is their alternatives? nothing to do with price but more availability!

And another question would be would this case be a good pick?

Corsair 4000D AIRFLOW Tempered Glass Mid-Tower ATX Case - High-Airflow - Cable Management System - Spacious Interior - Two Included 120 mm Fans - Black on Amazon​

 

[Darkbreeze]

Yes. The 4000D airflow is a pretty good choice.

Not sure what you mean by "middle ground pieces"?

 

[helper800]

Well definitely got plenty of food for thought from this thread!!

I have gone ahead to purchase the parts from DarkBreeze's recommendations but before I go ahead with a GPU, is their any alternative middle ground pieces?? Not worried but just curious is all!

Also with the Ram is their alternatives? nothing to do with price but more availability!

And another question would be would this case be a good pick?

Corsair 4000D AIRFLOW Tempered Glass Mid-Tower ATX Case - High-Airflow - Cable Management System - Spacious Interior - Two Included 120 mm Fans - Black on Amazon​

Used 3070, 3080, and AMD 6800, 6800xt will be more than a new 3060 but less than a new 7700XT for much more performance if you care to get used parts. Even a new 4060 ti would be much better than a 3060 and has all the latest features from Nvidia.

 

[helper800]

Yes. The 4000D airflow is a pretty good choice.

Not sure what you mean by "middle ground pieces"?

I think he means less expensive than a 7700 XT but more performant than a 3060.

 

[NomadACB]

Thanks for the feedback on the case and also yea I should have been more clear but basically what Helper said, cheaper than the 7700XT but more than 3060 on money and maybe a little on performance just in case i stretch a bit. either way I am happy with the option of 3060 as I can always upgrade down the line but for now it would be a card capable to deliver for the games I play for sure.

I should state I have purchased and today received the AMD Ryzen 5 7600X 4.7 GHz 6-Core Processor