New desktop computer

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Flayed

Senior member
Nov 30, 2016
431
102
86
Thanks.

Well, Brazil indeed has some of the most expensive electronics in the world, due to taxes which amount to some 50% of the final price. I hate it but I got used to it, as I do not really have a choice. Most people here buy very low end computers, but I really prefer to spend some money and get a better experience.

This is why I can spend some US$500 in a processor, and it would still be OK.

Would the i7-8700, for instance, be a better fit than the Ryzen 2700? The prices are not that different. It is a choice between core count and core speed, I suppose.

They are both good processors. The Intel chip has I think a 10% IPC advantage and its max all core boost is 4.3Ghz. The AMD chip has moar cores lol and a max boost of 4 Ghz I think. So the intel chip is roughly 15% faster but with 6/12 cores instead of 8/16.

The AMD chip comes with a better free heatsink but seeing where you live you should probably buy a better heatsink for whichever CPU you decide to get.

I don't really know which is a better fit for you. Toss a coin? For me I would buy the cheapest one lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arkaign

skaertus

Senior member
Mar 20, 2010
217
28
91
Well, perhaps it's a pragmatic thing after all. Let's look at some history of processor pricing to get an idea (US prices for reference, but it should be a decent reference point).

Way back when Intel released the Pentium 2, it was on a different interface than the previous consumer cpus. Prior to this, AMD and Intel processors shared the same motherboards in many cases, K5 and K6 series in Socket 7 alongside Pentium and Pentium MMX, and if course before that, 386 and 486. Aside from some various leapfrogging, the general rule was that Intel was often faster, but also more expensive. In these days however pricing even for modest PCs were still fairly high.

When P2 hit, essentially a consumer version of the Pentium Pro / P6 with some enhancements, using a cartridge format to store a good bit of local but off-die cache (contrast to previous gens depending on motherboard cache!) and generally being a pretty expensive upgrade all around but with some definite advantages. AMD was forced to stay on Socket 7, working with some mfgs to create 'Super 7' motherboards to stay in competition, and pushing faster FSB, more cache, and instruction set innovation like 3dnow to try and compete. Pretty quickly it became a mixed bag. Very competitive in some areas, but badly behind in others, AMD really needed a new architecture and new motherboard design to compete with the higher range Pentium II and III CPUs. But, the pricing tended to heavily favor AMD for value, but high ASP for Intel.

So, AMD K7 on Slot A, Irongate Chipset. This first gen was basically a head to head equal footing with Intel, and, the pricing reflected this. Then process tech improved to no longer need off-die cache, so cheaper interfaces went back to sockets for both AMD and Intel, but they didn't start sharing motherboards again. Socket A vs 370, Athlon, Duron, and Athlon XP vs Pentium III and Celeron. Aggressive price wars brought PC prices way down for pretty reasonable performance, savvy overclocking could make for some stellar systems with wise choices of particularly good AMD or Intel options.

Some funny things happened during this time frame. Race to 1Ghz, and at least twice, Intel released CPUs that were basically overclocked/barely stable at stock speeds. The initial slot 1 Pentium III 600 used 2.05v instead of 2.0v, and it was not uncommon for them to fail in benchmarks. It happened again when Intel tried to go beyond 1Ghz and a 1.13Ghz P3 was so bad it had to be recalled.

Looking forward a bit, Intel really hit a wall with the move to the Pentium 4 Willamette on Socket 423. On paper, the new CPU sounded amazing. Huge leaps forward in clock speed, new buzzwords like netburst, new technology like Hyperthreading. And tied initially to a very fast but VERY expensive new memory called RDRAM, aka Rambus. This was something of a Waterloo for Intel, as it fared rather poorly in a lot.of things compared to ever faster Athlon XPs, using way cheaper motherboard, DDR memory, and CPU pricing. This gave Intel a black eye for most of these years in terms of value and even performance amongst many enthusiasts.

The interesting thing is that once Intel got to the improved generations of the Pentium 4, it was actually a very good CPU. Northwood revisions on 533 and 800 bus, with improved DDR memory remained equal or faster than Athlon XP for basically the duration of these generations, with both AMD and Intel also offering compelling lower models that were very capable of overclocking to the top echelons to compete with $1000 models. And whether you hit Athlon XP 3000+/3200+ or 3-3.4Ghz P4, you had a monster for the era.

Then we got to the most vulnerable period in the history of Intel. The new Prescott die shrink of Pentium 4 was a bitter disappointment, offering little improvement to speak of, and even having worse thermals and some IPC drop compared to the outstanding Northwood C variants. This couldn't be more poorly timed, as AMD began rolling out first Opteron Socket 940, and then Athlon 64 on both socket 940 and 939. A profound performance lead opened up favoring AMD in most cases, particularly so when looking at clock speeds and efficiency. In the very beginning it was more subtle, but as AMD moved beyond the initial 3200+ range to 3500+, 3800+, and beyond, Intel was unable to ramp P4 Prescott up to remain competitive, eventually having to scrap plans for the entire roadmap they had planned.

But, this success did not come at bargain prices. AMD moved ASP sharply up, and in 2003-2006 era, when they offered the Athlon 64 FX and X2 models, they began to outright flip and become the more expensive option in a lot of scenarios. $1000 flagship models became common, and with their X2s, their 'bargain' model was over $500, with a cheaper option not appearing until much later, and only then for $300+.

Is it possible they could have gathered even better traction with more competitive pricing? Would their shareholders understood? I'm not sure, but in my opinion at least some of their opportunity was blown here, as weirdly you could get more value from a mid-range P4 or Pentium D build for a time, despite the AMD products becoming absolutely supreme in the higher performance tiers.

Then, pretty much a Titanic moment for AMD arrived. Conroe aka Core 2 Duo. I was just looking at the March 9th 2006 Performance Preview and July 14th 2006 reviews of Core 2 Duo, and the comments are insanely entertaining. Several years of AMD offering increasingly dominant products created an atmosphere where many simply couldn't comprehend a leap forward like Conroe represented. Overnight, all previous Intel and AMD products were essentially obsolete. It was a truly monumental leap forward in efficiency. And, although they still offered flagship models ('Extreme' editions), they launched with models less than $200 for dual-core! Instead of over $500 at launch, or $300+ a year later!

The reaction initially looked like confusion, then panic, then desperation. We were told to wait for Phenom, which was supposed to be AMDs response. It whimpered out the door, buggy, slow, and with hardly a chance. Phenom I was a disgrace.

The Core 2 family continued to get faster, and with more options from dirt cheap to quad core monsters of their day. And pricing remained fairly good in the budget and mid-range areas, despite this dominance.

AMD managed to get the Phenom II out the door, which brought them roughly on par with Core 2 Quad + or - in most things. And this was very good, but perhaps poorly timed. Ph2 was was the first Phenom should have been, and then in 2009 Intel launched first the pro socket 1366 CPUs, then soon after moved to Socket 1156 and then 1155, and the Core i3/i5/i7 became more than Phenom II could keep up with. It was irrevocably forced to the 'bargain' segment, as even i3s offered superior gaming performance, and a 2500k or so could reach levels that Phenom II could not follow.

AMD had something of another 'Phenom I' moment with the AMD 'FX', compromised designs that were supposed to get them back into the flagship battles, but it was a mixed bag of ultimately disappointing products. Very good at a handful of tasks, but failing in efficiency and especially chipset features, and at its best only with fairly expensive motherboards. This replaced Phenom II as at least a decent 'bargain' PC option though.

It all changed when Ryzen hit. You'd have to back to Athlon 64 to see a time when AMD had something this solid. Class leading in various areas, and capable of meeting the competition at a huge variety of market segments, the Ryzen architecture has been a home run. You saw situations where a $300-$500 Ryzen handily outperformed $1000 and up Intel products in virtually all areas. It forced Intel to the table with 6 and 8 core consumer i5 through i9 major upgrades, and even bringing i3 to quad core status.

Unlike their leadership during the AMD64 days however, they're not seeming to push for monstrous price increases. In fact, their pricing actually dropped between 1000 series and 2000 series. Perhaps they observed Intel finding good balance during the Sandy Bridge through Kaby Lake era : $100-$300 roughly for consumer models, and this brought continued success. Intel could have been very greedy here, setting the floor at $1k for i7 models, etc, but it would have been an unpopular and ultimately self defeating move. By not going crazy with pricing despite the performance crown, Intel managed to keep respectable popularity with consumers during this dominant period.

Now with Ryzen being stellar competition, it appears that they are definitely not repeating their chase into absurd pricing like the old days.

That said, we don't know for sure what Ryzen 3000 series will bring. I am pretty confident that it will be a solid upgrade, but I do not really believe it will be anything earth shattering. However, most crucially for those buying in this time frame, it offers at least some path forward with new SKUs and upgrade potential, whereas current Intel motherboards do not.

As a very happy owner of an Intel build, it is still easy for me to say that current Ryzen options make a great deal of sense in many situations. Yours is probably one of the easiest ones to see where Ryzen is nearly ideal.

Thanks, this is a great summary.

Well, for the next generation Ryzen, I do not think AMD would be in a great mood for sharp price drops.

AMD prices are still quite competitive. It could choose to reduce prices a bit, but those rumors are saying less than US$180 for 8-core processors, US$300 for 12-core, and US$450 for 16-core. Seems unrealistic to me.

First, because similar Intel processors are far more expensive, more than double this. Second, because AMD should not be desperately fighting for market share, as Intel is struggling with the yield and still cannot produce enough 14nm processors. Third, because desktop processors represent a much smaller market than it was some 15 or 20 years ago, as people move to mobile. As the real money is in the mobile, desktops tend to be the showcase and should go for higher margins. I do not think there would be real gains in reducing desktop prices these days. I may be totally wrong, though.

I will definitely take a look at Ryzen now. I wonder whether new motherboards will be released with the Ryzen 3 processors, and whether they will offer better features which would result in significant improvements in performance.

If I go with a Ryzen 2, what does make sense in terms of motherboard? And will 3000 MHz RAM be OK?
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
Afaik, the major thing with AMDs upcoming 500 series chipset main boards will be the platform wide adoption of PCIe 4.0, the other changes will be iterative at best, which is understandable because the rest of the features are already on par with the industry : USB C/3.1, nvme x4, low latency SATA and networking, full UEFI, etc.

I guess there are several options.

Buy Intel box now. Excellent gaming performance that is not likely to be significantly outdone for a while yet. Fairly good multitasking with i5 or better. Dead end socket, but system will certainly perform at least 'well' for years to come, and although it will almost certainly remain fairly pricey as the top SKU compatible, as long as your motherboard is capable of 150W+ (ie; highly rated Z370/390), you could upgrade to 9900k. Falling back to mid-range Mobo, almost certainly you could upgrade to 9700k.

Buy AMD Ryzen 5 now. Massive upgrade over current box, very good gaming and multitasking performance overall, and unless you paired with an RTX 2080 or better, probably would be bottlenecked in gaming at optimal settings by GPU anyway. This gives the option of selling the Ryzen 5 cpu and dropping in either a used 2700X when people upgrade to 3000 series, or buying a Ryzen 3000 series yourself and selling the Ryzen 5 cpu as well to recoup some of the investment.

Third option, wait it out entirely until late summer/early fall. We will probably begin to see engineering samples, media demos, etc very frequently before the street date, as this 7nm process is already operating fairly well, there would have to be basically a disaster needing a retape for Ryzen 3000 to see any meaningful delays. This could give you an idea on what path you want to take in a ground-up new build, or perhaps find some real bargains as many previous SKUs will quickly become unsellable at previous prices. When Ryzen 2000s hit, they caused Ryzen 1000 series to plummet in resale, to the point where I've seen 1700 and 1800s go for around $100 or little more.

None of these options are bad really, all should offer great results for you as long as you have a good match of motherboard, cooling, memory, GPU, and power supply.

How is the secondhand market there, is there a Brasil Reddit for used/buy-sell-trade PC gear? Assuming you can deal with trusted members of such a community, getting some various parts at greatly reduced prices could really open the possibilities a bit. Without some horse trading, my PC would be nowhere near the performer that it is without this type of thing. It would cost me $3,000 or more to get something from a company that equals what I have, and I have far less than that actually spent on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flayed

skaertus

Senior member
Mar 20, 2010
217
28
91
They are both good processors. The Intel chip has I think a 10% IPC advantage and its max all core boost is 4.3Ghz. The AMD chip has moar cores lol and a max boost of 4 Ghz I think. So the intel chip is roughly 15% faster but with 6/12 cores instead of 8/16.

The AMD chip comes with a better free heatsink but seeing where you live you should probably buy a better heatsink for whichever CPU you decide to get.

I don't really know which is a better fit for you. Toss a coin? For me I would buy the cheapest one lol

Thanks! I guess both are good options in the end.
 

skaertus

Senior member
Mar 20, 2010
217
28
91
Afaik, the major thing with AMDs upcoming 500 series chipset main boards will be the platform wide adoption of PCIe 4.0, the other changes will be iterative at best, which is understandable because the rest of the features are already on par with the industry : USB C/3.1, nvme x4, low latency SATA and networking, full UEFI, etc.

I guess there are several options.

Buy Intel box now. Excellent gaming performance that is not likely to be significantly outdone for a while yet. Fairly good multitasking with i5 or better. Dead end socket, but system will certainly perform at least 'well' for years to come, and although it will almost certainly remain fairly pricey as the top SKU compatible, as long as your motherboard is capable of 150W+ (ie; highly rated Z370/390), you could upgrade to 9900k. Falling back to mid-range Mobo, almost certainly you could upgrade to 9700k.

Buy AMD Ryzen 5 now. Massive upgrade over current box, very good gaming and multitasking performance overall, and unless you paired with an RTX 2080 or better, probably would be bottlenecked in gaming at optimal settings by GPU anyway. This gives the option of selling the Ryzen 5 cpu and dropping in either a used 2700X when people upgrade to 3000 series, or buying a Ryzen 3000 series yourself and selling the Ryzen 5 cpu as well to recoup some of the investment.

Third option, wait it out entirely until late summer/early fall. We will probably begin to see engineering samples, media demos, etc very frequently before the street date, as this 7nm process is already operating fairly well, there would have to be basically a disaster needing a retape for Ryzen 3000 to see any meaningful delays. This could give you an idea on what path you want to take in a ground-up new build, or perhaps find some real bargains as many previous SKUs will quickly become unsellable at previous prices. When Ryzen 2000s hit, they caused Ryzen 1000 series to plummet in resale, to the point where I've seen 1700 and 1800s go for around $100 or little more.

None of these options are bad really, all should offer great results for you as long as you have a good match of motherboard, cooling, memory, GPU, and power supply.

How is the secondhand market there, is there a Brasil Reddit for used/buy-sell-trade PC gear? Assuming you can deal with trusted members of such a community, getting some various parts at greatly reduced prices could really open the possibilities a bit. Without some horse trading, my PC would be nowhere near the performer that it is without this type of thing. It would cost me $3,000 or more to get something from a company that equals what I have, and I have far less than that actually spent on it.

Thanks!

I think both Intel and AMD could be good options.

If I buy Intel, I could go with an already great processor such as the i5-8400 the i7-8700, or even better. I guess it would be good, even though I will not be able to upgrade it without changing the motherboard.

If I buy AMD, I could set with a Ryzen 5 2600 or something lower, to wait for the release of Ryzen 3000, and then change the processor. Perhaps I should not buy a top-tier processor in this case, just something to handle my tasks until something more powerful comes up.

As for the secondhand market, it is just terrible here in Brazil. I can sell a second-hand product in an eBay-like website, and little else. And the prices are highly discounted. This is why I would buy a cheaper AMD processor if I should wait for the next generation to be released.

I could also buy from a secondhand market, but it is usually not reliable. I am not aware of a trusted community from which I can buy used products. Many times, when I buy something used, the seller hides problems and then stop receiving phone calls. And sometimes, the seller lives in other cities or in some dangerous neighborhoods, which are not recommended to go near. I am not buying something used unless I really need it, or if I buy something from a person I know and trust.
 

dlerious

Golden Member
Mar 4, 2004
1,769
717
136
PSU

There are some really cheap PSUs, from brands which I never heard of, such as Akasa or Knup. I am afraid of buying those, and even brands such as Thermaltake I may avoid. Perhaps I should go with more expensive Corsair or Cooler Master or EVGA.

I wonder which PSU I would need.

As for the case, not too many options here, I just want something that is OK.
No Seasonic there? Like a Seasonic Focus Plus?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flayed

skaertus

Senior member
Mar 20, 2010
217
28
91
No Seasonic there? Like a Seasonic Focus Plus?

Yes, there are Seasonic PSUs. However, not every store sells it. I was planning to buy a desktop already assembled, and not separate parts. So I will choose between the PSUs that are available in a particular store, and that usually does not include a Seasonic model.
 

dlerious

Golden Member
Mar 4, 2004
1,769
717
136
Yes, there are Seasonic PSUs. However, not every store sells it. I was planning to buy a desktop already assembled, and not separate parts. So I will choose between the PSUs that are available in a particular store, and that usually does not include a Seasonic model.
Sorry to hear about the limited availabilty. Don't know if it makes a difference, but the Corsair CX650 is non-modular.
 
  • Like
Reactions: skaertus

skaertus

Senior member
Mar 20, 2010
217
28
91
Sorry to hear about the limited availabilty. Don't know if it makes a difference, but the Corsair CX650 is non-modular.

I have nothing against it. I just would like something that does not heat too much, but I am also not willing to spend a lot of money in a PSU.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
I just built a computer but I am not using it right this instant. What I am using is

Case Thermaltake Core V1 cube case
MB ITX Gigabyte H110
RAM 16 Gig Geil DDR4
Hard drive ???
CPU Intel 6100
Power Supply
Video Card Nvidia 1050ti 4 GB GDDR5 Fair for a low end Video Card.

What I just built
Case Corsair R400 (on large side)
MB Gigabyte Z370 HD3
CPU Intel i5 8400
Geil 16 GB DDR4
SSD West Digital 512 GB M.2 SATA
No video card yet. Works well with Samsung 4K UHD TV
I do not do much gaming.

I recommend Nvidia Video cards and that depends how much high quality you want to game at and what resolution. The Nvidia 1050ti is a little at the low end, but do not buy one unless it has 4GB of DDR5 They sell some 2GB versions but you need at least 4GB. Then next in quality is 1060, 1070, 1080. They are working on a new series for Nvidia but it is brand new and probably quite expensive. The video cards are all a little on the high side. You can look at some reviews and decide for yourself. I used a Z370 motherboard because I wanted 2 USB 3.0 Ports to add a 5.25 optical bay USB 3.0 Hub.

If you are going to consider a M.2 Drive which is available with SATA or the faster type, then maybe look for a MB with 2 M.2 slots. They tend to put the M.2 slot between the CPU socket and the Video card slot which is subject to too much heat sometimes. A standard 2.5 SSD works just fine. You could add a hard drive for extra storage if you need it. I put on an after market CPU Cooler: Cooler Master 212 EVO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: skaertus

skaertus

Senior member
Mar 20, 2010
217
28
91
I have just placed an order. The computer is as follows:

Core i7-9700K 3.6 GHz
120mm watercooler
Gigabyte Z390 Aorus motherboard
Galax RTX 2070 OC White 8 GB
32 GB DDR4 3000 MHz RAM (Corsair Vengeance)
480 GB SSD Kingston A400 SATA III
3 TB HD Seagate Barracuda 7200 RPM
Gigabyte G750H PSU Gold 80 Plus
Gamemax Infinit M908 black case

I thought it was a good configuration for the price. I could add a Core i9-9900K instead, for an additional US$ 200, but perhaps I would have to go with a better water cooler instead. And I could also buy a better video card, but I would have to fork an additional US$ 500 for an RTX 2080.

I can still change this configuration, though. Would it make sense to exchange any of the parts? I suppose I would not need a better processor or video card, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: killster1

dlerious

Golden Member
Mar 4, 2004
1,769
717
136
I have just placed an order. The computer is as follows:

Core i7-9700K 3.6 GHz
120mm watercooler
Gigabyte Z390 Aorus motherboard
Galax RTX 2070 OC White 8 GB
32 GB DDR4 3000 MHz RAM (Corsair Vengeance)
480 GB SSD Kingston A400 SATA III
3 TB HD Seagate Barracuda 7200 RPM
Gigabyte G750H PSU Gold 80 Plus
Gamemax Infinit M908 black case

I thought it was a good configuration for the price. I could add a Core i9-9900K instead, for an additional US$ 200, but perhaps I would have to go with a better water cooler instead. And I could also buy a better video card, but I would have to fork an additional US$ 500 for an RTX 2080.

I can still change this configuration, though. Would it make sense to exchange any of the parts? I suppose I would not need a better processor or video card, right?
I'm not sure about Kingston SSD, still faster than HDD. I don't know if Seagate has improved with their 3TB drives - see story here: https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/222267-seagate-faces-lawsuit-over-3tb-hard-drive-failure-rates . Maybe go with a 2 or 4TB model.
 

skaertus

Senior member
Mar 20, 2010
217
28
91
I'm not sure about Kingston SSD, still faster than HDD. I don't know if Seagate has improved with their 3TB drives - see story here: https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/222267-seagate-faces-lawsuit-over-3tb-hard-drive-failure-rates . Maybe go with a 2 or 4TB model.

Thanks. Great to know that. I changed to a 4 TB Seagate hard drive. The final configuration is as follows:

Core i7-9700K 3.6 GHz
120mm watercooler (local brand)
Gigabyte Z390 Gaming motherboard
Galax RTX 2070 OC White 8 GB
32 GB DDR4 3000 MHz RAM (Corsair Vengeance)
480 GB SSD Kingston A400 SATA III
4 TB HD Seagate Barracuda 5400 RPM
Gigabyte G750H PSU Gold 80 Plus
Gamemax Infinit M908 black case

The computer is surprisingly silent and cool. It is also fast, according to expectations. The only issue so far is flickering in my 3840x2160 monitor (connected via DisplayPort) when I also connect a 2560x1440 monitor via HDMI. I have no flickering when the 2560x1440 is disconnected. I think it might be a driver problem, but not sure. All drivers seem to be updated.
 

dlerious

Golden Member
Mar 4, 2004
1,769
717
136
The computer is surprisingly silent and cool. It is also fast, according to expectations. The only issue so far is flickering in my 3840x2160 monitor (connected via DisplayPort) when I also connect a 2560x1440 monitor via HDMI. I have no flickering when the 2560x1440 is disconnected. I think it might be a driver problem, but not sure. All drivers seem to be updated.
Any flickering with just the 1440p monitor plugged in? If not, 4k plus 1440p might be too much for a 2070.
 

skaertus

Senior member
Mar 20, 2010
217
28
91
Any flickering with just the 1440p monitor plugged in? If not, 4k plus 1440p might be too much for a 2070.

Yes, the flickering was just when the 1440p was connected. But now both are connected, and I see no fickering at all.

I doubt a 4K and a 1440p monitor would be too much for an RTX 2070 to handle. Even an integrated video card supports with a 4K monitor these days.
 

docp

Senior member
Jul 4, 2007
206
0
76
minimum 16 gb and consider canary and those alt non google builds of chrome.