You lost me when you specified Intel and Nvidia, not interested in specifying any system that includes them, besides I have people clamoring me for the new Ryzens, I am going to be busy this summer.
The bolded items in the list above are the non-default ones, in case you're trying to figure out what I changed and what I didn't.
That comes to $1895. And it has the extra special feature that I did what you asked for rather than trying to tell you that you're wrong:
Intel CPU Nvidia GPU with a $500 MSRP and supports four monitors (2 DisplayPort, 1 HDMI, 1 DVI) 500 GB Samsung SSD (and an M.2 NVMe over PCI Express one, too, so it will be fast) 16 GB memory Motherboard with Wi-Fi support built in A better power supply than anyone else will link in their builds Windows 10
If 6 CPU cores aren't enough for you, you'd be better off waiting for third generation Ryzen than paying an arm and a leg for what Intel charges for 8+ cores.
There's room in your budget that you could get 32 GB of memory, a 1 TB SSD, an RTX 2080, or any one of quite a few other upgrades if so inclined.
Depending on what monitor ports your monitors need, it's easy to swap the video card to something with a different combination of monitor ports. They offer a bunch of different RTX 2070 cards, and you can search for the exact SKU to see what ports it offers. If it's not to your liking, then pick a different SKU.
If you don't like how that case looks, then pick a different one.
The situation on taxes depends on exactly where you live. AVA Direct is based in Ohio, so if you live there, you'll pay Ohio sales tax. They don't have a physical presence in any other state, so they likely wouldn't charge sales tax to ship to a lot of other states. It depends on your local laws, though.
I just find any Intel system at this point to be throwing money away and the one you specified the most egregious.
Right now AMD has new chip that was released Navi and Nvidia is talking about an update to RTX series, so I would say either plan for a Nvidia RTX or AMD RX Navi chip.
I would go with a Ryzen paired with a new navi card or 2070 or the intel 299 board and chip if the 599 cpu is not fast enough the next cpu up cost about 800, so you can figure out where you need to crush the cost down.
Either system should give you full eye candy at 1080p if you have a 4k monitor then you would be looking at a titan rtx and about 5 to 6 thousand for a complete system.
Oh and I am not in the running for the steam card, it is clearly distracting too many people from letting other people give you advice lol.
So basically, I should wait a month or two for the ryzen chips to release and then get a system then? I haven't streamed since June 7th because of vacation and work but maybe i'll hit affiliate then. I should hopefully be streaming some Path of Exile tonight.
Cryomatrix
Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
So basically, I should wait a month or two for the ryzen chips to release and then get a system then? I haven't streamed since June 7th because of vacation and work but maybe i'll hit affiliate then. I should hopefully be streaming some Path of Exile tonight.
Cryomatrix
In September AMD is releasing the 3950X, a 16 core gaming cpu. Yes, it'll be expensive.
Thankfully other chips are coming at more affordable prices, like the 3900X. All of these cores are coming July 7th with the exception of the 3950X, so there's plenty of options to choose from.
The 3900X is comparable to the i9-9900k, but has better TDP and just overall better multitasking.
No reason to go ahead and build something now when you can get a superior build in a couple months. Not sure I'd go head deep from the get go on July 7th, I personally am waiting a couple months. I'll be building probably a 3950X build in October.
You'll be able to get more cores in July for a lower price; I don't think those cores will be appreciably faster than what is available today. That goes for both AMD and Intel - sure Zen2 is better than Zen+, but I don't think it will be all that much faster, if at all, than current Core i7/i9 per core (but it will be more available cores, not that that particular note does a lot for gaming). And Intel has the new all-core 5.0 coming out later on, which will be very limited (and very $$$), but again, you could win the silicon lottery and possibly get that today. Same goes all the way out to the 16-core 3950X: it will be more cores, and it's an exciting part, but I don't think IPC/single core performance will necessarily be any better than what you could get today.
New mid-tier video cards will be out in July as well. We may see small bumps on higher tier cards from nVidia, but I don't think it will move the needle much, and probably not much more than you could already get today in an aggressive factory overclock.
Point being, I don't think waiting a couple of months will get you a significantly faster gaming PC. It might save you a few dollars, and it might take some of the randomness out of the silicon lottery, and it might make your gaming rig that you build a better general purpose workstation PC.... but I don't think it would be any faster for gaming.
Faster for gaming I think you'll be waiting another year: Ampere should hit next summer. Intel still won't have 10nm out, but it should have 10th gen (Comet Lake), which I expect will probably be something small and incremental again... We may have some details about Zen2+/Zen3 by next summer as well. And it gives AMD some time to take RDNA from the mid-tier into an actual upper-tier product to compete against Ampere.
Zen2 is great, but I don't think it will be faster per core than what is available from Intel (I don't think it needs to be faster to be successful fwiw). Navi is great, but again, it isn't going to be faster than anything that is already available.
AMD is claiming that Zen 2 is 15% higher IPC than the previous generation Zen+. If accurate, that would give it IPC comparable to the Sky Lake Refresh Refresh Refresh parts that Intel is selling.
That doesn't really put it ahead of what you can buy from Intel now in terms of single-threaded performance. But it's a lot more compelling if you want more cores. 12 cores for $500, or 16 cores for $750 coming in September, and without the NUMA issues of current Threadripper parts, is a compelling value if you need that many cores. But that's a big "if", as a lot of people wouldn't have any real use for a ton of CPU cores.
But that's a big "if", as a lot of people wouldn't have any real use for a ton of CPU cores.
This is an aside and totally off topic, but it does make me wonder about the sustainability of the current CPU push.
Very few people, gamers included, have a reason for high core counts. Sure, you can say "If they don't have it, software can't use it", and that's true. But for the vast majority of people, the cell phone in their pocket is enough power to do what they do on a daily basis.
The new push to get more cores and all the excitement that is generating right now, I love it. And I really want to build a rig that shows up 64 threads in Task Manager, just for S&G's.
But I don't need it. I can't use it productively for anything at all. Even transcoding video, which I do from time to time, can't take proper advantage of all of that power. It's exciting to see, but it isn't practical for anything at all. It could be years, maybe even never, before software actually finds ways to be useful on all of that (Wirth's Law not withstanding) for a typical home or commercial user (I do realize data centers are a different case). Maybe I could learn to 20-box my favorite MMOs and actually get some load on 50% of the cores I would have available.
So how long until Wall Street figures out this new arms race in core count is mostly just marketing fluff, and isn't going to translate into mass sales figures... because people aren't going to go rush out and buy 8-12-16-32 core chips just because they now exist... just so they can do what they already do on their phones on a desktop. Once investors realize the desktop really is still dead as a mass-consumer product, what happens then?
Meaning. Have someone explain what do cores do, what does the megahertz mean? What does the more GB of Ram mean? All these acronyms and stuff.
I'm such a noob, i'm like, more cores better for gaming right? It would be like if someone doesn't know cars and just says, i want to get a car with max horsepower for a daily commuter and not care about the other stuff.
So basically, why are more cores important? I was looking at Intel chips and i was just choosing the stuff with more cores just because i thought more cores = better but it doesn't necessarily mean better for what i need it for. Just like more horsepower isn't necessary better in choosing a daily driver.
So yeah: cores vs megahertz gigabytes of RAM gigabytes of GPU What's important on a motherboard how do i know how many watts my power supply needs?
Thanks guys.
Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
Did you consider the point that the chips being put out in July are on par with the current intel chips, or the fact that this guy streams? Multicore performance counts in streaming. Not to mention any content creator that edits videos for youtube, rendering those videos will be so much quicker.
It's not all about having the most cores. It's about buying the most smart product. Why waste money on current stock when you can get a brand new product that does things just as good / better? All at the same price as you'd pay today.
It's all about buying smart. Content creators should seriously consider the new AMD chips, hands down, time is money. Less time rendering videos = more time creating content.
But I don't know anything...I just wish my video renders weren't 7+ hours long for a simple video to review a game =P...
I'd also say no one "needs" more cores. Who doesn't "want" more cores though?
Well, odds are what advice you see today, in 3-5 years, will be completely wrong.
Software and hardware both evolve. Shoot, just two years ago the common sense was that anything over four cores was a waste (and there were a lot of people here saying anything over dual core was a waste).
Monitor size has creeped up from 1080, to 1440, to 4K, and now various Widescreen formats. VRR is now a thing, High refresh rate is now a thing, HDR is becoming a thing. Those all have a good deal of impact on what would get recommended.
RAM, suspiciously, hasn't moved tremendously in the past several years, but I bet it's about to make a decent jump now that we have largely left 32-bit behind and 64-bit is the norm. Combine that with the push for 4K and we have already started to see RAM requirements start to creep up.
Mhz/Ghz don't always mean what you think they mean. For instance: a Pentium 4 running at 3.8Ghz was slower than a Core 2 Duo running at 2.6Ghz by pretty much every measure except Ghz.
So it requires context, and that context evolves.
Doesn't mean that a sticky with some common definitions wouldn't be a bad idea. I even get confused from time to time. But I would stray away from that same sticky providing any sort of recommendation or advice.
Also don't forget Ridelynn, most games in the near future are going to utilize AMD's new chips...therefore providing a much larger performance boost for the new chips coming out soon.
A ton of console ports will happen, and those ports are all AMD supported.
Meaning. Have someone explain what do cores do, what does the megahertz mean? What does the more GB of Ram mean? All these acronyms and stuff.
We could make a sticky thread, but it would become too long to read and useless. Also the info is changing all the time as technology advances, so in some cases it would quickly become worse than useless as people would read outdated info.
But answers to your questions:
cores vs megahertz:
Number of cores/threads tells how many calculations the CPU can do simultaneously, whereas megahertz/gigahertz tells about how fast each of those is done. You can think of it as threads are workers, and megahertz tells how fast each of those workers does his job.
However in reality computer programs (and especially games) often push most of the work to a single worker (one thread), and once you increase the number of cores they find less and less for the rest of the workers (threads) to do and everything is waiting for that one busiest worker. So increasing the number of cores or threads has quickly diminishing returns if you get more and more. Modern games often distribute the work well enough to 4 cores, many do still somewhat up to 8 cores, but after that you get into a situation where getting more cores doesn't help because games don't split their work well enough.
Also in reality the megahertz/gigahertz number is not the only one that affects performance. As result it can be used to compare speeds of processors that are otherwise identical, but never between AMD and Intel and rarely between different processor generations. To compare speeds between anything but identical processors you need to find benchmarks from net.
gigabytes of RAM:
Gigabytes of RAM means its size. RAM is working memory, and the correct size is whatever your programs need. Having more than needed is nearly useless, but if you don't have enough that will give a large performance hit as stuff needs to be removed and reloaded from memory constantly.
Usually 16GB is good for a good gaming computer. RAM is cheap, so for a computer costing something like $2 000 you could also consider 32GB so that there's no chance it would run out even in the future.
gigabytes of GPU:
For GPU the gigabytes tell how many textures the GPU can fit into its local RAM. It's not the GPU's speed, it's about how many textures it's storing at once. Unless you are considering a GPU that has versions with different amounts of RAM available, ignore it.
For GPU the speed is important, and you'll find it in reviews and benchmarks. Also for GPUs it's important that it has a decent cooling solution, you'll also find information about that in good reviews.
What's important on a motherboard:
In motherboard it's important that it has all the features and support for all the stuff that you want. In your case that would be having a motherboard with build in WiFi. Motherboards have very little effect on computer's speed. It's more about looking for something with a good set of features.
How do i know how many watts my power supply needs?:
You'll often find system power recommendations on GPU's info. For gaming computers GPU is the most power-hungry part in the system, and many GPU manufactures over-estimate how much other parts could want power in a normal system, then make a recommendation for PSU based on that.
You could also put all the parts to some builder like https://pcpartpicker.com/list/ It'll give you an estimation. Then get a PSU that's rated to give 50% more than that estimation and you're good to go.
For PSU more important than watts its quality. You can tell something based on its efficiency. Those efficiencies are: titanium > platinum > gold > silver > bronze > none. As a rule of thumb, a good PSU should have gold certification or better.
After you've checked certification you should also try googling for reviews because the certification won't tell everything. But even if you're too lazy to google reviews, check that your PSU has at least gold certification.
Does no one here build their own rigs anymore? IBUYPOWER cases are butt ass ugly, even that snowblind case. Mainly because it has a giant add for IBUYPOWER on the front of it which ruins it even further.
Dude. You really should just learn how to put a PC together. It's so much easier than it looks. You could honestly do it after watching a 10 minute YouTube video. Moreover, the warranty is much better when you build it yourself, as each component is generally covered from 3 to 5 years by default.
It's so easy. I promise you. Don't let all the motherboard circuits / capacitors etc scare you. You won't be touching any of that stuff. 99% of system builders don't know anything beyond slapping the components together.
1) If you want the motherboard to have WiFi, on pcpartpicker.com's motherboard selection look at the options on left size and from there select Wireless Networking. That'll show you motherboards with WiFi.
2) That case shows currently unavailable in Amazon. You may not be able to select it because it may not be for sale anywhere
3) Will you be ok with just 500 GB of hard disk space?
Otherwise that build looks like good enough. Some of your choices seem like they're more expensive than needed, especially the CPU cooler. But they'd do the job well, and I guess you're wealthy enough that you don't need to care that much if some part costs a bit more.
I agree with Vrika that some parts seem unnecessarily expensive.
The Samsung 970 Pro, unless you have a very good reason for wanting that version, won't be that much better than a Samsung 970 Evo (Plus). The Evo or Evo plus will more than meet most peoples demands and for a good bit less than the Pro. Get 1TB minimum, or get a cheaper sata SSD for storage on top of the NVMe.
Corsair - 850 W 80+ Platinum. Yes it is slightly more efficient, but not to the point that it truly matters. Suggest getting Gold rating instead. Also 650 or 750 Watt will be more than enough. I like Seasonic. Have a Seasonic Focus plus 650 Watt Gold myself.
If you aren't going for an RGB filled case, than grab some non-RGB DDR4 over the RGB ones. Generally cheaper.
Now as for the Asus motherboard. You picked out quite a few more expensive parts, but when it comes to the part that needs to connect everything you seem to be going cheap. The TUF brand is entry level same as the Prime series from Asus. I love Asus, maybe their Crosshair VII Hero is a bit to expensive though. I suggest Asrock x470 Taichi. It comes with integrated Wifi on the board and has one of the better power delivery setups for x470. Meaning it will produce less heat. There is also an Ultimate version, but that is priced similar to the Crosshair from Asus. The Taichi should also be able to handle the upcoming 12 and 16 core CPUs from AMD without breaking a sweat.
Nothing much to say about the rest. I prefer Aircooling myself over Watercooling and the difference between a top aircooler and AIO watercooling, like the Kraken, is minimal. I don't want to worry about potential leaks down the line. Do you ever use DVDs anymore or is the writer just an in case of emergency?
I just built my newest rig with the case below. It's pretty awesome, and cheaper. Might check it out. I loaded it with a Corsair H100i RGB PLATINUM SE and white Corsair LL Series fans. When you set all the the LEDs to a blueish white it looks nice, but still lowkey.
not a fan of gigabyte, Would go with ASUS or MSI if you can.
Why? Unless you are basing that opinion for 5 years ago, Gigabyte has stepped up their game recently with the Aorus series boards. I'm running the Aorus Master myself and it's pretty damn good. I looked at a lot of MBs before settling on it, including a few ASUS boards. But some of the issues people were having with them, steered me away.
every gigabyte board I had always had some issue in the bios. I've ggone from Biostar which worked for the Bulldozer , to ASUS and have no problems with my FX series cpu.
I tried a build with a ryzen chip and Gigabyte board last year, sent it all backk for a refund. Gigabye has also clipped support in the bios for old OS's, another minus.
Even is Biostar is a bit inferior to Gigabye, I neve rhad issues with them either, seems to only be gigabye.
Everyone has that one brand that never seems to work, mine is gigabyte.
I get that. Before the board I currently have I had the multiple Bios issues with an old EVGA board that they never fixed over the lifetime of the board, (like waking from sleep mode needed reset button push) so decided to never go with them again for a MOBO.
I looked at a few other brands and saw too many complaints over build quality which steered me away so ended up going Gigabyte for the first time. I'm running Intel 9700k on an Aorus Master, the new BIOS Gigabyte uses seems fine so far. Maybe it's just AMD. I can't say I like their APP Center and how it wants to install 3rd party crap every time I update a program in it, but that could be said about any program.
But that's a big "if", as a lot of people wouldn't have any real use for a ton of CPU cores.
This is an aside and totally off topic, but it does make me wonder about the sustainability of the current CPU push.
Very few people, gamers included, have a reason for high core counts. Sure, you can say "If they don't have it, software can't use it", and that's true. But for the vast majority of people, the cell phone in their pocket is enough power to do what they do on a daily basis.
The new push to get more cores and all the excitement that is generating right now, I love it. And I really want to build a rig that shows up 64 threads in Task Manager, just for S&G's.
But I don't need it. I can't use it productively for anything at all. Even transcoding video, which I do from time to time, can't take proper advantage of all of that power. It's exciting to see, but it isn't practical for anything at all. It could be years, maybe even never, before software actually finds ways to be useful on all of that (Wirth's Law not withstanding) for a typical home or commercial user (I do realize data centers are a different case). Maybe I could learn to 20-box my favorite MMOs and actually get some load on 50% of the cores I would have available.
So how long until Wall Street figures out this new arms race in core count is mostly just marketing fluff, and isn't going to translate into mass sales figures... because people aren't going to go rush out and buy 8-12-16-32 core chips just because they now exist... just so they can do what they already do on their phones on a desktop. Once investors realize the desktop really is still dead as a mass-consumer product, what happens then?
Well I have to disagree with you. I have 6 or 7 apps going when I game and the extra cores would definitely help. I think I am pretty much the norm for gamers these days. I think many people don't realize how many applications are running when the game.
Unless you're stupid about it or have unusual needs, other applications that you have running in the background may eat a lot of memory, but usually don't use much processing power. Having 6 or 7 processes running in the background that use about 1/10 of a single core when all added together doesn't justify needing a 12-core CPU.
Comments
Cryomatrix
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
You'll be able to get more cores in July for a lower price; I don't think those cores will be appreciably faster than what is available today. That goes for both AMD and Intel - sure Zen2 is better than Zen+, but I don't think it will be all that much faster, if at all, than current Core i7/i9 per core (but it will be more available cores, not that that particular note does a lot for gaming). And Intel has the new all-core 5.0 coming out later on, which will be very limited (and very $$$), but again, you could win the silicon lottery and possibly get that today. Same goes all the way out to the 16-core 3950X: it will be more cores, and it's an exciting part, but I don't think IPC/single core performance will necessarily be any better than what you could get today.
New mid-tier video cards will be out in July as well. We may see small bumps on higher tier cards from nVidia, but I don't think it will move the needle much, and probably not much more than you could already get today in an aggressive factory overclock.
Point being, I don't think waiting a couple of months will get you a significantly faster gaming PC. It might save you a few dollars, and it might take some of the randomness out of the silicon lottery, and it might make your gaming rig that you build a better general purpose workstation PC.... but I don't think it would be any faster for gaming.
Faster for gaming I think you'll be waiting another year: Ampere should hit next summer. Intel still won't have 10nm out, but it should have 10th gen (Comet Lake), which I expect will probably be something small and incremental again... We may have some details about Zen2+/Zen3 by next summer as well. And it gives AMD some time to take RDNA from the mid-tier into an actual upper-tier product to compete against Ampere.
Zen2 is great, but I don't think it will be faster per core than what is available from Intel (I don't think it needs to be faster to be successful fwiw). Navi is great, but again, it isn't going to be faster than anything that is already available.
That doesn't really put it ahead of what you can buy from Intel now in terms of single-threaded performance. But it's a lot more compelling if you want more cores. 12 cores for $500, or 16 cores for $750 coming in September, and without the NUMA issues of current Threadripper parts, is a compelling value if you need that many cores. But that's a big "if", as a lot of people wouldn't have any real use for a ton of CPU cores.
Very few people, gamers included, have a reason for high core counts. Sure, you can say "If they don't have it, software can't use it", and that's true. But for the vast majority of people, the cell phone in their pocket is enough power to do what they do on a daily basis.
The new push to get more cores and all the excitement that is generating right now, I love it. And I really want to build a rig that shows up 64 threads in Task Manager, just for S&G's.
But I don't need it. I can't use it productively for anything at all. Even transcoding video, which I do from time to time, can't take proper advantage of all of that power. It's exciting to see, but it isn't practical for anything at all. It could be years, maybe even never, before software actually finds ways to be useful on all of that (Wirth's Law not withstanding) for a typical home or commercial user (I do realize data centers are a different case). Maybe I could learn to 20-box my favorite MMOs and actually get some load on 50% of the cores I would have available.
So how long until Wall Street figures out this new arms race in core count is mostly just marketing fluff, and isn't going to translate into mass sales figures... because people aren't going to go rush out and buy 8-12-16-32 core chips just because they now exist... just so they can do what they already do on their phones on a desktop. Once investors realize the desktop really is still dead as a mass-consumer product, what happens then?
let's make a sticky thread.
Meaning. Have someone explain what do cores do, what does the megahertz mean? What does the more GB of Ram mean? All these acronyms and stuff.
I'm such a noob, i'm like, more cores better for gaming right? It would be like if someone doesn't know cars and just says, i want to get a car with max horsepower for a daily commuter and not care about the other stuff.
So basically, why are more cores important? I was looking at Intel chips and i was just choosing the stuff with more cores just because i thought more cores = better but it doesn't necessarily mean better for what i need it for. Just like more horsepower isn't necessary better in choosing a daily driver.
So yeah:
cores vs megahertz
gigabytes of RAM
gigabytes of GPU
What's important on a motherboard
how do i know how many watts my power supply needs?
Thanks guys.
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
It's not all about having the most cores. It's about buying the most smart product. Why waste money on current stock when you can get a brand new product that does things just as good / better? All at the same price as you'd pay today.
It's all about buying smart. Content creators should seriously consider the new AMD chips, hands down, time is money. Less time rendering videos = more time creating content.
But I don't know anything...I just wish my video renders weren't 7+ hours long for a simple video to review a game =P...
Software and hardware both evolve. Shoot, just two years ago the common sense was that anything over four cores was a waste (and there were a lot of people here saying anything over dual core was a waste).
Monitor size has creeped up from 1080, to 1440, to 4K, and now various Widescreen formats. VRR is now a thing, High refresh rate is now a thing, HDR is becoming a thing. Those all have a good deal of impact on what would get recommended.
RAM, suspiciously, hasn't moved tremendously in the past several years, but I bet it's about to make a decent jump now that we have largely left 32-bit behind and 64-bit is the norm. Combine that with the push for 4K and we have already started to see RAM requirements start to creep up.
Mhz/Ghz don't always mean what you think they mean. For instance: a Pentium 4 running at 3.8Ghz was slower than a Core 2 Duo running at 2.6Ghz by pretty much every measure except Ghz.
So it requires context, and that context evolves.
Doesn't mean that a sticky with some common definitions wouldn't be a bad idea. I even get confused from time to time. But I would stray away from that same sticky providing any sort of recommendation or advice.
But answers to your questions:
cores vs megahertz:
Number of cores/threads tells how many calculations the CPU can do simultaneously, whereas megahertz/gigahertz tells about how fast each of those is done. You can think of it as threads are workers, and megahertz tells how fast each of those workers does his job.
However in reality computer programs (and especially games) often push most of the work to a single worker (one thread), and once you increase the number of cores they find less and less for the rest of the workers (threads) to do and everything is waiting for that one busiest worker. So increasing the number of cores or threads has quickly diminishing returns if you get more and more. Modern games often distribute the work well enough to 4 cores, many do still somewhat up to 8 cores, but after that you get into a situation where getting more cores doesn't help because games don't split their work well enough.
Also in reality the megahertz/gigahertz number is not the only one that affects performance. As result it can be used to compare speeds of processors that are otherwise identical, but never between AMD and Intel and rarely between different processor generations. To compare speeds between anything but identical processors you need to find benchmarks from net.
gigabytes of RAM:
Gigabytes of RAM means its size. RAM is working memory, and the correct size is whatever your programs need. Having more than needed is nearly useless, but if you don't have enough that will give a large performance hit as stuff needs to be removed and reloaded from memory constantly.
Usually 16GB is good for a good gaming computer. RAM is cheap, so for a computer costing something like $2 000 you could also consider 32GB so that there's no chance it would run out even in the future.
gigabytes of GPU:
For GPU the gigabytes tell how many textures the GPU can fit into its local RAM. It's not the GPU's speed, it's about how many textures it's storing at once. Unless you are considering a GPU that has versions with different amounts of RAM available, ignore it.
For GPU the speed is important, and you'll find it in reviews and benchmarks. Also for GPUs it's important that it has a decent cooling solution, you'll also find information about that in good reviews.
What's important on a motherboard:
In motherboard it's important that it has all the features and support for all the stuff that you want. In your case that would be having a motherboard with build in WiFi. Motherboards have very little effect on computer's speed. It's more about looking for something with a good set of features.
How do i know how many watts my power supply needs?:
You'll often find system power recommendations on GPU's info. For gaming computers GPU is the most power-hungry part in the system, and many GPU manufactures over-estimate how much other parts could want power in a normal system, then make a recommendation for PSU based on that.
You could also put all the parts to some builder like
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/
It'll give you an estimation. Then get a PSU that's rated to give 50% more than that estimation and you're good to go.
For PSU more important than watts its quality. You can tell something based on its efficiency. Those efficiencies are: titanium > platinum > gold > silver > bronze > none. As a rule of thumb, a good PSU should have gold certification or better.
After you've checked certification you should also try googling for reviews because the certification won't tell everything. But even if you're too lazy to google reviews, check that your PSU has at least gold certification.
I got this going.
Seems like a good deal. I guess i need to research more to learn about computer stuff, it is pretty interesting.
I found this website:
https://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Samsung-970-Pro-NVMe-PCIe-M2-512GB-vs-Samsung-950-NVMe-PCIe-M2-512GB/m498971vsm38554
Seems pretty interesting.
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
2) That case shows currently unavailable in Amazon. You may not be able to select it because it may not be for sale anywhere
3) Will you be ok with just 500 GB of hard disk space?
If you want more and really fast SSD, then 970 EVO Plus is good. Here's 1TB version:
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/Zxw7YJ
https://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Samsung-970-Pro-NVMe-PCIe-M2-512GB-vs-Samsung-970-Evo-Plus-NVMe-PCIe-M2-1TB/m498971vsm693540
Or for cheap but still decently fast SSD Intel 660p is good choice
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/9nhKHx
https://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Samsung-970-Pro-NVMe-PCIe-M2-512GB-vs-Intel-660p-NVMe-PCIe-M2-1TB/m498971vsm602553
Even something like that Intel 660p is twice as fast as an older SSD that goes to SATA port. Here's a comparison to Samsung 860 Pro
https://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Samsung-860-Pro-1TB-vs-Intel-660p-NVMe-PCIe-M2-1TB/m434505vsm602553
Otherwise that build looks like good enough. Some of your choices seem like they're more expensive than needed, especially the CPU cooler. But they'd do the job well, and I guess you're wealthy enough that you don't need to care that much if some part costs a bit more.
The Samsung 970 Pro, unless you have a very good reason for wanting that version, won't be that much better than a Samsung 970 Evo (Plus). The Evo or Evo plus will more than meet most peoples demands and for a good bit less than the Pro.
Get 1TB minimum, or get a cheaper sata SSD for storage on top of the NVMe.
Corsair - 850 W 80+ Platinum. Yes it is slightly more efficient, but not to the point that it truly matters. Suggest getting Gold rating instead. Also 650 or 750 Watt will be more than enough. I like Seasonic. Have a Seasonic Focus plus 650 Watt Gold myself.
If you aren't going for an RGB filled case, than grab some non-RGB DDR4 over the RGB ones. Generally cheaper.
Now as for the Asus motherboard. You picked out quite a few more expensive parts, but when it comes to the part that needs to connect everything you seem to be going cheap. The TUF brand is entry level same as the Prime series from Asus. I love Asus, maybe their Crosshair VII Hero is a bit to expensive though.
I suggest Asrock x470 Taichi. It comes with integrated Wifi on the board and has one of the better power delivery setups for x470. Meaning it will produce less heat. There is also an Ultimate version, but that is priced similar to the Crosshair from Asus. The Taichi should also be able to handle the upcoming 12 and 16 core CPUs from AMD without breaking a sweat.
Nothing much to say about the rest. I prefer Aircooling myself over Watercooling and the difference between a top aircooler and AIO watercooling, like the Kraken, is minimal. I don't want to worry about potential leaks down the line.
Do you ever use DVDs anymore or is the writer just an in case of emergency?
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
Which apps do you have running other than Pornhub? j/k.
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
Either way, I hope i make affiliate in twitch, but since i work too much, and stream at odd hours of the day, i doubt it will happen.
Unfortunately, I don't have any cleavage to entice viewers.
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.